Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Bible Proves Science

In Isaiah 40:22, it says, "It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the earth..." This shows that the Bible points to a circular, spherical earth. The word in Hebrew translated "circle" is "hug" which means circle or horizon, and since the Hebrews didn't have a word for sphere, they used that one. Now the word hug can mean to embrace, going around the person.
It was because Christopher Columbus was reading Isaiah 40 that he found that allusion that the eatth was round and he wanted to find out if it was right. Then, the world was living under the Ptolemy geocentric model under the name of science.

I think you are mistaken Tim.

Long before Christ or Columbus Earth people knew the Earth was a sphere.

http://www.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html

jjw

Tim,

I realize that all of people on this forum are a little rude to you. I hope you don't take this as an assault on your faith or belief in God. But the bible does not prove science, in fact it can't prove science. Science is not something that can be proven the same way that I cannot prove poetry. It just something that some people choose to do. It's no surprise the poetry found its way into the bible, and its no surprise that there may some kind of science in the bible. That doesn't mean that the bible is the source of all poetry or the source of all science

One can prove anything from the Bible if you want to; even that God is the same as Satan. It is NOT "THE WORD" of God. I am sure that God will have more sensible things to say in "His Word". It is mostly a narrative of how people have experienced what they have called "God". In addition, the historical context is questionable because it is not based on all the available information.

"Then, the world was living under the Ptolemy geocentric model under the name of science."

False. Eratosthenes knew the world was round and estimated its circumference. Most intellectuals of the period also knew the world was round.

OTOH, MANY religious people not trained in science believed the world was flat from having read another passage in the Wholly Babble. In fact, they were the ones who insisted on making maps represent a flat Earth among other things - look it up. Read a book called "The Discoverers," by Daniel Boorstin.

You don't have to make unsupported assertions. You can actualy do homework.

Wow, TFF:

"the Wholly Babble". May I quote that?
jjw

I didn't make it up and I only say it when I'm irritated, but knock yourself out. I actually have an immense respect for religion and for the Bible that isn't reflected in my posts here.

How can you respect something that is not true and has been the cause of countless human misery?

If put it into the same category as Communism and Fascism. Just another "ism" used to rally people to act in a manner that gives allegiance to those unworthy of being followed.

If there is an upside in teaching children to believe what isn't true I've yet to see it demonstrated.

I think that there are stupid or bad people who hold many different belief systems. Also, some systems are inherently flawed in that they actually promote - intentionally or not - abuses. Religion clearly has the capacity to promote evil action. But it hasn't been ALL bad. And in my view religion at its best is still useful, not just to its leaders, but to its average practictioners.

I think I recall your saying that you had children. Were any born in a hospital? You recall in the ward seeing these little babies all lined up with little sockies on their hands? The reason they have the sockies is because 1) their nails are a little sharp and 2) they have no control of their arms yet and continually stab themselves in the eyes. ("Ow! What the heck! Who's doing that? ow! cut it out, dammit!")

To me religion can be something like that sockie. I think there are people in this world who are born screwed or at least at some serious disadvantage - retarded, blind, deformed - but that most suffering in the west and probably a fair amount elsewhere is self-inflicted. There are people who are essentially like children, who don't understand how to control themselves or how to effect their environment in a way conducive to their own well-being. Religion, for these people, is very like the sockie. It's something that keeps them from harming themselves until they can figure things out.

There is another reason I have respect and even fondness for religion (at least the idea, if not always the practice) - the sense that it is part of our heritage, like it or not.

I think teachers often teach things pedagogically that aren't exactly true - to help acclimatize children so they will more easily grasp the full import of the ideas. An simple example is math teachers teaching about a universal set when it has been known for decades that there is no such thing as a universal set.

Well (its a streach but) children do need to learn things simply because they are told to do it when they are too young to understand the reason. Children are told not to play with matches "because I (usually mom) said so". for most of the last 2000 years, man has acted rather child like. So theorictically, having the bible around to tell people not to do things "because I (god) said so" was a good thing. Now man is more like older children and we are learning why "lighting matches in a forest (or house or other flameable place) is not a good thing". Perhaps in a few more thousand years well understand the laws of nature and thing better.

