@JamesTheIdolSmasher Most Rabbis preach what they want to, and so do priests and mormon missionaries. They don't preach what sounds fuzzy or inaccurate.
The "circle" original word is chug. The cognate verb means "to draw a circle." The noun means horizon -- circle which defines the edge of your vision. It is extremely interpretive to understand the term as orb or sphere. In Hebrew aslo have similar word Dur but it's to show object from FOV. The word chug show that you are inside the Dur.
i have a question about the bible that really confuzzels me. Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and were WHITE. So, how did we get black, asian, french, so on and so on. I would gladly appreciate a answer
@TheFrosty246 Well, the Hebrew word 'adam comes from a root meaning red. Some claim, then, that the first people had reddish-colored skin. But, everyone's descended from Noah. The races came after the Tower of Babel when people split up into smaller groups/tribes. Apparently, God infused just enough genetic "variability" in humans to allow for the "microevolution" of different skin colors in the same "kind" (species?) of human. At least, that's how I've heard the (creationist) story told!
@TheFrosty246 Adam and Eve were not the first humans either. According to scientist study research, humans were found over 6000 years ago, way before Adam and Eve. The first humans in the world were black actually in color and evolved over time.
@TheFrosty246 where did u get that idea from? the KKK is not the final authority of the bible lol. Adam and Eve would have had the most genetic information.and over time as natural selection removed certain traits we got individual "races". think of dogs. the first dog would have been a wolf like animal, but over time as certain traits get weeded out we end up with everything from chiuauas to great danes. white skin is NOT the default, white skin is the MINORITY world wide.
Hebrew is really Phoenician! fucking Christians pushing their bullshit beliefs on me.....god made adam out of clay,,,,created eve out of Adams rib! all in seven days,,,,,,seems like the universe revolves around the earth,,,,,one tiny planet in one tiny solar system,,,in one tiny galaxy. in one massive universe! the bible states this all was "created" in seven days, and is only 12,000 years old,,,,,jesus christ how god damn dumb can you get!
The shape of the earth is as a pebble / boulder / stone, as you would find in a stream and you, my children, reside on its surface. The surface is so vast, that it seems flat to the eye, but I say unto you it is not flat.
is the Bible wrong ? Well.................. It DOES claim that trees existed before the sun. It does expect you to believe that an 800 year old man survived a global flood on a boat full of every "kind" of animal ( which subsequently buried themselves into a perfect temporally stratified fossil record) It probably is a better bet for you if you only have one eyebrow and you mend swamp buggies for a living.
Christopher Columbus was able to help discover America at a time most thought the earth was flat, because he saw the Bible verse that said "take the Gospel into AL
I just found a website with even more information on Hebrew words used in scripture that may give more understanding on Isaiah 11:12 and also confirm my findings. christiananswers. net/q-eden/edn-c017. ht ml
(part 1) since the original scripture was written in greek and hebrew, i would suggest looking in a concordance. If I am using this concordance correctly :/ from website biblestudytools, it appears that in isaiah 40:22 "he sits upon the circle of the earth" the hebrew word used for circle could mean - ball, circle, to encircle, encompass. And the equivalent greek word is - in a circle, around, round-about, on all sides
(part 2) Isaiah 11:12 was a little more confusing. The Greek referred to four corners as four winds. But the Hebrew only said - to be set in corners of cut off places. In Ben-Yehuda's english-hebrew dictionary, this same hebrew word means - extremity, or edge. One footnote at the website said corner could mean wings, so looking up wings in the hebrew dictionary gave another word (also used for "corner") and in the concordance the definition was - wing, extremity, edge, corner...any thoughts?
@Colibrianna08 - your series of responses in this 'four corners' debate is almost identical to an incident related by R. Dawkins, where a woman, in arguing against the fact of evolution, demanded "to be shown the (fossil) evidence," to which RD said, "its in the books." Her response was "those are just pictures." and on & on.
@brettppalmer Wait... (1.) When did the bible say the was disk shaped? (2.), Only spherical objects appear as a circle from every angle. (above, under, side etc.) Not a disk.
(3)Compare Isaiah 11:12 to Isaiah 40:22 and there would be two arguments. Did he mean round or square?
@GoatSkinner666 : The Bible refers to things like "the circle of the Earth". This doesn't necessarily mean the Earth is flat. Spheres are round like circles. When you see a picture of the Earth taken from space, you see a circle.
