The lunatics have taken over

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The Bible is written in Greek (and Hebrew). Since it was the Greeks who argued the Earth was a sphere and NOT a circle, they of course knew the difference. That section was written in Hebrew, who also knew the difference since they were humans with a human brain.

Here's page on the meaning of the words in Hebrew from a Christian theology website (hint, it unequivocally means a flat circle):

https://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

You're right. Here's the link I read before making my earlier post (https://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html). I was wrong when I mentioned Latin, the website claims that the Hebrew word for circle and sphere (and round) are the same. I still doubt that's true.

 

[Siro]

You're right. Here's the link I read before making my earlier post (https://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html). I was wrong when I mentioned Latin, the website claims that the Hebrew word for circle and sphere (and round) are the same. I still doubt that's true.

Yep, read the link I gave you. The Bible is clear about the Earth being a circle covered by the dome of Heaven. A dome, incidentally, is a semi-spherical object.

Edit: It is important to note that the site is written by Christians who aren't nitwit literalists.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The article linked to below does an excellent job of demonstrating that the Hebrew word used in the bible to describe the shape of the earth was not referring to a sphere. It was referring to a flat circle like a coin. Furthermore, as I had suspected, the Hebrew words for circle and sphere are not the same.

https://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/2014/08/does-hebrew-word-chuwg-mean-flat-circle.html

Sorry CJ, you lose again.

 

[Stoked]

You're completely missing the point. I have zero interest in engaging with people who will reinterpret things any way they want because they already believe it on faith. So what anyone thinks the Bible REALLY means is no concern of mine.

What is important is that some people taught the Earth was a circle, while others said a sphere (the Greeks thought it was a sphere 2600 years ago). Which one is WRITTEN in the Bible? The circle. So CJ's argument is already disproven since he said that it's about what is actually written, and not what is interpreted.

If this is all you got from my post I did a spectacular job at failing to get my point across.

I am not coming in on CJs side at all. I am saying Howard has a point, as do you. You are right that circle is written. No contest.

Howard is right that the bible may he meant that in the spherical sense.

I am just saying your hard stance is as equally uncharitable and Joe's might be charitable. From what I understand, you take the bible saying circle as uncontestable proof that it meant a flat circle. I think it is possible that it meant it the other way. All I am saying.

Carry on.

 

[Stoked]

The article linked to below does an excellent job of demonstrating that the Hebrew word used in the bible to describe the shape of the earth was not referring to a sphere. It was referring to a flat circle like a coin. Furthermore, as I had suspected, the Hebrew words for circle and sphere are not the same.

https://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/2014/08/does-hebrew-word-chuwg-mean-flat-circle.html

Sorry CJ, you lose again.

Well this is sure hard to argue and supports Siro as well.

 

[Siro]

If this is all you got from my post I did a spectacular job at failing to get my point across.

I am not coming in on CJs side at all. I am saying Howard has a point, as do you. You are right that circle is written. No contest.

Howard is right that the bible may he meant that in the spherical sense.

I am just saying your hard stance is as equally uncharitable and Joe's might be charitable. From what I understand, you take the bible saying circle as uncontestable proof that it meant a flat circle. I think it is possible that it meant it the other way. All I am saying.

Carry on.

There is nothing uncharitable about saying the word circle means circle unless you interpret it to mean something else. It is a simple fact. Again, I don't care much about Christian apologetics. Howard is free to think that a circle actually means a sphere. I couldn't care less. This whole response is about CJ's idiotic idea that the Bible is correct to the letter, without any need for interpretation.

 

[carolinajazz]

I think you're being generous. A circle requires no interpretation. It is flat. So it is the OPPOSITE of what CJ is saying. What the Bible actually SAYS, is that the Earth is flat. The reinterpretation makes it into a sphere. It is NOT what is ACTUALLY says. This is specially the case since many people thought the Earth was a flat circle. They could see that all other objects in the sky are circular.

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! Never in my wildest dreams did I think that you college pseudo-intellectuals would take issue with the statement in the Bible that the earth being a "circle" could be interpreted as being a "flat" sphere!?!? But at least Siro correctly made the observation.... that all humans would have made....that it wasn't "flat" by looking at the Moon and Sun! But I understand what I'm up against! Those who attend college are completely and totally brain washed into questioning EVERYTHING and not believing in ABSOLUTE "truths!" 2+2 is not "necessarily" 4....nor is a glass of water actually a glass of water, and looking out at the Moon and Sun your seeing a "flat" pancake circle!

 

[carolinajazz]

This whole response is about CJ's idiotic idea that the Bible is correct to the letter, without any need for interpretation.

