Beliefs

[Havensdad]

That's a misapplication of the passage. You can no more imply a spherical earth from that passage that you can imply that the Coming of the Kingdom of God will occur at night, or that there are two people in every bed.

That is not a misapplication. It says that it is going to be night for one person, and day for the other, at the same time. That certainly shows scientific accuracy: no way this truth could have been known!

Again, I am baffled by the way you are trying to portray the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. This truly astounds me: if you trust Christ, who quoted the Old Testament as fact, what ON EARTH could be your agenda?

 

[Johnv]

Again: Chug is the only word that could have been used to denote a specifically curved or circular shape.

Again, "chuwg" carries the context of a circular shape, but not a disc shape.

Had the word "dur" been used, it would have denoted God as sitting on top of a pile, or heap.

That's only one application of "dur". It would be the correct syntax if one is describing sitting on a ball or globe.

 

[Winman]

That's a misapplication of the passage. You can no more imply a spherical earth from that passage that you can imply that the Coming of the Kingdom of God will occur at night, or that there are two people in every bed.

Well, these verses show two men in bed and says it was night. And then it tells of two women who are grinding, and two men who are in the field. In Matthew it gives a similar account but does not mention the men in bed.

Matt 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Now it's possible these women could be at the mill grinding, and these men could be in the field working at night, but not very likely.

And the next verse is revealing (at least to me).

Matt 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

So, here the Lord tells us to watch always, for we do not know what hour he will come, whether it be day or night.

I firmly believe the passage in Luke shows that some men will be in bed at night, and at the very same moment other men will be out in the field working during the day. But that is my opinion.

 

[Havensdad]

Again, "chuwg" carries the context of a circular shape, but not a disc shape.

The word "chug" means round. It can refer to any circular object, including a sphere.

The Greek word Kamaron, demands a three dimensional curvature. Therefore a sphere is simply the only possibility.

That's only one application of "dur". It would be the correct syntax if one is describing sitting on a ball or globe.

Not so. A first century Hebrew, reading this, would have understood that God is sitting on a mound, pile or heap, since this word does not denote "circular" necessarily. Chug was the only possible word to use, to demand a modern understanding of a round earth.

 

[Johnv]

That is not a misapplication. It says that it is going to be night for one person, and day for the other, at the same time. That certainly shows scientific accuracy: no way this truth could have been known!

The verse is not a prediction, it's an analogy. The verse isn't an attempt to speak to anything in regards to science. The verse is saying that no one will know the day or the hour, and that no one can be prepared.

Again, I am baffled by the way you are trying to portray the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

That's like accusing the person who claims the earth revolves around the sun of "trying to portray the Bible is scientifically inaccurate", since the bible describes the sung going around the earth. There is no attempt by these passages to address scientific principles, so I can't be accused of doing so.

 

[Havensdad]

The verse is not a preduction, it's an analogy. The verse isn't an attempt to speak to anything in regards to science. The verse is saying that no one will know the day or the hour, and that no one can be prepared.

And it is also saying that when Jesus comes, it will be night for one person, and day for the other. It's purpose is not to teach science, but the Bible MUST be scientifically accurate when it touches upon scientific subjects. Otherwise, it is inaccurate, and cannot be trusted.

There is no attempt by these passages to address scientific principles, so I can't be accused of doing so.

They are not specifically adressing them, but they are certainly making indirect assertions.

Again, WHY are you attacking this so vehemently? What is your agenda? You should say "Wow, the Bible is accurate when it touches upon scientific subjects: that means I can trust it completely!" rather than trying to attack what it is saying.

I simply cannot fathom WHY you would do such a thing. What is your purpose?

 

[Winman]

That's like accusing the person who claims the earth revolves around the sun of "trying to portray the Bible is scientifically inaccurate", since the bible describes the sung going around the earth. There is no attempt by these passages to address scientific principles, so I can't be accused of doing so.

Well, that is perspective. From our point of view the sun, moon, and stars are going around the earth.

And who's to say it isn't? The Geocentric model has never been disproven.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

 

[Johnv]

And it is also saying that when Jesus comes, it will be night for one person, and day for the other.

That's reading way too much into the verse.

It's purpose is not to teach science, but the Bible MUST be scientifically accurate when it touches upon scientific subjects.

True, but what you're doing is assuming that every time scripture draws a visual picture, then it is touching upon science. What you're doing is setting up a circular reasoning argument: scientific descriptions in scripture are always right, because scripture touches on science, and scripture is never wrong, therefore scientific descriptions in scripture are always right.

The problem with that argument is that the verses in question aren't touching on science, they're simply visual descriptors, which are by no means an attempt by the author to refer to science. If scripture describes something that isn't consistent with science, and the author had no intention of addressing a scientific issue, it is by no means an attack of the authority or accuracy of scripture.

 

[Johnv]

Well, that is perspective. From our point of view the sun, moon, and stars are going around the earth.

Aha! So it's about perspective. You are 100% correct. Scripture often makes descriptions based on perspective. It's a common visual descriptor.

When scripture referrs to the sun rising and setting, it's from the viewpoint of the observer, and not an attempt to claim the sun revolves around the earth. When scripture says Joshua made the sun stand still, it's from the viewpoint of the observer, and not an attempt to claim the earth physicall stopped rotating (or, in a geocentric model, that the sun stopped revolving aroung the earth). Likewise, when a person in scripture referrs to sitting upon a flat disc of the earth, it's from the viewpoint of the observer, and not an attempt to claim the earth is flat.

Just because the passages above refer to a flat earth or geocentric earth don't mean scripture is flawed.

 

[Winman]

Johnv

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that Jesus knew exactly what he was saying, that when he comes it will be night for some people, and day for others? That is what he is telling us, and it shows the scriptures understood the earth was a sphere where it is always day somewhere, and on the other side it is night.

You say the scriptures are scientifically correct, but you object to scripture that shows this. Why??

 

[Havensdad]

That's reading way too much into the verse.

That's not reading anything into the verse: that is just what it says!

True, but what you're doing is assuming that every time scripture draws a visual picture, then it is touching upon science. What you're doing is setting up a circular reasoning argument: scientific descriptions in scripture are always right, because scripture touches on science, and scripture is never wrong, therefore scientific descriptions in scripture are always right.

The problem with that argument is that the verses in question aren't touching on science, they're simply visual descriptors, which are by no means an attempt by the author to refer to science. If scripture describes something that isn't consistent with science, and the author had no intention of addressing a scientific issue, it is by no means an attack of the authority or accuracy of scripture.

Scripture is making a statement of fact. To say that one person is lying in bed at night, while the other is out working the fields at noonday, is a statement of fact. That statement of fact, in the first century, would have seemed silly. Now, we know that such a statement is scientifically accurate.

Again, I do not understand why you would have a problem with this. So the Bible is scientifically accurate: why is this a problem for you?

 

[Johnv]

You say the scriptures are scientifically correct, but you object to scripture that shows this.

I do no such thing. I'm saying that the verses being referred to aren't addressing the topic of scientific accuracy.

So the Bible is scientifically accurate: why is this a problem for you?

The problem isn't with me, it's with you.

You're requiring scripture to be scientifically accurate everywhere such a topic is percieved, or else you can't accept scripture as being truth. OTOH, discern between where scripture intends to address science and where no attempt was intended by the author, and accept scripture as 100% truth. Your view adds to scripture, mine does not.

 

[webdog]

Scripture is making a statement of fact. To say that one person is lying in bed at night, while the other is out working the fields at noonday, is a statement of fact. That statement of fact, in the first century, would have seemed silly. Now, we know that such a statement is scientifically accurate

How could that have been statement of fact when both would have been in the same time zone?

 

[Winman]

I do no such thing. I'm saying that the verses being referred to aren't addressing the topic of scientific accuracy.

Well, if you don't believe "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40 ist referring to science necessarily, you do have to admit that Jesus speaking of it being day and night at the same time on earth does.

Isn't that so?

 

[Havensdad]

Likewise, when a person in scripture referrs to sitting upon a flat disc of the earth, it's from the viewpoint of the observer, and not an attempt to claim the earth is flat.

The scripture does not say that. It says God sits on the circle/curve of the earth, or sphere. Why can't you just say "Ah, I see what you are saying. Maybe I'm wrong. That would be a great!"???

Also, scripture does NOT always speak from the perspective of man. For instance, Genesis 1 is from God's perspective. I also think much of Isaiah and Job is clearly from God's perspective.

Just because the passages above refer to a flat earth or geocentric earth don't mean scripture is flawed.

The scripture refers to neither of those things. The Bible's limited description of the Earth, matches what we know from science today perfectly. The Earth is Round, God "hung the earth" "upon nothing", etc.

Again, this should be something exciting: why is this such a problem for you? What is your agenda?

 

[Havensdad]

How could that have been statement of fact when both would have been in the same time zone?

Jesus is referring to His return: a world wide event.

 

[Johnv]

Also, scripture does NOT always speak from the perspective of man.

Then you believe in geocentrism?

Well, if you don't believe "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40 ist referring to science necessarily, you do have to admit that Jesus speaking of it being day and night at the same time on earth does.

Jesus is referring to no person being able to ready themselves for the Coming. That's all Jesus is trying to say here.

 

[Winman]

How could that have been statement of fact when both would have been in the same time zone?

The scriptures say no such thing, in fact Jesus said we do not know the hour when he would come.

Matt 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

It is daytime right now here in the U.S. and men are working in the field. But on the opposite side of the earth from us it is night and most men are in bed asleep. And this is what Jesus was saying. He did not say they were in the same geographic area. In fact, he said his angels would gather the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. So in fact he showed he was speaking of the whole earth and not a single geographical area.

Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Johnv]

So you believe that Jesus was saying that scientifically, there are only four winds, and that if anyonle shows there are more than four, them must be wrong, because otherwise Jesus dould be lying? Or is "four winds" a visual descriptor?

 

[Havensdad]

Then you believe in geocentrism?

No. Nowhere in scripture does it even allude to geocentrism.

Jesus is referring to no person being able to ready themselves for the Coming. That's all Jesus is trying to say here.

Actually, he is describing end time events, and his second coming. He is using a real scenario, therefore that scenario must be scientifically accurate.

It is.