Have a good night. When you wake look up the flat earth as theorised by the ancients. It's a dome over a flat earth. The dome contains the sun and the stars. So it will always be sunlight. Some ancients have the disc supported by pillars under the earth disc. And one day in the future (billions of years from now) the sun will go nova and the earth and planets will be no more.
You're wrong. None of the creation myths had anything to do with science. ALL were religious in nature.
Yes, I agree it is idiotic to believe that the Bible is infallible. As you obviously don't. Nowhere does that Bible say that the earth is not flat. Circles are flat. The earth is not a circle. Nor the sky a "tent" over a flat circle of the earth. Science never claimed the earth was flat. Ever. Wherever you are getting that from, I encourage you to seek out a more intellectually honest source. The Greeks used science to demonstrate that the earth was round. It was the Christians who later fought against this concept and fought against heliocentrism based on their religious belief. Science never claimed this. The OT says the earth is flat. Either having four pillars/corners or a flat circle. Science never claimed the earth was flat. I've done the research. I encourage you to do the same. It hangs on gravitational fields, but close enough. Circles, which is how the Bible sometimes describes the earth, are round and FLAT. The earth is not flat. It is not a circle. The Bible also says that the earth does not move. And that the moon is a source of light. And that there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. And that man existed before all other animals. And that day and night existed before the earth, whereas we now know that day and night come from the rotation of the earth. The Bible is full of scientific falsehoods. And I think you are cherry picking the Bible in order to force your conclusion while also completely misrepresenting science.
Well, tools are not science. Science is a process. In ancient times, there wasn't a notion similar to modern scientific process. We make tools to improve our ability to gather evidence. But, science has to do with what is done with that evidence. The reasons for the ancients to suggest the shape of the world or that turtles were involved, etc., etc. vary. But, claiming any of those results prove something about religion or the process of modern science are pretty much bunk.
lol. I just wish private drones were more under control. Today, it's almost impossible to catch the morons who drive those things even around our major airports! And, for private pilots they are essentially invisible and plenty large enough to cause fatalities - even if jets could live after ingesting one. Would they penetrate the windscreen of a passenger plane? I don't know.
Yeah since back then there wasn't much to use so as I said it was more popular belief based on observation rather than what we call science now. But back then that was science. So ancient times in any regard are not the best sources to use since it was all speculation and not even recorded well. Today we have technology and so on to make theories rather than speculations of how something exists. So we don't disagree here
Wait. Why are we talking about a flat earth? I thought we were talking about an earth that's round or spherical or a circle? And yeah I know the flat look. I showed a video to another poster since we were talking about it and stuff. But yeah we don't need to talk about why earth isn't flat. I never thought it was. I'm surprised some celebrities believe that though. Did you hear of that? NASA even showed the picture to some and they're like faked. I don't understand...such should just get a flight to space I think lol Nova, yes, ok. I don't disagree. Well, to an extent. Time to get more deeper into the discussion, I see. If you continue reading the bible means that it will forever float like that on nothing (gravity isn't actually underneath it so it is on nothing because gravity just holds it in place rather than holding it up on like a plate that it can fall off so it is still on nothing so to speak as well as the fact it's an invisible force giving it a free float on nothing) and forever as in like humans can't do anything about it being like that. So it will remain that way until something happens as the bible said that's beyond our powers or control. Bible just says earth will be destroyed. So yes, until then nothing will ever move it from the foundation of the gravity. So I still don't disagree with you. What I do disagree on or rather am speculative because I didn't care too much to investigate further since what happens to earth when it's destroyed doesn't really interest me so if there's more info in the bible I just didn't dig into the meaning too much. I was like it will be destroyed? Ok cool. Lol. The details I didn't care too much to read into. So if you want to say nova then ok. I'm not necessarily disagreeeing nor agreeing. I know it will be destroyed one day as the bible says but the actual process I didn't study too much. I might but have no interest for it currently. So still over all agreeing with you
