What the Bible Got Wrong: A Flat Earth

Storyline

What the Bible Got Wrong: A Flat EarthAn examination of the ancient Hebrew cosmology of a flat earth as found in the Bible and the apologetic defenses some Christians use to argue that the Bible, under divine inspiration, did not get this particular observation wrong.

Flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth.

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint.

Also, the Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships.

236
6.51
12345678910
Ratings: 6.51/10from 45 users.

More great documentaries

541 Comments / User Reviews

  1. You don't even have to use a thermal cam. On a clear day you can use a telescope and trigonometry. A extremely close approximation of the Height an object above sea level would have to be, in order to be seen over the horizon is Height = X^2/7913 where X is in miles, minus the height above sea level you are viewing from. For instance if you are looking from a height of 6ft out 10 miles across a lake, bay, peninsula, etc. and can see an object that is less than 60ft tall, such as building on some docks, then you have seen what the spherical earth society doesn't want you to know.

    Such is the human condition of conditioning or indoctrination. So few will do this simple experiment since they bought into what they were told as did those who told the tellers.

    Why would they lie? Why indeed! If you don't want to know why they would lie then it is unlikely you will do such a simple experiment. Meaning you don't really believe in science, you only believe in your ego. Which is the problem with much of so called science.

    When you are able to overcome your indoctrination, you will realize that a ship never sails over the horizon, it just gets smaller until the water vapor in the air masks it from view.

    Look up the old Boston LIbrary flat earth map. Whether you sail south via that map or the globe you will still hit Antarctica.

  2. Earth has already been proven flat through thermal imaging. The scope lines can't bend, and don't pick up mirages. It's the very proof that made Neil Degrasse go quiet.

    It's over peeps; earth can be proven flat through thermal imaging easily, and anybody can do the test by picking up a thermal cam

  3. God extends beyond mere space and time, thus he is above all sees all time at once.

    Earth, in mans view, is spherical. But it also exists in real time. Real time is a thin slice of time, like a slice of bread. Thus from Gods view across all time, mans view of Earth is flat compared to his point of view.

  4. PeterAV is a wise person.

  5. You people are nuts. You better go back and read to study Gods word. There is not one single word wrong in the Bible.

    1. You have to realise that the Bible has been edited and adulterated to suit the Church agenda. Please keep your mind open.

  6. read other ancient books, travel and find some keepers of real ancient knowledge and you will find more answers, for example the Qros in Peru who are the real Incas and were only discovered by "civilization" not to long ago, they know more about science than they know anywhere else and yet they use magic everyday!

  7. The earth is of intelligent design. vastly superior to our finite understandings. Isaiah knew the difference between a ball and a circle son. Isaiah 22:18 ball so he DID understand the difference between BALL and circle. Isaiah 40 :22

  8. This doc should be renamed "what atheists got wrong" Because of many reasons. The word "flat" occurs only a few times in the Bible, none is associated with the Earth.

    Isaiah 40:22 "The circle of the earth" does not refer to earth's shape but rather the horizon that divides night and day.
    The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies claims "According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome" (Meyers 1989, 63-9).

    The "pillars of heaven" is referred to mountains "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (Job 26:11) " The Bible associates the pillars with shaking and says that,
    instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
    The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them." (Psalm 104:6-8). so it is obvious this pillars aren't holding anything up but are merely free-standing pillars similar to those found in Solomon's Temple. Source Richard deem

    The flat earth myth is not a biblical error but a modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the middle ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. The "history" that Christians taught a flat earth was not invented until the 19th century. An error that the Historical Society of Britain listed as number one (or second) in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. A illusion established by Washington Irving who loved to write historic fiction under the guise of history.

    "No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific
    Affiliation Conference August 4, 1997 at Westmont College

    According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."

    Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

    1. The Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies is simply a creationist institution of no scholarly or scientific value whatsoever. Furthermore, you have blindly copied the quote without identifying “Morris” or “Meyers.” This is plainly and patently dishonest. In addition, the Greek word for sphere does not appear in the translation of the subject passage in the Septuagint. In short, this is simply another dishonest
      attempt of apologists to bring the bible retroactively to comport with science. In addition, all three of your quotes pertain to ancient Greek and the Middle Ages,
      not the writers of the bible, another example of your patent
      dishonesty.

      “ . . . The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and
      round, covered by the great dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars (Job 26.11; 37.18). Above the firmament and under the earth was water, divided by God at creation (Gen 1.6, 7; cf Pss 24.2; 148.4). The upper waters
      were joined with the waters of the primordial deep during the Flood; the rains were believed to fall through windows in the firmament (Gen 7.11; 8.2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen 1.14-19;
      Ps 19.4, 6). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num 16.30-33; Isa 14.9, 15).” (339) Achtemeier, Paul J (Ed). The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. (New York: HarperCollins, 1996)

      “On the whole, Israel shared the world view of the ancient
      Near East. The earth was perceived as a flat expanse, seen either in the image of a disk or circle upon the primeval waters (Isa 40.22; Job 26.10; Prov 8.27; cf. ‘circle of the heavens’. Job 22.14) or of an outstretched garment spanning
      the void (Job 26.7; 38.13). . . . The modern concept of an infinite or open-ended universe was not known in the OT; on the contrary, heaven and earth were thought to be sealed together at the rim of the hoirzon to prevent the
      influx of the cosmic waters . . . “ Freedman, David Noel (Ed). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. (New York: Doubleday,
      1992)

      See also Stuhlmueller, Carroll. The Collegeville Pastoral
      Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p234. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996); Stadelmann, Luis I.J. The Hebrew Conception of the World – A Philological and Literary Study, p126. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); Browning. WRF Dictionary of the Bible. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

      Just another of your ignorant and disingenuous posts.

    2. I have identified everyone in the quotes with " ". The quotes does not pertain the writers of the bible of course not, how did u manage to confuse that??:D. The flat earth is just a myth as i stated. The Bible obviously does not teach a flat earth. The word flat only appear once and it does not refer to the shape of the earth.

      (Job 26.11)
      "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke" The verse does not say the "pillars" is holding up a solid dome structure that u call or firmament. but they quake at God's rebuke and cause the mountains to rise up. see..(Psalm 104:6-8)

      U claim that the "firmament" (KJV) or "expanse" (NASB, NIV) was a solid dome in which
      the stars and sun were placed etz etz.
      U are clearly mistaken about what this "firmament" is. In Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure lol and obviously the birds are not diving. You're so called firmament is nothing more then the sky, heaven or heavens, which has the same hebrew word shamayim,something not solid. The word firmament found in KJV comes from Latin firmamentum, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to "support" or "prop", now the original hebrew word word Raqia (which he mistranslated into firmament) originates from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "spread out." it does not refer to any solid object. U rely upon the poor English translations of the original Hebrew verses, taken out of context, in order to "prove" that the Bible teaches a false cosmology.

      "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?"
      (Job 37:18) What many ignores is that one of jobs friends (Elihu) is talking God responds "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2) so jobs friend does not know what he talks about, so much for that claim about solid structure.

      "Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead" another mistranslated word. Sheol means the grave (the place of the dead) which is under the earth. Obviously, all people end up in the grave at death.

    3. 1. You did not identify either "Morris" or "Meyers" in the quote which you blindly copied and you still have not done so. Obviously you have somethingt to hide.

      2. Employing quotes about Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages as "proof" that the writers of the bible who were not of these cultures believed the earth was spherical as opposed to flat or disc-shaped is patently fraudulent.

      3. "U rely upon the poor English translations of the original Hebrew verses, taken out of context, in order to "prove" that the Bible teaches a false cosmology." Really? I assume that your judgment is based on conversance in and extensive scholarly (not apologetic) study of Ancient Hebrew. Any peer-reviewed papers to your credit?

      4. "The word firmament found in KJV comes from Latin firmamentum, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to "support" or "prop", now the original hebrew word word [SIC] Raqia (which he mistranslated into firmament) originates from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "spread out." it does not refer to any solid object." Is this simply another example of your profound knowledge of Ancient Hebrew or do you actually have a source?

      5.. Once again, the Greek word for sphere does not appear in the subject passage in the Septuagint. Furthermore, in his 1851 translation of the Septuagint into English, Launcelot C. L. Brenton uses the word "circle," not sphere; but, of course, he was as wrong as all the other English translators and the third-century B.C. Greek translators as well. Only you and other apologists have any idea of the "true" meaning.

      6.. By no stretch of the imagination does what you try to pass off as biblical scholarship (and knowledge of Ancient Hebrew) come up to the academic quality of the sources I have cited which clearly establish that the writers of the Old Testament, among other things, viewed the world as flat or disc-shaped. Yours is simply a dishonest attempt to make the bible and your fundamentalist view of it comport with the discoveries of modern science and for this you are truly despicable.

    4. 1. what quote?

      2. Because There is no proof that the ancient hebrews thought the earth was flat or the sky was solid. This is a misinterpretation and it is a myth. Is There any proof that the sky was not solid? yes logic sense explains this because birds can not fly through solid structure but skeptics likes to leave out that detail.

      3. If u are so obsessed with you're peer reviewed papers, i am sure u can find them. I guess u fail to see but the bible is written in a simple language, for everyone to understand, you do not need a phd or to be a scholar to understand it. U can just buy a dictionary online NASEC Hebrew Dictionary or whatever suits u :D.

      4. The same as 3.

      5. “circle of the earth.” The earth always look like a circle from space
      since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible. There are more examples to.

      6. Instead of just blindly listening to what others say.
      People who rely upon poor English translations of the original Hebrew words to
      prove they're point. Why don't u just do you're own research and see what the verses u cite really mean? think for yourself.. If u pick and choose bible verses without reading the whole text then the real meaning is lost.

    5. 1. Already answered. See previous posts.

      2. Have already provided peer-reviewed sources from those who know far more than you.

      3. No, it takes more than dictionary to understand this 2,000+ year old collection of books from a culture which little resembles ours in anything approaching a scholarly manner.

      4. See 2.

      5. The authors of the bible had no idea what the earth looked like from outer space.

      6. You still haven't provided your qualifications in ancient Hebrew which enable you to judge the quality of the various English translations, because I guess you really don't have any.

      In short, another ignorant and fraudulent post from you.

    6. Still there are some problems with you're sources. It is
      obvious they avoid the “firmament” also mean expanse:

      Genesis
      1:6–8, NASB
      Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it
      separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the
      waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the
      expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening
      and there was morning, a second day.

      God
      called the “Expanse” or “firmament” heaven. The context of Genesis 1:6-8,14-22
      makes it clear that Raqia is simply the sky above the Earth. Where Birds are said to fly in “the open firmament of heaven” the atmospheric heavens, Genesis 1:20. There is no connotation of hardness no dome
      cosmology so the text fits a modern conception of the sky.

      The hebrew raqia means “expanse” see: Wilson, William (n.d.), Wilson’s Old Testament
      Word Studies. p. 166, or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder,
      1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6) The actual substance is not inherent in the
      word. So firmament is not an accurate translation of raqia, but more accurately
      a transliteration.

      Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” Workman, Gary
      (1991), “What is the ‘Firmament’ Spoken of in the Bible?,” The Restorer,
      11[4]:14, May/June.

      Where does the firmament comes from?
      The Septuagint translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which
      connotes a “solid structure” Of course the popular Egyptian view of cosmology
      have influenced the translators here because they were doing they’re translating in Egypt for an Egyptian pharaoh.

      Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
      Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

      This
      influenced Jerome when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum
      (meaning a strong or steadfast support) The King James translators transliterated
      this Latin word and the firmament was born.

      McKechinie,
      Jean L., ed. (1978), Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the
      English Language (New York: Collins World).

      Bert Thomson Ph.D.What was the Firmament of Genesis 1?

    7. There are no problems with my sources, but rather yours. Gary Workman is a preacher/missionary at the Church of Christ and Bert Thompson (note spelling) is a biochemist. Neither is a reputable bible scholar. The Restorer is a religious publication, not a scholarly journal. So once again you lose.
      P.S. You can't learn or hope to know about language from a dictionary.

    8. "Once again, the Greek word for sphere does not appear in the subject passage in the Septuagint."

      William Wilson suggested these meanings for the word chuwg: “circle,
      sphere, the arch or vault of the heavens; the circle of the earth,
      orbis terrarum” (n.d., p. 77). All of these renderings share a common
      thought—that of roundness, not flatness.Wilson, William (n.d.), Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (McLean, VA: MacDonald).

    9. You're absolutely correct! Christians such as I, who keep up with
      Creation Science advances today, become accustomed to seeing pretty
      desperate attempts by athiests & agnostics grasping at straws to
      cling to collapsing theories that oppose intelligent design as they're
      steadily debunked.. but of all thus far this one takes the cake. Mayans
      & astrologists have nothing on the accuracy of the bible. This
      book's knowledge has & remains to be both ahead of it's time and our
      own. Scientific facts are yet to disprove intelligent design but
      instead it's increasingly complimentary of it. Now that's discounting
      scientific theories like Darwinism that seeks to fill in the holes that
      otherwise God would fill. Scientific theories are no different than
      faith or belief except their record holds a series of theories which
      evidence later contradicted whereas intelligent design has not nor will
      be!

    10. you state "Scientific facts are yet to disprove intelligent design" you seem you misunderstand who has the burden of proof. if you claim intelligent design is true and backed by facts the burden of proof is yours. also what exactly is "scientific theories like Darwinism"? evolution is a theory and Darwin definitely made great contributions to the theory darwinism is not a scientific theory. what are these "series of theories which
      evidence later contradicted" ? please present your proof for intelligent design?

  9. (NOTE: Not trying to incite a flame war, this is just my personal opinion.) This series of short videos is quite informative. I feel that it's not too one sided or biased. It presents both sides of the discussion but rebukes several points of the Bible/Torah. TBS often uses a common philosophical practice of giving the author/presenter the benefit of the doubt, in that he (or she) is the most knowledgable in his (or her) subject. Beyond this he also provides several logical arguments as to why the Earth isn't round. While his arguments were convincing, I feel that a better outlet for TBS would've been a written form of expression. While his arguments were sound in every way I feel that the video itself isn't enjoyable to watch. I feel that if this were published as a blog post or website.

  10. The bible says the earth is round...

  11. It is high time Christians turn towards other religions and find the truth for themselves concerning the creation of this universe and earth .If they want a quick answer then look into Koran

    1. The Q'uran is not a quick answer, it is a tedious, rambling blather. The Bible at least has some decent poetry, and a few good stories. And even if it were a quick answer ... Well, if I am asked the value of pi, and the answer is "three" then the answer, although quick, is just wrong.

    2. And have you read some of the apologia for that passage in Kings? By the way, as pi is transcendental, what is the purpose of calculating it to several million places? Never could figure out what e is so slighted.

    3. I have read some of the apologetices. But after all, the value of pi given in the "Bible" is good enough for the government work of the time.
      I suppose that some folks keep adding decimal places to the value of pi for the same reasons some folks climb mountains.

    4. People in this fast moving age expect authentic and rapid answers if you are one of those tortise type then you are indeed living on that flat earth mentioned in your poetic Bible which is full of fairy tales.

  12. Jesus spent his time amongst the least influential and outcasts like lepers. He taught us to treat each other with respect. It seems that his message was about social justice. Fast forward to today, Jesus' followers are seeking places of influence and power. Also when did you ever hear a Christian speak respectfully to a gay for instance? And what about human rights issues regarding fair pay and compensation? If you really ask God for wisdom (intelligence), you cannot help concluding that Christians are the exact opposite of what Jesus intended them to be. Jesus was himself against religion. Religion is Evil disguised as good, a wolf in sheep's clothing, Evil is disguised as an evangelist pastor, pushing his own opinions on a weak minded sector of our populace.

  13. if pible people wanto belive that god made us, apple and mcdonalds. Let them belive that there is a flat earth and let them belive that they can fall of from it. Totally wasted 40 mins.

  14. Are you kidding me? This entire argument is built on the prophets calling the world round instead of a "sphere"? This proves the Bible is true! Ask someone - anyone - the shape of the earth, and they will say it is round.....false science....and yes, there will be hell to pay....

    1. Just what are you talking about?

    2. StillTruth is talking about Isaiah 40:22 where the Bible says the earth is round... and not a word about it being flat...

    3. round is not mentioned but circle is two different things. if you are correct then why did so many religious people think it was flat until long after science proved otherwise?

    4. It's simply religious apologists interpreting their a priori inerrant bible in light of modern science--i.e., working backwards.

      In light of the scientific knowledge of the day "disk" is probably more like it, although the word might not even refer to physical roundness, cf circle of friends, for some translations, such as God's Word, leave it out entirely and simply state that God is enthroned over the earth. However, the Douay-Rheims version uses "globe," but this translation came out in 1609 which leads us back to paragraph 1.

    5. There's no need to interpret anything... the Earth is surely round... I just simply have yet to read one place in the Bible where it says the Earth is flat, or makes any relevant notion to the claim...

    6. Reading is interpretation--even literalism is an interpretation--and in the case at hand, it's the tortured interpretation so typical of Christian apologists in their efforts to make the bible conform to science. Once again, the God's Word translation omits the phrase and the Douay-Rheims version of 1609 uses the word "globe." I have yet to find one place in the bible where it says uncategorically that the earth is round (once again, "circle of the earth" doesn't cut it). On the other hand, Relevations 7:1 and Isaiah 11:12 mention the four CORNERS of the earth which could be taken literally or figuratively.
      P.S. The concept of a spherical earth goes all the way back to Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.

    7. You're correct to the point of interpretation being the natural subjective side effect of something being read and understood. Good point to the mention of the "Four Corners." That is slight reference to a shape which has corners... but you were even more correct when you said could easily literal or figurative... Revelation 7:1 goes on to explain a little further what's actually being referred to by the figurative mention of "four corners".. it is referring to root or starting points for the "four winds" of the Earth... a topic or concept that is mentioned and covered several times over in the Bible... by several different authors.. in several different books.

    8. The concept of the "four winds" actually closely aligns to the major wind systems that encompass the Earth. Something that is explained even more thoroughly, when tracing down the concept of the "Four Winds" (no matter how they are referred to) in the Bible. It is a rather important topic as it is used when mentioning the exile of the original Israelites and the vastness of their outspread and wide spread captivity.

    9. The point is that in both cases it's hard to tell if the words are used literally or figuratively. So using Isaiah as proof that the authors of the bible thought the earth was round is as inconclusive as using the "four corners of the earth" to indicate that they thought it was flat."
      One way or the other, they knew no more than the "science" of their time.
      P.S. A disk is round and flat.

