Darkside_Spirit vs Grand_Moff_Monkey: The Great Debate

Welcome to this formal debate between Darkside_Spirit and Grand_Moff_Monkey. The subject is:

Is the Bible Divinely Inspired?

The basic rules, decided by mutual consent, will be as follows:

• This is strictly an intellectual debate, with no personal animosity. All the prior PMs have been in a friendly tone, and neither of us intend to launch personal attacks of any sort. Consequently, if you're looking to spectate on a flamewar, you're at the wrong place.



• Not only is personal animosity absent, we intend to keep rhetoric to a minimum as well, leaving us free to concentrate on actual points.



• All people except Darkside_Spirit and Grand_Moff_Monkey are asked to refrain from posting here during weekdays, when the debate will be taking place. However, at weekends, there will be an "open time" when other members can post comments.



• There will be a one-post-at-a-time system, so that both participants have a fair chance to put their point across.

The format will be as follows:

The debate will be divided into the following sections:

- Is the Bible supported or discredited by science?
- Is the Bible supported or discredited by historical inquiry?
- Is the Bible internally consistent or inconsistent?
- Is the Bible ethical or immoral?

For each section, DSS will make a fairly long post arguing for the latter option. This will then be debated in some detail, going through the points one-by-one. At the end, each participant will write a conclusion, before the next section commences.

At the end of the whole debate, GMM and DSS will each make a summing-up. After that, the thread will be left open for other members' comments.

Please note that this has been agreed with Lord Bane beforehand and carries his full endorsement and approval.

---

Section 1: Is the Bible supported or discredited by science?

Darkside_Spirit: First post

As a starting point, let us look to the Biblical view of the universe and the state of the terrestrial world. A wide variety of verses support the common ancient misconception that the earth is flat, is the centre of the universe, rests on four pillars, and is surrounded by seas [1]. It has stories about the sun and moon being commanded to stand still in terrestrial valleys. [2] Heaven is in the clouds [3] and the sky is a solid dome with holes that allow rain through [4]. Even if we confine ourselves to the state of the world and universe, the Bible seems to portray nothing more than the mindset of writers stuck in ancient times.

The book has similarly incorrect ideas concerning weather. Snow and hail come from storehouses, reserved for times of war; the east wind is scattered upon the earth, light is distributed from some hidden place, channels are cut for the rain (which along with ice, dew and frost is begotten from a womb) and a path is laid down for lightning bolts, which actually report before being launched. [5] These claims are wrong to the point of being ridiculous.

A good example of Biblical errancy is the account of the Creation given in Genesis chapter 1. Creation/evolution is a whole subject in and of itself; however, we can quickly address some fairly obvious problems with the Creation story. Regarding the first day, we are told that light and darkness are created and divided from each other-but darkness is merely the absence of light, so cannot be "created", and because one is merely the absence of the other, it is nonsensical to speak of "dividing" the two. On the second day, the earth is made as a "firmament" in the midst of the waters-but in reality it is a planet, orbiting a star and surrounded by vacuum, not dihydrogen oxide. On the third day, plants are created-but they would rapidly die, since there is no sunshine, and moreover because there are no insects, which many plants require. The fourth day is when the sun (along with the moon) is created

 

Firstly I'd like to thank Lord Bane for giving Darkside and me the go-ahead to have this debate in the Senate. I'd also like to thank my agent and my mum and dad, without whom I wouldn't be collecting this award... oops, sorry wrong speech.

It's probably worth saying why we're doing this, before we get going. The point is not to exclude others from a debate as Darkside and I have a battle of wits. That's not the point at all. Darkside and I have debated many times in the past and we thought it would be interesting to tackle each other in a formal debate on a topic that stimulates both of us. If Lord Bane had turned us down, chances are that we?d have our debate privately in PMs anyway. But since we wanted to have this debate, we thought it would be worth doing in the Senate, so that if people are interested they can follow our points and form their own judgments.

So with no further ado...

As a starting point, let us look to the Biblical view of the universe and the state of the terrestrial world. A wide variety of verses support the common ancient misconception that the earth is flat, is the centre of the universe, rests on four pillars, and is surrounded by seas


I've read all the verses through that you posted as references of this. I can see where you get the "flat earth" and the "four pillars" idea from. I will address those verses in my next few posts. But I really can't see how you understand any of those verses to mean either that the earth is the center of the universe or that it is surrounded by seas. Where do these conclusions come from?

I'll begin my rebuttal with the verses that supposedly indicate a flat earth, and I'll start with the verse from Revelation:

Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

For this verse to suggest a flat earth, it has to be interpreted in the following way:

As Jesus returns at his second coming, while he is still traveling through the air with the clouds, every single person on the face of the earth can see him. For everyone in the world to be able to look up and see Jesus at the same time in the same point of the sky, the writer must have had a flat earth in mind.

This interpretation presents a few problems:

It assumes a literal and strictly chronological reading of Revelation. Anyone who has read even a few verses of Revelation will quickly realize that it's absolutely rife with symbolism. It is without doubt the most symbolic of all the books of the Bible (Jesus has bronze feet and a sword coming out his mouth; the church is Christ's Bride, and is dressed beautifully for their wedding) and the order of events do not follow in a linear fashion (Chapter 1 tells us of Christ's return, Chapter 5 tells us about the Lamb that was slain, Chapter 13 tells us about the coming of the Anti-Christ etc). With this in mind, why must we look at the above verse and conclude that the writer meant that every eye will see him while he is still in the clouds?

