Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[6days]

But how are heavens stretched out like a tent?

Good question.... What say you?
Barnes says "And spreadeth them out as a tent - As a tent that is made for a habitation. Perhaps the idea is, that the heavens are extended like a tent in order to furnish a dwelling-place for God. Thus the Chaldee renders it. If so, it proves that the universe, so vast, was suited up to be the dwelling-place of the High and Holy One, and is a most impressive representation of his immensity."

 

[Alate_One]

Good question.... What say you?
Barnes says "And spreadeth them out as a tent - As a tent that is made for a habitation. Perhaps the idea is, that the heavens are extended like a tent in order to furnish a dwelling-place for God. Thus the Chaldee renders it. If so, it proves that the universe, so vast, was suited up to be the dwelling-place of the High and Holy One, and is a most impressive representation of his immensity."

I think it's more a reflection of an ancient understanding of the "heavens" as a sort of dome over a flat earth.

If you watch time lapse videos of the sky at night it really does look like that. Considering ancient people didn't have light pollution and hardly had artificial lights at all, I think it makes sense they looked at the sky differently than we usually do.

Milky way

 

[George Affleck]

Circle of the earth

Circle of the earth

I am going to go out on a limb to see who cuts it off.

Perhaps the "circle of the earth" is a reference to the orbital path of the earth around the sun.

Is this the circle which God is above?

 

[6days]

I think it's more a reflection of an ancient understanding of the "heavens" as a sort of dome over a flat earth.

Or, maybe it is a statement helping us understand our expanding universe, and the majesty of our Creator?
Maybe it's just a phrase we are trying to read our preconceived notions into (dimwitted vs intelligent early humans).

 

[6days]

I am going to go out on a limb to see who cuts it off.

Perhaps the "circle of the earth" is a reference to the orbital path of the earth around the sun.

Is this the circle which God is above?

Interesting! ....possible!
I hadn't thought of that one before.
The Catholic Bible needs a re-do if that is correct. They could use the word 'orbit' instead of 'globe'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then why do you have a problem with Christians making the same argument of 'figures of speech' being used in Scripture?

I don't.

per, Holding article the modern Hebrew word for ball was not in usage during that time frame.

All he did is make an empty assertion (that the meaning and usage of duwr was different in the past), and say that since duwr has multiple meanings, a Hebrew wouldn't understand which one was meant if the author had used it. That's either terribly naive or deliberately dumb. The speakers of languages generally can tell which meaning an author has in mind by the surrounding context. For example, the word "run" has many meanings, but if I told you "Mr. Smith intends to run in the upcoming election" and later said "Also, Mr. Smith likes to run to stay in shape", most people would understand what I meant.

 

[Wick Stick]

Interesting! ....possible!
I hadn't thought of that one before.
The Catholic Bible needs a re-do if that is correct. They could use the word 'orbit' instead of 'globe'.

The KJV has the same word translated elsewhere as "circuit" and "compass," which both suggest something that is more orbit than circle.

Gesenius lexicon has "sphere" as a second definition.

Jarrod

 

[Hawkins]

The KJV has the same word translated elsewhere as "circuit" and "compass," which both suggest something that is more orbit than circle.

Gesenius lexicon has "sphere" as a second definition.

Jarrod

That can be the way how God passes a message to modern humans through an ancient human.

 

[alwight]

Interesting! ....possible!
I hadn't thought of that one before.
The Catholic Bible needs a re-do if that is correct. They could use the word 'orbit' instead of 'globe'.

Actually the Earth's orbit isn't a circle, it's elliptical.
But figuratively speaking a "circle" is however close enough for me.

 

[Town Heretic]

William Tyndale is thought to have been the main contributor to the KJV, and he, like William Shakespeare, enriched the English language with the style of their time.
I would imagine that earlier translations of the Bible would have also benefited greatly from the writer's own style and interpretations that can't easily be compared to the idioms of today.
I suggest that nobody can reasonably or rationally conclude that they somehow can know of any detailed literal truth from any version of the Bible.

You went off the rails with your conclusion, even aside from the argument seated inductio Dei, that what truth God wills must be met as He wills it. This isn't a form of narrative Chinese whispers, though translations will always involve a bit of movement in how we communicate a truth. If our intent is to communicate that truth we will not move from the thrust of it and so Christ remains Christ, murder remains murder and grace remains unveiled.

 

[alwight]

You went off the rails with your conclusion, even aside from the argument seated inductio Dei, that what truth God wills must be met as He wills it. This isn't a form of narrative Chinese whispers, though translations will always involve a bit of movement in how we communicate a truth. If our intent is to communicate that truth we will not move from the thrust of it and so Christ remains Christ, murder remains murder and grace remains unveiled.

Chinese whispers can't actually be discounted if people alone are involved, and William Tyndale certainly added greatly to the English Language via the KJV. I simply can't accept TH that any version of the Bible is somehow blessed with inerrant accuracy and literal truth. Of course many Christians may well not agree with me.

 

[6days]

Actually the Earth's orbit isn't a circle, it's elliptical.
But figuratively speaking a "circle" is however close enough for me.

Haha... yes. I was wondering if someone would say that. Perhaps some of the theistic evolutionists would argue that point more vigorously than you did.

 

[Town Heretic]

Chinese whispers can't actually be discounted if people alone are involved

They can be on two counts, the most important being the very premise of scripture.

I simply can't accept TH that any version of the Bible is somehow blessed with inerrant accuracy and literal truth.

Well, that's your premise though. The Bible refers to it as the carnal mind. You likely consider it reasonable and rational. That's a part of the chasm between the faithful and those outside of it, though many on the outside would differ with you and find all sorts of objectively true statements in the Bible. The late Isaac Asimov, by way of.

Of course many Christians may well not agree with me.

Seems like a safe bet. Good bumping into you, al. :cheers:

 

[Alate_One]

Or, maybe it is a statement helping us understand our expanding universe, and the majesty of our Creator?
Maybe it's just a phrase we are trying to read our preconceived notions into (dimwitted vs intelligent early humans).

And here is where you're wrong. Ignorance of the workings of the universe does not in any way equal "dim witted".

It took a series of brilliant scientists to figure out that the earth was not the center of the universe. Chinese culture held the earth to be flat and rectangular until Europeans arrived. That doesn't say anything about intelligence, it's simply they weren't interested in the question. Science isn't about staring and a problem and solving it instantly with your intellect. Science is about careful testing and the slow accumulation of data. Even if someone has a brilliant idea, they have to test it. The idea of the spherical earth only became popular because the greeks were interested in geometry and thought spheres were the perfect shape. It took three centuries for someone to actually test the idea that the earth was a sphere.

As far as spiritual matters, it makes no difference what the shape and motion of the earth is. It only makes a difference when people are able to travel very long distances or fly airplanes and have most of the other trappings of modern technology. Otherwise the question is purely academic.

You're actually putting science on a pedestal. Your desperate need for the Bible to be scientifically accurate is clear evidence of this.

 

[6days]

You're actually putting science on a pedestal. Your desperate need for the Bible to be scientifically accurate is clear evidence of this.

God's Word is correct on all matters it touches on, including science.
Your desperate need for His Word to be scientifically inaccurate is clear evidence of you putting yourself on a pedestal.

 

[George Affleck]

Haha... yes. I was wondering if someone would say that. Perhaps some of the theistic evolutionists would argue that point more vigorously than you did.

Do we know if the earth's orbit was elliptical in the days of the ancients? Or is that another assumption?
As if we don't have enough!

 

[alwight]

They can be on two counts, the most important being the very premise of scripture.

I don't know about the circle of the Earth but the circle of the reasoning here seems clear enough to me.

Well, that's your premise though. The Bible refers to it as the carnal mind. You likely consider it reasonable and rational. That's a part of the chasm between the faithful and those outside of it, though many on the outside would differ with you and find all sorts of objectively true statements in the Bible. The late Isaac Asimov, by way of.

I've never suggested that the Bible is a pack of lies TH, I rather think of it as a repository of gathered information and mythical stories, but largely independent of any need for empirical evidence and fact

Seems like a safe bet. Good bumping into you, al. :cheers:

:e4e:

 

[Greg Jennings]

in an agreement to response qouted above




from another thread


The atheists on this forum can't even get their facts when they are attacking Scripture. they use arguments like the "four corners" to depict the author as believing in world that is a flat square disc and when its convenient to do so they switch it up assert it was a flat circular disc that they believed in.

Two different authors wrote the passages you refer to. And shockingly these two different people had differing opinions

 

[Greg Jennings]

in an agreement to response qouted above




from another thread


The atheists on this forum can't even get their facts when they are attacking Scripture. they use arguments like the "four corners" to depict the author as believing in world that is a flat square disc and when its convenient to do so they switch it up assert it was a flat circular disc that they believed in.

Two different authors wrote the passages you refer to. And shockingly two different people had differing opinions.

If you consider simple questions as "attacking Scripture" then you've stumbled across the biggest problem of fundamentalist Christianity all by yourself: Asking questions and seeking answers should be encouraged. If asking those questions leads to uncomfortable truths being revealed, maybe the original position needs to be amended

 

[Greg Jennings]

I agree, everything coming from nothing for no reason whatsoever is pure magic and should be treated as such.

And the logical next question to ask you would be: where did God come from?

If he came from nothing before then you are simply substituting "God" in for "the Big Bang" and making the exact same argument