Here is a story:
I read in the local newspaper the other day a time for SUNRISE and a time for SUNSET, I saw an article in Ann Landers about a women "WHO WAS STILL CARRYING A TORCH FOR HER EX-BOYFRIEND", and I saw where they were still searching "HIGH AND LOW" for WOMD's in Irag. I call the editor of the newspaper to inform him that he was promoting bad science since his newspaper stated that the sun revovled around the world ("Sunrise"), also I mentioned that the women Ann Landers was writing about should be arrested because she was a safety hazard wherever she went (she might start a deadly fire with that torch), and I suggested that perhaps the search for WOMD's in Irag might be more successful if the Army looked someplace else than on mountain tops and in caves. The editor responded with silence.

Of course the story above is fictional, but points out that Hebrew and English are idiomatic languages. We use idioms, phases that should not be taken literally ("searh high and low", "carrying the torch", "sunrise", "sunset", "the four corners of the earth"). Note that "the four corners of the earth" is an English idiom. Also Hebrew and English are phenomological languages. We use terms to describe what an action looks like, its visual appearance (e. e., "Gail and her lover laid on the beach and watched the sun slowly sink into the sea".) Today we use idiomatic terms and phenomological phases even in discourses on sciencs. Because of this we cannot unequivocally state that the Bible put forth the idea that the world as flat. In fact, the ancients figured out that the world was round quite early on. Any sea going people (Greeks and Phonecians) figured it out once their ships sailed over the horizon (you see a phenomological term "sailed over the horizon"). In fact the Greek philosopher Erasthones was able to calculate the circumference of the eath to within 400 miles (2% error).

Here is a question I have asked before and have not gotten an answer. List a non-Biblical Hebrew text (ancient) that states unequivocally that the world is flat, preferable a Hebrew text dealing with science and cosmology.

Valhall soo sacreligious but yet sooo funny

NOT sacrilegious! God has a sense of humor too! And I bet He's laughing BIG TIME at this whole thread

It seems then, that there are portions of the bible which we must interpret figuratively, and there are some portions that we must take literally. I can dig that. How are we then, to distinguish the figurative verse from the literal verse? It seems to me, that this has always depended upon what science, exploration and cultural value shifts have had to say about the matter. When folks thought the earth was indeed flat, well, clearly the bible backs that up with reference to four corners, pillars and edges of the earth. For anyone to say differently, that would surely be sacrilege. Once science/exploration proved that the world was spherical however, suddenly these same verses were obviously not to be taken literally. These were just metaphors that when translated to English really didn't mean that that authors of the bible thought that the world was flat.

If interpretation can vary so wildly, why should we trust any interpretation now? What if we are as wrong now as we were then (not about the world being flat, but other things)? What does that say about the relevancy and accuracy of what we are believing?

The 4th commandment tells us to remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. On the 7th day we are to do no work. This commandment speaks of a day to be observed simultaneously by all the peoples of the earth. This is clearly an astronomical impossibility with a spherical planet the size of ours. If however, you believed the world to be flat and smaller (which they did at the time), then this commandment might make more sense. What about doctors? Should they recognize the sabbath along with everyone else? "I'm sorry sir that you were hit by an automobile, but today is the sabbath and I cannot work." Or perhaps this is just another one of those convenient metaphors we find throughout the bible? What does that say for the other commandments? Thou shalt not kill. Is that a metaphor too?

fixx

I don't believe that it is a matter of shifting from "metaphors" to scientific explanation. I do not believe that the "four corners" of the earth can be taken to apply to what we know today. I believe each author spoke within his own context of understanding. And for the time period that the verses you quoted were written, that could have very well been an understanding that the earth was 1.) flat, and 2.) square for that matter.

When Joshua "made the sun stand still" and when Hezekiah saw the sun "withdrawn ten steps", neither one of these can be taken as SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS. They can only be taken as human observations of natural phenomena being explained within the context of the understanding of the individual.

The same holds true (maybe more so than ever) to the prophetic visions relayed in The Revelation. You have a man contemporaneous to about 100 A.D. seeing technology and events almost 2000 years ahead of him...look how he describes them!