It ignores "those who pierced him". Remember that, according to the verse, "even those who pierced him" will see him. Now unless the writer believed that the anonymous Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus would actually be alive at his second coming (highly unlikely), we simply cannot take this verse to mean that everyone would see him while he's still in the sky.

It assumes that you can clearly recognize people from miles away. Although the people at this time probably didn't know exactly how high the clouds were, they would know just from observation that the further away someone is, the smaller they appear. Do you think that the people at this time believed that if someone was above, say, Jerusalem, that they could be clearly seen from Babylon or from Assyria? Also bear in mind that he's "coming with the clouds", so the clouds would obscure him even more.


It is with the above points in

 

"There is not a shred of internal evidence to demonstrate that the Bible was scientifically ahead of its times, as we would expect from a book with divine inspiration."


Why is science (man-made construct) being used as the measuring stick for Divine Inspiration (unrelated to Man and Science)?

Also, why is Divine Inspiration being used to connote literal interpretation? That's a modern construct, and unrelated to the question of origin of the texts in the Bible. I find it hard to understand what bearing the classification of Revelations as metaphor or literal prognostication has to do with its legitimacy, let alone that of the rest of the Book.

 

Shhh, Red-Seven. You aren't supposed to post here. Evidently, since "regular" members are prohibited from posting here, this is just for the personal amusement and edification of these two. I guess they really think the entire Jedi Council is waiting on pins and needles to know their opinions on this subject. Inexplicably, Bane even agreed to this ridiculous spectacle. The notion that only two people are allowed to be involved in this debate is utterly insane.

Is this what the Senate is to become? The personal playground of individuals? Ridiculous, egotistical, and self-centered -- that's what it is.

AYBABTU?

 

Um?

San Dimas High School football rules?

 

Actually, I don't think this is a bad idea. Debates on this forum tend to get way out of hand, and it wouldn't hurt to introduce some structure.

Now, if it can be achieved with any skill remains to be seen...

 

First of all, I'd like to reiterate Grand_Moff_Monkey's comments as to the nature of this debate:

The point is not to exclude others from a debate as Darkside and I have a battle of wits. That's not the point at all. Darkside and I have debated many times in the past and we thought it would be interesting to tackle each other in a formal debate on a topic that stimulates both of us. If Lord Bane had turned us down, chances are that we?d have our debate privately in PMs anyway. But since we wanted to have this debate, we thought it would be worth doing in the Senate, so that if people are interested they can follow our points and form their own judgments.

This is not designed to elevate myself and GMM above other posters in any way whatsoever. The sole purpose of this exercise is to tackle each other in a more structured format, having engaged in lots of little exchanges. As GMM has already related, we would have done this over PMs anyway, but we thought we'd post it in the Senate so that others can spectate. Doubtless there will be people who object to this taking place, but it's been cleared with the moderator (Lord Bane), who I would consider a reputable authority as to what is acceptable and what is not. And hey--this is only one thread! If you dislike it, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read this.

Now, to my first response. I'm going to offer something of a concession, in that I agree that the verse in Revelation is not sufficient, in itself, to demonstrate that the Biblical writers believed in a flat earth. It was given as a secondary reference, to back up the other verses. If all the other verses are cleared by Grand_Moff_Monkey later in the debate, then admittedly the Revelation reference will cease to carry any weight.

It assumes a literal and strictly chronological reading of Revelation. Anyone who has read even a few verses of Revelation will quickly realize that it's absolutely rife with symbolism. It is without doubt the most symbolic of all the books of the Bible (Jesus has bronze feet and a sword coming out his mouth; the church is Christ's Bride, and is dressed beautifully for their wedding) and the order of events do not follow in a linear fashion (Chapter 1 tells us of Christ's return, Chapter 5 tells us about the Lamb that was slain, Chapter 13 tells us about the coming of the Anti-Christ etc). With this in mind, why must we look at the above verse and conclude that the writer meant that every eye will see him while he is still in the clouds?

This is a powerful point, and one that might preclude the use of Revelation for drawing any conclusions about the nature of the Earth. However, the "and every eye shall see him" excerpt does appear immediately after the reference to coming with the clouds, joined by the word "and". It might, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that every eye will see him while he is still in the clouds--and appearing in the sky would seem to be a good way to be seen far and wide.

It ignores "those who pierced him". Remember that, according to the verse, "even those who pierced him" will see him. Now unless the writer believed that the anonymous Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus would actually be alive at his second coming (highly unlikely), we simply cannot take this verse to mean that everyone would see him while he's still in the sky.

Firstly, it's not certain at which time Revelation was written. Certain parts of the Gospels and the Epistles suggest that Jesus' followers were expecting his imminent return. If Revelation was written very early (e.g. 60CE) then the writer might have believed that the soldiers who crucified Jesus would still be alive at the second coming. Secondly, if Revelation was written later, then "those who pierced him" might well be symbolic of those who were persecuting Jesus' followers. It has been speculated that Revelation, like many apocalyptic texts, was written in order to give hop

 

It should be cool, give it a chance. It's something they've been working on for awhile, and there are similar formal debates on other websites, i don't see any harm having one here. Plus there won't be any flaming to sidetrack things.

One suggestion: provide live links for each verse from blue note bible or some other bible site.

Alright i won't post again.

 

Now, to my first response. I'm going to offer something of a concession, in that I agree that the verse in Revelation is not sufficient, in itself, to demonstrate that the Biblical writers believed in a flat earth. It was given as a secondary reference, to back up the other verses. If all the other verses are cleared by Grand_Moff_Monkey later in the debate, then admittedly the Revelation reference will cease to carry any weight.

That's fair enough. I'll accept that.

