Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Jollybear]

The book argues that Moses could not have wandered outside of Saudi Arabia when he found the Burning Bush at Mt. Sinai because Moses was like the Midianites who "were not nomads but, in fact, were a sedentary culture; they didn't move around, they stayed in one place. They stayed in Midian, which is now associated with Saudi Arabia." (p. 16) But then the book actually quotes two of its leading reference works (pp. 69-70, 73), the Harper's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary, both saying the Midianites were nomads.

The Bible reports Midianites traveling long distances into Egypt for trade (Gen. 37:28, 36) and into Western and Northern Israel for war (Judges 6-8). Like his Midianite hosts, Moses could have wandered far outside of Midian in reaching Mt. Sinai. In fact, the Bible seems to say just that: In Exodus 3:1, where Moses is said to have "led" Jethro's flock to Horeb (Mt. Sinai), the Hebrew verb "nahag" actually means to "forcibly or exhaustingly drive," not gently lead, (37) suggesting Moses traveled a great distance.

This is a twist, Nahag means to drive, lead, guide, lead on, drive on, drive away, to moan or lament. http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=05090 actually the word “exhaustingly” is not amongst the list. PLUS EVEN IF it was, which it’s not, STILL one could lead or drive the sheep at a short distance, plus AGAIN the author is forgetting that Arabia is a BIG desert.

The Amalekites are another case like the Midianites. The Israelites fought the Amalekites near Mt. Sinai, while Moses had his arms held up (Exodus 17). The book argues that the Amalekites stayed in Arabia, never venturing as far as the Sinai or Egypt, so the battle must have occurred in Saudi Arabia and that must be where Mt. Sinai is to be found (pp. 111-115). But Josephus also located the Amalekites in the Sinai, "the whole district extending from Pelusium in Egypt to the Red Sea," based on 1 Samuel 15:7. (38)

Ok and the author also said that Arabia was a part of the desert of Egypt too above referring to when he mentioned Paul and agreed with Paul.

The book contends that God's presence on top of Mt. Sinai supernaturally burned it (Exodus 24:17; Deut. 5:23) -- though the Burning Bush was not burned up (Exodus 3:2-3). The book is inconsistent in doubting at one place whether any evidence of such burning would be left after three millennia (pp. 77-78), but then claiming there is a present-day blackening of the top of Jebel al-Lawz that is unexplained (p. 99) and that "analysis" of rocks from the base show they "may have been burned" (p. 98). Plants may have been supernaturally melted right into solid rock, it is said. (39)

He is not inconsistent; he was just wondering how the black chare could remain three millennia.

Geologist Dr. John Morris told me the Jebel al-Lawz rock he examined is normal metamorphic rock typical for the volcanic area it came from, there was nothing strange about it nor any sign of plants melted into the rock. (40) The book does not mention that Jebel al-Lawz is in a volcanic region.

There are three kinds of rock, sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic. Metamorphic is not volcanic, although it can be amongst volcanic, but metamorphic is not volcanic. When the discoverers of the mountain broke some of the rocks, it was light color inside and charred black on the outside, thus showing it was burned.

The current book seems to refer to various cut and polished stones as related to the Exodus, yet occasionally admitting they are of much later date (pp. 97, 217). The Israelites were not allowed to cut the stones (Exodus 20:25; Deut. 27:5).

When I looked at the video’s and the pictures of the altar, they did not look very dressed or carved out at all. At the most, it looks like some have been chosen in relatively the same shape, but it don’t look like they are carved.

As for the twelve pillars Moses set up that was discovered, yes, it does look like they were carved out, but that is reasonable, since they are pillars. It was the stones for the alter that was not suppose to be carved.

 

[Jollybear]

The book insists that when Moses built an altar for burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24:4) it was made of STONE.

The Bible states that God instructed Moses on Mt. Sinai to make an altar of earth, not stone (Exodus 20:24, 24:4), for burnt offerings and fellowship offerings:
Exodus 20:24: "Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle." (Emphasis added.)
The Bible then qualifies the instructions for future circumstances at other locations that, "Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. if you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it." (Exodus 20:24-25, emphasis added.) Later, the Israelites did indeed build such an uncut stone altar, but in the Promised Land of Canaan, not Sinai (Deut. 27:5; Joshua 8:31).

Interesting point but I disagree, I still believe this discovery with all it’s other places confirm quite well the story. The fact that this mountain has a black peak and an altar at the foot of the mountain and 12 stone pillars, carvings of the bulls and the chariot wheels in the red sea and they found the bitter spring and found the split rock and found hundreds or thousands of rocks with foot prints carved on them, it is too compelling to dismiss. If you look at the text for building the altar of “earth” the Hebrew word is “adamah” and it can be translated as “earth in general, earth for building or constructing, whole inhabited earth or ground” http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=0127 . Now based on this, earth is anything that is in the earth, that INCLUDES ROCKS or STONES. It’s the general earth or ground. Moses did not build a square mud wall, or just a pile of dirt. He BUILT an altar, and that implies he used SOLID substance, like rock. Plus, rock and stone IS earth, just solidified, like sedimentary rock for instance. It’s all a part of the earth. God was saying make an altar of earth, not of wood or trees.

