Bible and astronomy
AcademicWorm
In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Compare this with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
R. Pierce Butler
news:91f837240512201732o713...@mail.gmail.com:
As soon as you find the references to neutron stars, black holes, novas,
supernovas, and galaxies be sure to let us know. A refernce to a fusion
reaction would be nice too.
r
nJb
A circle is flat.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
Double-A
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" - Job 38:4
Double-A
[alt.atheism removed to avoid most of the back sass.]
Mark K. Bilbo
AcademicWorm <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling above the
> circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)
Yeah and the word "round" there is the one you used to describe FLAT round
things on surfaces. There actually was a word in the language that could
be used to mean "ball" and your perfect god widget didn't seem to know
that...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
Double-A
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion?" Job 38:31
Double-A
Mark Earnest
"R. Pierce Butler" <spam...@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9732CA4A4E8Cmc...@10.232.1.1...
> AcademicWorm <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> news:91f837240512201732o713...@mail.gmail.com:
>
>> In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over the
>> empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Compare this
>> with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling
>> above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a
>> round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us
>> strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the
>> earth floating in empty space.
>>
>
>
> As soon as you find the references to neutron stars, black holes, novas,
> supernovas,
The Christmas Star.
and galaxies be sure to let us know. A refernce to a fusion
> reaction would be nice too.
"And a third of the Earth was burned up."
>
> r
R. Pierce Butler
news:11qhldm...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spam...@google.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9732CA4A4E8Cmc...@10.232.1.1...
>> AcademicWorm <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
>> news:91f837240512201732o713...@mail.gmail.com:
>>
>>> In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over
>>> the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Compare
>>> this with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is
>>> dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture
>>> conveyed of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place"
>>> reminds us strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the
>>> sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As soon as you find the references to neutron stars, black holes,
>> novas, supernovas,
>
> The Christmas Star.
>
BULLSHIT
> and galaxies be sure to let us know. A refernce to a fusion
>> reaction would be nice too.
>
> "And a third of the Earth was burned up."
BULLSHIT
Go get an education!!!!
pierce
Matt Silberstein
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<91f837240512201732o713...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
>In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over the
>empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)
The Earth does not actually hang, does it. Nor is "the North" a thing
that can stretch.
> Compare this with
>Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling above the
>circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a round earth
>'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us strongly of the
>photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty
>space.
No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents a
very different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible
talks of a sky stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of that
tent. It talks of a sky with windows. Heaven is above the Earth.
Waters are below the Earth. All very standard notions of a solid sky
and not at all like what we know today.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Reality is there is no evidence of intelligence design in making the
universe. Science gets the age of rocks,and religion the rock of
ages(read that cliches moons ago) Science studies how the heavens
go,religion how to go to heaven. No proof that God individually designed
the organisms that make up the world of biological cells. We are made
of star stuff. All universes are exactly the same. Took eons of time for
nature to create the first universe so that gravity could evolve it into
organic matter. Universes that came latter such as ours that came out of
a singularity(piece of the first universe) are clones. There are more
universes n the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm.
Starlord
windows? what version? 95,98,XP?
We are seeing light from Galaxys that formed so long ago that not even our
own sun was forming yet.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:kbphq1ptivslou499...@4ax.com...
Lesley Nelson
> I am still a chronic alcoholic.
Flak...@aol.com
Finally
Someone from webtv with much more than a handfull of braincells...K
wbarwell
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:32:44 -0500, in alt.atheism , AcademicWorm
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
> <91f837240512201732o713...@mail.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over
>>the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)
>
> The Earth does not actually hang, does it. Nor is "the North" a
> thing that can stretch.
>
>> Compare this with
>>Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling
>>above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed
>>of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds
>>us strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of
>>the earth floating in empty space.
>
> No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents
> a very different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible
> talks of a sky stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of
> that tent. It talks of a sky with windows. Heaven is above the
> Earth. Waters are below the Earth. All very standard notions of a
> solid sky and not at all like what we know today.
The word raqa is used for the "firmament" of Genesis.
It means beaten out as a bowl is beaten out of bronze.
The heavens are a bowl-like dome over the earth, holding
back the primal waters.
The Earth 'hangs' by gravity to the orbit around the sun,
which the bible knows nothing of, either this orbit nor
gravity.
It sees the heavens above the flat earth, like a tent
or a bowl.
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme.  "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck.  It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings.  Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
    -George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
wbarwell
> How do you suppose a team of horses took the
> prophet directly to heaven? You know, how did
> those fine studs overcome the effects of gravity
> that shape that round earth that you say is
> 'hanging upon nothing'?
