An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[DoomYoshi]

It was not "common knowledge" as there many who still believed the Earth flat, although the idea of a sphere is dated to around 540 BC.


However, there is no evidence that the Bible is referring to an equator, and in fact quite a bit of evidence that the Bible just refers to things in general, flat terms:

…take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

A sphere has no edges. Why would the author of Job have spoken of “edges” of the earth if he had known the earth was spherical? Isn’t it more probable that the author imagined grabbing the edges a flat earth, rather than grabbing the ball of the earth by “edges” that aren’t there? Also, consider that the same author had this to say about the formation of our planet:

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal. (Job 38:14)

When stamped with a seal, clay is flattened—not rounded. If the Job author had known the earth was round, why compare it to clay seals, which are pressed flat? With this comparison coming so soon after his referral to the “edges” of the earth, it seems unlikely that both could be flukes.

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; (Mat 4:8)”

In this passage, Jesus is able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. On a spherical earth, this would not be possible.

It should also be noted that there are many biblical verses that claim that the earth has “ends” (impossible for a spherical shape)

[DoomYoshi]

Also, if there was no word for sphere, why couldn't the Hebrews have invented one? Many words appear in the Bible for the first time, so clearly invention was not beyond them.

[crispybits]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9 ... eider.html

Pretty solid and detailed reasons why you're still talking crap when you should be eating it there viceroy.

[comic boy]

Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

When you provide me with a 3,500 year old Hebrew word for "Sphere!"

You know what CB, You sure do talk a lot of shit yourself. I am wondering if you practice eating shit, the way that you have mention it so many times already? Does that turn you on? You probably even have your own videos of yourself documenting the act; Don't Ya?

But that's besides the point. If there is no ancient Hebrew word for Sphere, then just what the hell are the ancients suppose to say to describe the earth?

But they do have several words for Flat! so if they in any ways thought that the earth was flat and circular like a pancake, then why did they not say so?

Try answering the question if you can rather than talking all that "shit!"

Oh Dear
You appear to be getting rattled , are you finally realising what nonsense you have swallowed , are you starting to feel like a bit of a dupe , you should

[tzor]

Which only proves my point that the word Circle in Isaiah 40:22 is talking about an equatorial line around the earth. Because the earth is not being compared to anything. The Circle of the earth is the Equator of the earth. Then the question becomes, How did these ancient people know that there was an Equator? Unless this was revealed and common knowledge among them.

The Circle of the Earth is the Horizon. Not the equator. It has nothing to do with the equator. It's bad enough you know shit about science, but knowing shit about the Word of God is unbelievable.

[Viceroy63]

There is a word for ball. (Isaiah 22:18)

I looked into this word, "Ball" and it is Strong's word H1754, "Duwr" Pronounced Dure. It is also used to represent a Circle or simply another word for "Circle." Only with a slight variation because the word in Isaiah 40:22 is referring to the equatorial line of the earth. Isaiah could have simply said "He who sitteth upon the earth and just left it at that. But instead he was being descriptive about the earth and thus showing the knowledge that they had about the earth.

We need to remember that the Bible is a simple book for simple people who simply had advance understanding of the universe around them. How else would they have known at the time, that the earth hung on nothing in empty space when all the world believed that the world was stood upon something.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.'
-Job 26:7

[Neoteny]

The one thing God is incapable of doing is reliably explaining his creation to some uppity apes?

Sounds legit.

[tzor]

The one thing God is incapable of doing is reliably explaining his creation to some uppity apes?

Well sure, just not in the way Viceroy insists on.

Consider this; what is the first event in the first creation story (and yes there are two) in Genesis?

Why the "Big Bang" of course.

[Neoteny]

Maybe so. But, like you say, it wasn't intended to be admissible as an accurate explanation of an actual historical and physical phenomenon. Assuming it was divinely inspired, it's much safer to assume it's an artistic or intended with multiple meanings or whatever. And the matter of intent is an important one. Trying to find modern knowledge in a text without that goal atrociously misled.

But, I personally feel that the idea of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator god to much more mind blowing than a spherical earth or common descent. I don't understand how anyone can say that these people were too dirty and brown to understand the highfalootin' science of geometry, but were quick to grasp the nature of a deity.

[AAFitz]

We need to remember that the Bible is a simple book for simple people...

Thats what weve been trying to tell you all along....

[Viceroy63]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by that last comment but the Hebrews were a slave nation. So while Egypt and other nations around had a good understanding of math as they had to in order to build the pyramids, Yet a slave nation did not have to be taught such things. If anything they were kept intentionally in the dark of the sciences and math.

