Evolution

[Cabal]

I see the curvature of the earth.
I see a circular moon and a circular sun. But, nevertheless it wasn't man that inspired the verse...it was God. He knows of the circle of the earth.

And my point is there's no way you can determine that from the text alone if you didn't already know the curvature of the earth. This is like all those creationists who claimed the big bang is referred to in the Bible - WELL AFTER the big bang theory was laid out and supported by scientists. If the Bible is so clear and amazing, they should have picked that out well before the theory.

As I said - claiming that God already knew after we humans have established the fact is neither impressive nor convincing when the verse is so terminologically vague you cannot be sure it is referring to a 2D circle or the 2D projection of a 3D object.

So did God inspire the verses that led people to believe in geocentrism? They were just taking it literally, after all.

 

[1whirlwind]

If God dictated the words (rather than simply inspiring the author), then why isn't He clearer here? Why doesn't he use the Hebrew word for sphere? Why does He imply that it's spread out like a tent when he knows that the contemporary audience to whom tents were all too familiar and who would envision this in their mind as a tent with a flat bottom (the earth)? As is, God would be allowing at least 1,000 years of humanity to be reading this wrong.

I never read it as anything other than how I now see it. The circle of the earth is the roundness of the earth. I never thought of it as being a flat, two dimensional circle as drawn on paper.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

He doesn't say the earth is spread out as a tent but....He stretches out the heavens as a fabric and the heavens are spread around the earth as a tent. The earth is enveloped in the tent/curtains of the heavens. And, there He dwells.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

That's nice. Yet no one claimed that the bible was written only for goat herders so thank you red herring. Moving on.

Seeing as BIOLOGISTS,etc also say that man did not evolve from apes. Apparently you all are on the same side on that issue. Now when you actually learn what biologists and other scientists with knowledge of the facts of evolution. Get back to me.

If BIOLOGISTS, etc. are saying that then perhaps they need to say it louder. Perhaps BIOLOGISTS, etc. need to run a campaign to take down the posters depicting apes magickly EVOLVING from apes to knuckle dragging cave men to today's modern man. And, while you're at it...have a discussion with all those showing skulls of apes claiming them to be human. You won't have to speak loudly...they're on this forum.

Take it up with them and then...Get back to me.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

What part of the Earth is not a circle do you not get?

The circle of the Earth with the solid dome above it as described in Genesis looks like this:

What part of the circle of the earth meaning exactly what it says "don't you get?" The only time I've seen this rather silly argument of how stupid people were in Biblical days is from....atheist forums. They use the "circle of the earth" being flat as well as the discrepency of the genealogies. For what purpose? To disprove the Bible.

If that is your labor as a servant of our Father then...shame on you. I would ask that instead you spend your time trying to understand what is written....knowing it is truth. That allows you to wade through the junk man puts in front of you.

So, I again ask...can you provide any Scripture where the Creator tells us that we are not properly understanding the creation as He explained, where instead He meant we evolved? If you can't then should you not rethink man's notions?

Thank you for the Hebrew conception. As you look at it do you wonder....did they actually see the earth as flat or was that the only way to draw it on paper. For instance, I am an artist and paint portraits. I work on flat paper but with shading I can create the effect of dimension. It is on flat paper but I know it isn't a flat person. I attribute the same knowledge to the Hebrews. Is it them seeing it as flat or...you?


.

 

[Cabal]

What part of the circle of the earth meaning exactly what it says "don't you get?"

This is the point - it has two meanings, which the text is ambiguous about. You only think it's referring to a spherical earth because you know the earth is spherical from science - a retroactive interpretation. If they knew geometry and the nature of the earth so well then why didn't they literally describe it clearly as what it is - an orb, a globe, a sphere?

The only time I've seen this rather silly argument of how stupid people were in Biblical days is from....atheist forums. They use the "circle of the earth" being flat as well as the discrepency of the genealogies.

Maybe you should defend the literalistic stance better instead of casting aspersions on those presenting legitimate counterarguments (aka ad hom).

For what purpose? To disprove the Bible.

Only if you think literalism and inerrantism is so critical to the Bible's veracity.

 

[1whirlwind]

Yep. That would be people who claim that God either lied in His Book or in His Creation, because they insist that His Book must be literal historical narrative, when the ancients knew very well the value of story ("mayth" in the technical sense, not the "fairy story" common-use sense) in getting across truths better than dry factual narrrative. God does not lie -- His Creation and His Book testify to His truthfulness. It's those who would subvert it to a use He never intended who are the ones Jesus warns of.

No, God does not lie. That is the point I have been making. Whether He tells us something in parable form, poetic form or literal form...it will not be a lie. Those methods are used to make the lesson/story clearer but not to lie. So, would He tell us of creation, as is written and mean something else? I think not.

