Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is actually being said in those verses is what the ancient Hebrews believed, namely that the earth is flat and rests on pillars. The Bible reflects the ancient cosmology of the ancient Near East.
This was a big one for me. I was in the same group and they use that verse to show the Bible gave information not available to humans at the time so it must have been divine. As it turns out the word used means circle and not a sphere. The ancients could see the moon and drawn the conclusion very easily. The moon looks like a circle from the earth. No divine information was given, at least not in those verses.
This was a big one for me. I was in the same group and they use that verse to show the Bible gave information not available to humans at the time so it must have been divine. As it turns out the word used means circle and not a sphere. The ancients could see the moon and drawn the conclusion very easily. The moon looks like a circle from the earth. No divine information was given, at least not in those verses.
Yes. Being a pre-scientific culture the ancient Near East peoples, including the Hebrews, had no reason not to believe what their own eyes showed them and appeared to be the case.
Yes. Being a pre-scientific culture the ancient Near East peoples, including the Hebrews, had no reason not to believe what their own eyes showed them and appeared to be the case.
54 won't understand what you are trying to tell him. For some odd reason, the Watchtower chose to use this verse and some sort of lynchpin.
The problem with this sweeping claim is that the Bible itself never says that, nor does it tell you how to believe which books belong in the Bible, and which don't. If the Bible is God's accurate Truth standard, what is the accurate, reliable, unchanging standard for determining what constitutes the Bible? To give you an example of what I am talking about, is the Book of Esther part of the Bible? How do you know for sure, if the Bible itself never says so?
This is almost the "What is truth?" question. As referenced in my #27 post, there is an enormous amount of verifiable, empirical evidence to support almost every book of the Bible. This is not simply a broad, unsupported claim, but, verifiable proof! As you pointed out, one exception is the lack of archaeological evidence for the book of Esther.
In terms of an accurate, reliable truth standard, the Bible has proven to be incontrovertibly true. Even in numerous cases where generations have challenged Biblical accuracy ('because no proof had been found'), subsequent generations have uncovered proof that it was true (for example, the ancient Hittites).
Simple opinions, polls, 'blanket statements' and other measurements of "declared truth" have never proven consistently accurate or reliable - The Bible has! Even challenges have been largely overturned by passing history. For example, some want to challenge that "the Bible has been changed over the years" (generally in the context of translation differences). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered in 1947 and subsequently heavily researched, have shown that actual changes over a 1000+-year period, were comprised of margin notes or incidental changes. The fact that Scriptures were copied over and over, actually serves to validate later copies/translations, with an unprecedented wealth of prior reference material.
No, it isnt. It is a question about how to determine the canon of the Bible.
Quote:
As referenced in my #27 post, there is an enormous amount of verifiable, empirical evidence to support almost every book of the Bible. This is not simply a broad, unsupported claim, but, verifiable proof! As you pointed out, one exception is the lack of archaeological evidence for the book of Esther.
You are missing the point entirely. "Empirical evidence" is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not something is inspired scripture. There is a great deal of "empirical evidence" to support the accuracy of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, but so what? The fact that they are supported by empirical evidence doesn't make that book inspired scripture, does it?
Quote:
In terms of an accurate, reliable truth standard, the Bible has proven to be incontrovertibly true.
No, it hasn't. You are also talking out of both sides of your mouth, because just above you yourself said that there is no historical evidence for Esther. Nevertheless, that isn't what I asked you. The questions that you keep dodging so dishonestly have nothing to do with archaeology, but instead have to do with how you know whether or not a book belongs in the Bible. Here are my questions again -- and I wish you would answer them, and not dance around throwing dust in the air:
If the Bible is God's accurate Truth standard, what is the accurate, reliable, unchanging standard for determining what constitutes the Bible?
Is the Book of Esther part of the Bible? How do you know for sure, if the Bible itself never says so?
religions began with shamanic visions and that i show spiritual information was transferred onto material world. Adam becoming material was rendered spiritually dead. Spiritual Adepts were left on Earth,
18"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19And he blessed him and said,"
54 won't understand what you are trying to tell him. For some odd reason, the Watchtower chose to use this verse and some sort of lynchpin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
I know. Neither will most of the evangelical fundamentalists understand, or at least won't be willing to accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
I had people try and explain it to me and I just couldn't get it. I was even trying. Finally, someone used the example of the moon and it clicked.
Yep, I believe that there are some things that don’t and won’t click until other things fall in place, our beliefs are formed in various ways and they depend on innate ability, indoctrination, and our willingness or unwillingness to explore..... not everyone is cut out/called to be an explorer
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
