Is there something wrong with teaching children the Earth is flat?

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, the ONLY reason anyone would ever think that this seal could be like a melonballer is because you think it has to be literal. It doesn't. If it isn't literal no one has to make up the ridiculous statements like "a seal that is in the shape of a melonballer."

And still, even if we were to amuse your idea of a spherical seal, that only gives you half of the earth. Don't say you could make a seal on both sides because thats even more far fetched.

Yes, literal. Exactly literal. I AM defining a version of "seal". Like I said, it is nothing but a mold. It could be in any shape. Hey, be open-minded.

I do can make a full mellon "ball" with a half-ball shape scoop. Just thrust it deeper and rotate.

The scripture is not only written for early people. It is also written for modern scientist. That IS the most amazing miracle to me.

 

[juvenissun]

A melon scoop will not stamp feature on the surface of the ball, you might get circular striations around the ball from irregularities on the leading edge of the scoop but not mountains and valleys the text is describing being stamped out by a seal.

Very beautifule insight. Thanks.

Featureless surface might just be how the earth looked like at the beginning. Might be just some "scatches" there (don't know what they could be. Something like the surface of Europa?)

 

[Assyrian]

Think more along the lines of Jupiter without the red spot, circular groves parallel to the equator. The point is not that the earth was featurless, but the exact opposite, that the seal stamped out all its features..

 

[juvenissun]

Think more along the lines of Jupiter without the red spot, circular groves parallel to the equator. The point is not that the earth was featurless, but the exact opposite, that the seal stamped out all its features..

Hey, Assyrian, welcome to the YEC camp.

 

[Assyrian]

I'll wait until they find evidence of a giant melon with holes scooped out...

 

[Scotishfury09]

Yes, literal. Exactly literal. I AM defining a version of "seal". Like I said, it is nothing but a mold. It could be in any shape. Hey, be open-minded.

I do can make a full mellon "ball" with a half-ball shape scoop. Just thrust it deeper and rotate.

The scripture is not only written for early people. It is also written for modern scientist. That IS the most amazing miracle to me.

How many seals have you seen used like a melon baller? Do any other YECs want to explain to him how outrageous this analogy is?

You're correct in saying that scripture is transcendent from the ANE culture to ours, but that doesn't mean it was written as a 21st century science text book. We shouldn't take it as one.

"Had the Bible used language exactly suited to the science of today, in less than 50 years it would have to be admitted that it could not be from God because of its lack of truth." - James Boyce in 1887

 

[shernren]

Scripturalism reductio ad absurdum, rightfully done or not, is simply painful to watch.

 

[juvenissun]

Scripturalism reductio ad absurdum, rightfully done or not, is simply painful to watch.

Argumentum ad Numerum

 

[theFijian]

Melon scoop eh? Methinks we're starting to srtetch the language somewhat.

 

[juvenissun]

Melon scoop eh? Methinks we're starting to srtetch the language somewhat.

Yes. That is one thing you can do by a literal reading. Stretch it as long as you could. But do not break the link.

 

[juvenissun]

I'll wait until they find evidence of a giant melon with holes scooped out...

Be careful on what you joked on. Because it could be true:

Just see what you said as a negative image of the solar system or the galaxies.

 

[gluadys]

Yes. That is one thing you can do by a literal reading. Stretch it as long as you could. But do not break the link.

So why the strong resistance to similarly stretching the meaning of "six 24-hour days"?

Frankly I think you are breaking the link. You are stretching the meaning so far it is no longer recognizable as the literal meaning of "seal". It is certainly not recognizable as the meaning that would appear obviously intended in the time it was written, and few people today would think of any mold, much less a spherical mold, when reading/hearing the term "seal".

They would take the plain meaning to be a seal as in a "seal of approval" or a seal on a legal document or the Great Seal of the United States used to stamp the US insignia on official government documents. The ancients would have thought of the authorizing seals stamped into clay tablets or impressed onto wax.

Getting so far away from those meanings as to conjure up the image of a melon-baller is getting a long, long way from the literal meaning. I don't know that it can still be called a literal meaning at all.

It also doesn't answer the question of why a literalist would re-interpret the more obviously literal meaning. What is the motivation for re-interpretation other than to reconcile the meaning of the biblical text with scientific discoveries?

And if that is the motivation, why is that not a good enough reason to similarly re-interpret the textual implications re: the age of the earth?

 

[juvenissun]

So why the strong resistance to similarly stretching the meaning of "six 24-hour days"?

Some versions of explanation totally ignored the possible meaning of "day"

Frankly I think you are breaking the link. You are stretching the meaning so far it is no longer recognizable as the literal meaning of "seal".

They would take the plain meaning to be a seal as in a "seal of approval" or a seal on a legal document or the Great Seal of the United States ...Getting so far away from those meanings as to conjure up the image of a melon-baller is getting a long, long way from the literal meaning.

In order to stretch the meaning of a word, one must provide the extended meaning or extended definition to the word. This is a very important step and must be done in a logically correct way. If one is not able to do that FIRST, then what follows would not be literal any more. If one is able to do that, I would say it is not stretched too far. In the case of "seal", I have defined it a few times: it is a geometric shape used for stamping. That is it. May be you want to argue on the meaning of "stamping" too. Here is my simplest version: reproducing.

It also doesn't answer the question of why a literalist would re-interpret the more obviously literal meaning. What is the motivation for re-interpretation other than to reconcile the meaning of the biblical text with scientific discoveries?

I do not see why could one understand a Bible verse in a different way by interpreting "the same words" slight differently, or very differently, as long as it is a literal interpretation. It may not be the way most people see it. But it is certainly an alternative, which could provide new insight.

 

[shernren]

You are stretching the meaning so far it is no longer recognizable as the literal meaning of "seal". It is certainly not recognizable as the meaning that would appear obviously intended in the time it was written, and few people today would think of any mold, much less a spherical mold, when reading/hearing the term "seal".

No, I don't think it's a stretch of meaning at all.

 

[theIdi0t]

No, I don't think it's a stretch of meaning at all.

Ah, now I get it.

A literal seal, stamping a sphere with his nose!.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place.

I love the inerrancy game.

We should play it more often.