The Demise of Evolution

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it's so if you post and then realise you missed a bit, spelled a word wrong, messed up the quote tags, etc, you can go and fix it and it's still counted as the original post.

I do that a lot... I always tell myself to double-check before posting, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[roman2819]

And yet you are certain that your interpretation, using your modern values and knowledge, is correct. Do you really not see the problem with that claim?

Let's stick to the example we've been discussing. According to you, the passage in Isaiah about a round Earth means the Hebrews knew the Earth is a globe. Why? Not because of context but because that's modern knowledge. You feel compelled to insist that that's what the passage must mean to fit it into your worldview. I look at it and say there is no reason to force that meaning into the passage. The context does not require it and the passage does not appear to be meant to be a literal description.

I read one of your earliest posts, you know 7 languages, and three of them fluently. I use English, Mandarin (Chinese) and Japanese. I can say that in Mandarin and Japanese, 'round' can refer to 'sphere' even 2000 years ago, and people will understand the context. Indeed, it would be very unusual to say sphere, it is quite a technical term. People usually say round in normal conversations and they know it means sphere according to context. For Mandarin and Japanese I can say they do. Even in modern English, I believe so too.

Do modern and ancient texts use of 'round' and 'sphere' have to be mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

One of your posts say you know 7 languages, and 3 of them fluently. Do these languages never use 'round' to imply 'sphere' 1000 years ago?

 

[roman2819]

So you are saying that prophecies don't count if they are just talking about stuff that was already known to people at the time predictions were made, or logical projections from what was known at the time, or things that are vague enough to be flexibly interpreted?

GASP!

Obviously so. Would you say someone is a prophet if he predicted what happen to the stock market last week?

 

[roman2819]

.....

Funny how it's always the Bible fitting in with science and never the other way around, huh?

Why is it that no one said, "Those passages where the Bible refers to a flat earth were clearly figurative, you can't use them to support your flat earth idea!"

Your assertion Funny how it's always the Bible fitting in with science and never the other way around,...

Answer: Because the Bible is not trying to be a science book. It just say a few things that is compatible with science. And the few statements is compatible with science, the only difference between Christians and atheists is a refusal to believe, deliberate hardening of hearts and ears.

Why does it has to be the other way round just because you think so? You have unusual way of argument, such as ST reference itself etc

 

[roman2819]

Hope everyone is well in this uncertain time, wherever you may be.keep the conversation going and hope to hear from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read one of your earliest posts, you know 7 languages, and three of them fluently. I use English, Mandarin (Chinese) and Japanese. I can say that in Mandarin and Japanese, 'round' can refer to 'sphere' even 2000 years ago, and people will understand the context. Indeed, it would be very unusual to say sphere, it is quite a technical term. People usually say round in normal conversations and they know it means sphere according to context. For Mandarin and Japanese I can say they do. Even in modern English, I believe so too.

Do modern and ancient texts use of 'round' and 'sphere' have to be mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

One of your posts say you know 7 languages, and 3 of them fluently. Do these languages never use 'round' to imply 'sphere' 1000 years ago?

Are you talking about the "Circle of the Earth" verse? The Hebrew word used was not "round". It was "circle". Specifically an inscribed circle. As with a compass.n

 

[roman2819]

Are you talking about the "Circle of the Earth" verse? The Hebrew word used was not "round". It was "circle". Specifically an inscribed circle. As with a compass.n

Could there be different connotations of the Hebrew word? Could it be taken to mean round? Do you know for sure an 'inscribed circle' couldn't be used as round 3000 years ago? Same as how chinese andJapanese word 'round' certainly includes sphere, which is what I said in post 922..

If you take it to mean 'inscribed corcle' only, then what do you think the verse means?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the Bible is not trying to be a science book. It just say a few things that is compatible with science...

That's true, it does say a few things that are compatible with science - but it also says a large number of things that are not compatible with science.

 

[roman2819]

That's true, it does say a few things that are compatible with science - but it also says a large number of things that are not compatible with science.

What are the things not compatible with science, if you can state a few examples?

 

[Speedwell]

Could there be different connotations of the Hebrew word? Could it be taken to mean round? Do you know for sure an 'inscribed circle' couldn't be used as round 3000 years ago? Same as how chinese andJapanese word 'round' certainly includes sphere, which is what I said in post 922..

If you take it to mean 'inscribed corcle' only, then what do you think the verse means?

