Denying all evidence

[Jase]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/

Hentenza has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.

Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

 

[sfs]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/

Hentenza has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.

Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

Giving up works for me.

 

[jacks]

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?[/quote]

As a teacher I ask myself this question all the time. I can't wait to find out what I should be doing with them.

 

[rcorlew]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/

Hentenza has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.

Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

I really do understand the overall jest of your position, I do wonder however if what has been seen in the Scriptures in the past to provide evidence of a flat earth and geocentric solar system is the equivalent to YEC'ism. I mean taking in the full council, you see some scientific observations where you might not expect them. Take for instance :

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Two big observations noted in this one verse, and they are rather big and profound ones given that this book of Isaiah was written circa 600 BC (at best guess)

1) The earth is a circle

2) The term stretches implies an ongoing event, simply put, the universe is expanding

But what do you do with people who do not recognize evidence? You teach the ones who will listen and hope the stubborn ones pay attention too.

 

[matthewgar]

What I've been doing is, I've taken to asking though not so much here just yet has been, if you believe that the bible means heliocentric, or round earth rather then flat in all the verses that sound like they mean the other, show me it. Show me the evidence that the jews at this time actually had some different knowledge from the cultures around them. Believing in the bible it's easy to want to make the bible into a scientific book in every case, but Genesis creation accouint, the way the earth and the sun are described all fit the common beliefs at the time in their wording. I've heard some claims that the genesis account of creation actually was used by the sumarians before the jews and so on.

It doesn't do us any service to claim the bible says something in the realm of science without evidence. This is the mistake many YEC's and C-deisgn proponetns make, they argue from a point that gets easily refuted and drives people away when it is.

 

[matthewgar]

I really do understand the overall jest of your position, I do wonder however if what has been seen in the Scriptures in the past to provide evidence of a flat earth and geocentric solar system is the equivalent to YEC'ism. I mean taking in the full council, you see some scientific observations where you might not expect them. Take for instance :



Two big observations noted in this one verse, and they are rather big and profound ones given that this book of Isaiah was written circa 600 BC (at best guess)

1) The earth is a circle

2) The term stretches implies an ongoing event, simply put, the universe is expanding

But what do you do with people who do not recognize evidence? You teach the ones who will listen and hope the stubborn ones pay attention too.

Except any atheist will simply point out that:

1. Circle is a two dimensional object and fits the beliefs of many cultures that saw the earth as like a dime.

2. A tent doesn't fit over a sphere rather perfectly just the top half but rather nicly fits over a 2 dimensional object.

3. The jews had a word for ball at the time that would have been better hen circle, also the earth is actually more oval or egg shaped then sphere/circle so wouldn't be any more correct there.

4. The greeks and other cutures knew the earth was round by around 400 BC, so even if it was meant to be a sphere it doesn't nescarily mean that they had any more differnt knowledge then the other cultures.

And probably more. And again the atheist view on that would fit what many cultures at the time believed. So then were forced to try to explain why the idea of it being advanced technology some how is proof in the scripture.Go watch youtube and various responses to claims of advanced knowledge in the bible, while the atheist might be wrong, many of the cases arn't really that strong, and even if they were advanced knowledge, what good were they if it took 2500-3000 years later to understand the passages in their true light?

More then likly they were humans trying to put into words what god wanted written, but were puttiing them in the way they understood at the time.

 

[rcorlew]

Except any atheist will simply point out that:

1. Circle is a two dimensional object and fits the beliefs of many cultures that saw the earth as like a dime.

2. A tent doesn't fit over a sphere rather perfectly just the top half but rather nicly fits over a 2 dimensional object.

3. The jews had a word for ball at the time that would have been better hen circle, also the earth is actually more oval or egg shaped then sphere/circle so wouldn't be any more correct there.

4. The greeks and other cutures knew the earth was round by around 400 BC, so even if it was meant to be a sphere it doesn't nescarily mean that they had any more differnt knowledge then the other cultures.

