|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 08:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, the people who wrote the bible lived in a small area of the planet and were rather isolated in terms of how far they could travel. They could see the horizon but had no way to calculate how far they actually could go in any one direction. Based on the evidence they had, a flat earth was a reasonable conclusion at the time.
Unless you want to suggest that these writers had the tools to correctly asses a less intuitive proposition by some means, or suggest that they were more than scribes recounting even more ancient tales then the ones they were writing down, or that they were truly divinely inspired, it seems reasonable that they would conclude a flat earth. It seemed reasonable to conclude that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and all the stars revolved around it.
They only had a limited knowledge of the planet to work with.
There are now people much more knowledgeable in the area of biblical research then you are, able to read the text's in their original language, that you dismiss. Why would you do that?
You know what you remind me of? There was a comedian when I was growing up called Professor Erwin Corry, the world's foremost authority. He was an authority on everything. But of course, that was the joke…
If you want to only be contrary, you have succeeded. But a bone headed argument is still a bone headed argument. Why should you be taken seriously when it appears that you are quite willing, for the sake of an argument, to simply blow it out your ass? It takes no intelligence to do that. All you have to do is to keep grasping at straws and turn them into arguments. Anyone can do it. But there is no substance to that kind of argumentation. Blather on if you must but since you asked, that is the reason I stopped responding to your stuff. I have better things to do with my time…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2007 : 09:23:35 [Permalink]
|
If the bible writers believed in a disc shaped earth (as they apparently did) then it doesn't seem farfetched to consider that "the four corners of the earth" references could be an idiom of some sort and not an indication that they thought the earth had four corners.
Another possibility is that the word "corners" was used broadly to refer to a coneptually similar concept. eg. quadrants, edges, extreme points, compass points etc. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 18:14:22 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Matt, that was spot on.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 12:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Kill said: "Unless you want to suggest that these writers had the tools to correctly asses a less intuitive proposition by some means"
So how did the accepted theories of Pythagoras and Eratosthenes come to be? Many times in history a "less intuitive" theory expands the knowledge of humanity and science. Why is it so hard to believe that other before these two could have the same theory. Is it possible that their theories were built upon past theory?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 13:34:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So how did the accepted theories of Pythagoras and Eratosthenes come to be? |
Like I said before, Pythagoras proposed that the Earth was spherical solely on faith that the circle was the perfect geometrical form. As far as I know, he never proposed a scientific explanation for his faith. He didn't have a theory. He didn't even have a hypothesis. He had a conjecture.
Erastothenes (and Aristotle) were the first to provide science to back up their statement.
| Many times in history a "less intuitive" theory expands the knowledge of humanity and science. Why is it so hard to believe that other before these two could have the same theory. Is it possible that their theories were built upon past theory? |
Because the math needed to provide Erastithenes scientific evidence (calculations of the Earth's radius) wasn't invented. There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews had more than the most basic maht. For christ's sake, they didn't even get the right value for Pi!
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/03/2007 13:35:32 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 13:44:10 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that human knowledge all follows on a line; as if knowledge could not be possessed, lost, and discovered again.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 22:50:33 [Permalink]
|
| Jerome, increasing knowledge generally requires a basis upon which to build. If the ancient Hebrews were a wandering tribe then it would seem likely that the vast majority of them would have been more concerned with day to day survival than expanding mathematical knowledge. Expansion of knowledge has typically occurred within groups that are settled and have a structured civilization that allows the leisure time to pursue knowledge. Just a bit of a thought on why it was unlikely that a wandering tribe would have the resources to pursue mathematics. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 09:32:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dr. Mabuse, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that human knowledge all follows on a line; as if knowledge could not be possessed, lost, and discovered again. |
You are wrong. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 13:48:07 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry I've been away from the net for a while. I didn't realise my question would raise such a debate. Many thanks for all your input and answering my question |
Baza |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 19:20:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baza
Why is it that posters both here and in other forums, when confronted with disbelief for their various theories contend "that people used to belive that the earth is flat", when there is very little evidence to show that many people ever did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
|
Because it is easier to discount a person with a disagreeing world view if you can make them seem silly.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:56:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Baza
Why is it that posters both here and in other forums, when confronted with disbelief for their various theories contend "that people used to belive that the earth is flat", when there is very little evidence to show that many people ever did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
|
Because it is easier to discount a person with a disagreeing world view if you can make them seem silly.
|
Of course some people excel at the latter to a degree that makes the efforts of others to make them seem silly insignificant by comparison. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 21:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Baza
Why is it that posters both here and in other forums, when confronted with disbelief for their various theories contend "that people used to belive that the earth is flat", when there is very little evidence to show that many people ever did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
|
Because it is easier to discount a person with a disagreeing world view if you can make them seem silly.
|
Of course some people excel at the latter to a degree that makes the efforts of others to make them seem silly insignificant by comparison.
|
I am a rarity, I know.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
Flat earth