Nothing can be infallible until the God of the bible or God in general is proven to not exist for 100%. If this will happen we can both agree or disagree on this once and for all but until then the world will forever be divided. So it's like the saying never say never because we don't know anything for 100%. Do you know the saying "it's raining cats and dogs"?. Does that mean it's literally raining cats or dogs? No. It's just to say that it is raining hard. When it says the sky covered earth like a tent don't picture a real tent as we don't picture cats and dogs. That just means the earth has the sky around it. And a ball is round and is a circle. When we look at the sun or moon we see a circle or something round. Same with earth. You're reading it as if it's really raining cats and dogs. Think at the actual meaning of it instead. I had this discussion with another member here. You're literally reading something as if it's raining cats and dogs and not looking at the meaning. Languages have imagery and similes and metaphores and idiomes and so on. Please keep that in mind. As the other member and I were saying back then science wasn't science as we know it today. They simply didn't have the equipment needed so they were limited and couldn't prove everything too well. People had been divided in the ancient times and some said earth was flat and others said it wasn't and most popular belief was that it was flat. So that was the knowledge of the majority. Whether science people or not. Then the greeks did speculate that it wasn't round. So as I liked a source to another member some guy finally changed the belief that earth wasn't flat with proof. So before him the popular belief was flat and after him popular belief is not flat. Yet, oddly people are still two sided on the issue. Hmm. It's still not literally raining cats and dogs! And my research was correct. Science then and science now isn't the same either. Ok let's break down the meaning to simple terms. 4 pillars of earth. If you read further the bible explains what that means. It doesn't mean corners but 4 rather DIRECTIONS which are in their corners still. In revelations 4 angels were put at thw 4 corners of the earth to control the wind. The wind if you know science is going north, south, east, or west. Or a mixture like southwest. Anyway, if it says they're put on 4 corners of the earth you're picturing a square or a rectangle but that's not north, south, east, or west. They are positioned more like a rhombus or a diamond to match the north, south, east, and west corners or directions. Which the earth does have. 4 corners doesn't always mean what you think. Those are wind directions on a spherical or round or circle surface. Saying it rains cats and dogs is close enough for a storm too. I already covered this. Read outside the box. There isn't a real box but yeah you get it... Earth doesn't move verse please? So we can decipher the meaning. Or doesn't move from it's foundation on gravity? Moon is a source of light. Well, moon still has neon. Neon=light. Men were created first verse? Eve was after both Adam and animals. I'm agreeing with science. I like science. I am saying you are misreading the bible. The bible and science both say the same thing. Bible just says not many people cant interpret what it is trying to say.
No such thing as up or down in space. So we don't actually 'hang' on anything. And interplanetry space, or the space between the planets, is not empty but is filled with the solar wind, and the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF), as well as cosmic rays, and dust.The Bible doesn't say the earth will go nova - that's science. All your posts show that you are thinking like a 20th century being. What people thought and believed 2600 years ago without the knowledge we have is different. And studying the Bible without that knowledge is pointless. Many of the things in the Bible are simply stories, impossibilities, or exaggerations. Study of ancient history proves this.
Well, the ancients would have been better off using scientific method of today. That would not have given them more data, but tools and data aren't the heart. The heart is in the methodology - how conclusions are drawn from that information. Today it is still important to apply science in areas where fancy tools aren't available or necessary. Homeopathy is one easy example.
And here we come to the inherent intellectual dishonesty of this kind of Biblical hermeneutics: it is an exercise in nothing more than ex post facto excuses. It predicts nothing. It simply looks at the facts and, in blatant hindsight, declares anything that in the Bible that disagrees with reality to be symbolic and anything that agrees with it to be literal. Hence, it is entirely useless and exists only to provide excuses for believers. The same can sort of backward thinking can be used to "prove" any book is "scientific" no matter how full of superstition and falsehood it is.
I'm happy to hear that you see the bible as not being intolerably different from current understanding of the universe. Not everyone agrees with you. But, the issue goes beyond agreeing with what science has discovered. It has to do with believing that the way to investigate how the universe works is through scientific method, recognizing that comparing results to the bible is not part of that. It's the method that is the big deal.
