Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


If you think that's frustrating, wait until you find out the evolutionists have been quoting that same verse as evidence for a flat earth (because a circle is not a sphere). What they'll refuse to acknolwedge regarding any verse is 1. Obvious use of metaphor, simile, and other poetic language, and 2. The fact that the Hebrew could be translated as sphere, too.

How do you make a tent around a sphere?

Or is it the Bible just "symbolic" whenever something doesn't make sense?

 

[LouisBooth]

""faith" of science is faith in the reliability of natural evidence..."

Not always Somethings science can't explain due to supernatural parts..such as why a person is the way a person is..or the beginning of the universe.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
""faith" of science is faith in the reliability of natural evidence..."

Not always Somethings science can't explain due to supernatural parts..such as why a person is the way a person is..or the beginning of the universe.

 

Louis, are you sure that you wish to put your God in gaps like that? If God has made this universe and us by a set of understandable laws, which IMO it looks like God has, then the gaps you mentioned will be explained someday and with the rate that science is advancing just maybe in my lifetime. I believe in God, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe in confining God to the gaps in our scientific knowlege.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Louis, are you sure that you wish to put your God in gaps like that? "

How is it in the gaps if he created the things we can explain as well?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by blader

How do you make a tent around a sphere?

Or is it the Bible just "symbolic" whenever something doesn't make sense?

It's "symbolic" whenever the reader doesn't agree with the literal translation. Nick is carefully failing to mention that the "symbolic" material about a flat and immobile earth was literal enough to get people killed for heresy once.

 

[LouisBooth]

seebs..(i'm not addressing the subject) the context tells you if it is literal or not, something you usually forget about

*back to your reg scheduled program*

 

[npetreley]

Thanks, Louis. I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious again and again and again and again and again....

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Can you tell me what version of the bible to read so I can clearly see what is literal and what is not? The KJV, NKJV, NSV, NIV, or another one? Or do I need to learn greek, aramaic <sp?> and old hebrew and read the originals? And are the dead sea versions better than other versions of the originals?

Is the snake mentioned in the Eden story a literal snake that could talk and when extinct some time in the past or is it figurativly satan? How do I tell?

 

[Stormy]

The Bible is unlike any book ever written. It has sparked many a debate even among people of the same faith upon its meaning of individual verses. For a verse is capable of bringing an insight that is different to one than it is to another of its readers. Only though the guidance of the Spirit can a person even attempt to open the Bible to its full capacity. But To realize the general message of the Bible... takes only the mind of a child.
The Bible is and always will be... The Perfect Book.

Do not expect the people of biblical history to be any different then the people of your history books. As you know, God did not tell all the mysteries of life and this universe to its inhabitants. He allowed people to assume and make theories on what they could ascertain to be truth...much like the Scientist of today...For we are a people that delight in discovery.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
seebs..(i'm not addressing the subject) the context tells you if it is literal or not, something you usually forget about

The interesting part is that the context of the "immobile and flat" texts was sufficiently clearly literal to people a few hundred years ago to justify killing people who disagreed.

I think a lot of that context is "what we think is plausible", and always has been. Humans are not reliable enough to magically guess from context what is and isn't literal... and, empirically, we have been wrong many times.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Can you tell me what version of the bible to read so I can clearly see what is literal and what is not? The KJV, NKJV, NSV, NIV, or another one? Or do I need to learn greek, aramaic <sp?> and old hebrew and read the originals? And are the dead sea versions better than other versions of the originals?

Is the snake mentioned in the Eden story a literal snake that could talk and when extinct some time in the past or is it figurativly satan? How do I tell?

This isn't about translations. If you're too stupid to recognize metaphor or simile, no translation is going to make you smart enough. And you can wave your hands all day about who ministerpreted these sections to be literal, but that's about as meaningful as placing the blame on a biology book if anyone can't understand biology after reading it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

If you're too stupid to recognize metaphor or simile, no translation is going to make you smart enough.

Blessed is the intellectual elite, For they can correctly determine which Scriptures of God are intended as literal which are metaphoric and are not too stupid. Ye verily.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Amusingly, arguments over translations, metaphor, and literalness are the heart of the divisions between different sects of Christianity.

&nbsp; Nick just called every other sect (but his) of Christianity "stupid". Way to go Nick.

&nbsp;

 

[Stormy]

Does anyone thing this is dumb besides me?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Stormy
Does anyone thing this is dumb besides me?

Yes, incredibly dumb.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Nick just called every other sect (but his) of Christianity "stupid". Way to go Nick.

I'm not sure which "sects" you're talking about, since I am not aware of any denominations that take that verse as meaning there is a flat earth. But if you can find any denominations that feel this way, all you'd prove is that science doesn't have a corner on stupidity.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Why? I was discussing the Bible as a whole. You think Genesis is literal. Half of Protestants disagree.&nbsp;It's pretty simple.

&nbsp;

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Why? I was discussing the Bible as a whole. You think Genesis is literal. Half of Protestants disagree. It's pretty simple."

Yeah it's sad when people DON'T take it literal. I think God makes it pretty obvious when something is a parable or if it should be taken for face value. God makes no impression of it being some kind of parable with Genesis even though I have heard some poor excuses that he does.

 

[Didaskomenos]

What's sad is that people get insulting when someone disagrees with them. And they call themselves Christians.

Anyone who studies ancient mythology thinks God made it extremely obvious that early Genesis is mythological. You think I'm functioning from an atheistic worldview that I would believe the Bible could use mythology to convey truth, and that makes you sad. I happen to believe you are functioning from a blind mechanical view of the Bible, and that makes you sad. It doesn't make either of us right, though.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think God makes it pretty obvious when something is a parable or if it should be taken for face value. God makes no impression of it being some kind of parable with Genesis even though I have heard some poor excuses that he does.

So, is it obvious that we should, or obvious that we shouldn't take our rebellious children to the city gates and stone them to death? Is it obvious that the "pillars" and "foundations" of the earth are literal "pillars" and "foundations" or is it obvious that they are "pillars" and "foundations" in allegory, metaphor, or parable only? What exactly makes this obvious? Is it obvious that the universe is only 6000 years old? Why, or why not?