>
> Certainly you remember jesus on the mountain
> looking at the four corners of the earth. Four
> corners that certainly mean a flat earth. Maybe
> he just hadn't read the texts you quote.
Matthew 4:7-11
7 Jesus said unto him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered
unto him.
Luke 4
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him
all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and
the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I
will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
No corners, but a high mountain and all the nations of Earth
that are only possible with a flat Earth.
Double-A
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> To You All Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
> Reality is there is no evidence of intelligence design in making the
> universe.
Sometimes when I look at how the world is, I am inclined to agree that
no intelligence went into its design.
> Science gets the age of rocks,and religion the rock of
> ages(read that cliches moons ago) Science studies how the heavens
> go,religion how to go to heaven. No proof that God individually designed
> the organisms that make up the world of biological cells. We are made
> of star stuff. All universes are exactly the same.
That seems to be an article of faith with you.
> Took eons of time for
> nature to create the first universe so that gravity could evolve it into
> organic matter.
And gravity as you describe it takes on many of the aspects of a God.
> Universes that came latter such as ours that came out of
> a singularity(piece of the first universe) are clones. There are more
> universes n the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm.
"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their
names." Psalm 147:4
Double-A
Double-A
Sure the Bible speaks in such terms, but so do we enlightened 21st
century science minded folks.
Don't you ever speak of a sunrise, or a sunset?
Gerlald Gellehar is the only one I know of who speaks of the glory of
watching the Earth turn in the morning until he can see the Sun.
Double-A
Bill Sheppard
>Sure the Bible speaks in such terms, but
>so do we enlightened 21st century
>science minded folks.
Exackly. Today we got flying 'messengers thru the void' that magically
"know" to fly at exactly c everywhere, even when out of communication
with their brethren on the opposite side of the universe. And apparently
they can be summoned in unlimited numbers on demand, enabling an
unlimited amplitude of EM radiation as it propagates across the "void"
at exactly c.
Such hidebound, irrational belief in magic is no
different in principle than the medieval church's belief in imps and
angels. With our modern Sky Pixies, nuttin's really new under the sun.
oc
G=EMC^2 Glazier
"What does the "G" in G=EMC^2 stand for? With me it stood for
gravity,and for billions of others it stood for God Trebert
georgann
>>> dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed
>>> of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us
>>> strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth
>>> floating in empty space.
>> No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents a very
>> different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible talks of a sky
>> stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of that tent. It talks of a
>> sky with windows. Heaven is above the Earth. Waters are below the Earth. All
>> very standard notions of a solid sky and not at all like what we know today.
wbarwell wrote:
> The word raqa is used for the "firmament" of Genesis. It means beaten out as a
> bowl is beaten out of bronze. The heavens are a bowl-like dome over the earth,
> holding back the primal waters.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Uh huh. You cannot make the stretch from "beaten out" of a material like
bronze to a "bowl-like dome over the earth holding back the primal waters".
There is no mention of the firmament (called Heaven by God, Himself) being
any such thing. The firmament has nothing to do with a space between one
thing and another and everything to do with an enclosure - a third point to
the two pointed line of the separation of light and dark.
Don't you people actually see in the graphic imagery the God offered us in
these words instead of the purely physical - especially when you know damn
well the physical world is where we are regularly deceived?
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
(confounding the nonsense of Gnosticism with one verse)
John 14:9 ... "He who has seen Me has seen the Father..."
- Jesus Christ
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
David Jensen
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<BFCF466C.9C477%chen...@mindspring.com>:
>>>> Compare this with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is
>>>> dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed
>>>> of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us
>>>> strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth
>>>> floating in empty space.
>
>>> No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents a very
>>> different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible talks of a sky
>>> stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of that tent. It talks of a
>>> sky with windows. Heaven is above the Earth. Waters are below the Earth. All
>>> very standard notions of a solid sky and not at all like what we know today.
>
>wbarwell wrote:
>
>> The word raqa is used for the "firmament" of Genesis. It means beaten out as a
>> bowl is beaten out of bronze. The heavens are a bowl-like dome over the earth,
>> holding back the primal waters.
>
>georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>
>Uh huh. You cannot make the stretch from "beaten out" of a material like
>bronze to a "bowl-like dome over the earth holding back the primal waters".
>There is no mention of the firmament (called Heaven by God, Himself) being
>any such thing. The firmament has nothing to do with a space between one
>thing and another and everything to do with an enclosure - a third point to
>the two pointed line of the separation of light and dark.
