Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - timterroo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 23, 2019, 04:39:45 PM »
There are many cases where meaning is lost simply because there is not a direct translation from one language to another.

Aa was mentioned previously, interpretation also varies dependent on the time period and culture that is doing the interpreting.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 23, 2019, 02:15:13 AM »
I am inclined to believe that when the bible talks about the world being established, and un-moving, it is talking (in some way) about the presence of the lord on the earth and the foundation that the lord provides to the world - it is established and it will not be moved. That is powerful.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 22, 2019, 05:03:41 PM »
1 Chronicles 16:30 - "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established. It shall not be moved."

In order to understand what this verse is talking about, you have to read from the beginning of the chapter. It is a song of thanksgiving by King David of Israel. He is talking about how great the Lord is, ruler of all the earth. "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

David wants the Israelites to know that the Lord's strength is unwavering and all the world shall give glory to His name.

In the Bible, the word "world" is often used metonymically to mean "human race, mankind". If you read the entire chapter, it is clear that "world" is being used to mean "mankind" rather than a celestial body.

Imagine a song proclaiming that all the world rejoice in the name of the lord and hail His greatness for ever and ever, and ,oh btw, the planet earth doesn't move.... excuse me?!

Taking this verse to mean earth literally does not move is taking it out of context.


That really does not make sense. The human race is firmly established it shall not be moved?

Perhaps some of its meaning was lost in translation? In my mind the phrase is meant to add luster to the point King David is making - unwavering reign and power  in an un-wavering and firmly established humanity?

I see your point, but interpreting that phrase in this context to mean a celestial body that literally does not move does not make anymore sense than an unmoving humankind.

I have also read an interpretation that unmoving and fixed means that the earth is fixed in orbit, it's orientation relative to the other celestial bodies does not change.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 22, 2019, 01:53:50 PM »
Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

The only thing that motivates a corporation is how much money a certain decision will make it. If it thinks it will make more money with Candidate A than Candidate B, it supports Candidate A. Not being able to sell Ford cars in California would be a huge hit to the bottom line, so of course Ford will support the new California regulations.

This is true... I didn't say 'hope' was perfect... I'd like to think that humanity will eventually evolve beyond greed and the desire to be on top. I don't think we'll ever have a sustainable future until this happens at a global/planar scale.

It is still good to see Ford taking the initiative, even if it's motives aren't genuine - maybe the rest of the states need to model California a bit more?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/trump-attacks-ford-motor-for-not-backing-fuel-economy-rollback.html

New theory: Trump is a Lex Luthor level supervillain who wants his ultimate legacy to be that he ruined the environment and destroyed all of humanity.

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 10:41:57 PM »
1 Chronicles 16:30 - "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established. It shall not be moved."

In order to understand what this verse is talking about, you have to read from the beginning of the chapter. It is a song of thanksgiving by King David of Israel. He is talking about how great the Lord is, ruler of all the earth. "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

David wants the Israelites to know that the Lord's strength is unwavering and all the world shall give glory to His name.

In the Bible, the word "world" is often used metonymically to mean "human race, mankind". If you read the entire chapter, it is clear that "world" is being used to mean "mankind" rather than a celestial body.

Imagine a song proclaiming that all the world rejoice in the name of the lord and hail His greatness for ever and ever, and ,oh btw, the planet earth doesn't move.... excuse me?!

Taking this verse to mean earth literally does not move is taking it out of context.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 10:07:33 PM »

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.

OK - I have a New King James Bible, a Vine's complete expository dictionary of old and new testament, plus a Strong's Exhaustive concordance of the bible (it's like 2500 pages)

I will find some verses about the earth being un-moved, and attempt my own interpretation of them. If you have any of your own verses, I'd be glad to pick at those as well.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2019, 05:47:49 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/
Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Where did you read that these were government studies? I could not find the source of the claims that were made by the authors.


9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 02:08:54 PM »
EDITED FOR BREVITY..."...I question if you know the difference between figurative and literal language."
Yes I do.

I am not taking a position on the issue of figurative and literal language within the Bible.

I am taking a position on whether or not the Bible is suggestive of a flat earth.

Once more, your own source (as I have pointed out), indicates the Bible does suggest a flat earth.

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 06:16:32 PM »
But seriously, either way, how is a non-moving earth evidence that the earth is flat? FET still requires UA which means the earth definitely moves - just not the same way RE does.

In either theory, a non-moving earth posses numerous problems.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 06:03:50 PM »

This is the first verse of chapter 93. Chapter 93 is not about armies, it's not about people, it's entirely about God.

93:1   The LORD reigns. He has majesty and strength.  The earth is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved.
93:2   The throne of the LORD was established long ago and either the throne or God (or both) are everlasting
93:3   The seas/flood/waters have lifted up o LORD, the seas/flood/waters have lifted up their voice. the seas/flood/waters lifted up their waves/roaring
93:4   the LORD is mightier than the seas/flood/waters described above.
93:5   The LORDS statues/laws/decrees/testimonies are firm/trustworthy/unchanging/sure and the house of the LORD will be holy forever/forevermore/eternity.

End of chapter. Nothing about nations, Romans, Israelites etc.

First off, I would question the translation of the word "earth". What version is this scripture taken from? The word "earth" could be a Hebrew word that translates to something similar to "earth". Such a word could be "Adamah" which  means "ground".

So, "The earth is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved." could actually be "The ground is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved."

Such a scripture could be interpreted to mean that the Lord has established a solid foundation. Such an interpretation fits nicely with the remainder of the scripture you quoted.

- the LORD is mightier than the seas/flood/waters described above.
- The LORDS statues/laws/decrees/testimonies are firm/trustworthy/unchanging/sure and the house of the LORD will be holy forever/forevermore/eternity.

All of this, to me, sounds like a Lord that has a solid foundation and is un-moving.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 05:31:45 PM »
Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth?



In the RE model the earth is spinning at something like 900 miles per hour. This spinning is what causes the sun to rise and fall. In the RE model, in order for the sun to stay in the sky, the earth would have to go from spinning at 900 miles per hour to spinning at 0 miles per hour. Think of a car hitting a brick wall at 900 miles per hour.  According to the RE model the law of inertia would fling us all into brick walls or trees and literally destroy the entire earth.

In the FE model the sun rise and set is most commonly caused by the motion of the sun not the motion of the earth so if it came to screeching halt no one on earth would be effected and it would not be violating the law of inertia.

Iamcpc, thank you, I realized this implication while arguing with lackey. If the sun literally did stop in the middle of the sky, that would create chaos in both models, and lead to more questions about what moves the sun and so forth.

I hate to sound cliche, but this is also a case of incorrectly assuming a literal translation of the event. Is it too hard to believe that someone might write about a dramatic battle and in an attempt to accurately portray the chaos, describe a long, terribly pain-stricken day as a day in which the sun and moon came to a halt (for a day).

I'd also like to point out that it all occurred conveniently within a single day - just as if the sun were behaving normally...

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 04:30:56 PM »
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.
I am not taking it literally.

I am pointing out, as does your own source (which I quoted) states the Bible does suggest the earth is flat.

OK - let's try this again:

If I say you are "as fit as a fiddle", figuratively that means you are in good shape. Literally, that means your fitness is that of a fiddle - which doesn't make sense.

If I say you have a "heart of gold", figuratively that means you have a good heart, and you are a kind person. Literally, that means your heart is metallic gold, and you wouldn't be alive.

If someone says "I will follow you to the ends of the earth". Does that mean they will follow you until you fall of the earth?...... No, that means they will follow you wherever you go.

Do you see the difference between figurative and literal?

Let's pick at this verse:

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

Four angels, four winds, four corners.... Literally that means that the earth is square, and there are four angels standing at each corner holding back the wind - the four winds, to be exact.

So, there are only four winds on earth? That doesn't make sense.... unless you're describing that the wind generally comes from either the north, south, east, or west - that makes sense. Maybe this verse just means there was such a calming on earth that there was no wind. So calm that the trees weren't blowing their leaves and the lakes had no waves.

You see, the latter explanation I gave is a figurative interpretation. The former is the literal.

Any explanation of the scripture that "seems to suggest the earth is flat" is also taking these scriptures literally - which is absurd.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 01:29:27 PM »
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 12:58:25 PM »
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west
On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.

You've heard of figurative speech, right?

You are taking those phrases literally. Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square. Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 11:31:05 AM »
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 01:21:39 AM »
The bible is also difficult to take literally, and depending on the translation, can be interpreted in multiple ways. I find in hard to take those scriptures literally.

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

Is that the roman army bragging about its everlasting reign and power? Another empire maybe? I'm not a historian, but the odds are pretty good that the interpretation of an un-moving world being a flat earth is pretty low considering the ("world of pure imagination" - willy wonka.) alternatives.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 07:05:54 PM »
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 06:23:15 PM »

Remember this dress? Half the people who saw it said the dress was blue and black. The other half of people who saw it said the dress was white and gold. What is the TRUTH? Well the truth is that people have different visual cortex's, different eyes, and different optical nerves and see different things.



Remember this? A lot of people heard "Yanny" and many people heard "Laurel".

What is the TRUTH. What is the voice saying?

Regarding the dress:

The TRUTH is that neither are correct, for colors do not exist in reality.

Regarding the audio recording:

The TRUTH is that each individual is not created equally. We each hear different pitches at varying decibels. This audio was recorded with both "yanny" and "lorel" dubbed over each other. Whichever you hear is dependent on what decibel you hear the corresponding pitch.

To answer the question of "What is truth?" requires a different thread.

To answer the question of whether or not refraction exists.... it exists in as much as light waves exist. However, each individual perception of refraction will change. This is why we have different prescription glasses.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 05:39:57 PM »
I'm not the one questioning whether refraction exists or not.  I am simply telling iamcpc that I have been familiar with what I recognise as the refraction of light for over 40 years so I don't understand his need to question whether refraction exists or not. If it doesn't then perhaps he could explain to me how refracting telescopes work.

I believe my comment was directed more toward iamcpc, since they were the ones to argue that it is impossible to know something 100%. I don't know that I am not the only conscious being, but that doesn't stop me from making friends and having meaningful relationships, for instance. So claiming that you can't know something for absolute sure is no argument for or against anything.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >