If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[jobob]

Yeah they really screwed up when writing their perfectly inspired book didn't they. (since they chose to use a word that didn't get the point accross)

in YOUR mind they did.......as I said.....you have NO idea what the writers original intent was......

a frisbee is round.......a ball is round.....

YOu folks would throw out salvation over a word definition

 

[Arikay]

But they aren't round in the same way. Its like saying a circle is flat and a square is flat so a circle is a square. Although I find it funny you suggesting we should pay attention to the hebrew when you are talking english sematics.

Wow, I didn't know a round or flat earth was a salvation issue.

in YOUR mind they did.......as I said.....you have NO idea what the writers original intent was......

a frisbee is round.......a ball is round.....

YOu folks would throw out salvation over a word definition

 

[jobob]

But they aren't round in the same way. Its like saying a circle is flat and a square is flat so a circle is a square. Although I find it funny you suggesting we should pay attention to the hebrew when you are talking english sematics.

Youre full of all sorts of twists and turns in your logic arent you?
a ball is a round and a circle is round.....
an apple pie is round and the moon is round.....

You can argue this till youre face turns blue, this cannot be used to show the writer was intending a 2 dimensional circle.... you do not know what his intentions were.... PROVE that his using the Hebrew word rendered as ''circle'' was MEANT to convey a flat circle and not just to convey ''round'' and maybe Ill discuss this further.

And another thing while Im at it.
WHY a circle to begin with..... the writer obviously could have used square or any shape he wanted to.....

Seems odd that a man who had never even seen the earth from anywhere other than its surface would even pick a ''round'' object to relate it to..

Wow, I didn't know a round or flat earth was a salvation issue.

Who said it was?
You seemingly are rejecting the Bible and salvation based on the word rendered as ''circle''

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And another thing while Im at it.
WHY a circle to begin with..... the writer obviously could have used square or any shape he wanted to.....

You mean like maybe refering to the 4 corners of the earth?

Seems odd that a man who had never even seen the earth from anywhere other than its surface would even pick a ''round'' object to relate it to..

I guess you never stood up on a relatively high place and looked around.


the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Nathan Poe]

in YOUR mind they did.......as I said.....you have NO idea what the writers original intent was......

a frisbee is round.......a ball is round.....

YOu folks would throw out salvation over a word definition

Only because you folks (literalists) would make salvation dependant on a word definition...

 

[jobob]

You mean like maybe refering to the 4 corners of the earth?

Something tells me if I used the term ''4 corners'' of the earth, youd know exacty what I was talking about...... there is no contradiction...only games

I guess you never stood up on a relatively high place and looked around.
the frumious Bandersnatch

Ive been pretty high up... in a jet or 5...
youre point is ?????

 

[jobob]

Only because you folks (literalists) would make salvation dependant on a word definition...

wrong...

One aspect of Bible study is learning when the text is trying to get a specific point across.
In Genesis, 1:4-5 pretty much define a day...
Then this day is clearly being used repetitiously....

May times thru the OT when a point is being made that is important, it is put forth 3 times (or more)....

What is interesting to me is that Jesus uses the same method when talking about hell...

Sometimes the text is using metaphor.
Mostly it is not....
If there are NO indicators (vision, dream, etc. mentioned) then I assume it is literal.... Otherwise I have to assume the entire text is metaphor which I do not...

ALSO the NT goes to the additional effort of showing that Jesus was teaching in parables....
If you can show me where Genesis 1 is EVER mentioned to be metaphor, then I will accept it as such gladly

 

[Arikay]

If you consider a "twist" and a "turn" pointing out logical fallacies in your arguments, then yes I am full of them.

Who said I rejected salvation over that word? Obviously not me. Looks at my invisible friend, "did you do it?" Bob says he didn't do it, so it must have been my invisible hamster.
If you would like to make anything else up, go ahead, its entertaining.

Youre full of all sorts of twists and turns in your logic arent you?
a ball is a round and a circle is round.....
an apple pie is round and the moon is round.....

You can argue this till youre face turns blue, this cannot be used to show the writer was intending a 2 dimensional circle.... you do not know what his intentions were.... PROVE that his using the Hebrew word rendered as ''circle'' was MEANT to convey a flat circle and not just to convey ''round'' and maybe Ill discuss this further.

And another thing while Im at it.
WHY a circle to begin with..... the writer obviously could have used square or any shape he wanted to.....

Seems odd that a man who had never even seen the earth from anywhere other than its surface would even pick a ''round'' object to relate it to..


Who said it was?
You seemingly are rejecting the Bible and salvation based on the word rendered as ''circle''

 

[jobob]

If you consider a "twist" and a "turn" pointing out logical fallacies in your arguments, then yes I am full of them.

Who said I rejected salvation over that word? Obviously not me. Looks at my invisible friend, "did you do it?" Bob says he didn't do it, so it must have been my invisible hamster.
If you would like to make anything else up, go ahead, its entertaining.

Whats entertaining is watching how you cant accept ''circle'' in relation to the earth..
Ill bet if it was any other book youd be fine with it....

YOu think you have an error..... you do not...

 

[Arikay]

And guess what, I am fine with it.
The problem comes when people claim to take the bible completly literally and claim that the bible comes first and science comes second, and then ignore the literal interpretation of the bible because of what science says.
The even funner part is when they claim to take the hebrew literally and then claim that the hebrew in Isa 40:22 supports a spherical earth. Proving once again that it has nothing to do with what the bible says but about what they want the bible to say.

