Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
A number of smaller mammals have gestation periods less than 40 days. With nothing to do on the ark other than have sex with each other, it stands to reason that some of the pairs that entered the ark left as foursomes (or more, if we're talking about the unclean ones).
My question is, 3:03...If the anuses on all the animals of the ark were closed up so they would not have to poop while on board (As a WCG minister once said) why would they be having sex and producing babies whose butts were also sealed up? Remember this is Armstrongism and we can decent down the rabbit hole real quick.
the anuses on all the animals of the ark were closed up so they would not have to poop while on board (As a WCG minister once said)
Couldn't the animals just lean over the side of the ark to pee and poop? However, if God is known to seal butts so living creatures can remain full of poop, might this explain Butthurt Bwana Bob?
Armstrongite ministers have never been able to explain how animals ingenious to only Australia, like the platypus and kangaroos, made it all the way from Mt Ararat down to Australia.
And got to Sumer to get on board in the first place. And the poor penguins waddling all the way there in the heat! And the animals that are only found in the New World on their little animal rafts! The American bison's transport must have been particularly spectacular.
"Armstrongite ministers have never been able to explain how animals ingenious to only Australia, like the platypus and kangaroos, made it all the way from Mt Ararat down to Australia."
Sure they did. One idiot I heard was that they floated on logs down there. I guess the platypus rode in the kangaroo's pouch all the way. So what did they eat? Did they catch fish along the way? Since both are herbivores, the pickings are kind of slim when you are floating on a log through the oceans.
I guess they could have traveled almost 12,000 km there over land till they had to get in the water and work their way to Malaysia and then back in the water till they went to Australia. Is it any wonder why Armstrongism has no credibility?
The other crazy one I heard is that they travel over land bridges between continents. So those bridges were covered up during the flood, then reemerged till the animals made it to Australia, and then resubmerged themselves. Yep! That sounds about right.
Armstrongite ministers never been able to explain how animals ingenious (?) to only Australia like the platypus and kangaroos made it all the from Mt Ararat down to Australia’. What an arrogant question. Haven’t you heard of Qantas airlines or Turkish Airways fool? Also cruise ships would easily have sailed the four seas to down under. Back in the day it would have been a cheaper and safer option than swimming, want it eh?
Anyway back to reality, as they say so many questions so few answers and taxes always to pay, lol.
How did the lemurs and fossa find their way to Madagascar all by themselves? Along with the little panther chameleons and tomato frogs? Imagine hopping all the way from Mt Ararat to Madagascar!
Did the ark make stops along the way and drop off in the future North America all the pronghorns, coyotes, wolves, raccoons, bobcats, and alligators? We have already seen how bison made it here from the comment above. That problem is solved.
Prior to Adam and Eve sinning all creatures were vegetarian. When Adam and Eve sinned cursing and death entered the world so it makes sense all creatures, including Adamkind, could've eaten meat and given the moral depths mankind had sunk prior to the Flood it makes sense that unrighteous Adamites would've eaten meat while righteous Adamites wouldn't have eaten meat until after the Flood as God gave His permission only at that time. These 2 links were helpful to me: 1) https://creation.com/animal-carnivory-began-at-fall 2) www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHPa96RjtEA (Noah's ark fact or fiction?) which answers what did animals eat? @22:59.
it makes much more sense that the flood was a local Mesopotamian event. The animals that God caused to evolve in Australia, Madagascar, and the north pole were not affected, so didn't need to do any traveling.
What? Bob helped Christ create the animals as the world was being formed. He dreamed them into being. All of the animals originally spoke over 1,000 languages but since sin reentered the world after the flood, they stopped speaking English. That's why it is so important that his booklet be translated so they can read it.
The ark will be found, having been preserved by the pitch in and out on the gopher wood (teak?). Bible scoffers can come and look at it, or a picture, and go away unscoffing.
God must have used an angelic program to scatter the ark animals worldwide. Which is why there are no cat-like creatures such as lions, tigers, leopards etc, on the Australian continent. Creatures like the koala bear would not be able to survive otherwise.
Prior to Adam and Eve sinning all creatures were vegetarian.
You believe that your God created the carnivores with carnivore teeth suitable for eating meat, but for millions of years prevented them from using those teeth? But He created other animals that remained vegetarian after Adam's sin? That's a weird God you worship!