>
>Don't you people actually see in the graphic imagery the God offered us in
>these words instead of the purely physical - especially when you know damn
>well the physical world is where we are regularly deceived?
While it is possible to twist the words of the Bible to fit modern
cosmology, there is no reasonable way to come up with this from the
words themselves.
Matt Silberstein
<chen...@mindspring.com> in <BFCF466C.9C477%chen...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>>>> Compare this with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is
>>>> dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed
>>>> of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us
>>>> strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth
>>>> floating in empty space.
>
>>> No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents a very
>>> different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible talks of a sky
>>> stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of that tent. It talks of a
>>> sky with windows. Heaven is above the Earth. Waters are below the Earth. All
>>> very standard notions of a solid sky and not at all like what we know today.
>
>wbarwell wrote:
>
>> The word raqa is used for the "firmament" of Genesis. It means beaten out as a
>> bowl is beaten out of bronze. The heavens are a bowl-like dome over the earth,
>> holding back the primal waters.
>
>georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>
>Uh huh. You cannot make the stretch from "beaten out" of a material like
>bronze to a "bowl-like dome over the earth holding back the primal waters".
>There is no mention of the firmament (called Heaven by God, Himself) being
>any such thing. The firmament has nothing to do with a space between one
>thing and another and everything to do with an enclosure - a third point to
>the two pointed line of the separation of light and dark.
And where do we find such a thing today? And what was it that had
those windows open to let in the stuff on the other side?
>Don't you people actually see in the graphic imagery the God offered us in
>these words instead of the purely physical - especially when you know damn
>well the physical world is where we are regularly deceived?
What, imagery? Do you mean it is not a literal description of actual
events? We have to read into it? How can that be?
Matt Silberstein
<doub...@hush.ai> in
<1135189538.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
We use languages that it a vestige of a different view. What excuse do
you have for a book that is supposed to be used as a description of
the world? Perhaps it is not a good description of the world.
>Gerlald Gellehar is the only one I know of who speaks of the glory of
>watching the Earth turn in the morning until he can see the Sun.
The Bible is quite consistent in its presentation of a flat Earth with
a solid sky above and water surrounding the whole thing. From Genesis
on this is how it presents things. If you want to skip right over that
then there is little else we can use as descriptive of the world.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>>>> Compare this with Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is
>>>> dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed
>>>> of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us
>>>> strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth
>>>> floating in empty space.
>
>>> No, that is the picture you force upon the Bible. The Bible presents a very
>>> different picture and you should read it some day. The Bible talks of a sky
>>> stretched like a tent, of stars on the surface of that tent. It talks of a
>>> sky with windows. Heaven is above the Earth. Waters are below the Earth. All
>>> very standard notions of a solid sky and not at all like what we know today.
>
>wbarwell wrote:
>
>> The word raqa is used for the "firmament" of Genesis. It means beaten out as a
>> bowl is beaten out of bronze. The heavens are a bowl-like dome over the earth,
>> holding back the primal waters.
>
>georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>
>Uh huh. You cannot make the stretch from "beaten out" of a material like
>bronze to a "bowl-like dome over the earth holding back the primal waters".
>There is no mention of the firmament (called Heaven by God, Himself) being
>any such thing. The firmament has nothing to do with a space between one
>thing and another and everything to do with an enclosure - a third point to
>the two pointed line of the separation of light and dark.
>
>Don't you people actually see in the graphic imagery the God offered us in
>these words instead of the purely physical - especially when you know damn
>well the physical world is where we are regularly deceived?
>
I see the nutcase has changed her nym (again).
All change your filters, now...
nJb
No. So pull the pickle out, take a bite, and put it back up your ass.
That's the physical world.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
Dragonblaze
the rainwater from above the stars to come through (paraphrasing the
descriptions of the sky in Genesis) is NOT in my opinion only writing
from human perspective, it's plain erroneous.
[removed a few groups this does not seem to belong to]
F. Frederick Skitty
> AcademicWorm wrote:
>
>> In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over the
>> empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Compare this
>> with
>> Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling above the
>> circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a round
>> earth
>> 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us strongly of the
>> photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in
>> empty
>> space.
>>
>
> A circle is flat.
>
Michael Gray
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>Matt wrote:
>
>> We use languages that it a vestige of a different view. What excuse do
>> you have for a book that is supposed to be used as a description of
>> the world? Perhaps it is not a good description of the world.
>
>How many parents can explain: " Where do children come from" to a
>questioning 5 yr old?
Every parent who lives on a farm with animals is able to.
In fact, the kids generally don't ask, as it obvious by analogy.