I respect your opinion on this IFF as it is obviously well thought out. My only disagreement is that I see the 'good' done by religion as being outweighed by the 'bad' and that often the charitable work it does is just undoing its own past wrongs.

If one took all the money used to run the Vatican, not to pick on the Roman Catholics alone, it would easily fund training programs capable of making very large number of people self-sufficient. And the damage they do by not endorsing birth control ... their charitable work doesn't even come close to alleviating the misery they cause.

dehammer wrote:
"So theorictically, having the bible around to tell people not to do things "because I (god) said so) was a good thing."

I would agree with you except that history says it just ain't so. Take for example a contemporary issue as it is rather poignant.

We have so-called pro-lifers running the US. People who openly advertise they believe in the sanctity of life due to biblical teachings. And yet these are the very same people that support the death penalty, support dropping cluster bombs on people, and stood in the way of ending a war just in the past few weeks? Do you see their religion as a break on anything they are doing? Even when I agree with them, which I do on some of these issues, it doesn't prevent me from seeing them as flaming hypocrites.

actually i was refering to most of the last 2000 years, not recent times. There comes a time in childrens life when they are suppose to start leaning to take responsiblity for their actions, which is (IMHO) the point where are race is now. Unfortuantely, not every child can learn to do so at the same time of their life. Many are still trying to do what daddy told them, even when its not exactly what daddy told them. Others are figuring out why daddy told them to do things and are basing their decisions on these. some of them are actually right.

then there are those of us who are listening to mommy ;-)

Why are you so opposed to Christianity? If it is false, then once you die, nothing will happen. You will be right although since you're nothing, you won't be able to even know you're right. But if Christianity is true, then 1) you're a sinner that needs the grace of God 2) you're going to go to hell and 3) The only way to go into heaven is to follow Christ. It seems to me that either way Christianity wins.

actually, i believe that i will know, even though i dont go to the christians heaven. you see, thats the problem. i and many others dont believe that we should have to accept someone elses view of heaven. To be quite honest, the christian view of heaven, mainly that people stand around for eternaty praising god and nothing else, is to me a form of hell. God supposedly is about free will. where is the free will in doing nothing but praising god.

personally, i believe that i will be in a form of heaven, a place of rest, and then will return to earth in another life. The time spent there would be spent in learning what i had done wrong in this life and planning on what to do in the next life to learn what i have yet to learn. then i would have a lot more time to enjoy heaven.

Pascal's wager is based on faulty logic. If christianity is wrong, then god might punish you for believing in it. I hold open the notion that some sort of god may exist. I doubt there is a god - it seems silly to me. But some sort may exist, I suppose.

However, I can no sooner believe that christianity is correct than I can believe that unicorns prance on the moon.

I too am willing to accept some form of god. Just not one that is sentient, and ill-mannered, and full of blood lust and vengence.

I believe the lord and lady are both sentient but no where near ill-mannered like the Christian god is. nor are they full of blood lust and vengence. Instead i believe they teach forgiveness and acceptance.

The biggest logical problem the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of god has when confronting reality is that an entity that is omniscient (all knowing) is logically incapable of changing its mind.

Changing ones mind is for those of us that are capable of learning new information ... things we didn't already know.

Read Judaic, Christian, or Islamic texts and you will find that god, as they define the term, is hopelessly incapable of knowing what will happen even a microsecond into the future.

Simple example ... god punishing Adam and Eve for that little thing with the apple. If you knew what they were going to do before they did it then the entire situation was a set-up. If you didn't know than you are not, by definition, omniscient.

And please don't throw back the tired nonsense about free-will. We may have free will meaning we don't know what is going to happen in the future. But to claim that OUR free will blinds god to the future is to paint god into the corner as close to powerless.

Tim, re your original contention:
You recite:
"In Isaiah 40:22, it says, "It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the earth..." This shows that the Bible points to a circular, spherical earth."

Your interpretation is unfounded. The Earth could be completely flat and still be a circle. A circle is not a sphere either by discription, lack of having volumn or not providing a curved surface. Consider that you may be re-writing the Bible to your own specifications, inproperly.
jjw