In a more serious tone, it's obvious that the author of the Noah story (be it Moses or someone else) as we have it today wasnt present for the events and was, at best, recounting what was already an old story at that point. He (or she) didnt know that vast oceans separated different landmasses that hosted different fauna. There are similar issues with Rebecca's camels and Joseph's coins. It's like that conversation in The King And I where Mongkut questions the validity of the creation story and Anna tells him the book was not written by "men of science".
Bob likes to take the Chinese "Nuwah" story and point to it as evidence of the Noah story, but never acknowledges that "Nuwah" is seen by the Chinese as a woman!
8:44 wrote, "it makes much more sense that the flood was a local Mesopotamian event. The animals that God caused to evolve in Australia, Madagascar, and the north pole were not affected, so didn't need to do any traveling."
Just so. The problem with many of the comments is that they are of grossly mistaken scope. Yet, the book of Genesis in its first chapters gives the scope of this event by explaining ancient Near Eastern cosmology. This cosmology is very similar to the other cosmologies found among Near Eastern peoples that were contemporary.
The perspective of many of the commentors is that the earth is a blue planetary orb hanging in the space of an immense universe - an understanding that comes from modern astrophysics. This is not what the ancient peoples of the Near East saw nor was it what was described in the pages of Genesis. What they saw was a flat earth. And stretched over this flat earth was an arched vault of blue called heaven. And the vault had firmness to it, a firmament, and it held back waters. The waters are what made the sky blue. And the vaulted ceiling was close enough so that birds could fly up to it. And men could build a tower that could reach it. And if you ever got up there and could find a door you could go to the other side and that is where God lives.
And the world was what you could see in a 360-degree scan of the horizon. And you might fall off the edge of the flat world if you got to the edge. There were pillars underneath this flat world that held it up. And down underneath somewhere was Hades. This is the Three Story Universe of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks. And the vocabulary of The Flood in Genesis refers to this Three Story Universe. The vocabulary does not refer to what you will find in a modern text on astrophysics. This is the cosmological context that the Bible sets up as a given at the beginning of Genesis. To try to impose the modern model of the universe on the Genesis model can only result in frustration and error and maybe disbelief.
And why can such an archaic model of universe be used? Because Genesis is not about science but about theology. Genesis is the source of theological principle. If you look at where Noah and the Flood is referred to in the New Testament, it is always about invoking some ethical principle and is never about science.
The Flood was a local event that happened maybe around 2900 BC. It was titanic because many nations recall it. It was a local event because to people in those days “The World” was local. Erets, the earth, was what you could see by scanning the horizon. Shemesh, the sun, was a lamp that hung in the sky and was not that far away. It involved a location in the Near East and did not involve Australia, its people and its flora and fauna, for instance. I believe there was a real Noah. And he and his family survived the local cataclysm. The animals came out of his barnyard. And the Flood wiped out a small civilization with a limited population of people who were descended from a man named Adam who in the literature of Genesis represented humankind. The Flood did not create the Grand Canyon. I had an Armstrongist with a Ph.D. in physics tell me that it did back some years ago. It shows how skewed thinking can become.
1656 yrs - Gen 5 - flood about 2321 BC 427 yrs - Gen 11 400 yrs - Gen 15:13 480 yrs - 1Kings 6:1 429 yrs - 2Chr - 36 more yrs of Solomon+reigns of Judah kings 2608 yrs - 585 BC to 2024 AD 6000 yrs total
A fascinating question. One I don’t have an answer to at this time. It’s a question I put into the same category as, Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Why the need for gender, male and female if we evolved. Why the need. Why the need for reproduction. What came first, blood or the heart. Why have two eyes. How did man find food as he evolved. And why the need for vision if he has no need or concept of it. As we look at the other uncountable species on this planet where is the evidence of their ability to improve their environment, secure their food sources and their technological advancement for the preservation of their species. Are they capable of producing medicines, medications to improve their wellbeing, and protect themselves from the elements. Why does this evolutionary species called humanity tear itself apart through war and division endangering its own survival and that on its fellow inhabitants on this jewel of a planet. Why did human governments, devoid of faith bring such unbearable evil and destruction on their fellow man, whose victims number in the hundreds of millions just in the last century. And what is faith. We would go on. We are all victims of our own ignorance. So many questions, so little time and taxes still to be paid, sigh.
