Let me see if I've got this right....

[brandx1138]

Is this how it all went down:

A. God, in his perfect wisdom, made a perfect plan for a perfect universe.
Part of that plan was to create humans in his likeness and a paradise for these humans to live in and worship Him. Unfortunately (for everyone involved), a talking serpent that He created ruins that plan and so He decides to cast out the humans and create a new plan...

B. Plan B, where humans suffer and toil and die, but are still commanded to worship Him.

C. Then that plan goes wrong, so He floods the Earth except for one family and a bunch of animals (Plan C).

D. Then that plan goes wrong, so He divides them all up by different languages (Plan D).

E. Then that plan goes wrong, so He picks one tribe and tells them to go around and murder anyone who gets in their way en route to their divinely designated plot of land (Plan E).

F. Then that plan goes wrong, so He has to come down to Earth to do it all by Himself in human form so that he can bring a "new message" to these stupid humans who just can't seem to grasp his "clearly laid out plan", and then he sacrifices Himself to Himself as a loophole for a rule he made (Plan F).

And if you don't believe all this to be true, you get to spend eternity being tortured, even if you never got to hear this story (Plan FU).

[Goat]

If it is a flat circle, the word "chuwg" is used (isaiah 40:22).. for a sphere , or ball, the word "Kaduwr" is used .. (see Isaiah 22:18).

"Duwr" is the preferred spelling for Isaiah 18:22.

Strong's 1754: duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:

Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round (duwr) about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape. (Tektonics)

In addition, the vantage point of Isaiah 40:22 is God looking down upon the earth, so stating it looks like a circle or circular is hardly saying it is not spherical.

Finally, your argument that Isaiah 40:22 means "FLAT" disc was your addition. "Flat" is not found as part of the context of "circle" in that passage, or in Strong's definition.

No.. it isn't.

I know you LOVE to play word games to make change the meanings of words. You do that with ball, circle, virgin. However, your arguments have no foundation, and are merely trying to make excuses. I mean, why else would you find refuge in the arguments of J.P. Holding?

Nice dodge, but you didn't offer up anything that refutes what I presented.

When you come up with something that deals with the word CHuwg, and shows that is a 'ball' , not a flat disc, then I will worry about it. However, you're attempts to distract are irrelavent. You build a strawman, and then attack it .. but it is meaningless.

[brandx1138]

Finally, your argument that Isaiah 40:22 means "FLAT" disc was your addition. "Flat" is not found as part of the context of "circle" in that passage, or in Strong's definition.

You still haven't responded to the link I sent you: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

The book of Enoch apparently describes the Earth and the "heavens" quite well. So well in fact that you can even create a picture of it, see:

[Easyrider]

Finally, your argument that Isaiah 40:22 means "FLAT" disc was your addition. "Flat" is not found as part of the context of "circle" in that passage, or in Strong's definition.

You still haven't responded to the link I sent you: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Sure I did. See the alternative link I provided in my previous post.

[brandx1138]

Finally, your argument that Isaiah 40:22 means "FLAT" disc was your addition. "Flat" is not found as part of the context of "circle" in that passage, or in Strong's definition.

You still haven't responded to the link I sent you: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Sure I did. See the alternative link I provided in my previous post.

Yes and goat has been responding to the Isaiah quote well enough. In fact all those quotes are quite ridiculous -- the epitome of Christian reinterpretation to fit modern knowledge. "Light travels in a path, but darkness does not"??? EVERYTHING travels in a path, that's nothing new. Darkness is not a thing -- it is the absence of a thing (light), so of course it has no "path". That's wisdom? The passage about the sun's orbit is not talking about an orbit, it's clearly talking about the sun moving across the sky. I refer you to:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”



But you haven't responded to 1 Enoch:

"The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:

'There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10].'

First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:

'It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: "I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15)."'

The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.

First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books."

