The biogeographic evidence for evolution

BilliardsBall said:

There are experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat, and...?

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

I already wrote how the Hebrew circle is a sphere, the same Hebrew for a child's play toy, you know, a BALL.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

I didn't say Psalms, I said Job, who said the Earth "hangs upon nothing", that is, the pagan said it was held by Atlas or suspended on the backs of giant elephants where Job said "a nothing", which is far more accurate, apart, of course, from gravity/space.

Click to expand...

gnostic said:

BilliardsBall, which translation are you using that say Earth is a “sphere”?

Because in most translations that I have come across, say “circle”, not “sphere”.

King James Version


New Revised Standard Version


New American Standard Bible


Here is a more recent English translation from Septuagint;

The New English Translation of the Septuagint


There is a much older translation of the Septuagint that can be found, written by Sir Lancelot Brenton in 1851:

Sir Lancelot Brenton



And here is a translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which say the earth is a “disk”, which is basically a cylinder in shape:

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (translated by Martin G. Abegg, Peter Flint & Eugene Urlich, 2002, Harper)


I think whenever the translations referred to circle, they are talking about cylinder or disk.

Click to expand...

gnostic said:

Well, Job 38:13 say that if you take the Earth by its “edges” or “ends”, and shake it, people would fall off the earth:







There are no “ends” or “edges” to a sphere or the Earth, which is another reference to a flat earth in the shape of disk or cylinder; disk or cylinder do have edge or end.

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

Who?


The Earth isn't a ball. It's an oblate spheroid. Doesn't God know that?


You didn't say Psalms. I did.

If the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God, or whatever, then "more accurate" doesn't cut it, given that the God you worship is supposed to know everything. Sorry but "more accurate" isn't all that impressive nor does it indicate prescience. You know what would be impressive? "Most accurate."

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

Who?


The Earth isn't a ball. It's an oblate spheroid. Doesn't God know that?


You didn't say Psalms. I did.

If the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God, or whatever, then "more accurate" doesn't cut it, given that the God you worship is supposed to know everything. Sorry but "more accurate" isn't all that impressive nor does it indicate prescience. You know what would be impressive? "Most accurate."

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Of course, even circle is an improvement over the then-prevalent pagan concepts of Earth!

Click to expand...

Astrophile said:

Isaiah chapter 40 is part of Deutero-Isaiah, which was written between 550 and 539 BC, during the Babylonian captivity - Book of Isaiah - Wikipedia . This time interval makes the chapter contemporary with the pagan philosopher Pythagoras (ca 582-500 BC) and with the Pythagorean school of philosophy (flourished ca. 530 BC). According to Christine Garwood, in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea (pp. 19-20), 'Pythagoras, or the Pythagoreans, are generally credited with being the first to argue that the earth is a globe'. Unfortunately the details of this intellectual development are obscure, although 'It has been suggested that Pythagoras learned the basic of his astronomy and mathematics from his travels "in the East"'. 'All that can be said is that the Pythagoreans believed that the earth was a globe floating freely in space because the sphere was the perfect shape.'

The point is that the Biblical Deutero-Isaiah and the pagan Pythagoras were contemporaries, and that therefore 'the then-prevalent pagan concepts of Earth' included the hypothesis that 'the earth was a globe floating freely in space'; Deutero-Isaiah did not need divine revelation to believe in and write about 'the circle of the earth'.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

I understand, Isaiah clearly wrote in the 8th century BC, and it is modern scholars that ascribe a later date, without any forensic evidence that I'm aware of. Indeed, to move Deutero-Isaiah to later, you have to say that rather than an inspired prophet, Deutero-Isaiah is a fraud who is writing prophecies in hindsight (and false prophets were to be put to death per Moses, and their works destroyed, including their documents).

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

It's like talking to a wall, for example, what is the Hebrew word for "oblate spheroid"?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Part of the "forensic evidence" is the change in writing styles that indicate more than one author. And "fraud" is too strong of a term. It appears that was a common literary tool. The "fraud" is caused by those trying to read a book too literally.

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

Yes it is when you avoid the point in people's posts as well as avoiding answering questions posed to you, at every turn.

Maybe God should have invented a word for it.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

I'm aware of the text-derived bases for Markan priority, Q theory, JEDP theory, Deutero-Isaiah, etc. and some of them are pretty flimsy.

There is no "fraud" or even self-deception involved in seeing 1/3 of the OT is prophecy of future events, making later datings for the writings indicators of fraud. HOWEVER, for one of countless examples we can share, clearly it was forbidden to make idols of Yahweh prior to the very latest dating for the Decalogue. The command to not make graven images is incredibly ancient!

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Sure there is fraud when it is rather clear that most of the so called prophecies of sone Christians are merely quote mines, reinterpretation after the event and other errors. You are trying to claim prophecy when none exists. Then when a verse is shown not to be a prophecy you use a black and white error.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Ah, but I just ANSWERED your question, "Why didn't God call it an oblate spheroid?"

Answer: There was no Hebrew word for it, but (as said in the post prior) the Hebrew word is the same for a child's toy, a sphere/ball and not a disc/circle.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Huh? 1/3 of the OT is prophecy, much of it demonstrably true, showing either prescience (pre-recording) or fraud (post-event recording). Liberal scholars are biased to show later dates, and I can think of examples where the evidence shows early dates, or admit the Bible is prescient.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Huh? 1/3 of the OT is prophecy, much of it demonstrably true, showing either prescience (pre-recording) or fraud (post-event recording). Liberal scholars are biased to show later dates, and I can think of examples where the evidence shows early dates, or admit the Bible is prescient.

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

So you answered the question that didn't actually require an answer. Though I already pointed out that the all-knowing creator of the universe could have just created a new word for "sphere" instead of letting everybody continue using the word for "circle." But whatever. Who needs accuracy, right?

I also asked you who are these "experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat?"

I also made a point about the accuracy of the Bible which you ignored. I suggested that the Bible should be the "most accurate" if it were dictated by a God, rather than the "more accurate" than what some other ignorant people thought at the time position you've taken. If God had any hand in writing the Bible, it should all be the "most accurate" it could be. You've helped point out that it isn't the "most accurate." So I wonder why we should bother even paying attention to its claims in the first place, especially when it comes to scientific matters.

Click to expand...

Audie said:

The "accurate" thing re the bible is worth some thought.

If it is not 100% (see "30 cubits" say) then how much error
is allowed within "inerrant" or "god inspired"?

is 50% or 17% enough?

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

So you answered the question that didn't actually require an answer. Though I already pointed out that the all-knowing creator of the universe could have just created a new word for "sphere" instead of letting everybody continue using the word for "circle." But whatever. Who needs accuracy, right?

I also asked you who are these "experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat?"

I also made a point about the accuracy of the Bible which you ignored. I suggested that the Bible should be the "most accurate" if it were dictated by a God, rather than the "more accurate" than what some other ignorant people thought at the time position you've taken. If God had any hand in writing the Bible, it should all be the "most accurate" it could be. You've helped point out that it isn't the "most accurate." So I wonder why we should bother even paying attention to its claims in the first place, especially when it comes to scientific matters.

Click to expand...

SkepticThinker said:

You really think there's prescience involved in people describing the earth as a "circle" (which it isn't)? Which you yourself described as "more accurate" rather than "most accurate?" Doesn't prescience require actually getting it right?

Click to expand...