There are those that subvert His truth. Darwin was one.

I'm certain he did. If you're saying the only way God could create man in His image is by pulling off a magic trick, not by creating a world that would result in man in His image, then I think you're the one who has a problem with believing in God's omnipotence.

I'm saying it happened as written and if we don't understand the depth of what is written then we shouldn't say it was a lie/evolution. We should ask the Holy Spirit to teach us and if it is time....He will.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And my point is there's no way you can determine that from the text alone if you didn't already know the curvature of the earth. This is like all those creationists who claimed the big bang is referred to in the Bible - WELL AFTER the big bang theory was laid out and supported by scientists. If the Bible is so clear and amazing, they should have picked that out well before the theory.

As I said - claiming that God already knew after we humans have established the fact is neither impressive nor convincing when the verse is so terminologically vague you cannot be sure it is referring to a 2D circle or the 2D projection of a 3D object.

So did God inspire the verses that led people to believe in geocentrism? They were just taking it literally, after all.

The circle of the earth has always meant....roundness. It isn't at all vague to me.



.

 

[Cabal]

The circle of the earth has always meant....roundness. It isn't at all vague to me.

2D circles and 3D spheres, and 2D sections of 3D spheres are ALL round; 2D circles and 2D cross-sections of 3D spheres are equivalent - therefore, it is vague.

But as I said, clearly this is your personal interpretation coming through here - so please be consistent and admit to it, and stop judging TE for openly being the same thing.

 

[1whirlwind]

This is the point - it has two meanings, which the text is ambiguous about. You only think it's referring to a spherical earth because you know the earth is spherical from science - a retroactive interpretation. If they knew geometry and the nature of the earth so well then why didn't they literally describe it clearly as what it is - an orb, a globe, a sphere?

Good morning Cabal...I see you're an early riser too.


I don't see it as having two meanings. The Hebrew definition given is, "circle, circuit, compass." Going to the dictionary, the definition of circle is....

1. a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. equation: x 2 + y 2 = r 2 .
2. the portion of a plane bounded by such a curve.
3. any circular or ringlike object, formation, or arrangement: a circle of dancers.
4. a ring, circlet, or crown.
5. the ring of a circus.
6. a section of seats in a theater: dress circle.
7. the area within which something acts, exerts influence, etc.; realm; sphere: A politician has a wide circle of influence.
8. a series ending where it began, esp. when perpetually repeated; cycle: the circle of the year.
9. Logic . an argument ostensibly proving a conclusion but actually assuming the conclusion or its equivalent as a premise; vicious circle.
10. a complete series forming a connected whole; cycle: the circle of the sciences.
11. a number of persons bound by a common tie; coterie: a literary circle; a family circle.
12. Government . an administrative division, esp. of a province.
13. Geography . a parallel of latitude.
14. Astronomy . a. (formerly) the orbit of a heavenly body.
b. meridian circle.
15. Surveying . a glass or metal disk mounted concentrically with the spindle of a theodolite or level and graduated so that the angle at which the alidade is set may be read.

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

17. a ring of light in the sky; halo.
​

A circle is a sphere, orb...circle of the earth. Round as is a ring or crown.

Maybe you should defend the literalistic stance better instead of casting aspersions on those presenting legitimate counterarguments (aka ad hom).

You're right. My apologies.

I don't consider what has been presented as a legitimate argument though for I just see it as someone reading the verse without understanding. As I said, I never saw the circle of the earth as anything other than what it is...a circular orb.

Only if you think literalism and inerrantism is so critical to the Bible's veracity.

Is it me that thinks this or...our Father? When something else is presented, by man, that attempts to override what is written then we should be very, very careful.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

​

As His children we are to...be noble. If evolution, "those things were so," is to be believed instead of His account then please provide some verse leading us in that direction. If we can't do that then we have a choice to make.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

2D circles and 3D spheres, and 2D sections of 3D spheres are ALL round; 2D circles and 2D cross-sections of 3D spheres are equivalent - therefore, it is vague.

But as I said, clearly this is your personal interpretation coming through here - so please be consistent and admit to it, and stop judging TE for openly being the same thing.

I must disagree. I don't see it as being a personal interpretation at all. Rather I see folks seeing the "circle of the earth" being flat as a "personal interpretation." I don't see it at all as vague.


.

 

[crawfish]

I never read it as anything other than how I now see it. The circle of the earth is the roundness of the earth. I never thought of it as being a flat, two dimensional circle as drawn on paper.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

He doesn't say the earth is spread out as a tent but....He stretches out the heavens as a fabric and the heavens are spread around the earth as a tent. The earth is enveloped in the tent/curtains of the heavens. And, there He dwells.