...the Bible is correct to the letter but that doesn't mean some verses don't need to be "interpreted" by using OTHER verses to give clarification! Illustrations to follow!

 

[Red]

Red, you make some excellent points! But here again, there is confusion as to what the churches of Christendom teach and what the Bible actually says! Historically, Christendom has claimed to believe in the Bible and to be its guardian. But the religious organizations of Christendom have been associated with some of the most appalling horrors of history, from the Crusades and pogroms of the Middle Ages to the Holocaust of our own time. The truth is, Christendom has proved to be a false friend of the Bible.

The purity of Bible truth was corrupted by Greek philosophy, as early as the end of the 1st Century, and many mistakenly came to accept pagan doctrines as Bible truth. In the fourth century, the Roman emperor Constantine adopted “Christianity” as the official religion of the Roman Empire. But the “Christianity” he knew was very different from the religion preached by Jesus.

It was in Constantine’s time that Christendom as we know it today began to take shape. From then on, the degenerate form of Christianity that had taken root was no longer just a religious organization. It was a part of the state, and its leaders played an important role in politics. Eventually, the apostate church used its political power in a way that was completely opposed to Bible Christianity, introducing another dangerous threat to the Bible.

When Latin died out as an everyday tongue, new translations of the Bible were needed. But the Catholic Church no longer favored this. In 1079 Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked the permission of Pope Gregory*VII to translate the Bible into the language of his subjects. The pope’s answer was no! The pope wanted the Bible to be kept in the now-dead tongue of Latin. Its contents were to be kept “secret,” not translated into the languages of the common people. These religious authorities were not trying to destroy the Bible. They were trying to fossilize it, (somebody on this board has used that term likewise! It wasn't you, was it?) keep it in a language that only a few could read. In this way, they hoped to prevent what they called heresy but what really amounted to challenges to their authority.

A couple of observations. Howard is probably right when he says "this thread sucks". And likely my own fault for restarting it up again. And as well, "blowing you out of the water" was irrelevant. All I was actually attempting to do was demonstrate that your snap dismissal of yoga left a great deal to be desired. Since I assumed you were Christian, I chose a Medieval Christian mystic whom I felt illustrated the commonalities of East and West where spiritual practices are concerned. And yoga is one such practice. It is not a religion, and one does not have to even touch any of the philosophical underpinnings to enjoy the physical benefits of yoga. Most westerners are really not going beyond that, in fact. But my experience has taught me that there are these "inner schools" as it were, present in all our major faiths. And they exist to allow individuals compelled to a life of seeking, to facilitate that life. I thought it silly of you, to paraphrase, "Sorcery! So there you have it!" I mean, really, we can do better then that. And so I made that effort.....

 

[Red]

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! Never in my wildest dreams did I think that you college pseudo-intellectuals would take issue with the statement in the Bible that the earth being a "circle" could be interpreted as being a "flat" sphere!?!? But at least Siro correctly made the observation.... that all humans would have made....that it wasn't "flat" by looking at the Moon and Sun! But I understand what I'm up against! Those who attend college are completely and totally brain washed into questioning EVERYTHING and not believing in ABSOLUTE "truths!" 2+2 is not "necessarily" 4....nor is a glass of water actually a glass of water, and looking out at the Moon and Sun your seeing a "flat" pancake circle!

Well, this is clearly part of the problem. I appreciate the professors I had, one in particular, who helped me hone the discriminating faculty of my intellect. Forever grateful. It has served me in good stead my entire life. I was not brainwashed at all. I was shown how to discriminate, how to reason, how to know when an argument was logical, or was not. Learning how to use one's intelligence, one's God given abilities if you prefer, is a wonderful thing. Now you treat the Bible as "Absolute truth". Well, that has been obvious from the start. And it's part of the reason I used the word "fossilized" to describe such a faith. I will not judge it; it is your business and your right to believe whatever you so desire. But a faith that simply says "I can judge everything by how it conforms or does not conform to the absolute truth contained in the Bible" leads to close mindedness. It also pretty much precludes any spiritual questing, as it were, that does not reflect Biblical "truth". Such a point of view, maybe I could call it "Biblical Ideology", stifles any effort at spiritual understanding that somehow does not began and end with the Bible. For me, these fundamentalists versions of the Christian faith are mere husks of the faith. To me, they seem like a dead faith, a fossilized faith.

I personally have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Bible is the inviolable word of God. It was written by human beings. The Old Testament reveals an angry and sometimes wrathful personal god that, as far as I am concerned, never existed at all. So you can see how very far apart we must be.

