Author Topic: how would you counter this, literalist post.  (Read 2013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #116 on: August 21, 2014, 10:19:34 AM »
You really think God should just let it all go and just let everyone do whatever they want, no matter what it is? Does anybody respect a pushover like that? I wouldn't.



Ding ding ding ding!!!! Give that man a Prize!!!

The problem is that he absolutely does "lets it go and just let everyone do whatever they want, no matter what it is"

Ultimate Punishment metered out after the offence does not teach.

No on sees the punishment so they do not learn what can happen if your disobey,  No one knows who gets punished and who does not.

Discipline requires feedback to have any value.  Simply allowing someone to do what they want all their life and punishing them after they are dead accomplishes nothing but being vengeful and sadistic.




God has an advantage over humans as well he does not even need to allow you to comit the crime and cause harm to others.  He could intervene as soon as the crime begins and punish accordingly.  Instead he allows a priest to rape a little boy for 10 years that little boy becomes a pedophile and rapes little boys .  The priest goes to hell and the kids who succumbed to his evil deeds go on to do evil themselves and are punished as well.     Punishing invisibly after the deed is comitted is evil if you take not action to intervene it is doubly evil..

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #117 on: August 21, 2014, 10:41:03 AM »
Also, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7)

This also a bad translation. It should be,

He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

I am not sure what this means, but it sounds like he is saying that the earth is not hanging from a string or anything else from the firmament. Job certainly does think there are pillars below as you conveniently missed the rest of the verse,

 Job 26:11 "The pillars of heaven tremble."
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #118 on: August 21, 2014, 10:50:42 AM »
Interesting point. So, are you saying that if God is real, then He basically has no choice but to act in unorthodox manners?
No, I'm saying that to an god, human beings would essentially be neat toys.  Or maybe pets would be a better word.  Imagine Earth as the equivalent of an ant farm.

Quote from: skeptic54768
if you were God, would you act that way or would you be nice?
Which 'me' are you talking about?  The five-year old 'me' who had almost no experience with other people, save my family and a couple of neighbors?  The twelve-year old 'me' who had undergone near-constant bullying at school, to the point of being constantly sullen, withdrawn, and resentful, who had a hair-trigger temper as a self-defense mechanism?  The eighteen-year old 'me' who almost didn't graduate high school due to social problems, and who didn't really consider the adult world 'real'?  Or how about the twenty-five year old 'me' who decided to give college another shot, after having experienced the reality of life without a real college degree for a few years?  Or maybe the current 'me', who has been working a real job for the past five years, after having graduated?  All of those are perfectly valid versions of 'me', just at different points in my life.

There's a reason I asked that.  You said God was perfect, but a perfect being doesn't have room to grow.  In a very real sense, a perfect being isn't even alive; it would be like an AI without heuristic programming, able to respond but never change or adapt to changing circumstances.  Compare that to a human - any human - who is far from perfect, but possesses the capacity to grow and become more than what they are. 

Leaving that aside, it would be very tempting to say that I would always act kindly and decently towards things that I had godlike power over.  But that wouldn't really be honest.  For example, I have had several pet cats through my life.  But I don't always feed them when they want, and sometimes they don't want what I give them.  I don't clean their litterbox out as often as I should.  They throw up (both hairballs and food, sometimes even food they just got done eating if they overate), which is disgusting and annoying to deal with.  It's gotten to the point where I'll pick them up and rush them to a trash can or to the toilet, which they aren't very happy about.  They hate it when I have to give them medicine, to the point where I have to literally force them to take it.  Sometimes I don't notice that they're underfoot and step on one of them, or my foot runs into them as I'm walking, or put something down on their tail or their fur without realizing it.

I wouldn't make a very good god, I'm afraid.  And I have all this life experience dealing with other people.  According to you, your god is essentially alone in the universe, with nothing that even comes close to being a peer.  Most of our values come from our experiences with people who are our social peers - we learn the value of respect by making the association between "how we act towards others" and "how others act towards us in return", for example - and that means that someone with no peers would not have any way to learn any of those values that we take for granted.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #119 on: August 21, 2014, 10:54:13 AM »




That picture is not scripturally accurate. 

"And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Ignorance. You are seeing what you want to see. The word "open" is not in the Hebrew. The proper translation of that verse is.

and let birds fly above the earth over the face of the firmament of heaven

"Face" is the same word as at the beginning of Genesis "the spirit of god moved over the face of the waters."