.

As I've said before, of course you haven't. You've seen satellite pictures of the earth since you were born. But you're not thinking like an ancient Israelite, are you?

 

[Cabal]

Good morning Cabal...I see you're an early riser too.

Not in my timezone, unfortunately

I don't see it as having two meanings. The Hebrew definition given is, "circle, circuit, compass." Going to the dictionary, the definition of circle is....

1. a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. equation: x 2 + y 2 = r 2 .
2. the portion of a plane bounded by such a curve.
3. any circular or ringlike object, formation, or arrangement: a circle of dancers.
4. a ring, circlet, or crown.
5. the ring of a circus.
6. a section of seats in a theater: dress circle.
7. the area within which something acts, exerts influence, etc.; realm; sphere: A politician has a wide circle of influence.
8. a series ending where it began, esp. when perpetually repeated; cycle: the circle of the year.
9. Logic . an argument ostensibly proving a conclusion but actually assuming the conclusion or its equivalent as a premise; vicious circle.
10. a complete series forming a connected whole; cycle: the circle of the sciences.
11. a number of persons bound by a common tie; coterie: a literary circle; a family circle.
12. Government . an administrative division, esp. of a province.
13. Geography . a parallel of latitude.
14. Astronomy . a. (formerly) the orbit of a heavenly body.
b. meridian circle.
15. Surveying . a glass or metal disk mounted concentrically with the spindle of a theodolite or level and graduated so that the angle at which the alidade is set may be read.

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

17. a ring of light in the sky; halo.
​

A circle is a sphere, orb...circle of the earth. Round as is a ring or crown.

Let me get this straight - you're posting 17 definitions of a word to show that it has the precise meaning you attribute to it?(!) How in the world does this make the usage of the word "circle" less vague?

You're still not grasping my point - even if it is that particular colloquialism, the colloquialism is not precise enough to literally extract the correct form of the earth from it. If you're claiming that the Bible trumped science, then it needs to be precise as science. A colloquialism that describes a 3D object in terms of 2D is not being precise. The earth could be cylindrical and God could be sitting over one of the ends for all the writers knew.

You're right. My apologies.

No bother. Just - seriously - don't attribute bad intentions to your debate opponents purely because they happen to read different bits of the Bible differently to you.

I don't consider what has been presented as a legitimate argument though for I just see it as someone reading the verse without understanding.

And "understanding" just happens to chime with how you read the Bible, right?

As I said, I never saw the circle of the earth as anything other than what it is...a circular orb.

And yet again, you've just lumped a 2D adjective with a 3D one. Not precise.

Is it me that thinks this or...our Father? When something else is presented, by man, that attempts to override what is written then we should be very, very careful.

I am. That's why I query the interpretations of the Bible given to me by creationists, who are men. At least nature is not capable of lying.

As His children we are to...be noble. If evolution, "those things were so," is to be believed instead of His account then please provide some verse leading us in that direction. If we can't do that then we have a choice to make.

And as I've said before - even if it is not there literally or by whatever standard you've chosen, that does mean it is not true, simply not the crux of Genesis 1. I think it's far more important that God created rather than how he created - I really don't care theologically whether people are creationist or evolutionist. What does bother me is the arbitrary and inconsistent rejection of science that goes with it.

 

[1whirlwind]

As I've said before, of course you haven't. You've seen satellite pictures of the earth since you were born. But you're not thinking like an ancient Israelite, are you?

No...there were no satellites when I was born. But, I understand what you're saying.

I need to say again, it wasn't "an ancient Israelite" that inspired Isaiah to write those words. Truly Crawfish....the idea of anyone reading that verse and understanding it as meaning a flat earth is strange to me. But, perhaps that's because I am a simple person....

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

​

Had I been educated in geometry then...I might have had difficulty with it.


.

 

[Cabal]

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

​

Had I been educated in geometry then...I might have had difficulty with it.

Can we stop using the Bible to glorify anti-intellectualism now, please?

 

[1whirlwind]

Not in my timezone, unfortunately

Ah....I missed your location.

Let me get this straight - you're posting 17 definitions of a word to show that it has the precise meaning you attribute to it?(!) How in the world does this make the usage of the word "circle" less vague?

No. I could have chosen one and then I might have heard...cherry picking.

You're still not grasping my point - even if it is that particular colloquialism, the colloquialism is not precise enough to literally extract the correct form of the earth from it. If you're claiming that the Bible trumped science, then it needs to be precise as science. A colloquialism that describes a 3D object in terms of 2D is not being precise. The earth could be cylindrical and God could be sitting over one of the ends for all the writers knew.

