Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!

[blü 2]

Your definition of truth involves assuming that a flat Earth is implied. It isn't. Not once.

So you have no idea why the ancients would have a concept of modern cosmology, right? It's just some baseless notion that rattles around in your head?

And yet you have before you thirty examples of their world-view, which incidentally coincides with a fairly general view at that time, as you can check for yourself.

As for a flat earth (to take just two simple examples) both Daniel 4:8 and Matthew 4:10 speak of a height (tree, mountain) from which you can see all parts of the world. The earth can't get much flatter than that.

 

[DavidFirth]

So you have no idea why the ancients would have a concept of modern cosmology, right? It's just some baseless notion that rattles around in your head?

And yet you have before you thirty examples of their world-view, which incidentally coincides with a fairly general view at that time, as you can check for yourself.

As for a flat earth (to take just two simple examples) both Daniel 4:8 and Matthew 4:10 speak of a height (tree, mountain) from which you can see all parts of the world. The earth can't get much flatter than that.

Again, you see something that isn't there. Kind of like abiogenesis, macro-evolution and the Big Bang. You're real good at it.

 

[leibowde84]

Circle is not equal to flat Earth. A spheroid has an infinite amount of rough circles going around it. When you look at the Earth you see a "circle." Not once does the Bible refer to a flat circle. Not once.

All circles are flat. There are no circles that are not flat. And, he said above the circle.

 

[blü 2]

Again, you see something that isn't there. Kind of like abiogenesis, macro-evolution and the Big Bang. You're real good at it.

And still you can't answer the very simple question ─ why would you expect the writers of the bible to write about 21st century cosmology when all they knew was the cosmology of their respective ancient times and places?

On top of that, if the bible correctly states cosmology in the 21st century, then it incorrectly stated cosmology in every preceding century and it will state it incorrectly again in the future. Since it's going to be wrong nearly all the time, why not simply face up to the facts, and give away the let's-pretend games?

 

[ChristineM]

The Bible is absolutely 100% correct. If only scientists could do that...

So Pi = 3, and insects have 4 legs, snakes can talk, the moon emits light, earth formed before the sun

Fair enough

 

[DavidFirth]

All circles are flat. There are no circles that are not flat. And, he said above the circle.

Circles also go around spheres and exist in 3 dimensions.

 

[DavidFirth]

And still you can't answer the very simple question ─ why would you expect the writers of the bible to write about 21st century cosmology when all they knew was the cosmology of their respective ancient times and places?

On top of that, if the bible correctly states cosmology in the 21st century, then it incorrectly stated cosmology in every preceding century and it will state it incorrectly again in the future. Since it's going to be wrong nearly all the time, why not simply face up to the facts, and give away the let's-pretend games?

It's not wrong. You assume it is.

 

[DavidFirth]

So Pi = 3, and insects have 4 legs, snakes can talk, the moon emits light, earth formed before the sun

Fair enough

And you like to interpret things wrong. Fair enough.

 

[leibowde84]

Circles also go around spheres and exist in 3 dimensions.

Yeah, but it says that the earth is a circle, not that you could draw a circle around the earth. And, you are wrong. Circles are always 2 dimensional.

 

[ChristineM]

And you like to interpret things wrong. Fair enough.

No interpretation needed, just read the words.

 

[blü 2]

It's not wrong. You assume it is.

Not just assume ─ I gave you thirty nice clear demonstrations.

And yet again ─ that's to say, for the fourth time ─ you dodge the questions.

WHY would you expect Bronze Age authors to have a grasp of 21st century cosmology?

WHY would they not write of the cosmology they knew (which is exactly what they did, as I showed you).

WHY would you choose the cosmology of 2017 as the ultimate correct cosmology? As I said, if you're right then the bible has been wrong in every other century and very likely will be wrong again before the end of this one.

Answer those questions one by one, clearly and without prevarication, and we can at least discuss the matter.

Or don't you know the answers?

 

[DavidFirth]

Yeah, but it says that the earth is a circle, not that you could draw a circle around the earth. And, you are wrong. Circles are always 2 dimensional.

It doesn't imply the Earth is flat. Face it.

 

[DavidFirth]

No interpretation needed, just read the words.

I did read the words, several times. I never got the impression that he was talking about a flat Earth. Only the truly ignorant or biased would think that.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not just assume ─ I gave you thirty nice clear demonstrations.

And yet again ─ that's to say, for the fourth time ─ you dodge the questions.

WHY would you expect Bronze Age authors to have a grasp of 21st century cosmology?

WHY would they not write of the cosmology they knew (which is exactly what they did, as I showed you).

WHY would you choose the cosmology of 2017 as the ultimate correct cosmology? As I said, if you're right then the bible has been wrong in every other century and very likely will be wrong again before the end of this one.

Answer those questions one by one, clearly and without prevarication, and we can at least discuss the matter.

Or don't you know the answers?

There is nothing to discuss. It is because of your own personal bias that you feel this way about those 30 examples, it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[ChristineM]

I did read the words, several times. I never got the impression that he was talking about a flat Earth. Only the truly ignorant or biased would think that.

On pillars, a circle, corners

So you are the one interpreting... Ok

What about Pi, the talking snake etc.

The only way such glaring errors can be excused is with apologetics, which seems to be big business

 

[blü 2]

There is nothing to discuss. It is because of your own personal bias that you feel this way about those 30 examples, it has nothing to do with reality.

There's nothing to discuss because you can't answer even the simplest questions about your own view.

That should be of far more serious concern to you than anything I say.

 

[DavidFirth]

On pillars, a circle, corners

So you are the one interpreting... Ok

What about Pi, the talking snake etc.

The only way such glaring errors can be excused is with apologetics, which seems to be big business

The talking snake is no biggie. There is also a talking donkey.

What are you referring to about pi?

 

[DavidFirth]

There's nothing to discuss because you can't answer even the simplest questions about your own view.

That should be of far more serious concern to you than anything I say.

I have no concerns at all, you're the one asking the questions, not me.

 

[ChristineM]

The talking snake is no biggie. There is also a talking donkey.

What are you referring to about pi?

If you want to accept that talking snakes (and donkeys) is not a biggie then yes, your interpretation.

Kings 7:23

 

[DavidFirth]

If you want to accept that talking snakes (and donkeys) is not a biggie then yes, your interpretation.

Kings 7:23

23He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

It doesn't say how many cubits were around it, but that it took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. The conclusion is that it was less than thirty cubits.