But to a slave nation, their stories of old were passed on from father to son as the only valuable resource that they had and their faith in a promise that they went into slavery by the will of God but that after 400 years of servitude and bondage, that their God would free them.

When a person has nothing left in his life, a promise of a life and a future can be even more powerful than armies and even more valuable then Gold!

But what ever they learned, they certainly did not learn from the nations around them or from Egypt as they are conflicting points of views.

[jonesthecurl]

I would have thought that if these words were saved up orally for some while, then later written down, that this might cast some doubt (even for you) on various "fulfilled prophecies". According to you, at what point were the various parts of the Bible written down?

For instance, the biblical creation account: was this written down after the flood ? and if so, did it have to be remembered exactly by somebody aboard the ark, or was it actually dictated by God later than that? If the former, then was each person in the chain divinely inspired with a perfect memory? If the latter, then what did Noah know of the word of God if he didn't have things like, well, any of the bible, to guide him?

[AAFitz]

I would have thought that if these words were saved up orally for some while, then later written down, that this might cast some doubt (even for you) on various "fulfilled prophecies". According to you, at what point were the various parts of the Bible written down?

to go further, I think this part

their stories of old were passed on from father to son

explains fully, why the bible can not be considered evidence of anything but unreliable fiction..

Or was God there helping each father, insure all the facts were not misunderstood along the way?

If the story was passed even once, it loses almost all credibility, and that can be proven scientifically, and has.

[PLAYER57832]

If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water. Say if Dinosaur Blood were found inside of a fossilized bone? How could you then say it was millions of years old and still be fresh?

Why would you believe this to be true?

If there is evidence that proves that Dinosaurs have lived along side of us and perhaps still are would you be willing to examine it?

If ALL dinosaurs lived alongside humans... perhaps. However, that did not happen. Finding a few dinosaurs, which is what your evidence would show if true.. would just be a biological anomoly, a fantastic find, much like finding out that the Ceolocanth lives, though it was long thought all representatives of that group (not just the species, the whole group) died off long ago. It would provide wonderful opportunities and likely, much as the Coelocanth and studies of other primitive species have done, give us insights into how evolution likely happened.

In no way, shape or form would it "disprove" evolution. I have no idea why you even think it might.... except that you have been taught a LOT of misinformation, so why not believe that as well...

[PLAYER57832]

T
God will be just as God is just.

It is us who have the responsibility to look into a matter an search out the truth. It is our choice!

Yes, so why do you insist on believing lies and denying any and all challenges without even a modicum of verification on your part. The fact that someone claims he has God behind his lies doesn't turn them pure.. it turns him into a deciever.

You don't even really understand evolution.. you think you do becuase you insist on "learning evolution" from sites opposed to the idea, sites that insist that its a God versus evolutionary theory deal. It would be nice if you even just read through the truth before denying it.

The truth...

Evolutionary theory says that species change over time, beginning with very small changes, which we can see all around us, and culminating with changes that result in seperation of species and eventually Genus, Family, Order... etc.. HOWEVER, that order is not exact across species.. that is, some groups have changed a great deal, presenting a plethora of different species in a "relative" (thousands of years instead of millions, for example) short period of time, others have taken longer. Some species from various groups persist to this day, unchanged, such as the horseshoe crab and Ceolocanth. Others groups persist, but the actual species that exists today may have evolved some from what was seen millions of years ago... sharks, alligators are likely examples of that.

There is nothing at all about God in that, whether he did or did not do it, because the proof of God is outside of science. Whether God made those changes or not is relavent for religion, but not science. Science stays moot on that.. though you find atheists who like to claim that the evidence is clear that there is no God... while many Christians and other theists see evidence of God in the science. Either way, making that final claim goes beyond science and into faith.

The truth... there are layers in the Earth, dated by various methods (Carbon dating is restricted to essentially modern times, contrary to what you have been taught.. it is not used to "date fossils" Carbon dating is used for existing carbon, not fossilized remains). Other dating methods, more accurate are used for various other substances.


Finally, your ideas actually leave more Biblical holes than they solve.. for example, if dinosaurs did, as you assert live right beside humans, then why are they so notably absent from the relatively complete listing of species kjnown to the ancient Jews? (and no, the reference to "behemouth" is too vague and does not really and truly match any description of dinosaurs). Second, why is there no evidence of these huge creatures alongside biblical archeological evidence? We can see remains of whoolly mamouths and many other relatively modern species, why not dinosaurs if they were here then? All we have of dinosaurs are very fossilized remains long buried.

Also, how do you explain the very distinct stratification seen in geological formation (yes, this is true...). Oh, and simply saying "no, that is not true" is a cop out. I have seen the evidence of which I speak. It is not fabricated, but I do challenge you to find real and true evidence that you think exists showing it is faked.