Proof the Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God

OK. ... moving on from 1 Samuel 2:8

You did state that the world hangs on "nothing" which is false.. the earth does not "hang on nothing".It is not possible to hang on "nothing" .

You also stated that the bible says the world is a circle ... the bible is wrong on this ... the earth is not a circle, it is spherical.

Instead of proving that the bible is the inspired word of God, you have done the opposite.

 

No, YOU don't understand the meaning of the word "theory".
Careful - as one Christian to another (who is also a degreed scientist), you need to understand your terms.

A Hypothesis is like a guess.
A Theory is a hypothesis (or equation) that has been used to correctly predict a future event.
A Law is a theory that has been used in a practical situation.

Don't try to start a scientific discussion without understanding the language of science. Words in science have precise meanings.

As far as Isaiah is concerned - while it is not a scientific book, the Hebrew word for "circle" in that passage (חוּג or chûg) was and is interchangeable with the word "sphere".

"chûg" is only used three times in the OT: Isa 40:22, Job 22:14, and Pro 8:27. While translators have used the word "circle", "circuit", or "compass", the word "sphere" properly fits each of the three passages more exactly.

"He who sits upon the earth's sphere, and its people sit like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;"

And to be more exact - it had been known for years that the Earth was spherical, going back to the Egyptians around 2,000 B.C. Sailors realized it first when they saw landmarks and other vessels slip below the horizon. Navigation would have not been possible without an understanding of the Earth's curvature and there are records going far back to prove that.

For the people at the time, who were not educated in the nuances of astronomical physics, stating that "the Earth hangs on nothing" is completely true and very accurate.

 

No it isn't. There is a distinct word in ancient Hebrew that is translated as 'ball' or 'sphere'. That word is 'duwr' and if they had thought that the world was the shape of a ball or sphere..THAT is the word that would have been used.

The word they DID use...chuwg, means 'circle, circuit, or compass',.....
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329

......while the Hebrew word duwr "circle or ball" would have been a better choice if the writer had actually meant "spherical".
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754

 

What proof do you have that the earth "hangs" on "nothing".

PS: gravity is not "nothing".

Indeed.

 

This argument is rendered moot by what we know of history. Aside from a few exceptions; the vast majority of our species held the belief that the world was flat until the beginning of the 16th century. A great number of people clung to that belief for years after the circumnavigation of the globe due to a perceived infallibility of their holy books of choice.

To ignore this reality and to claim that any holy book stated (or was interpreted as saying) the world was spherical, is revisionist in nature. It is an attempt to re-write history. The implication of arguing that any ancient doctrine tells us that the world was spherical and not flat is this: if this were so it means that as a species we are capable of deriving completely erroneous notions from the supposedly inspired word of God and clinging to those mistakes for centuries.

Effectively this type of revisionism, places all long held beliefs into doubt.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
"OK... moving on from 1 Samuel 2:8," you said? Nah. I'm not done with that verse yet. You are being schooled. Below is the quotation again as a reminder.

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8 -- King James Version)

Since "dust" and "dunghill" are used figuratively to contrast an individuals disadvantage position with the superior position of "princes" and "thrones," likewise, the word "pillar" or "foundation" is figurative. It cannot be literal when the rest of the verse is figurative.


The average adult knows that the literal pillar of a building or the literal foundation of a building enables the structure to be firmly established. It keeps the building in place so that it does not collapse. Likewise, the figurative use of the expression "pillar" or "foundation"--with relationship to the earth--is telling the reader that the earth is permanent in its position, meaning it will never be destroyed. This point is confirmed elsewhere in the Judeo-Christian Bible, as noted below.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding," (Job 38:4 -- NASB)


"And he began to build his sanctuary just like the heights, like the earth that he has founded to time indefinite." (Psalms 78:69 -- NWT)


"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite." (Ecclesiastes 1:4 -- NWT)



Mikaël, are you beginning to see that the figurative use of the word "pillar" at 1 Samuel 2:8 is with reference to the permanence of the earth, meaning the earth will never be destroyed? Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH will not stand by and allow rebellious humans to destroy this planet by means of a nuclear holocaust, which is what some have said. The Bible says God will step in before humans self-destruct and that he will ruin those that are ruining the earth.

"But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give their reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." (Revelation 11:18)



FYI: Whenever I make partial quotations from pro-evolution scientists' papers, I always pay attention to the context—what they wrote before and after the portion I quote. Clearly, you didn't pay attention to context when you cherry picked words from the last part of 1 Samuel 2:8.

 

I don't need you to give your opinion on 1 Samuel 2:8 [again].

