Flat Earthers

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.

Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly :)

[Legs]

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.
Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

[Husar]

You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:

This second issue creates a conflict where they need not be one. The raqia “debate” is not the result of new evidence that has come to light. Our understanding of ancient perceptions of the cosmos has not been overturned by more information. The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the worldaccording to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.
[...]
It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.
[...]
It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith. It is a false expectation of Genesis that contributes to some heated exchanges about things like the description of the cosmos in Genesis.

The debate over the nature of the raqia is not a central issue. It is a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental disagreement over what the Genesis is and what it means to read it well. This is level where the truly important discussion must take place.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th....H0Bqi4GU.dpuf

Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.
It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it.

[Legs]

You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:

I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.

Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.

Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.

It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it

One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.

[Husar]

I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.

Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.

I didn't miss that part, it just doesn't disprove my point.
You said Christians don't believe in the bible if they don't think the earth is flat, let me quote you:

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.

I'm saying there are Christians who believe in the bible and don't believe the earth is flat, and theit view is not entirely schizophrenic just because there is one word in the bible that can be interpreted to support a flat earth world view. That is all.

One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.

Yes, one single word that was written some 4000 years ago or thereabouts, can be interpreted in different ways and can either be seen as strictly literal or more as a figure of speech like "the sun is rising". As the guy says, you don't have to treat genesis like a scientific book where every single word is carefully weighed and chosen. In fact, in that case these words would have to be defined somewhere with a proper scientific definition. The fact they are not is why we have to resort to interpretation, no?
If you just wanted to criticize literalist extremists, well, you threw me off by just calling them "christians", see the quote of yours above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

No, they aren't.

Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support. Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances, which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.

There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.

It rains​.

[Legs]

No, they aren't.







​

Oh yes they are...christmas comes early this year, it's panto time already.

Take history as far back as you like, humans are idiots, its proved again and again.
Since its a bibical topic go right back to the begining, Adam, he only had one rule and was too much of an idiot to even follow that.

Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.

Is it misanthopy though?

You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support.

Read what was written and what it responded to , then try again.

Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances

Ah so you do get it, the same as in the bible then isn't it.

which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.

not from a literalists perspective.

I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.

Can you describe a hammered out dish? Can you describe hammering a dish that isn't made of a solid?
Read Husars link, or even better read the full one it is taken from.

There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.

If you read the full link you will see how widespread the view was not only with other middle eastern societies in bilical times, but also with completely different societies spread across the continents and oceans.

It rains

Well lets not say the bible isn't covering all angles there, remember I mentioned doors and windows to let in rain and snow...it's in the bible

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yes they are...christmas comes early this year, it's panto time already.

Take history as far back as you like, humans are idiots, its proved again and again.
Since its a bibical topic go right back to the begining, Adam, he only had one rule and was too much of an idiot to even follow that.

Is it misanthopy though?

It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.

Read what was written and what it responded to , then try again.


Ah so you do get it, the same as in the bible then isn't it.

I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves". I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.

not from a literalists perspective.

It's still inferred, or interpreted. The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth. It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.

Can you describe a hammered out dish? Can you describe hammering a dish that isn't made of a solid?
Read Husars link, or even better read the full one it is taken from.

In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.

The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand and that it appears to be permeable.

The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.

If you read the full link you will see how widespread the view was not only with other middle eastern societies in bilical times, but also with completely different societies spread across the continents and oceans.

I'm aware the view was quite widespread. The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.

Well lets not say the bible isn't covering all angles there, remember I mentioned doors and windows to let in rain and snow...it's in the bible

Please - chapter and verse.

[Legs]

It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.

















.

Do you even understand the words you use?

I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves".

Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?

I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.

Follow the link already posted.

It's still inferred, or interpreted.

Follow the link already posted.

The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth.

Follow the link already posted.

It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.

Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?

In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.

If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?

The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand

Naive is the word you want.

and that it appears to be permeable.

Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?

The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.

Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?
Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?

I'm aware the view was quite widespread.

Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?

The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.

How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do

Please - chapter and verse

Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you even understand the words you use?

I hope so, or the Senate that conferred my degrees will have egg on their faces.

Also - congratulations, you moved from attacking the entire human race to just me. Now that we have focused your anger let's talk about what really makes you angry. I doubt it's the Bible or flat-Earthers.

Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?

Why don't you just skip ahead to talking about how God abandoned Saul because he offered some of his enemies' livestock and women up to God instead of killing everyone and everything, as instructed. We are not discussing the moral lessons of the Bible, or the Koran. We are discussing whether the Bible requires you to believe in a Flat Earth.

Follow the link already posted.

Follow the link already posted.

Follow the link already posted.

No - give me book, chapter and verse that you believe supports your point. I will copy the chapter out and perform a line by line exegesis. That way I don't have to slog through someone else's less learned or more partisan exegesis and have you try to refute them instead of refuting me.

You are making a claim about the message of the Bible, it is incumbent upon you to cite the passages that support your point. I can then examine those passages in context and determine whether or not I believe you are correct that the Bible requires one to believe in a Flat Earth. Don't refer me to someone on the Internet who tries to fashion an argument out of a line from one book and three words from another. That's how you construct an argument that Jesus was in favour of the Right to Bear Arms.

Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?

You mean Heresy? It's a bit hard to be accused of Heterodoxy when the Church can't even decide Orthodoxy in that period. More pregnantly, Bede's interpretation of the Bible, given the evidence he had, is not at issue because he did not write what you described as "the word of God".

If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?

Naive is the word you want.

Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?

Again, you need to demonstrate this is scripture.

Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?

It does not, that is not the point. The point is that the people recording Genesis during the late Bronze Age would have had an idea how a hollow sphere might be constructed.

Ever heard of a bronze bowl with hatches in?

Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?

Does it not?

Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?

The fact that the view was widespread does not mean it was held by the person who wrote the Creation story, nor does it mean it was written into the Creation story. Saying, "Greeks and the Chinese believe in a solid hemispherical sky" does not mean the Bible describes the Sky in exactly those terms.

How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do

The Bible requires the belief in One God - that's quite explicit. You've been saying it also requires a belief in a Flat Earth.

Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.

Post your scriptural citations for exegesis or concede you're just parroting other people's arguments without understanding them.