Where did The Bible originate from?

I think the bible came from a bunch of mind controlling Catholics. . .

bellsybop wrote:

I think the bible came from a bunch of mind controlling Catholics. . .

Yet Catholics almost never read it. Hmmm.

How did writer know the Earth was in fact Round, since it took scientists another 2 1/2 thousand years to discover the truth of this statement? Regards 4john

4john wrote:

How did writer know the Earth was in fact Round, since it took scientists another 2 1/2 thousand years to discover the truth of this statement? Regards 4john

I'd just like to point out that as far back as Pythagoras learned men believed the earth to be spherical (in which they were only slightly off.) In fact the famous experiment by Eratosthenes in 240 BCE where he used shadows and geometry to determine the circumference of the Earth with only about 2% error, occurred approx. 300 years before the bible was completed. So to claim that this is some kind of secret knowledge imparted on the writers by God is a bit disingenuous.

LDM wrote:

4john wrote:

How did writer know the Earth was in fact Round, since it took scientists another 2 1/2 thousand years to discover the truth of this statement? Regards 4john

I'd just like to point out that as far back as Pythagoras learned men believed the earth to be spherical (in which they were only slightly off.) In fact the famous experiment by Eratosthenes in 240 BCE where he used shadows and geometry to determine the circumference of the Earth with only about 2% error, occurred approx. 300 years before the bible was completed. So to claim that this is some kind of secret knowledge imparted on the writers by God is a bit disingenuous.

So if we still have religious people believing nonsense today why should we think all the people of the Middle East and Europe suddenly believed the earth was round because of what a few learned men believed?

And one last thing to consider. How would the authors of the Bible know what these few learned men believed? Television? Radio? Or were books being published throughout the Middle East in the 6th Century BCE for all to read describing the wonderful insights of Pythagoras? Pythagoras believed the earth was a sphere for aesthetic reasons. No hard evidence was made to support his belief.

Just because the only records we have of people stating things like "the earth is round" and the like are from Ancient Greece doesn't mean that that was the only place it occurred, the Greeks were simply *really* big on keeping records. To assume that that kind of advancement only occurred in Greece is rather Euro-centric for my tastes.

The ancients had many novel ideas about the shape of the earth. The Babylonians thought the earth was hollow, to provide space for their underworld. The Egyptians thought the earth a square, (with four corners) with mountains at the edge supporting the vault of the sky.

The early Christian Church accepted Aristotle's spherical earth. But a few malcontents within the Church pointed out that the Bible speaks of 'the four corners' of the earth. In the 5th century CE the monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, in his Christian Topography, described a square earth with a heavenly vault, much like the Egyptian model. Tertulian also was a flat-earther.

Science writer Robert J. Schadewald gave me permission to quote the following paragraphs in which he summarizes the Biblical evidence which flat-earthers use to justify their position. He wrote this to a geocentrist fundamentalist who was arguing that the Bible supports a fixed, non-moving earth, with the all the rest of the universe moving around us at about one revolution per day. Bob, of course agreed that the Bible does support that view, but wonders why this particular fundamentalist did not also accept the idea that the earth is flat, since that has basis in the Bible also.

Quote:

...The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book. ...While the Bible nowhere states categorically that the earth is flat, numerous Old Testament verses clearly show that the ancient Hebrews were flat-earthers. This comes through more clearly in modern translations such as the New English Bible, but it's clear enough in the King James Version. The Genesis creation story says the earth is covered by a vault (firmament) and that the celestial bodies move inside the vault. (See Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:17. Note that, even in KJV, while there are waters "above" the firmament, the celestial bodies are "in" it.) This makes no sense unless one assumes that the earth is essentially flat.

That the Hebrews considered the sun and moon to be small bodies near to the earth is clear from Joshua 10:12, which gives specific localities [geographic] in which they stood still. Isaiah 40:22 says that "God sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers." In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven.'' (Job 22:14. The KJV translators copped out on the last two verses, but in both cases the implications are clear.)

That the earth was considered essentially flat is clear from Daniel, who said, "I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." (Daniel 4:10-11) Only on a flat earth could one see a tree reaching the sky (dome?) from "the earth's farthest bounds."

The New Testament also implies a flat earth. For instance, Matthew 4:8 says that "The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory." From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all of the kingdoms of the world"but only if the earth were flat. The same applies to Revelation 1:7, which says that at the second coming, "Every eye shall see him." Finally, Revelation 7:1 refers to "the four corners of the earth," and corners are not generally associated with spheres.

Actually, if you want a good picture of the hebrew conception of the earth, look in a Jewish encyclopedia under "cosmography." You might also want to read the so-called "Ethiopic" Book of Enoch, written perhaps 150 B.C. While not canonical, it's paraphrased or quoted a couple of times in the New Testament, so it was highly regarded in those days. Its flat earth implications are even stronger.

The Biblical cosmos model derives from Egyptian sources, which had a flat earth covered by a rounded sky vault supported at the four corners of the earth by high mountains. The 'waters above and the waters below' in the book of Genesis refer to the Babylonian notion that the waters were divided, and some remained above the sky vault. The vault was like a leaky roof and some of that water falls down as rain.

Astonishingly, some present-day 'biblical creationists' now argue that this water above the sky was the source of the flood in the time of Noah. They realize that if the waters did cover the earth to the highest mountain tops, there just isn't any source of that much water in the earth or in the atmosphere! So it must have come from somewhere else, they argue, in their pathetic attempt to make creationism appear 'scientific'.

bellsybop wrote:

I think the bible came from a bunch of mind controlling Catholics. . .

Yet Catholics almost never read it. Hmmm.

I'm confused, are we arguing here or what? My point is that the bible was written by ignorant yokels without any special knowledge at best, and by a group of old Jewish patriarchs attempting to control their subjects more easily at worst.

Your point appears to be a similar one, that the Hebrew folks at that time were what most other people were at that time, ignorant schlubs.

I'm sorry if I'm either getting or giving the wrong impression here.

neologist wrote:

bellsybop wrote:

I think the bible came from a bunch of mind controlling Catholics. . .

Yet Catholics almost never read it. Hmmm.

That was pretty snotty . . . less us rather say that Catholics, like most religious sheep, take at face value what is preached at them. There is, of course, no way of knowing whether there is a similar proportion of Catholics who obsess over scripture as there are among Protestants and cult followers. But there is no good basis for your claim other than your desire to hold Catholics in contempt.

neologist wrote:

bellsybop wrote:

I think the bible came from a bunch of mind controlling Catholics. . .

Yet Catholics almost never read it. Hmmm.

That was pretty snotty . . . less us rather say that Catholics, like most religious sheep, take at face value what is preached at them. There is, of course, no way of knowing whether there is a similar proportion of Catholics who obsess over scripture as there are among Protestants and cult followers. But there is no good basis for your claim other than your desire to hold Catholics in contempt.

By the way, Neo has told us that he was raised Catholic before turning atheist (or agnostic, i disremember which--and we only have his word for that), until he eventually found the guiding light of Charles T. Russell.

I suspect he gets a little frisson of guilty pleasure from bad-mouthing the Catholics.