Still on the topic of the "flat earth", I'll now look at the 2 verses you gave as references that speak of the "ends of the earth":

"O Lord , my strength and my fortress,
my refuge in time of distress,
to you the nations will come
from the ends of the earth and say,
'Our fathers possessed nothing but false gods,
worthless idols that did them no good.'" (Jeremiah 16:19)

"For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
'I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
(Acts 13:47 - Paul and Barnabus speaking, quoting Isaiah 49:6)

So the question is: Do these verses show that the biblical writers believed that the earth literally had "ends", and was therefore flat?

In answering this question, it's worth considering three things:

"Ends of the earth" is a term which people still use. Despite our knowledge that it's not literally correct, we still use "the ends of the earth" to depict the furthest places from us. Last night on Channel 4 (that's a British channel, guys. Don't worry, you're really not missing anything) there was a program on called "To the Ends of the Earth". The phrase even appears in my Collins dictionary. The fourth option under the word "end" reads: "the most distant place or time that can be imagined: the ends of the earth". So if in our scientifically enlightened age, we can still use this phrase, why castigate the biblical writers for doing the same?

The Bible uses the term elsewhere figuratively. To consider what the biblical mindset was when using this phrase, we need to consider how it's used elsewhere in the Bible. These two verses are examples of how "ends of the earth" is used:

"All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him."
(Psalm 22:27)

"Those who oppose the Lord will be shattered.
He will thunder against them from heaven;
the Lord will judge the ends of the earth."
(1 Samuel 2:10)

How can the literal ends of a flat earth remember the Lord and turn to him? Or does the Psalm use the term figuratively? Does 1 Samuel not make more sense if we interpret it to mean that God will judge the people of the whole earth, rather than him judging the land on the edge of the world?

Paul and Barnabus understood it as figurative. Paul and Barney were the ones quoting Isaiah's "ends of the earth" reference in Acts. How did they understand it? If they thought their mandate was to bring salvation to the literal ends of the world, why didn't they try? Why doesn't the Book of Acts give us fanciful stories about these apostles sailing off to find the end of the world? Maybe we'd have a story about them being fearful of dropping off the ends as they sailed. What does the book give us instead? Accounts of the apostles taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to lands further and further away - just as the dictionary definition above says: "the most distant place or time that can be imagined: the ends of the earth".

So I believe that it cannot be shown from the Jeremiah and Acts verses that the writers were literally speaking of a flat earth having ends.

 

First of all, I'd like to apologise, both to Grand_Moff_Monkey and any spectators, for failing to post yesterday evening. Sometimes, I won't have time to take part in the debate on the day-by-day frequency at which we have aimed. Apologies for any delays because of this.

Now, the key issue here is whether the term "ends of the earth" is used figuratively, or literally. In seeking to assess the manner in which such a term is used, there are a number of criteria that we may look to for indications. One of the most significant is frequency--if a term is used simply as a non-literal expression, it is unlikely to be repeated. For instance, I didn't see the Channel 4 documentary that Grand_Moff_Monkey mentioned, but looking back in the Radio Times I see that it concerns a special forces mission during the Gulf War, which presumably took place in Iraq. Now, I'll be very surprised if the term "ends of the earth" was used more than a couple of times during that programme. It was used in the title for the purposes of eye-catching, of arousing interest, but I doubt that the term was used with great ubiquity throughout the documentary. In pinpointing geographical locations, they would probably say something like "in Iraq", or "in Baghdad"; it would be ridiculous to keep going on about "commandoes dropped at the ends of the earth", for example.

If the two Biblical references I provided, and the further two that Grand_Moff_Monkey mentioned, were alone or unusual in their use of the term, it might be dismissable as imagery. However, it appears quite a number of times throughout the Bible, as follows. (Note that I'm not trying to overwhelm Grand_Moff_Monkey with verses--in normal circumstances, posting this number of quotations would be quite unfair and ridiculous. However, it is necessary to illustrate my point in this specific instance, because it directly concerns the number of times the phrase appears. The following excerpts are only to provide backing for the point concerning frequency, and I'm certainly not expecting a debate concerning each one!)

He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth. (Job 37:3)

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (Job 38:13)

According to thy name, O God, so [is] thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness. (Psalms 48:10)

His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh. (Deuteronomy 33:17)

The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed. (Isaiah 2:10)

Consume [them] in wrath, consume [them], that they [may] not [be]: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah. (Psalm 59:13)

[By] terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; [who art] the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off [upon] the sea: (Psalms 65:5)

God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him. (Psalms 67:7)

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. (Psalms 72:8)

He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. (Psalms 98:3)

He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. (Psalms 135:7)

Wisdom [is] before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool [are] in the ends of the earth. (Proverbs 17:24)

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a ga

 

First of all, I'd like to apologise, both to Grand_Moff_Monkey and any spectators, for failing to post yesterday evening. Sometimes, I won't have time to take part in the debate on the day-by-day frequency at which we have aimed. Apologies for any delays because of this.

[Vader]Apology accepted, Darkside.[/Vader]

Now, the key issue here is whether the term "ends of the earth" is used figuratively, or literally. In seeking to assess the manner in which such a term is used, there are a number of criteria that we may look to for indications. One of the most significant is frequency--if a term is used simply as a non-literal expression, it is unlikely to be repeated.

Frequency has no bearing on this. If a term is used many times it simply means that it's an accepted or common way of expressing something ? not that the person saying it believes it's literally true. There's many expressions that pop up frequently in the Bible that the writers clearly knew weren't literal. God is referred to as a "Rock" over 30 times in the Bible. Did the monotheistic Hebrews actually think their God was a literal rock?

Let's use a few contemporary examples:

There's a full moon tonight. Everyone talks in terms of full-moon or half-moon. It doesn't mean that we literally believe that the moon is any bigger or smaller on any given night. It's just an expression ? one that is used frequently.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We also use this terminology frequently. Does it mean we literally believe that the sun rotates round the earth?

Wow, the sky's so blue. Or words to that effect. In truth the sky isn't blue at all, and we know that. Doesn't stop us from commenting on how blue the sky is whenever we have a sunny day.

Remember in Back to the Future when Marty made frequent use of the word "heavy" . Doc Brown replied, "There's that word again ? heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth?s gravitational pull?"

I didn't see the Channel 4 documentary that Grand_Moff_Monkey mentioned, but looking back in the Radio Times I see that it concerns a special forces mission during the Gulf War, which presumably took place in Iraq. Now, I'll be very surprised if the term "ends of the earth" was used more than a couple of times during that programme. It was used in the title for the purposes of eye-catching, of arousing interest, but I doubt that the term was used with great ubiquity throughout the documentary. In pinpointing geographical locations, they would probably say something like "in Iraq", or "in Baghdad"; it would be ridiculous to keep going on about "commandoes dropped at the ends of the earth", for example.

In mentioning the program, my point wasn't about the show itself but that the term "ends of the earth" is still in use today as a figure of speech. So if we use it as a figure of speech, why should we assume that the biblical writers intended the same phrase as a literal statement?

If the two Biblical references I provided, and the further two that Grand_Moff_Monkey mentioned, were alone or unusual in their use of the term, it might be dismissable as imagery. However, it appears quite a number of times throughout the Bible, as follows. (Note that I'm not trying to overwhelm Grand_Moff_Monkey with verses--in normal circumstances, posting this number of quotations would be quite unfair and ridiculous. However, it is necessary to illustrate my point in this specific instance, because it directly concerns the number of times the phrase appears. The following excerpts are only to provide backing for the point concerning frequency, and I'm certainly not expecting a debate concerning each one!)

Phew, that?s a relief.

Are all of these instances dismissable as figurative usage? On their own, most, if not all, of them probably are. But the sheer number of times this phrase appears strongly indic

 

Again, this does not constitute evidence that Samuel 2:10 references the ends of the earth in a purely figurative sense. It merely justifies interpreting the verse to mean the people living at the ends of the earth, rather than the ends themselves.

You raise an interesting issue. Which ancient culture believed that there were people actually living at the end of the world? When the flat earth belief was widespread, the general theory was that the (literal) ends of the world were uninhabitable. As you approach the end, it's just water, water, more water, then you drop. The warning sign that you were approaching the end was considered to be severe storms. So if people were sailing out quite far and they encountered really dangerous climates, they?d assume they were approaching the end and turn back.

Therefore, since the predominant ancient belief was that there were no people at the ends, this is an even greater indication that the "ends of the earth" were not spoken of as literal. Because if they did believe in a flat earth, chances are they wouldn?t have been referring to people living on the ends of it.

(Emphasis added).

Grand_Moff_Monkey is correct in that most ancient belief systems that subscribed to the notion of a flat earth saw the places near to the edges as being uninhabitable oceans, troubled constantly by storms and carrying the danger that ships would "fall off the edge". However, this is by no means the only ancient theory. For example, certain versions of ancient Egyptian mythology pictured the earth as being Geb, the earth deity, lying on his back. Arching over Geb, and joined at the hands and feet, was Nut, the sky goddess and Geb's sister. The earth/sky siblings were held separate by their father, Shu (god of air). This arrangement was surrounded by the primeval waters (Nun). Far from being watery, the edges were mountains where the hands and feet of Geb and Nut met.

The predominant flat-earth worldview was indeed of watery, inhospitable edges. However, this belief was not the only flat-earth conception--nor does it demonstrate that the Biblical flat earth, if it is present, must have uninhabitable edges.

If they believed in literal ends of the earth, then they could have taken bringing salvation to them as their ultimate goal, while taking a pragmatic step-by-step approach and recognising that they had to work from the immediate provinces outward, reaching the ends of the earth eventually. A desire to reach a faraway place does not mean that the nearer places have to be bypassed. Suppose we analysed German military directions from 1914, which stated that "our goal is to reach Paris". It would be rather strange to ask, "Why did the Germans invade Belgium and then move through France, rather than trying to go for Paris straightaway?" The answer, of course, is that they ultimately wanted to capture Paris, but for various reasons (e.g. supplies), they had to take control of nearer regions first. Similarly, Paul and Barnabus' ultimate goal could have been to reach literal ends of the earth, but practically, that could only be achieved by slowly propagating the message outwards.

Again, you use a good example. Hitler's goal was Paris, so he took the most obvious route - through Belgium. All one needs to do is look at a map to see that this was the most logical move.

Now let's consider Paul's route. The following two maps show Paul's four series of journeys throughout the Book of Acts. We can clearly see him either going around in circles or zig-zagging all over the place. Hardly looks like he?s making his way to the end of the earth.

We're talking about Wilhelm in 1914, not Hitler in 1940. Germany, in making preparations for war, understood that it could not sustain a conflict on two fronts at once--specifically, that it could not fight a successful war against both France and Russia at the same time. To deal with this, they devised the Schlieffen Plan--a military directive

 

I am quite happy most people have been respecting this experiment. Being an experiment itself, the Senate is always open to new ideas.

Please refrain from dragging this place off course.

 

Quite the interesting debate.

 

You start by saying:

Grand_Moff_Monkey is correct in that most ancient belief systems that subscribed to the notion of a flat earth saw the places near to the edges as being uninhabitable oceans, troubled constantly by storms and carrying the danger that ships would "fall off the edge". However, this is by no means the only ancient theory. For example, certain versions of ancient Egyptian mythology pictured the earth as being Geb, the earth deity, lying on his back. Arching over Geb, and joined at the hands and feet, was Nut, the sky goddess and Geb's sister. The earth/sky siblings were held separate by their father, Shu (god of air). This arrangement was surrounded by the primeval waters (Nun). Far from being watery, the edges were mountains where the hands and feet of Geb and Nut met. The predominant flat-earth worldview was indeed of watery, inhospitable edges. However, this belief was not the only flat-earth conception--nor does it demonstrate that the Biblical flat earth, if it is present, must have uninhabitable edges.

You conclude by saying:

A historian from the 41st century looking at a C21 weather forecast would be drawn to the conclusion that "blue sky" or "sun rising in the east" are figurative by comparing these usages to others. If they were to choose on the basis of context, then they would conclude that a scientific paper is more likely to give an indication of actual physical knowledge, than a part-factual-part-entertainment television weather programme. The point about frequency of "ends of the earth" in the Bible merely serves to demonstrate that no such conflict exists. The widespread background of that day and age was the belief in a flat earth, and the Bible contains no internal material contradicting an "ends of the earth" literal interpretation. It is fallacious to dimiss "ends of the earth" as purely figurative, because no good reason exists to do so.

So, on the one hand you appear to be saying, "Most people back then believed in a flat earth, therefore the biblical writers did as well." On the other hand you appear to be saying, "Just because most people believed there were no civilizations on the ends of the earth, doesn't mean the Bible writers believed that as well."

You ask for evidence for one of them, yet accept the other unquestioningly. There is no consistency in your argument. You want proof that the Israelites definitely didn't believe in a flat earth, but cannot offer proof that they believed (unlike other cultures) that there were people on the ends of that flat earth.



Returning to the immediate issue in question, Paul's ultimate goal may have been to bring salvation to the very edge of the world. However, he understood that this could only be achieved by propagating the message slowly outwards. The zig-zag nature of his journeys was designed to bring the message as far as possible, so that it would spread and eventually reach the very edges of the world (and incidentally, Christianity has now been spread over the entire world). When I posted the following: If they believed in literal ends of the earth, then they could have taken bringing salvation to them as their ultimate goal, while taking a pragmatic step-by-step approach and recognising that they had to work from the immediate provinces outward, reaching the ends of the earth eventually. A desire to reach a faraway place does not mean that the nearer places have to be bypassed...
I didn't mean that Paul intended to travel eventually to the ends of the earth, but make a couple of stops along the way. I meant that it is entirely possible that he believed in literal ends of the earth, and that he wanted to bring salvation to them eventually, but that he went about that by seeding the message as widely as possible in the provinces within his immediate reach. Suppose I want to promulgate a book that will "reach as far as Australia", and I go about this by visiting publishers in Bristol, Derby and Sheffield. Does this mean that I don't literally want to reach Australia, because I actually took t

 

Apologies once again for the delay, but my response isn't fully finished. I'll post it as soon as I can Monday evening (after that GMM can have his last say on "ends of the earth" and we can move on, if that's alright with him").

 

It's fine with me. Also, I'll make an effort to not let my posts get quite so long in future.

Hope you had a good weekend.

 

I did, hope you did too... Don't worry about the "long posts" thing--I make them too.

Speaking of long posts...

So, on the one hand you appear to be saying, "Most people back then believed in a flat earth, therefore the biblical writers did as well." On the other hand you appear to be saying, "Just because most people believed there were no civilizations on the ends of the earth, doesn't mean the Bible writers believed that as well."

You ask for evidence for one of them, yet accept the other unquestioningly. There is no consistency in your argument. You want proof that the Israelites definitely didn't believe in a flat earth, but cannot offer proof that they believed (unlike other cultures) that there were people on the ends of that flat earth.

I didn't explain my argument satisfactorily. When looking at a term from historical material, there should be a presumption of literalness--i.e., we should take it as being literal unless we have evidence to indicate otherwise. Were it not for this assumption, use of written sources would be hopeless--indeed, it would be almost impossible to draw any historical conclusions at all. Now, in order to rebut the presumption of literality, evidence may be raised demonstrating that the usage concerned is likely to be figurative. This can be of two main categories:

(i) external--we may look at the relevant general circumstances at the time and place of the text's composure;
(ii) internal--we may look at the overall content of the text itself.

Now, it is my contention that there is no evidence of either sort to rebut the presumption of literality in the case of the Bible's use of "ends of the earth".

(i) external--most people in the world at that time believed that the earth literally had ends, and no evidence has been raised to show that the Israelites held a different belief.
(ii) internal--there are no relevant references elsewhere in the Bible that would indicate a figurative interpretation of "ends of the earth".

My point is not that "most people back then believed in a flat earth, therefore the biblical writers did as well." I do, however, say that if most people back then hadn't believed in a flat earth, then that would constitute backing for a figurative interpretation. In other words, I'm highlighting the absence of evidence, in a certain category, to indicate that the verses are figurative, not the presence of evidence to indicate that they are literal. As indicated above, a figurative interpretation must bear the burden of proof, otherwise it would be impossible to use any historical written sources.

Now, Grand_Moff_Monkey has introduced a piece of evidence that supposedly gives backing to the figurative interpretation. He has pointed out two things:

1. That, if "judging the ends of the earth" does not preclude the literal existence of such ends, but simply refers to the people living on them, then the Israelite flat earth must have been habitable.