    10. Sure you're right... I guess I was just drawing implied inference from the fact that there's not mention of the Earth's flat shape there... just its circular roundness... I still haven't seen somewhere the Book actually says the Earth is flat.

    11. Religion and the Bible are 2 very different things... The [Catholic] Church thought (and taught) that the Earth was flat. The writers of the Bible (Hebrews/Israelites) did not.

    12. How do you know that the writers of the bible did not. Is this another of your baseless claims?

    13. Well they seemed to have written a lot (IE: the Bible)... but never once made a claim of the Earth being flat, directly or indirectly. (Although they did make a few hinting at it being round...) I think one can easily reason and deduce that they likely did not think it was round. Besides, you have yet to show me one passage of scripture that says the Earth is flat... so now whose claim is it that is baseless?? The Earth being flat is the teaching of the [Catholic] Church, not of the Bible. Those teachings are 2 VERY different things.

    14. Reasoning would say they did not think it was flat (correction to a typo in my previous post).. they never made such a claim.. not once... so I suppose that until we can find a solid passage or scripture in the Bible that refers to the Earth as being flat; we'd have to say that any claim to such a notion would be baseless...

    15. Your claim was that the writers of the bible did not think the earth was flat. It is up to you to support this which so far you haven't done; hence (hinting at the world being round goes back to interpretation and hardly constitutes evidence); thus, it is baseless. Once again, the Douay (Catholic) translation of the passage uses the word "globe" rather than circle.

    16. The writers of the Bible said plenty about things that were revealed to them and experienced by then. Never once have read any of them saying the Earth was flat. That's a pretty good indication that that is probably not what they thought... if they were thinking that, they probably would have said it.

    17. They didn't specifically say that it was round either.
      ". . . if they were thinking that, they probably would have said it." What makes you think so?

    18. It just says "circle of the earth" which can mean anything, including ambit and DISK.

  15. The Europeans up till the 14th century thought the earth was flat. That was what Columbus challenged right?......And the Church was running the affairs of the lives of men during those times..... Sooooo, it is plausible to see how they lied to the people to keep them controlled under whatever covert or esoteric ideal was governing the function of the Church.

    1. And your point is?

  16. I see your coment to be 5 months old. I just hope you came to understand the truth already. To read stuff like: "If you belive in God you must reject Allah," even though those 2 names represent one principle, that is beyond my belief. It is like saying: " If you eat apples, you must reject oranges."

    Next time you hear a person arguing why the world is a sucky place, look into your own life. Hopefully you will find something worth giving energy to.
    When fear and hope fight, the winner is always the side you back up most. Now go out there and have fun! :)

  17. robertallen1... No willful ignorance here... just the simple realization that I don't know everything. Truly intelligent people realize this fact, and continue to study and gain knowledge and understanding about relevant topics... but its obviously you that's the one who thinks they know everything... funny how I have yet to see any shred of evidence (biblical, scholarly, or otherwise) presented alongside your arguments... other than nonsensical babble about what you read in a science book... my arguments are actually primarily based on simple reasoning, more than what I think... you present some questions but yet you do not seek to answer them.

    Your text books were just recently authored with fairly new concepts and Ideas lining their pages. But their mostly just theories. If you don't understand the potential for fallacy that the word "theory" implies, please examine your own level of ignorance. The arguments I presented are founded on science, as well as the Bible... which I do, indeed, happen to believe to be true... obviously you don't... do I think that's intelligent? NO... considering that the Bible has been around A LOT longer than any of the modern scientific texts you can offer up to support your argument, and has stood many, many tests of accuracy... other than just that of this thread.

    The only thing I've seen you offer up is a series of well-articulated insults and shots at an individual intellect... and not anything concrete, relevant to the subject matter at hand. You're entitled to your own opinion though, as I am mine.

    As stated before; peace be unto you...

    1. Your denigration of science texts reveals a lot about the level of your knowledge and intellect which is in general neanderthal, as is your mode of thought. As you have no idea what a scientific theory is, you have no business writing about it--as a matter of fact, you have no business writing about anything scientific because you have no knowledge of science period.

      Yes, you happen to BELIEVE that the bible is true. Well, this is what makes you an id*ot. And by your "logic," because the Code of Hammurabi has been around longer than the bible, it must be even truer.

      "Your text books were just recently authored with fairly new concepts and Ideas lining their pages." True, because much has been learned since the bronze age to which you cling like the ignorant mor"n that you are.

      You have not responded to a single point or question in my last post for the simple reason that can't, for you don't know enough to be able to. So you resort to biblical rant coupled with uneducated conjecture which quite frankly shows you up for the wilful ignoramus that you are.

    2. all i can say is very nice lol

    3. my question to you is why do you still believe in fairy tales ?

  18. How weird would it be to mention the "circle" of the earth, but still saying its flat... its says he sits "on the circle"... not "on the flat part of the circle"!.. to me, for one to totally overlook and disdain the circle in this statement is actually a twisting and stretching of words to fit their opinion. I mean why say "circle" if the surface you're on is flat anyway? Who would bother, unless they could see the roundness from where they stood. The argument against Isaiah 40:22 is one of very precise acuteness, and a trivial one at that... like much of the argument that modern-day science presents against the Bible... just splitting hairs over minute points and details... and in the end you still have one problem...

    As men, there is so much we will never be able to explain or understand about how this world works. The Book tells us his ways are higher than ours. I know most people these days are bothered by the idea of not being in complete control or the idea of the unknown, but I guess.. I'm not... I'm content controlling what's been imparted unto me and not trying to over-think and offer theories for something that was probably not meant for me to understand, in the first place. And if it is for me to understand, eventually I will. Now , I do not believe myself to be unreasonable or unintelligent, in any way. I just try to be humble and meek enough to accept my own imperfection, and God's place in our world and my life.

    In the end... to each; his own. Peace be unto you all.

    1. It's what can be proved and so far neither you nor your bible has offered anything, much less substantiation for the existence of a higher being.

      "I'm content controlling what's been imparted unto me and not trying to over-think and offer theories for something that was probably not meant for me to understand, in the first place." You should be ashamed of yourself for this promulgation of wilful ignorance.

  19. The debate we seem to be having has been going on since Darwin first offered his theory to the scientific public. And yet, over 100 years later, his theory remains JUST THAT... THEORY... a hypothesis... an educated guess. Perhaps he did observe something, but its just one theory to how this all came about.

    Concerning intelligent design, to me the proof is "in the pudding"... things don't just randomly happen or evolve. They are purposely, intently, and intelligently designed and set into order. You can not get order from randomness (disorder/chaos). There is too much order here, to suggest it came from random, or gradual changes over time. And even if you wanted to consider evolution (which I don't)... you have to wonder; what "force" or "causation" caused these things to grow or "evolve" for the better? What gave these supposedly evolving creatures the ability to adapt to their environment, in such a way as to improve their chances of survival? Computer upgrades are precise. planned endeavors that require planning and under standing of an intelligent design. I can't imagine the upgrade of an organism being any more random... or have any less of a factor of causation.

    Until you can definitively answer that question of original causation, Naturalism offers no more explanation than any other portion of man's science. The "Buck" stops at the source... and as long as the source is beyond explanation of this world, I'll take it to be that there's a reason for that... even after all of our superior intelligence and modern-day theories, there's still something bigger, and smarter than us out there, and its what put this here in the first place.

    Funny Mr. Evolution (Darwin) was so smart but still could not prevent his own untimely death, from illness... and I guess you'll say that was random.

    1. germdman
      i had a reply all typed out but instead i will ask you to stay on topic. this thread is not about evolution. if you wish to question it please find an appropriate doc. red herring arguments are the last resort of a person with no other argument

    2. As you have no idea what a scientific theory is, you shouldn't be commenting on it, much less on basic biology of which you are equally ignorant judging from your post.

      " . . . things don't just randomly happen or evolve. They are purposely, intently, and intelligently designed and set into order." How do you know this? Bald assertion is not proof.

      "You can not get order from randomness." How do you tell order from randomness and how do you know that one doesn't evolve from the other or is this just another of your uneducated conjectures? "There is too much order here, to suggest it came from random, or gradual changes over time." How do you tell if something is ordered as opposed to disordered? Just what is "too much order" as opposed to too little or just enough? Where is your proof that this so-called order came from something other than random or gradual changes over time? Before you answer, remember that what you can or cannot imagine is worthless and far from anything amounting to proof.

      There is no place in science for the idiotic and unsubstantiated speculations grounded in religion which fill your post and your contemning of naturalism (science) which is based on hard evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom says a lot about the sorry state of your intellect. Unlike what you promote, evolution is not conjecture; it is fact--for starters, why don't your ditch your bible and creationist websites and learn about things such as vaccines and the e coli experiment?

      Your post consists of nothing more than the usual ignorant creationist crap and as such is an embarassment.

    3. Its been quite a while... but just re-visiting... (and realizing why I didn't think enough of this argument to comment in the first place)... but I will say... on a rational level... can you really not tell order out of disorder?? If that's the case, then my original inclination not argue this debate with you was probably correct... I don't expect to win, but you do...

    4. You are the one claiming order and as such the burden of proof rests with you--and it is far from met by asking if I can tell order out of disorder. So asking how you distinguish order from disorder is fundamental to your claim. If you can't do this, then your claim falls flat and you can't expect to win.

  20. Debates of this sort always trace back to the points of origin... the debate of Darwinism/Naturalism VS Creationism... I beseech you brethren... to dig deeper... deeper than surface-level science... probe for the source...

    There is indeed a order to the things of this world, and science is the discovery and understanding of this order, and the application thereof... but it does NOTHING to explain how things came to be set in such order. Please do tell me, what scientific evidence supports the "Big Bang Theory"? Are you suggesting that all this order came from some random, primordial explosion that just randomly came together to work the way it currently does... just try it... take all the parts of a machine and throw them down randomly... then see if that machine works as intended. You cannot get order out of randomness. Order requires intentional, intelligent, purposeful design... or else there is no order. For example if the computer, a precise machine with very detailed design, receives the wrong random instruction, it can be rendered completely inoperable. It requires intelligent design to be created, and also to sustain its operation. As does, anything in this world.

    The theory of Natural Selection is one that cannot explain the source of its own volition... at some point something with intelligence had to set these processes in motion and order. Things don't just happen. There is always cause and effect... which is precisely what science is good for.

    What makes the light? What makes atoms, photons, electrons, and molecules align the way they do, to fit together and create such organisms as ourselves? How is it that this one planet, out of many that are out there came to be perfectly suited to support mankind and his fragile and frail existence? If you don't our existence to be fragile... just consider that this the one planet in this area of space that can support us. There is a cause for that.

    The Good Book states, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Most High created everything in this Earth "after its own seed" and "after its own kind"... if by Naturalism, you mean a slight deviation in exterior colors or variations in the size of certain parts of creature, then that theory may have some minute merit. However, if you intend to imply that we, as intelligent, abstractly-thinking men, evolved from primitive apes, then would you be so kind as to tell me why we still have apes. If we came from chimps, then why did they not ALL evolve? According to the theory of Natural Selection, the selection/evolution took place as part of competition for resources... and that is the theory's supposed explanation for the extinction of species involved in the process. Why didn't all the apes die out, as the more intelligent, supposedly successor humans began consuming their resources? To me, the answer will be because we did not come from them, and things did not happen the way this theory presents. That 2% difference in genetic makeup of the closest ape to our own genetic material is enough to convince me that they are two distinct creatures and were indeed created that way.

    1. Idiotic conjecture number one. "There is indeed a order to the things of this world . . . " Where is your proof? How do you tell order from disorder?

      Idiotic conjecture number two. "Order requires intentional, intelligent, purposeful design... or else there is no order." Just how do you know this?

      Idiotic conjecture number three. "The theory of Natural Selection is one that cannot explain the source of its own volition [whatever that means]... at some point something with intelligence had to set these processes in motion and order. Things don't just happen. There is always cause and effect... which is precisely what science is good for." Again, just how do you know this or is it merely wild speculation?

      Your ignorance of evolution and basic biology is appalling.

      Ignorant statement number one. "However, if you intend to imply that we, as intelligent, abstractly-thinking men, evolved from primitive apes, then would you be so kind as to tell me why we still have apes. If we came from chimps, then why did they not ALL evolve?" No one claims that man descended directly from apes or any other primate, but rather that they all share a common ancestor and this has been proved time and time again through science which is all that matters. Thus you have confounded evolution with succession, which shows that you don't know the first thing about either.

      Ignorant statement number two. "According to the theory of Natural Selection, the selection/evolution took place as part of competition for resources..." Natural selection takes in a lot more than just competition for resources, which shows that you haven't read up on natural selection, so why do you comment on it?

      Ignorant statement number three. "That 2% difference in genetic makeup of the closest ape to our own genetic material is enough to convince me that they are two distinct creatures and were indeed created that way." Maybe it's enough to convince you, but as you have neither the background nor the education in biology, or for that matter in any of the other sciences, your only support is your conviction--and that like you doesn't count.

      Ignorant statement number four. "For example if the computer, a precise machine with very detailed design, receives the wrong random instruction, it can be rendered completely inoperable. It requires intelligent design to be created, and also to sustain its operation. AS DOES, ANYTHING IN THIS WORLD." (emphasis added) No, not as does anything in this world. Man-made objects neither operate nor function as do biologic ones and promoting such a fallacy is the acme of dishonesty and deception.

      Ignorant statement number five. "The Good Book states, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Most High created everything in this Earth 'after its own seed' and 'after its own kind'..." First, what is meant by "after its own seed?" and how do you tell "after its own seed" from not after its own seed? Second, what is a kind and how do you tell one "kind" from another? Using your unsubstantiated bible as a text to go against the preponderance of scientists is no more than arrogant ignorance.

      Because you have no evidence to support any of your claims other than conjectures and your goddam bible, this post like your others is no more than a pathetic creationist embarassment.

      "How is it that this one planet, out of many that are out there came to be perfectly suited to support mankind and his fragile and frail existence? " Why don't you open up a few science textbooks and find out?

  21. 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

    23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

    Isaiah 40:22-23

    This OLD TESTAMENT... people need to read their Bibles! God's word is truth and will perfectly align with any Science that is true.

    1. These quotes say absolutely nothing scientific. You don't know what you're talking about.

    2. germdman
      " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth," a circle is not a spheroid it is flat.

      "people need to read their Bibles! God's word is truth and will perfectly align with any Science that is true." okay lets see
      Jonah 1:17 says, “…Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” a whale is not a fish and nobody would survive three days in its belly
      Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…” hares do not chew cud
      Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” fowls do not go on all fours
      also can you explain the scientific findings that say that a worldwide flood is possible? where did all the water come from and go? at the altitude necessary to cover the highest mountain why did the animals not freeze/suffocate? how did all the animals fit on such a small ark? where is the worldwide sedimentary layer that this flood would leave? and on and on.....

  22. To me Psalms 19:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 don’t say anything about the Sun going around the Earth…

  23. Maybe a ball back then wasn't round or spherical and that is why the author didn’t use it? I’ve seen people today refer to something spherical as being circular.

  24. @robertallen1
    The illustration, as you well know is just that. when you say that the suffering of the driver pulling the trailer is his own fault you are purposely avoiding the point and the point only was the design criteria of the illustration. I am only showing the everyday function of that which we call "a conviction of conscience.The first thing out of your mouth is born of reasoning that allows you to ignore the conviction of conscience. This "one fallen robot" language only bogs down the conversation. If you want me to speak "normal English" you must do so also. When you begin to avoid the obvious point I am making with the illustration it becomes obvious what your motivations are. It is very important to you to establish in your reasoning that I "know no more about conscience (?) then anyone else. So how about showing me one of the "assumptions" I made?

    1. You asked for an assumption: Well, let's start with "conviction of conscience," whatever that is. and continue with this overweaning "intelligence" whose existence you merely posit and end with the "single point of perpsective," again whatever that is.

      The last paragraph was intended to read, "Face it. You know no more about consciousness than anyone else and as soon as you disembarrass yourself of the conceit that you do, I'll bet that the gibberish will evaporate like a bad dream."

      The only time when language irreparably bogs conversations down is when gibberish enters into it. Now, where have I not used normal language?

  25. @robertallen 1
    Yes and I'm sorry but when you consider this particular subject you get exiled to Gibberland. It was there that I learned Gibberish. There are not many people that speak this language on this site but there are a few. If one of them responds to my comment I will enjoy talking to them in my favorite language, Gibberish.
    In Giberland, where the language is ass-backwards, the language you speak is called Robot fallen one. When reversed for the real world this becomes "One fallen robot.

    1. Oh, so it's another language. Well, the TDF comment policy states English only, so you've just admitted to a violation. So how about correcting your misstep and translating your "thoughts" into clear, normal English?

    2. Ok. I will try to translate into English. This requires effort for me because I not only speak Gibberish but I also think it. (I'm thinking of changing my site name to "Gibberish")
      I am assuming that you would be interested in any evidence for a "single point of perspective consciousness". Note that this does not prove that this consciousness generated the expanding singularity, 13.7 billion years ago but it is in my "Gibberland mind" well worth considering.

      Consider the following illustration:
      I'm driving down a two lane highway in the right lane and there is a car on my left pulling a heavy trailer. As we go along there appears an exit ramp on the right. I notice in my mirror that the driver of the car has put his right turn signal on and is struggling to accelerate. I glance in the rear view mirror and see a long line of closely spaced cars following behind me. Now I am in a hurry so rather then inconvenience myself by slowing down to let the car change lanes ahead of me and make it to the ramp on the right I just ignore the situation and the car misses his ramp.
      As I continue along I begin to feel bad for not slowing to help the other driver. I begin to feel "guilty" for not suffering a minor inconvenience for myself in order to save another person from a major one. The obvious advantage to our world in yielding to our conviction of conscience is proof that an "intelligence" is at work. What I was being told on the highway was accurate. Since a conviction of conscience is a subconscious function over which we have no control, it is clearly a separate form of consciousness. A separate form of "intelligence".
      Since this intelligent motivation for my conscious mind was evoked by the suffering of the driver of the car pulling the trailer, and put me into direct recognition of that suffering, It can be understood to be binding my consciousness to the perspective of another. This "binding" is a "single point of perspective"
      Because this illustration is reflected millions of times a day (in fact ,billions of times) we can understand that there exists an "intelligence" over which we have no control that binds us to a single point of perspective.
      (The next statement requires Gibberish but in working so hard to maintain "normal English", I feel I've earned it)
      By extension we can consider that it may have, prior to the formation of individual perspective consciousness, bound all consciousness to a single point of perspective.
      Also it can be shown that this "consciousness" over which we have no control is not only opposed to the consciousness over which we do control, but is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to it. But I am running out of English and if I keep going I will shift back into Gibberish.

    3. gsjikwblao
      your example does not add to weight to your argument. i could just as easily argue that altruism was selected for within our evolutionary path as the best way to survive. these traits are applied to todays world and that is why you feel bad. also the society you live in has a lot to do with what makes someone feel bad. look around the world and see the driving habits elsewhere. many accepted habits in one area would be seen as rude in others. if we"bound all consciousness to a single point of perspective." why are morals and values vastly different among cultures? if these behaviors are not contained within the individual, why can head trauma change behavior and feelings?

    4. I find your comment to be by far the most intelligent and this is a little disappointing to me because you as well seem to have missed what I said or perhaps you just didn't read it carefully.
      I did not say that a single point of perspective consciousness "designed" us to be in direct contact with itself. You are correct in saying that this characteristic could have emerged another way. What I said was that It was worth considering. What I did show is that it is a fact that we are, in our everyday interaction with each other, in contact with an intelligence over which we have no control that binds us to a common or single point of perspective.
      This function can be altered by trauma the very same way that the function of our arms and legs can. The function is contained within the individual but it functions to bind the individual to others. This is the evidence of a collective nature in the function from which any one individual can be severed in the event of trauma.
      Also I did not say that our consciousness is bound to a single point of perspective. It is bound in measure in certain situations. In all these situations our individual perspective wars against this unifying perspective. For a good example of this look at Roberts last comment of 43 minutes ago. The "net effect" of this opposition relative to our environment structures the moral standard in any culture. Because this environment and the "net effect" varies, the cultural standard of morality also varies.
      The term "vastly" that you used is a relative term. As different as we are, we have far more in common.

    5. "What I did show is that it is a fact that we are, in our everyday interaction with each other, in contact with an intelligence over which we have no control that binds us to a common or single point of perspective." By this other "intelligence," do you mean the individual or individuals we happen to be dealing with at a given time and "by common or single point of perspective," the reason we are dealing with them? If so, why not state it in plain English? If not, why not describe it in plain English? If you write carefully, I am certain that over_the_edge and anyone else who alights on your post will read carefully, but you can't expect anyone to respond intelligently to gibberish such as the following: "This function can be altered by trauma the very same way that the function of our arms and legs can. The function is contained within the individual but it functions to bind the individual to others. This is the evidence of a collective nature in the function from which any one individual can be severed in the event of trauma."

      Not only do your posts display dark, murky shades of Depak Chopra, but another poster as well who went by the name Fundamentalist Clue.

    6. gsjikwblao
      maybe i am not getting your point. could you answer a couple of questions so i know where you are coming from?
      1. is our consciousness 100% contained within us?
      2. are you claiming we cannot control our instincts?
      3. how does this function bind us to others?

    7. "i could just as easily argue that altruism was selected for within our evolutionary path as the best way to survive."

      And laugh about a "god of the gaps"... Your gaps are even bigger than the "non-gaps".

    8. Empty accusations mean nothing. Just what are these "gaps?"

    9. If it's a two-lane highway, the car pulling the heavy trailer should have been in the right lane (in this country, the slow lane) in the first place and thus the situation would not have occurred. So you need not fret over anything, as the driver brought on his own suffering and if you do, there's probably more than consciousness operating here. One way or the other, the gibberish that follows seems to contain a lot of assumptions thrown in here and there, especially as to the existence of some overweaning "intelligence," rendering the remainder of your post a bad imitation of Depak Chopra (assuming there is such a thing).

      Face it. You know no more about conscience than anyone else and as soon as you disembarrass your self of the conceit that you do, I'll bet that the gibberish will evaporate like a bad dream.

  26. The flat earth could easily be interpreted as part of the sacred geometry. Everything is flat...2D and our brains interpret it as 3D.

    1. owlmother
      "The flat earth could easily be interpreted as part of the sacred geometry. " really ? an interpretation that requires that much mental gymnastics is never good.

      "Science is begining to catch up with ancient understandings of the universe: please expend for me. can you point me to ancient understandings that explain our own universe in better detail than we can today? please i am not interested in an interpretation of some vague text but actual mathematically accurate detailed text/drawings.

    2. I do not know much about sacred geometry other then a few symbols that have appeared in cropcircles. but I do have understanding of that which I believe is referred to as "ying and yang". This is a reference to diametrically opposed motivations for consciousness. Insomuch as we can understand that physical existence came forth 13.7 billion years ago to facilitate a neccesary diametrically opposed motovation for a single point of perspective consciousness to function as such, we can understand that , at the most fundamental level, reality is two dimentional. Does the sacred geometry give any indication that the two dimentions are physical or is it possible that it is referring to the motovational?

    3. "Insomuch as we can understand that physical existence came forth 13.7 billion years ago to facilitate a neccesary diametrically opposed motovation for a single point of perspective consciousness to function as such, we can understand that , at the most fundamental level, reality is two dimentional." More gibberish?

    4. Okay you lost me, what are you talking about? gish gallop? from gibberland?

    5. You're right. It does sound like gish gallop, a term coined by Eugenie Scott which is as relevant to the situation as gobbledygook, a term coined by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas--can you imagine a Representative from Texas giving us anything so useful--but again, this was back in the '30's.

    6. "Sacred geometry?" What's that?

      There is a fine article on optics in Wikipedia. Why not read it before posting further ignorance?

  27. The narrator of this documentary seems to be taking the wrong approach. It's not so much whether the "author" of Genesis meant 24-hour days or figurative ones, but rather how the fictive reader/listener of the time would have taken them. This approach provokes greater complexity and speculativeness, for it first requires a characterization of the type of reader/listener that Genesis was aimed at, including the area of the known world the reader/listener inhabited, the reader/listener's upbringing (including sex), the reader/listener's probable level of education, etc. In short, was Genesis intended for the elite (i.e. those with education and hence the ability to read) or the masses (i.e., those without) who formed the far greater majority)?

    In the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian story of creation (1800-1600 BC) about 1,000 years before Genesis, the earth is created by six generations of gods and, interestingly enough, on the sixth day, Marduk, the head honcho, creates man AS A SLAVE (so much for free thought) and then rests. So a fictive reader/listener of the time would not even have considered a 24-hour day or for that matter the concept of a day which was simply irrelevant to the acount. I wonder if there are any other creation myths which we know of prior to Genesis which include the definite time divisions. If not, it seems that somewhere along the way, the concept of generations got changed into days for the convenience of the political correctness of monotheism. If the fictive reader/listener of the 7th century BC were anything like the fictive reader/listener of the 17th century BC, my guess is that in light of the traditions in which this person most likely would have been brought up (things did not change all that rapidly within the millennia referred to), this would probably have interpreted the days in Genesis as indefinite divisions and, of course, the "author" of Genesis would have been well aware of this and written his narrative accordingly, his only concern being to slant his narrative towards monotheism and, as mentioned above, the use of days was simply a literatry convenience. In short, the last thing he was thinking about, although he was conscious of it, was a 24-hour day.

    Also, the narrator does not indicate whether the word for day employed in Genesis and other sections of the Old Testament also had figurative uses connoting in general an indefinite period of time, cf. any day, judgment day, heyday, holiday, lackadaisical, daisy.

    Thus, I do not believe that the narrator has made a strong enough case for day in Genesis meaning a 24-hour day.

    P.S. In light of the documentary, I must make the self-serving statement that the only agenda here is scholarship.

  28. @ robertallen 1
    Please learn how to speak properly. Always speaking with respect to others is the best way to communicate. I only respond to intelligent comments from those who are aware that they may be able to learn something. I have read many of your insults to others over time and you are not the kind of person I enjoy talking to. Does this make sense or does it sound like "gibberish"?

    1. Whether you enjoy communicating with me or not is irrelevant. Your last comment was nothing but baseless gibberish and thus you deserve no respect. Not writing clearly is simply a camouflage for having nothing to say.

    2. You are correct. I have nothing to say.

  29. This does not prove that the Bible is inaccurate. It proves that if it is accurate that the correct interpretation is not being embraced by those who hold it to be a literal description of "physical" reality. When understood as a framing of motivational dynamics that drive the evolution of human consciousness, all of the Bibles self-contradiction is removed.
    The phrase "ends of the earth" is not a reference to the edge of a pancake shaped planetary surface. It is a consistent reference to that small group that least far departed from a unifying perspective. This is our convicting conscience. "Earth" is a reference to a narrow or division justifying motivation that wars in opposition to our conviction of conscience. This motivation arises from the processing of information through the five physical senses. Those who have the weakest convictions of conscience are automatically most influenced by their intellectual reasoning or individual perspective because they have little motivation from the inward "voice" of conscience to temper or restrain or properly direct it. These people are at the middle of the "earth" so to speak. Others with stronger convictions of conscience are influenced also by their individual perspective but it can be said that they are at the "edge" of it. they are not fully immersed, so to speak. This concept is also illustrated in the story of Lot being not fully in Sodom but standing "in the gate" so to speak.

    1. On what do you base this paragraph of gibberish?

  30. What the Buybull got wrong? Hmmm...that would be...well everything!

  31. The Quran states that the earth is round in this ayah:(And the earth, moreover, hath He extended as a round shape)
    the verb in arabic is (daha) which is exclusively used in round shaped figures...
    u can also look for of these facts by simply searching for(science miracles in quran)

    1. Qais Ibrahim
      round does not equal spherical. also as i pointed out in an earlier post the shape of the earth was shown centuries before the quran was written.

    2. But it doesn't mean sphere or spherical. The "science" in the Koran simply reflects the knowledge of the time and no more.

  32. Felt I had to throw myself into this discussion. I'm an atheist, by the way.

    One thing that should be noted about the bible is that it was never intended to be read outside the sphere of Judaism - it is a text written by jews, for jews (some proselytizing happened, but not much).

    Secondly, the focus on the English language in the debate about the biblical view of the bible makes it a strange debate (I've seen this topic discussed on other places). I'm Swedish, and in the Swedish bible the word "rund" (round) is used to describe the earth (as far back as 1541). "Rund" can mean both circular and spheric.

    I assume a lot of people use the King James Version when quoting the bible and there it indeed says "circle" (Isaiah 40:22 for example), however, translation is in part interpretation and the hebrew word for circle, "chuwg", can be translated as compass, circuit and vault as well. Now, if the word chuwg is interpreted and translated as a circle, one can be lead to think of the earth as flat, but should it be translated into vault, which indeed carries with the notion of something rounded (and, I would imagine, if the vault encompassed the earth, it would result in a spheric form).

    The notion that people through out the ages have thought the world to be flat is actually quite wrong. The greeks saw the earth as a sphere, for example. The Ionian philosohpers thought of the earth as a disc, but their world view was soon replaced by that of the greek mathematicians (and fishermen, who quite easily figured out that the world was round by watching the horizon).

    It is not my intention to defend the bible or Christianity (as I mentioned, I'm an atheist), but the one-sided critizism of the bible can sometimes be quite ridiculous when you don't consider multiple ways of interpretations and translations. I'm quite convinced that the word chuwg means something rounded and not flat, but that's just my personal opinion. Asking a jewish scholar about the meaning of the word is probably the best way to go.

    1. One way or the other, the bible merely reflects the knowledge of its time and no more.

  33. Sorry i mean that they knew about the world not being flat in fact their Qur'an described it as similar to an egg that to a perfect sphere.

  34. it is relay amazing the Muslims knows about the earth being flat 14th century ago and they also knows about the pulse star, amazingly it was written in their Qur'an

    1. You don't know what you are talking about. The Muslims knew no more about the world of their time than anyone else. It's simply that with every major scientific discovery some religious fool tries to retrofit the text.

  35. Ironically the bible authors were seemingly least educated and far behind their contemporaries. So much for being inspired by an all-knowing god ha ha

  36. um... the moon looks like a circle... what a week argument.

  37. I am a unwanted child. As an adult I told my birth mother I wish she had chose to have an abortion. Yes, I would have been better off. You cannot speak for everyone.

  38. I don't get what peoples issue with historical sciences is, the religious sects were for a while some of the best educated scholars. Everyone makes discoveries based upon what their perceptions or measurements tell them, and nine out of ten times those discoveries are wrong until we look at things from a different direction.

    Leave the past in the past an maybe we'll have a smarter society, rather then one were people occupy their time beating each other over the head with ideas that are only prolonged by people arguing them...

    1. Too many people believe in the bible to render this feasible.

    2. Science is begining to catch up with ancient understandings of the universe, and I for one love what it is coming up with.

    3. And what are these scientific discoveries which are beginning to catch with what you perceive as ancient understandings of the universe or do you know?

    4. @owlmother...You are what is called a "Woo meister"

      Quantum Woo and quantum consciousness.

      Even your gods can't know the location and velocity of particles at the same time. It is a physical impossibility.

      rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Quantum_consciousness

    5. Well, maybe these are quantum gods.

  39. What about Isaiah 40:22 when the scripture implies that the Earth is circular??

    "God sits above the circle of the earth. The people below seem like grasshoppers to him! He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his tent from them."

    1. It still describes the earth according to the knowledge of the time, namely as a disc. Nothing special.

    2. It doesn't describe the earth as a disc. It refers to the outer shape of the earth as circular which it is. When I look at the earth or the moon, I see a circular shape. What do you see?

    3. One way or the other, it does not describe it as a sphere or spheroid.

  40. I can sense the prefrontal lobotomy of religion.

  41. LAR60,
    The Bible does mention Dinosaurs........Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34)
    Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
    16
    Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
    17
    He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
    18
    His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

    1. This could also describe an elephant, a bull, a rhino, a hippo and a water buffalo. Did it ever occur to you that dinosaurs came in a variety of sizes?

      So wrong as usual. The bible does not mention dinosaurs any more than it mentions trilobytes. I guess that's what religion does for you.

    2. robertallen1
      It can't describe those animals you mentioned - for one thing, none of those animals have such a tail as described. The Bible is talking of such an animal in the time of Job, not of millions of years ago.

      If you read the Bible, you would find that there was an earth age prior to the earth age that we are now living in. An age where all sorts of creatures would have been in existence. Hence the fossils that we find today--- and oh yes, the bones of giants that roamed the earth and whose skeletons are hidden away in the basements of museums.

    3. You're right. Therefore, the Bible was not referring to dinosaurs.

      What is an earth age?

      As for the bones of giants, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that whole thing was a fraud.

    4. Behemoth is not at all a dinosaur. Here is the factual reason why.

      According to the passage, Behemoth is said to eat grass like an ox. Sauropods on the other hand can only browse among the treetops like a giraffe. Unlike cows, they completely lack chewing teeth. They're unable to chew their food because their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They had to swallow stones, instead. These stones called gastroliths travel down the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards.

      Behemoth, in the passage, is said to have strength in his hips and powerful muscles in his belly. However, the next verse becomes an unwitting victim of deliberate verse mining. What do I mean on that? It means the creationists have misquoted the verse on purpose.

      The verse in full context says,

      "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

      But creationists took that verse and distorted it to make the verse erroneously say,

      "His tail is like a cedar: the sinew of his stones are wrapped together."

      This is flat out false. The verse in full context does not say "His tail is like a cedar." The verse actually says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar.." which means there is absolutely nothing in the verse that says anything about the size of the tail. Instead, it only has everything to do with the tail's movements. Nothing else.

      Even if the verse has to do with the tail's size, it is still wrong to assert that Behemoth was a dinosaur. For, believe it or not, the 'tail' in the verse, when interpreted correctly, has nothing to do with cedar trees or animal tails, but has tons to do with the beast's sexual pleasures! When you look at a much fuller context version of the passage you will find that the 'tail' in the passage is used as a euphemism for "phallus." The "wheenie" part of the penis— a male sex organ!

      Let's look at Job 40:16-17 again,

      Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail [phallus] like a cedar: the sinews [muscles] of his stones [testicles] are wrapped together.

      Now compare that with other version of the 2 verses accurately translated by Stephen Mitchell, a professional translator who wrote and published a highly accurate translation of The Book of Job in 1992,

      "Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor."

      Don't you think these 2 passages tell us that Behemoth was in heat and with great intention, desire, and determination wishes to mate with any female of his kind he chooses? It sure does look like it! This can mean one thing. These 2 verses, all the way, does not describe the dinosaur's bendable whiplash tail. Instead, the verses clearly refers to the sexual behavior of Behemoth, who was a huge powerful mammal, with his penis stiffened like a tall tree while mating with a female of his own kind. Besides, dinosaurs, being avian and reptile like, don't have navels (belly buttons), nor do they have penises outside their bodies.

    5. So, what you would say is that if scientists found the fossil of Behemoth they would not call it a Dinosaur. What would they call it then ? Who says Sauropods can only browse among the tree tops ?
      The term Sauropod means Lizard feet. I think Behemoth was a grass eating lizard footed Dinosaur.

    6. How would they know that they had found the "fossil of behemoth," whatever that is?

      There's a fine article on sauropods in Wikipedia. Why don't you read it BEFORE treating us to any more of what you THINK?

    7. The word "tail"is used 12 times in the King James Version. Not once can it be replaced by "penis" in context and be taken seriously. The Hebrew word translated tail is Zanab.gif. (zanab - Strong's 02180) This is the Hebrew word for tail. In Septuagint ( the Greek translation of the old testament ) the Greek word used here is Ouran.gif. ( ouran ) This is the Greek word for tail.

      This is no euphemism, the claim that it is one has no basis in Hebrew or Greek. The Hebrew word used here means tail, it is the only Hebrew word used for a tail. The fact is that it is Behemoth's tail and no other body part that is compared to a cedar tree. This means that the best interpretation of the verses is that Behemoth was a Sauropod dinosaur.

    8. I have a question for you Stagea. What are your veiws on gay marriage?

    9. It must be obvious to you what my views would be after reading my posts.

    10. No, state them. We want to be sure.

    11. Bigotry can be quite predictable most of the time. Ok, no need for me to proceed any further with you in that case. Enjoy your delusions, I’m sure they give you great (but immature) comfort.

    12. I'm not as worried at Stagea's"immature" comfort as I am about his passing along his ignorance like a communicable disease.

    13. First of all, I suggest that you look up the etymology of penis. Secondly, I suggest that you take a few courses in or read up on biblical scholarship and biology because so far, all you have shown is that you know nothing.

      Did it ever occur to you that two different words in the same language could mean the same thing, such as mo*on and idi*t?

    14. yes they used the word tail as a euphemism. when read in context it is CLEAR they are talking about the animals sexual prowess.

      the fact that you cant tell when the bible is talking in metaphor is telling.

      you responded to ONE exception. that being the tail being a penis. but you completely ignored every other fact.

      According to the passage, Behemoth is said to eat grass like an ox. Sauropods on the other hand can only browse among the treetops like a giraffe. Unlike cows, they completely lack chewing teeth. They're unable to chew their food because their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow

      i cant believe that i have to explain this to an adult.

    15. In Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha such as the 2nd century BCE Book of Enoch, Behemoth is the primal unconquerable monster of the land, as Leviathan is the primal monster of the waters of the sea and Ziz the primordial monster of the sky. In the 2nd century BCE 1 Enoch Leviathan lives in "the Abyss", while Behemoth the land-monster lives in an invisible desert east of the Garden of Eden (1 Enoch 60:7-8). A Jewish rabbinic legend describes a great battle which will take place between them at the end of time: "...they will interlock with one another and engage in combat, with his horns the Behemoth will gore with strength, the fish [Leviathan] will leap to meet him with his fins, with power. Their Creator will approach them with his mighty sword [and slay them both]." Then, "from the beautiful skin of the Leviathan, God will construct canopies to shelter the righteous, who will eat the meat of the Behemoth and the Leviathan amid great joy and merriment."

      just wondering what sauropod had horns.....

      clearly this was just more mythology.

  42. Right, now to actually watch the damn thing.

  43. People take the translated version of the bible and take it literally.

    1. People shouldn't even take the "original" version(s) literally.

  44. people need to realize that their faith is not what they think it is...if you look at it with logic and common sense you will see that idea of god is to explain something you dont understand,something people didnt understand 2k years ago and we still dont complitly understand.its simple to say god made it all, its gods fault, and put your head in the sand not understanding what or why something realy happend.imagine 2ky ago you live in a village, no light polution, you look up to the sky and you see a center of our galaxy, just this beautiful disk made of stars. now by that time they didnt have a word to describe these things or even know what they were. so of cuorse the idea would be that the heavens is where you go when you die or that is where god lives, understandable. if you look at a person, we are all born ignorant, so is the humanity when you look at it as a whole. we learn then we know things.

  45. Nowhere in the Bible is it indicated that the earth is flat. The term circle of the earth can only describe the outer shape of the earth which is round in shape. Just as a cylinder or a round hole is circular in shape. Regardless of whether the earth is a globe, the outside is still viewed as circular in shape.

  46. a note on "nothing", and "creation". both concepts are erroneous, at least on both physical and cosmological scales. the universe, pre-big bang was not empty, it just lacked matter. we actually engaged in a most verbose discussion of that concept on the higgs boson thread. the number zero denotes a lack of countable quantity, not nothingness. energy can neither be created or destroyed. matter of ALL varieties is bundles of energy. those bundles can be assembled, manipulated, combined, torn asunder, but the actual "stuff" is never really changed. thus, both "creation" and "nothing" are impossibilities. you can hang whatever label you like on those "proto-energy" bodies, but they are by rule "eternal and everywhere". fundie inerrantists, let the hand springs and backflips commence to try to spin this into some "sky-daddy proof", lol

    1. By zero, I assume that you are not including the mathematical zero which means something else entirely.

    2. I was reading about zero last night whilst thinking of Nothingness, odd and even, something and nothing. I barely understood half of it.

  47. Oh absolutely. What I am saying is I see no other creation than human. That would make all evidence of creation to be uniquely human. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

    1. Are you saying that every creation is human? One way or the other, if you make an assertion, its proof rests with you and saying that you have seen no creation other than human amounts to personal anecdote which hardly fits the bill.

    2. You know, if you and I were talking face to face we wouldn't be having this problem. I say the only creations I know, can see, or whatever I can observe are human. Now either your can agree with that evidence, or you can refute that evidence. You are asking me to prove a negative otherwise. That there are no other creations. Either agree, refute, or remain silent but you cannot ask for me to prove a negative.

    3. How about a twig shaped by a gorilla as a tool for getting at berries?

    4. That's not an agreement, or refutation, or is it no comment.

    5. I'll tell you when you tell me what you mean by "Create is unique to humans."

    6. Man oh man. Exactly right back where we started. To be fair to the both of us, this is not exactly a medium where subtly and nuance are even remotely capable of being conveyed. And subtly and nuance are needed.

    7. Forget about subtlety and nuance. I have no idea what you're talking about.

  48. I read these verses totally different then when a person who is trying to disprove the Bible reads them. They make sense to me because they mean something beyond reason and logic. We must know that our reason and logic is limited and God's is infinite. Our logic just a hundred years ago was different then ours today, so how can we say we are right? How can we try to reason the words of God, especially when were given know spiritual wisdom because we only want to disprove God? To the ends of the earth for example would mean very far away.. not to the edge. But I will leave this at that and continue to what i want to say:
    The secrets of God are hidden to those who reject Him. Mathew 13:13-15 says this:
    13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
    ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
    And seeing you will see and not perceive;
    15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
    Their ears are hard of hearing,
    And their eyes they have closed,
    Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
    Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
    So that I should heal them.’
    Those who choose willfully to say there is no God, the bible is a lie and the limit of power belongs only to humans, will continue their lives believing these lies. Their eyes will be shut to the things of God, and their hearts closed to His love.
    People may argue all they want and believe anything they want. But there is no greater Truth, then that of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. One day we will ALL face judgement, and I pray that before that time, you will seek Him and accept Him as the king of Kings and the lord of Lords. As the one who loved you so dearly that He gave His one and only Son to die for you. He is waiting, waiting for you to accept Him, the one who created you and love you before you were ever thought of. He is there to heal your hearts and open your lives to the goodness and mercy of the Lord. Quite rejecting Him, stop hoping on your self. When living for God, our hurts, our pains, our mistakes, our guilt, our sin, our failures, ALL mean nothing in His eyes. All He sees is His beautiful child, He sees the brightness of our future and delights in the joyous plans He has for us. How can you say no? How can you reject your Father in heaven? He is there waiting for you! Give up your strong will, your unbelief and ask God with a humble heart to come into your life. To forgive you of yours sins, and to heal your pains and bring you onto paths of righteousness. I love this life, because I don't need to worry about the things many non believers worry about. God always provides for my needs, and when I fail no mark is left on me, I can go about with a lesson learned but a heart unburdened by the failure. God's plans for me are all I want and I can sure tell you that there farrrrrrrrrrrrr better then anything you could ever have on your own. So I ask of you guys this: stop resisting God. He is there waiting for you.. I've experienced God and I've only really been following Him for a year. I've felt His presence, seen miracles/been a part of them, seen His love for me, and been blessed by His loving hand. So please this life is not worth it living for yourself, live for God and He will show you love, mercy, truth, and strength. And I leave you with this verse from the book of psalm:

    Psalm 23

    A psalm of David.

    1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
    2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
    he leads me beside quiet waters,
    3 he refreshes my soul.
    He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
    4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
    I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
    5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
    You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
    6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
    and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

    God Bless you all!

    1. Anything beyond reason and logic abrogates all intelligence as your post clearly demonstrates and furthermore you don't know any more about god than my neighbor's cocker spaniel. You can't even prove the existence of a supreme being much less of spirituality. Also using the bible to prove itself is the hallmark of the intellectually vacuous.

      Before posting further, I suggest you read the comment policy against preaching. This is not your personal pulpit and your proselytizing is an unwelcome and flagrant insult. Any more posts of this nature and I will report you to a moderator for further action. Act accordingly.

    2. @Jordan Hedlin:

      Don't care if this doc is about religion, please read "the comment policy" above and refrain from preaching, in no shape, way, or form, is TDF your preaching pulpit!

      Fair warning, anymore will be deleted.

  49. nice vid!

  50. I'll have to check this out to see what the doc is sayin'... but there are several passages in the Bible that say the Earth is round...

  51. your right dude sometimes emotions mixed with fatigue can get ya off the basics love thy neighbor as thyself is definately more important no matter how different our understanding of truth maybe take care my bad

  52. I never said any particular person NEEDS religion or NEEDS to believe in a God to lead a good and fruitful life. I would never say that. What I take issue with is anyone saying that BECAUSE you believe in a Higher form of life you're an id**t.
    I too come from a catholic background, but unlike you I lost my faith many moons ago. That's why I mentioned having put a bit of real thought into returning to my belief in later years.
    I wouldn't attempt to asnwer your question about why you do or don't now believe in an organised religion of any sort (I assume) because I don't know you at all. I have no idea why or what made you decide to forsake that part of your upbringing. If you're happy with it, and you go through life satisfied, then hey, fair play to you. There'll be a lot more people like you in Heaven than Popes.
    I just don't like being told that there's something wrong with me for making my choice pro-God. As I have said, even as a practicing catholic I do at all times make the distinction between the teachings of Christ and what the present day authorities of the church say.
    As a matter of fact, non-belief of a creator is also a belief.

    1. Fair enough mate. I must correct the forsake part though, I learned the truth, as opposed to walking away from something real and tangible.

  53. with-out religion atheism would be obselete.....making discussion obselete... but both are in dire need of each other to make circular arguments.
    to nurture this symbiosis no acceptance needs to be applied.
    - a.gnostic -

    1. Circles are good. Sometimes.

    2. Yeah, but ellipses are better as they are the primary set of circles and cones are better yet because they take in both ellipses and circles as well as a number of other geometric figures.

    3. Religion makes a lot of circular arguments. Now which ones do modern atheists make?

    4. the first(rel.):content of belief;the second(ath.):usage of information against belief(facts) !
      subtext:always the same arguments,repetitive dialog=BORING,except to those whom define themselves by 'preaching' out of righteousness to their opposite!

    5. How about writing an intelligible answer?

    6. sorry if you lack comprehension,was it too hard?

    7. Sorry if you can't write clearly, probably because you have nothing to say.

    8. ....or you clearly can't comprehend!

    9. You're right. I don't comprehend gibberish.

    10. ...but you've mastered it's usage.

  54. I would never try and push my beliefs down anyone's throat. You can be assured of that.
    Totally disagree with your comment on moralos and religion. That statement informs me that you really don't know as much about world religions as you think you would like to know.
    And finally, a tip. If you want to be taken seriously on a topic, try not to slide in to name calling or throwing out defamatory remarks about those you are conversing with.
    If you don't call me stu*id for believing in a God, I'll not call you an id*ot for believing in aliens.
    And if you don't believe in anything other than what you can feel or touch or see, then I'm sorry.

  55. I get the impression that, not just you, but the majority of people who disagree with organised religions - in this case Christianity - have at the root of their dislike not the ethos or the morals they profess, but those in authority who have abused their position throughout the centuries. Being a christian minded person, if that is the case, then I also have a lot against those who have hijacked my belief system through the years and used it in one way or another for their own benefit. (But that doesn't mean that everyone who wears a collar is a bad person). No matter if it was a Medici Pope or Gregory when he instigated the Crusades for his own end, or the peadophiles across the world how have infiltrated the system, as they have done in other walks of life.
    There is nothing wrong with choosing to live your life in a "moral" way, which is the basis of most religions.
    I personally would not feel comfortable in this world to honestly believe there was nothing more. I understand some people can, but I can't.
    I don't think that makes me gulible. I don't call athiests devils.
    One reason I probably feel this way is, after half a lifetime of considering the question and asking people more learned than myself, I've yet to come up with or be given a sensible answer to the question - when did it all start and how?
    For a lot of people the Big Bang theory or Curtain theory or multiple Universe theory is sufficient. Not for me. Until someone, a scientist say, can give me the definitive answer as to where all the stuff of being originated, I'm happy enough to live by a code I think has served the man in the street well for centuries.
    Yes, I do have issues about who wrote the Bible texts, I do have issues about the infalability of the Pope and how the authorities have and do run the Church, but, just as tese scientists believe in parallell universes without the proof, I do believe in a place to go after death.

    1. In other words, you find it comforting to believe in something which might very well turn out to be a fairy tale. Well, that's your choice and as long as you don't try to pass it off as truth or inflict it on others, more power to you.

      However, religion does not equate to or with morality and if a person needs to conjure up or have conjured up for him a superior being to keep him on the straight and narrow, that person is not worth much in the first place.

    2. "There is nothing wrong with choosing to live your life in a "moral" way, which is the basis of most religions."

      That may be true, but I suppose people like myself live and think in terms of I do not need a " God " to have that life. Science has proved much, the inroads being made on those very questions are being answered quicker than you think. Spend some time on it.

      We all want to think there is a better place to go after this ride is over. It comforts people to feel that way. Not hard to understand. My problem with religion is many of the same issues you list. What is to like? Why would I need a belief system invaded with all of those problems you list to be moral? Just? A good father, husband, coworker? A good human being who helps others? Volunteers, helps the less fortunate? Why would I subscribe to anything other than my own existence and making sure the people who really matter, my family, have a good ride, and treat others as they want to be treated? I come from a Catholic education as a young man, from kindergarten to university graduation, I left all that baggage behind and put myself in science and math related situations. That was when I got it, this previous life I grew up in was ridiculous. Sky fairy's do not exist. How do you explain that?

    3. I can hazard a guess. It was not a sudden relevation. Like Bart Ehrman, the more you learned, the more you began to doubt and before you knew it, you had subconsciously jettisoned all this baggage in favor of the rationality which science and math imply, a major accomplishment.

    4. I like certainty. Who doesn't? Not to be too crass, but I liken it more to, oh, growing up? lol....

  56. @Robert is it at all possible that the word EARTH in the ORIGINAL bible meant galaxy or universe?
    I looked up the etymology of the word earth and it points to having been recorded in 1137 as erthe and then to earlier dates as appearing as Jörð in Norse mythology, mother of the god Thor (this from wiki).
    According to online etymology dictionary... The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.
    What was the original word for earth in the time of the bible? and again, is it possible that it could have had a broader meaning than earth.

    i trust that you will see this as a question....thank you
    1i

    1. What the documentary did not clearly state was that the concept of specificity as we know it was pretty much absent from ancient languages. In other words, the right word in the right place is a modern concept. Words, especially abstract terms, took their significance from context. For example, the Latin "virtus" (from which we get "virtue") which derives from "vir" meaning man simply meant the manly quality and thus in one context it could denote bravery, in another affability, in another compassion, in another excellence. Our current uses are quite different from the older ones. The word "tempus" literally means time, but depending on the words surrounding it could mean troubles, perils, illness, etc. A whole thesis could be written on the use of the word "res" meaning thing which is no way used as it is in modern languages.

      So in answer to your question , the Hebrew word for earth might have had a broader meaning at times. Whether this was the case in the bible requires an examination of each individual passage in which the word appears, both in light of the words that surround it and the knowledge of the time--and this is what scholarship is all about. One way or the other, it's dishonest to try to hammer it into a meaning conforming to what we know today.

      While you're at it, you might want to look up the etymology of "world." It's generally given as "wer" (man) + ald (age). However, back in my college days, a professor of mine showed me a copy of an old Germanic manuscript in which the word was werfuuld or fold of man which makes a lot more sense and it's a pity I didn't research the issue further to determine if the standard etymology was erroneous.

    2. First, thank you for your reply.
      I asked because according to wiki Shape of the Universe: The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error."Within the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model, while other FLRW models that fit the data include the Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Picard horn.

      May be in a distant era we will also argue that the universe is flat as we will (surely) have travelled enough within it to understand it's "truer" dimension.

      If the translated word earth meant universe...it may have been right to consider it being flat.

      Know that i am not affirming anything, just wondering if the concept of universe or galaxy could have been known to the ancient. They certainly looked at the sky A LOT.
      1i

    3. also...what was the word or words representing the word earth? Is it known? OR was it the way a phrase was understood later on.
      1i

    4. I believe that the documentary covered this, at least partially.

      In Latin, it comes out orbis terrarum.

    5. But the bible was not written in Latin, the Latin translation dates to between AD 382 and 420 .
      Will look at the doc again, this time aware of what i am searching for. The memory of what i watched is that the doc talks about the word circle a lot but never puts in question the word earth.
      1i

    6. I'm using Latin merely to demonstrate the workings of ancient languages. I recall a brief portion of the documentary dealing with the Hebrew word for earth.

  57. So much fun is had taking apart biblical literalists and fundamentalists. Do any of you realize that in doing so, you in no means take apart or take down or humiliate millions of us who are intellectually astute people, who do not cling to those allusions? I am a follower of Christ and I also happen to believe in the scientific narrative. To spend all this time on minutia explaining why Biblical literalists excuses are lame is a waste of time. What is the point of such a detailed conversation? The attitude taken here seems to be a snarky intellectually elite one in which the speaker (and many of the commenters here) expect the blind faithful to either be humiliated and shaken to their core, or to point and laugh as the blind faithful foolishly stand their ground, etc. Get over it. Why are you so obsessed with attacking SOME Christians beliefs. Why not devote our energies to a more substantive conversation surrounding faith, belief, etc.? These efforts and conversations are as much a waste of time as Harold Camping's insane eschatological musings.

    Oh, and ffebus, I totally agree and had composed this reply before I saw yours. I'm not reading through the comment stream because I can make an educated guess that the usual suspects on this feed will be pointing and laughing as usual, rehashing the same inane conversations ad nauseum. Every time I have made thoughtful pleas for useful conversation, there is little to no interest. There is much more interest in aping Hitchens and Dawkins and spewing venom. Hopefully there are also some thoughtful folks such as yourself. :)

    1. Blind believers (fundamentalists) deserve the ridicule heaped on them just as faith deserves the ridicule heaped on it. The problem with blind believers is that they go about attempting to spread their ignorance throughout the public schools and the government.

      As for the time spent explaining why biblical literalists' excuses are lame, considering the number of fundamentalists in this country, it is worth the effort.

  58. All this amounts to here is christian bashing. remember, this is a Hebrew text. Try attacking the ones that generated the text and you might pay a hefty social price for it. Most folks here would not dare attack the Jews or their religion but it is fashionable today to attack the Christian faith. All Christians do not drink the cool aid alluded to on this forum. The bias here is so toxic here that a meaningful debate is nigh impossible. Granted, the Christian movement of the last 150 yrs. has heaped upon itself well deserved criticism. Most of this comes from the literal view of Genesis1. That text was never meant teach the origins of man or the universe. The narrative was solely about the redemption of man (heaven and earth). God found man without form,void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then the text proceeds to tell how he does this with symbolic imagery that continues throughout the bible.

    1. @ffebus:

      Prove there is any gods that made everything just for us little tiny carbon units, our earth does not even want us around, getting top heavy with us humans, and will shake us off like fleas if we keep trying to kill the earth.

      Look at the vastness, time scale, and size of the cosmos, us humans, the earth, the solar system, are just to small, nothing but a microcosm in comparison. The universe will not even miss us. The sheer arrogance!!

    2. How do you expect a rational response with your posture? Calling someone arrogant does not make you correct. I prefer to respond to a cool head that knows how to communicate effectively.

    3. Believing that the world, not to mention the universe, was created just for humans is arrogance personified--and judging from your comment, Achem is a past master at communicating effectively.

    4. I agree with all you say - on both points. Yet conceiving the universe, as far as we really know, is reserved only for humans. Now that wouldn't be arrogant.

    5. How do you know this? Who or what's to say that chimpanzees, macaws, dolphins and aye-ayes don't conceive the universe in their own way?

    6. I did say as far as we really know. And I am specifically referring to the concept of universe. That's the Great Leap.

    7. And I'm not saying one way or the other whether humans are the only living creatures with this capacity. The evidence does not seem to be in.

    8. You are correct there is no evidence. Precisely what I said. We humans, as far as we know. We know that we can but we have no evidence that any other being can. But we digress.

      Where I'm going is to illustrate what the writer of the story of creation (Gen.1 KJV) got right,three very complex and profound concepts. The idea of nothing, complete and absolute nothing. The understanding of a creation and I know the writer went wrong here, but he understood that something could come from nothing. And the realization of universe.

      Considering this I think they could have certainly been easily aware of a sphere. The writer may or may not have been meaning flat or for that matter round (spherical). He's somewhat ambiguous.

    9. The Hebraic does not support the notion of making something out of nothing. The word "bara" (create) means to fatten, to nurture or rehabilitate. The bias of those who wrote western concordances is glaring in this case. The writer was spot on. the interpreter does not know the nature of the text.

    10. "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth . . . " Genesis 1:1. Are you saying this translation is inaccurate. If not, what did he create the heavens and the earth out of in the beginning?

    11. You would have to ask God about that one. God says he always was. figure that one out. If we as humans exist, why is it so hard to believe in God existing ?

    12. Stagea
      you state "God says he always was." no a book full of errors makes that claim. do you hear audible voices of god?

      " If we as humans exist, why is it so hard to believe in God existing" i have to stop here and ask if you are trolling? if not um... ahhh....wow.....really?

    13. It's that religious prefrontal lobotomy "speaking."

    14. indeed.

    15. Because of people like you who cannot offer any proof.

    16. No that is not what I mean but I do understand what you are saying and it is a well taken point. However this conception occurred long before even the very language it which written. Regardless of words used the concepts predate the word not the word the concepts. We know exactly what is being said regardless of word.

    17. I agree, the concepts predate the Word. That's what makes the arrogance of Christians who believe that somehow these things were born of their religion so disgusting.

    18. That has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

    19. As I stated before, the text is correct. The assumptions of literal apologists are not. This is because the text is written in a prophetic voice. They miss the boat altogether. Is the whole bible written in this voice? The answer is obviously no. There is plenty of historic documentation in the narration but the prophetic pattern is easily recognizable if one is familiar with scripture.
      I would like to see evidence of the conception of "creating" from nothing in predating the paleo Hebrew. The concept is uniquely a western fabrication. The Hebrew is a more concrete language. Western concepts are largely expressed in the abstract and are heavily descriptive. BTW it is impossible to "create" material out of nothing in this closed system. Everything you see and unseen only changes form. the universe has been here a lot longer than 6000yrs.
      Genesis 1 is not a proof text of its inception.

    20. Think man. Create is unique to humans. We create. It is who we are. It is not something that is describable in words because the concept always precedes the word. We created the word by the way.

    21. How do you know that create is unique to humans? Where's the evidence?

    22. Won't go down a semantics digression. You understand the concept I am speaking of and you understand it is unique. Remember, the concept always precedes the word both in meaning and understanding.

    23. You asserted that creation is unique to humans? Where's your proof?

    24. I see no other creation.

    25. Do you mean the ability to create?

    26. No. The ability to create is not to create. I mean precisely what I said. I see no other creation.

    27. You wrote "Create is unique to humans." If the word create doesn't refer to the ability to create, then when does it refer to?

    28. Once again that's a semantics digression. I gave you my evidence as you demanded. I see no other creation.

    29. I don't even know what you're talking about. Do you?

    30. The word you used comes from an English dictionary. the word bara
      is at issue here. We are talking about the biblical application of that word. You are talking apples and I oranges.

    31. The concept does not come from a dictionary. That's my point. I have been talking concept, concept, concept. Why you and only you
      insist that the word that is used supercedes the concept is beyond me. If you wish to address my apples comment then why do you respond with oranges?

    32. If you are reading an English text say the King James bible. The word used in the text is create. Our concept of that word usually means to make materials out of nothing.My point is that our traditional understanding of the word create hinders the actual Hebraic concept. They have two different meanings. Therefore the Hebraic text is not saying what western bibles are saying.

    33. Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster created Superman. The Ford Motor Company created the Edsel. Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine. Rose Cecil O'Neill created the cupie doll. Bregman, Voorhees and Day created BVD's. The Michican Central Woolen Company created Dr. Denton's. Do any of these statements imply making materials out of nothing? The yo-yo and the hula hoop created sensations. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 created a panic. The exposure of Bernie Madoff created a scandal. Do any of these statements which do imply making materials out of nothing reflect an unidiomatic use of the verb "to create?" Whether it's one type of creation or the other, the verb can be employed with equal dexterity, i.e., it's the same verb both times. So much for your argument.

      Once again, what are your qualifications regarding ancient Hebrew?

    34. What about bower birds?

    35. What do you mean Hebrew is a more concrete language? More concrete than what? The same thing with "Western concepts are largely expressed in the abstract and are heavily descriptive?" And by the way, just what is a "prophetic voice.?"

    36. Prophetic voice is just my way of identifying prophecy as it develops.
      (I took license there)
      The word "anger" in our western understanding is very abstract when you consider the same word in the Hebraic as "his nostrils were hot"
      The word create in our language is very abstract and subject to many views. The Hebraic "bara" (create) means to fatten. That is a big difference in meaning and how we frame our understanding of Genesis 1.

      Did God make man and the universe out of nothing? Or did God fatten,shape and rehabilitate man? The Hebrew is saying one thing and English is assuming another. Therein lies our problem. The whole theme of the creation motif rises and falls on just this one word.
      If we go with the English, we have an impossible narrative. It does not and will not work for a multitude of reasons. but if the Hebrew is correct, then the rehabilitation of Heaven and Earth is a distinct possibility.

    37. Joe went to the bar and blew his money. Now you tell me what Joe did at the bar.

    38. If bara means "fatten" how are you extracting "rehabilitate" and "shape". Were you not just saying bara means fatten literally? That bara is incapable of having an idiomatic meaning? Either you take the word in its literal meaning or you understanding and apply its idiomatic meaning. Its conceptual (concept) meaning if you will. The Hebrew were not speaking "to fatten". That is absurd.

    39. Is there some distinction you're making between Hebraic and Hebrew? One way or the other, it's not that the Hebrew is saying something completely different from its English translation; it's that something is expressed one way in one language and another in another. cf. "ab asino lanam," literally wool from a donkey comes out in English, blood from a turnip, "fuge longe," literally run far, comes out something like beware of him, "in flagrante delicto," literally with crime blazing, comes out something like caught red-handed. It's as simple as that.

      As for nose and anger being the same word in ancient Hebrew, so what? In English, we often use heart to mean bravery, yellow to mean cowardly, the blues to mean sorrow, green to mean envious or inexperienced and the list goes on. So your comment about abstractions in English simply won't wash.

      According to NAJ's Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon "bara" means both to create and to fatten just as the French verb "faire" comes out in English as make or do as "aimer" comes out to like or love, as "baiser" comes out to kiss or to f--k, depending on the situation. Again so what?

      Every English translation through the ages that I've read interprets "bara" as used in Genesis to mean "create." Are you saying that these translators were wrong? If so, what are your qualifications, especially with respect to ancient Hebrew?

      P.S. The idea of rehabilitation of heaven and earth makes as much sense within a narrative about creation as to fatten.

    40. In short yes, the dictionaries are wrong in this case because of agenda. If you take the concept that is meant for the word create and simply apply it to scripture our position makes total sense. David failed God miserably. In his repentance recorded in Psalm 51 he prays "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. KJV
      That is the same word bara used in Genesis 1. The application of the word reveals its function. This was a prayer of restoration not a creation of a new physical heart out of nothing.
      The relationship of the word bara with the Greek word ktizo (created)are acknowledged to be parallel in application. Here is just one example:Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. KJV
      The new man is "created" or rehabilitated,nourished or fattened not "formed out of nothing".
      Even the passage that states that man was formed from the dust of the ground does not fit the prevailing notion of "forming something out of nothing because the text clearly states that he was formed out of the dust of the ground.

    41. Did it ever occur to you that the word could have two different meanings in two different passages?

      Now once again, what are your qualifications in terms of biblical scholarship and especially ancient Hebrew? Being an ordained minister does not wash.

      P.S. The more you explain your interpretation of Genesis, the less sense it maks. At time of creation, there was by definition no new man, only the original one.

    42. As the documentary rightly pointed out, none of the concomittant cultures thought of the world as a sphere (or spheroid), so why would the writer(s) of Genesis? In addition, again as the documentary pointed out, the Hebrew of the time had a perfectly good word for a spherical object and it seems reasonable that if the writers had actually meant a sphere, they would have used this word rather than the one they did. (This is assuming that the oldest Hebrew manuscripts contain the same text.)

      I've also found no evidence that the people of that age contemplated the concept of something coming from nothing. If the primary purpose of the Genesis account of creation was an affirmation of monotheism, a view shared by a considerable number of biblical scholars, the concept of something coming from nothing would most likely have been a mere narrative device.

    43. I would disagree particularly about sphere. We see spheres. We've always seen spheres. We don't even need any more proof than that.

      As for creation is doesn't matter what ever they used the word. It is the concept. To create is to bring forth something, in this case all things. The very act of creating all things and that all things are created certainly shows they understood the concept of something from nothing.

    44. We also see and have always seen circles, disks and parallelopipeds as well. You seem to be falling into the trap of giving the writers of Genesis more credit than they deserve.

      From Genesis 1:1 and 2:4-24, I doubt if the writers of Genesis gave even a second thought to the concept of something coming from nothing.

    45. But it wasn't something from nothing, it was all from God. They sucked the biggest spider of all time into the biggest vacuum. You can empty the bag, little bugger might still be alive in there! ;)

    46. No God was the mechanism. He merely connected the two concepts. Therefore the concepts preceded the mechanism. Had to. I agree they got the mechanism wrong, but if you think about, the concepts were the real "heavy lifting".

    47. Easier to picture something than nothing, I bet god was invented before we were capable of imagining an absence of everything :)

    48. Then I would believe you may be putting yourself in a rather narrow corner. The concept of nothing is not only human but has always been a human constant. In other words to be human is to understand "nothing". To say god preceded that would be saying the very same thing the creationists are saying.

      Much rather not. (Smiley thing)

    49. You might be right but I don't mind corners, spent a fair bit of time standing in them at school, cosy. I just think the idea of absolutely nothing is as hard an idea to pin down as infinity. It's outside of anything we can experience, unless dying counts? Even then most people prefer to think their dead are somewhere better or blowing about in the clouds and keeping an eye on them. Anywhere other than nowhere really :)

    50. Are you referring to the god of the Old Testament?

    51. No. You'll have to ask dewflirt which god. It'll be whatever God she was referring to.

    52. No, earlier than that. A nice hairy neanderthal god maybe :)

    53. @ffebus,

      Crying the blues are you, did I upset your little feelings?

      "Knows how to communicate effectively"?? When I said "sheer arrogance " means something entirely different than calling someone arrogant, guess you have not perfected the nuances of proper English language yet, well actually Canadian.

    54. re: the comment ending "the sheer arrogance". i have long held the 3 major differences between human and chimp are: 1) lack of hair. 2) power tools. 3) a colosal ego problem. i had no problem detecting or decoding context of that 3 word, 5 syllable sentence you wrote. perhaps "mindset" interferes. difference #3 often makes generalized statement subject to perception as "personal attack". it also tends to give a self perception of both "be all, end all", and "center of the universe". a far wiser (and often, far more intoxicated) man than myself once wrote "the first religion was formed when the first grifter met the first f001." (numbers used to prevent auto-hold for mod review due to use of a "forbidden word", lol)

    55. Fool is not a forbidden word. I wish I knew who had said that.

    56. ahhh, i stand corrected then. it is a quote (quite possibly minorly paraphrased by the vagueries of my aged, impact damaged brain) of one of our best american literary observers of the human condition, mr samuel langhorn clemens (mark twain). i honestly expected that you among all others here would have known that, actually, lol. (that is not in any way meant as a dig or insult, btw)

    57. You're right. Now I remember where I read it. In "Letters from the Earth and other Writings" edited by Bernard de Voto. Thank you and I apologize for the memory lapse.

      P.S. I really like Mark Twain. Have you read his essay on masturbation. You'll find it on the internet and it's a hoot.

    58. i find both twain and steinbeck superb illustrators in word of their times. i have indeed read the essay on "onanism" though it was decades ago (i honestly neglect my reading these days, as the internet provides so much in the way of technical material that i have always relished), and it was indeed hilarious.
      as for your stances on abortion and capital punishment, i see no real conflict. i see capital punishment as perhaps a benign reality, but only if applied equally, and assuming no railroading was involved in the prosecution. my point was the hypocrisy of declaring "life is sacred from the instant of conception" yet embracing death at the hands of government as acceptable. i have no illusion of idyll as potential reality. there are indeed unredeemable sociopaths with a murderous bent. there are fiends. i see no societal benefit in just warehousing such individuals for decades. i also understand that there are times (rare as they may be) that war is truly unavoidable for at least one side of the conflict. i can even see a case for rare justification of "humanitarian war" (the vietnamese invasion of cambodia to unseat pol pot springs to mind). i can even grant the unavoidable reality of civilian death in warfare. i try to avoid absolutism, if for no other reason than every time i have tried embracing it, i have found what i find to be "moral exceptions". reality tends to rear its ugly head at philosophically inoportune times.

    59. With respect to capital punishment, all I care about is guilt or innocence and with modern DNA testing, this is becoming less of an issue. If by railroading you mean prosecuting someone the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know is innocent, the prosecutor himself should be given the dealth penalty. However, the term railroaded has been so misused and distorted, most recently by Jerry Sandusky. As for a just war, there was our involvement in WWII; however, had Pearl Harbor not been bombed, our entry might have taken a lot longer than the two years between 1939 and 1941.

    60. by railroaded, i mean either genuine prosecutorial abuses, or such techniques as beating confessions out of innocents, ie: "classic" railroading. those genuinely proven to have genuinely commited homicide or similarly brutal offenses, i really see little problem in their "riding the lightning". i could even see an argument in extending it to official acts of corruption as in the "chinese model" ( a stance im certain will earn me a "pariah" hat among some, but so be it). ww2 would be pretty hard to argue against. though the USA really remained reasonably unthreatened by it, i see no "moral dilemna" in getting involved. just as i see that there was genuine justification for vietnam to oust pol pot, certain levels of malevolence trump a lack of "personal threat", just as one is justified in interceding when they see an adult "waffle stomping" a child, even if your own well being is actually in no threat. by the same token, using say the japanese invasion of china as an example, one would be very hard pressed to find any fault with the chinese for engaging in warfare.

    61. I can see yet another extension of the death penalty. Let's say someone tries to rob a store and shoots the person behind the counter. As this is clearly attempted murder, it should not matter whether the victim lives or dies, the perpetrator should receive the death penalty.

      From what I know of the Pol Pot matter, the only reason Vietnam sought to oust him was because he was no longer useful to them and as matter of fact, had become a liability. We did the same with Ben Ladin, Ghadalfi and Saddam. As for certain levels of malevolence trumping a lack of personal threat, notice that was our excuse for invading Libya and Iraq and look at them now.

    62. here in florida, we have a little known to those who dont live here "stacking charge" called "10-20-life". it was conceived as a tool to combat gang violence, and has mostly been used for that purpose. if you posess a gun during a crime, it adds 10 years to your sentence. if you fire the gun, it adds 20 years. if you shoot somebody, then it adds a life sentence. these are all "no parole, no good time reduction" sentences. they are also "automatic" penalties, in that they dont require conviction on the charge the law imposes. the jury only considers the base charge. so, your armed robber who shoots a clerk is really seeing "7-20+life(no parole)" upon conviction. putting myself in that gangbangers shoes, i think i would prefer the needle to the prospect of several decades behind bars.

    63. Fine, but life in prison without possibility is costly. I say that if there is bodily harm caused by the perpetrator's firing of a weapon during the commission of say a robbery, it's cheaper to use the needle.

    64. forgive my multi-day absense from "the great debate". as i said in concluding my description of "10-20-life" if i were that armed robber or drive-by shooter, i personally would prefer that needle to cooling my heels in stir until i shucked off this mortal coil. it actually seems not only a cost saving move, but also one that would actually be merciful in a way. but now we come to the application: would such a fate be just for someone who got blind crippled drunk and decided to drive home, then killed a pedestrian? or fairly blotto, then jumped in his porsche and street raced on a crowded street, crashed and killed a couple of tourists (an actual case from my town)? or mildly intoxicated (but over the dui limit), ran a stop sign, t-boned the car traveling at a right angle to him, and the impact hurled that car into a canal, drowning its driver, and the drunk's response was to walk away and call his girlfriend for a ride home from a house a mile or so away (another local case)? all 3 cases show various "depraved indifference", and an obvious fore-knowledge that they were indeed putting others in peril by their actions.
      as for zero, yes i neglected its "placeholder status" as the fulcrum of positive and negative numbers (hence lack of ability to multiply or divide by it). it does seem rather strange that the concept wasnt espoused much earlier, just from a book-keeping perspective. lots of examples of various inventories predate the western embrace of the concept, yet none had a method of saying "12 oxen, 4 goats, 0 chickens". i guess until folks began actually "playing" with numbers as a purely intellectual exercise, it was assumed if no chickens were mentioned, there werent any. i once also saw a video doc that stated some chinese intellectual actually was the first known to state it's existance (some 5000 yrs ago), as well as calculating both the value of pi, and the size of the earth within a few dozen miles, though for the life of me i cant remember the mans name.

    65. You are describing is manslaughter. However, I'm sure that you agree that a person is responsible for what does, drunk or sober.

      To be more exact, treating zero as a number is a recent development. There were certainly ways to indicate nothing in ancient tongues.

    66. but then you have an "ethical paradox". in the case of our stickup man, we have a deliberate act that results in injury, yet he gets the needle. in the case of our porsche driver, we have multiple deliberate acts that results in multiple deaths, yet he gets not only a pass on the needle, but not even a real homicide charge. in both cases the doctrine of "reasonable man" shows the actual outcomes are likely. in both cases at least as likely as not. in the actual cases here in florida, the armed robber who killed nobody gets 7-20 plus life no parole (or, as we agreed would be fairly reasonable, a needle), while the porsche driver who killed 2 got 7 years of house arrest in his parents highrise beachside million dollar condo (though he was extradited to illinois because the incident was a violation of his previous dui manslaughter conviction probation sentence). therein lies my problem with capital punishment. the application of it is faulty. even the near universal statute of "death resulting from a felony is murder" is unevenly applied. our porsche driving candy heir is no less a threat to the community than the stickup man. he actually proved to be more of a threat. yet social status allowed him a chance at recidivism the stickupman would never get. his "slap on the wrist" for the first death he caused actually laid the groundwork for the following 2, and most assuredly his lack of real punishment for the florida incident will allow for a 3rd.( i didnt mention his previous dui in illinois in my initial groundwork post because the jury was not allowed to hear that detail, because the conviction was not in florida).
      as for our "tea party" supporters and pols, they are just a symptom of the deep seated human failing of embracing those who tell us what we want to hear, rather than what we actually need to hear. most hate to admit to error, and will grasp at any straw to avoid having to.

    67. O.K. You've convinced me. The DUI Porsche driver should also get the death penalty as should Mr. Holmes, Mr. Alcala, Mr. Manson and now this latest case, Mr. Ferguson, not to mention a whole bunch of others. There's even one death row inmate who's claiming that he's too fat to be executed. There are over 700 people on California's death row, yet only 13 executions since 1978, the year the death penalty was reinstated. This is abysmal.

      If death by lethal injection offends some as cruel and unusual punishment, let's bring back hanging and the firing squad. They were not considered cruel and unusual punishments just a while back, so why should they be now?

    68. In Canada a new Christian police chief in Winnipeg Manitoba, is openly advocating the use of Christian prayer to help address the big city's major crime problem, I kid you not! on the news! guess it helps that he previously served as the chaplain on the force. I suppose if you cannot convert them, you can always shoot them.

    69. Wow I gotta say something here..I live in Winnipeg, i knew we were getting a new police chief but did not know he was a crazy religee. I read your post yesterday morning was floored, then I saw the front page of the newspaper.. He actually believes that PRAYER can SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the city's VIOLENT crime.. Rape, Robbery, Murder.. it happens because we just don't pray enough.. Come on now We are the murder capital of Canada and he thinks prayer will stop that..*face palm*

    70. re: the new winnipeg pd chief. i can actually "top" that. a few years back here in florida, there was a debate before our state reps on whether "creation" should be taught in our school science classes. i saw (on the news) an actual science teacher telling the assembled politicians "if we come from monkeys, how come you dont see no tail on me!!??", punctuated by a pirhouette where he lifted his suit jacket to demonstrate his tail-less status. i actually threw a glass at my tv in response. even more to my amazement, he retained his credential to actually be a science teacher. the result of the debate was a victory for actual science, but that was before our current crop of dominionist/reconstructionist "darlings of the tea party" got elected. i only hope our upcoming election removes some of their supporters, or if not, that status could well change.

    71. What about the recent remarks on abortion by three congressmen?

    72. on the congressmen and abortion, they are just pandering to a glassy eyed constituency. no different than "the only birth control we needed in my day was an aspirin, if she kept one clamped between her knees, she couldnt get pregnant". on another forum i once saw a posting about a pair of 13 year old girls that engaged in a fistfight (mutual combat, neither "jumped" the other). one of the girls had some congenital defect in her brain that had been unknown, and she died of a cerebral hemmorhage later that day. a huge number of folks posted how "in their day" such fisticuffs never happened. yet those same screen names on postings about teen gunfights or drivebys stated how "in their day" such differences were settled with fisticuffs rather than gunplay. folks enjoy revisionism. folks enjoy just about anything that allows them to perceive themselves as "superior", even if it requires embracing an obvious falsehood. as i pointed out about the tea party types, folks hate admitting to any kind of error in judgement. i have little doubt that mr "legitimate rape", or mr "its part of gods plan" or any of their ilk actually gain support by such ridiculous statements. such statements lend credence to the unreasonable stances their supporters make. like hating abortion, but supporting "nuking all those iranians to teach islam its place"

    73. Right you are, which makes them despicable and unworthy to serve.

    74. does it make them unworthy to serve? those elected to the house of representatives are supposed to actually reflect the political will of the majority of their constituency. if that constituency is a pack of howling lunatics that actually hold those backward attitudes, arent their reps still bound to reflect their lunacy, and bring their lunatic agenda to washington?

    75. That they would stoop to pandering to the garbage that elects them renders them unworthy to serve.

    76. Right you are, which makes them despicable and unworthy to serve.

    77. Every last one of those godd^mned id^ot tea-party troglodytes should be boxed up and hauled out to the middle of the ocean on a fleet of tall ships and punted into the waves as good for nothing.

      It'd be quite an appropriate "symbolic act," as far as I'm concerned.

    78. You're obviously not an environmentalist.

    79. Let's just be sure the boxes are biodegradable, and the sharks can take care of the rest... if they've got the stomachs for it.

    80. I wish these troglydytes you mentioned were biodegradable. In that way, we wouldn't waste good boxes.

    81. i think we'd have to do an environmental impact study, im fairly certain they would be considered "a substance that causes marine polution". they're just a symptom of a long standing problem here in the US. folks find it much easier to embrace sarah palin than to actually investigate who that national debt is actually owed to. folks who no longer actually benefit from the influence of unions very quickly forget the good they did them. besides, it's kind of "retro" to have "reds", "commies", and "pinkos" to hate again. "we love our constitution, except the parts we hate" is actually very patriotic in their eyes. "we have to eliminate those entitlements, but dont you dare mess with our social security or medicare or crop subsidies or my brothers government contracts" rings true to them. obviously, it doesnt attract many deep thinkers, but it wasnt meant to. so long as you give folks a "them" to blame for their ills, for the most part they are happy.

    82. I don't even really need to say anything. You've summed them up quite nicely. It's only ever about what's in it for them, and/or who they can be angry at, which has to be one big reason they were co-opted so quickly and easily by the Republicans. OR the other way around, some might say. I don't think it really matters. There's also that prevalent racist component, which they will move heaven and earth to deny... and then will have the sack to turn around 5 minutes later and start blowing those dog-whistles again.
      They've been enough of a disaster for this country. I hope, too, that enough people have finally wised up to their bullsh^t once and for all and will send them packing in droves.

    83. That new police chief might be on to something. I recall reading someone on here showing that the majority religion in US prisons is Christian. So, if Canada is similar, if he got all the Christians spending more time praying rather then their usual activities there possibly would be a corresponding drop in the crime rate. ;) Lucky for the rest of us they have their moral compass to guide them hey...

    84. Haven't heard from you for a while. How did your operation go?

      "I knew it was a gay church. Only half the congregation was kneeling." Bob Monkhouse.

    85. G'day @ Robertallen1 and over the edge. I'm still on the waiting list, supposed to see the surgeon on the 8th, couple more weeks. Have to get used to waiting over here unless you're dying on their doorstep :(

      I've quite enjoyed reading some of this thread, especially some of Epi's posts. :)

    86. It's nice to kow that you're still with us.

    87. docoman
      did your hospital stay go well? glad to see you back

    88. I dig, wonder if the religee's will think that you are talking in some kind of code though? lol

    89. or perhaps that it is "a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in a foul odor"?

    90. Maybe they will. After all, many of them believe the bible's written in code.

    91. Fine, you read the story as literature. However, we don't need Christianity any more than we need Judaism, any more than we need Islam, any more than we need Buddahism or any other religion.

    92. and yet all that imagery means very little and is about as useful as pretty much anything from that era i.e. not very. We (humanity) have moved on quite a bit since then, maybe you noticed? You seem to love it retro style, Bronze Age retro style. Good luck with that.

      You can say "bias" and "toxic" but tbh you’re coming across as a whiney little, moany, crying victim of nothing more than a bunch of points of view that you can’t handle or challenge. Boo Hoo. I’m serious, I don’t mean to be a dik to you but get some b@lls. There has been no real Christian “bashing” (although there is nothing wrong with that) but bashing the bible which is a valid bashing “target” as any.

      If you come here and engage in conversation, expect to read stuff you won’t agree with or like but don’t cry unfair. Why do Christians always demand and expect to be automatically afforded the upmost respect no matter what they say or believe in? And why are you trying to duck out of the debate by redirecting to some other faith/people, namely the Jews? Quite cowardly. What happened to being a Christian soldier, defending the faith till death? You’ve defended yours to the point of “I’m not playing anymore cuz I’m all upset”.

      Anyway, I’m not afraid or find it unfashionable to criticise Jews or Judaism. The brit milah (watch Cut The Movie available on TDF) is disgusting! There, I said it. I think some of those crazy “Zionists” are murdering scum! You can quote me. That does not make me Anti-Semitic (although some Jews would call me that for my comments; ridiculous of course). I could go on about things I dislike about Judaism but as you are a Christian I’ll address Christianity if that ok with you and your delicate sensibilities?

    93. I was born a Jew and to this day I can't stand Jewish girls. I hate the ADL with a passion because it tried to censor a high school production of "The Merchant of Venice." I have little respect for Simon Weisenthal because of anti-intellectual comments he made on the book "The Secretary," a scholarly biography about Martin Bormann written by a German. Although I haven't been inside a synagogue for over 40 years and have no intention of entering one, I still visit the local deli. I feel no bond towards Israel and the semitic Israelis I have met I find to be just as crass as the Arabs. I especially enjoy Jewish jokes. Why do I not get offended by Jewish stereotypes or remarks against Jews and Judaism? Because I am better than those who do which is what you are in essence writing about with respect to Christians.

    94. well said ;-) I always enjoy your comments and learn a great deal. Btw, I'm blonde and love blonde jokes, I never get offended. My mates call me ginger (cuz my chin hair is a little red compared to my thining head hair), I love ginger jokes and ginger stuff in sit-coms. I don't know any jewish girls but love red heads.

    95. By the way, I also like Amos 'n' Andy and can recall when a number of the television episodes were new. I remember going to the local barber shop which catered to a mixed clientele and watching it while I was getting my hair cut. Everyone there enjoyed it and notice that for the twenty or so years it was on radio, it was said that the ENTIRE nation stopped to listen to it. Then along came the NAACP crying racist and pressuring the networks into taking the reruns off the air.

      I recall seeing the "Song of the South" before a mixed audience at the Towne Theatre in Long Beach and again everyone loved it--let's face it, it's a lovable movie. Then along came the NAACP crying racist pressuring Disney to remove it from circulation--and now you can't get a copy for love or money.

      Why are there no productions of "Show Boat," one of the landmarks of the American musical theatre?

      There seems to be this hue and cry against racial and religious stereotyping, yet no one complained about the Eddie Murphy version of "The Nutty Professor" which was as sterotypical as they come?

      A few years back, a group of Orientals tried to have the Charlie Chan movies taken out of circulation because all three times the detective was played by a caucasian.

      Strange as it may seem, I know of know complaints lodged against Duffy's Tavern or the Goldbergs, maybe because the latest generation of the ethnically and racially sensitive have never heard of them.

      I'm sure you see how this all ties in with your post about Christians taking offense.

    96. You were born Jewish.
      You hate Jewish girls.
      You feel no bond with your people.
      You hate religion.
      You hate people who believe in a "God".

      Cheer up will you
      Go forth and multiply.

    97. So therefore because I was born Jewish, I should feel a bond with other Jews. No I don't hate people who believe in a "God;" I hate those like you who believe in a "God." So you go forth (I could use a more vulgar expression) and whatever you do, don't breed.

  59. looks like a circle to me mr. desperation ..... your 'reaching' with your ultra negative critical obsessions which makes you very dangerous to yourself....only time will tell ...... ...your arrogance is unbearable..... your way over your head mr last breath screaming for gods mercy I think we have another deadman walking and another lover of self above all creation wow endtimes because of you ****** thanks mocking god and bringing wrath on all of us cuz of yu thoroughly angering god im definately not playing on your team sodom and gomorah

    1. tymewiiltell
      you seem vary angry for a person of faith. where is all the "hate the sin not the sinner" and "love thy neighbor" i hear so much about? how do you know if someone will use their last breath looking for mercy? when you say "not playing on your team sodom and gomorah" are you claiming to be on the team where a father offers up his daughters for mass rape, then those same daughters get him drunk and incestuously rape him?

    2. Pmsl. This is satire right? If not still pmsl.

  60. Wonderfully done documentary. The inerrant Bible myth is the greatest obstacle to a reasoned form of Christianity evolving in our times - which could and can be derived from the core teachings of Jesus.

    1. And just what were these core teachings of Jesus?

      We can do without Christianity quite nicely.

  61. Skeptic is just splitting hairs to discredit the Bible. Even in our day and age, the term " to the four corners of the earth " is quoted, yet we all know that the earth is round. As far as I can tell, the earth is round or circular in shape and all my friends agree with me.............................

    1. "As far as you can tell" doesn't count. The only way the earth can be considered circular is if you regard a sphere as a series of circles and the problem with that is that a sphere is non-orientable so "to the ends of the earth" makes no sense in that context.

      The Bible should be discredited as science and just about everything else except for literature.

    2. true, we dont need to split hairs when there is talking snakes and global floods and men raising from the dead....that all discredits it quite clearly.

    3. You are on to a different subject but I will explain. The bible talks of a serpent (not in particular a snake ) which is only a symbolic description of satan.................If you knew the Bible more, it would tell you who and what satan was and is. ..................The flood of Noah was not global as evidenced by the fact that there are African, Asian, etc., peoples alive on this earth today who obviously were not wiped out in a global flood...........The Biblical description of a flood that covered the earth would have been logical for the people living in the particular area which was covered in water as they would not have known of the existence of other lands like the Americas, England etc. To them, the whole earth was covered in water. The earth as they knew it. ............As for dead people rising, you will find out one day.

    4. "You are on to a different subject but I will explain. The bible talks of a serpent (not in particular a snake ) which is only a symbolic description of satan.................If you knew the Bible more, it would tell you who and what satan was and is."

      why would an all knowing all powerful god let that being exist or allow it to screw everything up by tempting eve? especially if god knows everything.

      "The flood of Noah was not global as evidenced by the fact that there are African, Asian, etc., peoples alive on this earth today who obviously were not wiped out in a global flood...........The Biblical description of a flood that covered the earth would have been logical for the people living in the particular area which was covered in water as they would not have known of the existence of other lands like the Americas, England etc. To them, the whole earth was covered in water"

      the story of noah and his boat and two of every animal and god telling him this was going to happen is a myth...just like all the other parts that dont match up with reality.

      "As for dead people rising, you will find out one day"

      *rolls eyes*

    5. You ask............why would an all knowing all powerful god let that being exist or allow it to screw everything up by tempting eve? especially if god knows everything.

      To understand this, you need to know why God created humans in the first place. Why bother creating humans when he can create Angels who can live for ever? Why lowly inferior humans that can only live for a short time and then die. Is this short life really worth it ?

      It goes back well in the past when the sons of God ( you and me ) had a heavenly home. There was a rebellion whereby the Angel " "Lucifer"drew a third of the sons of God away from their creator and because of this, God found it necessary to give his rebelling sons a chance to redeem themselves. He placed our souls in to a physical body and gave us the choice to choose the way of Lucifer or his way. The Bible is his instruction manual and what I have stated is found in the Bible.

      We have no remebrance of our past. Accepting the right path will ensure that we return back to our real home.

      This will most likely call howls of protests from others on this site. Let them give their scientific answers if they can. However, the fact is that we as humans are here. If we exist, then why should it be so hard to believe in a creator. I know this has been a bit beaten off the track, but I believe the purpose of these videos is to try and discredit the teachings of the Bible.

    6. You don't know any more about god than the cockroaches who sometimes infest my apartment, but what can one expect from a street preacher and yes, the purpose of these videos is to discredit the teachings of the bible and a noble purpose it is.

    7. @Stagea,

      Don't need no scientific answers to rebuttal your comic book post, just "common sense"!

    8. "It goes back well in the past when the sons of God ( you and me ) had a heavenly home. There was a rebellion whereby the Angel " "Lucifer"drew a third of the sons of God away from their creator and because of this, God found it necessary to give his rebelling sons a chance to redeem themselves."

      comic book nonsense.

      btw where did you get this crazy story?

    9. Did you read his description of his qualifications a few posts back? Now, you know where he got this crazy story.

    10. This crazy story as you put it comes from the Bible itself. Not such a crazy story as humans evolving from a bit of slimy mud in a pond.

    11. It's still comic book nonsense. And where are you getting this account of humans evolving from a bit of slimy mud in a pond?

    12. There are some people who actually believe this. Where did you think they came from ?

    13. no there are no people who believe that.

      that is what we call a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

      look it up.

    14. Actually I can believe that there are people who believe that. Look at Stagea.

    15. What does your question have to do with your statement?

    16. Stagea
      could you point to where in the theory of evolution states "humans evolving from a bit of slimy mud in a pond"? as for the history channel may i suggest you get your scientific theories from scientific publications. the general media is a terrible place to get pure scientific facts and understanding. and as i anticipated you go for the infinite regression and attempt to inject an impossible to demonstrate,supernatural agent at any point where a honest person would say "i don't know (yet)" . so what is next ? things are complex and look designed/created to you so a designer/creator is needed? but of course you will make an exception for this designer/creator right?

    17. first of all no one said humans evolved from a bit of slimy mud in a pond. that is more proof you lack the knowledge to even have a position on this subject.

      second where in the bible does it mention that story that you put there?

    18. I believe you meant to write he lacks the knowledge.

      One way or the other, that's why I have no patience with people who try to cover up their ignorance with "that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it."

    19. yes thanks

    20. if you cant differenciate "round" or "circular" from "spherical" a perusal of your local funk and wagnels might be in order. it's like describing a "cube" as a "square", or an "oblong" as a "rectangle". the church accepted artwork to illustrate the passages and their meanings show planiform representations. the "vaulting of the firmament" makes no sense at all if applied to a spheroid, yet perfect sense in relation to a planiform circular object. linguistic machinations of latter-day apologists cant undo the reality of what was meant, though the handsprings and back-pedaling is often amusing to watch.

    21. Put simply, the earth can be described as circular. Just because it is circular does not mean that it is flat. The moon is circular in shape also but it isn't flat. How about a rebuttal to my comment that the phrase " the four corners of the earth " isn't used in our modern times, but it does not mean that we think the earth is a square box. .......People just want an excuse to try and discredit the Bible by making a play on words.

    22. You are as ignorant of basic geometry as you are of biblical scholarship. Once again, the only way the earth can be described as spherical is if a sphere is considered an infinite number of concentric circles. As a sphere is non-orientable, it does not have ends. And yes, as anything other than a work of literature, the bible should be discredited.

    23. Well, all your friends are as wrong as you are if you think the earth is round or circular or worse has corners! It approximates to an oblate spheroid! Go tell all your friends so you can all be right from now on. Also, either the bible writer was being poetic or had it literally wrong as you did before you read this.

    24. Of course, an oblate spheroid is simply an infinite series of concentric circles, but you're right.

  62. as i see it, catholicism has, after the long history of supression of science (at least for the "unwashed masses") allowed for the concept of errata of dogma. the heads of the global church made a move to embrace the inescapable reality of science. they strive to remain relevant. they allow for the concept of fallibility of leaders based on ignorance of fact. just as one really cant fault newton for ignorance of atomic theory, one cant fault his contemporary pope for ignorance of evolution, germ theory, etc. this also applies to the previously mentioned benign protestants. evolution as a "stand alone" concept can coexist with creation, so long as one is willing to examine genesis as a parable, rather than a factual account (of course, i point this out as a complete "non-believer", just out of fairness in the debate). the concept of "inerrant word of god that is wholly factual" is the sticking point. thus, many christians of many sects can embrace the majority of science without conflict. the problem is the glassy-eyed adherants of wholly insane views, whether christian, islamic, animist, shintoist, or wiccan, just to name a few. if i neglected anybodies "pet loonies" forgive me. rejection of reality is insanity, no matter what label it uses. i see no reason to give any a "pass" on this concept. all forms of worship have skeletons in their closet (lest any think im just protestant bashing), as do atheist philosophies. in short, everybodies excrement stinks. the acid test is whether you embrace said excrement, or reject it when faced with reality. excrement embracers are the danger.

  63. Can you imagine how long they would be wrestling with a flat earth concept on a super earth ?!?

  64. I don't know what bible people read but the clearest description of the shape of the earth says that it is a circle(round). I have never read anywhere in the bible that describes the earth as flat or gave,, to me that is,, an impression of the earth being flat.

    If someone would post a verse saying otherwise I would like to see it. I somehow missed it in my six years of bible study.

    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

    The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

    1. The problem, if there is one, is with Isaiah 40:22. The Hebrew word often translated as circle can mean a vault as in a ceiling, a circle or more particularly a disc which is both flat and round.

      If you're going to quote from the bible, you must provided the references.

  65. Honestly, al I remembered about Seyss-Inquart was that he was here and on the wrong side during WW2, the collaborator part was a guess. I'll be the first to admit that my History isn't perfect.

    And I would be very hesitant to make any comparison between the Dutch and American school systems, I simply do not know enough about that.

    But you are right that evolution is thought in all biology courses on all public schools and that there is no battle going on about it between religious people and non-religious people. At least I can't think of any.

    The main problem with Christianity over here atm is that recently it became known that the Catholic church here had been aware of, and covering up, a lot off child abuse for over 60+ years.

    But that's a completly different discussion of course and perhaps this is not the best place for that.

    1. Your information is valuable in that anyone from America or Canada reading your posts can make a comparison. Now, what about American or better yet world history? About how many American novels have you read and do you recall any of the titles? I'm just dying to find out if my conjectures are correct.

      In return, please feel free to ask any questions of anyone here?

      Also, it's better to hit the reply link when responding to a particular post. It makes it easier to determine what goes with what and as this is a public site, like your posts, your responses will be available to everyone.

    2. I do use that Reply button so I don't know what going wrong.

      Well, I'd like to think my world history is pretty descent. I know I've got it all in school at one time or another but there is still a lot of focus on the 1st and 2nd WW over here, at least that's what I remember the most about my school history.

      I've always been interested in history and try to keep up with recent views by basically watching/reading anything new I encounter. A lot of it through this site actually. What I currently like a lot that is American is Crash Course. It's a little fast sometimes but I really like what they're doing.

      But as for American literature, can't really think of any. I've read the occasional Dan Brown or Micheal Crichton novel but that's about it I'm afraid.

    3. That's all well and good, but I am curious about what your schooling was like. Also, where did you learn English which except for your occasional orthographic errors is quite good and do you speak both Dutch and German?

    4. Ow. In that case I'll try and give a quick overview of my schooling. I went to, what I believe you call, primary school for 8 years followed by 5 years of what is best described as highschool followed bij 4 years of collage. After a year of working I went back to collage for a different study for a another 2 years but never finished that.

      I started learning English in the 5th grade of primary. But to be honest, I learned a lot more from simply watching British and American cartoons.

      I do speak a little German but nowhere near as good as I speak English.

  66. In the end the earth shall REEL IN ITS PATH AS A DRUNKARD! It was not the writer who knew!!!!!! Poor excuse not to believe in GOD!!

    1. As this is your first post, I suggest you read the comment policy regarding preaching. This is not your personal pulpit and your hellfire and damnation are completely unwelcome.

  67. Anyone who believes that their point of view is absolute is a close minded fool. Whether it be evolution, religion, country, philosophy, ect. Personally i couldn't care less what people believe, as long as they leave me alone and dont try to force thier point of view on me.

  68. to debate the accuracy of ther bible with the "devout" is akin to debating the existence of the imagined manifestations of their mania with schizophrenes.
    these are people who somehow find an example of morality in a god that sanctions genocide, slavery, pillage, and rape. who see some example to be emulated in a "prince of peace" that manufactures an implement of torture and then threatens those who he views as "sinful" with it. who see some manner of "divine justice" in the concept of eternal punishment of both the transgressors and their descendants for a "sin" that according to even their own dogma they had no ability to comprehend. they see no incongruity in the concept of their "god" sacrificing himself to himself, in order to atone to himself for that incomprehensible sin.
    these examples alone show their complete lack of comprehension of reality, or reasoning ability. to debate the insane is a waste of effort. to debate those who lack the ability to reason is a waste of effort.
    this short series skewers this obvious flaw in their "inerrant" tome of lies in an inarguable manner. that they choose to reject this reality is but another example of their lack of grasp of reality. a better course of action is to use their own stance to demonstrate publicly that they are undoubtedly insane, potentially unstable, and without a doubt a danger to those of us who embrace reality, and strive for the betterment of humanity.

    1. I agree, and good post!

    2. tyvm A_R. i do have my rare moments of clarity, lol

    3. Rare moments of clarity? All your posts are crystal clear. I only wish that some of the other posters such as FundamentalClue were as lucid as you.

    4. Some are quite unstable; the republican presidential candidate springs to mind. And who was that blood-thirsty war nut who sang "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"? Oh yeah, the previous republican presidential candidate. There seems to be a theme emerging here not to mention the connection between being right-winged and being more than a little unhinged. Getting back on topic, I did notice these people are "loving" christians also?

    5. Think of it, Hitler was a "loving" Catholic or a "loving" Protestant depending on his mood.

    6. actually, much more telling from last electoral cycle was the video i saw on youtube of sarah palin introducing and praising the efforts of an african witch-hunting cleric at her church. or her speech to her son and his fellow soldiers leaving for a-stan where she declared they were "fighting gods war". or that for all his sects obvious insanity, "mittens" was the repub candidate best grounded in reality among those that actually had some chance. i live in florida, where our governor is a semi-closeted "dominionist/reconstructionist". i live and deal with the genuine threat to freedom and rationality on a daily basis.

    7. I have no argument with what you write, but the problem is that the other side's no better. We need another Truman or in modern times someone like Senator Inouye of Hawaii who unfortunately is too old for the job. I could even go for Barney Frank. It's not so much whether I agree with the three individuals I've mentioned on everything, but it's that I can respect them as men and a country is only as good as the quality of its leaders.

    8. once again, agreed. im a firm believer in the concept that our politics are dominated by a single force, for the most part. a good solution would be a "reality" party to rear its head and give us a genuine choice of reason. i have advocated a grassroots movement for such, but my incredibly checkered past precludes my actual participation in any meaningful capacity. genuinely "squeaky clean" candidates who have the internal motivation and ability to resist the corrupting influence seem to be in short supply. my apologies for straying off topic, as this appears, to me at least, completely so.

    9. No apology necessary, at least as far as I'm concerned. We all do it. However, it would be a better world if two things were eliminated: religion and partisan politics.

  69. I don't see the point of this programme? Is it Bible bashing? On that score it works. But surely in this day and age people are taught and understand that there is as much figuritive writting in the Bible as fact, heresay, metaphore and fable? Even the authorities of the churches recognise this.
    We know that most of the Old Testament was put onto paper centuries after the reported incidents. People have been known to embelish, add and leave things out of a story - just read any modern day tabloid.
    The only point I see being made here is that the Greeks were smarter than the Jews at the time.
    And by the way, the reason the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible and marked out as a separate testament is because it is the birth sect of Christianity. It gives a sense of BEFORE. It was writen in the language that best fitted the times to explain as best as the writers could the importance of their God and his possible plan.
    I'm waiting on someone making a documentary about why it doesn't mention dinosaurs anywhere in the Bible.

    1. No, actually it is not Bible bashing. It is bashing the people living today who still believe in the superstitions of the people who lived over two thousand years ago. Most of the those who made comments against the creationist version related in the Bible still know that this book is a fascinating look at the mindset of the people of the ancient middle east.

      Don't have to make a documentary about why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. They weren't around at the time and no Biblical figure ever saw one or knew that they once existed. It would make for a short documentary.

  70. There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

    Christianity: 2.1 billion
    Islam: 1.3 billion
    Hinduism: 900 million
    Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
    Buddhism: 376 million
    African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
    Sikhism: 23 million
    Juche: 19 million
    Spiritism: 15 million
    Judaism: 14 million
    Baha'i: 7 million
    Jainism: 4.2 million
    Shinto: 4 million
    Cao Dai: 4 million
    Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
    Tenrikyo: 2 million
    Neo-Paganism: 1 million
    Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
    Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
    Scientology: 500 thousand

    [Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

    If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

    In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

    In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

    The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    1. very well put and nice quote, I here Dawkins using the same quote.

  71. I don't understand the audience of these videos. I'm an atheist, and this video doesn't make me more atheist, it's just something I watch as I get ready in the morning. And Christian's are not about to be swayed by a video put out on the internet when they believe that their mission is to help the people who are lost and don't believe in God to have faith. I really don't understand the point of this.

    1. And just what is the point of televangelism other than as a cash cow for televangelists? And just what is the point of all the debates between creationists and scientists, except to show creationists up for the liars and frauds which anyone with intelligence and education knows they are?

      If the video causes one fundamentalist to re-eamine his beliefs, it has succeeded.

    2. Well, It's gorra be worth a try. I've been there when people have questioned there faith after hearing other points of view, it can be pretty easy to get a believer to doubt. Yeah I've not seen many loose thier faith but I've shaken a few in my time.

  72. The issue has been settled a long time ago, that the earth is not flat. Why even bother with this? Its like kicking a dead cockroach.

    1. The issue posed isn't whether or not the world is flat or spherical but why if the Old Testament was divinely inspired did the authors apparently think it was flat.

    2. Ok. Still pointless.

    3. Not as far as scholarship.

    4. as i wrote to Robert MAY BE the ancient were not writing about the earth only but saw the earth as part of the universe. My comment is up the thread, Robert has a very good answer to it. What do you think (know)?
      1i

  73. on no, here we go again.

  74. Whether or not the authors of the bible thought the earth was spherical or flat is a somewhat interesting question. My first instinct is to say they thought it was a sphere, because of the fact that Aristotle espoused a spherical earth in the fourth century B.C. Biblical culture, at least that of the New Testament, was strongly Helenized due to Alexander The Great's policy of spreading Greek culture all throughout Asia Minor and even further west, not to mention Rome adopting Greek culture to produce the Greko-Roman world. Most historians beleive that educated people. which certainly were not the majority, knew the earth was a sphere from the fourth century B.C. forward. Also we know the bible is not a historical or factual account, that it is full of symbolism, allegory, parables, etc. so the references to a flat earth may not have been intended to be taken literally.
    However, most (maybe all) of the biblical authors were Jewish and there was much debate among the Jews as to how mch Helenization to accept- that much is clear. We don't even know for sure who the authors really were, we do know most of them are not who they claim to be- so who is to say how they were educated. I would say, because they were obviousely educated enough to at least be able to write coherently and at times brilliantly- that they would have had to at some point or another been made aware that educated Greek peoples thought it was a sphere- but who knows what they thought personally.

    (edit)
    Well he gets his references from the Old Testament, which was written primarily before the fourth century B.C.- so yeah, they probably did think it was flat. Still, in my opinion dissecting the bible like this- or any other religious or mythological work, is a bit like dissecting the Lord Of The Rings for factual accuracy. I mean of course its not factual or historical, only the fundamentalist believe it is. But the vast majority of christians are not fundamentalists and they read the bible knowing it is full of symbolism, allegory, parables, etc. For them its function is not to be factual or historical, so pointing out its not does nothing to sway their belief.

    1. It's nice to find someone who knows not only world history, but its subset, biblical history. You're right; we don't know who the authors of either testament were. However, I find pseudographia fascinating as it demonstrates biblical scholarship at its best that I can't help but add to your statement with a brief discussion on the authorship of the Pauline epistles. Romans, Corinthians 1 and 2, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were all probably written by the same man as the styles are pretty much the same and the issues dealt with consistent with what we know of early Christianity. Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians were probably not, as they are written in a different style and espouse views which diverge from those expressed in the earlier Pauline epistles. Timothy 1 and 2 and Titus were definitely not, as these deal with an ecclesiatic hierarchy established at least 150 years after the individual known as Paul.

      Keith Nickle in his book "The Synoptic Gospels" has a number of things to say about the Hellenic influence on the writers of the New Testament. I wonder how many of these writers spoke fluent Aramaic.

    2. From what I understand Aramaic was spoken in the more rural country side that is now Eastern syria and was a sort of rural dialect of Hebrew. The Gospels were written in Koine, a form of Greek, so who knows. Ehrman says that Koine would have been the language of the higher class, educated peoples after Helenization but, since we don't know who the authors were really , it is very possible one or more hailed from the area were Aramaic was spoken as a common language- at least in my opinion.

    3. I've been wondering about the bilingualism of the writers of the New Testament for some time since reading about the following from courtesy of Dr. Ehrman. In John 3, "Jesus" says to Nicodemus, "You must be born from above" which Nicodemus misunderstands to mean "You must be born again" which as it makes no sense in the context of the conversation, Nicodemus asks for clarification which "Jesus" provides. The confusion comes about because in Greek the word for "from above" is the same as the word for "again." In Aramaic, the language of "Jesus" and Nicodemus, it is not and hence there would be no confusion. Someone fluent in both languages would probably not have written such a story in the first place.

    4. Isaiah 40:22: "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

    5. And your point is?

  75. circle ! sphere! who cares? we the people that live on it (the earth) are the ones with a flat!!!1pchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! no time to waste!

  76. whilst people are discussing the flatness of our planet here,people are discussing 'if we have even left this planet' on the next thread (moons of the solar system)....very entertaining!

  77. So if I understand it correctly, the whole point of this is to undermine the authority of Christianity, right?

    If this is so then, personally, I think that attacking the flat Earth concept from the Christian scriptures makes for a very, very weak argument.

    If the collision between this concept from Christian scriptures and the knowledge that the Earth is, in fact, a sphere would lead to the undermining of the idea that the Bible was divinely inspired and thus to the undermining of the entire Religion then Christianity would have died in it's infancy.

    People who believe in the teachings of the Bible, Christians, have themselves never believed or teached that the Earth is flat. Even though the concept was in their holy scriptures. If Christians themselves have never had a problem with this contradiction between what is known and what is written for over, what, 2,000 years now, then how is attacking this ever going to undermine anything?!

    To me attacking a group on a mute point like this is like reaching the point in an argument where you go;
    "Oh yeah! Well you... you... you stink!"

    It actually makes me kinda angry cause it hurts the cause more then helping it.

    1. The "authority of Christianity?" What does that statement even mean? But, I digress. As I stated before, it is a concern to the rest of us because Evangelists are trying to impose their creation myth as national policy and the basis of public education. We are perfectly within our right to challenge the Bible.

    2. I am not, nor would I ever dare, disputing anyones right to challenge the Bible. I just think that doing it like this is counterproductive.

    3. Not if it shows religees up for the wilful ignoramuses they are.

    4. And that is what I don't understand. As far as I understand the religion (I'm not a Christian myself) Christians don't believe in it themselves. So how does this show them to be willfully ignorant? While it might be true that there is a small percentage of extremist who take it all literally, as far as I know the Vatican does not support this view.

      As for my spelling by the way, since English is not my first language I would like to hope I could be given a little leeway.

    5. According to a 2009 Gallup poll, 25% stated that they do not believe in evolution. Out of those who attend church (it's safe to assume that these are Christian churches as Christianity is the predominant religion in the U.S.) 41% of those who attend weekly stated that they did not believe in evolution, as contrasted with the 26% who attend monthly, as contrasted with the 11% who attend rarely.

      According to a 2004 ABC News poll:
      1. 61% believe in the Genesis account of creation. Out of these 75% were protestants, 87% evangelical Protestants and 51% Catholics.
      2. 60% believe in Noah's artk and the global flood. Out of these 73% were Protestants, 91% evangelical Protestants and 50% Catholics.
      3. 64% believe in Moses parting the Red Sea. Out of these 79% were Protestang, 87% evangelical Protestant and 44% Catholic.

      Now what were you saying about a small percentage of extremists who take it all literally and hence are wilfully ignorant?

    6. I think I'm starting to see what problem you are actually referring to.

      I thought this doc was meant as a way to undermine the validity of the Christian fate as a whole by pointing out something incorrect in the Bible, in this case the flat Earth concept. And since Christians don't believe this I thought it a weak argument.

      But if I understand this correctly it's not about if Christians believe the Earth is flat or not. It's about how they believe the universe was created?