Its funny, when the bible literally suggests the earth is flat, its not acceptable, why? because we know the earth is round based on science. But when the bible never makes a mention about the earth being 6000 years old but scholars have interpreted that from the text, it is acceptable even though we know the earth to be older based on science.
Why is it acceptable? because literalists follow "the bible."

Whats entertaining is watching how you cant accept ''circle'' in relation to the earth..
Ill bet if it was any other book youd be fine with it....

YOu think you have an error..... you do not...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Something tells me if I used the term ''4 corners'' of the earth, youd know exacty what I was talking about......

Maybe because it is a turn of phrase that has been in use for a couple thousand years since it appears in the Bible.

Ive been pretty high up... in a jet or 5...
youre point is ?????

My point, which you must be amazingly dense to miss is that from high up you see approximately the same distance in all directions, ie the circle of the earth. You asked why someone would say this. I thought I explained it in terms that even you could grasp jobob.

It is very clear that the ancient Hebrews thought that the sun went around it daily and that there was a firmament above the earth the separated the waters above from the waters below. There are also verses that indicate they thought the earth was flat. Using the phrase "circle of the earth" to try to show that they didn't think the earth was flat is illogical since a circle is indeed flat. It is really quite amusing to watch the extreme literalists twist and turn to try to deny what the Bible states so plainly. Suddenly some verses don't "really" mean what they clearly say and others are just "poetry".

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

OOPs. The dreaded double post
the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[jobob]

Its funny, when the bible literally suggests the earth is flat, its not acceptable,

Based on your distortion of the meaning it may.....

As I said... NEITHER of us know the original intent of the writer...

I can say now the earth is ''round'' and it IS correct.....
I do NOT have to say spherical in conversation to get the point across.

If the Hebs DID believe in a spherical earth, then the use of ''circle'' to desribe it would be no different than me telling you the earth is ''round''....

Just like a scientist could say the earth was ''round'' today, instead of ''spherical'' and youd know EXACTLY what he was talking about........or wait, mebe if one did youd just toss out the whole lesson he was teaching

 

[jobob]

There are also verses that indicate they thought the earth was flat.

Chapter and verse please

Using the phrase "circle of the earth" to try to show that they didn't think the earth was flat is illogical since a circle is indeed flat. It is really quite amusing to watch the extreme literalists twist and turn to try to deny what the Bible states so plainly. Suddenly some verses don't "really" mean what they clearly say and others are just "poetry".

the frumious Bandersnatch

see my previous post..

Just wait till the next time i see some scientist calling the earth ''round''
mebe Ill spend some time going thru some science site and see what i can come up with

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Chapter and verse please

You can find a large collection here.

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

see my previous post..

Just wait till the next time i see some scientist calling the earth ''round''
mebe Ill spend some time going thru some science site and see what i can come up with

When scientists really want to convey the shape of the earth they say it is an oblate spheroid not a circle. Why don't you find us a scientific site talks about the pillars of the earth or the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below or says that the earth is fixed and never moves?

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Yet creationists Know that the earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. How odd.

And again you are confusing the difference between literal and non literal teachings. If a scientist said he says everything literally, and fights a student over the definition of words, and then he says the earth is a circle, I would be very suspicious of his teachings.

Based on your distortion of the meaning it may.....

As I said... NEITHER of us know the original intent of the writer...

I can say now the earth is ''round'' and it IS correct.....
I do NOT have to say spherical in conversation to get the point across.

If the Hebs DID believe in a spherical earth, then the use of ''circle'' to desribe it would be no different than me telling you the earth is ''round''....

Just like a scientist could say the earth was ''round'' today, instead of ''spherical'' and youd know EXACTLY what he was talking about........or wait, mebe if one did youd just toss out the whole lesson he was teaching

 

[versastyle]

Which is symbolic?

1) 4 corners of a piece of paper
2) 4 corners of the Earth

Please if you are to show neither are symbolic, I think it would be only reasonable that you should also use the hebrew text and dictionaries to illustrate it.

My Websters dictionary is based on secular, modern day logic. We should use the logic that best correllates to the person who wrote the original text.

 

[JohnR7]

Yet creationists Know that the earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. How odd.

The Bible says that Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago. Science presents some pretty convincing evidence that there were "people" around before Adam and Eve. Of course they were not civilized, they did not have written records. Their tools were stone and not metal. So, there really is no question that Adam and Eve were the first or the start of something. The world as we now know it, is just about 6000 years old. There is overwelming evidence that there was a world here before his one.

 

[JohnR7]

Its like saying a circle is flat and a square is flat so a circle is a square.

The Bible is not talking about circles and squares. This is not a math lesson. Circle here means to walk around the outside of something. It is a term used when a guard walks around the area he is guarding.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Bible says that Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago.

Actually, the Bible says no such thing.

Bishop James Ussher, working on the assumption that the Bible was a comprehensive history, and that it left absolutely nothing out, did some math on his own and came to the 6000 year figure.

Agree with him if you wish, but don't credit his work to the Bible.

Science presents some pretty convincing evidence that there were "people" around before Adam and Eve. Of course they were not civilized, they did not have written records. Their tools were stone and not metal.

So what's the benchmark of "civilization?" Metal and writing?

So, there really is no question that Adam and Eve were the first or the start of something. The world as we now know it, is just about 6000 years old. There is overwelming evidence that there was a world here before his one.

One that God apparantly decided not to tell us about.
So the Bible is not comprehensive.
Ergo, Ussher's assumptions in calculating the dates were incorrect.