The underlying Hebrew word can also mean "horizon" or "boundary." Try reading it that way. But to suppose that the intent of that passage is to convey any precise geometric information about the actual shape of the Earth is a degenerate misuse of scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could there be different connotations of the Hebrew word? Could it be taken to mean round? Do you know for sure an 'inscribed circle' couldn't be used as round 3000 years ago? Same as how chinese andJapanese word 'round' certainly includes sphere, which is what I said in post 922..

If you take it to mean 'inscribed corcle' only, then what do you think the verse means?

It is possible, but considering all of the flat Earth verses in the Bible it is unlikely.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What are the things not compatible with science, if you can state a few examples?

There are a few here:
Biblical scientific errors.
Evidence against a recent creation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I read one of your earliest posts, you know 7 languages, and three of them fluently. I use English, Mandarin (Chinese) and Japanese. I can say that in Mandarin and Japanese, 'round' can refer to 'sphere' even 2000 years ago, and people will understand the context. Indeed, it would be very unusual to say sphere, it is quite a technical term. People usually say round in normal conversations and they know it means sphere according to context. For Mandarin and Japanese I can say they do. Even in modern English, I believe so too.

Do modern and ancient texts use of 'round' and 'sphere' have to be mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

One of your posts say you know 7 languages, and 3 of them fluently. Do these languages never use 'round' to imply 'sphere' 1000 years ago?

Nice. Rather than addressing my point you make an irrelevant claim about Chinese and Japanese. The bible was not written in either of those languages, so the meaning of certain characters has zero relevance to the language used in the bible. The Hebrew word used, as Subduction Zone points out, has a very specific meaning which you are ignoring.

 

[Kylie]

Obviously so. Would you say someone is a prophet if he predicted what happen to the stock market last week?

Probably not, since the writing was on the wall long before last week.

However, if he could have told me the exact values which specific stocks would reach on which days, and do this consistently, then I'd sit up and take notice.

 

[Kylie]

Your assertion Funny how it's always the Bible fitting in with science and never the other way around,...

Answer: Because the Bible is not trying to be a science book. It just say a few things that is compatible with science. And the few statements is compatible with science, the only difference between Christians and atheists is a refusal to believe, deliberate hardening of hearts and ears.

Why does it has to be the other way round just because you think so? You have unusual way of argument, such as ST reference itself etc

You might want to tell this to the many Christians who believe the Bible is the only book they need and is a literally true account of what happened.

 

[roman2819]

....
However, if he could have told me the exact values which specific stocks would reach on which days, and do this consistently, then I'd sit up and take notice.

Do you mean he tell you the details ahead of time or after it happened?

 

[Kylie]

Do you mean he tell you the details ahead of time or after it happened?

Obviously ahead of time. Anyone can tell me the value of stocks on a particular day in the past.

 

[roman2819]

Nice. Rather than addressing my point you make an irrelevant claim about Chinese and Japanese. The bible was not written in either of those languages, so the meaning of certain characters has zero relevance to the language used in the bible. The Hebrew word used, as Subduction Zone points out, has a very specific meaning which you are ignoring.

Hebrew is a human language and not totally unlike other languages with tenses and different connotations, so it is not irrelevant to use Japanese and Chinese. After all, many of us including you don't know hebrew, aren't we all reading translation into english?

While saying that @Subduction Zone cited one specific meaning "inscribed circle", you missed out @Speedwell who said it includes "horizon" or "boundary." So who do you think is right? You don't know hebrew, you are just referring to Hebrew language superficially. I don't know hebrew either, so no use debating along this line.

If you read the entire verse "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers," it means that God is above the entire earth, not just its boundary or horizon. As to whether flat earth or sphere, it depends whether you insist on being one-dimensional or three-dimensional.

 

[roman2819]

It is possible, but considering all of the flat Earth verses in the Bible it is unlikely.

So you cautiously agree that "circle of the earth" could possibly means sphere.

If you read the entire verse "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers," it means that God is above the entire earth, not just its boundary or horizon. As to whether flat earth or sphere, it depends whether you insist on being one-dimensional or three-dimensional.

Are there other flat earth verses in the BIble?

 

[roman2819]

The underlying Hebrew word can also mean "horizon" or "boundary." Try reading it that way. But to suppose that the intent of that passage is to convey any precise geometric information about the actual shape of the Earth is a degenerate misuse of scripture.

If you read the entire verse "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers," it means that God is above the entire earth, not just its boundary or horizon. As to whether flat earth or sphere, it depends whether you insist on being one-dimensional or three-dimensional.