Is this in the Bible

Greetings,

Fortuna said:
The word in question from Isaiah 40:22 is "chug"(using Roman char transliteration)
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Like I posted some time back.

Fortuna said:
and you can look this up yourselves.
Click to expand...

I did.
I cited the words above.
Did you miss my post?


Fortuna said:
Again, read Genesis 1 for this explanation.
Click to expand...

You think no-one has ever read Genesis 1?
Only you have?


Fortuna said:
They did NOT think the earth was spherical.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
As several of us here have pointed out.


Fortuna said:
So, technically, both sides are wrong here !
Click to expand...

What two sides are wrong?

Apologists claim the Bible means a spherical earth.
Sceptics claim they refer to a flat earth.

You say they refer to a flat earth.
How can both sides be wrong?
Please explain.


Iasion
 
davewhite04 said:
:) So why isn't the term "going around in circles" NOT "going around in balls" instead?
Click to expand...

What the F?
Are you totally insane?

The term "going around in circles" refers to taking a path which is a CIRCLE and repeating it.

It is not POSSIBLE to "go around in balls".
It does not even make sense.


davewhite04 said:
The terms it uses clearly describe the earth and are easily understood today.
Click to expand...

Yes.
They describe the earth as a FLAT CIRCLE.
Very easy to understand.

Apologists just deny the plain facts.



Iasion
 
davewhite04 said:
The snake is Satan who is a supernatural entity, and can talk and shape shift.

Were you there?
Click to expand...

Wow.
You really believe in a shape-shiting Satan?
You really believe in the Garden of Eden story?


Mate - these are fairy tales.

All you are doing is repeating faithful beliefs you picked up in church.

I hope one day you have enough gumption to question these legends.

Good luck.


Iasion
 
Medicine*Woman said:
Those patriarchs have been listed as the Egyptian Pharaohs David and Solomon. Other texts list Moses as a contemporary. Therefore, the timeline for the publication of Job would be 1490-1350 BCE. This timeline is even much later than what biblical scholars have determined the writing of Job to be. Further, Job is a work of poetry or perhaps a play.
Click to expand...

No scholar supports this crackpottery.

Moses, David and Solomon are clearly myths.

The OT was first put into writing in the 8th and 7th centuries or so.

Some books are as late as 2nd C. BCE (e.g. Daniel.)


Iasion
 
Iasion said:
No scholar supports this crackpottery.

Moses, David and Solomon are clearly myths.

The OT was first put into writing in the 8th and 7th centuries or so.

Some books are as late as 2nd C. BCE (e.g. Daniel.)


Iasion
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to dismiss the existence King David?

Can you provide evidence to back up your dating method?
 
The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain.
Click to expand...
Springs in the ocean are quite common off of coasts, and even fairly deep ones are usually well known to local fishermen and so forth - have been for thousands of years, apparently.

Humans have lived near the ocean, fished out of the ocean, crossed the ocean and explored the ocean, for a very long time - tens of thousands of years. Many very sophisticated observations of ocean topography, currents, and weather were made by those ancient peoples.

btw: Fire and brimstone are specific substances, not found in the deep interior of the earth as far as anyone knows.
 
...and springs feed rivers, which means they thought the ocean was the accumulation of springs. In this passage, Job was just reiterating what he thought of God's injustice, the reference to natural phenomenon is incidental.
 
spidergoat said:
...and springs feed rivers, which means they thought the ocean was the accumulation of springs. In this passage, Job was just reiterating what he thought of God's injustice, the reference to natural phenomenon is incidental.
Click to expand...

Alot of sense in this post.
 
davewhite04 said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Um,
exactly WHAT?

What IS your point davewhite?

When we say "go round in circles",
we use the word "circle", not "ball",
because using the word "ball" would make no sense at all.

Are you trying to say the bible writers used the word "circle" because using the word "ball" would make no sense ?

That is completely false.

It WOULD make PERFECT sense to use the word "ball" to describe the earth.

The fact the bible writers used the word "circle" and used phrases implying a flat earth clearly shows they thought the earth was flat.


Iasion
 
davewhite04 said:
What evidence do you have to dismiss the existence King David?
Click to expand...

Two things argue against King David being historical :
1. History
2. Archeology

There is no history or archeology supporting King David (there are quite a few forgeries though),

The Bytdwd inscription does not clearly say
"House (meaning dynasty) of David",
but rather it may say more like
"Chief's House".

What history and archeology we have found does NOT match the bible stories.

If YOU believe King David is historical, then YOU better provide some evidence for his existance.

There is none.


davewhite04 said:
Can you provide evidence to back up your dating method?
Click to expand...

Any modern biblical scholar or reference work, such as :
* the Jerome commentary
* Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?"
* earlyjewishwritings.com
etc.

Among modern scholars, it is commonly accepted that David and Solomon did not exist.

Faithful believers are the last to know.


Iasion
 
Iasion said:
Two things argue against King David being historical :
1. History
2. Archeology

There is no history or archeology supporting King David (there are quite a few forgeries though),

The Bytdwd inscription does not clearly say
"House (meaning dynasty) of David",
but rather it may say more like
"Chief's House".

What history and archeology we have found does NOT match the bible stories.

If YOU believe King David is historical, then YOU better provide some evidence for his existance.

There is none.
Click to expand...

This is rubbish. Try typing in "King David + Archeology evidence" instead of the opposite into www.ask.com

Reading a few books on how history works is a good start too.

Any modern biblical scholar or reference work, such as :
* the Jerome commentary
* Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?"
* earlyjewishwritings.com
etc.
Click to expand...

Right, read some books from the other side of the argument even if it doesn't sit well with you.

Among modern scholars, it is commonly accepted that David and Solomon did not exist.
Click to expand...

Which scholars?

Faithful believers are the last to know.
Click to expand...

True. As a believer what do you believe in?
 
Shape shifting would require a new configuration of particles after t=0. Such particles in massive amounts cannot time reverse, so sporadic transformation cannot happen.
 
Reiku said:
Shape shifting would require a new configuration of particles after t=0. Such particles in massive amounts cannot time reverse, so sporadic transformation cannot happen.
Click to expand...

Based on lack of evidence which is not evidence.

t=0? Explain...
 
Last edited:
It might be possible for a supermaterial. One capable of intelligent/intentional design. Such metamaterials might be called ''smart materials.'' This stuff rearranges itself after a morphic change. The change can be physical, in this pseudo-sense, and cause the sucbject to physically morphicate. They could change into a new entity. Like as described in the American Warewolf in Paris shows a fictional character that changed in a ware wolf, then back again, displaying a smart material. Morphic change occurs though in cacoons, where a worm changes into a butterfly. This change is the closest thing to hit on it... Variably, you can have a heavy field (i think) supporting the conscious state.
They determine the possibility of such a change.
 
Reiku said:
It might be possible for a supermaterial. One capable of intelligent/intentional design. Such metamaterials might be called ''smart materials.'' This stuff rearranges itself after a morphic change. The change can be physical, in this pseudo-sense, and cause the sucbject to physically morphicate. They could change into a new entity. Like as described in the American Warewolf in Paris shows a fictional character that changed in a ware wolf, then back again, displaying a smart material. Morphic change occurs though in cacoons, where a worm changes into a butterfly. This change is the closest thing to hit on it... Variably, you can have a heavy field (i think) supporting the conscious state.
They determine the possibility of such a change.
Click to expand...

Now this sounds interesting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top