And probably more. And again the atheist view on that would fit what many cultures at the time believed. So then were forced to try to explain why the idea of it being advanced technology some how is proof in the scripture.Go watch youtube and various responses to claims of advanced knowledge in the bible, while the atheist might be wrong, many of the cases arn't really that strong, and even if they were advanced knowledge, what good were they if it took 2500-3000 years later to understand the passages in their true light?

More then likly they were humans trying to put into words what god wanted written, but were puttiing them in the way they understood at the time.

WOW, I cannot believe that we (including me) actually try and use Youtube and Wikipedia as source material.

The next thing, you Jase and matthewgar just lost this debate. You both have ascribed the Bible to contain errors yet use that same book to build a case of the earth being flat. You cannot discredit a document and then use it for evidence. That nice little picture that somebody drew up is a 19th or 20th century representation based on the 15th and 16th century hermeneutics of a flawed document, you must provide outside source material of verifiable archaeological sources dated to the 10th - 5th century BC in order to substantiate you claims.

 

[Dark_Lite]

WOW, I cannot believe that we (including me) actually try and use Youtube and Wikipedia as source material.

The next thing, you Jase and matthewgar just lost this debate. You both have ascribed the Bible to contain errors yet use that same book to build a case of the earth being flat. You cannot discredit a document and then use it for evidence. That nice little picture that somebody drew up is a 19th or 20th century representation based on the 15th and 16th century hermeneutics of a flawed document, you must provide outside source material of verifiable archaeological sources dated to the 10th - 5th century BC in order to substantiate you claims.

Wikipedia is fine as long as you check the source for the claim in the article. As long as the source claim is valid you can just counter with that. But sometimes Wikipedia pulls in some shady info from even shadier websites.

 

[rcorlew]

Wikipedia is fine as long as you check the source for the claim in the article. As long as the source claim is valid you can just counter with that. But sometimes Wikipedia pulls in some shady info from even shadier websites.

To be honest, most stuff on there is OK for generalities as they do now have an editing staff, but it is still not useful in academia for its editing feature and lack of proper citation. It also lends itself to being a sounding board against ideas and promoting agendas. I have found myself using it as a source here because it is viewable for the readers, my College's library sources would not be.

 

[Dark_Lite]

To be honest, most stuff on there is OK for generalities as they do now have an editing staff, but it is still not useful in academia for its editing feature and lack of proper citation. It also lends itself to being a sounding board against ideas and promoting agendas. I have found myself using it as a source here because it is viewable for the readers, my College's library sources would not be.

Always check the footnotes of the article. It can (in)validate anything on the page you need. If a particularly important/controversial claim doesn't have a source, mark it as citation needed and move on. Then bring up that the source is invalid/non-existent in your debate.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I can deny certain claims because of my faith in Christ. This is what Christ said:

John 5: 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

And this is what Moses wrote:

Genesis 1. Six evenings and mornings and a seventh day of rest.

This is an origins-related topic in a Christian-only forum, and this is the word of Christ, telling us that the earth was created in six days with a seventh day of rest.

 

[Jase]

I can deny certain claims because of my faith in Christ. This is what Christ said:

John 5: 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

And this is what Moses wrote:

Genesis 1. Six evenings and mornings and a seventh day of rest.

This is an origins-related topic in a Christian-only forum, and this is the word of Christ, telling us that the earth was created in six days with a seventh day of rest.

And we know for a fact the Earth was not created in 6 literal 24 hour days. It's called metaphor.

 

[Jase]

WOW, I cannot believe that we (including me) actually try and use Youtube and Wikipedia as source material.

The next thing, you Jase and matthewgar just lost this debate. You both have ascribed the Bible to contain errors yet use that same book to build a case of the earth being flat. You cannot discredit a document and then use it for evidence. That nice little picture that somebody drew up is a 19th or 20th century representation based on the 15th and 16th century hermeneutics of a flawed document, you must provide outside source material of verifiable archaeological sources dated to the 10th - 5th century BC in order to substantiate you claims.