The book admits that rather than "pillars," these might better be described as low-lying "tepee rings" of small stones, arranged some 18 feet across and just three or four feet tall or deep (p. 90), possibly only one to two feet deep (p. 210). These sound suspiciously like Early Bronze II-Middle Bronze I rings, which are usually made of small uncut field stones arranged in circles from 6 to 20 feet in diameter and about 2-1/2 feet high. (45)

I tried looking for this reference and could not find it. But regardless, just because early bronze age made rings similar in appearance that were found at Arabia, does not mean the ones found at Arabia were made by the bronze age. Many rings and pillars look alike. This point really does not prove anything.

Since only one or two of the "rings" were barely visible from under the dirt and rock, and none of this debris was cleared, it is difficult to see how one can know if any other such "pillars" existed or that there are exactly 12 of them.

The men claimed to have found 12 of them and have showed footage of 12 such small in height pillars. The footage may be vague for some of those pillars, but there claim is probably honest since all the other footage is clear. Plus, the fact that there are these pillars there, along with the altar and the mountain with the cave in the mountain and the burnt top on the mountain and everything else along the exodus route shows that if you have that many jackpots in a row, surely it must be a win.

None of the alleged satellite photos that are supposed to show the ancient Israelite marching trails and campsites along the Exodus route (pp. 220-221) have been published as far as I know. This makes it difficult to study the assertions that have been based on the photos, or even to verify whether the photos exist.

They got footage and pictures of the different places of the exodus route, they do and they are shown on the internet.

The book asserts that the Israelites...trail can be followed in the (unpublished) satellite photos from the Sinai peninsula, then into Saudi Arabia, and it "just disperses" at the Jebel al-Lawz site, the claimed Mt. Sinai. "It does not continue on in any one direction" from Jebel al-Lawz (pp. 220-221). The explanation is that from Mt. Sinai the Israelites supposedly started their aimless wandering in the wilderness for 40 years (see p. 57).

However, there is a misconception and misreading of the Bible here as the Israelites did march on in "one direction" from Mt. Sinai. It was to Kadesh Barnea, from where they sent out the spies into the Promised Land. Only at Kadesh-Barnea were they condemned to wander in the wilderness for the next 38 years (Deut. 2:14) for their rebellion, not at Mt. Sinai. (Deut. 1:19-2:1; 9:23; Numbers 10:12, 33; 13:26; 14:25.) If the real Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz then there must be a continuation of the trail at least to Kadesh Barnea. But admittedly there isn't.
No satellite pictures are shown of the allegedly inferior trails around the traditional Mt. Sinai. No scientific explanation is given, or technical reference cited, for the "high-tech space photography" method of precisely dating these traditional-site trails at only "300 or 400 years old, at most" (p. 221).

The problem with this point is the fact that of course there is not going to be a “trail” because Moses and the Israelites did not DIG out or create a trail, they just walked in a desert going on a journey toward the promised land. So of course there is not going to be a “TRAIL”. But there is enough CLUES that they were in this AREA.

 

[Jollybear]

Exactly. It looks like a circle, which is why the authors of the Bible thought it was one. But they were wrong, because science has shown us that it's actually a sphere.

One dimensional would be a point.

When you take all the references to the shape of the earth and heavens in the Bible together, what you get it is this:

which is exactly what the ancient Hebrews (and Bible followers for some time afterward) believed about the earth. They were wrong.

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

So, what you say is not PROOF for your case.

 

[McBell]

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

So, what you say is not PROOF for your case.

The biggest problem with your argument here is that it can presented equally to refute anything any one claims the Bible says.

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

The biggest problem with your argument here is that it can presented equally to refute anything any one claims the Bible says.

No not “anything” can be refuted this way but only those things that the bible does not speak in great detail off, such as the case with the shape of the earth. None of the biblical authors actually made the shape of the earth a SUBJECT to talk about and discourse on, not ONE of them did this. The only thing we have from the biblical authors is a much GENERALIZED statement from them about the shape of the earth, and that is not even what there context or POINT was about within the chapters. So, only in cases like that, can one say “you have not proven your point” but when it comes to issues of the biblical authors talking about an actual subject they intended to discourse on, THEN you can prove a point of what they REALLY said on that given subject. And why? Because there is obviously a bigger context and a lot more detail from them concerning that subject.

The bible does NOT say the earth is FLAT. The bible does not say it is a BALL either. It says it’s suspended on nothing and is a CIRCLE.

To be honest, that is not very much DETAIL from the biblical authors is it? No it’s not. I think based on the LITTLE information they did give though, that it IMPLIES the earth is a round globe suspended in space. You can’t prove me wrong, can you?

Plus if I was living in ancient days, I would not have concluded the earth was flat, I would look at the sun and moon and stars and say ‘if they are round, and lots of fruit is round, perhaps the earth is too’.

Plus I showed from the Hebrew that circle there in Isaiah can mean in the Hebrew a starting point of a journey and then going forward and ending the journey at the spot you started. That to me implies a globe.

Oh PS, you know that bug you got on your post thingy, I honestly thought there was a real bug on my screen and so I touched the screen and then realized it was not a real bug,

 

[McBell]

No not “anything” can be refuted this way...

Really?
Name one.

Oh PS, you know that bug you got on your post thingy, I honestly thought there was a real bug on my screen and so I touched the screen and then realized it was not a real bug,

mwah ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Tumbleweed41

[/b]

What I meant was where is the evidence that there is no evidence for the bible being accurate? You also said that you would happily oblige “proving” to me that the bible is not factually correct. I would like for you to show me that proof that it’s not factually correct.