2. That most flat-earth conceptions saw the edges as being uninhabitable oceans, beset by storms.

He has used these two observations to claim that the slightly figurative interpretation, taking the extracts to mean the people living at the edges, does not hold water, because if the Israelites believed in a flat earth, then its edges would likely have been watery wastelands and therefore nobody would have lived on them. This is a fair point--as I have stated above, we may use the relevant general circumstances at the time and place of the text's composure to look for evidence rebutting the necessary presumption of literality. However, consider:

(i) The watery edges belief was by no means universal. I've used the example of the Egyptians--their mythology was extremely varied, evolving and changing over time and encompassing many different interpretations, but almost all cosmologies saw the earth as being bounded by mountains.

(ii) The watery edges belief is, geographically, n

 

My point is not that "most people back then believed in a flat earth, therefore the biblical writers did as well." I do, however, say that if most people back then hadn't believed in a flat earth, then that would constitute backing for a figurative interpretation. In other words, I'm highlighting the absence of evidence, in a certain category, to indicate that the verses are figurative, not the presence of evidence to indicate that they are literal. As indicated above, a figurative interpretation must bear the burden of proof, otherwise it would be impossible to use any historical written sources.

You bring up an excellent point. It's a fair assumption that the biblical writers believed their accounts to be literally true. I agree completely. Whether we're talking about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the exodus from Egypt, the fall of Jericho, David and Goliath, the life of Jesus, his miracles, or his crucifixion and resurrection. We can safely assume that the writers believed them to be true, and I completely agree with them.

The problem though is that not a single one of the "ends of the earth" verses occur in any kind of historical narrative. Every single one of them is either in the context of a psalm, a proverb or a prophecy. All three of these literary frameworks make use of poetic devices such as symbolism, allegory, simile and metaphor. So to simply assume a literal meaning is to completely ignore its poetic framework.

If you quickly scan down the numerous "ends of the earth" references that you posted, you'll notice that all of the books that they are quoted from are among the Wisdom books or the Prophetic books of the Old Testament (The only exception is the verse from Deuteronomy which is translated from "'ephec" ? one of the 13 verses you conceded on). There's numerous references from the Psalms (which are poetic), Job (also poetic), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah and Zechariah (all four of which are books of prophecy).

To simply assume that a literal meaning is intended in a poetic or prophetic context is completely ridiculous.

By the way, I came across another verse in which ends of the earth is better understood as figurative:

"From the ends of the earth I call to you,
I call as my heart grows faint;
lead me to the rock that is higher than I." (Psalm 61:2)

Is King David saying he wrote this psalm at the end of the world? Or does he mean this figuratively?

In my estimation, "farthest" does mandate a flat earth. There can be no "farthest point" on the surface of a spherical planet; there is no central point on the crust to measure from, and all points on the surface are an equal distance from the centre.

The problem, Darkside, is that "farthest" is a relative term. Farthest from where? It always requires a reference point. Why are you assuming that "farthest" is with respect to the center? Distance means nothing unless you have a reference point. So what are the reference points? Let's consider Psalm 135:7 which you mentioned in your last post:

"He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries."

What do verses 1 and 2 of this psalm say?

"Praise the Lord.
Praise the name of the Lord ;
praise him, you servants of the Lord ,
you who minister in the house of the Lord ,
in the courts of the house of our God.

So, right at the start of the psalm, the reference we are given is "the house of the Lord, in the courts of the house of our God." So the geographic reference point of this psalm is the temple in Jerusalem.

Where did "every part" come from?

"Every part" is the English rendering of "quatsah" in Genesis 19:4:

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part (quatsah) of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house." (Genesis 19:4)

So in context, what makes more sense? That men from every part of Sodom surrounded the house, or that just those living on the

 

The problem though is that not a single one of the "ends of the earth" verses occur in any kind of historical narrative. Every single one of them is either in the context of a psalm, a proverb or a prophecy. All three of these literary frameworks make use of poetic devices such as symbolism, allegory, simile and metaphor. So to simply assume a literal meaning is to completely ignore its poetic framework.

In light of the above, coupled with the information provided by GMM regarding translations, I have no choice but to capitulate. While that brings the score to 2-0 in GMM's favour, we still have three whole sections as well as the remainder of the current one to go, so I'm by no means surrendering yet.

It's worth pointing out that I still maintain my position regarding a few specifics. For instance, I don't accept that the Biblical flat earth--if it exists--must have uninhabitable, watery edges. Similarly, I stick to my guns regarding Paul's intentions. However, it would be a waste of time to continue debating these issues, since the main point has already been conceded.

Now, without further ado, let's commence discussion on the verses still to come.

 

The score, if we're even keeping one, isn't really 2-0 as we're still on the first point. You're quite right that we have a long way to go yet. So with no further ado...

I'll now continue with one of the verses you posted as a reference for your first point in your original post:

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

So, is Isaiah speaking of a flat, square-shaped earth with four corners? In answering this question, let's consider 3 points:


The Hebrew text isn't referring to literal, geometric corners. The Hebrew word that is translated as "corners" here is "kanaph" (which we came across before), literally meaning "wing" or "extremity". Of the 108 times in the Bible that this word is used, 74 of those are translated as "wing(s)" and only 2 as "corners". Let's consider how Isaiah uses "kanaph" elsewhere in the book. Aside from the verse above, the word appears in 5 instances:

Above him were seraphs, each with six wings (kanaph): With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. (6:2)

"Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the River -
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings (kanaph) will cover the breadth of your land,
O Immanuel" (8:6-8)

"As one reaches into a nest,
so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations;
as men gather abandoned eggs,
so I gathered all the countries;
not one flapped a wing (kanaph),
or opened its mouth to chirp." (10:14)

"Woe to the land of whirring wings (kanaph)
along the rivers of Cush" (18:1)

From the ends (kanaph. Remember it also means extremity. The King James renders this as "From the uttermost part") of the earth we hear singing:
"Glory to the Righteous One."
But I said, "I waste away, I waste away!
Woe to me!
The treacherous betray!
With treachery the treacherous betray!" (24:16)

So "kanaph" means "wing" or "extremity" and that's how Isaiah uses it. If he had intended to convey the image of a flat, square earth with four corners, there were other Hebrew words to use that literally do mean "corner". For example, the word "pe'ah" means "corner" and is unambiguous. Here is just one instance in which it is used. The context is God's directions to Moses for building the Holy Table for use in the Tabernacle:

Make four gold rings for the table and fasten them to the four corners (pe'ah), where the four legs are. (Exodus 25:26)

So, literally, Isaiah?s statement means the four wings, or the four extremities of the earth, and was not a reference to a square-shaped earth. When translating into English, the translators rendered it into the closest English phrase: four corners of the earth, which is still very much in use today. The current World Cup 2002 ad starts with "Great heroes will come from the four corners of the earth." (The NIV incidentally renders this verse "the four quarters of the earth".)



The context tells us what the "four corners" refer to. So what do these four wings/extremities of the earth refer to? If we look at the immediate context of this verse, it'll become clearer:

In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
He wil

 

The Hebrew text isn't referring to literal, geometric corners. The Hebrew word that is translated as "corners" here is "kanaph" (which we came across before), literally meaning "wing" or "extremity". Of the 108 times in the Bible that this word is used, 74 of those are translated as "wing(s)" and only 2 as "corners". Let's consider how Isaiah uses "kanaph" elsewhere in the book...

So, literally, Isaiah?s statement means the four wings, or the four extremities of the earth, and was not a reference to a square-shaped earth.

Whether or not the definition of "kanaph" requires 90 degree corners is beside the point. We are concerned with Isaiah 11:12 as a whole, and what interpretation it makes sense under. Now, Grand_Moff_Monkey claims that, translated literally, the latter part of the verse reads:

...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four extremities of the earth.

Do "four extremities of the earth" require the earth to be flat? Consider:

(i) "Extremity" means the farthest or most remote part, section, or point. Taking Israel as the geographic reference point, the farthest place on the globe would appear to be in the South Pacific, some distance east of New Zealand. Around that area, there are no four specific bits of land clearly identifiable as farther from Israel than any other.

(ii) In the context of our actual, spherical earth, talking about specifically "four extremities" makes no sense. Two possible interpretations present themselves:

1. The passage refers directly to the four corners of a flat earth.
2. The "four extremities" do not reference the earth itself, but refer rather to the land area. Geographically, and using Israel as a reference point, the earth's land, as a whole, has four particular extremities.

If the second interpretation is chosen, we may make two observations:

(i) This still admits Biblical errancy, in a reduced form, because the overall picture of the Earth's land (with Israel as the centre) does not display four noticeable extremities.

(ii) Once the land, emanating out from Israel, begins to curve back on itself (i.e. we reach the earth's opposite side), talking of it as though it is laid out flat on paper seems decidedly strange. So while the second interpretation is not as explicit as the first, it still indicates either a flat earth, or an earth in which only one hemisphere features land.

When translating into English, the translators rendered it into the closest English phrase: four corners of the earth, which is still very much in use today. The current World Cup 2002 ad starts with "Great heroes will come from the four corners of the earth." (The NIV incidentally renders this verse "the four quarters of the earth".)

The meaning of a phrase today is a poor basis on which to make judgements concerning its usage millennia ago--many figures of speech today are relics of literal beliefs from bygone ages. GMM used the analogy of people two thousand years on digging up weather forecasts from the 20th century and concluding that people in C21 still believed that the Sun orbited the earth. My response was that this initial conclusion would be justified, but it would be rebutted by finding other evidence indicating that the Sun "rising in the east" was a figurative usage. I divided such evidence into categories of internal (context, nature of the text, etc) and external (relevant circumstances surrounding the text's composure). There is no evidence of either category to indicate that Isaiah's "four extremities of the earth" are figurative.

The nations that are mentioned were situated on all sides of Israel:
South: Egypt and Cush (Ethiopia)
East: Assyria, Elam and Babylonia
North: Hamath
West: Islands of the Sea

The inclusion of the obscure "islands of the sea" (iyyim) on the West seems to be for completeness. So in all likelihood, the four wings/extremities refer to the four compass points (as

 

Whether or not the definition of "kanaph" requires 90 degree corners is beside the point. We are concerned with Isaiah 11:12 as a whole, and what interpretation it makes sense under. Now, Grand_Moff_Monkey claims that, translated literally, the latter part of the verse reads:
...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four extremities of the earth.

No. That's not what I claimed at all. You'll see in my post above that I made continuous reference to "wing(s)" as well as "extremities" as a viable translation of kanaph.Indeed "wing(s)" is the most frequent usage of kanaph, especially in Isaiah (see above for references).

Do "four extremities of the earth" require the earth to be flat? Consider:
(i) "Extremity" means the farthest or most remote part, section, or point. Taking Israel as the geographic reference point, the farthest place on the globe would appear to be in the South Pacific, some distance east of New Zealand. Around that area, there are no four specific bits of land clearly identifiable as farther from Israel than any other.
(ii) In the context of our actual, spherical earth, talking about specifically "four extremities" makes no sense. Two possible interpretations present themselves:
1. The passage refers directly to the four corners of a flat earth.
2. The "four extremities" do not reference the earth itself, but refer rather to the land area. Geographically, and using Israel as a reference point, the earth's land, as a whole, has four particular extremities.
If the second interpretation is chosen, we may make two observations:
(i) This still admits Biblical errancy, in a reduced form, because the overall picture of the Earth's land (with Israel as the centre) does not display four noticeable extremities.
(ii) Once the land, emanating out from Israel, begins to curve back on itself (i.e. we reach the earth's opposite side), talking of it as though it is laid out flat on paper seems decidedly strange. So while the second interpretation is not as explicit as the first, it still indicates either a flat earth, or an earth in which only one hemisphere features land.

The flaw in your argument is a misunderstanding of my point. "Kanaph" means "wing(s)" as well as "extremities". The verse could just as likely read:

"...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four wings of the earth."

This is clearly figurative. Add to that the fact that Isaiah is utilizing a poetic framework. Add to that the fact that he uses symbolism throughout this chapter (e.g. the Root of Jesse as the Messiah). Add to that the fact that this whole section of the book is a prophetic oracle. And we're left with no reason whatsoever to assume a literal meaning.

The meaning of a phrase today is a poor basis on which to make judgments concerning its usage millennia ago--many figures of speech today are relics of literal beliefs from bygone ages. GMM used the analogy of people two thousand years on digging up weather forecasts from the 20th century and concluding that people in C21 still believed that the Sun orbited the earth. My response was that this initial conclusion would be justified, but it would be rebutted by finding other evidence indicating that the Sun "rising in the east" was a figurative usage. I divided such evidence into categories of internal (context, nature of the text, etc) and external (relevant circumstances surrounding the text's composure).

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My point was this - that "four corners of the earth" wasn't in use then at all. When a text is translated into another language, the translators will render the text into the nearest approximation. "Four corners of the earth" is an English phrase ? it does not appear in the Bible at all in the original languages.

There is no evidence of either category to indicate that Isaiah's "four extremitie

 

Whether or not the definition of "kanaph" requires 90 degree corners is beside the point. We are concerned with Isaiah 11:12 as a whole, and what interpretation it makes sense under. Now, Grand_Moff_Monkey claims that, translated literally, the latter part of the verse reads:
...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four extremities of the earth.

No. That's not what I claimed at all. You'll see in my post above that I made continuous reference to "wing(s)" as well as "extremities" as a viable translation of kanaph.Indeed "wing(s)" is the most frequent usage of kanaph, especially in Isaiah (see above for references).

In English, the word "wings" can mean:
1. Appendages which, through their function of trapping air, enable an animal or machine to fly (e.g. "wings of a 747"; "flapped its wings")
2. Outlying or side parts (e.g. "the house had east and west wings").

The Isaiah references provided by GMM demonstrate that "kanaph" can be translated as appendages which enable flight. However, none of them show the translation of "kanaph" as outlying or side parts. Consequently, in defining "kanaph" as "wings", we are restricted to the first meaning. To justify defining "kanaph" as appendages which enable flight, and on that basis redefine "kanaph" to mean outlying or side parts, commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Having established the limited definition of "wings" with regard to "kanaph", we may now substitute it into the verse:

...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four flight-enabling appendages of the earth.

If we are to define "kanaph" as "wings", then we are faced with the conclusion that the writer of Isaiah pictured the earth as an object flying through the air, with four air-trapping appendages protruding out of it. This notion of a bird-shaped earth is so patently ridiculous that I ignored the possibility in my previous post, dealing only with "kanaph" taken to mean "extremities".

...Isaiah is utilizing a poetic framework. Add to that the fact that he uses symbolism throughout this chapter (e.g. the Root of Jesse as the Messiah). Add to that the fact that this whole section of the book is a prophetic oracle. And we're left with no reason whatsoever to assume a literal meaning.

Let's underline the non-literal elements of 11:10-12:

In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. (Isaiah 11:10))

In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. (Isaiah 11:11)

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

(i) In this excerpt, there are only two expressions which are clearly symbolic--"Root of Jesse" and "reach out his hand" (which refer to God and the Messiah, where symbolism is much more probable). The rest of the passage is literal.

(ii) Verse 11 part 2 parallels verse 12 line 4. The former is literal, increasing the likelihood that the latter is, as well.

(iii) Verse 12, lines 1-3 is entirely literal. This increases the likelihood of line 4 being literal as well.

Isaiah wrote about the nations that were their historical and contemporary threats...
I can think of no other reason for their inclusion in the list other than for the reader to have a sense of Israel being surrounded from all directions.

I agree entirely. The nations were almost certainly chosen so that Israel would be surrounded from all directions, as opposed to any four specific compass points.

So the four compass points could well be

 

Just one quick comment and a question, since it's Saturday:

You guys must have some we're-in-a-slow-down so-the-employees-can-post-on-the-net-all-day, almost-bankrupt-anyway, what-do-I-care-I'm-retiring-in-a-month, if-he's-on-the-net-then-I-can-be-on-the-net, if-he posts-to-message-boards-then-I-can-browse-world-cup-news, I-need-to-take-an-in-depth-analysis-of-Kazaa-versus-Morpheus-and-since-he-is-making-his-luch-hour-start-at-nine-AM-everyday-I-am-gonna-download-big-mpegs-all-week, supervisors and co-workers.

And my question is:


Are they hiring?