>Have it ever occured to you That God would write things from a human
>perpective for humans to understand and comprehend?
>
>It is called humility. When drop a level so you can be understood by others.
Cracklin'
"F. Frederick Skitty" <ffc...@orion-nebula.fsnet.uk> wrote in message
news:doefeh$prh$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Stretch the North? They thought the earth was like a blanket of some kind,
not a round globe. They thought it had four corners like a blanket.
--
Arach.......
Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill (genocide) all the Medianite
people
including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be
saved for later sexual abuse (concubinage & forced marriage) by Moses'
soldiers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.jwfiles.com/index.htm
thedir...@yahoo.com
> Matthew 4:7-11
> 7 Jesus said unto him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
> Lord thy God.
> 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
> sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
> 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
> fall down and worship me.
> 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
> written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
> serve.
> 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered
> unto him.
#1 Jesus? It's not really JESUS you're quoting here, is it. You're
quoting 'Matthew". "Matthew" telling the story of how Jesus went into
the desert ALONE, and had a chat with the magical supernatural debil.
"Matthew" Chapter 4 1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
by the Devil.
2 And after He had fasted 40 days and 40 nights, He was hungry.
3 Then THE TEMPTER approached Him and SAID, "If You are the Son of God,
tell these stones to become bread."
4 But HE ANSWERED, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
5 Then THE DEVIL took Him to the holy city, had Him stand on the
pinnacle of the temple,
6 and SAID to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For
it is written: He will give His angels orders concerning you, and,
they will support you with their hands, so that you will not strike
your foot against a stone. "
7 JESUS TOLD HIM, "It is also written: You must not tempt the Lord your
God."
. . . etc. etc.
Let me get this right. Jesus goes to the desert ... alone. And
"Matthew" reports Jesus' chat with the debil . . . word for word. Is
that your theory?
I'm just wondering, how do you imagine "Matthew" was able to quote the
debil and Jesus here? Was "Matthew" there - with Jesus ALONE in the
desert - do you imagine? Were they alone together?
On what grounds do you distinguish this story from other impossible
ancient legends?
-----------------------
#2 Do you know the first ancient Christian to mention the Gospel of
"Matthew"? Or the year, roughly, when "Matthew" was first mentioned?
-------------------------
#3 Are you aware there is no evidence the G of "Matthew" was known to
the early Fathers? His gospel is not mentioned, not cited, not quoted,
by Ignatius, Polycarp, 1 Clement, Marcion, or Justin?
On what EVIDENCE do you believe the gospel of "Matthew" existed before
the middle of the second century?
Dirk Hartog
---------------------
This is the view I have held up to now, though I can modify it if you
disagree; only please give me your reasons if you do. I know I should
bow to your authority, but on an important question like this I would
rather yield to a reasoned argument than to authority alone.
[Pliny the Younger, Letters, 1.20 ]
izzy
>questioning 5 yr old?
This raises the question: Why do we say that the stork brings the baby.
We not only "say" it, we print birth announcements that often depict
the baby being delivered by a stork.
I think there is an interesting psycholinguistic reason for this
phenomenon.
Yiddish-speaking Child: Where did the baby come from?
Parent: From zaiyin-resh-aiyin ZeRa3 (the Semitic word for semen or
seed, at a time when the aiyin had a velar G/K sound, as in 3aZa =
Gaza). In Germanic languages, the Z is often pronounced TZ, so the
child hears TZRG or stork.
English or Italian-speaking child: Where did the baby come from?
Parent: From a seeda.
In this case, neither the parent nor the child can properly pronounce
the Hebrew het, so the child understands het-samekh-yod-dalet-heh
khaSeeDa, which means "stork".
In other words, in language A, the word for seed/semen sounds like
stork.
In language B, the word for stork sounds like seed.
ciao,
Israel "izzy" Cohen
Crâcklin'
<thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135353235.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> wbarwell wrote:
> "Matthew" Chapter 4 1
> Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
> by the Devil.
> 2 And after He had fasted 40 days and 40 nights, He was hungry.
Anyone who could live 40 days and 40 nights without food wouldn't have died
on the cross.
Olli deOnion.......
Where the Watchtower Society claims Jehovah lives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050103.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031227.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_AnonCoward
Ralf:
Fwiw, a simple answer would be that Jesus could have related the story to
Matthew and the other apostles. They wouldn't have had to be physically
present at the event as long as they learned of it from one of the direct
participants.
<snip>
Ralf
--
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people
who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but
the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or
they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless
struggle to think well of themselves."
T.S. Eliot
Michael Gray
wrote:
>
><thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1135353235.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> wbarwell wrote:
>> "Matthew" Chapter 4 1
>> Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
>> by the Devil.
