Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

You are quoting a poem [psalm], and it is correct. Foundations refer to the construct of the earth in its orbit; the earth is firmly established in that construct: it remains the third rock from the sun and cannot be moved. Your grammar is poor here: what do you think 'SET' the earth 'on its foundations' refers to - perhaps you are looking for terms such gravity and solar sytem - maybe skuds and evolution also?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not only can it be moved from that foundation, it's quite likely that it has been:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Even so, you did demonstrate the basic point-- That you will interpret whatever however you best can support your argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The 10K year is disputed; nor does it show any imprints of speech: the text refers to it as PRE-HISTORIC! Have you not asked why the first writings never came from S.America and why we have no historical NAMES from here - is ToE not based on a time factor? who's the hypocrit here?

Its very easy to KO Genesis - but still this does not happen. Even when the irrational is clung to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Disputed by you... Ok, well I'll grant you that the exact time is unknown. As there was no written account...
So.. Let's examine Native American pictographs, numerology (It uses colors as numbers; as a Lakota, I'm familiar with it.), Mayan and Incan numerology and records and so on...

 

Knock-knock! You claimed the Hebrew bible said the earth is flat - I contested. Then you produced psalms and suggested your own twisted reading of it [BECAUSE THE hEBREW BIBLE HAS NO TEXT OF A FLAT EARTH!]. I only corrected you with correct grammar and comprehension, two faculties introduced in the Hebrew bible. You have no evidence the text of the five books calls the earth flat! You are acting as if you showed verse and text to verify your false claims! The fact remains, my explanation aligns with NO FLAT EARTH TEXTS EXISTS IN THE FIVE BOOKS' - yours does not!

 

incas is new, mayas is also not that old.

 

Irrelevant. Now you're repeating what you said before...
However, you also said:

to which I posted this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

To which you quickly changed your story back to squawking about flatness etc...

 

I see! That you are shown in error there is no text the earth is flat is irrelevant? Seems you are dumping some anxst stemming from another religion on the Hebrew bible - it is a widespread phenomenon.

Why do you give that link - it is a theory how the moon was formed and has no relevance of the text you referred to?

Conclusions: You have no names pre-5770; there is no such text the earth is flat in the Hebrew bible. The alternative of this agreement says we will go on a circular path.

 

On the Flat Earth Debate.
You might find this site interesting.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=7.0

Looking in the Bible for Science is an anachronism.
The scientific method was not developed then.
It is like looking in the Bible for episodes of Dr Who.
Impossible, they weren't written yet.

What upsets me most is a small minority of intelligent scientists who devote their lives to show that the Bible can be read like some scientific primer.
They do this so that they can have a very simple religious faith, and earn a lot of money printing books for the gullible.

 

Then you should know, whatever you call the bible, the only scripture which does not call the earth flat is the Hebrew bible. Science was introduced here too. The question arises, what is science and math? These are faculties which define how things work - not the cause of the works; chiefly, these are after the fact effects - after a construct is already working. Of course science and math existed and these are well applied to in the Hebrew bible: the first scientific premise is the universe is finite; science kicks in after the second verse - when the formless was turned to form. Science is a sacred faculty, but no more and no less than other faculties such as history and geography. This is the better big picture view.

I know of no scripture which deals with the universe, this planet and all its life forms and elements, as does the Hebrew bible. Not a goat or pineapple is left out, the rights and properites of all life forms are catered to. I also know of no scripture which has been more misrepresented to humanity than Christianity and Islam did with the Hebrew bible. All does not belong in the same basin.

I invite anyone to display their own intergrity about science, by considering a different kind of question - at least as a devil's advocate exercise.

Q. Consider that the universe is absolutely finite; this means nothing which is contained in this universe existed before the advent of the universe: zero; zilch. Without infringing science or empirical values, how would you see the universe coming into existence in that given scenario?

Here, one must adhere to science, not contradict anything in the preamble, and yet come up with a positive answer how this is possible - not why it cannot be. Show your science and your engenuity now, instead of making up your own secure questions and applying the same stuff everyone has read and knows, and still caught in the merry go round of a circular path - with holes all over the place.

 

the hebrew bible is not science

 

You claimed that the scripture said that the Earth Foundation was accurate and that the Earth could not be moved. You were attempting to present the illusion that the bible's description is accurate or you were invoking interpretation.
I posted that link as it demonstrates that the Earth was moved rather severely.

 

You cannot retract your error and admit the text does not say the earth is flat, allowing no merit for this great writings. The other statements you refer to, not only are not part of the relevant books, but they are also correct.

The foundations not moving does not refer to the earth not moving [the text!], but that the construct of the earth's position still does not change and remains unmoved. Namely, even when the space bed moves [expands], the earth still maintains in position in ratio to the sun, moon and its orbital trajectories. Its like even if the space under you changes, you can still be seen as motionless when you maintain your position.

If you further examine the psalm and book of job you selected, you will see the rest of its texts is involved in describing the mysteries how the earth still maintains its fixed position, 1000's of years before modern humans asked this question: post it and see, or examine it and check it out, as opposed your distortion of selecting a verse and manipulating it to your preferred reading which is totally out of context. The answer to how the earth maintains its fixed position in an ever moving and changing construct is not vested in gravity, and it remains a mystery. Here, asking this question is itself a mark of deep insight of a hedy premise, one only seen in this writings.

I suspect your issue is eronously confusing the Hebrew texts with other theologies, when there is no alignment of any kind here in reality. The quran and Gospels are not original religions, fixed on localised names and exclusivity factors, not on creationism - CREATIONISM is only seen in and represented in the Hebrew, which introduced this universe altering premise to humanity.

 

Wow! Another mind blowing new original thought!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can there be science before the formless is made into form!

 

Sigh...
The Bible refers to the Earth as Flat: A circular Disk.
It refers to it as Set and in a foundation- it cannot be Moved --You agreed with this, claiming that the solar system was it's foundation. Pretty much it seems that you think whatever interpretation you invent that aligns with your wanted outcome is good enough.
WELL- That's the problem with VAGUE scripture.

It's Vague and you can't claim I'm incorrect and you're correct- it's a vague statement that could be read in a myriad of different ways.

But I find the flat circular disk compelling.

None of which is a correct statement. The Earth orbit shifts for one.
And the link I posted demonstrates a SEVERE move made in the Earths orbit long ago.

Pot meet Kettle.

Whenever a believer dislikes how someone points out what the bible says, they claim it was taken out of context.
I'm sure some things are taken out of context on occasion, but that excuse is wearisome to one whose read it and taught the bible at one time in history.
I know the context.

Well, I'm not. I quoted Your Holy Bible.

 

Post it! You are outside of the acknowledged world view only one ancient scripture does not say so.

Its not vague, nor did I agree with your summation the solar system is its foundation. What I described as correct is that the entire construct, the planets and the stars, maintain their set orbis and distance ratios despite the space bed ever in motion. This is clearly and amazingly stated in the text you posted. Nowhere does a flat earth text appear, nor is it inferred in any way. You also ignored the calendar and its diabolical new workings on the solar, lunar and earth movements introduced here for the first time - which cannot be based on a flat earth but only on rotating and revolving sphears.

You are incorrect and I am correct. I can.

That is not the case in this instant! You are incorrect for stating the text says the earth is flat - which is false; you are also incorrect for misrepresenting another part of the text.

What you fail to see is the Hebrew bible introduced a host of new paradigms in direct opposition of its contemporary world. This includes Monotheism, the origins of the universe and life form breakdowns, evolution, science, the first alphabetical books, the oldest calendar, judiciary laws and the first separation of medicine from the occult. You should cease dumping all scriptures in one green bag.

The other fact you fail to understand is that the flat earth view was not wrong for its time, nor were those who said so ignorant: put yourself in their position, and you will have absolutely no credible grounds to assume the earth was not flat! This is a commonplace error made by many - they seem to look for words like evolution and science in a writings more than 3000 years old, instead of understanding its meaning: why?! That the Hebrew writings varied again from other ancient writings and became vindicated today is another matter, but one which atheists find impossible to admit.

 

Are there any NEW Creationist arguments?

Are there any NEW NON-Creationist arguments?

If not, why should there be a new creation arguement? :shrug:

 

Taken into context, ALL of these scriptures present a description in which a flat disk as Earth with heaven or heavens suspended above it is required. Further, many scriptures describe reaching the edge of the Earth (As old sailors believed that reaching the edge meant you would fall off). It describes the wicked being shaken off the edge of the Earth
Clearly still, a fixed and unmovable Earth describes a flat Earth far better than the highly open and vague interpretation you offered where the Earth is EXTREMELY mobile as long as it doesn't go within or outside of another planets orbit.

Many scriptures describe moving to the Center of the Earth to a Great height, (mountain or tall tree) from which to see ALL of Earth, which can only be done if the Earth is Flat.

We STILL refer to heaven as up and Hell as down as a remnant of the old thinking

Many of these examples are listed here, but I don't have time to hunt them ALL down...
Post it? You got it:
1 Enoch - Pretty much the whole book.
Job 26:7
Job 9:8
1 Enoch 33:1-2
1 Chronicles 16:30
Psalm 19:1
Psalm 102:25
Psalm 104:5
Psalm 96:10
Psalm 93:1
Isaiah 45:18
Isaiah 40:22
Ezekiel 1:22-26
Ezekiel 10:1
Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Revelation 1:7
1 Enoch 18:14-15

I never said that!
YOU said that.
See Here:

To which I posted a link that demonstrates that the Earths orbit was severely changed.
That also opens the possibility that the Earth was not ALWAYS the Third planet.

Doubtless, you are going to claim that it cannot be moved from THIRD position but somehow, magically- ALL Other Movement Does not apply- just to justify your absurd position! That's a Very Clear Case of justifying your claim by fitting your facts with a sledge hammer.

And taken with the list above, it's abundantly clear that YOU do not know the context, you're only trying to match scripture to fit the scientific descriptions witha hammer and duct tape.

See above.

Why do you make this apologetic statement and defend the notion that the ancient writers could have believed the Earth as flat -- Right after declaring how it absolutely does not describe a flat Earth and that you're Soooo correct?

You know why- I know why- other readers know why. You're covering your ass. That's why.

 

You have to be kidding! Nothing you presented is from the five books of Moses. The rest are made of books from the NT [not the Hebrew bible], and from other Hebrew writings [not the five Mosaic books]. But here too, there is nothing which connects in any way with your claims that the text says the erath is flat: no such text exist in the Mosaic or the other books. Most of what you quoted below are poems [psalms] and descriptions of a dream by Daniel. You have to be more honest and coherent than manipulating this as what you made of it:

Nothing in those quotes aligns with your views. In fact it shows only the oppositte.

The foundation refers to the underlying structures which uphold the space bodies, as indicated by the text and its context! If anything, this is a premise which asks questions and make analogies directly related to modern science, and again has nothing to do with all the unrelated hoopla your on about.

I was trying to show you, ridiculing ancient people for this is not legitimate - they had no telescopes, libraries, scientists, books or any means of examing the earth from afar; you are talking of a time when most people never left their villages all their lives. This also marks the variance of the Hebrew bible from its surrounds - how this happened I have no idea, but denying it is not an option.

I have no need to do so. Do you not see that it was impossible for ancient people to know the earth is not flat, no matter how learned they be? We never knew about Quantum 100 years ago, the reason we never had electronics. The same applies as we go back in time. The flat earth was proven incorrect when telescopes emerged - it vindicated the Hebrew bible and negated the scriptures in the NT and the Quran. While all writings can claim merit in some ways, with the nature of the universe and life emergence and ancient history, all scriputres are not the same! Most scriptures are totally empty of dates and locations which can be historically vindicated, and none have been able to show archeological relics which verify any of their claims. You see no rational differences here.

 

Once again you decide to go with pernicious ignorance rather than facts.
Not only was the Earth shown to be spherical by the Greeks they also gave a figure for its size. Telescopes not required.
The simplest indication that the Earth is spherical is the easily-observed fact that buildings in the distance "appear" from the top downwards as one approaches them.