I just would not blame all this on college education. If there is a God, and he gave me a damn good mind, and my wonderful professors helped me hone the discriminating power of the mind, so important when it comes to judging ideas, etc., then I am going to use it. And certainly not see it as a deterrent to,learning and understanding. Many would certainly point out that it is clearly yourself who is brainwashed.

 

[Red]

Something else that may be relevant to point out here. carolinajazz has expressed an anti intellectual bias. It may be illustrative to realize Americans have always been, in general, anti intellectual. Europe has no such problem. The intellectual class is not looked down upon. American historian Daniel Boorstin delved into this long ago. The frontier experience required no intellectuals. Simply put, a professor of philosophy, for instance, would be bringing no useful skills to bear surviving the frontier experience. We developed as a frontier society, requiring practical people with practical skills. And so, at least according to Boorstin, this practical component of our "national character" ensured they many Americans would exhibit an anti-intellectual bias. Might be simplistic, but the ivory tower only arrived once the frontier was tamed in the settlement areas. Of course, many of our institutions of higher learning do in fact date from a very early period in our history. Harvard was established in 1636, very early. So it isn't really to say the world of the intellect was ignored. But America was a succession of frontiers, and the frontier requires practical skills, not people who can quote Aristotle.

Today, that bias is directed against "liberal academia". And, in fact, this very thread reveals you can overthink things to the point of abject absurdity. To the point where the lunatics take over. But, in general, probably in no other modern Western nation does the so-called "intellectual class" experience such extreme derision, as it does here in the United States.

I can experience this derision on cue. All I have to do is say to my wife "I consider myself a member of the intellegencia." Absolutely infuriates her to hear that. Why? Because, like so many Americans, she translates this, quite incorrectly, as saying "I am better then you. I am smarter then you." Nope. It simply denotes individuals whose life revolves around the mind, and the world of ideas. It does not inherently imply superiority at all. No way! Yet, it is often so interpreted, because Americans do not like the intellegencia. Never have, likely never will. In general, you don't get that attitude among Europeans. And, according to historian Boorstin, this bias can be traced back to our development as a series of frontier experiences.

 

[carolinajazz]

...the Bible is correct to the letter but that doesn't mean some verses don't need to be "interpreted" by using OTHER verses to give clarification! Illustrations to follow!

Ok,lets talk/discuss "interpretation!" ONE definition of the word “interpret” is “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) Thus, one’s interpretation of anything is usually influenced by one’s background, education, and upbringing. What, though, about Bible interpretation? Are we free to explain Bible passages according to our own “belief, judgment, or circumstance”? Naturally, most Bible scholars and translators claim that they do not do so but that they are guided by God.

Although the Bible has only one Author......it does have many writers. These some 40 Bible writers never contradict one another, yet no one Bible writer says all there is to say about any particular subject. So to understand what the Author of the Bible says about a subject, it is necessary to gather together all the scriptures germane to the subject under discussion. Thus, skipping around in the Bible, picking out scriptures is not actually a proof that a person is trying to interpret it to fit his own ideas!

So using verses either from the Greek or the Hebrew Scriptures is right and proper...and generally should be taken literally except where the expressions or settings obviously indicate that they are figurative or symbolic. ("wild beast out of the sea...with 10 heads and 10 horns" Revelation account, obviously symbolic even to the most casual reader!)

Here's just one case in point! According to 2 Peter 3:10 (KJ), “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Some people interpret this to mean that the globe will be destroyed, possibly in a nuclear holocaust. Yet, in view of what the Bible says elsewhere, how can that be? At Psalm 104:5 (KJ) the psalmist, under inspiration, stated that God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Wise King Solomon, also speaking under inspiration, said at Ecclesiastes 1:4 (KJ) that “one generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.”

A contradiction? No, the Bible’s Author, a God of truth, cannot contradict himself. Then how can these two verses be reconciled? Let us consider the context of 2 Peter 3:10.

In verses 5 and 6 Peter speaks about the Flood of Noah’s day and likens it, in verse 7, to the destruction to come on “the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” What was destroyed in the Flood? Verse 6 says “the world that then was ... perished.” This earthly globe did not perish. Rather, a wicked worldly system did. And when God promised Noah, at Genesis 9:11 (KJ), that never again would there “be a flood to destroy the earth,” he was obviously not speaking of the planet, for it had not been destroyed. So “the earth” to be destroyed, according to 2 Peter 3:10, is the same kind of “earth” that was destroyed at the Flood—not the planet Earth but a wicked earthly society of people.

Search as you may, you will find no Bible text that contradicts this interpretation. Of necessity then, it must be the correct one from the Bible’s Author himself!