[Easyrider]

Finally, your argument that Isaiah 40:22 means "FLAT" disc was your addition. "Flat" is not found as part of the context of "circle" in that passage, or in Strong's definition.

You still haven't responded to the link I sent you: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Sure I did. See the alternative link I provided in my previous post.

Yes and goat has been responding to the Isaiah quote well enough. In fact all those quotes are quite ridiculous -- the epitome of Christian reinterpretation to fit modern knowledge. "Light travels in a path, but darkness does not"??? EVERYTHING travels in a path, that's nothing new. Darkness is not a thing -- it is the absence of a thing (light), so of course it has no "path". That's wisdom? The passage about the sun's orbit is not talking about an orbit, it's clearly talking about the sun moving across the sky. I refer you to:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”



But you haven't responded to 1 Enoch:

"The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:

'There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10].'

First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:

'It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: "I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15)."'

The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.

First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books."

The problem with 1 Enoch is that it is considered a pseudepigrapha work. Neither Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from it. The alleged quote in Jude is disputed. Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or was Jude given information from the Holy Spirit regarding what Enoch said? Further, various scholars say it is a compilation of various Hebrew writings that were assembled over time. In addition, NT works had to be considered inspired by God, and while a few early church fathers thought Enoch was worthy, the majority didn't, which was why it was excluded from the NT Canon. It was also not considered inspired by the majority of the Jewish rabbis for inclusion into the Tanakh. Strike two. The Book of Enoch didn't appear on the scene until somewhere around 200-150 BC, and there is no mention of a "Book of Enoch" in the OT. It's late date of appearance makes it highly suspect that it was even composed by Enoch, who lived many centuries previous. Strike three. Finally, although a selected verse or three may be considered inspired by some, the complete work has to be judged, and it didn't make the cut.

[brandx1138]

The problem with 1 Enoch is that it is considered a pseudepigrapha work. Neither Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from it. The alleged quote in Jude is disputed. Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or was Jude given information from the Holy Spirit regarding what Enoch said?

Did you really just make an argument claiming that hearing voices trumps quoting scripture? Why do you constantly go with whatever is least likely to be true when it supports your beliefs? You are biased toward your religion. You will never give it up no matter how many facts and pieces of evidence are thrown at you because you are afraid to be naked in the dark (as you might see it) without your "God". It reminds me of Dumbo's feather. He, too, believed in magic -- the magical feather -- which he thought was the source of his flying ability, when all along it was really him doing the flying...no magic necessary. You don't need God. You just think you do.

Further, various scholars say it is a compilation of various Hebrew writings that were assembled over time. In addition, NT works had to be considered inspired by God, and while a few early church fathers thought Enoch was worthy, the majority didn't, which was why it was excluded from the NT Canon.

Which is precisely the problem with the Bible. It is a fabricated collation by the version of Christianity that won the "orthodoxy" wars. That's the "majority" you're talking about, but it's nothing of the sort. There were more so-called "heretical" Christians than there were those that eventually called themselves catholic, but for the multitude of reasons that led to their victory, none of them were because they had the truth "from God's lips to their ears." Do you know the reason we have four gospels instead of the dozens that were floating around? Because Iranaeus, the real founder of the Canon, was explicit in the matter: there are four corners of the earth, four universal winds, and animals have four legs! Yeah and so do chairs. And roller skates have four wheels. These councils that decided the Canon were already biased in what they thought was the "true" scripture, but they had nothing to gauge it by other than their already dogmatic views based more on "gut feelings" than reason, but that's religion for you. And it still took them several centuries to completely come up with the Canon we have today. Our oldest manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus differ in the books they hold to be "divinely inspired" than the Bible of today. Not only that, but the "Holy" Bible differs even today between Catholics, Protestants and Greek Orthodoxy. Which one is right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c ... ian_canons

So what makes Enoch any less "inspired" by God than what is printed in the Bible(s) we have today? All but a handful of the books are anonymous or pseudonymous.

It was also not considered inspired by the majority of the Jewish rabbis for inclusion into the Tanakh. Strike two. The Book of Enoch didn't appear on the scene until somewhere around 200-150 BC, and there is no mention of a "Book of Enoch" in the OT. It's late date of appearance makes it highly suspect that it was even composed by Enoch, who lived many centuries previous. Strike three. Finally, although a selected verse or three may be considered inspired by some, the complete work has to be judged, and it didn't make the cut.

Well, I'm not doubting its psuedonymous Title. All I'm saying is it is evidence for what people thought at that time period. Even Saint Augustine (354-430) is quoted as saying:
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled."

In his "Homilies Concerning the Statutes" St. John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea of a flat earth, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c.293–373) expressed similar views in "Against the Heathen." Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote: "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall". The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his "Topographia Christiana", where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans.

All I'm saying is that if these were the notions in the third, fourth and fifth centuries by Christians or Jews, then how can you possibly say that the author of Isaiah was smarter in his time? Because some ghost told him so? Your claims are ridiculous and your evidence is weak. Stop trying to force the round peg of ancient text into the square peg of modern knowledge -- knowledge gained by the tools of science, reason, reality-based testing, and constant peer-review, NOT faith in the unseen and revelation by the unheard.

[Easyrider]

The problem with 1 Enoch is that it is considered a pseudepigrapha work. Neither Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from it. The alleged quote in Jude is disputed. Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or was Jude given information from the Holy Spirit regarding what Enoch said?

Did you really just make an argument claiming that hearing voices trumps quoting scripture? Why do you constantly go with whatever is least likely to be true when it supports your beliefs? You are biased toward your religion. You will never give it up no matter how many facts and pieces of evidence are thrown at you because you are afraid to be naked in the dark (as you might see it) without your "God". It reminds me of Dumbo's feather. He, too, believed in magic -- the magical feather -- which he thought was the source of his flying ability, when all along it was really him doing the flying...no magic necessary. You don't need God. You just think you do.

Get down on your knees and pray to Christ and you won't be buying into this kind of folly anymore. You'll get a new revelation.

Further, various scholars say it is a compilation of various Hebrew writings that were assembled over time. In addition, NT works had to be considered inspired by God, and while a few early church fathers thought Enoch was worthy, the majority didn't, which was why it was excluded from the NT Canon.

Which is precisely the problem with the Bible. It is a fabricated collation by the version of Christianity that won the "orthodoxy" wars.

No foundation for the "fabricated" claim.

That's the "majority" you're talking about, but it's nothing of the sort. There were more so-called "heretical" Christians than there were those that eventually called themselves catholic, but for the multitude of reasons that led to their victory, none of them were because they had the truth "from God's lips to their ears." Do you know the reason we have four gospels instead of the dozens that were floating around? Because Iranaeus, the real founder of the Canon, was explicit in the matter: there are four corners of the earth, four universal winds, and animals have four legs! Yeah and so do chairs. And roller skates have four wheels. These councils that decided the Canon were already biased in what they thought was the "true" scripture, but they had nothing to gauge it by other than their already dogmatic views based more on "gut feelings" than reason, but that's religion for you.

Nuts. What's foreign to you is that men inspired by God discerned the authenticity of the relevant works. Since you deal with rationalism only, you have no clue about this sort of thing.

And it still took them several centuries to completely come up with the Canon we have today. Our oldest manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus differ in the books they hold to be "divinely inspired" than the Bible of today. Not only that, but the "Holy" Bible differs even today between Catholics, Protestants and Greek Orthodoxy.

Dead Sea Scrolls - Isaiah 53

The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD. (Scholars have discovered a handful of spelling and tense-oriented scribal errors, but nothing of significance.)

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead ... olls-2.htm

A little chink in your armor there....

It was also not considered inspired by the majority of the Jewish rabbis for inclusion into the Tanakh. Strike two. The Book of Enoch didn't appear on the scene until somewhere around 200-150 BC, and there is no mention of a "Book of Enoch" in the OT. It's late date of appearance makes it highly suspect that it was even composed by Enoch, who lived many centuries previous. Strike three. Finally, although a selected verse or three may be considered inspired by some, the complete work has to be judged, and it didn't make the cut.

Well, I'm not doubting its psuedonymous Title.

So we're not talking about 1 Enoch anymore, just a forgery. And you wonder why it's not in the Jewish Tanakh or NT? Now you know one of the main reasons.

Your claims are ridiculous and your evidence is weak. Stop trying to force the round peg of ancient text into the square peg of modern knowledge -- knowledge gained by the tools of science, reason, reality-based testing, and constant peer-review, NOT faith in the unseen and revelation by the unheard.

Once again you seem to think that science and rationalism has proven God and the supernatural do not exist. That's bull and you know it. For dozens of centuries untold millions (or hundreds of millions) of people have witnessed about the reality of God and their own personal experiences and revelations from him, and you're still trying to find him in some science book? LOL! How will they ever learn?

[brandx1138]

Get down on your knees and pray to Christ and you won't be buying into this kind of folly anymore. You'll get a new revelation.

I will get on my knees for no one. If you want to submit and prostrate yourself before something, go right ahead. If you are ashamed of yourself or want to debase yourself in front of that which you fear, that's your business. I will do no such thing. You, my friend, are the one who is mentally enslaved, not I.

Once again you seem to think that science and rationalism has proven God and the supernatural do not exist. That's bull and you know it. For dozens of centuries untold millions (or hundreds of millions) of people have witnessed about the reality of God and their own personal experiences and revelations from him, and you're still trying to find him in some science book? LOL! How will they ever learn?

It is precisely this reason why I'm going to stop debating with you. I keep telling you that there is no possible way to prove the NON-existence of anything. You're building up a straw man here. I'm simply saying that reason (not just science, which uses reason) is what I am using to judge the claims you are making. You and your believing friends are claiming that there is a God and that you have proof. I'm simply asking you to provide such proof. When the evidence I have been shown is unreasonable, unfounded and mistaken, I will point it out. Your continued retort of "You can't prove God doesn't exist" is all that you have to fall back on each and every time, which shows me that you really don't have a case here. All you can do is say "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!" Well, I'm done with that. This dialogue can serve no purpose any longer. Good-bye.

[Easyrider]

Get down on your knees and pray to Christ and you won't be buying into this kind of folly anymore. You'll get a new revelation.

I will get on my knees for no one. If you want to submit and prostrate yourself before something, go right ahead. If you are ashamed of yourself or want to debase yourself in front of that which you fear, that's your business. I will do no such thing. You, my friend, are the one who is mentally enslaved, not I.

Such pridefulness! Oh, you are enslaved - to the powers of deception and darkness, but you just haven't realized it yet.

It is precisely this reason why I'm going to stop debating with you.

Promises, promises... But you keep coming back!

I keep telling you that there is no possible way to prove the NON-existence of anything. You're building up a straw man here.

You won't find God in a test tube. Quit thinking rationalism has all the answers and you'll start to make some progress.

I'm simply asking you to provide such proof (for God).

I told you how to get it, and you continue to deny that venue. It's quite the paradox, isn't it? You want evidence but you're unwilling to take the very steps that will show it to you.

This dialogue can serve no purpose any longer. Good-bye.

Watch out for that first step into eternity. The evidence you've wanted will be right there holding court for you. The Bible says you will then kneel and confess Christ is Lord. So, you can kneel now or kneel later (when it's too late). But you will kneel down to the great King of Kings.

[Fallibleone]

Once again, personal opinion is presented as fact. Fortunately, the vehemance with which an opinion is voiced has no direct correlation with the veracity of the opinion. The inability to admit to oneself and others that the personal opinion is just that and no more can be quite depressing to see.