This does not mean that the message contained in the bible is flawed, or not from God. It means men recorded it and impressed their own observations within it. The same is true in the new testament.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Valhall soo sacreligious but yet sooo funny

Quicksilver, so moderate, yet so uninforming.

Fixx

Ok. You obviously are not a believer in Jesus christ, right?

Ok.

The word figuratively (which I did not use) should be exchanged for
SYMBOLICALLY

You obviously did not glean Valhall's posting of the scientific time frame- actual/ comparative given.

I'm tired.

Tyriffic

Figuratively = Represented by a figure or resemblance; symbolic or emblematic. Exchange it, rearange it...we can do the semantic dance for each word I've used. Flat, round, spherical...let's dance.

Ok

I understood Valhall's scientific timeframe posting perfectly well. Instead of taking 10 minutes to dismantle that argument, I decided to initiate another post that would hopefully elucidate my original point.

I'm tired too.

fixx

Why do quote words form a book you have no faith in,
only to use that book's words to accuse others of their beliefs??

Why do quote words form a book you have no faith in, only to use that book's words to accuse others of their beliefs??

You have my motives all wrong.

I am uncertain what accusations I have used in this thread as that was/is not my intention. I have asked a lot of questions in an attempt to hopefully challenge some of my own ideas about the bible, religion and the idea of a god. Is that a sufficient enough reason in your book that I may continue to "quote the book that I have no faith in?" Would you deny my request to attempt to gain a better understanding of the bible (namely in the areas where my doubts lie) so that maybe one day my faith might be restored? I'm not as sinister as you may think I am.

fixx

The whole point is that we must be wary when doing what is known as "proof texting" when reading the Bible. As you know the term "proof texting" refers to the quoting of single passages from the Bible to make a point. Biblical passages must be read in the context of how they relate to the rest of what is being written. Then with a little common sense, we should be able to determine if metaphor is intended (Psalms and Job), or this is a man's (Nebuchadnezzar's) dream (Daniel 4.7-14), or if an idiom is intended (Isaiah 11:12) which mean these people will come from all over. Sometimes we have to consider the intent of the author. A good example is Ezekiel 23 which compares Samaria and Jerusalem to prostitutes who lust after men with certain attractions. Of course Ezekiel 23 is refering to the spead of idol worship (including Baal worship) among the Jews. Bible criticizers love to point how repugnant this chapter is to our senses. That was the whole point of Ezekiel 23. It was meant to be repugnant to us. The idea was to give us some idea of how repugnant idol worship (especially Baal worship) is to God.

If the bible says the world is flat then it is flat? Maybe they thought it was flat then but we found out later it was not. I read the bible and love to read the bible, but I don't think it's full of ALL the facts. There are things they are wrong about in it. But I believe the world is round, that's one thing I'm sure we know of thus far..
Magestica

Unless, of course, round is not really round after all?

Again, what is a metphor and what isn't? Why is thou shalt not kill not a metaphor yet the four corners are? Because you say so? Why? How do you know the person who wrote it didn't mean it? Or the bashing baby heads on rocks. Why is that a metaphor and what is it a metaphor of? Because it is bad? Why are the good proven things real and the bad or unproven things a metaphor? It seems kinda nice to be able to say that when god orders mass murder it is a metaphor and that I can't say different because I think it is literal.

What quotes some may ask? Well, may not be in your bible, but they are there. As I have said, the bible has been edited many times by adding or leaving things in or out. Like...

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against stones" Psalm 137: 9 KJV. his is in two of my KJV, but not in the other three. The other three stop 137 at 7, not 9.
Many churches have found this verse embarrasing and have always left out the last part of Psalm 137. Or....

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put then under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickklin: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." II Samuel 12:31

From the bible we have King David doing worse than what Hitler did in the holocaust. If we condem the Nazi's, then why not David? Why is he considered good and holy?

Originally posted by James the Lesser

From the bible we have King David doing worse than what Hitler did in the holocaust. If we condem the Nazi's, then why not David? Why is he considered good and holy?

Huh? That a metaphor? David had numerous "Death Camps?" Killed millions? Please, show me.

King David is "considered good and holy" because he is a metaphor for todays individual, person, self. He is an example to all men and women that though one can murder, covet, betray, etc., that it equals to only one thing: sin. There are no degrees to sin....sin is sin. King David shows how us that through all 'sin', one may still "return unto G-d." He admitted to G-d his "sins" and G-d forgave him.....thus a murderer today, can ask for forgiveness from G-d.....and be forgiven. Beautiful story.

It amazes me how we have a tendency to always compare sin to someone else's "sin". I have news for you folks, if Hitler, before he killed himself had asked forgiveness for his 'doings', with true sincerity and sorrowfulness, G-d would have forgiven him. It seems funny today how we, as Men and Women, don't have the level of forgiveness that we really should have. I suppose this is the "nature of Man"........


regards
seekerof

A question about forgiveness...

I don't know the answer to this, so please don't construe this as an attack.

What happens to the evil person (or maybe not so evil, but at least somewhat sinful) who isn't afforded the opportunity to sit down and ask god for forgiveness before the lights are turned out? It's convenient that some evil SOBs have that chance....what about the guy that gets hit by a bus crossing the street before repenting? Does he get a chance after death to ask for forgiveness? Is it just chance that affords us the opportunity/time to repent?

Take a guy like me for instance. Clearly I'm struggling with my faith, trying to find some answers, trying to explore my own beliefs...right now I don't believe in a god. In 10 years however, that may change. If I die in 5 years where does that leave me? Hell? Eternal damnation? I consider myself to be a good person, much nicer of a guy than Hitler to be sure. But because he had the opportunity (hypotheticaly) to repent before death he is saved and I am shet out of luck? How does this work exactly?

fixx

Originally posted by fixx
A question about forgiveness...

I don't know the answer to this, so please don't construe this as an attack.

What happens to the evil person (or maybe not so evil, but at least somewhat sinful) who isn't afforded the opportunity to sit down and ask god for forgiveness before the lights are turned out? It's convenient that some evil SOBs have that chance....what about the guy that gets hit by a bus crossing the street before repenting? Does he get a chance after death to ask for forgiveness? Is it just chance that affords us the opportunity/time to repent?

Take a guy like me for instance. Clearly I'm struggling with my faith, trying to find some answers, trying to explore my own beliefs...right now I don't believe in a god. In 10 years however, that may change. If I die in 5 years where does that leave me? Hell? Eternal damnation? I consider myself to be a good person, much nicer of a guy than Hitler to be sure. But because he had the opportunity (hypotheticaly) to repent before death he is saved and I am shet out of luck? How does this work exactly?

fixx

Bible says we are appointed once to die, and then the judgement.

It also says believe on the lord jesus christ, and thou shalt be saved.

read your bible, and it will get clearer, but while you do that, also look at the intent of the text. mercy and love is a major part of it.

The bible was written by people. People who can make mistakes. Most of what they wrote, was by 2nd or 3rd or 50th or so hand info. Its hard not to belive that some of it was made up right on the spot.

If in fact the bible was written with divne inspiration, God didnt have to tell the truth. Maybe He simplified some of it down (like Adam and Eve, which we KNOW not to be true).

To tie this together, we shouldnt take the bible for the literal word of God. We shouldnt blindly follow its every word. Nor should we be critical of its short comings. Its just a book after all.

Originally posted by fixx
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but since I'm new here, I'd love to hear what some of you think about this issue.

There are numerous references in the bible that refer to the world as being flat or having four corners (I can provide some of these if needed). Nowhere is there a passage that indicates the world is in fact a sphere. If the authors of the bible were divinely inspired, why then would the inspirer (who presumably knows the world is spherical) not make this evident?

I asked this same question to one of the Franciscan fathers at my high school some years back and the answer he gave me was that the people at the time were not ready for such a revalation. His logic was that they could not handle such an idea and would have rejected the bible entirely. Considering some of the other radical and revolutionary ideas (for its time) in the bible, I found that answer insufficient. Can anyone else perhaps give an explanation that makes a bit more sense?

Thanks!

fixx

Genisis 1:6,7,8 'And God said,"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.And God called the firmament heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.'

Waters above and below? Dosnt sound flat to me, sounds like the furmament has two sides to it.



Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims (could these be the grays?), and a flaming sword ( Aurora Borealis)which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.



[Edited on 10-7-2003 by All Seeing Eye]

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by All Seeing Eye]