This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is this picture as silly as it appears to be?

#31DoGCyNPosted 2/19/2013 11:30:11 AM
hunter_gohan posted...
Round flat disc != slightly pear shaped oblate spheroid.


Looks like a nerve was struck.

I would argue that it was a general statement. A sphere is also round...you know, like a circle.

You mean you can ad-hoc twist some passages to kind of resemble something that is true? If it was speaking such truths they would be found out by reading it, not by finding out the truth first and then finding a passage you can twist just enough to kinda make it mean what you want it to.


lol u mad?

Come on dude. I'm not "twisting Scripture." A scientific fact is known about something, and we have this so called 2000+ year old book that has various "shadowy" references to this said known fact, -many years- before being proven (and in fact, goes in direct opposition to "other facts" at the time i.e. flat world). I say shadowy because it isn't a word for word definition and clarification of whatever is being described...like the shadow of a person (never "perfectly" resembles a person). It's merely a possible reference that connects. Not everyone will accept it as such, and not I'm here to convince you otherwise.


Well yes that's exactly what the Pagan Eratosthenes did. He didn't just show the earth to be a spheroid. He measured the damn circumference to within a 2% error if he used the Egyptian stadion.(He was in Egypt the entire time he did this). The early Jews? Well no they kinda thought the universe looked like this:


See above paragraph.

Or you're ignoring what they actually said since you know it to be wrong and simply reinterpreting passages to bend them into being "correct".


lol k.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#32ThuggernautzPosted 2/19/2013 12:03:02 PM
DoGCyN posted...

lol u mad?

Come on dude. I'm not "twisting Scripture." A scientific fact is known about something, and we have this so called 2000+ year old book that has various "shadowy" references to this said known fact, -many years- before being proven (and in fact, goes in direct opposition to "other facts" at the time i.e. flat world). I say shadowy because it isn't a word for word definition and clarification of whatever is being described...like the shadow of a person (never "perfectly" resembles a person). It's merely a possible reference that connects. Not everyone will accept it as such, and not I'm here to convince you otherwise.


lol u bad? Eratosthenes fairly accurately predicted the circumference of the Earth in 300BC, right around the time of the completion of much of the OT. And yes, it is quite obvious that interpretations of the text are occurring after the independent discoveries.

the_hedonist posted...

If you are going to disagree that the verse is truthful (as it seems you are doing in your last sentence), it seems that you are the pedant here. To say that the stars are "innumerable" does not necessarily mean: it is 100% impossible that the stars will ever be numbered. Within the confines of the English language (and I would assume this is true of most languages), we often speak of things that are practically impossible as being impossible. Meaning, in practical terms, it is impossible to number the stars today. There are so many stars that we can't number them! And that is a very true statement. There are many ways to understand one statement. I think we can understand the statement not to be literally true, meaning the text can very conceivably be correct.

But if you want to play the pedantic game, even if we are to understand the text in a literal sense, it is difficult to understand how we will ever number all the stars. Even if the universe is finite, it does not mean that it is within our ability to find out everything there is to know about it. Perhaps if we we are able to develop technology that is faster than the speed of light? I have heard that is impossible. Even in that case, could there not still conceivably be more stars or objects that are so far away that we do not know they exist, even if we were able to comb the edges of the currect observable universe, we would simply make what we can observe a much larger thing.

And to say that we have an estimate of the number of stars is not the same as saying that we have numbered the stars. If all we can do is estimate, then it is a true statement to say that the stars are innumerable, even if we only mean that there are innumerable today.

But, again, I do not think the Bible was trying to teach science. I think they were probably just standing in awe of the heavens and saying, "wow! God made so many stars! We cannot even count them!" I do not think it was speaking in a literal sense.


How much of an accuracy would you need to classify an estimate as a concrete number? To the 10th decimal place? The hundredth? We don't generally do that with gravity. The point being, we can definitely apply a number to the estimate as we do with every other measurement we do. Depending on your tolerance for accuracy, though, you may not be happy with that estimate and claim 'innumerable' hyperbolically. That's fine.

Oh, and there are several theoretical frameworks for superluminal (FTL) communication, the most promising of those being quantum entangled ensembles. So it is theoretically possible to communicate observation through the breadth of our observable universe. With enough computing power and observation, we can also simulate and predict star formation and destruction. We've already done it for the sun, and the accretion of the major planetary bodies in our solar system.
#33DoGCyNPosted 2/19/2013 12:41:31 PM(edited)
Thuggernautz posted...
lol u bad? Eratosthenes fairly accurately predicted the circumference of the Earth in 300BC, right around the time of the completion of much of the OT.


I actually didn't know that. Thanks Thug!

And yes, it is quite obvious that interpretations of the text are occurring after the independent discoveries.


Quite obvious.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#34ThuggernautzPosted 2/19/2013 1:11:52 PM
DoGCyN posted...

I actually didn't know that. Thanks Thug!


No probs! The classical philosophers and scientists were so far ahead of their time in so many different fields of study; it's one of the biggest tragedies of our history that the Library of Alexandria was burned. We lost an invaluable treasure trove of information, and the societal celebration of scientific inquiry and advancement took millenia to flourish again (apart from the huge advancements of Arabic scholars, until their eventual oppression as well). Who knows how much more advanced we would be now if scientific advancement had continued along its ancient trajectory?

Tangentially, I wish someone would find the 'Rosetta Stone' of the Indus Valley Civilization, their level of architecture and city planning was amazing for the time but no-one can understand their writing... I imagine there is so much interesting stuff to be uncovered there.

P.S. Now I'm nerding out on ancient history again. So, thanks for that. :)
#35hunter_gohanPosted 2/19/2013 3:37:36 PM
DoGCyN posted...
Looks like a nerve was struck.


Because I pointed out you were wrong?

I would argue that it was a general statement. A sphere is also round...you know, like a circle.


Yeah a quarter is round, a beach ball is round. So if someone describes something as round how do we know which round they're talking about? By their other descriptions of the same object. The Bibles paints the world as a flat disc floating in water supported by pillars with a solid firmament that is the sky which holds all the stars, moon, and sun in it with water above that can rain down when floodgates are opened and heaven being above that.

I notice how you conveniently don't even mention that second claim. Is that because you did get it from Leviticus 15 and you recognize that all these things are is an ad hoc after the fact re-interpretation to make something tenuously say what you want it to?

Come on dude. I'm not "twisting Scripture." A scientific fact is known about something, and we have this so called 2000+ year old book that has various "shadowy" references to this said known fact,...


Hellenism correctly predicted the water cycle.

"THE NEPHELAI (or Nephelae) were the Okeanid nymphs of clouds and rain who rose up from the earth-encircling river Okeanos bearing water to the heavens in cloudy pitchers. With their rains, the Nephelai nourished the earth and the fed the streams of their River-god brothers. The Nephelai were depicted as beautiful, young women pouring water from pitchers, like their sisters, the Naiades of the springs, or as women flitting across the sky with billowing robes."
http://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/Nephelai.html

You see quite obviously these Nymphs are simply metaphors for the evaporation of water which rises up only to eventually be condensed into liquid again and fall upon the earth. All hail Zeus!

See how easy it is to reinterpret something to be "correct"? This is all you are doing.

-many years- before being proven (and in fact, goes in direct opposition to "other facts" at the time i.e. flat world).


This is exactly what the Bible describes the world as. Flat objects can be round.

I say shadowy because it isn't a word for word definition and clarification of whatever is being described...like the shadow of a person (never "perfectly" resembles a person). It's merely a possible reference that connects. Not everyone will accept it as such, and not I'm here to convince you otherwise.


You can do this with pratically anything you want. Hell give it a few hundred years and you can probably do it with Moby Dick....actually you don't even have to wait

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/10-star-trek-technologies.htm#page=0

All hail the prophet Gene Roddenberry!
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#36hunter_gohanPosted 2/19/2013 3:38:23 PM
See above paragraph.


See the fact that flat objects can be round.

lol k.


Yes this is exactly what you are doing when you hold out a passage calling the earth round(or was it circle?) while ignoring all those other passages which show they thought it was a round flat disc. Or how you hold out a passage telling people to vigorously wash every damn thing a lepor has touched; eventhough, leprosy isn't actually that contagious, and you need antibiotics to knock it out not just water while ignoring the passages which give this exact same treatment to women on their periods.

DoGCyN posted...
Thuggernautz posted...
And yes, it is quite obvious that interpretations of the text are occurring after the independent discoveries.


Quite obvious.


So this was just Poe's law then?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#37DoGCyNPosted 2/19/2013 6:43:59 PM(edited)
hunter_gohan, gonna say this now. Hustle_Kong worded this better than me in another topic but my post in this case are meant to be gentle nudges, not gripes. I honestly come to these boards for fun discussions (and get quite a few laughs each week from them), not the for sake of "arguing." What's the fun in arguing? Debating is far more profitable. Now that that's said:

hunter_gohan posted...
Because I pointed out you were wrong?


If ..."proving me wrong" gets you mad, maybe I should be wrong more often. :D

Seriously though, can we have a decent discussion without derogatory posts like this:


"Really? Is it really Leviticus 15 where you're getting this crap?"
"Please tell this is not where you're getting that from. "
"You mean you can ad-hoc twist etc."
"Or you're ignoring..."
"This is all you are doing."

I mean come on dude...really? Can we not have a decent discussion? Does this have to turn into a "can you criticize God" war?

Yeah a quarter is round, a beach ball is round. So if someone describes something as round how do we know which round they're talking about?


Round is relative in this case, not absolute. Either way, if I say the Earth is round you you ask me "which round is it?" I would probably laugh.

The Bibles paints the world as a flat disc floating in water supported by pillars with a solid firmament that is the sky which holds all the stars, moon, and sun in it with water above that can rain down when floodgates are opened and heaven being above that.


I'll be honest. Never seen a "fundy" atheist/whatever you are before. This is a new experience!

I notice how you conveniently...


But of course! Why would I "inconveniently" do anything? It's like that random stack of books in the Underworld movies that blocks our main characters'...assets. Hate those books... (insert next pun below)
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#38DoGCyNPosted 2/19/2013 6:42:41 PM
You see quite obviously these Nymphs are simply metaphors


Obviously our "flat disc" is a literal flat disc.

This is exactly what the Bible describes the world as. Flat objects can be round.


Why do you read some things as absolutely literal and other things and relatively metaphorical (lol)?

Yes this is exactly what you are doing...while ignoring all those other passages ...


Oh lawd. Do you seriously need a hug or something? While I'm not entirely against dissecting the "debaters" of this forum, I find it rather silly that so many people immediately jump from the subject of the debates to the people debating. This isn't about me. This is why we can't have nice things. Leave me out of your thoughts! You put me there once and it wasn't pleasant. ;_;
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#39hunter_gohanPosted 2/19/2013 8:39:47 PM
DoGCyN posted...
If ..."proving me wrong" gets you mad, maybe I should be wrong more often. :D


At this point I have to assume you're merely projecting. I am not mad, angry, cross or whatever. I saw something blatantly wrong and tried to correct it.

Seriously though, can we have a decent discussion without derogatory posts like this:


"Really? Is it really Leviticus 15 where you're getting this crap?"
"Please tell this is not where you're getting that from. "
"You mean you can ad-hoc twist etc."
"Or you're ignoring..."
"This is all you are doing."

I mean come on dude...really? Can we not have a decent discussion? Does this have to turn into a "can you criticize God" war?


This is where you get I'm angry from? I'm ridiculing the position because it is ridiculous, not because of any emotional state I'm in. And I stand by that, your position is ridiculous if you get "clean wounds with running water" from Leviticus 15.

Actually I just went back and checked the pic from the OP(The first time I just stopped after the first item), and yup Leviticus 15 is exactly where this is coming from. The exact same book which says to go sacrifice two doves after you've washed because getting leprosy in the first place was apparently entirely your fault(I mean it's not like things like microscopic bacteria exist which is the cause of this or anything). The exact same book which treats women on their periods exactly like lepers. If you spout off enough bull, eventually something you say will kinda almost match up to reality.

How can you get "clean wounds with running water" from that(when it's not even talking about wounds but about anything a leper touches, or sits on, people who sat on things they sat on etc) but not "do the exact same cleaning for anything a women who is on their period even looked at" from it? Hint: It's because you know the latter is blatantly wrong while the former is close enough that you can twist it into something that is true.

Leviticus 15 (Not sure why this is all the way at the end but whatever) "32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean."

Notice the complete lack of any "These are the regulations for dealing with open wounds".

And pointing out things you're doing, ignoring, or any ad-hoc explanations I don't even know why they're in there honestly.

Round is relative in this case, not absolute. Either way, if I say the Earth is round you you ask me "which round is it?" I would probably laugh.


I don't have to because you aren't from a society which views the planet as a flat disc supported by pillars in an ocean like the early Israelites.

I'll be honest. Never seen a "fundy" atheist/whatever you are before. This is a new experience!


Do you deny it says those things? Lemme guess, metaphors? Why are these things "metaphors" yet the earth being round aren't? Is it because you know them to be blatantly wrong, but the round one you can twist enough to fit into fact?

But of course!


So I'll just take that as a concession that you see how blatantly ridiculous getting "wash wounds with running water" from Leviticus 15 is.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#40hunter_gohanPosted 2/19/2013 8:42:41 PM
It's like that random stack of books in the Underworld movies that blocks our main characters'...assets. Hate those books... (insert next pun below)


*shakes his fist at the books* Damn she was hot in that movie.

Obviously our "flat disc" is a literal flat disc.


Obviously our "circle of the earth" is actually an oblate spheroid.

Why do you read some things as absolutely literal and other things and relatively metaphorical (lol)?


Even the metaphors describe a flat earth. It doesn't help your case.

Psalms 104: 2.5 "he stretches out the heavens like a tent"

Like a tent is a metaphor(well technically a simile, but I assume metaphor here refers to passages not taken strictly literally), but a metaphor for what? For a "heavens/sky" that is shaped like a tent is. Which would be the shape you'd expect to cover some flat disc, not a sphere.

http://www.journeyetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ecocamp2.jpg

A domed tent. Why in the blue hell would someone make that shape for a "sky" if the world isn't the flat disc at the bottom of it?

The earth is like a basketball. Simile. The earth isn't actually a basketball, it is merely shaped similarly.

Oh lawd. Do you seriously need a hug or something?


What is it with you and equating "Show what I'm doing/Showing my points are wrong" with "being mad"? Pointing out what you're doing does not say anything about my emotional state.

While I'm not entirely against dissecting the "debaters" of this forum, I find it rather silly that so many people immediately jump from the subject of the debates to the people debating. This isn't about me. This is why we can't have nice things. Leave me out of your thoughts! You put me there once and it wasn't pleasant. ;_;


If you weren't doing that, you wouldn't be making these erroneous points. It is directly relevant to the subject.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.