 

[carolinajazz]

Something else that may be relevant to point out here. carolinajazz has expressed an anti intellectual bias. It may be illustrative to realize Americans have always been, in general, anti intellectual.

I may sound like I'm anti-intellectual....but I value education as much as anyone! However, the higher "learning" in today's colleges as well as yesteryear's is fraught with dangers and hazards! For example, since the 1960’s, many schools of advanced learning have become hotbeds of lawlessness and immorality! And the atmosphere in many of this world’s institutions of higher education are, at times, hotbeds of political and social unrest! University and college campuses are notorious for bad behavior—drug and alcohol abuse, cheating, hazing, and the list goes on. True, the educational system varies from country to country...but generally speaking this is the case worldwide.

And then there's this: Through the influence of instructors at many colleges, systematic doubt has become an article of faith of higher learning. Universities in all countries have produced a generation of doubters, for whom “everything is relative.” And my final thought on this matter is...this lousy, wicked system of things on the verge of collapse, economically, politically and religiously, is the "brain child" of "higher learning"...men who put this system of things together, who came up with these so-called "brilliant" ideas of how things should be run and how people should think and behave!

 

[Gameface]

Our system is on the verge of collapse? Haha, funny stuff right there.

Oh and BTW folks, don't send your kids to college, they are hotbeds of lawlessness, cheating and drug and alcohol abuse.

That and the fact that logic dictates that we doubt unsubstantiated claims. Oh no!

CJ, you so funny.

Red, just an FYI since you stated that you assumed CJ was a Christian. He's a JW. Probably helps make a little sense of his nonsense.

 

[Siro]

Red, just an FYI since you stated that you assumed CJ was a Christian. He's a JW. Probably helps make a little sense of his nonsense.

I didn't know this. So he single-handedly managed to demolish my opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses (had no opinion before).

 

[Siro]

Ok,lets talk/discuss "interpretation!" ONE definition of the word “interpret” is “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) Thus, one’s interpretation of anything is usually influenced by one’s background, education, and upbringing. What, though, about Bible interpretation? Are we free to explain Bible passages according to our own “belief, judgment, or circumstance”? Naturally, most Bible scholars and translators claim that they do not do so but that they are guided by God.

Although the Bible has only one Author......it does have many writers. These some 40 Bible writers never contradict one another, yet no one Bible writer says all there is to say about any particular subject. So to understand what the Author of the Bible says about a subject, it is necessary to gather together all the scriptures germane to the subject under discussion. Thus, skipping around in the Bible, picking out scriptures is not actually a proof that a person is trying to interpret it to fit his own ideas!

So using verses either from the Greek or the Hebrew Scriptures is right and proper...and generally should be taken literally except where the expressions or settings obviously indicate that they are figurative or symbolic. ("wild beast out of the sea...with 10 heads and 10 horns" Revelation account, obviously symbolic even to the most casual reader!)

Here's just one case in point! According to 2 Peter 3:10 (KJ), “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Some people interpret this to mean that the globe will be destroyed, possibly in a nuclear holocaust. Yet, in view of what the Bible says elsewhere, how can that be? At Psalm 104:5 (KJ) the psalmist, under inspiration, stated that God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Wise King Solomon, also speaking under inspiration, said at Ecclesiastes 1:4 (KJ) that “one generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.”

A contradiction? No, the Bible’s Author, a God of truth, cannot contradict himself. Then how can these two verses be reconciled? Let us consider the context of 2 Peter 3:10.

In verses 5 and 6 Peter speaks about the Flood of Noah’s day and likens it, in verse 7, to the destruction to come on “the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” What was destroyed in the Flood? Verse 6 says “the world that then was ... perished.” This earthly globe did not perish. Rather, a wicked worldly system did. And when God promised Noah, at Genesis 9:11 (KJ), that never again would there “be a flood to destroy the earth,” he was obviously not speaking of the planet, for it had not been destroyed. So “the earth” to be destroyed, according to 2 Peter 3:10, is the same kind of “earth” that was destroyed at the Flood—not the planet Earth but a wicked earthly society of people.

Search as you may, you will find no Bible text that contradicts this interpretation. Of necessity then, it must be the correct one from the Bible’s Author himself!

I don't see how any of that drivel demonstrates that a circle is REALLY TOTALLY a sphere.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I didn't know this. So he single-handedly managed to demolish my opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses (had no opinion before).

X2

 

[GVC]

From what I understand, you take the bible saying circle as uncontestable proof that it meant a flat circle. I think it is possible that it meant it the other way.

Wait, what?

 

[Keefe]

Wait, what?

A sphere? I don't know.

 

[Gameface]

Hey everybody, the Earth is a circle!