Archeology is a part of science and there is tons of archeology evidence that corroborates the biblical stories. I can give you one if you would like, just request.




And what are those “disproven” parts of the bible based on literal interpretation that you speak about?

The book is a hodgepodge of fact and fiction. It's not that the whole book is incorrect. It's just many aspects or stories told in it are incorrect.

 

[Gabethewiking]

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

So, what you say is not PROOF for your case.

Hi Jollybear.

Maybe you never read the bible, most of us have, either way, exactly what do you need to "read into" this to interpret it different?

Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" (thats gh, as in Circle in english)
Job 9:6 it, "Who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble."

And so on. It seems that the ones not wanting to accept that the authors of the Bible thought it was flat seem to work heavily on "re-interpretation" here, or should we move on to books like Lord of the Rings as well

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

Really?

Name one.

Ok, there is many, but here is one: the bible clearly states that Jesus died for our sins. The authors of the bible, particularly the new Testament are emphatic that he died for our sins, and that is exactly what they meant, that he indeed died for our sins. I don’t think there is a way to interpret it differently except that he died for our sins ACCORDING to those authors.

DirtyPanguin

The book is a hodgepodge of fact and fiction. It's not that the whole book is incorrect. It's just many aspects or stories told in it are incorrect.

To be honest I do not take nor agree to this position, I believe that the bible is ALL true and its authors are ALL honest.

Gabethewiking

Hi Jollybear.

Hey

Maybe you never read the bible,

Yes, I have read it all from cover to cover about 28 times now, and that is not included hearing sermons on it thousands of times and having bible studies on it and hearing and engaging in debates about it. So I am well acquainted to what it says and does not say.

most of us have,

I don’t doubt that you have read it, but that is not what I have issue with.

either way, exactly what do you need to "read into" this to interpret it different?

This is what I am saying: it is a FACT that the biblical authors DID NOT say the earth is a DISK. That is a FACT, you cannot deny that. Do you deny that the biblical authors did NOT say the earth is a disk? Yes or no? If you say yes they did say it’s a disk, then you are then in defiant of a clear fact within the texts. If you say no, that they did not say the earth is a disk, THEN in essence you have READ DISK INTO the text-your interpretation INTO the text.

Do you deny it?

Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" (thats gh, as in Circle in english)

Yea, he says circle of the earth, he does not say DISK of the earth, does he? Does he? Huh?

Job 9:6 it, "Who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble."

Look at the context of Job 9. If you take this part literally, why not take verse 24 that God LITERALLY BLINDFOLDS judges? Also verse 25 why not take that to mean that Job literally never had in his entire life a glimpse of joy? Also verse 31 why not take that literal as well that Job would be thrown into a slimy pit by God and that Jobs clothes would literally start to detest him? Also verse 34, why not say God had a literal ROD at Job’s body? Seriously, why not say that God literally had a rod or a stick hitting job?

It’s called POETIC LANGUAGE. Job is BASICALLY intending to say based on the context that God is powerful and can do whatever he wants with him or his creation. God made the earth, it’s foundations, and he can shake it up and make it insecure if he wishes, or he can keep it stable if he wishes. That is all Job is trying to say.

Also EVEN IF you want to be consistent and say that job MEANT all of those verses to be literal, then go over to Job 38:2 God himself speaks to Job saying “who is this that dampens my counsel with words WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE”. In other words, God was saying that Job said some things that were not RIGHT and TRUE.

Once again, you have not proven your point.

And so on. It seems that the ones not wanting to accept that the authors of the Bible thought it was flat seem to work heavily on "re-interpretation" here,

No, not at all, you have to equally work at reading your interpretation INTO THE TEXT, I have showed you problems with what you say, you must deal with those problems. What you say is not gospel until you can prove it or clear up the problems I pointed out for your case.

or should we move on to books like Lord of the Rings as well

I have heard of Lord of the Rings, but I really don’t know anything about that book, so let’s stick to what we are talking about here.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DirtyPanguin



To be honest I do not take nor agree to this position, I believe that the bible is ALL true and its authors are ALL honest.

You know at first I thought you were joking but I actually think you are being serious. Look, There are no historians that have gazed upon your bible and found everything in it to be accurate or verifiable. No scholar, theologian either. When it comes to biblical matters theologians and scholars outright tell you that a lot of stuff in that book is not literal but is allegorical. The book should never be used as a science book either as it is completely incorrect. In order to believe that book to be 100% true, correct and infallible you have to take on faith.

No one is asking you to abandon your faith but we are fully aware of your bible and very knowledgeable of what it contains and most of it does not mesh with what is known of the natural world. To pick it apart is futile because at the end of the day you will believe as you have always believed....regardless of the evidence that contradicts the belief.


The book is not ALL true and the "authors".....PLEASE....most of them were anonymous......You barely know when they were written let alone who they were written by. And when it comes to your NT..most of it is not the "original" manuscripts. All you have are surviving copies of copies.....that were translated and re-translated.

This is what I am saying: it is a FACT that the biblical authors DID NOT say the earth is a DISK. That is a FACT, you cannot deny that. Do you deny that the biblical authors did NOT say the earth is a disk? Yes or no? If you say yes they did say it’s a disk, then you are then in defiant of a clear fact within the texts. If you say no, that they did not say the earth is a disk, THEN in essence you have READ DISK INTO the text-your interpretation INTO the text.



Yea, he says circle of the earth, he does not say DISK of the earth, does he? Does he? Huh?