I wonder how the 'ol flat earth patriarchs like Noah managed to cut their hair! When I was a kid, a monthly haircut was considered to be an absolute necessity. There may be a little more freedom today, but still I was feeling like Sasquatch when I woke up this morning because my last one had been in August. My stylist's reaction to the sheer mass was priceless. Can't wait til she sees it in March or April!
11:06 I assume your calculations are based on the MT and Ussher. An alternative is the calculations based on the LXX, which personally I believe is more accurate and reliable. So creation would have occurred app. 5555 BC and the Flood app. 3300 BC.
The Bible does not say there is a flat earth but asserts this by implication. Found this on the internet:
"Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10–11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …”.
My point is that it doesn't make any difference. The Bible has another purpose. And for that purpose, ancient Near Eastern cosmology is as good as any.
I suspect that if any of the Bible's authors had a seafaring or traveling merchant background, they would have at least suspected a curvature to the Earth's surface.
To Ranger and others who believe the Bible does not reference a round earth and that the people did not know it: I see clear verses like Isaiah 40:22 wich refers to the circle of the earth, and Proverbs 8:27 as well. Job 9:12 refers to the constellations hiden from view, which implies a round earth. and so on and so forth. There are some sloppy assumptions and almost illogical reasoning on this thread that are taken as proofs that the creation account in Genesis is wrong. The logic and its content are slack entertainment at best.
The Bible does not unequivocally reference a round earth. The word for circle in Isaiah 40:22 is "hug". This means circle and does not mean globe. You might be able to use this scripture to prove that the earth is a disc but not a globe.
Barnes Notes on the Bibles states:
"The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet."
There are responses to your other arguments but you can look those up.
2:31, you may want to Google "Kaddur". On the list that comes up is an article on Astronomy at Jewishencyclopedia.com which will acquaint you with the understanding of the Hebrew ancients who wrote the Torah, Tannakh, and the Talmud.. Cliff"s Notes, Earth was described as a disc setting in water.
Also, Job 9:9 uses more modern names for Osh, Kesil, and Kimah. Orion and Pleiades are Greek names from the Helenistic Period. You can thank the translators for that.
If you are the same poster from the other discussion in which flat earth came up, the guy who had supposedly seen ancient maps displaying Hebrew knowledge of the Americas, I had given you the names of the first known map makers to have depicted Earth as a globe. These are also from the Helenistic Period. All known maps prior to that depict the "known world" as a disc surrounded by water.
As for Isa.40:22 and Prov. 8;27, these are nebulous and fit the disc model just as well as the sphere model.
I hope you aren't one of those people who, now that you know the truth, goes around repeating your error because that fits your agenda.
I don't think the creation narrative is wrong. I've come to realize that the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days which some assume. Let's face it, if you set up a 20 gallon fish tank, it requires at least 24 hours for the temperature to be right, the pump and filter to clear the water, and any plants to settle into the sand or gravel. Chemistry has to be right, too, and that's just for a fresh water tank. Then you introduce the fish, snails, crabs or whatever into that particular little ecology system when it's ready for them and they can thrive. Even without God's evolutionary creation processes, you're looking at way more time than 24 hours for the constants of oceans to be interacting properly to support the creatures which live there. The creatures would need to be stocked each at their right time, too. Scavengers would need an accumulation of waste. Plus the jet streams which control the ocean currents and our weather would need to be functional.
God had all the time in the world and no need to rush things into 24 hour days. Even a rebop after a Satanic destructive episode stretches the time requirements. And, let's face it, the fossil and genetic records document thousands of years of man-like beings before the ones capable of being God-conscious came along.
"A circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry." - Dr. Robert J. Schneider, Berea College, Professor of Classical Languages.
It is worthwhile to have a look at his article titled "Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?". He writes in response to Creationists who seem to believe that the Bible teaches a modern view of celestial bodies and space. I am not sure why this is a pre-occupation of Creationists. I do not intend to look further into their beliefs, so I speculate that they are trying to build the view that the Bible is a book of astrophysics - which it is not. This leading to a misguided and needless attempt to reconcile ancient cosmology with modern cosmology.
So hilarious and so typical. No comments from the COGlodyte community on the last volley of information. That's called plausible deniability, folks. They think it means that if they don't comment or acknowledge, they can raise their same rebutted counter points at some future time as if this discussion never happened!