>> 2 And after He had fasted 40 days and 40 nights, He was hungry.
>===============
>Anyone who could live 40 days and 40 nights without food wouldn't have died
>on the cross.
Crucifixition?
It's a doddle!
wbarwell
> #to
> the early Fathers? His gospel is not mentioned, not cited, not
> quoted,
> by Ignatius, Polycarp, 1 Clement, Marcion, or Justin?
>
> On what EVIDENCE do you believe the gospel of "Matthew" existed
> before the middle of the second century?
Yes, I am aware of all of this, being a long time Atheist.
The point was, the gospel writers imagined a flat earth.
But "corners" as such were not mentioned in the gospels.
Corner in Hebrew is a complex idiomatic word anyway.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
Christopher A. Lee
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the north over the
>empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Compare this with
>Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwelling above the
>circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a round earth
>'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds us strongly of the
>photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty
>space.
Bullshit. And can the HTML.
thedir...@yahoo.com
_AnonCoward wrote:
> Fwiw, a simple answer would be that Jesus could have related the story to
> Matthew and the other apostles. They wouldn't have had to be physically
> present at the event as long as they learned of it from one of the direct
> participants.
Ancient historians, biographers - and myth makers -- commonly
included "quotations" that were not understood to be verbatim
accounts of what was actually said, any more than a painting was
understood to be a photorealistic record of what was seen. The ancients
didn't have the technology for photorealism; they didn't have the
concept. The ancients didn't have the technology for verbatim
quotation; they barely had the concept. The modern idea that a
quotations must be a verbatim record of words actually spoken is, well,
a modern idea, based on modern technology.
The bible's gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-are full of words
Jesus spoke. The gospels also record words of the disciples, Herod,
angels, demons, satan, tax collectors, and crowds of people all saying
the same words all together. The gospels even record long speeches
spoken in dreams, and verbatim accounts of inner thoughts that were
never spoken, but that Jesus knew because He could read minds. How the
gospelers knew exactly what words the Pharisees thought and Jesus
mind-read, the gospel doesn't say.
The question therefore arises whether, as was common practice among
ancient historians, biographers - and myth makers - the gospel
writers just made 'em up.
That over and over and over Jesus sat his crew down to tell them what
this or that incidental character said -- Herod, for eg., whom He
never met and who died when He was a lad --, and what thoughts His
mind-reading power picked up from peoples' brains, seems to me not at
all simple. It seems to me ridiculous - an "explanation" cooked up
after bad results have come in, cooked up only for the purpose of
rescuing a superstition the evidence has overthrown.
The simple answer is: Yes, like the other myth-makers back then, the
gospelers made them up.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>_AnonCoward wrote:
>> Fwiw, a simple answer would be that Jesus could have related the story to
>> Matthew and the other apostles. They wouldn't have had to be physically
>> present at the event as long as they learned of it from one of the direct
>> participants.
>
>Ancient historians, biographers - and myth makers -- commonly
>included "quotations" that were not understood to be verbatim
>accounts of what was actually said, any more than a painting was
>understood to be a photorealistic record of what was seen. The ancients
>didn't have the technology for photorealism; they didn't have the
>concept. The ancients didn't have the technology for verbatim
>quotation; they barely had the concept. The modern idea that a
>quotations must be a verbatim record of words actually spoken is, well,
>a modern idea, based on modern technology.
>
>The bible's gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-are full of words
>Jesus spoke. The gospels also record words of the disciples, Herod,
Full of words their authors wrote decades after the alleged events.
Raving Loonie
thedir...@yahoo.com wrote:
> _AnonCoward wrote:
> > Fwiw, a simple answer would be that Jesus could have related the story to
> > Matthew and the other apostles. They wouldn't have had to be physically
> > present at the event as long as they learned of it from one of the direct
> > participants.
>
> Ancient historians, biographers - and myth makers -- commonly
> included "quotations" that were not understood to be verbatim
> accounts of what was actually said, any more than a painting was
> understood to be a photorealistic record of what was seen. The ancients
> didn't have the technology for photorealism; they didn't have the
> concept. The ancients didn't have the technology for verbatim
> quotation; they barely had the concept. The modern idea that a
> quotations must be a verbatim record of words actually spoken is, well,
> a modern idea, based on modern technology.
Cordially,
RL
--
alt.support.kadaitcha.for.golden.killfile
O1-2-Epoxyethyl-Isopropylamino-Aminobenzoyl-N3-N1-Chloroplatinic-Acid
> If you disagree with a liberal, you're a racist homophobe.
Honest John
"O1-2-Epoxyethyl-Isopropylamino-Aminobenzoyl-N3-N1-Chloroplatinic-Acid"
<o1-2-epoxyethyl-isopropylamino-aminobenzoyl-n3-n1-chloroplatinic-acid@you.l
ong-haired-campy-honkie.com> wrote in message
news:45cb77a113634fad...@you.long-haired-campy-honkie.com...
> Raving Loonie <raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you disagree with a liberal, you're a racist homophobe.
>
Sister...@aol.com
Michael Gray
Close, but the first century and subsequent writers who created these
fictional gospellers, "made them up".
I bet that you have zero evidence that my even simpler answer is not
correct.
(Wishful thinking does not count, despite what you may have been told
in Sunday-school).
>Dirk Hartog
>---------------------
>This is the view I have held up to now, though I can modify it if you
>disagree; only please give me your reasons if you do. I know I should
>bow to your authority, but on an important question like this I would
>rather yield to a reasoned argument than to authority alone.
>[Pliny the Younger, Letters, 1.20 ]
You should read your sig more carefully.
Bill Sheppard
>Science and religion have nothing to do
>with each other. Reality is there is no
>evidence of intelligence design in making >the universe.
Hey Bert, 'member your often repeated statement that the universe
evolved us so that it could "see itself"?
The issue became acutely apparent to Bishop George
Berkeley around 300 years ago during resurgence of the 'aether'
theories. Belief in a preexistant, all-causal Substrate or 'aether'
would inevitably lead to the same conclusion you voiced. Such a
Substrate would have the very attributes of God, embued with the
imperative to ultimately "see itself".
So Berkeley set upon the first concerted 'No Substrate'
campaign, which is found interspersed throughout his writings.
Sovereignty of the church's sky-God had to be maintained at all cost:
the sky-God, his material creation, and by tacit implication, the 'Void'
between the two became paramount. Here is found the historical roots of
the Void-Space Paradigm. It began as a theological edict. And
unbelievably, 200 years later, it burst on the scene anew, in a new
guise as the bedrock doctrine of secular science. And the rest, as they
say, is history.
Gordon Wolter believed the spatial medium to be a vast and incredibly
rich information field, that it purposefully drives evolution to its
ultimate expression as an upright biped pondering its cosmic origin.. in
essence, the same thing you said.
oc
Art Deco
I think if you rant about "void-space" another 100,000 times on usenet,
every physicist will see the light and drop all this secular science
nonsense.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka Silouen aka ...
Larry Wilson
>>>
Yes a circle is flat but this reference is not necessarily to the earth
itself. The language suggests a "circuit" for this term and thus the
reference in Isaiah about the Lord sitting above the "circle" of the earth
could be understood as the "circuit" of the earth, that is, it's orbit
around the sun.
The two other references to a "circle" in reference to the earth are found
below and are related to the circle that is created where light turns into
darkness. Again this circle is "flat" but in order to form a circle
separating light from dark you need a circular sphere. Here are those
texts relating to the circle around the earth separating light from dark:
Job 26:10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where
light ends in darkness.
Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a
circle upon the face of the watery deep.
In conclusion, the Bible not only confirms the earth was round but also that
it had a circular orbit. In each case a "circle" is still in reference to a
single plane (flat) but consistent with what we know from modern astronomy.
Of note, for those detractors who interpret the reference to God sitting
above the "circle" of the earth as not a reference to the earth being a
sphere since it could equally apply to an earth that is circular but also
flat is a point well taken. Therefore, the reference is more consistent
with the circle formed by the earth's orbit around the sun and God's
dwelling high above the earth's circular orbit than simply a reference to
it's rounded shape. But since the references to the circle formed over
the waters of the earth separating light from dark can only occur in
connection with a sphere, it is a better reference confirming the Biblical
reference of the earth as a globe than Isaiah which is better applied to the
earth's orbit. Either way, the combination of these texts are consistent
with a round planet in a circular orbit which is precisely the case.
Therefore, the "flat" comment falls quite flat when the Biblical texts are
fully understood. The Bible confirms the earth was not only round but had a
circular orbit around a light central light source that illuminated one half
the planet while leaving the other side dark.
If one accepted that the light came from the sun and the separation between
light and dark created a circle then a sphere is the only explanation. To
the contrary, you can't create a circular separation between light and dark
with a flat planet.