Please understand that you are reading your own scriptures in english and even though you say you've read the book almost 28 times, which I suspect is an exaggeration on your part, you still don't know the meaning of these verses. It is without a doubt that back then they viewed the earth as flat. So what...it says circle. The word, long time ago in a lot of translations, was (Compass). If you know what a compass is...it has nothing to do with (sphere, ball, or circumference) of the earth. A compass gives you direction (N, S, E, and W). This is what is meant in those verses in your bible.

Case in point and has been raised in other threads....

Daniel 4:11
Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

If they knew the earth was a spherical shape then how does one reach the "end of the earth"? Simple. There is no way. Their world was the complete circle in their peripheral vision. Now, where is "the earth's center"....?

Isaiah 40:22
he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

If they are under the impression the whole earth was spherical then how would a tent cover it? No they saw their world in a 360 degree view. One can see how their god could spread his tent over the whole circle if you see in a 360 degree world view.

Proverbs 8:26-28
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a (chuwg) compass upon the face of the depth. When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.

In their view the earth was flat and in a 360 circle..as a compass would indicate.


Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
2328 huwg khoog a primitive root (Compare 2287); to describe a circle:--compass.
2329 chuwg khoog from 2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
4230mchuwgah mekk-oo-gaw' from 2328; an instrument for marking a circle, i.e. compasses:--compass.


Look at 2329. Think of it like a circuit in the electrical flow in your house or like where we get the term (circuit training) from when at the gym. And in 4230 you see the word in there. It's a circle not a sphere.

Here are some other examples I presented in another thread that should give you an understanding how they viewed (their) world back then. We know now that all of this incorrect.

Job 11:9
Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Deu 13:7
Any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other

Josh 10:12-13
On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

 

[McBell]

Ok, there is many, but here is one: the bible clearly states that Jesus died for our sins. The authors of the bible, particularly the new Testament are emphatic that he died for our sins, and that is exactly what they meant, that he indeed died for our sins. I don’t think there is a way to interpret it differently except that he died for our sins ACCORDING to those authors.

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed that Jesus died for our sins, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

You know at first I thought you were joking but I actually think you are being serious.

Why did you think I was joking? When I first joined on here, which was not too long ago, I introduced myself in the section for new members telling that I was a bible believer upfront. So no I am not at all joking with you or anyone about that.

Look, There are no historians that have gazed upon your bible and found everything in it to be accurate or verifiable.

This is a false statement. SOME historians do not believe the bible to be all true, but SOME historians DO believe it to be the word of God. So your statement is false. Here is a historian who believes the bible is true right here in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPG4JCSKgfA and I am sure there is probably tons more. Granted, there is tons who don’t believe the bible as well. But to say no historian believes the bible is just flat out false. If you insist that it’s true, then account for the one I showed you, AND give me evidence that every historian in the world does not believe the bible?

No scholar, theologian either.

This is absolute false. Where are you getting your information at? I want your sources for this.

When it comes to biblical matters theologians and scholars outright tell you that a lot of stuff in that book is not literal but is allegorical.

Ok, and your point is? I could have told you that one. When context says it’s allegorical, THEN it’s allegorical, but when context says it’s literal, THEN it’s literal. But the context is to be taken literally all the time, for the context is what says something is allegory or not allegory.

To say there is allot of allegorical stuff in the bible does not make the bible untrue.

The book should never be used as a science book either as it is completely incorrect.

I agree with half of this statement and disagree with the other half. TRUE the bible should not be used as a science book, because it’s more of a spiritual and relationship and religious and political book then it is a science book. So I agree with you there. But I disagree with you that it is incorrect. That is not why it should not be used as a science book because you say it’s incorrect, no, it should not be used as a science book because it’s themes are not ABOUT science. That’s why it should not be used as a science book.

In order to believe that book to be 100% true, correct and infallible you have to take on faith.

I can agree that for SOME things there is an element of faith involved, but for some things there is NOT an element of faith. As for unbelievers in the bible, it takes MORE faith for them to disbelieve in the bible then it takes for believers to have faith IN the bible. The WEIGHT of the evidence FOR the bible is stronger than evidence pointing away from it.

That is my position I take and I can defend it honestly.

No one is asking you to abandon your faith

If the bible is wrong in parts, then yes you are in an indirect way asking me to abandon my faith, actually, if the bible is wrong, I would ASK MYSELF TO ABANDON IT.

but we are fully aware of your bible and very knowledgeable of what it contains

Yea, I am sure you are aware of its content, but I don’t care about that. That is not where my debate is and that is not what I have issue with, ok?

and most of it does not mesh with what is known of the natural world.

This is baloney, I completely and firmly disagree with this and I can defend my position honestly too.

To pick it apart is futile because at the end of the day you will believe as you have always believed

This is what makes me mad, is these judgments right here. How do you know that it’s futile and how do you know that if you do pick it apart at the end of the day I will still believe the bible? How do you know that? Do you see in my heart? Do you see in my mind? Do you? If not, how do you know what I will decide after ALL IS SCRUTINIZED? If you don’t know, don’t judge me, I don’t like it, ok? Lets just get this clear, if you want to debate about the issues, let’s do so, but if you’re going to judge my motives, then back off. Ok?

If you’re not interested in actually debating the issues, then why did you even respond to me at all? Why even bother? Just to judge me and belittle me? Well I am not interested in talking to people like this if that is the way you’re going to do this. You just want to preach your views at me instead of debate the issues? You just want to judge me as dishonest?