How did I discredit myself. The poster was claiming the Bible did not refer to a flat or geocentric Earth. Obviously it is necessary to show the verses that do make reference to it.

 

[rcorlew]

How did I discredit myself. The poster was claiming the Bible did not refer to a flat or geocentric Earth. Obviously it is necessary to show the verses that do make reference to it.

Because it is your position that the Bible contains errors, therefore any information it contains is unusable as a point of argument, it is what they call tainted evidence.

 

[rcorlew]

Always check the footnotes of the article. It can (in)validate anything on the page you need. If a particularly important/controversial claim doesn't have a source, mark it as citation needed and move on. Then bring up that the source is invalid/non-existent in your debate.

I typically use them for definitions of terms or ideas, I do not base an argument on their content, as there is a plenitude of good source material available.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And we know for a fact the Earth was not created in 6 literal 24 hour days. It's called metaphor.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Evening:
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 6153. ereb
Morning:
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 1242. boqer

This is what Moses wrote.

 

[Jase]

Because it is your position that the Bible contains errors, therefore any information it contains is unusable as a point of argument, it is what they call tainted evidence.

Yes the Bible does contain errors. And one of those errors is its position on Cosmology. It is therefore logical to point out which verses are the one's in error.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Ancient Hebrew beliefs on cosmology are as irrelevant to biblical inerrancy as modern biological views on human descent.

As for the general question of what to do with people who ignore evidence, I dunno. If you're really engaging in a discussion and not a flame war and they refuse to see reason I don't know what hope you really have.

 

[rcorlew]

Yes the Bible does contain errors. And one of those errors is its position on Cosmology. It is therefore logical to point out which verses are the one's in error.

Maybe you are not understanding, you can point out errors in the text, yest that is fine, but you also have to substantiate that the text you cite is an accurate representation of their (Hebrew) beliefs. Remember, you have already claimed that the Bible contains errors, could this not be an error also, a change from the original text? That is why you need an outside source to validate the original claim that this text which you have found an error in is an accurate representation of Hebrew beliefs.

 

[matthewgar]

WOW, I cannot believe that we (including me) actually try and use Youtube and Wikipedia as source material.

The next thing, you Jase and matthewgar just lost this debate. You both have ascribed the Bible to contain errors yet use that same book to build a case of the earth being flat. You cannot discredit a document and then use it for evidence. That nice little picture that somebody drew up is a 19th or 20th century representation based on the 15th and 16th century hermeneutics of a flawed document, you must provide outside source material of verifiable archaeological sources dated to the 10th - 5th century BC in order to substantiate you claims.

I was simply saying youtube as there are dozen of videos where you have YEC's and some TE's making claims of science in the bible and then people responding to them, so you have a clear these are sciences in the bible and then general responses to them. Isn't proof of anything, just makes it easier to see both sides in 1-2 videos rather then trying to find them scattered across the internet.

And my point isn't that the bible is right or wrong on this subject, but if it's correct you need a better argument then to say that they have a different meaning then what all the cultures in the middle east at the time thought. THe verses in the bible that are used to describe a flat earth or claim it does are worded and phrased in just the exact same way that other cultures at the time of the wrting believed.

And yes the bible can have errors, and in fact does, trying to claim it doesn't have errors is blatnly ignoring many verses like the two geneologies of Jesus, either one of them is wrong, or one of them was supposed to be marry or some other explanation, but doesn't ignore the fact that it's wrong and wrong in the oldest copies we have. So either it's a error one of the writers made or a scribal error, but a error non the less therefore not 100% inerrant.

Trying to claim the bible is inerrant isn't for the benefit of others, but for the beneift of the one believing it's perfect. It won't convince anyone not already convinced of the bible, and harms any attempt to teach and help others come to Christ. Take YEC's, considering the vast amount of evidence they are wrong, all their claims of being right do is convince themselves and protect themselves from losing faith, but doesn't convince anyone that takes the time to look into the evidence. And trying to push the young earth model is just going to drive away people in the church and keep people away from it.