I thought you wanted to prove that the bible is the inspired word of God ? When are you going to do this ?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
Translation: You don't want to be debunked again on 1 Samuel 2:8. I feel your pain.

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
I already presented two examples in my OP. It's not my problem that skeptics what to argue against the evidence; now is it?

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
I challenge you to present a verse of scripture from anywhere in the Judeo-Christian Bible where it says the earth is literally flat and literally has edges. If you present another out-of-context quotation, as you did with 1 Samuel 2:8, you will be debunked. When dealing with the Bible, one of my specialties is the debunking of cherry pickers who read words off a page and ignore context.

 

What evidence ? LOL

I see what you are trying to do here. You failed to prove that the bible is the word of God, now you want to derail from the topic we are supposed to be discussing.

While it is true that the bible teaches that the world is flat, I don't want to talk about it in this thread.

I'll give you one more chance to prove that the Judeo-Christian bible is the inspired word of God.

 

Actually, that is the very thing that you DO NOT do....as I have proved. You quote-mine. That is, you take a quote OUT OF CONTEXT.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
Now, that's rich. You showed up in my "Macroevolution Myth" thread playing troll and asking me all types of questions that had nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You did the same thing in my "Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?" thread where you asked me the following stupid question.

Now, all of a sudden, you're concerned about me derailing my own thread--after I challenged you to present scriptures proving the Bible teaches about a flat earth. You're trying to play slick is what it boils down to. You're putting on the outraged act because you know full well there are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible that says the earth is flat.

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
You're not going to slip pass me with that. Once again, I challenge you to present scriptures where the Bible teaches about a flat earth.


2nd TIME ASKING.

 

Your God and Bible doesn´t know shit. Forget about arguing if the word means circle or sphere, here is clear quotes that your God had no idea what he was talking about in Bible:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Are you really going to argue that earth is immovable and it is just sitting fast in space?

 

Ah...you don't understand gworld!!! See...if there is something in the 'infallible' word of god that can be shown to be false, it then becomes allegory, metaphor or not literal.

What I have always wondered is just HOW do these 'god-zombies' decide what is to be taken 'literally' and what isn't! What method do they use to determine that say...the 'Flood' is not to be taken literally but the 'Resurrection' is??

 

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. -George Bernard Shaw

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GWORLD:
None of the above scriptures are saying the earth doesn't move within its orbit. They are all saying two things: (1) The earth is secure and will never be done away with—as I explained to Mikaël at Post 26. In fact, I suggest you go back and read... Post... 26... real... slowly... and maybe you will get it.

The cherry-picked words in your above scriptures are also saying a second thing: (2) the earth will not be moved from its position in relationship to other planets. This is confirmed by the following source.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q7.htm


ALTER2EGO -to- GWORLD:
By ignoring the context and cherry picking only a few words out of each of the entire verses, you are doing exactly what Mikaël did: demonstrating to the entire forum that you don't understand what you're reading.

I will do a breakdown of a few of your above verses in future posts and demonstrate to the forum why it's important to never ignore context when reading scriptures.


BTW: I asked you several direct questions at Post 6 in my "Atheism is Religion" thread. You disappeared and never answered the questions. I wonder why? Below is the weblink to that thread.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2532974

 

Do you not see the implications of your argument? Any person bold enough to advance an hypothesis of heliocentric cosmology (Earth revolving around the Sun) up until the late 15th century were rotuinely branded as a heretic and either executed or imprisoned. There is no argument that can overcome the fact that Christianity interpreted the very passages that you are now contending utilizing a geocentric model (the Earth as the center of the universe). The historical evidence supporting this FACT is overwhelming.

So what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that all of Christianity had it wrong for over a millennium? (we already know that) . . . Or are you simply ignoring these realities in a feeble attempt to uphold the sanctity of the source for these erroneous beliefs?

 

Well, I can understand that you might think that after a Google search. But NOT in the context of that passage. I can see that you did a Google search and actually put work into this (Thank You for taking this discussion seriously), but the common Google search result that "ball" is the word for sphere is incorrect. It's a guess that's being repeated. I can see where you might want to agree with the Google search results, but look at them - none are authoritative, it's guesswork.

Remember that at the time only Islam had astronomy, but the rest of the world (including the Hebrews) did not.

As with any ancient writing, look at the audience, the context, and the message being conveyed. I don't think the passage is meant to be taken literally.

Wow. Now Mikaël is just being silly. He's turning a poetic passage into a physics discussion. Talk about not understanding context.

For the purposes of explaining this to a pre-industrial society, "the earth hangs on nothing" is appropriate and accurate and he knows it. The Troll in him is showing more than any other time.

That is not true. That is completely not true.