Look, I am not interested in that nonsense kind of dialogue. And I got banned from a previous forum I contributed for 5 years because I kept exposing ad hominem attacks, I do not want to go down that road again and get banned here. So, please, if you want to debate the issues, let’s do so, but don’t attack me as dishonest. I DON’T LIKE IT. And I DON’T RESPECT IT.

regardless of the evidence that contradicts the belief.

Basically your saying I am dishonest. You’re telling me that I will still believe the bible even if you come up with tons of evidence against it. Again, this is indirectly saying that I am dishonest with myself, again, how do you know that? And does that help your case? Absolutely no it don’t. So why bother going down that road and making me a member on the forum angry with you? Seriously I don’t respect people who judge other peoples motives and heart and then think that helps their case. I don’t respect those kinds of people. And if you keep it up, I will just ignore you. I exposed it already, but to keep myself from being banned, I won’t expose it again, so don’t keep it up.

Seriously, do you think that this kind of approach is going to intimidate me into agreeing with you or making your image or ego look great and knowledgeable? Well, to me it don’t, and I don’t agree with something based on intimidation, but on the bases of scrutiny and evidence and argument. That is what I am all about; if you’re not interested in that, then don’t talk to me, for you won’t be very interested in talking to me anyhow if that is not what you’re interested in.

So, choose.

 

[Jollybear]

The book is not ALL true

Ok, that is your claim, your position, I take a different position, we can go forward and debate the issues, or we can drop it here, but let me remind you, this is a debate FORUM, that is the purpose for why it’s here, and that is why I am here, to debate and have meaningful dialogue in a respectful way. If you’re interested in that, we can do it, if you’re not, then we can drop it right here, because I am not going to engage in meaningless judgmental and disrespectful, distrusting dialogue, do you agree to that?

and the "authors".....PLEASE....most of them were anonymous......You barely know when they were written let alone who they were written by.

SOME were anonymous but not ALL of them. Plus the ones that were anonymous, there is some evidence based on style and content within the writings that give clues of who wrote it or not. Also we can know dates and times for the writings based on the content and names and places mentioned; and tracing things back by historic standards.

And when it comes to your NT..most of it is not the "original" manuscripts. All you have are surviving copies of copies.....that were translated and re-translated.

Right, but that does not make them untrue. Plus it’s understandable why we would not have original copies, it was written on parchment or papyrus, not PAPER. Parchment and papyrus wears out a lot faster. So, of course we won’t have original copies. When it comes to ANY ancient document there is NO original copies accept if it’s chiseled on stone or pillars. So, what is your point? That don’t prove they are false that just proves writing technology was not advanced as great as it is today. That’s all that proves.

There is more evidence for the New Testament’s reliability then there is for any other historic document in ancient times. Here is a comparison of the New Testaments reliability with other ancient documents, this is a time gap in years between the original and first surviving copies. New testament 25 years, homer 500 years, Demosthenes 1,400, Herodotus 1,400, plato 1,200, Tacitus 1,000, Caesar 1,000, Pliny 750. Also here is the NUMBER of early copies in comparison. New Testament has 5,686, homer 643, Demosthenes 200, Herodotus 8, Plato 7, Tacitus 20, Caesar 10, Pliny 7.

Now, tell me that is not impressive for the New Testaments survival of the fittest for ancient times? Tell me it’s not reliable now? Your argument does not disprove it as being false, I’m sorry. If it does, then that would only mean that EVERY ancient document is FALSE based on your standard. That is absurd to the utmost.

Please understand that you are reading your own scriptures in English

Yea I understood that before you educated me on it, yep. But just to educate you somewhat, I also use a lexicon that shows the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures and shows there translations. I put that lexicon to good use. But yea, just because I speak and read English does not mean the bible is false. Your arguments don’t prove nothing.

and even though you say you've read the book almost 28 times, which I suspect is an exaggeration on your part,

You see this is what I hate, why can’t you start a dialogue off with TRUST for the other person you happen to talk to, which in this case happens to be me? I told you I read the bible ABOUT 28 times now, that was not a exaggeration, that was the honest truth, I am not lying to you man. Seriously, your starting to irritate me. Why is it that after you told me you were knowledgeable about the content in the bible, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said ‘yea, I don’t doubt that you do, but that is not where I have issue with’ but it appears you have issue with me when I tell you I read it about 28 times. Why even bother arguing against that? Why not just trust me when I tell you that? Seriously, I don’t get it? The reason I said about 28 times is because I was reading it from cover to cover, but then I stopped doing it that way and started reading the Old testament from cover to cover and the New Testament from cover to cover at the same time, which messed up my number. But then I recently changed and went back to reading it from the old Testament and then finish it and then start the new testament. So that being said, I read the bible either 27, 28 or 29 times, so just to be safe, I say about 28 times. That is no exaggeration. I have been reading it since I was 14 years old, I am now 30 years of age. Why argue me on that, why distrust someone whom you debate with? Just stick to the issues man, because if you don’t, you can really irritate the other person, and it shows a blatant disrespect as well. Good relationships are based on trust; pleasant conversations are also based on trust. Let’s keep it pleasant shall we?

 

[Jollybear]

you still don't know the meaning of these verses.

Ok, so you do then huh? Tell me how you KNOW there meaning?

It is without a doubt that back then they viewed the earth as flat.