It's a very earth-centric account. Why would 24 hour days be marked with no sun and moon? Why would a deity not bound by time and space even follow that cycle anyway? It sounds very much like a just-so story in the details. Obviously there is certainly nothing wrong with the concept of a day of rest, or even a commemoration of the completion of creation. I just don't think you can read the account with too strict a mindset.
Daylight slowly becoming dark in the evening and conversely in the morning doesn't work (sorry, I know that's not academic language) without a globe/with a disc. The moon was made for fixed times - Ps 104:19 - from creation. "Seasons" in that verse is a mistranslation. The days and nights today are the same as they were from creation of Genesis 1.
Good grief! Did you read your own post??? Nobody is saying that the world actually was flat back then. The contention has always been that mankind did not understand that it was actually a sphere. So, it follows that they did not know the difference between the fast or gradual way in which distant light (sun) or reflection (moon) would behave as it passed below the horizon of a disk, or the horizon of a sphere.
Next issue. How could the days of creation all be equal in length prior to the fourth day of creation on which the earth's time keepers were created? Gen. 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. 17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good."
Early Christian, Origen of Alexandria, raised this issue when he wrote "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?"
Rabbinic teacher, Maimonides, held that it was not required to read Genesis literally, but to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science, and if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or Torah was misinterpreted.
Nahmanides later pointed out that there were several non.sequiturs stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of Creation, and that the acccount actually symbolically refers to spiritual concepts.
Allegory has been understood from ancient times. Literalists, such as modern day evangelicals, reject it. Literalists are the basis for the strawman argument which pits faith against science.
43 comments:
A number of smaller mammals have gestation periods less than 40 days. With nothing to do on the ark other than have sex with each other, it stands to reason that some of the pairs that entered the ark left as foursomes (or more, if we're talking about the unclean ones).
Nah. They could have eaten fish.
This is great! Love it.
My question is, 3:03...If the anuses on all the animals of the ark were closed up so they would not have to poop while on board (As a WCG minister once said) why would they be having sex and producing babies whose butts were also sealed up? Remember this is Armstrongism and we can decent down the rabbit hole real quick.
If you believe in miracles anything can happen.
Can you imagine the noise and piles of poop once the animals got off the ark and finally could let go!
the anuses on all the animals of the ark were closed up so they would not have to poop while on board (As a WCG minister once said)
Couldn't the animals just lean over the side of the ark to pee and poop? However, if God is known to seal butts so living creatures can remain full of poop, might this explain Butthurt Bwana Bob?
Armstrongite ministers have never been able to explain how animals ingenious to only Australia, like the platypus and kangaroos, made it all the way from Mt Ararat down to Australia.
And got to Sumer to get on board in the first place. And the poor penguins waddling all the way there in the heat! And the animals that are only found in the New World on their little animal rafts! The American bison's transport must have been particularly spectacular.
"Armstrongite ministers have never been able to explain how animals ingenious to only Australia, like the platypus and kangaroos, made it all the way from Mt Ararat down to Australia."
Sure they did. One idiot I heard was that they floated on logs down there. I guess the platypus rode in the kangaroo's pouch all the way. So what did they eat? Did they catch fish along the way? Since both are herbivores, the pickings are kind of slim when you are floating on a log through the oceans.
I guess they could have traveled almost 12,000 km there over land till they had to get in the water and work their way to Malaysia and then back in the water till they went to Australia. Is it any wonder why Armstrongism has no credibility?
The other crazy one I heard is that they travel over land bridges between continents. So those bridges were covered up during the flood, then reemerged till the animals made it to Australia, and then resubmerged themselves. Yep! That sounds about right.
Anon 6:52:00 PM PST
Armstrongite ministers never been able to explain how animals ingenious (?) to only Australia like the platypus and kangaroos made it all the from Mt Ararat down to Australia’.
What an arrogant question.
Haven’t you heard of Qantas airlines or Turkish Airways fool?
Also cruise ships would easily have sailed the four seas to down under.
Back in the day it would have been a cheaper and safer option than swimming, want it eh?
Anyway back to reality, as they say so many questions so few answers and taxes always to pay, lol.
Great post and fun answers.
