Author Topic: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)  (Read 8542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Penman

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2011, 09:01:55 PM »
On the discussion of the "flat earth" assertion:

As I brought up in another thread about the use of hyperbole in scripture, is there a reason that the only literary style accepted by atheists here is a word-for-word, literal interpretation? Is there no allowance for hyperbole, metaphor/simile, and so forth? Let's address the scriptures used for evidence that the Biblical authors said the earth is flat...

Isaiah 40:22 says, "God is enthroned above the circle of the earth; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Why would any of you assume that each word here is to be taken literally and that Isaiah truly thought the earth was a flat circle? If we, from earth, look at the moon, it appears to be a circle (at least when it's full). I recall a song about the moon hitting your eye like a big pizza pie. Pizza is flat. Should we assume the writer of that song understood the moon to be flat as well? Just as Isaiah was giving a literary picture of God being above the earth and its rulers/other gods, so was the writer of the song giving a literary picture of what the moon appeared to look like to him. Neither of these writers were attempting to make factually descriptive statements about the objects.

Matthew 4:8 says, "Again, the Devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." From a high enough place, you can see for quite the distance. Again, hyperbole is used to emphasize the meaning here. Standing atop a mountain in the rockies, I can say to a friend, "check it out, I can see all of Colorado from here!" Is that literally true? Of course not. Did I intend it to be literally true? No. Did I say it to emphasize all the area I can see and how great the view is? Yes. Matthew is simply recording Satan and Jesus standing atop a high mountain overlooking the earth as far as the eye can see and Satan tempts Him by saying it can all be His if He falls down and worships him. Matthew does not think the earth is flat and that Jesus and Satan can literally see every last kingdom on earth. Velkyn: Even if it is assumed Matthew thinks the earth is flat, this still doesn't work because of the limitations of our eyes. Once again, another verse that does not support the flat earth claim.

Job 38:14 says, "The earth is changed as clay is by a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment." Context, people! Job 38 is God telling Job about all the things He has done regarding creation and His sustaining of it. In verses 12-13 God is speaking of the morning/dawn and enters verse 14 talking about the light covering the earth. This is why we are given the vivid picture of the earth taking a much different shape when the sunlight comes upon it (ever watch a sunrise over the mountains? I have, and it goes from a dark, shadowy emptiness to a vibrant, incredibly complex maze of curves and shapes). The very next sentence says the hills stand out like folds of a garment. This is a strong visual picture we're given, not a factually descriptive statement about the earth being flat.

Daniel 4:10-11 (as given from the link by screwtape) is a portion of what King Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. Why this is included as evidence of the flat earth assertion, I have no clue. If everything we dreamt and told people about was taken literally by those we shared with, we'd all be locked up for being loony. This evidence is absurd and the website's publisher should be embarassed.

Job 11:9 (as given from the link by screwtape) says, "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea." Verse 7 is key to understanding this verse. Zophar is speaking to Job and asks him if he can fathom the depths of God or know the limits of God. Verse 8 says they (the depths/limits of God) are higher than the heavens and deeper than Sheol (hell/hades). Again, this is literary illustration to drive a point home that God has no limits and is infinitely deep. Saying their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea is just another visual description to drive the point home.

This really should not be as big an issue as atheists here are making it. There are zero verses in the Bible that actually declare the earth to be flat in a literal, factually descriptive manner. There is no reason to assume the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat unless you're an atheist trying to make them out to be stupid.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2011, 09:39:32 PM »
In addition to the verses that are already being discussed, I would like to discuss this one:

Quote
Revelation 7:
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

John is clearly not portraying the earth as a sphere in this verse. A sphere would not have corners. I have no idea what shape John thought the earth was, but it was certainly not the correct one.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2011, 10:09:52 PM »
As I brought up in another thread about the use of hyperbole in scripture, is there a reason that the only literary style accepted by atheists here is a word-for-word, literal interpretation? Is there no allowance for hyperbole, metaphor/simile, and so forth? Let's address the scriptures used for evidence that the Biblical authors said the earth is flat...

If you want to claim this, then take it another step.  When Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the light, why are we to take this literally?  Could it not be that Jesus just "knew" the way.  And that he sometimes "told" the truth (not always), and that he had a torch with him?  This is the problem with you Christians.  The use of hyperbole suits your fancy. 

You may claim they are metaphors/similes and the like, but unless you know the nuances and minutiae of the original language the words were written in, you can not superimpose that notion on top of it without opening that same notion to the rest of it. 

During the time of the biblical authors, especially in the OT, just about EVERYONE thought the world was flat.  Very few people thought it was a sphere.  So if you want to know the reasoning behind us saying the biblical authors wrote as if the world was flat... its simply because everyone at that time thought it was, and that their writings pretty much reflect it.  It's not a stretch to say it at all. 

The bible was written by humans.  If the humans made up the stories, they would be reflective of the nature of things as understood 2000 years ago.  Not surprisingly, this is exactly what you get.  You get cures for leprosy and other diseases that are idiotic (Leviticus 14).  You get stripes on animals that stand near striped fences (Genesis 30). 

We grew up. We know more now.  You go on and on about your interpretations of each line, but what you choose to ignore is the simple fact that every line you quoted could easily be followed by a "Yeah, but another possibility is that the authors could simply have believed the Earth was flat".  "Enthroned above the circle of the Earth" could mean they thought it was flat.  From a very high mountain, you actually COULD see every kingdom on Earth if it was flat (especially knowing that they hadn't the first CLUE as to how big the world was).  The Earth as a clay seal analogy wouldn't work if they thought the Earth was a sphere.  Each and every one could possibly be interpreted that the authors thought the world was flat.  Are you really going to deny that?   That is a very valid possibility that you choose to ignore.  You can say hyperbole, or metaphor or whatever you want, but the simple truth is, everyone back then thought the world was flat.  It's not much of a stretch to think these people did too.

This really should not be as big an issue as atheists here are making it.

Agreed.  It's not.  The bible is fiction, so spending this much time trying to figure out what the authors really believed is akin to spending time trying to figure out if Snape was a good guy or a bad guy.  Fun, no doubt.  But useful?  Not really. 

There are zero verses in the Bible that actually declare the earth to be flat in a literal, factually descriptive manner.

But there are many that allude to it. Far more than allude to the notion of a sphere, wouldn't you say? 

There is no reason to assume the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat unless you're an atheist trying to make them out to be stupid.

Not true.  Everyone that lived in those times believed the Earth was flat.  Nobody believed it was a sphere.  That's plenty of reason to think the authors believed it was flat. 