It’s obviously not without a doubt if I doubt it, right? Oh yea, right you think I am dishonest in the face of the obvious? Give me a break.

So what...it says circle. The word, long time ago in a lot of translations, was (Compass). If you know what a compass is...it has nothing to do with (sphere, ball, or circumference) of the earth. A compass gives you direction (N, S, E, and W). This is what is meant in those verses in your bible.

According to the Hebrew lexicon, the word circle in Isaiah can be translated as circle, circuit or compass. Circuit means to start a journey and then end the journey where you started. That sounds like a globe to me. But, even if we go with compass, that don’t prove your point that they believed the earth was a circular DISK. Nowhere in the Hebrew lexicon can it be translated as DISK or FLAT. It’s not there.

Case in point and has been raised in other threads....

Daniel 4:11
Upon my bed this is what

I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

This one is a weak scripture for your case, here is why. First off, Daniel is seeing a VISION, like a dream, you know as well as I do dreams are WEIRD and have all kinds of strange things and images to them. One could have a dream where the earth is UPSIDE DOWN and you’re walking on the sky. So, reciting this is a terrible scripture for your case. SECONDLY: the Hebrew word for “center” of the earth is “Gav” and it means “Midst, therein, wherein, within the same”. So, it does not say in the MIDDLE of the whole earth. THIRDLY: in the vision denial is having, the tree is visible to the whole earth. “Earth” there in the Hebrew means land or world or earth or ground. So, the WHOLE LAND in the middle eastern world, the tree was visible and that tree was Nebuchadnezzar according to the context of Daniels vision. Daniel was not talking about or even addressing the shape of the earth. You have not proven your point.

If they knew the earth was a spherical shape then how does one reach the "end of the earth"? Simple. There is no way. Their world was the complete circle in their peripheral vision. Now, where is "the earth's center"....?

The word “end” in the Hebrew is either “end, conclusion, or FOREVER”. Now the land in Israel and the promised land was divided in sections, therefore there was an END to one section, then a BEGINNING to another section. So this is the ENDS of the earth for the middle eastern civilized world. Now when it says it can be translated “forever” that implies the ends of the earth just keep going and going and going forever, there is no end, because there is no TIP where you fall off. Plus again, Daniel was addressing that Nebuchadnezzar was known or visible to the whole world OVER THERE IN THE EAST. His power was felt, his glory was known. He was also seen by means of troops being sent out. Again, you have not proven your point.

Isaiah 40:22

he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
If they are under the impression the whole earth was spherical then how would a tent cover it? No they saw their world in a 360 degree view. One can see how their god could spread his tent over the whole circle if you see in a 360 degree world view.

This is allegorical language. Why not just go ahead and believe that they believed the heavens were literally a tent, huh? No, he says the heavens are stretched out LIKE a curtain, he don’t say they ARE a curtain.

Actually, this stretching out of the heavens LIKE a tent, is scientific, because the heavens have atmospheres, they are LIKE the tent, or the ROOF for the earth. Again it’s GOOD allegorical language that is accurate. And ISAIAH is not saying the earth is a DISK, you can’t prove that.

Also if you want to believe the author was speaking NOT allegorical, then why not be consistent with the rest of the same chapter and say that verse 4-5 he must have literally meant go dig up a path way and fill in every valley and bang down every mountain so God can show up? Also what about verse 7 that says surely the people ARE GRASS. Notice he does not say they are LIKE grass, well he does above, but then below he says they ARE. So maybe you should believe that he believed people were literally grass, huh? Why not, right? It’s consistent at least. Or what about verse 11 that says God tends his flock like a shepherd. Why not believe that Isaiah believed the Lord literally shepherded a flock of sheep instead of meaning that the people of Israel was like unto a flock of sheep? Why not huh? Why not come right out and say Isaiah was a STUPID FOOL, an absolute retard. Also what about verse 12 which says God has held the dust of the earth in a BASKET (what, basket!) sure, why not? Why not believe that Isaiah thought God literally has a basket up in the sky and he puts the dust in it? Or why not look at verse 15 that says the nations ARE regarded as dust on the scales. Why not say Isaiah literally believed the nations were billions of specks of dust or grains of sand? Or how about verse 17 which says to God the nations are as nothing and are regarded by him as LESS than nothing. So, why not believe that Isaiah believed that God literally believed the nations were NOTHING, nothing means they would not even be “nations” because that is what NOTHING means. So why not believe that Isaiah believed that God literally believed the nations were nothing? Or how about verse 24 which says “no sooner are princes planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than God blows on them and they wither”. So why not believe that Isaiah believed that princes were literally planted in the ground. A hole was dug in the ground and the prince with his two legs and feet were put in and then from his waist up, he was buried, why not believe that Isaiah believed that too? Would be consistent wouldn’t it? Of course it would. Why not believe that Isaiah believed that God literally BLEW his breath on the prince and then he started to whether away like a plant, you can just imagine his skin starting to wither away and rot off his bones.

Based on your standard of how to understand what Isaiah was really trying to say, Isaiah must be an insane maniac. He must have been completely out of touch with reality on every level possible.

Seriously, this is what you would have to believe IF you were to interpret his words consistently by your standard. If you don’t do so consistently, why be selective?

 

[Jollybear]

Proverbs 8:26-28

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a (chuwg) compass upon the face of the depth. When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.

In their view the earth was flat and in a 360 circle..as a compass would indicate.