For example, it's a common misconception that Galileo Galilei incurred the wrath of the Catholic Church for putting forth that the Earth revolved around the Sun. That fact was available to any scientist that observed the sun and understood mathematics! What Galileo did was make draw a religious interpretation from his heliocentric model, inferring that Man was not the center of God's creation. THAT is when the Church attacked him. Galileo was not executed or imprisoned.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
It depends what your understanding of "Christianity" is. The Roman Catholics--and that's ROMANS as in the same people who executed Jesus Christ--did not write a word of scripture. After some of them became "Christianized," they simply gave their erroneous interpretation of scriptures.

Let me remind you that it was also the Roman Catholics that copied pagan teachings such as the 3-prong god (Trinity) and Dante's fictional hell from cultures that never worshipped Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH and brought those falsehoods into their perverted version of Christianity. Neither Trinity nor literal hellfire are found in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

The Roman Catholics translated the Bible into Latin--a language that the common people could not read--and proceeded to teach all sorts of falsehoods they claimed were in the Bible. Is it any wonder that they executed people simply for translating the Bible into the language of the populace? That, in and of itself, indicates the Roman Catholic Church was a detriment to Bibilcal truths for centuries. The Catholic Church prevented people from reading what the Bible says, in direct opposition to Jesus Christ's instructions that all his Christian followers are required to take in knowledge of Jehovah and of Jesus Christ.

"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)


QUESTION #1 to GOMEZA: In light with what Jesus said at John 17:3, preventing people from reading the Bible and gaining accurate knowledge of their Creator--in order for people to worship God in the way he instructs--that's your idea of a acceptable Christian behavior by church leaders?


QUESTION #2 to GOMEZA: What makes you think God will accept those that perverted truth and prevented people for centuries from reading the scriptures?


QUESTION #3 to GOMEZA: For centuries, both the European "Christian" slavers and the Muslim Arab slavers used the Biblical curse against Ca'naan as justification--in THEIR deluded minds--for their enslavement of members of the Negroid branch of the human family. They gave their twisted interpretation of a single verse of scripture when in reality, the curse against Canaan had no connection whatsoever with skin color. Just because they interpreted it as such, are you saying the European "Christians" and the Muslim Arabs were correct or that God is to blame for their twisted reasoning?

"{24} Finally Noah awoke from his wine and got to know what his youngest son had done to him. {25} At this he said: Cursed be Ca'naan. Let him become the lowest slave to his brothers.' " (Genesis 9:24-25)


QUESTION #4 to GOMEZA: It appears you believe that since people made erroneous Biblical interpretations and their falsehoods were accepted by most people for centuries, the error is not theirs but God's. It doesn't matter that the Bible does not support these fallacies. Just as long as most people believed the fallacies for centuries, and--as you put it--"The historical evidence supporting this FACT is overwhelming," then the error is God's. Is that what you're telling this forum?

 

So if the Romans did not write a word of scripture, can you present us with a copy of the bible that predates the bible issued by the Romans in the First Council of Nicaea in the 325ad, without all those silly Roman additions? What I would be most interested in is a copy of one of the gospels penned in the hand of one of the apostles. Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone who knew one of the apostles. Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone actually alive during the time Jesus was alive.Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone alive within a generation or two of Jesus being alive.

Shall I hold my breath?

 

I did not mention Galileo for that reason, to say "That is not true. That is completely not true." is a statement that you cannot corroborate. You would have been better served to say that you can offer a number of exceptions and clarify a number of commonly held misconceptions. We would actually be in agreement if you had refrained from using absolutes.

Attempting to deny that the vast majority of our species believed the world was flat (until the 16th century) and that these beliefs were not fortified by religious beliefs extrapolated from various sacred texts is simply an argument that cannot be won. Mountains of evidence exists to the contrary. "Scientists" may well have been privy to a heliocentric understanding as you suggest, I will not dispute that but what would best be described as a "spherical Earth hypothesis" was by no means predominant as it competed with a number of other ideas concerning the Earth's shape and constitution.

I am also well aware of what has been deemed the "flat earth myth" which suggests that the vast majority of educated people living in the early and middle centuries believed the world was flat. I can agree that this is not likely true but to use it as a basis for an argument ignores crucial aspects of life at that time. "Scientists" (which is really a misnomer in a pre-scientific era) had virtually no influence on society through that time period. The church of Rome was the dominant influence in people's lives in what we now call the western world, and they did in fact advance a notion based on scriptures that endorsed a geocentric model stating that the earth was flat. . . and of course the center of the universe

They also persecuted, imprisoned and executed people advancing contradicting opinions to this belief in the early centuries, the middle ages and through their various inquisitions.