The Bible is and always has been cosmologically correct.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
is humankind came out of star stuff,and their radiating photons of light
made the evolvement of eyes possible. With great eye sight,and it being
an extension of our brain we look up into the heavens,and that gives
mother nature a chance to see herself. It all fits. We make the universe
realistic. We make the shinning of stars not just wasted energy. That is
why without organic matter and it evolving into thinking matter "the
universe without this need not exist" It would be a waste of space.
Trebert
Bill Sheppard
>...radiating photons of light made the
>evolvement of eyes possible. With great
>eye sight,and it being an extension of our >brain we look up into the
heavens,and
>that gives mother nature a chance to see >herself. It all fits.
Well said, Bert. A truth not known to the mutts that make sport of
attacking you.
>We make the universe realistic. We
>make the shining of stars not just wasted >energy. That is why without
organic
>matter and it evolving into thinking
>matter "the universe without this need
>not exist" It would be a waste of space.
>
>Reality is humankind came out of star
>stuff,...
.Just as Sagan said. And moreover and besides, we are "space stuff".
oc
cactus
>>>>A circle is flat.
>>>>
>
>
> Yes a circle is flat but this reference is not necessarily to the earth
> itself. The language suggests a "circuit" for this term and thus the
> reference in Isaiah about the Lord sitting above the "circle" of the earth
> could be understood as the "circuit" of the earth, that is, it's orbit
> around the sun.
>
> The two other references to a "circle" in reference to the earth are found
> below and are related to the circle that is created where light turns into
> darkness. Again this circle is "flat" but in order to form a circle
> separating light from dark you need a circular sphere.
Not necessarily. The sun could be the apex of a cone, in which case
light making a circle on the Earth would not have to form a sphere. And
in any case, approaching darkness would be a dimuntion of light all
around, even to the horizon, so spheres need have nothing to do with it.
Here are those
> texts relating to the circle around the earth separating light from dark:
>
> Job 26:10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where
> light ends in darkness.
As in the horizon, visible to everyone,whether they believe the Earth is
flat or not.
The word "sphere" was known to the ancients, so if they meant "sphere"
they would have used the term. Were they scientifically inclined rather
than poetically so, they would have used the term "oblate spheroid"
which is what the Earth's shape really is.
>
> Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a
> circle upon the face of the watery deep.
So landmasses are circular?
>
> In conclusion, the Bible not only confirms the earth was round but also that
> it had a circular orbit. In each case a "circle" is still in reference to a
> single plane (flat) but consistent with what we know from modern astronomy.
>
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Only one or two ancient Greeks would have agreed with the modern
understanding of the shape of our planet and they were not believed in
their time. Dream on.
> Of note, for those detractors who interpret the reference to God sitting
> above the "circle" of the earth as not a reference to the earth being a
> sphere since it could equally apply to an earth that is circular but also
> flat is a point well taken. Therefore, the reference is more consistent
> with the circle formed by the earth's orbit around the sun
in a modern understanding not an ancient one. Just because you live so
far in the past doesn't mean that everyone or anyone does so still.
and God's
> dwelling high above the earth's circular orbit than simply a reference to
> it's rounded shape. But since the references to the circle formed over
> the waters of the earth separating light from dark can only occur in
> connection with a sphere,
How so? Could be a cone, as noted, in which case the separation would
look like a plane.
it is a better reference confirming the Biblical
> reference of the earth as a globe than Isaiah which is better applied to the
> earth's orbit. Either way, the combination of these texts are consistent
> with a round planet in a circular orbit which is precisely the case.
>
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And IIRC it was Kepler who proved that the planetary orbits are
elliptical not circular.
> Therefore, the "flat" comment falls quite flat when the Biblical texts are
> fully understood. The Bible confirms the earth was not only round but had a
> circular orbit around a light central light source that illuminated one half
> the planet while leaving the other side dark.
Don't you think that Christians, notably the Catholic Church would have
accepted that view were it actually in Scripture? Think about it.
>
> If one accepted that the light came from the sun and the separation between
> light and dark created a circle then a sphere is the only explanation.
Not true, see above.
To
> the contrary, you can't create a circular separation between light and dark
> with a flat planet.
Sure you can. Place a cylinder of light perpendicular to the flat
surface. Everything outside the cylinder is dark. No sphere needed, and
the shape is circular. You could even place the disk of the Earth within
a sphere of light. The circle of light appearing on the disk would vary
in size as the disk moved up or down within the sphere.
>
> The Bible is and always has been cosmologically correct.
For biblical literalists yes, but not for the rest of the world,
especially not since Columbus.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
G=EMC^2 Glazier
space stuff came before the big bang (intrinsic energy of space). My
hope is string theory + GM can show how gravity can compress space stuff
and make the big bang theory one of man's greatest theory. Trebert
nightbat
nightbat
Trebert get back to your clueless fantasy multiverse for big
bang nullified because energy cannot be point created or destroyed. Sad
your taking over Officer Bert's mind now he is doomed to sickbay, oh the
humanity. I have advised Officer Bert energy was there before the non
uniform impulse was rendered because of the nightbat found unifying
frame of latent memory. Trebert you can't fill my gravity student
Officer's Bert shoes but you can try, ha, ha, ha, ha.
carry on,
the nightbat
Double-A
GM's theories don't seem to be panning out, as they seem to be on the
road to bankruptcy!
Double-A
.
Christopher A. Lee
O1-2-Epoxyethyl-Isopropylamino-Aminobenzoyl-N3-N1-Chloroplatinic-Acid
<o1-2-epoxyethyl-isopropylamino-ami...@you.long-haired-campy-honkie.com>
wrote:
>Raving Loonie <raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you disagree with a liberal, you're a racist homophobe.
And you're a liar. You have a point?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
M,and not G M I won my right to post,and sign the post. I ask only
your patients to stay with me for 6 months. At the end I'm hoping you
would rather have me continue. If not I will turn over complete control
to bert. I would never stay in a universe that does not want me.
Trebert
Christopher A. Lee
<misha_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> A circle is flat.
>>>>
>
>Yes a circle is flat but this reference is not necessarily to the earth
>itself. The language suggests a "circuit" for this term and thus the
>reference in Isaiah about the Lord sitting above the "circle" of the earth
>could be understood as the "circuit" of the earth, that is, it's orbit
>around the sun.
>
>The two other references to a "circle" in reference to the earth are found
>below and are related to the circle that is created where light turns into
>darkness. Again this circle is "flat" but in order to form a circle
>separating light from dark you need a circular sphere. Here are those
>texts relating to the circle around the earth separating light from dark:
You're rationalising. It only fools yourself.
nightbat
"Charles D. Bohne" wrote:
> 1st Officer Bohne
> What do we have here? A case of multiple personality?
> C.
nightbat
Yes number 1, a sad case of duty fatigue and personal family
tragedy of loss of Officer Bert's spouse to permanent infirmary. I have
had to place him on sickbay leave for just that reason for it appears to
be just too much for him at this time. The presenting Trebert
personality is a manifestation of high stress overtaking a brilliant
mind I'm sorry to report. I am hoping he will regain his physical
composure and mental health before the Seans reportedly get here.
carry on,
the nightbat
nightbat
nightbat
Very good Trebert, 6 months quarantine it is but not a day
later. I will grant you permission to duty net report while on sickbay
status as Trebert with condition that you turn over full mental control
back to Officer Bert at that time or sooner. I will hold his pre flight
order clearance until then but if you negate these agreed upon
conditions Officer Bert will be permanently grounded, I'm sorry, those
are Earth Science Team preflight Starship regulations. Saul has be
quarantined also to Captain's stow file and it would be unfair and
improper to permit you to violate Officer rules and conduct without
recourse. These officer hours proceedings are closed.
carry on,
the nightbat
Bill Sheppard
>...you ended your post with "space stuff"
>and right you are.
As mentioned before, the question of whether or not space is a 'void'
has enormous ramifications outside the mere arena of
astrophysics/cosmology.
If every atom is indeed a process IN and OF the spatial
medium (as the eddies and whorls in a river are of the river), then we
are quite literally "space stuff". We're quite literally indivisible
from the 'Ocean' of space in which we dwell. What implications would
this have on theology f'rinstance, if 'God' is indivisible from
his/her/its material creation? On philosophy? On the nature of
consciousness and the root of the 'life force' itself? On the apparent
Imperative driving the course of DNA synthesis toward sentience and
self-awareness?
OR, is space just a vast nothingness, and we just random accidents of
chance couplings of disparate atoms aimlessly adrift in the 'void'?
oc
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:32:45 GMT, "Larry Wilson"
<misha_...@verizon.net> wrote:
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:16 -0500, nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com>
wrote:
Double-A
Charles D. Bohne wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:14:05 -0500, herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2
> Glazier) wrote:
>
> C.
I think he's suffering from Multiple Universe Syndrome!
Double-A
Art Deco
More saucerhead hebephrenic laughter.
>
lame on,
> the nightbat
Art Deco
>You truly are a froot-bat, bat-breath! You can't even write clearly!
The funny part is that he claims to be an author and a writer.
--
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:38:59 -0700, Art Deco <art_...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
Art Deco
>Could have fooled me, AD!
Yup. And he calls me "clueless", heh.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy