Global warming - climate change
- Thread starter MessageOfTheCross
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
O
Hebrew:
Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 40
Verse 22:
כבהַיּשֵׁב֙ עַל־ח֣וּג הָאָ֔רֶץ וְיֹֽשְׁבֶ֖יהָ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֑ים :
הַנּוֹטֶ֚ה כַדֹּק֙ שָׁמַ֔יִם וַיִּמְתָּחֵ֥ם כָּאֹ֖הֶל לָשָֽׁבֶת
English:
22 It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, and He spread them out like a tent to dwell.
The proper meaning for circle in this structure means:
מַעגִילָה
cylinder, roller, circle, orbit, path, rolling pin
We can easily deduct in understanding the scripture, that we know it is referring to the Universe, Space, and the planet Earth and God is above it all. That we can remove the words cylinder - roller - rolling pin (although, as the Earth spins, the action could be copied by the use of these items for how they described the earth spinning - reveals they had great knowledge) from the meaning.
That leaves the words circle - orbit - path (the earth spins East from West)
Now put that in place of just your idea of a circle being flat, because flat is how Mathematics breaks it down to understand it better.
Look at this from the word meaning:
It is HE, Who sits above the orbit and path of the circle (planet Earth). Envision the picture of a Giant Jesus in the background. Then the Earth is a close up view. It shows how God is massive in comparison to His Creation. The setting is similar to the Higgs Boson exhibit. You see this amazing thing happening with the use of Laws of Physics applied. You just observe the rotation and orbit it chooses to travel. This is exactly how God is currently, and has been doing it. He is watching in terms of growth, humanity evolving with sin in their life from generation to generation. He has His Own though, who do love Him and choose to follow Him. But everyone else for generations, centuries, era's, God has steadily watched the decline of His Creation under control of the Adversary.
Luckily for us, the Supreme Scientist, God...intervenes when we allow Him to. When we do not put parameters on Him. When we don't try to control the situation from word "Go." When Faith supercedes Reason, leaving no doubt.
Which god are you a Prophet of?
Are you saying God didn't know the difference between a flat circle and a round sphere when He viewed the Earth from the heavens?
Incorrect. The word used here in Hebrew means "circle, circuit, compass." The Hebrews also had words for "sphere," and "ball" (as used in Isaiah 22:18, "He will toss thee like a ball...") that they used to refer to round, three-dimensional objects. If they had wanted to say "ball," or "sphere," they could have; there was no need to use "circle" unless they meant a flat, two-dimensional object--which is how the Earth was conceived in those days by near-East cosmologists (a view which the Israelites shared).
Maybe you can argue for a loose, poetic reading of the verse, but one would think that if the Bible were expected to be taken as a scientific authority, it would be more specific rather than poetic--which goes to support my point, that the Bible is not intended to be used as a science book or a history book.
Yep.
Incorrect. The word used here in Hebrew means "circle, circuit, compass." The Hebrews also had words for "sphere," and "ball" (as used in Isaiah 22:18, "He will toss thee like a ball...") that they used to refer to round, three-dimensional objects. If they had wanted to say "ball," or "sphere," they could have; there was no need to use "circle" unless they meant a flat, two-dimensional object--which is how the Earth was conceived in those days by near-East cosmologists (a view which the Israelites shared).
Maybe you can argue for a loose, poetic reading of the verse, but one would think that if the Bible were expected to be taken as a scientific authority, it would be more specific rather than poetic--which goes to support my point, that the Bible is not intended to be used as a science book or a history book.
Yep.
Again, if you go to a science book, you don't have to contort the definitions through all these gymnastics and hoops to turn the meaning of one word ("circle" in this case) into the meaning of another word ("sphere"). A science book says "circle" when it means a circle, and it says "sphere" when it means a sphere.
If you want to write ten paragraphs explaining how God really meant "sphere" when He said "circle," then be my guest--but all you've done is confirm my assertion that the Bible is not intended to be used as a science book.
How many gods are there?
If you want to write ten paragraphs explaining how God really meant "sphere" when He said "circle," then be my guest--but all you've done is confirm my assertion that the Bible is not intended to be used as a science book.
How many gods are there?
O
A science book is a Mathematics Book. It's suppose to break everything down with definition, Mathematical Formula, and general Theory. Your point is moot when communicating with someone who already see's the obvious.
It's the knowledge gained in the Bible that naturally leads to Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Language, Structure...
The terms science use, are the terms used, when you can properly define the Original Hebrew Torah. Which is what I did for you. You provide this Amplified version many times, but it is nowhere even close to what specific words mean. In Ancient Cultures, ONE WORD could mean numerous things, just variations. This is what the Hebrew is, ONE WORD that instead of having ((fire - flame - burn - hot - cook)) they just used ONE WORD that meant all of these words. They are close in meaning, just different applications.
You claim you are a prophet, but don't even get what HIS (Yahweh's) Chosen Language even says or means...
Your addition of philosophy to scripture, indicates you believe more than ONE!!
It's the knowledge gained in the Bible that naturally leads to Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Language, Structure...
The terms science use, are the terms used, when you can properly define the Original Hebrew Torah. Which is what I did for you. You provide this Amplified version many times, but it is nowhere even close to what specific words mean. In Ancient Cultures, ONE WORD could mean numerous things, just variations. This is what the Hebrew is, ONE WORD that instead of having ((fire - flame - burn - hot - cook)) they just used ONE WORD that meant all of these words. They are close in meaning, just different applications.
You claim you are a prophet, but don't even get what HIS (Yahweh's) Chosen Language even says or means...
Your addition of philosophy to scripture, indicates you believe more than ONE!!
Well, a math book could be considered a kind of a science book, although mathematics is really more theoretical than observational, and replicable observations are the foundation of the scientific method. For instance, in mathematics, one plus one ALWAYS equals two, whereas in real life, we can observe circumstances in which one plus one equals one (one cloud drifting across the sky joins with another cloud drifting across the sky to become one cloud drifting across the sky).
In any case, it's clear that not all science books are math books (even though science relies heavily on mathematical constructs to calculate the likelihood that observations are due to chance rather than to a desired effect), so I'm not comfortable with defining the two as synonymous.
Yeah, that's my point. If the Bible were intended to be used as a science book, it would include that kind of accuracy in its descriptions. Since you don't get that in the Bible, then you shouldn't be using the Bible as a science book.
I would hope so, but you'd be surprised how many people want to use the Bible as a science book anyway.
Thankfully, this is not true, or we would be using 3 as the value of pi (1 Kings 7:23), among other problems.
Incorrect. You wrote ten paragraphs explaining how God really meant "sphere" when He said "circle," even though He could have used the word "sphere" if He had wanted to.
Actually, the Amplified version is the most accurate version because it includes connotations and shades of meaning implied by the original text which cannot be captured by single-word translations. For that reason, it is not easy to read out loud, but it is the best version to use for Bible study, short of using an actual interlinear bible and a concordance.
Newsflash--we use words like that in English, too--"bat" for instance, can mean a stick of wood or a small furry flying mammal. But a legitimate science book wouldn't just say "something round" when they could specify a two-dimensional round thing (a "circle") or a three-dimensional round thing (a "sphere" or a "ball") when the language includes words for both instances of round things. If the Bible was intended to be a science book, then it has failed at this simple task.
Or maybe I do, and you just don't understand the purpose of the Bible, or a prophet's explanation of it.
Does that mean that you believe that philosophers are gods?
I might have some further prophetic insight that would be of use to you if you do...
In any case, it's clear that not all science books are math books (even though science relies heavily on mathematical constructs to calculate the likelihood that observations are due to chance rather than to a desired effect), so I'm not comfortable with defining the two as synonymous.
Yeah, that's my point. If the Bible were intended to be used as a science book, it would include that kind of accuracy in its descriptions. Since you don't get that in the Bible, then you shouldn't be using the Bible as a science book.
I would hope so, but you'd be surprised how many people want to use the Bible as a science book anyway.
Thankfully, this is not true, or we would be using 3 as the value of pi (1 Kings 7:23), among other problems.
Incorrect. You wrote ten paragraphs explaining how God really meant "sphere" when He said "circle," even though He could have used the word "sphere" if He had wanted to.
Actually, the Amplified version is the most accurate version because it includes connotations and shades of meaning implied by the original text which cannot be captured by single-word translations. For that reason, it is not easy to read out loud, but it is the best version to use for Bible study, short of using an actual interlinear bible and a concordance.
Newsflash--we use words like that in English, too--"bat" for instance, can mean a stick of wood or a small furry flying mammal. But a legitimate science book wouldn't just say "something round" when they could specify a two-dimensional round thing (a "circle") or a three-dimensional round thing (a "sphere" or a "ball") when the language includes words for both instances of round things. If the Bible was intended to be a science book, then it has failed at this simple task.
Or maybe I do, and you just don't understand the purpose of the Bible, or a prophet's explanation of it.
Does that mean that you believe that philosophers are gods?
I might have some further prophetic insight that would be of use to you if you do...
-
1
- Show all
A ball is a three-dimensional round object, a sphere.
A "circuit" means "around a circle" or "a roughly circular line or route." Job 22:14 basically says that God walks "around" the heavens. Many translations use the word "circle" in that verse as well--the "circle" of heaven. Even for those translations that use "vault" or "dome," we're still only talking about half a ball here, so "sphere" or "ball" would not be even remotely appropriate.
I would say that God doesn't lie. Lying is an intention to deceive. Where the Bible is not scientifically or historically accurate, it's not an intention to deceive us; it's just poetic license that's not related to the main point being portrayed. And sometimes men just err, even with good intentions, in interpreting God's Truth. That's how we get four different accounts of the resurrection, for instance--but the main point is that Jesus rose from the dead, not how many people went to the tomb, or how many angels they found there, or any of the other contradictory details.
A "circuit" means "around a circle" or "a roughly circular line or route." Job 22:14 basically says that God walks "around" the heavens. Many translations use the word "circle" in that verse as well--the "circle" of heaven. Even for those translations that use "vault" or "dome," we're still only talking about half a ball here, so "sphere" or "ball" would not be even remotely appropriate.
I would say that God doesn't lie. Lying is an intention to deceive. Where the Bible is not scientifically or historically accurate, it's not an intention to deceive us; it's just poetic license that's not related to the main point being portrayed. And sometimes men just err, even with good intentions, in interpreting God's Truth. That's how we get four different accounts of the resurrection, for instance--but the main point is that Jesus rose from the dead, not how many people went to the tomb, or how many angels they found there, or any of the other contradictory details.
U
Yes, but you stated that the Bible states we have a flat earth?
Any way no matter, the Bible does not state the earth is flat, the way flat earthers mean it.
And there are no contradictions, someone in psychology should understand that a narrative can offer different vantage points of the same truth.
Any way no matter, the Bible does not state the earth is flat, the way flat earthers mean it.
And there are no contradictions, someone in psychology should understand that a narrative can offer different vantage points of the same truth.
It does. I have spent the last several posts describing the passage in detail. If you don't get it by now, I'm guessing that you probably never will.
The Bible talks about the heavens as a "dome" in several places--but of course, that's just as inaccurate. There is no "dome" above the Earth.
Again, don't use the Bible as a science book.
You either haven't been paying attention, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. Either way, there's no point in my continued explanations.
contradiction - a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another
Matthew 28:1 - Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to look at the tomb.
Mark 16:1 - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome go to the tomb.
Luke 24:1 - "The women" go to the tomb.
John 20:1 - Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb alone.
Matthew 28:2 - "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."
Mark 16:3-5 - "and they asked each other, 'Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed."
Luke 24:2-4 - "They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them."
The Gospels contradict regarding who went to the tomb, whether the stone was rolled away before they got there or after, and how many angels appeared to announce Christ's resurrection (and whether the angel was inside the tomb or outside the tomb).
But the point of the story is not the historical details, the point of the story is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Again, don't use the Bible as a history book.
The Bible talks about the heavens as a "dome" in several places--but of course, that's just as inaccurate. There is no "dome" above the Earth.
Again, don't use the Bible as a science book.
You either haven't been paying attention, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. Either way, there's no point in my continued explanations.
contradiction - a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another
Matthew 28:1 - Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to look at the tomb.
Mark 16:1 - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome go to the tomb.
Luke 24:1 - "The women" go to the tomb.
John 20:1 - Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb alone.
Matthew 28:2 - "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."
Mark 16:3-5 - "and they asked each other, 'Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed."
Luke 24:2-4 - "They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them."
The Gospels contradict regarding who went to the tomb, whether the stone was rolled away before they got there or after, and how many angels appeared to announce Christ's resurrection (and whether the angel was inside the tomb or outside the tomb).
But the point of the story is not the historical details, the point of the story is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Again, don't use the Bible as a history book.
O
HAHAHAHA You do realize that Science and Mathematics were ((separate idealism's)) before how we understand the relationship today. But in Galileo's time, his work as a basic astrophysicist merged the 2 idealism's. Obviously, you know why? Because Science needs Mathematics to prove Theory, where Mathematics does not need Science.
And also why Galileo stated, "Mathematics is God's Alphabet to the Universe." He was the first to use Mathematics applied to celestial observation.
This statement seems to sum up what can be observed from you. Many joined idealism's that aren't synonymous within your general philosophy.
And also why Galileo stated, "Mathematics is God's Alphabet to the Universe." He was the first to use Mathematics applied to celestial observation.
This statement seems to sum up what can be observed from you. Many joined idealism's that aren't synonymous within your general philosophy.
I fail to see how any of this applies to either your broad claim that the Bible was intended to be used as a science book, or your more specific claim that the Bible does not say that the Earth is flat.
If that even makes sense at all, I fail to see how any of it applies to either your broad claim that the Bible was intended to be used as a science book, or your more specific claim that the Bible does not say that the Earth is flat.
I think perhaps you have abandoned the attempt of a reasonable defense, and have opted for ad hominem tactics instead.
Are you suggesting that the Biblical authors' "sophisticated" method of communication was to use a different word from the word that was intended, and then expect their readers to figure out what they actually meant?
I would still not endorse that as a recommended method for writing a book intended to be used as a science book.
Are you now altering your defense to assert that the "circle of the Earth" described in Isaiah 40:22 refers to the Earth's orbit around the sun? I hope not, because since you mentioned Galileo, you should know that the idea that the Earth orbited the sun (and not the other way around), as introduced by Copernicus and expounded by Galileo, was highly revolutionary and controversial, especially among those who studied the scriptures. If they had thought that the Bible was telling them that the Earth orbited the Sun, it would not have been such a capital offense to suggest that it was so. You, my friend, would have been executed as a heretic if you had made this assertion prior to the 15th century.
The Amplified Bible is widely considered to be one of the most thorough translations that exists. I'm sorry if it doesn't line up with your interpretation of scripture, but might I suggest that the fault probably lies with the one who does not have lifelong training in the languages in question, rather than the team of scholars who do.
According to Hebrews 11:1 (and you'll excuse me if I quote from the Amplified Bible again), "faith is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]."
In other words, faith applies to those things you cannot observe or sense. Faith was never intended to supercede what you can plainly determine about God and His creation by what you CAN see and perceive by the senses.
Having faith that the Earth is flat won't make it flat when we can plainly observe that it is (roughly) spherical.
(That said, I believe that even those things we CAN sense and observe are also based in faith--faith that a real world exists outside of our own heads, and that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality--but that's a different conversation).
Well, I guess I'm not willing to say that a child trying to emulate a role model or hero is necessarily breaking the First Commandment--but in any case, it's not particularly relevant to a conversation about philosophers being gods.
Nonsense. Not all truth is contained in the Bible, you know. As C.S. Lewis once said (and I may be paraphrasing a bit), "If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, then ANY writing which is spiritually helpful and uplifting must be in some sense inspired."
Or am I worshipping C.S. Lewis by citing something he said as useful?
If that even makes sense at all, I fail to see how any of it applies to either your broad claim that the Bible was intended to be used as a science book, or your more specific claim that the Bible does not say that the Earth is flat.
I think perhaps you have abandoned the attempt of a reasonable defense, and have opted for ad hominem tactics instead.
Are you suggesting that the Biblical authors' "sophisticated" method of communication was to use a different word from the word that was intended, and then expect their readers to figure out what they actually meant?
I would still not endorse that as a recommended method for writing a book intended to be used as a science book.
Are you now altering your defense to assert that the "circle of the Earth" described in Isaiah 40:22 refers to the Earth's orbit around the sun? I hope not, because since you mentioned Galileo, you should know that the idea that the Earth orbited the sun (and not the other way around), as introduced by Copernicus and expounded by Galileo, was highly revolutionary and controversial, especially among those who studied the scriptures. If they had thought that the Bible was telling them that the Earth orbited the Sun, it would not have been such a capital offense to suggest that it was so. You, my friend, would have been executed as a heretic if you had made this assertion prior to the 15th century.
The Amplified Bible is widely considered to be one of the most thorough translations that exists. I'm sorry if it doesn't line up with your interpretation of scripture, but might I suggest that the fault probably lies with the one who does not have lifelong training in the languages in question, rather than the team of scholars who do.
According to Hebrews 11:1 (and you'll excuse me if I quote from the Amplified Bible again), "faith is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]."
In other words, faith applies to those things you cannot observe or sense. Faith was never intended to supercede what you can plainly determine about God and His creation by what you CAN see and perceive by the senses.
Having faith that the Earth is flat won't make it flat when we can plainly observe that it is (roughly) spherical.
(That said, I believe that even those things we CAN sense and observe are also based in faith--faith that a real world exists outside of our own heads, and that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality--but that's a different conversation).
Well, I guess I'm not willing to say that a child trying to emulate a role model or hero is necessarily breaking the First Commandment--but in any case, it's not particularly relevant to a conversation about philosophers being gods.
Nonsense. Not all truth is contained in the Bible, you know. As C.S. Lewis once said (and I may be paraphrasing a bit), "If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, then ANY writing which is spiritually helpful and uplifting must be in some sense inspired."
Or am I worshipping C.S. Lewis by citing something he said as useful?
Nope, I am the one arguing AGAINST using the Bible as a science book.
The Bible describes the earth as a flat, two-dimensional object--namely, a circle.
I know. That's my point. The Bible should not be used as a science book.
No; I am the one arguing against reading science into the text of the Bible.
The Bible describes the earth as a flat, two-dimensional object--namely, a circle.
I know. That's my point. The Bible should not be used as a science book.
No; I am the one arguing against reading science into the text of the Bible.
I guess I thought it was obvious, but if you need it spelled out...
The translator chose the word "circle" in English because God inspired the author of Isaiah to choose the word that means "circle" in Hebrew. One might even say that God inspired the translator to choose the word "circle"...
Technically, "technically" is defined as "according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly."
The translator chose the word "circle" in English because God inspired the author of Isaiah to choose the word that means "circle" in Hebrew. One might even say that God inspired the translator to choose the word "circle"...
Technically, "technically" is defined as "according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly."