Debate: is the Earth a square or circle?

[StarrKingGrad]

You cannot be serious. The world is blatantly round based on concrete scientific facts.

Blowing, you can offer reason and logic and science until you're blue in the face, but none of that will ever convince someone from Landover. The only way to break through their wall of illogic is to show that the Bible is inconsistent. Even then, maybe one in a hundred will start questioning their Pastors--if you're lucky.

All you've managed to prove is that the Earth is a circle. Too bad the Prophet Isaiah beat you to it by 2700 years.

Funny about that, since the Apostle John said, around 750 years after Isaiah wrote, that the Earth has four corners:

And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

So, Pastor BR, do you still claim the Earth is a circle? If so, where do the corners fit in?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Funny about that, since the Apostle John said, around 750 years after Isaiah wrote, that the Earth has four corners:

So, Pastor BR, do you still claim the Earth is a circle? If so, where do the corners fit in?

You are assuming that the word "corner" only has the one sense. Let's look up "corner" in Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

1. The point where two converging lines meet; properly, the external point; an angle; as, we meet at the corner of the state-house, or at the corner of two streets.
2. The interior point where two lines meet; an angle.
3. The space between two converging lines or walls which meet in a point. Hence,
4. An inclosed place; a secret or retired place.
This thing was not done in a corner. Acts 26.
5. Indefinitely any part; a part.
They searched every corner of the forest. They explored all corners of the country.
6. The end, extremity or limit; as the corners of the head or beard. Leviticus 21 and 19.
Corner-teeth of a horse, the foreteeth between the middling teeth and the tushes, two above and two below, on each side of the jaw, which shoot when the horse is four years and a half old.

You seem to be claiming that "corners" in Rev 7:1 should read in one of the first three senses, and that Rev 7:1 should be taken as a physical description of the shape of the Earth.

The word "corners" in Rev 7:1 should be read in either of the last two senses. There will be an angel standing in each of the North, South, East, and West quadrants of the Earth, near the edge, holding back the wind.

I suppose that next you demand to know how I know in which sense that "corners" should be taken. That's easy. Another part of the Bible told us that the Earth is a circle, so we know that "corners" here doesn't refer to the physical shape of the Earth.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

You are assuming that the word "corner" only has the one sense. Let's look up "corner" in Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.... I suppose that next you demand to know how I know in which sense that "corners" should be taken. That's easy. Another part of the Bible told us that the Earth is a circle, so we know that "corners" here doesn't refer to the physical shape of the Earth.

Pastor BR, you are very clever to have circled the square like that. However, your circular Earth does not seem to accord with Job 38:12-13, which tells us that the Earth has more than one end that can be grabbed:

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Does Webster perchance have a definition of "end" that could give more than one to a circle?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Pastor BR, you are very clever to have circled the square like that.

It has nothing to do with cleverness, friend. It is from having a firm understanding of God's Holy Word.

However, your circular Earth does not seem to accord with Job 38:12-13, which tells us that the Earth has more than one end that can be grabbed:

Hoo-boy, you are really reaching there. A steering wheel is a circle, but I can grab it with both hands. If that's the best objection you can come up with, you might as well give up and get saved today.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Hoo-boy, you are really reaching there. A steering wheel is a circle, but I can grab it with both hands. If that's the best objection you can come up with, you might as well give up and get saved today.

Do you often drive around town while grasping your steering wheel by its ends?

While we're on the topic of geographical absurdities, perhaps you could explain to me how exactly the Sun rejoices every morning when it emerges from the end of heaven:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Does the Sun have a brain to do the thinking with? A soul? Do Day and Night literally talk to themselves? Or will you admit that these few verses of the Bible were meant metaphorically, and not intended to be taken literally?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

While we're on the topic of geographical absurdities,

The only "geographical absurdities" are the ones you are inventing. The Earth and the cosmos are clearly and consistently described in God's Holy Word. Just because God-hating scientists disagree doesn't make it absurd.

perhaps you could explain to me how exactly the Sun rejoices every morning when it emerges from the end of heaven:

Does the Sun have a brain to do the thinking with? A soul? Do Day and Night literally talk to themselves? Or will you admit that these few verses of the Bible were meant metaphorically, and not intended to be taken literally?

The Bible is all to be taken as literal and inerrant, but you are twisting that concept into something absurd. When the Bible speaks of Jesus telling the parable of the talents, Biblical literalism doesn't mean we believe that the story was about things that really happened to actual people -- it means only that we believe that Jesus really told that story. Likewise, we believe that David literally wrote a book of God-inspired poems, hymns, and praises. The part about the sun rejoicing is poetry.

There ARE parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken as allegory or poetry, but they are clearly marked. The allegories begin with phrases like "And he spake a parable unto them, saying", and the poetry is in the book named "Psalms" (which means "sacred songs").

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

There ARE parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken as allegory or poetry, but they are clearly marked. The allegories begin with phrases like "And he spake a parable unto them, saying", and the poetry is in the book named "Psalms" (which means "sacred songs").

Now this is starting to get interesting; as a Unitarian, I too see much of the Bible as poetry or parable. Is it fair to say that the Book of Job is not poetry or parable, but is to be taken as God's literal truth? That seems to follow, since there is no "poetry" or "parable" lable in Job. If so, then perhaps you could explain these words that God speaks in Job 38:

When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Did the stars literally sing?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

as a Unitarian, I too see much of the Bible as poetry or parable

But you shouldn't be deciding for yourself which parts are literal and which parts are poetry and allegory. Like I said, those parts are all clearly marked.

Did the stars literally sing?

"Morning stars" is idiomatic language for angels. Not everyone gets idioms, especially idioms translated from other languages, so the rest of the verse refers to them again as the "sons of God" just to make it clear.

If it had said "the stars sang", omitting the word "morning", then it would mean that the small lights affixed to the firmament literally sang. However, the Bible didn't say that, because that's not what happened.

Before you go scrounging for more easily explained penny-ante nitpicks, let me go ahead and point out that there are also similes in the Bible, such as this one:

Lam 1:17 ...Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them.

This verse doesn't mean that Jerusalem was literally a menstuous woman. Notice, it says "Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman", not "Jerusalem is a menstruous woman". Jerusalem was filthy and unclean, just like a menstruous woman. I'm sure you are smart enough to recognized the difference between similes, idioms, and metaphors.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

"Morning stars" is idiomatic language for angels. Not everyone gets idioms, especially idioms translated from other languages, so the rest of the verse refers to them again as the "sons of God" just to make it clear.

Fascinating. Could you please point to another place in the Bible in which "Morning stars" is used as an idiom for angels? I'd like to be sure I understand this, lest I make a mistake from the pulpit in my church. Also, if the morning stars (who sang) are the angels, then who are the "sons of God" (who shouted) that are also mentioned in Job 38:7?

BTW, thank you for admitting that we need to look at the original languages of the Bible, that reading a translation alone, even a translation as fine as the KJV 1611 version, does not always give us the answers we seek.

Jerusalem was filthy and unclean, just like a menstruous woman. I'm sure you are smart enough to recognized the difference between similes, idioms, and metaphors.

Indeed, I am. But what am I to make of Jesus's words to the Pharisees?

The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Was Herod a lycanthrope? Surely this is no parable, poem, or simile. If calling Herod a fox is an idiom, then, pray tell, how am I to know that "I cast out devils" is not an idiom?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Fascinating. Could you please point to another place in the Bible in which "Morning stars" is used as an idiom for angels? I'd like to be sure I understand this, lest I make a mistake from the pulpit in my church. Also, if the morning stars (who sang) are the angels, then who are the "sons of God" (who shouted) that are also mentioned in Job 38:7?

BTW, thank you for admitting that we need to look at the original languages of the Bible, that reading a translation alone, even a translation as fine as the KJV 1611 version, does not always give us the answers we seek.

I must not have made my meaning clear. I was trying to make the point that we don't need to look at the original Hebrew to understand, because the idiom used in the first half of the verse is defined in the second half of the verse. That's what I meant when I said "the rest of the verse refers to them again as the 'sons of God' just to make it clear." The morning stars who sang are one and the same as the sons of God who shouted.

Indeed, I am. But what am I to make of Jesus's words to the Pharisees?

Was Herod a lycanthrope? Surely this is no parable, poem, or simile. If calling Herod a fox is an idiom, then, pray tell, how am I to know that "I cast out devils" is not an idiom?

It isn't an idiom or a metaphor either -- just plain literal text. If you had consulted your Websters 1828 dictionary before wasting time with such a silly question, you would have found this:

fox
2. A sly, cunning fellow.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

If you had consulted your Websters 1828 dictionary before wasting time with such a silly question

It is amazing that Noah Webster was not a True Christian, given how his definitions seem to resolve every purported inconsistency in the KJV. Perhaps you could point me to a definition that explains how God both placed the Earth on pillars and hung it on nothing:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

BTW, 1 Samuel 2:8 is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. I'm tempted to ask how the good folks at Landover put that verse into practice in their daily lives, but I'm afraid that the answer would involve real beggars and a literal dunghill secreted in some far corner of Freehold.

Pastor BR, your admiration for Noah Webster is commendable; he was a great proponent of education and clear thinking in his day. Since we are resorting to the definitions that Webster presented in his 1828 dictionary to resolve questions regarding the meaning of the words of the KJV 1611, why don't we simply skip a step and use the revision of the KJV that Webster himself prepared in 1833 (available online here, with the preface available here)? That would eliminate both confusion as to meaning and the most vulgar among the usages of the Bible.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Perhaps you could point me to a definition that explains how God both placed the Earth on pillars and hung it on nothing

Why do you need word definitions to resolve that? If the Earth is set upon pillars, why would it also need to be hanging from something? That doesn't make sense. I can set a plant on a plant stand, or I can hang it in a basket. I can't do both. If the plant is on the plant stand, then it is hanging on nothing. If the Earth is set upon pillars, then it is hanging on nothing.

If God had hung it from something, then there'd be no need for pillars.

BTW, 1 Samuel 2:8 is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. I'm tempted to ask how the good folks at Landover put that verse into practice in their daily lives

What is there for us to put into practice? I Sam 2:8 talks about how the Lord helps the poor.

Since we are resorting to the definitions that Webster presented in his 1828 dictionary to resolve questions regarding the meaning of the words of the KJV 1611, why don't we simply skip a step and use the revision of the KJV that Webster himself prepared in 1833

I can think of several reasons why not, but the one that's most practical from your point of view is that every verse you've questioned so far are rendered nearly identically, so there's no point in switching versions, because you would still be asking the same lame "stumper" questions.

The main reason from my point of view is that the Webster's Bible is grammar book, not a divinely inspired religious book. He wrote his version to be a tool for teaching contemporary English grammar.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

What is there for us to put into practice? I Sam 2:8 talks about how the Lord helps the poor.

Surely a Bible literalist such as yourself believes that we should lead our according to the example of the Christ:

But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

So, if we must do as Jesus did, Jesus is God, and God helped the poor, then we, too, are enjoined to help the poor. Unless you are willing to accept the Unitarian argument that Jesus was a man only, and not God, are you not required to help the beggars off of the dungheap?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

So, if we must do as Jesus did, Jesus is God, and God helped the poor, then we, too, are enjoined to help the poor. Unless you are willing to accept the Unitarian argument that Jesus was a man only, and not God, are you not required to help the beggars off of the dungheap?

There are, in both Testaments, examples of God helping the poor, but they were mainly the poor in health – prayer would seem to be the solution here. Those who are financially poor are addressed more in a general suggestion that wealth is shared. This is successfully done by charities and the taxation/welfare system – the former part of God’s Law and tax deductible and the latter all part of man’s law which we are constrained to follow.

Additionally, God tends to help the poor in the very best way by promising them a Life of Bliss Eternal, and what could be better than that? We at Landover broadcast this message; it is hard to see what more we could do.

As far as the Beggar on the Dung Heap (at the corner of Leviticus Drive and Revelation Boulevard, Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 6 pm, please give generously) is concerned, he is employed to do this job at a commercial rate and you need have no concerns. (I’d be obliged if you did not publicize this tableau and thus spoil the effect; his sores are particularly repellent at this time of year and the effort would be wasted.)

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

As far as the Beggar on the Dung Heap (at the corner of Leviticus Drive and Revelation Boulevard, Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 6 pm, please give generously) is concerned, he is employed to do this job at a commercial rate

Giving a beggar a paid job? Landover seems to be slipping in its Republicanism. Perhaps by 2012 you'll be Obama Democrats yet.