Posted on 01/15/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by xzins
Watched the entire video. Excellent.
I think that the difference in our thought lies chiefly in the chronology. It seems to me that Christianity came into existence before Science. In fact, I have often insisted that Science is Christian Western Civilization’s happiest inspiration, as evidenced by its application of intellectual rigorousness and the unrelenting pursuit of intellectual honesty to the “new” field of its discovery.
Witness, then, the subsequent seizure of Science by the Liberal/Socialist movement in a desperate attempt to disprove the validity of the whole Judeo-Christian Tradition (see Marx’s comic attempts to validate his particular brand of Socialism as “Scientific” and the breathless pursuit of the same theme by his latest and most ardent disciples; the 0bmatrons).
In any event, our differing views seem to lead us to the same conclusion.
Honestly . . . I don’t think our differences amount to anything even worth discussing beyond the initial recognition.
I didn't even know we had differing views. That's how aware of things that I am. :>)
Isaiah 40
22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
A globe is not flat like a pancake as far as i know, as i said God knows how he created the earth.
Argue with God.
Mohler rightly emphasizes that the “Laws of science” are assumed to have always been the same. But we really have no way of knowing that instruments we devise to measure phenomena today would produce the same measurements if they, or least their specifications could somehow be transported back in time, and used to make observations like the ones being made today.
Which is deism, always inadequate, because—ironically—it leaves man , the observer,out of the account. How does he fit into the picture ?
Provine, the atheist, is stating that in his opinion Deism is no better than atheism, both lack God's moral law.
The atheist, if he is wise, will approach all persons and all things pretty much as a babe does, as enigmas.
No that verse says circle just like you said originally. You have purposely changed the words in the verse. The verse does not use the word globe.
Looks like you had to go through a whole pile of different bible versions on the Internet to find that.
And to be frank, if Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning “ball”. Instead he used the hebrew word hug.
There are also many other verses in the bible that speak to the 4 corners of the earth etc.
Rightly or wrongly, it is talking about a flat earth.
Having said that, it is all okay because the bible is all about faith. If there is something not quite right in it, well that is okay as you have your faith and that is fantastic.
No that verse says circle just like you said originally. You have purposely changed the words in the verse. The verse does not use the word globe.
Looks like you had to go through a whole pile of different bible versions on the Internet to find that.
well that is okay as you have your faith and that is fantastic.
first you accuse me of purposely changing the word, then you say i must have went through a pile of versions to find it.
Then you say i have faith.
It can not be all of the above, if i purposely changed the word why would i have to go through a pile of translations to find the word?
Second, if i purposely changed the word i would be a liar, how much faith does a liar have?
The D.R. version is where the scripture comes from and is translated into English from the Latin Vulgate which is one of the earliest Bibles we have and which i started going to several months ago.
I don,t know if Isaiah had any knowledge of how the earth looked.
But even the language we use today would confuse any one who did not know.
What time will the sun come up? or what time will the sun go down?
As if the sun was moving around the earth.
While it is true that the majority believed we lived on a flat earth the majority was wrong and usually are.
From what i have heard it was the seafarers who first come up with the idea that the earth was not flat and not scientist,but you can bet God knew.
So my point is that using Biblical scripture to prove evolution or to prove there is no God is just as ridicules as using the science book to prove science is false which in some cases it most likely is.
The Bible comes out of another culture and linguistic setting. Metaphorical imagery can mislead the reader into thinking the Bible is saying something, when it means something different. In Hebrew, as in English, one can speak of the four “corners” of the earth (Isa. 41:9; cf. Ezek. 7:2). Is the Bible saying that the world is square? Some critics say so. Yet the earth is also described as a circle or globe (Isa. 40:22). Is it possible that corners is metaphorical language that may mean the geography covered by the four “quarters” of the compass, just as it means when we say it?
Faith is not a leap in the dark as skeptics like to suggest. Rather, faith is an action based on the confidence one has in the object of their belief.
That is not true.
http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/pass/passv10/flat-earth.html
That is not true.
Thanks.
Actually even then i believe the sea faring people realized the truth.
It says circle and it means circle and it does not mean globe, ball or sphere. There were specfic hebrew words if the writer wanted to describe ball etc.
It says circle and it means circle and it does not mean globe, ball or sphere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.