Earth hangs in the air on nothing as I have been saying the whole time and quoted the verse. Some call it float not hang. Word usage isn't a big deal as long as the meaning is the same. I never said bible mentioned a nova. I never cared about deciphering the meaning of the verses on this so if it says nova in its own way I don't know. All I said is the bible said earth will be destroyed. I didn't claim how. I said nothing incorrectly.
I don't really look to compare too much. I just point out that science and bible do agree and that I'm not against science at all. Nor do I force people to believe anything. Force isn't the method to use anyway. People will reach their own conclusions despite anything else just how its always been.
All good literature uses things like similes and metaphors and imagery and whatnot. This is actually how a good book is written and shows how knowledgeable the writer is. The person who can't decipher what is meant is not meant to read it or needs to spend more time figuring out things. Idioms still get to me! But I have been getting better at figuring them out. It's like a fun puzzle. So, just because your science book said it can rain like cats and dogs then it's ok for the bible to say it too. We even talk like that let alone write. Requiring the bible to take a different format isn't really fair. The writer is in charge to portray the story however the writer chooses too.
You found a science book that uses the "cats and dogs" expression??? That is seriously weird. I hope that was a children's story book.
Well, if you consider "all the pieces that are grossly incompatible with reality" - meaning, they have not been cited here simply because there are no scientific confirmation or scientific support.....of course, it will be like numerology to you! That will be like a homicide detective, considering anything and everything that isn't even evidence - wouldn't he end up botching it up? Of course. For an explanation on that, refer to this site. Here's the intro.: https://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html
Here's a recap so far of verses that are supported or proven by science: Page 1: The Beginning Earth was covered with water (Genesis 1:2) Light from the sun (Genesis 1:3) One huge ocean, one supercontinent (Genesis 1: 9-10) Origin of life and one-celled organisms in water (Genesis 1: 20-21) From fins.....to wings? (Genesis 1:20-21) Genders and asexual creatures (Genesis 1: 24-27) Page 3: The Human body (Genesis 2: 7) The Snake (Genesis 3:14) Page 5: Man's dominion (Genesis 3) Page 7: Atoms Stretching space, stretching universe Page 8: Paths of The Seas (Maury) Page 9: The earth is round Page 10: The earth hangs on nothing
I don't think you understand English. I put the word 'hang' in inverted comma's> The earth does not 'hang'. It is held in place by gravity. It doesn't float on nothing. And 'float' and 'hang' have different meanings. So do 'circle' and 'sphere'.
No, I mean completely incompatible. The earth is not flat, it doesn't have a dome, pi is not equal to 3, you can't change the color of your children by looking at something of that color, you can't fit two of every species on an ark, you can't found a population with two animals, the moon is not a light, earth and universe must be more than 6,000 years old etc... The problem with this and everything you are trying to say here is that the bible doesn't really say any of that. At best, it's wild speculation based on current cultural bias. The bible does talk about god 'walking' and 'seeing', 'smelling' etc. So at the very best, the notion of a god that actually has hands is an equally valid interpretation. All of these things have many many different interpretations (which already should mean that this stuff isn't divinely inspired). However, there is one obvious interpretation, and many many other possible interpretations. For example 20 most obviously means: "god snapped his fingers and put fish in the ocean." If we had never found single celled organisms, it would still sound like that. Other than the fact there are a lot of critters in the sea, this contains absolutely no information, but, in a desperate stretch, you are trying to somehow connect it to a prediction of evolution or single celled organisms. Again, numerology. Interpretations of nostradamus are actually much more convincing.
Why so? We look at the moon and say it's round or a circle, we look at the sun and say the same, but the bible can't do that? Isn't that not fair? I mean we talk like that in life so why couldn't the person who wrote it talk like that too? We gotta be fair.
If you are sitting in a rocket ship..and you see a round earth and it is simply hanging there on nothing or floating on nothing. Because we see NOTHING. Which is why bible says it's nothing seen. But bible also says it's on a foundation that gives it that nothing look. The foundation is gravity. I thought I already said this though with verses. Hmm...
