Bible vs. Science

Neo,

I was reading in another thread (I think it was another one) where I believe Chumly (might not be right) had posted something about the verse you quoted. I can't remember where it was. But it seemed that it is at least not clear to Chumly about the Bible following the world is round concept.

neologist wrote:

Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth . . ."

Can you think of any vantage point whereby one can envision all the kingdoms of the world? I can. The point to remember here is that Satan could not have offered these things if they were not under his control. Jesus didn't deny that they were. Instead he told Satan that it was God to whom worship should be directed (not himself as the trinitarians would have us believe)

A circle is a two dimensional figure, one that would be used to describe the appearance of the horizon as viewed from a mountain top by someone thinking the earth was flat. It in no way describes the spherical earth.

neologist wrote:

Sorry, Frank. It works for Joe Sixpack. You know. The bible wasn't written to impress Mensa members such as you and pauli.

C'mon Neo, give Joe a little more credit than that. The Bible was written for and by people that thought the earth was flat. Actually the reason for using the terminology of a circle is easy to understand. If you go to a high point and look around, the horizon will appear to inscribe a circle on an apparent flat earth.

The problem lies in the perception of flat circles vs. round circles, I think.

A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.

A flat or level surface.

OK, easy ones first. The bible doesn't say the earth is flat. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22)

The bible doesn't support the idea of the geocentric universe. Galileo risked his behind to establish that.

What exactly were you about to say about stars?

While you are certainly entitled to disbelieve the idea of resurrection, what would you expect to see if one were brought back to life?

1. Having a horizontal surface without a slope, tilt, or curvature.
2. Having a smooth, even, level surface: a skirt sewed with fine flat seams.
3. Having a relatively broad surface in relation to thickness or depth: a flat board. See synonyms at level.
4. Stretched out or lying at full length along the ground; prone.
5. Free of qualification; absolute: a flat refusal.
6. Fixed; unvarying: a flat rate.
7. Lacking interest or excitement; dull: a flat scenario.
8.
1. Lacking in flavor: a flat stew that needs salt.
2. Having lost effervescence or sparkle: flat beer.
9.
1. Deflated. Used of a tire.
2. Electrically discharged. Used of a storage battery.
10. Of or relating to a horizontal line that displays no ups or downs and signifies the absence of physiological activity: A flat electroencephalogram indicates a loss of brain function.
11. Commercially inactive; sluggish: flat sales for the month.
12. Unmodulated; monotonous: a flat voice.
13. Lacking variety in tint or shading; uniform: "The sky was bright but flat, the color of oyster shells" (Anne Tyler).
14. Not glossy; mat: flat paint.
15. Music.
1. Being below the correct pitch.
2. Being one half step lower than the corresponding natural key: the key of B flat.
16. Designating the vowel a as pronounced in bad or cat.
17. Nautical. Taut. Used of a sail.

Perhaps Setanta, but in the days of the Bible we all know there weren't many of the words we have today so they had to use what they actually knew.

So, in all actuality, the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat or is a sphere. It just says it is circular.

Given that getting anything like an admission of truth from a religionist has the characteristics of pulling teeth without anaesthetic, i'll settle for an acknowledgement that Isaiah 40:22 just says circle, and not sphere.

Momma wrote:

Perhaps Setanta, but in the days of the Bible we all know there weren't many of the words we have today so they had to use what they actually knew.

So, in all actuality, the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat or is a sphere. It just says it is circular.

That's wrong Mamma. They did have a word for a ball. They did know the difference between a two dimensional circle and a three dimensional sphere. And they had words for both.

circle=chuwg

ball=duwr

SOURCE

I find it hilarious that religionists go to such absolutely preposterous lengths to try and demonstrate that their specific interpretation, of their idiosyncratic version, of some vague contradictory religious mythologies, must be correct by default.

All this without one shred of evidence to support their theological idealizations.

It gets even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show a circle is a sphere.

It gets even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show that their ignorant biblical heroes understood the earth was round.

It get even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show their ignorant biblical heroes understood the Solar System's basic configuration.

It get even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show their ignorant biblical heroes understood the Cosmos' basic configuration.

Neo wrote:

OK, easy ones first. The bible doesn't say the earth is flat. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22)

The circle of the earth is the dome of heaven. It is a dome that covers the flat earth. From that dome God walks to and fro looking at all humanity and seeing them as little grasshoppers.

Neo wrote:

The bible doesn't support the idea of the geocentric universe. Galileo risked his behind to establish that.

You haven't read your Bible, have you? Bad, bad boy.

Neo wrote:

What exactly were you about to say about stars?

They are tiny little things that will fall out of the sky when the end comes. Remember the dome. They saw the sky as a solid dome covering the flat earth. Why would they think any different? They didn't have rockets that traveled into space. No telescopes. No knowledge of science as we have today.

Neo wrote:

While you are certainly entitled to disbelieve the idea of resurrection, what would you expect to see if one were brought back to life?

Good question. Let us say John Wilkes Booth were bought back to life. At what age would he come as. He is buried in Baltimore in some highly acidic soil. It is assumed there is not much left of him. Where will all the atoms that made up his body come from?

Given that getting anything like an admission of truth from a religionist has the characteristics of pulling teeth without anaesthetic, i'll settle for an acknowledgement that Isaiah 40:22 just says circle, and not sphere.

Chumly wrote:

I find it hilarious that religionists go to such absolutely preposterous lengths to try and demonstrate that their specific interpretation, of their idiosyncratic version, of some vague contradictory religious mythologies, must be correct by default.

All this without one shred of evidence to support their theological idealizations.

It gets even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show a circle is a sphere.

It gets even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show that their ignorant biblical heroes understood the earth was round.

It get even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show their ignorant biblical heroes understood the Solar System's basic configuration.

It get even funnier when their superstitious arguments pivot on trying to show their ignorant biblical heroes understood the Cosmos' basic configuration.

Well then - you should thank them, for being such a good source of amusement for you.

It's funny to me the lengths some people will go in opposition to the "religionists".

There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle.

1754. duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape.