It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible Taught us a lot of Astronomy

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you not find it interesting at all that people that existed over 2,000 years ago even came close to understanding these things? You seem to have a wall up when it comes to Biblical scripture. I have E=Mc2 tattooed on my leg. I love physics and the Bible. I'm not a Bible thumping idiot as you seem to portray. So, settle down with the insults.


They DIDN'T come close to anything though. They made a few guesses about how things worked. They were largely wrong about all of them (as I pointed out with my first post in this thread), and you are trying to give them credit for trying. That's not how it works; there actually has to be a claim that is scientifically TRUE for you to be able to hold the bible up as a scientific document.

PS: I see you are dodging my question still.
edit on 24-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It states the Earth is round. Although for thousands of years after it was written people still believed it was flat. If you want to speak of ignorance, well there it is. The Bible was there all those years and told us the Earth was not flat. You would rather give credit anyone else or anything else other than the Bible for that one.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

It called Earth a circle. I already went over this in my original post. A circle is a 2D object.

Still haven't answered my question yet... That is very telling to me.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Human beings evolved together so yes, in a sense there was a "mass appearance" of humanity. That's because individuals do not evolve, populations do. At no point in human history were there ever just two humans.

I'm having trouble putting into words how absurdly ignorant you'd have to be of how we got here and how nature, biology, Cosmology and evolution work to say things like this...



Unless you're just trolling.
edit on 24-9-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It states the Earth is round. Although for thousands of years after it was written people still believed it was flat. If you want to speak of ignorance, well there it is. The Bible was there all those years and told us the Earth was not flat. You would rather give credit anyone else or anything else other than the Bible for that one.


It said circle as in disc, did not say round. A disc can be flat. Maps were round for ages but the thought of the earth being flat persisted... hmm how can this be??? Of course ahh haa a circle is not a sphere.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

It called Earth a circle. I already went over this in my original post. A circle is a 2D object.

Still haven't answered my question yet... That is very telling to me.


Is a circle flat? No, it described the Earth as a circle, which is round, not flat.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

It called Earth a circle. I already went over this in my original post. A circle is a 2D object.

Still haven't answered my question yet... That is very telling to me.


Is a circle flat? No, it described the Earth as a circle, which is round, not flat.


Funny I just drew a circle on a flat bit of paper...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Yes, a circle is flat. It's a 2D object.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

It was two schools of thought the ones that believed that the earth was round and those that believed that it was flat, one was persecuted by the church for heresy, Remember Galileo?.

1614, Father Tommaso Caccini officially claimed Galileo was wrong and almost charged him with heresy.

Doesn't the church used the same bible that is used today, I guess they could not believe ancient man to be right.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It states the Earth is round. Although for thousands of years after it was written people still believed it was flat. If you want to speak of ignorance, well there it is. The Bible was there all those years and told us the Earth was not flat. You would rather give credit anyone else or anything else other than the Bible for that one.


It said circle as in disc, did not say round. A disc can be flat. Maps were round for ages but the thought of the earth being flat persisted... hmm how can this be??? Of course ahh haa a circle is not a sphere.


Disc? No. Here it is again. Job 26:10 which states "He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters.

He also describes a horizon. But, yes I'm sure he was implying a flat Earth with a horizon.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

The Catholic church is not a church of God. It's a church of power money and control. They only use religion to control the population. Especially back in the Roman Empire times. So, anything they claim you can just ignore. Don't put your trust in man, only God.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It states the Earth is round. Although for thousands of years after it was written people still believed it was flat. If you want to speak of ignorance, well there it is. The Bible was there all those years and told us the Earth was not flat. You would rather give credit anyone else or anything else other than the Bible for that one.


It said circle as in disc, did not say round. A disc can be flat. Maps were round for ages but the thought of the earth being flat persisted... hmm how can this be??? Of course ahh haa a circle is not a sphere.


Disc? No. Here it is again. Job 26:10 which states "He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters.

He also describes a horizon. But, yes I'm sure he was implying a flat Earth with a horizon.


So let's humor you for a second. Let's just say for the sake of argument that that is the one thing in the bible that the ancient men who wrote it got right, that STILL doesn't allow you to say that the bible is a scientific document or that the ancients knew about astronomy. Again, there are FAR more scientific inaccuracies in the bible than accuracies (you've only talked about MAYBE one).



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: marg6043

The Catholic church is not a church of God. It's a church of power money and control. They only use religion to control the population. Especially back in the Roman Empire times. So, anything they claim you can just ignore. Don't put your trust in man, only God.


Not sure about most folks, but I trust what I can see, touch, smell, hear and feel. Never seen a god before. Have however spent alot of time in different labs and seen many papers based on decades of research.

Science is truth measured with proof, religion is blind faith measured by nothing but more faith... how much weight does faith carry imperially speaking?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Yes I agree, but guess what, is the original church you wanted or not historically and per the same bible you are quoting, and is the same bible they used and use today.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: FearYourMind

Yes I agree, but guess what, is the original church you wanted or not historically and per the same bible you are quoting, and is the same bible they used and use today.





In his defense there are more than a few blunders in translation and reinterpretation over the years. So not actually the same book. But none the less boils down to not even remotely a scientific document in any sense of the word... ok well not in the sense presented in the OP anyway, might have value in studies in folklore and in historical reference(loosely) though.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix

I always see the bible as a fascinating book full of lore, myth and folklore mix with historical value.

But no a book I will rely on my historical learning solely, like churches would like people to do.

And yes the original text of the bible has got lost in translation and agendas a long time ago.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The title of the thread is "The Bible Taught us a lot of Astronomy". I'm not implying that it is a book that we should consider scientific fact, only that it is fascinating that people of their time knew these things.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The title of the thread is "The Bible Taught us a lot of Astronomy". I'm not implying that it is a book that we should consider scientific fact, only that it is fascinating that people of their time knew these things.


It didn't teach us ANYTHING about Astronomy though. If anything, it is the musings of random humans from that era about how the universe worked. It certainly isn't divinely inspired scientific truth nor is it accurate of anything.

All it proves is that the ancients were trying to answer questions about how the universe worked just like we are. That isn't surprising though. Humans have always been a curious species.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: FearYourMind

Human beings evolved together so yes, in a sense there was a "mass appearance" of humanity. That's because individuals do not evolve, populations do. At no point in human history were there ever just two humans.

I'm having trouble putting into words how absurdly ignorant you'd have to be of how we got here and how nature, biology, Cosmology and evolution work to say things like this...



Unless you're just trolling.


Yet, you rely only on scientific theory to back these claims. Not facts. So, there is still room for other theories, yet you are convinced without actual facts to officially confirm these claims. Maybe a bit of faith is mixed in with those scientific facts? Otherwise you might consider other alternatives to how we became the super intelligent beings we are in comparison to the rest of the creatures on Earth.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: FearYourMind

Human beings evolved together so yes, in a sense there was a "mass appearance" of humanity. That's because individuals do not evolve, populations do. At no point in human history were there ever just two humans.

I'm having trouble putting into words how absurdly ignorant you'd have to be of how we got here and how nature, biology, Cosmology and evolution work to say things like this...



Unless you're just trolling.


Yet, you rely only on scientific theory to back these claims. Not facts.


These two sentences alone deserve another Picard face palm picture... Especially coming from someone who earlier in the thread bragged about having E=MC^2 tattooed on his leg.
edit on 24-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join