I don't say the Bible trumps science....I say the two need to conform for it to be truth. When science conflicts with Him then...who is wrong? Nor do I say that the verse is describing a 2D object. It is you saying that. As for being precise...the Bible is not a test book of science in which geometry is explained. Instead...see it as written by the One that sits on the earth. He knows.

No bother. Just - seriously - don't attribute bad intentions to your debate opponents purely because they happen to read different bits of the Bible differently to you.

Point taken. I was quite serious in my apology.

And "understanding" just happens to chime with how you read the Bible, right?

What is your understanding? Is the earth round?

And yet again, you've just lumped a 2D adjective with a 3D one. Not precise.

It is what it is. The earth is round. The circle of the earth means...it is round for the One that inspired the verse is the Creator and He knows it is round. A circular object is a precisely round orb.

I am. That's why I query the interpretations of the Bible given to me by creationists, who are men. At least nature is not capable of lying.

Then...that is a problem. Man didn't write the Bible. Man has dilly-dallied in the translations of the Bible but as given by God....the text is His Word and has been handed down as such through the generations. Stay as true as possible to that original (and that is difficult in these days) for the truth. Nature doesn't lie nor does His Word lie but man can lie about both and....they do.

And as I've said before - even if it is not there literally or by whatever standard you've chosen, that does mean it is not true, simply not the crux of Genesis 1. I think it's far more important that God created rather than how he created - I really don't care theologically whether people are creationist or evolutionist. What does bother me is the arbitrary and inconsistent rejection of science that goes with it.

I certainly don't blame you for that. To reject science is to reject His handiwork but science is a learning process of what the Creator created. He has not lied about it...we are just given to understand certain things at certain times. When someone is a "Bible-thumper" about the age of earth, how the races began, the truth about Noah's ark, etc., it simply means things haven't yet been revealed to them.

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

​

Man evolving from apes...is not a truth.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Can we stop using the Bible to glorify anti-intellectualism now, please?

You missed the point if that is what you see.


.

 

[Jase]

Thank you for the Hebrew conception. As you look at it do you wonder....did they actually see the earth as flat or was that the only way to draw it on paper. For instance, I am an artist and paint portraits. I work on flat paper but with shading I can create the effect of dimension. It is on flat paper but I know it isn't a flat person. I attribute the same knowledge to the Hebrews. Is it them seeing it as flat or...you?


.

That's how they actually perceived it. That's why flat earth and geocentrism concepts existed. We've found artifacts from mesopotamia with a similar image carved in stone from Babylon.

All cultures in that area in those days viewed the world in much the same way. The picture above is an exact rendering of a word for word reading of Genesis.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If BIOLOGISTS, etc. are saying that then perhaps they need to say it louder. Perhaps BIOLOGISTS, etc. need to run a campaign to take down the posters depicting apes magickly EVOLVING from apes to knuckle dragging cave men to today's modern man. And, while you're at it...have a discussion with all those showing skulls of apes claiming them to be human. You won't have to speak loudly...they're on this forum.

Take it up with them and then...Get back to me.



.

It's not their fault you don't know the difference between modern ape and common ancestor. And since that information is easily available. It tends to suggest this is a result of willful ignorance.

 

[gluadys]

I never read it as anything other than how I now see it. The circle of the earth is the roundness of the earth. I never thought of it as being a flat, two dimensional circle as drawn on paper.

But did you not also, from your earliest years, see in drawings and on film, images of a spherical earth. The idea that the earth is spherical is imprinted on the mind of a child in our times well before they even know the word "sphere" and well before most learn to read. So naturally, when they do come to read a phrase like "circle of the earth" they think "sphere" --if not the word, the image.

What if you had never seen such an image of the earth? What if all you had to go by was your personal physical experience of the earth as far as the horizon?

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

He doesn't say the earth is spread out as a tent but....He stretches out the heavens as a fabric and the heavens are spread around the earth as a tent. The earth is enveloped in the tent/curtains of the heavens. And, there He dwells.

But Isaiah's readers, not having the image of a spherical earth, would not envisage a tent as being spread around the earth. They would envisage the curtains of heaven being spread out over the earth as a tent is spread out over desert sand as a place to dwell in. One does not ordinarily pitch a tent on top of a ball, but looks for a flat place to set it on. That flat place, in Isaiah's image, is the earth.

 

[Jase]

I must disagree. I don't see it as being a personal interpretation at all. Rather I see folks seeing the "circle of the earth" being flat as a "personal interpretation." I don't see it at all as vague.


.

What about Daniel 4:10 and Matt 4:8? Daniel describes standing on top of a very tall tree and seeing the entire world - something only possible on a flat Eath. Matt describes Satan taking Jesus to a very tall mountain and showing him every kingdom of the world - once again, only possible on a flat Earth.