How did the lemurs and fossa find their way to Madagascar all by themselves? Along with the little panther chameleons and tomato frogs? Imagine hopping all the way from Mt Ararat to Madagascar!
Did the ark make stops along the way and drop off in the future North America all the pronghorns, coyotes, wolves, raccoons, bobcats, and alligators? We have already seen how bison made it here from the comment above. That problem is solved.
Best thread on here and no Bob!
"Best thread on here and no Bob!"
You had to go and mention his name. Get behind me, Satan!
Prior to Adam and Eve sinning all creatures were vegetarian.
When Adam and Eve sinned cursing and death entered the world so it makes sense all creatures, including Adamkind, could've eaten meat and given the moral depths mankind had sunk prior to the Flood it makes sense that unrighteous Adamites would've eaten meat while righteous Adamites wouldn't have eaten meat until after the Flood as God gave His permission only at that time.
These 2 links were helpful to me:
1) https://creation.com/animal-carnivory-began-at-fall
2) www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHPa96RjtEA (Noah's ark fact or fiction?) which answers what did animals eat? @22:59.
Is the Ark story fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9XryKMRATE
it makes much more sense that the flood was a local Mesopotamian event. The animals that God caused to evolve in Australia, Madagascar, and the north pole were not affected, so didn't need to do any traveling.
"Best thread on here and no Bob!"
What? Bob helped Christ create the animals as the world was being formed. He dreamed them into being. All of the animals originally spoke over 1,000 languages but since sin reentered the world after the flood, they stopped speaking English. That's why it is so important that his booklet be translated so they can read it.
Australia was created after the flood.
The ark will be found, having been preserved by the pitch in and out on the gopher wood (teak?). Bible scoffers can come and look at it, or a picture, and go away unscoffing.
God must have used an angelic program to scatter the ark animals worldwide. Which is why there are no cat-like creatures such as lions, tigers, leopards etc, on the Australian continent. Creatures like the koala bear would not be able to survive otherwise.
Prior to Adam and Eve sinning all creatures were vegetarian.
You believe that your God created the carnivores with carnivore teeth suitable for eating meat, but for millions of years prevented them from using those teeth? But He created other animals that remained vegetarian after Adam's sin? That's a weird God you worship!
In a more serious tone, it's obvious that the author of the Noah story (be it Moses or someone else) as we have it today wasnt present for the events and was, at best, recounting what was already an old story at that point. He (or she) didnt know that vast oceans separated different landmasses that hosted different fauna. There are similar issues with Rebecca's camels and Joseph's coins. It's like that conversation in The King And I where Mongkut questions the validity of the creation story and Anna tells him the book was not written by "men of science".
Bob likes to take the Chinese "Nuwah" story and point to it as evidence of the Noah story, but never acknowledges that "Nuwah" is seen by the Chinese as a woman!
Now I'm thinking of Disney's adaption of "Swiss Family Robinson", with all the farm animals on rafts and lifejackets.
8:44 wrote, "it makes much more sense that the flood was a local Mesopotamian event. The animals that God caused to evolve in Australia, Madagascar, and the north pole were not affected, so didn't need to do any traveling."
Just so. The problem with many of the comments is that they are of grossly mistaken scope. Yet, the book of Genesis in its first chapters gives the scope of this event by explaining ancient Near Eastern cosmology. This cosmology is very similar to the other cosmologies found among Near Eastern peoples that were contemporary.
The perspective of many of the commentors is that the earth is a blue planetary orb hanging in the space of an immense universe - an understanding that comes from modern astrophysics. This is not what the ancient peoples of the Near East saw nor was it what was described in the pages of Genesis. What they saw was a flat earth. And stretched over this flat earth was an arched vault of blue called heaven. And the vault had firmness to it, a firmament, and it held back waters. The waters are what made the sky blue. And the vaulted ceiling was close enough so that birds could fly up to it. And men could build a tower that could reach it. And if you ever got up there and could find a door you could go to the other side and that is where God lives.
And the world was what you could see in a 360-degree scan of the horizon. And you might fall off the edge of the flat world if you got to the edge. There were pillars underneath this flat world that held it up. And down underneath somewhere was Hades. This is the Three Story Universe of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks. And the vocabulary of The Flood in Genesis refers to this Three Story Universe. The vocabulary does not refer to what you will find in a modern text on astrophysics. This is the cosmological context that the Bible sets up as a given at the beginning of Genesis. To try to impose the modern model of the universe on the Genesis model can only result in frustration and error and maybe disbelief.
And why can such an archaic model of universe be used? Because Genesis is not about science but about theology. Genesis is the source of theological principle. If you look at where Noah and the Flood is referred to in the New Testament, it is always about invoking some ethical principle and is never about science.
The Flood was a local event that happened maybe around 2900 BC. It was titanic because many nations recall it. It was a local event because to people in those days “The World” was local. Erets, the earth, was what you could see by scanning the horizon. Shemesh, the sun, was a lamp that hung in the sky and was not that far away. It involved a location in the Near East and did not involve Australia, its people and its flora and fauna, for instance. I believe there was a real Noah. And he and his family survived the local cataclysm. The animals came out of his barnyard. And the Flood wiped out a small civilization with a limited population of people who were descended from a man named Adam who in the literature of Genesis represented humankind. The Flood did not create the Grand Canyon. I had an Armstrongist with a Ph.D. in physics tell me that it did back some years ago. It shows how skewed thinking can become.
Ranger
"Best thread on here and no Bob!"
You had to go and mention his name. Get behind me, Satan!
1656 yrs - Gen 5 - flood about 2321 BC
427 yrs - Gen 11
400 yrs - Gen 15:13
480 yrs - 1Kings 6:1
429 yrs - 2Chr - 36 more yrs of Solomon+reigns of Judah kings
2608 yrs - 585 BC to 2024 AD
6000 yrs total
A fascinating question.
One I don’t have an answer to at this time. It’s a question I put into the same category as,
Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Why the need for gender, male and female if we evolved. Why the need. Why the need for reproduction.
What came first, blood or the heart.
Why have two eyes.
How did man find food as he evolved. And why the need for vision if he has no need or concept of it.
As we look at the other uncountable species on this planet where is the evidence of their ability to improve their environment, secure their food sources and their technological advancement for the preservation of their species.
Are they capable of producing medicines, medications to improve their wellbeing, and protect themselves from the elements.
Why does this evolutionary species called humanity tear itself apart through war and division endangering its own survival and that on its fellow inhabitants on this jewel of a planet.
Why did human governments, devoid of faith bring such unbearable evil and destruction on their fellow man, whose victims number in the hundreds of millions just in the last century.
And what is faith.
We would go on.
We are all victims of our own ignorance.
So many questions, so little time and taxes still to be paid, sigh.
I wonder how the 'ol flat earth patriarchs like Noah managed to cut their hair! When I was a kid, a monthly haircut was considered to be an absolute necessity. There may be a little more freedom today, but still I was feeling like Sasquatch when I woke up this morning because my last one had been in August. My stylist's reaction to the sheer mass was priceless. Can't wait til she sees it in March or April!
11:06
I assume your calculations are based on the MT and Ussher. An alternative is the calculations based on the LXX, which personally I believe is more accurate and reliable. So creation would have occurred app. 5555 BC and the Flood app. 3300 BC.
Does the Bible say that the earth is flat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJZqxH2C-UM
7:02
The Bible does not say there is a flat earth but asserts this by implication. Found this on the internet:
"Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10–11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …”.
My point is that it doesn't make any difference. The Bible has another purpose. And for that purpose, ancient Near Eastern cosmology is as good as any.
Ranger
4:41
“That's a weird God you worship!”
Not as weird as your god!
I suspect that if any of the Bible's authors had a seafaring or traveling merchant background, they would have at least suspected a curvature to the Earth's surface.
To Ranger and others who believe the Bible does not reference a round earth and that the people did not know it: I see clear verses like Isaiah 40:22 wich refers to the circle of the earth, and Proverbs 8:27 as well. Job 9:12 refers to the constellations hiden from view, which implies a round earth. and so on and so forth. There are some sloppy assumptions and almost illogical reasoning on this thread that are taken as proofs that the creation account in Genesis is wrong. The logic and its content are slack entertainment at best.
2:31
The Bible does not unequivocally reference a round earth. The word for circle in Isaiah 40:22 is "hug". This means circle and does not mean globe. You might be able to use this scripture to prove that the earth is a disc but not a globe.
Barnes Notes on the Bibles states:
"The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet."
There are responses to your other arguments but you can look those up.
Ranger
2:31, you may want to Google "Kaddur". On the list that comes up is an article on Astronomy at Jewishencyclopedia.com which will acquaint you with the understanding of the Hebrew ancients who wrote the Torah, Tannakh, and the Talmud.. Cliff"s Notes, Earth was described as a disc setting in water.
Also, Job 9:9 uses more modern names for Osh, Kesil, and Kimah. Orion and Pleiades are Greek names from the Helenistic Period. You can thank the translators for that.
If you are the same poster from the other discussion in which flat earth came up, the guy who had supposedly seen ancient maps displaying Hebrew knowledge of the Americas, I had given you the names of the first known map makers to have depicted Earth as a globe. These are also from the Helenistic Period. All known maps prior to that depict the "known world" as a disc surrounded by water.
As for Isa.40:22 and Prov. 8;27, these are nebulous and fit the disc model just as well as the sphere model.
I hope you aren't one of those people who, now that you know the truth, goes around repeating your error because that fits your agenda.
I don't think the creation narrative is wrong. I've come to realize that the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days which some assume. Let's face it, if you set up a 20 gallon fish tank, it requires at least 24 hours for the temperature to be right, the pump and filter to clear the water, and any plants to settle into the sand or gravel. Chemistry has to be right, too, and that's just for a fresh water tank. Then you introduce the fish, snails, crabs or whatever into that particular little ecology system when it's ready for them and they can thrive. Even without God's evolutionary creation processes, you're looking at way more time than 24 hours for the constants of oceans to be interacting properly to support the creatures which live there. The creatures would need to be stocked each at their right time, too. Scavengers would need an accumulation of waste. Plus the jet streams which control the ocean currents and our weather would need to be functional.
God had all the time in the world and no need to rush things into 24 hour days. Even a rebop after a Satanic destructive episode stretches the time requirements. And, let's face it, the fossil and genetic records document thousands of years of man-like beings before the ones capable of being God-conscious came along.
"A circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry." - Dr. Robert J. Schneider, Berea College, Professor of Classical Languages.
It is worthwhile to have a look at his article titled "Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?". He writes in response to Creationists who seem to believe that the Bible teaches a modern view of celestial bodies and space. I am not sure why this is a pre-occupation of Creationists. I do not intend to look further into their beliefs, so I speculate that they are trying to build the view that the Bible is a book of astrophysics - which it is not. This leading to a misguided and needless attempt to reconcile ancient cosmology with modern cosmology.
Link below:
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html
Published by the American Scientific Affiliation.
Ranger
So hilarious and so typical. No comments from the COGlodyte community on the last volley of information. That's called plausible deniability, folks. They think it means that if they don't comment or acknowledge, they can raise their same rebutted counter points at some future time as if this discussion never happened!
It's a very earth-centric account. Why would 24 hour days be marked with no sun and moon? Why would a deity not bound by time and space even follow that cycle anyway? It sounds very much like a just-so story in the details. Obviously there is certainly nothing wrong with the concept of a day of rest, or even a commemoration of the completion of creation. I just don't think you can read the account with too strict a mindset.
Daylight slowly becoming dark in the evening and conversely in the morning doesn't work (sorry, I know that's not academic language) without a globe/with a disc. The moon was made for fixed times - Ps 104:19 - from creation. "Seasons" in that verse is a mistranslation. The days and nights today are the same as they were from creation of Genesis 1.
Good grief! Did you read your own post??? Nobody is saying that the world actually was flat back then. The contention has always been that mankind did not understand that it was actually a sphere. So, it follows that they did not know the difference between the fast or gradual way in which distant light (sun) or reflection (moon) would behave as it passed below the horizon of a disk, or the horizon of a sphere.
Next issue. How could the days of creation all be equal in length prior to the fourth day of creation on which the earth's time keepers were created? Gen. 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good."
Early Christian, Origen of Alexandria, raised this issue when he wrote "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?"
Rabbinic teacher, Maimonides, held that it was not required to read Genesis literally, but to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science, and if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or Torah was misinterpreted.
Nahmanides later pointed out that there were several non.sequiturs stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of Creation, and that the acccount actually symbolically refers to spiritual concepts.
Allegory has been understood from ancient times. Literalists, such as modern day evangelicals, reject it. Literalists are the basis for the strawman argument which pits faith against science.
Post a Comment