Why do religious people not read what the bible says?

No it's the other way around  You see what you want to see.  Birds don't fly in something solid.  I suppose it's a trivial matter to you that firmament is also translated as "expanse".

Young's Literal Translation
And God saith, 'Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

Furthermore the picture shows the earth sitting on something.  That is not what the scripture says.

It's odd too the picture doesn't make the earth a square since the Bible talks about the "four corners" of the earth since everything is to be taken literal such as "foundations of the earth".
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #120 on: August 21, 2014, 11:07:08 AM »
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."  (Genesis 1:8 )

The pictures shows heaven to be above the firmament.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #121 on: August 21, 2014, 11:10:20 AM »
From the NIV

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Two points...  first, the "heavens" are a billion billion billion times larger than the earth.  Second, the final description is of a formless ocean sitting in the dark.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So before god created the sun or stars, there was light that made day and night?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

In other words, above the sky is more ocean, and when God wants it to rain, he "opens up the heavens".  JST, the birds fly in this "vault" of air between the ocean below us and the ocean above us.  Again we have day and night without the sun.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Ok sure...

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Note that all biological and fossil records indicate that life started under water and was neither plant nor animal, then eventually split into basic plants and basic animals.   Still, here, we have plants existing and day and night existing and no sun yet.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So god created the "heavens" and the "earth" on day one and night and day on day two... but now he gets around to creating the sun, moon, and stars which are described as lights that we can use to help us govern our time.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


Note that life began in water... not as plants on ground... and birds came way after that.


24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Not much more to add here other than I didn't want any believers to claim I took anything out of context.

As Foxy Freedom and Graybeard point out, the idea that the earth is "spread out" and that the sun is moving in the sky for our benefit are supported by later biblical verses.

We're not misunderstanding this or taking it out of context... the Bible is just wrong on these counts.

It'd be an amazing book if, in Genesis... can you imagine if it described the rotation of the planets and stars as giant glowing balls of fire?   Before we had any ability to know this?   Wow, what an amazing book it would be if it wasn't just fables invented by bronze age goat herders.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #122 on: August 21, 2014, 11:37:55 AM »




That picture is not scripturally accurate. 

"And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Ignorance. You are seeing what you want to see. The word "open" is not in the Hebrew. The proper translation of that verse is.

and let birds fly above the earth over the face of the firmament of heaven

"Face" is the same word as at the beginning of Genesis "the spirit of god moved over the face of the waters."

Why do religious people not read what the bible says?

No it's the other way around  You see what you want to see.  Birds don't fly in something solid.  I suppose it's a trivial matter to you that firmament is also translated as "expanse".

Young's Literal Translation
And God saith, 'Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

Furthermore the picture shows the earth sitting on something.  That is not what the scripture says.

It's odd too the picture doesn't make the earth a square since the Bible talks about the "four corners" of the earth since everything is to be taken literal such as "foundations of the earth".

More ignorance. This is what scripture says.

Job9:6 "he shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble."

1Sam2:8 "for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."

Why would the diagram draw the earth square? The bible describes the "circle" of the earth.

What is it you do not understand in the phrase "over the face of"?

A plane flies over the face of the moon. The hands move over the face of a clock. Birds fly over the face of the firmament.

Young's first literal translation was published in 1862. By that date, Young certainly knew that the bible was wrong so it is not surprising he changed firmament to "expanse".

Do you want to embarrass yourself with more delusional arguments?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #123 on: August 21, 2014, 11:48:24 AM »
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."  (Genesis 1:8 )

The pictures shows heaven to be above the firmament.

Your arguments are getting to the level of quibbling now.

The firmament is part of heaven. It is where the doors and windows are. Do you remember Noah's flood? Gen7:11 "and the windows of the heavens were opened and the rain fell upon the earth."
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6483
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #124 on: August 21, 2014, 11:56:42 AM »
Just curious.  Where in the creation story did god mention bacteria, viruses, paramecium, amoeba, plankton, krill, tardigrades and other tiny critters? Fungi. lichens, parasites?  And did Adam name penguins, polar bears, naked mole rats, kangaroos? How about the worms that live around undersea volcanic vents? I mean, god had Adam sit down and name all 8.7 million plus species that he'd made, so these things were important for some reason. Did Eden have every possible habitat so that Adam could name them all by just sitting there and watching them march/crawl/slither/wiggle by?

I wasn't there, jstwebbrowsing. You apparently were. Please advise.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #125 on: August 21, 2014, 11:59:47 AM »
Foxy, what translations do you prefer?
Nah son...

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #126 on: August 21, 2014, 12:29:51 PM »
There aren't any preferable translations. My experience is that any time there is something sensitive about Christianity, they all cover it up, and play word substitutions.

EDIT: except, being fair, the interlinear in   http://scripture4all.org/   is fairly useful. However, they decided to translate  rqio as "atmosphere" rather than indicate that it was a flat beaten substance, which could be either glass or metal. I vote glass, since you have to see the upper water through it, to make the blue sky.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 12:38:21 PM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #127 on: August 21, 2014, 01:03:35 PM »
I don't get how anyone can read the descriptions of creation in the bible and not feel uncomfortable as a believer...

The typical defense I get from theists is something like...
- You're taking it out of context or not understanding it right.
- I'm cherry picking...  (but they're not, by ignoring these verses)
- A personal attack on me.
- But if I post the actual scripture and break it down point by point, the post is just skipped over.

It must be really hard to be presented with clear evidence that the Bible is full of gigantic problems... someone has been taught their whole life to try to believe these lies with all their heart, and there are consequences if they don't believe and defend their faith.

But clearly, we're not lying here... just read it... I pasted it for you.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #128 on: August 21, 2014, 02:23:47 PM »
Foxy, what translations do you prefer?

I read the Hebrew and Greek texts.

No translations are perfect but the internationally accepted translations which are honest enough to include footnotes with different translations and unknown words are probably the best eg RSV common bible. This one actually gives part of the true translation of Gen1:1 When god began to create....from the Hebrew rather than just the usual Greek - In the beginning...

Young's literal translation is one of the worst online. There no such thing as a literal translation of literature from one language to another, especially from an ancient language which is so different from modern English. Translation of literature always has to deal with meaning and interpretation so it depends on the viewpoint of the translator. A translator with a vested interest will skew a text in his own direction. A good translator will try to discover what the author believed.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6722
  • Darwins +897/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #129 on: August 21, 2014, 02:32:33 PM »
Also, there is the fact that all other sacred texts reflect the level of knowledge about the earth and universe that the people who wrote them had at that time. Those other texts have lots of people "interpreting" them to account for all the stuff that is clearly wrong.

"Well, ya see, right here in the Quran it says life came from fluid, but they really meant microscopic life forms were in the fluid. How could they have known about microbes before microscopes? Clearly, Allah told them about bacteria and viruses. Yeah, they could have said that, and they didn't but---look over there! It's a lovely mosque covered with mosaic tiles......"

Same with the Gita and every other old complicated holy book. It could be nonsense, it could be profound, it could be metaphors and poetry. One thing it is definitely not: scientifically accurate, or reflecting knowledge beyond what the people of the time had access to.

Why would the bible be any different?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #130 on: August 21, 2014, 03:00:49 PM »
^^  You just nail it again and again.

If something is a divinely inspired, clear as day, super true, non-contradictory, wonderful book... why am I not able to just read giant chunks of it and see clearly that it's saying THIS or THAT?

I need to somehow be dialed into God or a trained interpreter in order not to "twist" the Bible?

The truth is... what Christians believe is... unless you're willing to bend over backwards to make excuses for the Bible, you're not interpreting it correctly.

You literally hear people say things like, "God was so good he let young virgins in conquered territory have two months of grieving before they could be protected in marriage by one of the Hebrew soldiers who liberated their village from it's evil ways by slaying everyone else except the young virgins."  (because everyone else was so evil in God's eyes)

You'll hear them say, "God knew the people at that time weren't ready to give up slavery or whatnot because it was a necessary evil at that time but we know better today!"

I'll ask in response, "So God felt people were ready to stone their kids for being disobedient, and God felt people were ready to slay anyone who worked on the Sabbath...   but yet he didn't feel they were ready to hear that slavery was wrong?   Or genocide was wrong?"       


The mental gymnastics you have to perform to rationalize this awful, awful stuff is just amazing.   Anyone who isn't willing to bend over backwards to make these excuses isn't reading the text correctly.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #131 on: August 21, 2014, 03:21:56 PM »
I'm willing to grant that the various holy texts were at least attempts to explain how things came about.  However, there is no good reason to simply assume they're literally true because they're supposedly directly from the mouth of a god.  What's in them should be compared to things we've discovered through other means to check their veracity; unfortunately, what much more frequently happens is that other things we've discovered are checked against the words in holy texts and accepted or discarded based on how closely they coincide and whether any differences can be rationalized away.  Otherwise you get movements like creationism, which seek to discredit things that contradict their particular interpretation, and which have a huge capacity for splitting hairs.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #132 on: August 21, 2014, 04:29:58 PM »

But, I see God as having a different role than humans. For example, we have to try and stop the evil that is done. God does not have to because that is not his role. Just like how you can't keep a criminal hostage in your basement for years. if the law finds out, you're in trouble. Only the law can lock people up in jail. Different roles for different people.

Sure, you say it would be nice and awesome if God eliminated evil, but then free will would be eliminated. Everyone will be good not because they chose to, but because they have to. That can never be true love.

There is absolutely no possible way to make someone love you without affecting free will. if you force someone to love you, then their free will has been compromised. It will never be true love.

This is the best explanation, in my opinion.

The thing is, though, that although you are right in saying that if you force someone to love you, that love can not be counted as being given willingly, no one is really talking about forcing anyone to love god (or anyone else) to start with. If god made a world without natural disasters and with soil, weather conditions and accessibility to water evenly distributed throughout, with sources of power (knowing in advance, of course, that the industrial revolution and all that came after it would occur) which would be clean, easy and readily available, there would naturally be a whole lot less for mankind to feel the need to steal, kill or even be jealous over.

It might not be "perfect", but it would be a big improvement.

Let's say that on top of that, he left a clear, unambiguous message that he had created all this for us, and of his love for us.

There is still no violation of free will...but isn't the average person still going to be a lot more inclined to love someone who treats them well, takes care of their needs and reinforces their affection in clear, unambiguous terms? Could you accuse such a person of forcing the object of their affection to love them in return? It seems to me that while such behavior might have a fairly good chance of engendering at least a reciprocal fondness, there is no actual force or violation of free will going on.

Sure, there would probably still be some nasty characters, some disappointments, and even the occasional tragedy on an Earth designed for an equal spread of resources to one and all, but if god had designed it this way, which should have been WELL within his capabilities, wouldn't a lot of things be a lot more pleasant without any of those free will issues?

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6722
  • Darwins +897/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #133 on: August 21, 2014, 05:29:43 PM »
^^^So true.

Suppose a parent has four kids. One of them gets a large, beautifully decorated room full of nice clothes and toys, lots of delicious food and plenty of outdoor playtime. 

Meanwhile the other three get to sleep in the dirty basement on the floor, with only the well-treated kid's leftover food to eat, and cast off, unwanted clothes and toys; they have to spend all their time inside doing boring chores. They get beaten if they slack off or complain.

Everyday they see the other kid playing in the sunshine, watching tv and eating dessert. The one kid gets regular medical checkups, vaccinations and dental care. The other three just get sick all the time and have toothaches that never get fixed. The one kid gets to dress up and go to parties. The other three never do.

The parent never explains why the household is run this way. They have set up the scenario to be blatantly unfair and even terrible for most of the kids, for no clear reason. Would it be any surprise if the three kids in the basement think this is wrong and take out their resentment on the kid with the nice room?

The kid who has everything might try to rationalize why they have it so good-- they were nicer in a previous life, or they behave better to the parent, or they are cuter-looking or smarter or something. The kids in the basement are being punished for who knows what-- or maybe, if they suck it up and do their chores and don't make any problems, they will someday get a nice room and dessert, too. Maybe.

Because the parent is good, why can't the rest of the kids see that? By the way, here is some leftover food and a bag of old clothes. And a toy I don't want anymore. And half a bottle of expired medicine from when I was sick last year. Take some now, you have a nasty cough.

What is amazing to me is how many people in the world who are in the basement rationalize their sucky situation and agree with everything the kid in the nice room says about them. And they mostly wait patiently in the basement for the time when the parent will finally reward them with some dessert, too. Very few say screw the parent, let's revolt, and snatch the toys and dessert away from the privileged kid.

Those of us in the nice rooms should appreciate the restraint of the people in the basement.



Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #134 on: August 21, 2014, 09:58:01 PM »
Two points...  first, the "heavens" are a billion billion billion times larger than the earth.  Second, the final description is of a formless ocean sitting in the dark.

Yes, the earth was once all water.

Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So before god created the sun or stars, there was light that made day and night?

No.  The sun was created "in the beginning" and so was the earth.  Starting with verse 2 we are not talking about the universe or even the creation of the earth.  "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."  At this time the earth already exists and was watery.

What follows is not an account of the creation of the earth but the preparation of the earth for life.  And it is told from the point of view of somone on earth.  The universe already existed at this time, including the sun and the earth.  At the time the earth was covered in thick clouds.  This would block out the light of the sun.  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9)  This likely occured as the earth began to cool and the crust began to form.  Scientifically we know this happened.

As the vapor began to dissipate, sunlight would eventually diffuse through the clouds and give first light to the earth, although the sun would not yet discernable.  Think of a very cloudy day.  There is light but you cannot see the sun.  If the coulds were thick enough then no light would get through.  This first diffusion of light would have been when God said, ""Let there be light,” and there was light".  Later, the earthly onlooker would be able to see the sun.  This  would have been when God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky".

All we are told about the actual creation of the universe is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  From there it goes immediately to the preparation of an already existing earth.

"6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Quote
In other words, above the sky is more ocean, and when God wants it to rain, he "opens up the heavens".  JST, the birds fly in this "vault" of air between the ocean below us and the ocean above us.  Again we have day and night without the sun.

No.  As the water vapor formed by the cooling of the earth it began to rise off the surface of the earth and the expanse was formed.  The water above are the clouds.  The birds fly between the earth and the clouds.

Quote
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Ok sure...

As the earth continued to cool land began to form.

Quote
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Note that all biological and fossil records indicate that life started under water and was neither plant nor animal, then eventually split into basic plants and basic animals.

Okay, but it was still during this time period (day) that land vegetation began to appear.

Quote
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


Note that life began in water... not as plants on ground... and birds came way after that.

Okay, but Genesis doesn't say plants were the first life.  You are trying to split hairs where Genesis doesn't provide enough information for hair splitting.  Genesis is only a very very basic outline.  If you condense all of creation down to one page in a book, you are going to leave out many many many details.  That does not make the account inaccurate.  The Bible is not focused on how God created everything, in all fine detail.  There is one short chapter devoted to it.  The bible is about man's relationship with God.  How God created is irrelevant for the intent of the Bible.

Quote
As Foxy Freedom and Graybeard point out, the idea that the earth is "spread out" and that the sun is moving in the sky for our benefit are supported by later biblical verses.

The bible says the heavens were spread out.  This is scientifically accurate.  And I find no difficulty with the mention of the sun moving.  People have always spoken with that sort of language and still do.  People say "the sun move across the sky".  They don't say, "the earth turns and gives the appearance of the sun moving across the sky."  Again, you are hair splitting, but lack any real biblical description of the cosmos.  There is just not enough information to split to many hairs.  The Bible is not a book about creation and the cosmos.  It's a book about our relationship with God.  It's like trying to define science from a book about social studies.  It just doesn't work.

Quote
It'd be an amazing book if, in Genesis... can you imagine if it described the rotation of the planets and stars as giant glowing balls of fire?   Before we had any ability to know this?   Wow, what an amazing book it would be if it wasn't just fables invented by bronze age goat herders.

There are things the Bible does mention that were before their time.  These are simply dismissed by skeptics.













Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #135 on: August 21, 2014, 10:14:17 PM »
Job9:6 "he shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble."

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (Psalm 104:5)

So which is it?  Can it be moved or not?  Here's an idea.

Hyperbole:  1.exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. "I could eat a million of these"

Quote
Why would the diagram draw the earth square? The bible describes the "circle" of the earth.

Becuase it says the earth has four corners.  (Rev 7:1)  So you tell me, you are the literalist.  If it has four corners then it can't be a circle.  I mean if the "foundations of the earth" are literal then surely so are the four corners.  Undoubtedly the foundations must be at the corners, right?  Or have you in your wisdom determined that the "four corners" are hyperbole but the "foundations of the earth" are literal?  Please enlighten us about how you make that determination?

Quote
Young's first literal translation was published in 1862. By that date, Young certainly knew that the bible was wrong so it is not surprising he changed firmament to "expanse".

Expanse fits the context.  "And God called the firmament Heaven".  Obviosly, heaven is an expanse.   

Quote
The firmament is part of heaven.

According to you.  But according to scripture heaven IS the firmament.  So until you can actually address what the scriptures say, you are just building a straw man.

Quote
The firmament is part of heaven. It is where the doors and windows are. Do you remember Noah's flood? Gen7:11 "and the windows of the heavens were opened and the rain fell upon the earth."

Hyperbole:  1.exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.
 

« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 10:18:54 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #136 on: August 21, 2014, 10:17:43 PM »
No.  The sun was created "in the beginning" and so was the earth.  Starting with verse 2 we are not talking about the universe or even the creation of the earth.  "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."  At this time the earth already exists and was watery.

What follows is not an account of the creation of the earth but the preparation of the earth for life.  And it is told from the point of view of somone on earth.  The universe already existed at this time, including the sun and the earth.  At the time the earth was covered in thick clouds.  This would block out the light of the sun.  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9)  This likely occured as the earth began to cool and the crust began to form.  Scientifically we know this happened.

As the vapor began to dissipate, sunlight would eventually diffuse through the clouds and give first light to the earth, although the sun would not yet discernable.  Think of a very cloudy day.  There is light but you cannot see the sun.  If the coulds were thick enough then no light would get through.  This first diffusion of light would have been when God said, ""Let there be light,” and there was light".  Later, the earthly onlooker would be able to see the sun.  This  would have been when God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky".

Is your dishonesty pathological?

Thank you for spouting the Jehovah's Witness party line at us. I don't know if it's even worth responding to.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6722
  • Darwins +897/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #137 on: August 21, 2014, 10:26:39 PM »
Jst, who was observing and taking all those notes while god was creating the earth? I don't remember anyone ever mentioning god having a secretary.  :?

Also, did god's notes make it onto the ark? Otherwise they would have been washed away in the great flood.....
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 10:28:14 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #138 on: August 21, 2014, 10:33:12 PM »
Two points...  first, the "heavens" are a billion billion billion times larger than the earth.  Second, the final description is of a formless ocean sitting in the dark.

Yes, the earth was once all water.

Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So before god created the sun or stars, there was light that made day and night?

No.  The sun was created "in the beginning" and so was the earth.  Starting with verse 2 we are not talking about the universe or even the creation of the earth.  "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."  At this time the earth already exists and was watery.

What follows is not an account of the creation of the earth but the preparation of the earth for life.  And it is told from the point of view of somone on earth.  The universe already existed at this time, including the sun and the earth.  At the time the earth was covered in thick clouds.  This would block out the light of the sun.  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9)  This likely occured as the earth began to cool and the crust began to form.  Scientifically we know this happened.

As the vapor began to dissipate, sunlight would eventually diffuse through the clouds and give first light to the earth, although the sun would not yet discernable.  Think of a very cloudy day.  There is light but you cannot see the sun.  If the coulds were thick enough then no light would get through.  This first diffusion of light would have been when God said, ""Let there be light,” and there was light".  Later, the earthly onlooker would be able to see the sun.  This  would have been when God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky".

All we are told about the actual creation of the universe is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  From there it goes immediately to the preparation of an already existing earth.

"6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Quote
In other words, above the sky is more ocean, and when God wants it to rain, he "opens up the heavens".  JST, the birds fly in this "vault" of air between the ocean below us and the ocean above us.  Again we have day and night without the sun.

No.  As the water vapor formed by the cooling of the earth it began to rise off the surface of the earth and the expanse was formed.  The water above are the clouds.  The birds fly between the earth and the clouds.

Quote
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Ok sure...

As the earth continued to cool land began to form.

Quote
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Note that all biological and fossil records indicate that life started under water and was neither plant nor animal, then eventually split into basic plants and basic animals.

Okay, but it was still during this time period (day) that land vegetation began to appear.

Quote
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


Note that life began in water... not as plants on ground... and birds came way after that.

Okay, but Genesis doesn't say plants were the first life.  You are trying to split hairs where Genesis doesn't provide enough information for hair splitting.  Genesis is only a very very basic outline.  If you condense all of creation down to one page in a book, you are going to leave out many many many details.  That does not make the account inaccurate.  The Bible is not focused on how God created everything, in all fine detail.  There is one short chapter devoted to it.  The bible is about man's relationship with God.  How God created is irrelevant for the intent of the Bible.

Quote
As Foxy Freedom and Graybeard point out, the idea that the earth is "spread out" and that the sun is moving in the sky for our benefit are supported by later biblical verses.

The bible says the heavens were spread out.  This is scientifically accurate.  And I find no difficulty with the mention of the sun moving.  People have always spoken with that sort of language and still do.  People say "the sun move across the sky".  They don't say, "the earth turns and gives the appearance of the sun moving across the sky."  Again, you are hair splitting, but lack any real biblical description of the cosmos.  There is just not enough information to split to many hairs.  The Bible is not a book about creation and the cosmos.  It's a book about our relationship with God.  It's like trying to define science from a book about social studies.  It just doesn't work.

Quote
It'd be an amazing book if, in Genesis... can you imagine if it described the rotation of the planets and stars as giant glowing balls of fire?   Before we had any ability to know this?   Wow, what an amazing book it would be if it wasn't just fables invented by bronze age goat herders.

There are things the Bible does mention that were before their time.  These are simply dismissed by skeptics.

Thanks for showing how excellent the Sumerian gods were to pass on this knowledge.

Since you believe that the Earth was originally hot, I am wondering if you believe the Earth is millions of years old.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6483
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #139 on: August 21, 2014, 10:35:37 PM »
You are trying to split hairs where Genesis doesn't provide enough information for hair splitting.  Genesis is only a very very basic outline.  If you condense all of creation down to one page in a book, you are going to leave out many many many details.  That does not make the account inaccurate.  The Bible is not focused on how God created everything, in all fine detail.  There is one short chapter devoted to it. 

I love how jstwebbrowsing, in the midst of explaining in great detail what genesis really means, tosses in that genesis doesn't provide enough information. In other words, he is going in to great detail about what those verses really mean without having any information, because his only source is genesis, and it does't really say anything.

This from a JW. You know, like the guy that came up to me while I was working the other day, handed me a pamphlet, and was all excited because they have a web site now. He was so proud of that. I'm guessing that someone got an old HTML 1.0 book form 1993 at a garage sale and whipped out a real modern web site for them. Eight colors and everything.

And by the way, while there is a theory that the earth was once 97% covered by water (and it is not universally accepted), there is no evidence that it was every entirely covered by water. It may have been, at one time, entirely covered with ice, but the bible doesn't say anything about "Let there be warmth", so jst can't use that one.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #140 on: August 21, 2014, 10:59:28 PM »
Quote
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9) (sic)

I can't help noticing that there is some stuff you left out, in the ellipsis ............. maybe stuff that you didn't want us to see, like the "morning" stars singing, and God placing the sockets of the Earth, and fastening the foundations, and laying the first cornerstone. Or, shutting up the sea with double doors. The cloud appears to be after the first morning.

The physical description is not clear, and may be entirely poetic, or the usual twaddle.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #141 on: August 21, 2014, 11:13:06 PM »
Job9:6 "he shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble."

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (Psalm 104:5)

So which is it?  Can it be moved or not?  Here's an idea.

Hyperbole:  1.exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. "I could eat a million of these"

Quote
Why would the diagram draw the earth square? The bible describes the "circle" of the earth.

Becuase it says the earth has four corners.  (Rev 7:1)  So you tell me, you are the literalist.  If it has four corners then it can't be a circle.  I mean if the "foundations of the earth" are literal then surely so are the four corners.  Undoubtedly the foundations must be at the corners, right?  Or have you in your wisdom determined that the "four corners" are hyperbole but the "foundations of the earth" are literal?  Please enlighten us about how you make that determination?

Quote
Young's first literal translation was published in 1862. By that date, Young certainly knew that the bible was wrong so it is not surprising he changed firmament to "expanse".

Expanse fits the context.  "And God called the firmament Heaven".  Obviosly, heaven is an expanse.   

Quote
The firmament is part of heaven.

According to you.  But according to scripture heaven IS the firmament.  So until you can actually address what the scriptures say, you are just building a straw man.

Quote
The firmament is part of heaven. It is where the doors and windows are. Do you remember Noah's flood? Gen7:11 "and the windows of the heavens were opened and the rain fell upon the earth."

Hyperbole:  1.exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.

The bible is self contradictory in many places, sometimes the pillars are fixed, sometimes there are earthquakes. Expanse only fits a modern conception not the ancient one. The idea of the firmament is not my idea. I did not draw that diagram.

This Christian website explains that the four corners are the four directions North South East and West. It should be obvious even to you since Rev7:1 which you quoted talks about winds.  http://www.4thewordofgod.com/chapter07.htm

People still say they have travelled to the four corners of the world. For you to make stupid comments like this just shows your dishonesty in trying to rationalise your beliefs.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 11:30:31 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #142 on: August 21, 2014, 11:21:01 PM »
One technical issue that I'm not sure of is that the Earth is constantly referred to as feminine "e" through Job 38, but the clouds are wrapping something masculine. It's using pronouns her and him, but it's not clear what the clouds are wrapping.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1661
  • Darwins +64/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #143 on: August 21, 2014, 11:25:35 PM »
gaia's repro organs.
Signature goes here...

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #144 on: August 21, 2014, 11:27:21 PM »
The book of 1 Enoch gives all the technical details:

 [Chapter 76]

1 And at the ends of the earth I saw twelve portals open to all the quarters (of the heaven), from 2 which the winds go forth and blow over the earth. Three of them are open on the face (i.e. the east) of the heavens, and three in the west, and three on the right (i.e. the south) of the heaven, and 3 three on the left (i.e. the north). And the three first are those of the east, and three are of the 4 north, and three [after those on the left] of the south, and three of the west. Through four of these come winds of blessing and prosperity, and from those eight come hurtful winds: when they are sent, they bring destruction on all the earth and on the water upon it, and on all who dwell thereon, and on everything which is in the water and on the land. 5 And the first wind from those portals, called the east wind, comes forth through the first portal which is in the east, inclining towards the south: from it come forth desolation, drought, heat, 6 and destruction. And through the second portal in the middle comes what is fitting, and from it there come rain and fruitfulness and prosperity and dew; and through the third portal which lies toward the north come cold and drought. 7 And after these come forth the south winds through three portals: through the first portal of 8 them inclining to the east comes forth a hot wind. And through the middle portal next to it there 9 come forth fragrant smells, and dew and rain, and prosperity and health. And through the third portal lying to the west come forth dew and rain, locusts and desolation. 10 And after these the north winds: from the seventh portal in the east come dew and rain, locusts and desolation. And from the middle portal come in a direct direction health and rain and dew and prosperity; and through the third portal in the west come cloud and hoar-frost, and snow and rain, and dew and locusts. 12 And after these [four] are the west winds: through the first portal adjoining the north come forth dew and hoar-frost, and cold and snow and frost. And from the middle portal come forth dew and rain, and prosperity and blessing; and through the last portal which adjoins the south come forth drought and desolation, and burning and destruction. And the twelve portals of the four quarters of the heaven are therewith completed, and all their laws and all their plagues and all their benefactions have I shown to thee, my son Methuselah.

[Chapter 77]

1 And the first quarter is called the east, because it is the first: and the second, the south, because the Most High will descend there, yea, there in quite a special sense will He who is blessed for ever 2 descend. And the west quarter is named the diminished, because there all the luminaries of the 3 heaven wane and go down. And the fourth quarter, named the north, is divided into three parts: the first of them is for the dwelling of men: and the second contains seas of water, and the abysses and forests and rivers, and darkness and clouds; and the third part contains the garden of righteousness. 4 I saw seven high mountains, higher than all the mountains which are on the earth: and thence 5 comes forth hoar-frost, and days, seasons, and years pass away. I saw seven rivers on the earth larger than all the rivers: one of them coming from the west pours its waters into the Great Sea. 6 And these two come from the north to the sea and pour their waters into the Erythraean Sea in the 7 east. And the remaining, four come forth on the side of the north to their own sea, two of them to the Erythraean Sea, and two into the Great Sea and discharge themselves there [and some say: 8 into the desert]. Seven great islands I saw in the sea and in the mainland: two in the mainland and five in the Great Sea.

http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_3.HTM
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.