Again, proverbs 8:26-28 does not prove they believed the earth was flat. To me it don’t even indicate it there, let alone prove it.

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon

2328 huwg khoog a primitive root (Compare 2287); to describe a circle:--compass.
2329 chuwg khoog from 2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
4230mchuwgah mekk-oo-gaw' from 2328; an instrument for marking a circle, i.e. compasses:--compass.

Here is a Hebrew lexicon that says that it can be translated as sphere in Isaiah as well. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Look at 2329. Think of it like a circuit in the electrical flow in your house or like where we get the term (circuit training) from when at the gym. And in 4230 you see the word in there. It's a circle not a sphere.

Ok, this don’t prove they believed the earth was flat.

Here are some other examples I presented in another thread that should give you an understanding how they viewed (their) world back then. We know now that all of this incorrect.

Ok.

Job 11:9

Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Just because you throw at me tons of proof texts does not make your case any bigger or stronger. Because tons of proof texts that don’t prove your point, and that are taken out of context, keeps your case the same size as it was before you threw the proof texts at me, which means your case is just as small now as it was at the start. The context is that Zophar is talking to Job saying that can Job fathom the mysteries of God? Can he probe the limits of the almighty? They are higher than the heavens-deeper than the depths of the grave. Their measure is LONGER than the earth and WIDER than the sea”. This is not saying the earth is FLAT! The measure going all around the GLOBE of the earth, well God’s mind and power is LONGER and BIGGER than that, is basically Zophars argument. He don’t say the earth is “flat”. No he don’t. Speak it like a mantra, it’s not there in the text.

Deu 13:7

Any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other

This does not mean the earth is flat and has an edge to where you can fall over into limbo or space somewhere. In the Hebrew it means land or border or outskirts or coast. None of this is proof let alone evidence. This word “end” with it’s Hebrew word behind it is used many times in the bible, for instance numbers 11:1 where it says PARTS of the camp, it is the same Hebrew word for “end” in this passage you mention. Come on, is that the best you got?

Josh 10:12-13

On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

People today, including scientists will still refer to as the “sun rise and the sunset” I gauss they are ignorant and believe the earth does not rotate because that kind of language is still around today and used every day.

Plus, it’s language based on perception, not language based on exegesis of an actual belief or dogma. Not one biblical author in the whole bible made it an issue to talk about what the shape of the earth was, not one did it.

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed that Jesus died for our sins, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

Nice……Well, there is just one problem with it, the authors DETAIL what they meant when they said Jesus DIED for our sins. I know, how about I approach this differently. Let me ask you this: give me an example of HOW the authors could have meant something OTHER than Jesus DIED FOR OUR SINS? Give me a passage and your interpretation of that passage SHOWING HOW they did NOT mean Jesus died for our sins. How about that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You see this is what I hate, why can’t you start a dialogue off with TRUST for the other person you happen to talk to, which in this case happens to be me? I told you I read the bible ABOUT 28 times now, that was not a exaggeration, that was the honest truth, I am not lying to you man. Seriously, your starting to irritate me. Why is it that after you told me you were knowledgeable about the content in the bible, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said ‘yea, I don’t doubt that you do, but that is not where I have issue with’ but it appears you have issue with me when I tell you I read it about 28 times. Why even bother arguing against that? Why not just trust me when I tell you that? Seriously, I don’t get it? The reason I said about 28 times is because I was reading it from cover to cover, but then I stopped doing it that way and started reading the Old testament from cover to cover and the New Testament from cover to cover at the same time, which messed up my number. But then I recently changed and went back to reading it from the old Testament and then finish it and then start the new testament. So that being said, I read the bible either 27, 28 or 29 times, so just to be safe, I say about 28 times. That is no exaggeration. I have been reading it since I was 14 years old, I am now 30 years of age. Why argue me on that, why distrust someone whom you debate with? Just stick to the issues man, because if you don’t, you can really irritate the other person, and it shows a blatant disrespect as well. Good relationships are based on trust; pleasant conversations are also based on trust. Let’s keep it pleasant shall we?

I'm a skeptic. I always distrust claims I feel as though are fantastical. It's my prerogative. It's just my personal opinion of your claim is all.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm a skeptic.

That’s understandable, I can deal with that.

I always distrust claims I feel as though are fantastical.

Ok, I can deal with that too. I can even respect someone who disagrees with me, but what I can’t respect is if someone attacks me, or claims they know more about me then I do my own self, and then use that to think that helps their case, that I can’t respect.

It's my prerogative. It's just my personal opinion of your claim is all.

You CAN be skeptical about my claim that the biblical authors believed the earth was round and not flat. You can be skeptical about that, although I will disagree with you when you have a counter claim that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, but I won’t disrespect you, nor attack your motives or intent, but I do disagree with you. Also, I make two claims. The first claim is that I believe the biblical authors DID believe the earth was a sphere, but I also make a second claim, which is, neither my first claim NOR YOUR CLAIM is proven in the texts since the information is so little about the subject of the shape of the earth in the bible. Although I do think the weight of the evidence slightly slants toward my end. Now that being said, here is where I have offensive issue with you. When I told you I read the bible 28 times, I was telling the truth, you basically called me a liar. Why would you be “skeptical” about THAT claim? I think I am in the position to KNOW 100% if I am telling the truth or not about my OWN SELF. Wouldn’t you think? Also why would you be skeptical by thinking that even if you did pick the bible apart by giving tons of evidence against it, that I would STILL believe the bible? How can you say that and really KNOW? Am I not in the position to KNOW myself more then you? Why would you be skeptical about my motivation or intent? You basically are saying that I am not honest with myself. Why are you skeptical about my honesty? Yea, feel free to be skeptical about my BELIEFES and CLAIMS, but why be skeptical about my character? Seriously, why? What good does it do? All it does is create hurt and a conversational and relational mess. It does no good for the actual ISSUES themselves either. My CHARACTER has NOTHING to do with whether the biblical authors believed the earth was flat or round. I mean someone could be a liar who happens to believe in facts. For instance, every person in jail, all of them believe in the laws of physics, yet many of them are in jail because they are not honest men, like thieves for instance. So a person’s character has nothing to do with the actual issues. Now am I implying that I am dishonest like a thief? No, I am just making a point that a dishonest person can have a RIGHT belief. Likewise an honest person can have a WRONG belief. A belief should NOT be evaluated based on someone’s character. Where’s the justice in that?

If you wish to be skeptical, it would do you well to be skeptical ONLY of the persons beliefs and claims and NOT be skeptical of the persons character. Because by being skeptical of the persons character, you ruin a good and meaningful conversation before it even begins. A SOLID foundation of relationships or conversations should be based on TRUST for the other person you are engaged with. If that is not their then there is nothing to really build on, is there?

Plus as a side note, if you are a “skeptic” does that mean you are skeptical of your skepticism? IF not, why not?

Now all that being said, if you did decide to pick the bible apart and give me your evidence that it’s false, I would HONESTLY examine everything you say and give me, and based ON what you gave me, and DEPENDING on whether I really do think it is evidence or not, would dictate my decision whether to still believe the bible or not. So, would I still believe the bible? I don’t know, you would have to pick it apart and we would have to go through all of it together and find out. But you start the whole thing off wrong by saying I WOULD still believe the bible despite what you say. You don’t know that. I don’t even know if I would still believe in it, it ALL DEPENDS on what you gave me and my honest examination of it all. But if it is a question of whether I would treat your words with care, YES I WOULD, if it is a question of would I HONESTLY examine the evidence you gave me, YES I WOULD. If it is a question of whether I would STILL believe the bible AFTER all the examination, I DON’T KNOW, it all DEPENDS on what you gave me. In other words, we would have to FIND OUT. You can’t PRE JUDGE it. I am not even pre judging my own decision of what I would do, so if I don’t, how can you?

Be skeptical, but not of my character or anyone else’s character whom you may debate with, I honestly do not think it’s healthy. That is the ROOT of the MESS in the world, is distrust.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You CAN be skeptical about my claim that the biblical authors believed the earth was round and not flat. You can be skeptical about that, although I will disagree with you when you have a counter claim that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat,

No problem. But I still contend they DID believe the earth was flat. This is where our argument becomes circular (no pun intended)....:biglaugh:

Job 38:12
That it might take hold of the edges (i.e. corners, ends, borders) of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

The blue is my emphasis but they are other possible definitions of the word used in the verse.

We also know that the earth does not have pillars, cornerstones nor is it "fixed" as the bible indicates.

EDIT: I want to take back, (sort of), something I said earlier. I was describing a "compass" as described in your bible as a instrument that shows direction. While that does describe the word it's not the traditional meaning of the word. Chuwgh (khoog) is more close to the drawing compass.


Yea, I think this illustrates the point a little better. Seems as though the reference is to a 2D "circle". Case in point is Proverbs 8:27


Proverbs 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

This is the compass spoken of. This "God" drew a 2D circle on the "deep" (water). Refer to your Genesis creation story. This verse is basically saying (I was there when God drew a circle on the surface of the water)......

All of this fits perfectly with drawing tools and measuring tools.

Isaiah 44:13
The carpenter stretcheth out [his] rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.

Job 38:4-5
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

 

[McBell]

Nice……Well, there is just one problem with it, the authors DETAIL what they meant when they said Jesus DIED for our sins. I know, how about I approach this differently. Let me ask you this: give me an example of HOW the authors could have meant something OTHER than Jesus DIED FOR OUR SINS? Give me a passage and your interpretation of that passage SHOWING HOW they did NOT mean Jesus died for our sins. How about that?

It is also a view of the cross that is not found in the Bible. Sure, it can be read into it, but it cannot be found there unless one is already looking for it. For Paul, the key meaning of Jesus’ death is summed up well in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “one died for all, and therefore all died”. That’s almost the exact opposite of the popular Evangelical message, “one died instead of all, so that they might not have to die“. Even if we conclude that Paul’s language of “dying with Christ” is just another way of talking metaphorically about denying ourselves and self-sacrifice, it nevertheless makes clear that the Christian view of “salvation” expressed here is not about Jesus doing something instead of us, but of something that involves us and happens to us and in us. Ironically, while some feel they are glorifying God by making atonement something that involves no action or effort on our part, they’ve also radically departed from a central component of early Christian belief.
http://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/ii-samuel-24-security-in-religion-debt-faith-works-etc/

​

A few links about penal substitutionary atonement:

Jesus did not die for our sins | Catholic New Times | Find Articles at BNET

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Author of The Shack Denies Penal Substitutionary Atonement « Voice of the Sheep

​

For even more just Google penal substitutionary atonement


So as you can see:

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed that Jesus died for our sins, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation. ​