      On Feb 4 of this year the director of the Vatican Observatory Stated;
      "The Big Bang is not in contradiction with the faith, it is the best theory we have right now about the creation of the universe." In the same interview he said;
      “We know that God is the creator, that He is a good Father who has a providential plan for us, that we are his children, and that everything we can learn by reason about the origin of the universe is not in contradiction with the religious message of the Bible.”

      So it seems to me that, at least officially, there no conflict on that point between the church and science.

      But I also understand that the views of the leaders of the Christian faith are not necessarily those of the individual believer. And if the numbers you have presented are representative for the U.S. I can see how there may be a problem.

      If that is the problem you are talking about then I respectfully withdraw and would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended, if any. It is a socio-political problem in which I have no business inserting my oppinion. I am sorry.

    7. No need to apologize for inserting your opinion, for unlike all too many, you corrected it when you saw it was in error. By the way, you have access to the same information everyone else does which means you're free to check the figures I've provided.

      However, you should realize that the Director of the Vatican Observatory has no more knowledge of a supreme being than anyone else, including the Pope, and that doctrine and dogma do not take the place of the cold, hard facts (evidence) upon which science is based.

      Obviously you don't live in the United States. May I ask of which country you are a native?

    8. "However, you should realize that the Director of the Vatican Observatory has no more knowledge of a supreme being than anyone else, including the Pope, and that doctrine and dogma do not take the place of the cold, hard facts (evidence) upon which science is based."

      I realize that and agree with it. The only point I was trying to make was that, officially, there was no argument between faith and science on how the universe came into being. If there was a divine hand in this is, at least for me, another discussion.

      And I'm Dutch.

    9. Now that I know where you're from, I can understand what was behind your initial statements. Things are apparently quite different in your country than in mine. Enlighten me. Is abortion legal in the Netherlands?

      P.S. Does the name Albert Seyss-Inquart mean anything to you?

    10. Yes. Abortion is legal in the Netherlands, I thought that was also the case in the U.S. Isn't it?

      And Albert Seyss-Inquart or "Zes en een kwart", was a collaborator in the 2nd World War.

      Why?

    11. Roe v. Wade in 1973 made it legal, but the religees, especially the Catholics, are trying to change all of that. So your country has mine beat in that respect.

      Close. Seyss-Inquart was not a collaborator but an Austrian whom Hitler placed in charge of your country. He was eventually executed as a result of the First Nuremburg trial, but you were close. My point is that you probably didn't even need to look him up because you learned about him in school. On the other hand, most Americans know next to nothing about their history other than what their fundamentalist politicians tell them. I'll even go so far as to say that you probably know more about American--no, I'll say world history than most Americans. I'll go ever further and posit that you've read more American literature (either in the original or in translation) than most Americans.

      I'll go further than that and conjecture that evolution is taught in all science courses in your public schools. Here, it is taught in most of them, but not after considerable battles with the religees who want it either kept out or taught alongside creationism or some other such nonsense.

      All of this is part of what you term a socio-political problem which seems non-existent in your country. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    12. i'm going to assume that in your native land catholicism is pretty much the "voice of christendom". such is far from the case here in the USA. our local polyglut of christianity is dominated by protestants, and the vociferous "frontmen" of their ilk are the fundamentalist crazies that embrace "young earth creationism" among other counter-intuitive ideology. in many cases their pridefully stated goal is to implement a theocracy based on their rabid leanings here. for this reason, we who embrace both reason and genuine freedom feel a deep rooted need to counter every example of their religious industry of insanity we encounter as best we are able.

    13. Yes. Catholicism is pretty much dominent over here.

      And I'm sorry to hear things are that bad in the U.S. Are they really?

      I mean, American culture is pretty dominant troughout the western world so I always had the feeling we Europeans had a decent idea about what was happening in the U.S. I've seen many references about these issues in American pop-culture but never got the impression that it was viewed as a huge problem. I interpreted it as nothing more than making a little fun about goofy minorities. As I write this I realize I get most of this true comedy, perhaps that is were the problem lies. Comedy does have a way of making things look less serious of course ;).

      But seriously, I'm sorry to hear I was mistaken.

    14. Fine post, but I suggest changing counterintuitive to false, ignorant or troglodyte because as the counterintuitive often proves to be correct, it's difficult to use the word pejoratively.

      Also, was "polyglut" intended as a sarcasm? If so, I rather like it.

    15. excellent point on "counterintuitive". as for "polyglut" i was giving the benefit of the doubt to the less rabid sects of protestantism. though it may often seem a "sum total malignancy", i have encountered many an adherant, and a few sects that are at worst benign. i dont like to broad-brush in general. the rabid do indeed get the most face time, but there are something like 2000 different sects of protestants here. not all adhere to the same fundamentalist insanity. in fairness, it only seems right to distinguish between those who are just mildy afflicted, and those who genuinely relish in their doomsday cult schizophrenia. the rabid are the danger, the benign are basically harmless, and genuinely desire to worship without imposition on others. just as there are those who are functional mentally afflicted, there are also those who are functional worshippers, if that makes any sense

    16. And I have no problem with those like Kenneth R. Miller and Francisco Ayala, both foremost biologists, who, though practicing Catholics, leave their religion under the doormat of their laboratories. In short, I have no large issue with concepts such as theistic evolution because they don't stand in the way of science.

    17. My parents immigrated to Canada from the Netherlands. I was raised as a member of the Christian Reformed Church. This is a fundamentalist Protestant group with its roots in the Netherlands. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Dutch Catholic until I was around sixteen years old. The Reformed Church regards the Catholic Church as an institution that lost its way. Apparently there has been a great deal of friction between the Protestants and the Catholics in the past and the country is about a fifty-fifty split in population with the Protestants living mainly in the north of the country and the Catholics in the south.

    18. thanks for that, Jack. yes, there has pretty much been friction between catholic and protestant churches since martin luther. i once translated a map written in latin for somebody who posted it on a website. he thought it was some form of israeli document because of the year 1949 on it, and it showed jerusalem and such. it was actually a very early 17th century pilgrimage gazetteer. when i referred to it as actually a "catholic map" it caused some confusion. it was hand drawn on vellum by a dutch cartographer. it actually stated it was a representation of "the holy land with sites of interest as they existed in the 1949th year of the world" (since "creation", or roughly year 1949 of the jewish calender). he had bought it at a junk shop for 5 bucks or so. it was in 4 colors, fairly ornate. i often wondered what it fetched for him when he sold it. i had guesstimated a value of roughly $2k based on the values of other works by the same artisan of equal size and detail, but none of those had the religious significance. wow, i went off on a sweeping tangent there, lol. by "fundamentalist" do you mean "fire and brimstone" strict adherance to inerrancy (as we americans use it), or the more european definition of general adherance to the fundamental precepts of doctrine (golden rule, pray, sabbath, etc)?

    19. It was very strict. Church twice on Sunday, a primary school sponsored by the church which I attended for eight years, catechism, Young Peoples Club, Christian Cadets, prayer before and after every meal and Bible reading after every meal except breakfast. The Bible was the living word of God and was not to be disputed. I taught myself to read using a Children's Bible we had at home. Strange thing is, by the time I was in grade six, I had strong doubts about the whole thing. Another strange thing was that those Dutch immigrants practised their faith as they remembered it back home in Holland but their friends and family back home became very liberal and many left the Church. We were also taught all the ways the Catholic Church went astray. I haven't attended Church except for a few baptisms since I was seventeen but I think they have lightened up a little.

    20. The amazing thing is that you came through it all with your faculties unimpaired, perhaps even sharpened.

    21. The biggest influence was the Christian school I attended for eight years. They received no government funding, all private. They set an educational standard that was much higher and more comprehensive than the public school system. They seemed to feel that if they didn't the authorities would shut down that Dutch Christian school almost immediately. The principal of that school was a man I greatly respected. There was a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica at the back of the class and he encouraged me to read them whenever my work was done...and I did, every volume cover to cover multiple times. That principal of that strict Protestant school is probably still the biggest influence in my pursuit of knowledge in my life and is a big a reason, in a positive way, for my lack of religious faith today. I do not regret one minute of my life at that school.

    22. I understand perfectly. One of the best courses I ever took (which came as a surprise to me) was in comparative religion taught by an ordained minister.

    23. You are communicating with an ordained pastor of many years (retired). That does not mean much if you've been drinking cool aid.
      Christians need to wake up and understand what they are reading.
      Corporate Christianity has become as corrupt as the one party system we have in congress. The money changers run the show and truth is held hostage to the offering plate.

    24. I should have mentioned that the ordained minister from whom I took the course was a biblical scholar in the true sense of the word, in that he was not just ordained, but degreed.

      Now, what are your SCHOLASTIC qualifications--anyone can consider himself ordained.

    25. I did not get my ordination out of a cracker jack box or over the internet. These are my credentials: I paid my dues the old fashioned way by submitting to eldership and preaching on street corners and built fellowships from the ground up. There are no short cuts to this thing. Seminary is a waste of time they only teach you how to drink the cool aid. In fact they are the reason we have this misconception of a literal creation to begin with. The apostles were not a product of the seminaries of their time. They spent their time with the Master, in his presence. They were not part of the prevailing system.
      BTW seeing you are inquiring of my credentials what are yours?

    26. In other words, you have no academic credentials, yet you make academic-sounding pronouncements based on what, submitting to eldership, preaching on street corners and building fellowships from the ground up?

      P.S. Neither you nor anyone else knows much about the apostles, as the biblical accounts are contradictory and hence unreliable. So don't try to make out that you do. You're not fooling anyone.

    27. Preaching on street corners? What, all four corners? ;-) Very week credentials by any standards. Meaningsless again.

    28. ahhhh, ok. yeah, american definition without a doubt, lol. my maternal grandmother was "severe dutch lutheran" (old knickerbocker witch she was, lol) who "fell from grace" when she married a german of gypsy bloodline. she went episcopal after that, i believe. dad's side is/was mormon (direct bloodline to the 2nd prophet, uggghhh). im sure you can imagine the scowling contest family reunions inevitably degenerated into, at least when the "fossil set" graced us with the appearance. fortunately the maternal sibs were less than holy (mom went buddhist in the late 60s), and dad was the black sheep, so i escaped all the "wrath of gawd!!!" nonsense except when mormon cousins visited and demanded atheist beatdowns, lol.

    29. Sectarian scowling contests - very funny.

    30. re: sectarian scowling contests. i have often found true observation of the posturing of humans generates much better comedy than any imagination is capable of.

    31. the comedy I most enjoy is all about that HN :)

    32. So you're a Latinist?

    33. no, actually im reasonably fluent in spanish (reading, my tongue is entirely too unintelligent for verbal fluency), and the descriptive headings and such were close enough that it was a reasonably easy translation. what i stumbled on i just did some quick search engine sniffing for. ive done the same with italian a few times, though french is far enough divergent to render me a quivering mass of confusion. i doubt i could soldier through translation of any long text, but the 50 words or so in that case only took a half hour or so. it actually took longer to find info on the cartographer and relevant examples of his work. boredom and my inner "helpful harry" often inspire some offbeat wanderings through the aether of "the interwebs", lol

    34. What percentage of members of the Flat Earth Society are Christians?

      This is far from a moot (note spelling) point and is endemic of something much larger. The bible is wrong on this and a lot more scientific issues such as creation itself and that so many Christians hold the authority of the bible, a collection of 2,000+ year old books which don't even pretend to scientific validity over the findings of science which relies on hard evidence simply on the grounds that the bible is, however falsely, the divine word some higher being impugns the alleged authority of Christianity no matter how long it has been around.

      P.S. The past participle of the verb to teach is taught.

  78. Just suppose that science, putting aside man's arrogance, doesn't have it quite right. Maybe what we are seeing from Hubble's viewpoint is the sphere of the firmament surrounding a flat earth. Do you realize that the main purpose for Columbus setting sail was not to prove that the earth is round. Do you realize that Copurnicanism, while taught as fact, has never gotten past the theory stage?

    1. If science doesn't have it quite right, science changes it, which is one of the attributes which make science far superior to religion.

      Maybe doesn't count. It's what you can prove.

      It is obvious that you have no idea what a scientific theory is. Why don't you find out what it is BEFORE YOU POST and before you complain of Copernicanism (note spelling) being taught as fact.

    2. The "man's arrogance" argument. A common gambit. It is not arrogant to make observations and deduce scientific theories and laws from those observations. It is the best way to understand how the universe works. Also, science knows it doesn't have it quite right. That's why they continue to observe and study science...that is to verify what has already been observed and to understand the questions that this new knowledge invariably bring to light. That is fascination of science. To know that there is always more to learn and investigate.

      You do know that the earth revolves around the sun, don't you. It has been established as fact. Google "scientific theory". Its use in science is different than the way we use it in our normal vocabulary. Understanding this difference is crucial in understanding why Copernicanism is taught as fact.

    3. lol you dont know what a theory is do you?

  79. Did They get you to trade your heroes for Ghosts?
    Hot ashes for trees..? Hot air for a cool breeze?
    Cold comfort for change? Did you exchange
    A walk on part in the War for a lead role in a cage?

    Wish You Were Here Pink Floyd

  80. It seems to me that Christian fundamentalists and atheist skeptics both interpret the Bible from a literalist position. The former to assert the literal truth of the Bible, the latter to assert its literal falsehood. Two sides of the same coin. Both fail to explore the Bible in an impartial manner for its broader literary, symbolic and philosophical significance. It would be interesting to see the Christian-Atheist dialogue evolve beyond throwing mutual temper tantrums over absurd topics like "flat earth".

    1. Chalking it up to two sides of the same coin avoids the real issue: the attempted use of a non-scientific, 3,000+ year old work as the basis for contradicting the empirical results of modern science--the very embodiment of wilful ignorance.

    2. I would take the argument even further, robertallen1, to say that the crisis isn't just that a small population of misguided religionists choose to defy evidence and contradict science, but that they think it should be used as the basis of government and public education. I wonder how many here remember Reagan Era Secretary of the Interior and closet dominionist John Watt, who believed it is ok to plunder the national parks for minerals and commercial lumber because, after all, Jesus is coming soon, so taking care of the earth doesn't really matter. Media clown Ann Coulter echoed that sentiment when she said "God wants us to rape the earth."

    3. Ann Coulter=Hillary Clinton=Sarah Palin=Condolezza Rice=Hillary Clinton=Oprah Winfrey. What a disgusting equation.

      Have you read the recent comments of Paul Broun that evolution and other sciences are lies from the pit of hell? And this wilfully ignorant religee sits on the House Committee of Science and Technology. Have you read the recent statement from Joe Wals that with our modern technology, there is no such thing as a life-endangering pregnancy?

      So I gladly accept your extension.

    4. Not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted literally but it is also true that not all of it can be interpreted metaphorically. The first task is to determine whether something should be taken literally or metaphorically. It is just as bad to take what is literal as metaphorical as vice verse.

      You attempt to take the moral high ground,, dismissing both sides as partial and discussing absurd topics not to mention describing them (all?) as indulging in mutual temper tantrums.

      The whole point of challenging the flat earth concept is to undermine the idea that the Bible is inspired by an omniscient being. This , if proved true, undermines the authority of Christianity. So, not an absurd topic after all. If you wish to argue that Genesis is not to be taken literally here regarding flat earth, provide your evidence!

    5. This seems to be your first post on TDF and a very good one it is. I have also encounttered the equally ridiculous claim that the bible was the first to posit a round earth.

      I suppose one could take Chronicles 1 and 2 and the ten commandments metaphorically because it makes no sense to take them literally and it can certainly be entertaining to do the same with Onan, not to mention all the mass murders described with such abandoned approbation, but what about Proverbs? Which is it, literal or metaphorical. If the latter, could I interpret Proverbs 5:3-4, "The lips of an adultress drip with honey and her mouth is smoother than oil; but in the end, she is as bitter as wormwood, as sharp as a two-edged sword," to be metaphors for Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, Hillary Clinton and Mother Theresa?

      Anyway, welcome aboard.

    6. As late comedian George Carlin famously said, "Isn't it funny how everything that's in the Bible happened within five miles of the people who wrote it?"

    7. Genesis? Proverbs? Chronicles? The epistles, both actual and apocryphal? Revelations?

    8. Sounds unnecessarily complicated. I would even say that a person who lives completely without reading or owning a Bible isn't lacking anything necessary to a happy and meaningful life. Meaning in the western sense is artificially injected into the Bible. The Bible is a peculiar thing because it's not even the story about the Europeans, or the Africans, or Asians, or the American Indian. It is the myth and legend of the Jewish people.

    9. I believe you're referring only to the Old Testament. But you're right about being able to lead a good life without reading or owning a bible. It's just that religees have to feel needed for their power rests on this illusion.

    10. The Bible is the History of the Adamic race. Genesis 5:1.
      The jews are just what Jesus Christ said the are in John 8:44.

    11. For those who don't know John 8:44: "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

      You are clearly the ignoramus' ignoramus.

    12. Sean, what you say would be fine if it were not for fundamentalists insisting that the rest of us define national policy and academic curricula according to the literal reading of the Bible. That is what atheists and the religiously unaffiliated are reacting against. Otherwise, believe what you want, just don't mandate your beliefs on the rest of us.

  81. I can overlook the Bible being wrong. It is unforgivable that people continue to be wrong because of what's in the Bible.

    1. Brilliant, thank you !!!
      Perfectly stated.

    2. Salam = Hi

      But the holy Quran got it right, there is more than 90 verses for science alone. Everything in Quran is based on human intellect that is connected to a heart [softkindly, soul].

    3. "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding between the backbone and the ribs." 86:5-7. WRONG! Semen is produced by the testicles, prostate gland and seminal vesicles none of which is between the backbone and the ribs.

      "And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves" (16:15)
      And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance. (21:31)" WRONG! The mountains were not created to prevent earthquakes, but rather as a result of them.

      "Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp [siraaj] and a Moon giving light [noor] (25:61)"
      "It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light [noor] (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand. (10:5)"
      "See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light [noor] in their midst, and made the sun as a lamp [siraaj]? (71:15-16)" WRONG! The moon does not give off light, but rather is a reflected light.

      In addition, man was not made from a clot of congealed blood (96:1-2), water (125:54), clay (15:26) or dust (30:20).

      "Everything in Quran is based on human intellect that is connected to a heart [softkindly, soul]." Just what is this supposed to mean?

      In short, you are nothing short of a cheap muslim apologist!

  82. "What the Bible got wrong"....this documentary could last forever (and ever ... AMEN)