But I will toss this one back at you.  The only reason to assume the biblical authors thought the earth wasn't flat is if you are a theist who wants the bible to look as though they were smarter than the average uneducated peasant.  Everything points to the notion that they believed the Earth was flat. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Darwins +73/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #61 on: August 16, 2011, 10:47:20 PM »
On the discussion of the "flat earth" assertion:

As I brought up in another thread about the use of hyperbole in scripture, is there a reason that the only literary style accepted by atheists here is a word-for-word, literal interpretation? Is there no allowance for hyperbole, metaphor/simile, and so forth? Let's address the scriptures used for evidence that the Biblical authors said the earth is flat...

Of course there's allowance for hyperbole, metaphor, poetry and the like.  That doesn't solve your problem of an unreasonable, irrational religious belief.  God is portrayed as by far the most sadistic, paranoid, evil character in western civilization.  Even if you think every story and comment in the bible is just allegorical, the idea that a god would patronize a cult for expansion reasons, encouraging barbaric genocide and authorizing rape and enslavement of survivors leaves you with no moral high ground.   The metaphor leads one to believe that this god would spare one's eternal life out of love and mercy, without taking into account the injustice of first setting up a system that would guarantee eternal torment.  It's the story of good cop/bad cop rapped up into one metaphorical psychopath.  Flat earth is just an easy illustration of the kind of abdication of reason the christian embraces to become a "slave to christ."

Offline Penman

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2011, 01:26:27 AM »
If you want to claim this, then take it another step.  When Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the light, why are we to take this literally?  Could it not be that Jesus just "knew" the way.  And that he sometimes "told" the truth (not always), and that he had a torch with him?  This is the problem with you Christians.  The use of hyperbole suits your fancy. 

You may claim they are metaphors/similes and the like, but unless you know the nuances and minutiae of the original language the words were written in, you can not superimpose that notion on top of it without opening that same notion to the rest of it. 

During the time of the biblical authors, especially in the OT, just about EVERYONE thought the world was flat.  Very few people thought it was a sphere.  So if you want to know the reasoning behind us saying the biblical authors wrote as if the world was flat... its simply because everyone at that time thought it was, and that their writings pretty much reflect it.  It's not a stretch to say it at all. 

The bible was written by humans.  If the humans made up the stories, they would be reflective of the nature of things as understood 2000 years ago.  Not surprisingly, this is exactly what you get.  You get cures for leprosy and other diseases that are idiotic (Leviticus 14).  You get stripes on animals that stand near striped fences (Genesis 30). 

We grew up. We know more now.  You go on and on about your interpretations of each line, but what you choose to ignore is the simple fact that every line you quoted could easily be followed by a "Yeah, but another possibility is that the authors could simply have believed the Earth was flat".  "Enthroned above the circle of the Earth" could mean they thought it was flat.  From a very high mountain, you actually COULD see every kingdom on Earth if it was flat (especially knowing that they hadn't the first CLUE as to how big the world was).  The Earth as a clay seal analogy wouldn't work if they thought the Earth was a sphere.  Each and every one could possibly be interpreted that the authors thought the world was flat.  Are you really going to deny that?   That is a very valid possibility that you choose to ignore.  You can say hyperbole, or metaphor or whatever you want, but the simple truth is, everyone back then thought the world was flat.  It's not much of a stretch to think these people did too.
 
But there are many that allude to it. Far more than allude to the notion of a sphere, wouldn't you say? 

Not true.  Everyone that lived in those times believed the Earth was flat.  Nobody believed it was a sphere.  That's plenty of reason to think the authors believed it was flat. 

But I will toss this one back at you.  The only reason to assume the biblical authors thought the earth wasn't flat is if you are a theist who wants the bible to look as though they were smarter than the average uneducated peasant.  Everything points to the notion that they believed the Earth was flat.

I am not claiming anything. It was the atheists here who claimed the Bible said the earth was flat. The very issue at hand here is did the authors of the Bible actually claim the earth was flat or describe it as such in a literal fashion? The answer is a resounding, no. That is the end of the discussion on this specific topic. If you want to discuss the issue of ANE linguistics and how to correctly interpret the use of hyperbole, metaphor, and other writing styles prevalent during those times, then let's do that. But, for the time being, let's keep to the topic at hand.

Although many people most likely thought the earth was flat during those times, that is not why the atheist says the Biblical authors thought that. The idea is that the Bible is of divine inspiration and if the atheist can point out a flaw such as the flat earth idea it will tear down the notion of divine inspiration. If it was simply a matter of "everyone" thought that, there wouldn't be pages of atheist information circulating the web about how Biblical authors thought the earth was flat.

Leviticus 14 has to deal with ritual cleansing, not curing. Make sure to read carefully. Also, Genesis 30 does not imply that the animals received their stripes by standing near the branches. In fact, the animals Jacob took were already dark, spotted, and speckled which is why the offspring were the same way.

You are ignoring the direct assertion made that the Bible says the earth is flat. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. The Bible does not imply the earth is flat. There is no evidence to support the assertion and therefore it is no longer a relevant argument. You cannot provide one shred of solid scriptural evidence indicating such an assertion was ever made by Biblical authors. You add opinion and say that because everyone else around them thought that, they must think it too and even though they didn't say so directly, it's implied in some mystic understanding only you and forum atheists possess.

I challenge you to take the verses in question (or find someone who has), supply them to a credible scholar of ANE languages, and have them support the claims that these verses indicate the authors were asserting the earth is flat. My bet is you won't find one ANE language scholar who buys it.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #63 on: August 17, 2011, 01:57:15 AM »
I am not claiming anything. It was the atheists here who claimed the Bible said the earth was flat. The very issue at hand here is did the authors of the Bible actually claim the earth was flat or describe it as such in a literal fashion? The answer is a resounding, no.

Why do you lie?
It was CHRISTIANS who originally claimed the Earth was flat. We're just agreeing that the Bible does say the Earth is flat. Like I told John - A circle is not a sphere. You claim they are hyperboles and metaphors, but you show no evidence to suggest that they are, you just say they are.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Penman

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2011, 04:11:44 AM »
I am not claiming anything. It was the atheists here who claimed the Bible said the earth was flat. The very issue at hand here is did the authors of the Bible actually claim the earth was flat or describe it as such in a literal fashion? The answer is a resounding, no.

Why do you lie?
It was CHRISTIANS who originally claimed the Earth was flat. We're just agreeing that the Bible does say the Earth is flat. Like I told John - A circle is not a sphere. You claim they are hyperboles and metaphors, but you show no evidence to suggest that they are, you just say they are.

Please, provide evidence supporting your claim. The overwhelming majority of Christians did not believe this and the Bible does not assert this.

I will provide a link with information from Jeffrey Burton Russell, professor of history at UCSB with extensive credentials and a cleverly titled book called "Inventing the Flat Earth."

Link: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

Again, find any ANE linguist who will agree that the Biblical authors are asserting the earth is flat in the provided scriptures and we'll have somewhere to resume this argument. Until then, you are wrong.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #65 on: August 17, 2011, 04:28:07 AM »
Please, provide evidence supporting your claim. The overwhelming majority of Christians did not believe this and the Bible does not assert this.

It would appear that I was wrong in my assertion that christians began the idea of a flat Earth. However, a few hundred years ago, they did believe it


Again, find any ANE linguist who will agree that the Biblical authors are asserting the earth is flat in the provided scriptures and we'll have somewhere to resume this argument. Until then, you are wrong.

This guy isn't a linguist but he's certainly not an idiot.

Also, it's not "until then you are wrong". It's "until then, I can dismiss your claims". Big difference
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2011, 08:27:45 AM »
Penman,

I would like some answers to my questions.  I do hope you wont’ let John answer for you.

As soon as you can show that your claims of “it’s only hyperbole” are valid with evidence, I would accept them.  I do need to see that you aren’t just one more magic decoder ring using Christian.  Tell me why I should accept one part as “hyperbole” and another part as literal. 

You seem to be unable to figure out the difference between a circle and a sphere.  Why is that?  Can you show me how a cloth can have a sphere as a base?  You wish to claim that they thought the moon was flat so how does this support your claim that they somehow knew that the earth was a sphere?  And you declare with no evidence that
Quote
Neither of these writers were attempting to make factually descriptive statements about the objects.
There is no way you can know this for certain but it certainly does help you when you make such ridiculous claims that somehow the Israelites knew that the earth was a sphere but magically didn’t realize the same about the moon. 

Yep, from a high place you can see quite a distance.  And again you make the claim of hyperbole with no evidence to support it other then wishful thinking.  IF you claimed to see all of Colorado from the top of any part of the Rockies you would be lying.  And why would you lie or &) use hyperbole if you didn’t think it was true?  Why not just say “holy crap, I can see a long ways from here.”?  Regardless, we have a story about Satan and JC, both mythic figures.  Shall we decide that they are hyperbole too?  Or do they have to be real for you, Pen?  I think they do and again we see you picking and choosing what is literal and what is metaphor.  We see nothing that indicates that the author of Matthew doesn’t think the earth is flat.  You keep making these declarations with no evidence at all.  The gospel doesn’t say “as far as the eye can see” it says they saw all of the kingdoms of the earth.  Just like a greek myth says that someone can drive the sun.  Both make ridiculous claims and there is no reason to think that they did not believe them literally. 
Quote
Velkyn: Even if it is assumed Matthew thinks the earth is flat, this still doesn't work because of the limitations of our eyes. Once again, another verse that does not support the flat earth claim.
Again, are Satan and Jesus special, Pen?  And can you show that the author of Matthew has any idea of this?  You try to use modern knowledge to excuse your primitive book. 

And now for the verse in Job.  Nice description of a sunrise in the mountains. Been there, done that.  The mountains do not show that the earth is a sphere.  It’s so cute how you ignore the first part of the verse. Do you really think no one noticed?  Let’s try again:
Quote
Job 3812 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
So, Pen, show me the edges of a sphere.  Tell me how the earth is “shaped” clay under a seal and how that could be a sphere. Where are the “folds” on a seal, Pen?  And do you know how a semi-colon is used, Pen?  Assuming that it is correct, being that there was little to no punctuation in the earliest version of the bible stories, the semi-colon hooks together related things.  The earth is the subject here. It is shaped like the clay under a seal *and* its features stand out. Why would the author of Job use the visual aid of a seal and clay, Pen if the earth is a sphere? Why would would the author say “edges”, that part that you ignored? 
Quote
This really should not be as big an issue as atheists here are making it. There are zero verses in the Bible that actually declare the earth to be flat in a literal, factually descriptive manner. There is no reason to assume the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat unless you're an atheist trying to make them out to be stupid.
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong.  You have demonstrated that you willfully ignore the parts that do show that the authors did think the world was flat.  And nice strawman there but again more deceit on your part.  No, I am not trying to make out the authors to be stupid.  They were simply ignorant, which can be fixed and has been fixed by science and education.  Your bible was written by ignorant people.  They thought that gods existed and that disease etc was from these gods’ “wrath”.  They thought a magical flood came and killed all people, animals, plants, on the earth.  They thought one could built a tower to reach God and evidently God thought they could too.  They thought that all humanity came from two people.  We know better now.  Now, I’m sure you’ll try to pick and choose, again, on what of those myths are real and metaphor/hyperbole, etc. 

EDIT:  As for Leviticus 14, it’s for removing the disease and removing ‘mold’.  See the context?  Or do you wish to claim that the mold was still there it was just “clean” same as the first, the disease was still there but it was “clean”?  We have many instances of how your savior cured/cleansed people with his own bodily fluids just like the priest is doing in Leviticus with the blood of the lamb.  Are the stories in the NT just as up for debate, Pen?

As for Genesis 30, you are wrong again in your claims of
Quote
Also, Genesis 30 does not imply that the animals received their stripes by standing near the branches. In fact, the animals Jacob took were already dark, spotted, and speckled which is why the offspring were the same way.
  Let’s look at what is said:
Quote
“Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied. “But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen.”
 34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.
 37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.
First, Jacob said to Laban that he would take the dark, spotted and striped goats as his wages so there would be no confusion (31-33).  Laban hid those particular goats before Jacob got them (verses 34-35).  Jacob was tending “the rest of Laban’s flocks” e.g. those that aren’t dark, stripy or spotted.  Those are the goats that were shown the sticks, and *those* goats were the ones that suddenly had dark, stripy and spotted offspring.  He took those DSS offspring as his own.

I wonder, Pen, do you think we can’t read the bible on our own and see that your claims are wrong? 

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:43:46 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #67 on: August 17, 2011, 08:55:23 AM »
I will provide a link with information from Jeffrey Burton Russell, professor of history at UCSB with extensive credentials and a cleverly titled book called "Inventing the Flat Earth."

Link: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

Interesting link.  Can you or your author provide evidence of this claim
Quote
A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church.
Who were these early Christian fathers and what influence did they have? Who are these others and why do I not know about them despite many years of looking?

I see no names, I see only a vague claim that I have yet to see supported by evidence.  I also see the weasel words "all educated" Christians/Greeks, etc,  being thrown about a lot.  How many of these are in any population?  Is it a circular argument that "any educated" are by arbitrary definition "those who do not believe in a flat earth"?     
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Penman

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #68 on: August 17, 2011, 03:12:35 PM »
It would appear that I was wrong in my assertion that christians began the idea of a flat Earth. However, a few hundred years ago, they did believe it

This guy isn't a linguist but he's certainly not an idiot.

Also, it's not "until then you are wrong". It's "until then, I can dismiss your claims". Big difference

Yes, a few early Christians did believe it, but not the majority and certainly nowhere near enough to assert that this was mainstream thinking derived from reading the Bible.

No, he is not a linguist. He also uses Nebuchadnezzar's dream as support for the flat earth idea. Anyone bringing that into the debate can't be taken seriously on the subject matter. No one in their right mind would ever assume that the description of one's dream is to be taken as what they literally believe to be true.

Thank you for your response.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12693
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #69 on: August 17, 2011, 04:07:16 PM »
On the discussion of the "flat earth" assertion:

What exactly is your point?  Are you saying all us Negative Nelly atheists who use straight forward readings of the bible are completely wrong in our understanding that the ancient hebrews thought the earth was flat?  Are you saying the bible gives us actual relevant information about the universe?  Or are you saying that the bible is...agnostic on the geometry of the universe and planets and we are making much ado about nothing?  Or are you saying something else altogether?  You seem to just be saying "nuh-uh", but I would like to be sure.


Just as Isaiah was giving a literary picture of God being above the earth...

There is no "above the earth".  Space does not have an orientation.  "Above" only makes sense with regard to a local surface.  I would take that as inferring the hebrews thought of the earth as a flat disc with and top and bottom, and an appropriate "above".  While we make speak of "above" in local terms, we do not do so when speaking in planetary terms.  We know better. 

Had the hebrews actually been privy to special information, they might have said something like "yhwh's power extends beyond the 8th planet in the solar system, yea, even a little over 4 light years to the next nearest star."  But they didn't.   

Neither of these writers were attempting to make factually descriptive statements about the objects.

Maybe not.  But by their writings we might glean their perspective on the universe and what they did or did not know about it.

Again, hyperbole is used to emphasize the meaning here.

How can you be sure that was not meant literally?  Because you and I, with our modern understanding know that if taken literally it is preposterous?  Or is there some other reason?


Matthew is simply recording Satan and Jesus...

And let's be fair here - Matt wasn't actually there.

 
[Daniel 4:10-11 (as given from the link by screwtape) is a portion of what King Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. Why this is included as evidence of the flat earth assertion, I have no clue.

Becasue it is a window into how iron age hebrews thought of the world?

This evidence is absurd and the website's publisher should be embarassed.

Says the guy who believes in an invisible sky wizard. 

Saying their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea is just another visual description to drive the point home.

but the visual imagery is undeniable flat.  Another peek into how they modeled the universe.

There is no reason to assume the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat unless you're an atheist trying to make them out to be stupid.

As if the talking snake, global flood that never happened and sorcerer's duel in the Pharoah's court weren't enough...
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 07:12:00 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Penman

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #70 on: August 17, 2011, 04:48:57 PM »
Penman,

I would like some answers to my questions.  I do hope you wont’ let John answer for you.

As soon as you can show that your claims of “it’s only hyperbole” are valid with evidence, I would accept them.  I do need to see that you aren’t just one more magic decoder ring using Christian.  Tell me why I should accept one part as “hyperbole” and another part as literal. 

You seem to be unable to figure out the difference between a circle and a sphere.  Why is that?  Can you show me how a cloth can have a sphere as a base?  You wish to claim that they thought the moon was flat so how does this support your claim that they somehow knew that the earth was a sphere?  And you declare with no evidence that
Quote
Neither of these writers were attempting to make factually descriptive statements about the objects.
There is no way you can know this for certain but it certainly does help you when you make such ridiculous claims that somehow the Israelites knew that the earth was a sphere but magically didn’t realize the same about the moon. 

Yep, from a high place you can see quite a distance.  And again you make the claim of hyperbole with no evidence to support it other then wishful thinking.  IF you claimed to see all of Colorado from the top of any part of the Rockies you would be lying.  And why would you lie or &) use hyperbole if you didn’t think it was true?  Why not just say “holy crap, I can see a long ways from here.”?  Regardless, we have a story about Satan and JC, both mythic figures.  Shall we decide that they are hyperbole too?  Or do they have to be real for you, Pen?  I think they do and again we see you picking and choosing what is literal and what is metaphor.  We see nothing that indicates that the author of Matthew doesn’t think the earth is flat.  You keep making these declarations with no evidence at all.  The gospel doesn’t say “as far as the eye can see” it says they saw all of the kingdoms of the earth.  Just like a greek myth says that someone can drive the sun.  Both make ridiculous claims and there is no reason to think that they did not believe them literally. 
Quote
Velkyn: Even if it is assumed Matthew thinks the earth is flat, this still doesn't work because of the limitations of our eyes. Once again, another verse that does not support the flat earth claim.
Again, are Satan and Jesus special, Pen?  And can you show that the author of Matthew has any idea of this?  You try to use modern knowledge to excuse your primitive book. 

And now for the verse in Job.  Nice description of a sunrise in the mountains. Been there, done that.  The mountains do not show that the earth is a sphere.  It’s so cute how you ignore the first part of the verse. Do you really think no one noticed?  Let’s try again:
Quote
Job 3812 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
So, Pen, show me the edges of a sphere.  Tell me how the earth is “shaped” clay under a seal and how that could be a sphere. Where are the “folds” on a seal, Pen?  And do you know how a semi-colon is used, Pen?  Assuming that it is correct, being that there was little to no punctuation in the earliest version of the bible stories, the semi-colon hooks together related things.  The earth is the subject here. It is shaped like the clay under a seal *and* its features stand out. Why would the author of Job use the visual aid of a seal and clay, Pen if the earth is a sphere? Why would would the author say “edges”, that part that you ignored? 
Quote
This really should not be as big an issue as atheists here are making it. There are zero verses in the Bible that actually declare the earth to be flat in a literal, factually descriptive manner. There is no reason to assume the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat unless you're an atheist trying to make them out to be stupid.
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong.  You have demonstrated that you willfully ignore the parts that do show that the authors did think the world was flat.  And nice strawman there but again more deceit on your part.  No, I am not trying to make out the authors to be stupid.  They were simply ignorant, which can be fixed and has been fixed by science and education.  Your bible was written by ignorant people.  They thought that gods existed and that disease etc was from these gods’ “wrath”.  They thought a magical flood came and killed all people, animals, plants, on the earth.  They thought one could built a tower to reach God and evidently God thought they could too.  They thought that all humanity came from two people.  We know better now.  Now, I’m sure you’ll try to pick and choose, again, on what of those myths are real and metaphor/hyperbole, etc. 

EDIT:  As for Leviticus 14, it’s for removing the disease and removing ‘mold’.  See the context?  Or do you wish to claim that the mold was still there it was just “clean” same as the first, the disease was still there but it was “clean”?  We have many instances of how your savior cured/cleansed people with his own bodily fluids just like the priest is doing in Leviticus with the blood of the lamb.  Are the stories in the NT just as up for debate, Pen?

As for Genesis 30, you are wrong again in your claims of
Quote
Also, Genesis 30 does not imply that the animals received their stripes by standing near the branches. In fact, the animals Jacob took were already dark, spotted, and speckled which is why the offspring were the same way.
  Let’s look at what is said:
Quote
“Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied. “But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen.”
 34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.
 37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.
First, Jacob said to Laban that he would take the dark, spotted and striped goats as his wages so there would be no confusion (31-33).  Laban hid those particular goats before Jacob got them (verses 34-35).  Jacob was tending “the rest of Laban’s flocks” e.g. those that aren’t dark, stripy or spotted.  Those are the goats that were shown the sticks, and *those* goats were the ones that suddenly had dark, stripy and spotted offspring.  He took those DSS offspring as his own.

I wonder, Pen, do you think we can’t read the bible on our own and see that your claims are wrong?

I will do my best to provide the best answers possible as I have been. As for John, I am not sure who or what you are referring to here.

The hebrew/aramaic/greek scholars and linguists determine how to properly read and interpret scripture (or any other writings using these languages) based on their studies of the languages used. This is their job and that information is relayed to us in translations which usually involve many notes. Am I a trained scholar in ANE languages? No. Are you? Maybe, I do not know. What we have to rely on is the information dispensed by scholars who are trained in these areas. I admit there are certain scriptures that make it difficult to understand if the author was being literal, figurative, poetic, or otherwise, but they are minimal when compared to the amount of writing as a whole. When issues do arise, I review the notes, check sources, and find out what scholars say about it. If you are sick and visit the doctor, you are relying on his educational background and on-the-job experience. You trust that the information he gives you is correct because he is an expert. If you doubt him, you usually get a second, and sometimes third, opinion. In the case of language and linguistics of ANE writings, specifically Biblical writings, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of scholars in harmony over how the language was written, used, and the literary techniques employed to convey a message. Other than you and a handful of atheists on this forum, can you find me a dozen scholars who don't know whether or not Jesus saying He is the vine and we are the branches is intended to be taken literally? I highly doubt it. It is well understood by ANE scholars that this figurative/metaphorical technique was often used and we understand it as such.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote when discussing the specific scriptures. I have no problem understanding the difference between a sphere and a circle. I also never asserted that they thought the moon was flat. My point was that when WE, meaning YOU AND I, look at the moon, it appears to be in the shape of a circle (when full). I then brought to mind the song about the moon hitting your eye like a big pizza pie. Pizza pies are flat and circular. When Dean Martin wrote these lyrics to convey his thoughts, do you believe that he actually thought the moon was flat and circular instead of spherical? Why or why not? How about Julie Andrews belting from the hillside that the hills are alive with the sound of music? Was she literally stating that the hills have become animate objects projecting sound? Why or why not? You probably understand the english language and use of this type of imagery, so it's relatively easy to understand why not to take Dean or Julie literally. This is exactly what the scriptures in question are doing and scholars who understand the language and its use help us to understand this.

Why does ANYONE employ the use of hyperbole or any other linguistic style in their writing or speech? It isn't about lying or explaining something to be literally true. These techniques have been used in all languages we have record of from the beginning of time until now. Why are you objecting so much to its use in the Bible? Why is it so unbelievable that the Biblical authors would use writing styles similar to those they shared time and space with? Why, at the top of the mountain in Colorado, am I wrong for proclaiming that I can see all of Colorado? Anyone with a decent understanding of the english language would recognize this statement instantly as hyperbole and not a literal description of what I can see. Why can't you do this with the Biblical writings?

I'm not sure what's more amusing here; you trying to catch me in a "got'cha!" moment by stating I ignored the first part of the verse in the Job example (which I didn't, if you actually read my entire breakdown of that verse), or your futile attempt to assert that the earth was the topic in verses 12-15. If you read carefully, you'll understand that the "it" referred to is the MORNING/DAWN, and NOT the earth. That is why "it (the sunlight from morning/dawn)" may seize the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it. It is the sunlight from morning/dawn that changes the earth as clay by a seal and causes the hills to stand out like folds of a garment. If you use a little imagination and picture a dark night in the mountains and then watching the sunrise crest over the mountains, you'll see the light start to move from one end of the horizon to the next while giving shape to the landscape that was previously unseen (because it was dark). This verse in Job is nothing more than vivid imagery used to paint a picture of God's power. In verse 8 of the same chapter, we read that God enclosed the sea behind doors. Should we read that literally or assume that the Biblical author thought there were really doors that hold the seas back? No. For this same reason we (and scholars) do not assume that the description of the earth taking shape as clay under a seal by the presence of light onto darkened landscape is to be associated with the idea of a flat earth.

Leviticus 14, once again, has to do with a ritual cleansing and not curing any disease. The hebrew word here for cleansing, tohorah, is used 13 times in the OT. Each instance of its use is clear and does not imply being cured or healed of the ailment. In fact, the use of this word in 2nd Chronicles is about the purification of the sanctuary. Can a sanctuary be cured of a disease, or is it more likely that we're talking about ritual cleansing?

You are correct, Laban removed Jacob's animals and sent them ahead with his sons while Jacob continued to tend to the flock. It was late and I must have misread that, my apologies. However, the verse indicates that it was the offspring of Laban's flock who were born DSS and not the original, left-behind flock of Laban's suddenly changing. I see no problem with an animal of one color giving birth to offspring of a different color, do you? Verse 39 says, "The flocks bred in front of the branches and bore streaked, speckled, and spotted young." It would appear that Jacob put some sort of hope into the breeding process that by placing branches near them while they mated that this would somehow cause them to look a certain way. Still, the outcome was that the flock gave birth to colored animals. Not a stretch here.

I do think that of many atheists, but thankfully the majority on here actually read the Bible. With that being said, as evidenced from some of the discussion so far, many do not comprehend what is written. I can read a manual on carpentry or how to assemble a nuclear reactor, but I would comprehend very little of what is being said without a solid educational background (or at least some sincere self-study on the subjects). Many atheists (this is a generalization, I know) cherry pick verses, pull them out of context, form an argument around them, yet ignore every other discipline involved in understanding scripture. Heck, Christians do this too! It's a learning process for us all and I am always up for that.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12693
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #71 on: August 17, 2011, 05:02:56 PM »
One other thing, unless I missed it (and I may have) you did not address the firmament problem from genesis.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #72 on: August 17, 2011, 08:58:00 PM »
When issues do arise, I review the notes, check sources, and find out what scholars say about it.

Do you check only Christian scholars or do you check all relevant source work? 

Other than you and a handful of atheists on this forum, can you find me a dozen scholars who don't know whether or not Jesus saying He is the vine and we are the branches is intended to be taken literally? I highly doubt it. It is well understood by ANE scholars that this figurative/metaphorical technique was often used and we understand it as such.

I don't think anyone discounts the idea that language techniques can be used in any writing.  What we are trying to tell you is that without knowing what the nuances of the language were at that time, you can't simply say one part or another is a figure of speech and another is literal just because it fits with what you believe.  You have to have some sort of objective way for knowing which is which, and if you don't, then anyone is free to see it any way they like. 

I think you need to re-read what I wrote when discussing the specific scriptures. I have no problem understanding the difference between a sphere and a circle. I also never asserted that they thought the moon was flat. My point was that when WE, meaning YOU AND I, look at the moon, it appears to be in the shape of a circle (when full).

Yes it does.  And since we live in the 21st century now, we can say it is a sphere.  Back then, however, most people thought it was a disc.  The same with the Earth. 

I then brought to mind the song about the moon hitting your eye like a big pizza pie. Pizza pies are flat and circular. When Dean Martin wrote these lyrics to convey his thoughts, do you believe that he actually thought the moon was flat and circular instead of spherical?

No, because he lived in the 20th century.  It was common knowledge at that time that pizzas are flat, and that the moon was a sphere.  So this is obviously a case where he believed it was a sphere, and used a play on the words.  We only KNOW this because we KNOW the 20th century pretty well.  BUT, if Dean Martin wrote that song 2000 years ago, it is far less likely to be a play on the words, correct? 

There is something you are missing, however.  It's called inference.  Let me give you an example.  If you read a book and inside that book people started talking about one particular character by saying things such as "How's the weather up there?", and "How do you fit under doorways?", what inference can you make about that person?  The author never has to come out and SAY "this man is really tall" for us to infer that he is tall.  The same can be said when we read a passage that talks about going to the top of a mountain and seeing all the kingdoms of the world.  You can infer shit from that.  You can infer that the people on went up on the mountain for a specific reason... and that reason is so that they could see all the kingdoms of the world.  Well, if the world is a sphere, that tactic would not work.  It would only work on a flat planet.  ERGO, you can infer they believed the Earth was flat.  Couple that with several other passages from which you can INFER things, and it's relatively open and shut.  Plus the fact that everyone around that time believed it was flat, and no one in their right mind would think these people believed it was a sphere.
 
Why does ANYONE employ the use of hyperbole or any other linguistic style in their writing or speech? It isn't about lying or explaining something to be literally true. These techniques have been used in all languages we have record of from the beginning of time until now. Why are you objecting so much to its use in the Bible?

Where do you see us having a problem with it's use?  All we have a problem with is your interpretation of which is which.  All of you Christians think you have the magic way to see what's literal and what's not, yet you never give us a way to tell.  You just say "X is hyperbole" when you don't like it, and "X is literal" when you do.  Your like or dislike of the way a specific passage comes across to you, does not give you the right to claim it means what you think and not what someone else thinks. 

Why, at the top of the mountain in Colorado, am I wrong for proclaiming that I can see all of Colorado? Anyone with a decent understanding of the english language would recognize this statement instantly as hyperbole and not a literal description of what I can see.

It is only because you know what Colorado is, and how big it is that you can say this.  If you asked someone who didn't know where or what "Colorado" is, could they be a good judge of whether or not you could see all of it at the top of this mountain?  You would have no clue if it was hyperbole or a literal description.  What if Colorado was a tiny town just below your vantage point? 

It only automatically becomes hyperbole when you know what the speaker is talking about.  That matters.  And without it, you can easily infer that these people believed the Earth was flat.   You seem to categorically deny this possibility.  You're wrong to do that and I think you know it. 

Why can't you do this with the Biblical writings?

You can.  You just have to ask the biblical authors what they were thinking and what they knew at that time in order to verify your stance.  I wish you luck with that. 

Leviticus 14, once again, has to do with a ritual cleansing and not curing any disease. The hebrew word here for cleansing, tohorah, is used 13 times in the OT. Each instance of its use is clear and does not imply being cured or healed of the ailment. In fact, the use of this word in 2nd Chronicles is about the purification of the sanctuary. Can a sanctuary be cured of a disease, or is it more likely that we're talking about ritual cleansing?

Soooo you're saying this as if it improves the situation?  A ritual cleansing is useful for..... what exactly?  You seemed to skip over the loony part about using 2 birds some yarn and some other shit as if it were productive in some way.  The point I was making is that the people of that time period did all sorts of loony crap because that is what they believed worked.  It was the way they viewed the world. 

I do think that of many atheists, but thankfully the majority on here actually read the Bible. With that being said, as evidenced from some of the discussion so far, many do not comprehend what is written.

Reading the bible is a bit of a right of passage for atheists.  Properly read, its the greatest force for atheism the world has ever known.  (Isaac Asimov)

It's a work of art, Penman. It's not a history book, no matter how much you wish it so.  It is subject to interpretation.  Perhaps it is you who do not comprehend it. 

I can read a manual on carpentry or how to assemble a nuclear reactor, but I would comprehend very little of what is being said without a solid educational background (or at least some sincere self-study on the subjects). Many atheists (this is a generalization, I know) cherry pick verses, pull them out of context, form an argument around them, yet ignore every other discipline involved in understanding scripture. Heck, Christians do this too! It's a learning process for us all and I am always up for that.

Then try to have an open mind that you might be wrong.  It doesn't seem like you do.  You don't want to learn, you want to teach, because you think you have all the answers.  This is not unusual.  It's par for the course with Christians. 

Atheists could be wrong. The number of atheists on the planet that would categorically deny even the possibility of the supernatural is very small.   But you'd have to provide convincing evidence that God is real first. 

I would love to know how much studying of the other side of the issue you've done in your time. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #73 on: August 18, 2011, 09:24:18 AM »
Pen,

I’m referring to the other Christian poster, you know, “John 3:16”.  Talk about being oblivious. 

You wish to cite linguists and scholars.  What is funny is that you ignore any linguists and scholars that don’t agree with you that use the same techniques.  We have tens (hundreds? millons if you include all of the Christians who are sure that they and they alone know wht God “really”meant) of “interpretations” of the Bible.  We have one going on that has taken 58 years to do *four* books.  Why can’t your god make things clear so we don’t have to do this, Pen?  You have yet to answer that.  Your attempt to claim that trusting these people is like trusting a physician fails since we have evidence that the doctor knows what he’s doing.  We have none when it come to the ridiculous numbers of claims of “truth” from Christians and their interpretations.

You wish to claim that the problem with determining what is literal and what is other is “they are minimal when compared to the amount of writing as a whole”.  That is simply untrue, and making more baseless claims helps you not at all.  There are not “hundreds (if not thousands) scholars in “harmony”.  We have hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian apologists who disagree constantly on what is “really” meant in the bible.  Yes, the verse about the vine is likely meant to be metaphor.  However, is the cruxifiction a metaphor? It could be. It could be hyperbole.  It could be an outright lie.  But you have the presupposition that it *has* to be true.  And there is no evidence to support that. 

No, I don’t need to re-read anything you’ve written at all.  You have claimed that the bible “really” means that a circle is a sphere.
Quote
Why would any of you assume that each word here is to be taken literally and that Isaiah truly thought the earth was a flat circle? If we, from earth, look at the moon, it appears to be a circle (at least when it's full). I recall a song about the moon hitting your eye like a big pizza pie. Pizza is flat. Should we assume the writer of that song understood the moon to be flat as well? Just as Isaiah was giving a literary picture of God being above the earth and its rulers/other gods, so was the writer of the song giving a literary picture of what the moon appeared to look like to him. Neither of these writers were attempting to make factually descriptive statements about the objects.
You have yet to show that to be the case.  The author of Isaiah said that the earth is a circle.  Not a sphere.  There is nothing here to show that anyone thought that the earth was a sphere. Yes, the moon looks like a circle.  And again how does this show that the author knew that the earth was a sphere?  You have yet to show that at all. You want to say the author *knew* the earth was a sphere and was *just* using a faulty descriptor.  But you have yet to show he knew it was spherical at all.  And no scholars don’t all agree with you.  More vague appeals to authority with again no evidence.

Again, you have yet to show your interpretation is the right one.  I’m still waiting for you to do those miracles that your savoir claimed you could do.  Or was that just metaphor or hyperbole too? &)

Let me ask you, Pen, did the ancient Greeks think that their gods lived on Mt. Olympus or not?  If they did, why disbelieve that the ancient Israelites also had mistaken beliefs? 

And I am not objecting to the use of any literary technique in the bible. Nice strawman but again it’s nonsense. I am objecting to Christians trying to claim that they know which parts are what with no evidence to support them.  You have very little to demonstrate that what you pick and choose is what is “really” meant. 

Oh, I didn’t just try to catch you in your ignorance. I did.  I do read the verses “carefully” and that word doesn’t mean “read it like me and believe like me”.  It does get so tedious when Christians want to that the only way to “correctly” read scripture is their way and *only* their way.  They always use words like “correctly”, “carefully”, “properly”, etc and it always means the same thing to them, “my way or the highway”.  Sorry, if I disappoint you and don’t automatically believe your baseless claims. I am sure you do pray and pray that people do but amazing how that fails, isn’t it?

I asserted that the verses state that the earth has edges. I never said that “it” in the verse meant the earth. Nice attacking of something that never happened. I guess it’s easier than actually addressing the problem.
Quote
Job 3812 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Now we have you trying to claim, well, I’m not quite sure what.
Quote
I'm not sure what's more amusing here; you trying to catch me in a "got'cha!" moment by stating I ignored the first part of the verse in the Job example (which I didn't, if you actually read my entire breakdown of that verse), or your futile attempt to assert that the earth was the topic in verses 12-15. If you read carefully, you'll understand that the "it" referred to is the MORNING/DAWN, and NOT the earth. That is why "it (the sunlight from morning/dawn)" may seize the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it. It is the sunlight from morning/dawn that changes the earth as clay by a seal and causes the hills to stand out like folds of a garment.
Pen, how does this excuse the nonsense that the earth has edges.  What difference does it make what shakes it? And no, it doesn’t say that the sunlight changes the earth. For all of your accusing me of not understanding English properly, you sure indulge in that yourself when convenient.  Where is the dawn or sun acting on the earth in the sentence?

Your attempts to invoke a scene makes no difference, Pen.  You are again making assumption after assumption with no basis. You still cannot show me the “edges” of the earth.  Again, you want to claim “vivid imagery” but what prevents that from being used for all of the dramatic events in the bible tht supposedly have happened per your claims?  And gee, more appeals to authority but no citations from that authority.  Not impressed.

Again you are wrong about Leviticus 14.  You should read Leviticus 13 to see why. Leviticus 13 has all about skin diseases and mold and how to recognize them and determine what to do.  Then we have Leviticus 14 which has what to do.  If someone is not cured of a disease, they are not clean.  They mean one and the same in this context.  It also seems that though you like to claim context, you ignore it when convenient.  As for 2 Chronicles, I’d suggest you look at context.   

Quote
You are correct, Laban removed Jacob's animals and sent them ahead with his sons while Jacob continued to tend to the flock. It was late and I must have misread that, my apologies. However, the verse indicates that it was the offspring of Laban's flock who were born DSS and not the original, left-behind flock of Laban's suddenly changing.
No one has said that the original left behind flock “suddenly changed”. They were shown the sticks, they had babies.  Laban had goats of both types and split them so Jacob could not get his wages since the DSS goats were taken away.
Quote
I see no problem with an animal of one color giving birth to offspring of a different color, do you? Verse 39 says, "The flocks bred in front of the branches and bore streaked, speckled, and spotted young." It would appear that Jacob put some sort of hope into the breeding process that by placing branches near them while they mated that this would somehow cause them to look a certain way. Still, the outcome was that the flock gave birth to colored animals. Not a stretch here.
No, dear, I don’t since I know genetics. Your attempts at apologetics are so pitiful.  You now want to say that Jacob just “hoped”.  Is this all you have, trying to now claim that they really didn’t believe in magic and prayer to their god?  Hilarious. I’d suggest you read the next chapter where Jacob is assigning this magic to God and God’s protection of him. I do have to ask, you are so pleased with atheists reading the bible, but you sure don’t seem to have yourself.

And ah, one more return to the dog’s vomit of
Quote
With that being said, as evidenced from some of the discussion so far, many do not comprehend what is written.

And even better, insults about how educated I am and I’m guessing, anyone who dares to disagree with you is. 
Quote
I can read a manual on carpentry or how to assemble a nuclear reactor, but I would comprehend very little of what is being said without a solid educational background (or at least some sincere self-study on the subjects).
You are quite a liar, Pen.  Oh and I even see generalizations with no evidence being given.
Quote
Many atheists (this is a generalization, I know) cherry pick verses, pull them out of context, form an argument around them, yet ignore every other discipline involved in understanding scripture. Heck, Christians do this too! It's a learning process for us all and I am always up for that.
Ah, but you think you don’t.  And that’s the sad part since you do.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 09:28:18 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Darwins +14/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #74 on: August 19, 2011, 10:45:47 AM »
The hebrew/aramaic/greek scholars and linguists determine how to properly read and interpret scripture (or any other writings using these languages) based on their studies of the languages used. This is their job and that information is relayed to us in translations which usually involve many notes. Am I a trained scholar in ANE languages? No. Are you? Maybe, I do not know. What we have to rely on is the information dispensed by scholars who are trained in these areas. I admit there are certain scriptures that make it difficult to understand if the author was being literal, figurative, poetic, or otherwise, but they are minimal when compared to the amount of writing as a whole. When issues do arise, I review the notes, check sources, and find out what scholars say about it.
Why would anyone need to do any of this?
Do you believe in the god of the bible?
Do you believe that he/it is omnipotent?
Do you believe that the bible is divinely inspired word of god that is written to convey IMPORTANT information about this life and beyond?
Why should this IMPORTANT information need to be "interpreted" or even "translated"?
I can think of numerous better ways (especially if I were an omnipotent being) to convey important information than a collection of books that has to be translated, interpreted, discern literal from metaphor and then have groups of humans decide which books they want or don't want included.
I guess that I am smarter than bible god.

Quote
I can read a manual on carpentry or how to assemble a nuclear reactor, but I would comprehend very little of what is being said without a solid educational background (or at least some sincere self-study on the subjects).
Yes but a manual on carpentry or how to assemble a nuclear reactor is not open to interpretation and will not contain any hyperbole or outlandish claims.

If the bible is supposed to be a "How to" manual, it is absolutely the worst one ever written.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Darwins +73/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2011, 11:54:01 AM »
If the bible is supposed to be a "How to" manual, it is absolutely the worst one ever written.

Which is why god, in his wisdom, gave us the Roman Catholic Church to tell us what it all means and how to respond.

Oh wait...

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #76 on: September 10, 2011, 08:19:06 AM »
This was what Jesus was talking about nearly 2,000 years ago, that, 'THE WORLD HAS HATED HIM, WILL HATE HIM TO THIS DAY UNTIL THE LAST DAY' AND HATE HIS FOLLOWERS.' but he said, FEAR NOT, FOR I HAVE OVERCOME, SO SHALL YOU! didn't he? Now I'm gonna hang in there with Him no matter how much you all hate Jesus and dont wanna believe in him, he has shown his hand in my life alot of times .

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #77 on: September 10, 2011, 08:25:37 AM »
<snip>

I recommend you read replies to other posts before posting again. Such an "argument" has already been posted ad nauseam
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #78 on: September 10, 2011, 08:26:48 AM »
God is not a man that he should lie, He loves us all and wants us to humble ourselves before Him, those who exalt themselves will be humbled and those who humble themselves will be exalted, because the only way to go up in life is to go down on your knees and be happy with what you already have and thank God for the very oxygen your breathing.

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #79 on: September 10, 2011, 08:29:49 AM »
If you talking to me BlazeKen or whatever, you better shut up coz I'll wring ur neck if I had a chance.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #80 on: September 10, 2011, 08:31:09 AM »
If you talking to me BlazeKen or whatever, you better shut up coz I'll wring ur neck if I had a chance.

First of all it's "Blaziken". Second, "come at me, bro". EDIT: Third, nice "theist love" you demonstrate. I'm sure your god is very proud of you ;)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 08:33:04 AM by Blaziken_rjcf »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2011, 08:37:39 AM »
Are you making fun of the Bible? I hope your not, because the bible was meant for you and I brother, 'REMEMBER'
'YOU SHALL REAP WHAT YOU SOW'
Punishment for people who mislead God's people is severe, eternal separation from God is the last thing on my mind, THANK GOD for the free GIFT he has presented to us, 'SALVATION', you receive Jesus is to receive God, because remember, THERE IS MORE REJOICING IN HEAVEN FOR ONE SINNER WHO HAS REPENTED THAN FOR 99 RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE WHO DO NOT NEED TO REPENT!

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #82 on: September 10, 2011, 08:41:44 AM »
First of all, 'Im sure  you a HANDSOME MAN, God's own image," second ," IM SURE YOU BE BEGGING GOD NOT TO THROW YOU TO HELL FOR SAYING CRAP AGAINST HIM DURING JUDGEMENT", third of all , " REPENT BROTHER, BECAUSE GOD IS A LOVING FATHER, HE DOES COUNT ALL YOUR SINS BUT HE WAITS FOR YOU PATIENTLY," lastly I dont wanna make you pee your pants out of fear of me

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #83 on: September 10, 2011, 08:43:19 AM »
Are you making fun of the Bible?

I was actually just pointing out that you're not following the "turn the other cheek" tactic as ordered by Jesus

I hope your not, because the bible was meant for you and I brother, 'REMEMBER'
'YOU SHALL REAP WHAT YOU SOW'

I sow seeds of truth, freedom and rational thought. I hope I reap what I have sown

Punishment for people who mislead God's people is severe

Seriously, you're doing the "hell threats"? The last thing I fear is the imaginary

eternal separation from God is the last thing on my mind, THANK GOD for the free GIFT he has presented to us, 'SALVATION', you receive Jesus is to receive God, because remember, THERE IS MORE REJOICING IN HEAVEN FOR ONE SINNER WHO HAS REPENTED THAN FOR 99 RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE WHO DO NOT NEED TO REPENT!

Free gift. All you have to do is suspend all rational thought and worship what is probably the most evil being ever conceived by mankind. Doesn't sound so "free" to me
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #84 on: September 10, 2011, 08:46:03 AM »
First of all, 'Im sure  you a HANDSOME MAN, God's own image,

I won't say I'm horribly disfigured, but I'm not handsome either. Thankfully I was not made in your god's image, otherwise I wouldn't exist and would be worshiped by millions who would kill for me. I can't imagine anything that could be worse, even if I wasn't aware of it

second ," IM SURE YOU BE BEGGING GOD NOT TO THROW YOU TO HELL FOR SAYING CRAP AGAINST HIM DURING JUDGEMENT"

Right now I'm begging myself not to laugh too loud, otherwise my neighbors might think I'm crazy or something

third of all , " REPENT BROTHER, BECAUSE GOD IS A LOVING FATHER, HE DOES COUNT ALL YOUR SINS BUT HE WAITS FOR YOU PATIENTLY," lastly I dont wanna make you pee your pants out of fear of me

And we close with threats of hell. Newsflash: I don't fear hell any more than I fear toilet paper
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Gods-Warrior

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #85 on: September 10, 2011, 08:48:17 AM »
to turn the other cheek, doesnt mean to surrender like a coward like you do BLAZIKEN, its means to show the other guy I've got nothing to loose, but you got everything to loose to the Lake of FIRE, but I'D rather be like God, a warrior, thats why he is called 'THE LORD' because he is THE LORD, A WARRIOR AND A FATHER, dont think He is a old man, because he was not a nice guy to those who oppresssed His People and those who worshipped idols and those who mock his name and sin

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Proving that Jesus is Imaginary (in one simple step!)
« Reply #86 on: September 10, 2011, 08:53:11 AM »
to turn the other cheek, doesnt mean to surrender like a coward like you do BLAZIKEN,

I don't remember "surrendering". My memory must be worse than I thought ;)

its means to show the other guy I've got nothing to loose, but you got everything to loose to the Lake of FIRE,

Pascal's Wager. I might win the atheist bingo soon ;)

but I'D rather be like God, a warrior, thats why he is called 'THE LORD' because he is THE LORD, A WARRIOR AND A FATHER,

So your god is like Genghis Khan, murdering millions of people just for "teh lulz", as it were. Good to know you worship such an evil being

dont think He is a old man, because he was not a nice guy to those who oppresssed His People and those who worshipped idols and those who mock his name and sin

I thought I had already mentioned I know he's imaginary. Wow, my memory REALLY sucks

Well, this has been fun, but it's time to report you to the mods and get this over with
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.