@SummerSunshine1988 That's not all the Bible refers to. There's a story where the devil takes jesus to the top of a mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the earth, How could he see all the kingdoms when some were on the other side of the earth? The only way would be if he was seeing them on a flat plain
@Nathonaj17 The devil takes jesus to the top of a tall mountain to show him ALL the kingdoms of the earth. How could he see whats on the other side of the planet? That does imply a flat earth
@GoatSkinner666 Why not? The view is better from up there. In any case, "all the kingdoms" can very well just be a literary image (dunno if that's the phrase in english). Just like the roman empire is called "the whole world" in Luke. Doesn't mean they are literally seeing the whole world. I have no idea if Luke or John or whoever wrote that gospel thought the world was round or flat, but it doesn't really mean anything, does it?
@Erufailon42 It means that believing in the bible is like believing in the boogey man or santa clause or any other man-made, made up fairytale that children could conceive as real. That's a problem.
@GoatSkinner666 I thought the point of this discussion was whether the bible advocates a flat earth or not, not what you think about the bible. Apparently, I was wrong in assuming one could have an objective discussion with anyone on youtube...
@Erufailon42 I was just cutting to the chase. Whether the earth is flat is just part of the authenticity of the bible and whether we can rely on it for other things as well
@GoatSkinner666@GoatSkinner666 Ok, guess I overreacted. Sorry 'bout that. I still don't think the worldview of one of the author's of the gospels has anything to say about the authencity of the bible. The author is only telling the story of jesus, not presenting any scientific claim. When I mentioned the supernatural being of Jesus and Satan I was, again, referring to the author. Whatever you may believe, he definetly believed they were supernatural, and so presented them as such.
You showed a pic at the beginning where they where showing a Hebrew writing but they wrote right to left not left to right,i know it is not you but whoever made that picture should have known specially since it was a not a modern day writer the picture looked liked from way back in the past...anyway just wanted to say that :)..as always great vid.
I wish your videos had better advertising..."word to mouth" only has so much power; I feel that 7,000 views is not enough...you're freakin' brilliant, my friend :) thank you for all you do!!!!
You don't have to lose ALL your blood to die, the cardiovascular system delivers oxygen to the brain and organs. When you suffocate, your brain does not get enough oxygen to survive. Same thing with loss of blood: the death is due to oxygen starvation of the brain. The blood can be thought of as a transport- system, sure it may stop supplying oxygen, but in the end, one only dies when the brain dies. Losing blood is like losing your lungs, I can argue that the LUNGS are the life-force LOL :D
@karmalevel Why couldn't the same god gave the primitive biblical people the intelligence and knowledge to boil water before they drink it, or proscribe a commandment to stop close relatives from intermarrying. Our scientific achievement is due to the fact that we were able to move beyond the superstitions of the bible, not afraid of its absurd claims, and look for answers ourselves. We're developed and acquired our knowledge in spite of god, not because of him.
preachers i have heard said it wasn't that the writers of the bible did not know the word it was the people that read it and they had to write it so the people of the time knew what he was trying to say....lol pastors should be politicians they have more excuses for anything
BIble is a joke again and again, non-changing ever bible, now that people are smarter and more scientifically educated, bible becomes even more than a joke, it's a joke book in clown suit.
Isaiah 22:18, He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
I honestly don't understand why someone could be literally stupid enough to believe the bible is the divine word of their god. Anyone who thinks that is either crazy, mentally deranged, or stupid.
didn't the egyptians know the earth was round as well i remember reading that the way they proved was simply by placing a large pillar at one spot then they traveled and placed another and one person sttod at each pillar at the same time of day and the shadow of the sun on each pillar was recorded and when they compared them both they saw the difference with how far the shadow went,the experiment can be easily repeated,take a piece of large paper even cardboard and on each end place a stick
God had never tried to teach anybody cosmology. The purpose of the Bible is other than revealing cosmology. Thus said square minded people will always find something to stumble upon..
Studying the Bible should be approached with another kind of attitude.
A quote from Aron Ra: " The bible has been shown to be logically, historically, philosophically, sociologically, scientifically and even morally dead wrong about everything back to front". Just because religious people are brainwashed is not a valid excuse.
Though its easy to understand what you meant by calling languages living things, I would caution using the word to describe things that aren't biologically alive. Biology plays an important role in the argument against religion and apologists love throwing around the word living in the wrong context.
This is grasping at straws! The phrase "the ends of the earth" or "the four corners of the earth" are common idioms for the four directions in a compass and ARE STILL USED TODAY! Duh!
@ColibriAnna08 Really? Interesting. Then how come the Bible was written -before- compasses were invented and before the concept of magnetism arrived in what is currently known as the Middle East?
@Zemed87 Aw, you think you're so clever! It's simple. The Kings James Version. The phrases "the four corners of the earth" were used in the Bible by King James I - not in the original text. It was a very popular English idiom in 17th century literature. You need to understand that sayings and idioms do not translate into other languages, and for each idiom used in the Bible, another one is used in it's place when translated into a different language.
@Zemed87 I would have to ask you to prove that statement. Unless there is a version of that Bible still floating around, I seriously doubt you could even know that the same idioms are used in it. So in short, you're full of it.
@ColibriAnna08 Y'know, it would've been a lot faster if you'd just Googled "Myles Coverdale Bible" - it -is- the second recommendation, after all. You can go on a (Christian) site called Studylight where you can search the entire thing - it was released in 1535. The phrase "four corners of the earth" is used in Revelation 7:1 and Isaiah 11:12.
P.S. I'd appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that I'm "full of it" - it's really quite disrespectful.
@Zemed87 No, what's disrespectful is your sudden, unprovoked interrogation of me over a comment three months old. What exactly are you trying to prove? Your own satisfaction in your intelligence by starting internet debates?
Anyway, I went to Studylight and it was a website for lamps. Seriously, I'm starting feel I'm more than right in saying you're full of it. You made the claim. Now prove it or begone.
@ColibriAnna08 Interrogation? I was just looking to have a discussion - why else would you have posted that comment, if not to discuss it? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just a seeker of the truth - I assumed you to be one as well.
@ColibriAnna08 I also assumed you would've Googled the word and found that the correct website ends in "org". I gave you the name of the site and specific passages. What more do you need? I can't link stuff on YouTube, so you have to do the hard work yourself. You'd save yourself a lot of trouble if you just used Google, y'know. :/
@Zemed87 If you are that damn desperate to be a know-it-all and have the last word and prove that you are right (as if that gives you any kind of fucking benefit to prove that on the INTERNET), then send me a link in a message to that website with the Myles Coverdale Bible and "corners of the earth" in it's verses. I dare you.
@ColibriAnna08 Here's the quote: "And after that sawe I foure angels stode on ye foure corners of the earth, holdinge ye foure wyndes of ye earth, yt ye wyndes shulde not blowe on ye earth, nether on ye see, nether on eny tree." Put that into Google - it's the second result.
From Isaiah: "And he shal set vp a toke amonge the Gentiles, and gather together ye dispersed of Israel, yee and the outcastes of Iuda from the foure corners of ye worlde."
@Zemed87 And now that we got that out of the way, what is that you are trying to prove with this verse? So the idiom "four corners of the earth" originated in the Myles Coverdale Version? It's still just a figure of speech *NOT* found in the original text and *NOT* a literal meaning. If you can't prove it to be anything other than such, then you really ought to stop trying to so aggressively prove that you're right over the internet - as if there is much to be had in that.
@ColibriAnna08 Oh, and furthermore: No matter when the text was translated into English, the original Bible was written before compasses were invented - so it did refer to the four corners of the Earth, just in a different language.
I'm trying my best to imagine Jesus saying these things that you're saying. I can't imagine he would approve of you insulting me and being evasive instead of addressing my argument. :/
(cont.) As I said early, when the Bible was translated phrases and idioms familiar only to that language or certain words cannot be translated literally. For every word in Aramaic or Greek, there is not an exact translation in English. For any phrases or cultural idioms in Aramaic or Greek, the same phrase or idiom does not mean the same thing in English. Idioms like "four corners of the earth" were added upon translation into English.
(cont.2) I already explained this once. Because you have the convenience of being ignorant of linguistics does not mean you are right. As for what you deem insults, please. Get your panties out of your crack and don't be such a child. You started this mess with a hostile attitude. Don't start internet fights if you get your feelings hurts that easily, little boy.
@ColibriAnna08 This is called "moving the goalposts" - you originally said that the phrase was first used in the KJV. When I disproved that the phrase was not, in fact, used for the first time in that, you immediately jumped to another point instead of conceding that you were mistaken.
This is something that I -can- do, however. If I was mistaken, please prove it. I'd love to readjust my views based on evidence.
I was hostile first? If so, shouldn't you still turn the other cheek?
@Zemed87 I read once that the phrase was first used in the English translation. I believed that the KJV was the first English translation, and so I assumed that "four corners of the earth" originated in that version. It's nothing more than a simple mistake that you are using to your advantage while avoiding your proof that "four corners of the earth" existed in the original Biblical texts which is, I assumed, your argument.
@ColibriAnna08 "Idioms like "four corners of the earth" were added upon translation into English." Do you know what burden of proof is? You made -several- positive claims, but didn't bother backing any of them up with evidence.
If you Google "biblos revelation 7:1," the fourth result should include the original passage, as well as definitions of all the words in Hebrew. I took a look and the only plausible way to translate them is, indeed, "the four corners of the earth."
@Zemed87 Ha! No, do YOU know what the burden of proof is? It's two things: 1) a bullshit phrase used by Atheist to lazily avoid contributing any proof for their opinions and beliefs while harassing other for proof and 2) a phrase that does *NOT* originate in science or logistics but the legal system, and it's only purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant to be innocent until proven guilty. It has nothing to do with debate or science or logic.
(cont.) Also, if you believe in burden of proof, then it does not only apply to positive claims. It also applies to negative claims. After all, a claim is a claim and all claims must be verified to be taken as a truth.. Even if I was wrong there, too, you made the positive claim that "the four corners of the earth" originates in the original text. According to your own standards, it is your responsibility to prove that unless you want to be a hypocrite.
(cont.) You never showed me evidence that "the four corners of the earth" is an idiom that exists in either the original text or the Greek text of the Bible. If you didn't claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat, you certainly claimed that the this phrase existed before the English translation. Otherwise, you really, really are here just to fight.
@ColibriAnna08 Actually, scratch that - the very first result is much better. It shows the literal translation of the original Hebrew alongside the words, so you don't have to click on all of 'em separately. Much more convenient!
(cont.) By the way, the idea that "the four corners of the earth" means "the earth is flat" is a desperate stretch. Many things have corners but are not flat including pyramids and cubes. Unless you have a phrase that directly states the earth is flat in shape, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass and trying to criticize the Bible by taking it out of context is the most exaggerated way.
@ColibriAnna08 Actually, I never even made the argument that the Bible calls the earth flat. I don't see what this has to do with our current discussion. In what way am I taking the Bible out of context, and what is its original context?
(cont.2) You are certainly DEFENDING the claim that the Bible calls the earth flat. Don't try to backpedal. To claim that the Bible is saying that the Earth if flat because it mentions on numerous occasions "the four corners of the earth" is taking things gravely out of context because it is figurative speech and not literal. Plus, many things have corners but are not flat.
@Zemed87 Honestly, if your point is not in defense of the point of this video which is the Bible claims the earth is flat, then I would really like to know why you are wasting your time talking to me. Since my post was only a rebuttal to that claim, why else would you disagree with it? The only other explanation is that you are looking for a fight to pass the time, and I'd rather not bicker for sake of it.
=| You can't be serious. My point is that I am asking you for evidence that "the four corners of the earth" was in the original text or the Greek text or that the Bible says the Earth is flat. If neither is your purpose, then why are you talking to me?
@ColibriAnna08 I did that. I told you exactly where you could find the original passages - it's not like they'd be hard to find, anyway. It seems to me that you're really not too interested in the truth; do I really need to spoonfeed you the evidence before you take a look at it?
@Zemed87 Excuse me, liar, but you never told me where to find the passages in the ORIGINAL TEXT - as in the original books of the Bible. Please do that before you debase me on looking for truth, when you yourself can't face the truth of a simple damn request. I'm getting so bored with you at this point.
@ColibriAnna08 The original texts of the books of the bible are long lost to antiquity. It is doubtful we will ever know anything of what they said. So what you are asking is impossible.
For your next question to examine, how about the rainbow? That’s another word we use today because we got it from the Bible, yet people don’t often stop to think about what that word literally means, and more importantly, what the Hebrew word “qesheth” used repeatedly in Genesis 9:8–17 literally means — namely, the same thing it means in all of the other 70+ times it appears in the Bible.
Wouldn't an easier video be on what the bible got right? Because it piratically got nothing right. So there is far less right stuff than wrong stuff. I think it got a few town names right and that is pretty much it.
I really do like the way you present your arguments, well-researched and all. I'm happy to subscribe, but I feel like you deserve more popular recognition. Thanks for your work, and I'm proud to share a last name with you!
I was wondering if you'll touch on the contradictions about god's omniscience?
e.g. at the very beginning (in Genesis), god seems to ask a lot of questions. The idea of an omniscient being asking questions is ludicrous. A favorite is when god asks Adam "Where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9) -- there are only 2 people in existence, and he can't find one?
He also gets angry a lot. Anger is a reaction from the unexpected, which makes no sense for a being who is omniscient.
Why would the bible be written with so many complex abstract metaphors...? Isn't it's purpose to convey the meaning to as many people as possible.. you know, the everyday person?
It's very desperate and absurd to suggest that the bible was written to be interpreted only by scholars and therefore we need to take almost all of it literally.
Bret, what are u doing? This is boring. Unless you can find me a guy that believes the earth is flat to mock, move on plz. The bible is full of shit, thats your point but we all know this is futile. At least focus on more entertaining aspects like the giants and the dummys who believe in it. Still love ya. k thanks, bye
Good luck...I've done the "Flat Earth according to the Bible" series. It's amazing how they adjust their critical thinking skills to accept the words of this book of fables.
I find this to be one of the most infuriating topics to discuss... The apologetics for "sphericity in the bible" are amongst the very worst, and a sure sign you are dealing with someone who knows very little or is very deeply brainwashed. Usually both.
That information is almost a direct quote from Edward T. Babinski in 'The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails', Chapter 5 - 'The Cosmology Of The Bible' (2010) Prometheus Books.
(cont) meaning for "chug". In Dan. 4:10-11, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and asks Daniel to interpret it: "I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth." If a tree's height was indees so "great" that it "reached unto heaven" then it might very well be seen to the "ends of the earth" on a flat earth. It does not apply to a "sphere".
What is the shape of the earth according to the Bible? Is. 40:22 provides the answer: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle (Heb. chug) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." The context of that verse has nothing in it implying sphericity, only "tent-icity," The Hebrew word 'chug' has a primary meaning of "circle" and no lexicon of ancient Hebrew offers "sphere" as a (cont)
@CrossTheGrigori Did I say the bible was a poetic way of describing things? Or did I say the book of Ecclesiates? god's word is made of of many books and letters by many authors. Some give historic accounts of events. Some are words of wisdom. Some are commandments. And some use poetic wording to teach and express the thoughts of the authors as they are guided by the holy spirit. And I never suggested that the bible not be taken literally.
@TrustinJC the book is strapped 2gether in one, comprehensive text, if one is 2 b taken literally, it all must. ieither the bible is literally god's word, word for word, or its an interpretation of rem cycles and/or hallucinations from mental illness. if its an interpretation of dream, poetic and symbolic, well we hav scientific explanations for rem cycles and what causes them, and its not god
So your arguement is that because they never invented a word to sufficiently describe the globe to your liking, it must than mean that they understood the world to be flat? And if if they had described the earth as a round stone? What than? Would you complain that they got it wrong because they described it as round?
It's used time and again? Really? Than why not simply list the verses so viewers can read for themselfs?
@TrustinJC Job 38: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?...To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...." (God thinks the Earth is just big architecture?).
Psalm 104: "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (God didn't know it orbits the sun?)
Ecclesiastes 1: "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (so, the earth doesn't move, but the sun does?)
@artgoat And what do these foundations look like? Please describe the foundations? What exactly are they?
Even today, scientistst use the same jargon. DNA, for example, are the building blocks. So does this mean people are made from the kind of building blocks children play with? Of course not.
Have you taken the time to research or study Ecclesiates? It uses poetic speach full of what have come to be known as maxims to teach us the true meaning of life. It is not a scientific journal.
@TrustinJC "It is not a scientific journal." Precisely! Yet fundamentalists usually insist that every assertion made in the Bible is absolutely, literally, scientifically correct, because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of the omniscient God. It would appear that you do not adhere to this most extreme view. So why do you object to Brett pointing out the obvious flaws in this view?
@Puchicas9 If you are going to discuss the bible, scripture, and the contents there of, please have at least some basic understanding of what the bible is made up of. Otherwise, you just show shear ignorance.
Brett is not pointing out obvious flaws. Scripture does not speak of the earth being flat.
And the person citing Ecclesiates just showed their ignorance about scripture. Each book, letter and author are unique, as I explained.
@TrustinJC "Scripture does not speak of the earth being flat." You need to wait until the end of this series before making such an ill-informed statement. Here's a preview: Yes it does. And the Book of Enoch can't get you off the hook on this one, Trustin. And it's obvious you didn't even watch THIS one very carefully. I've already addressed the apologetic that "we still use that same language today."
@brettppalmer Oh, I watched your vid and understand your so called reasoning. But you didn't you didn't address anything. Stating that they should or could have evolved a word. Why, when it is obvious what they believed, and that they didn't believe the world was flat. As you stated, language evolves over time. Now compare the stages of language evolution of the Hebrews compared to modern language. It takes time for language to evolve.
@brettppalmer Pt 2 I addressed a similar topic with the story of the great flood and the fact that scripture is clearly talking about a regional flood.
Your bias will come through in your videos and you will be exposed as someone taking the passages out of context.
Is there really such a difference between sphere and circle when looking at the context of the passage?
A disk shape planet? Really? Why are you not listing the specific passages?
@TrustinJC Oh, that's rich, TJC! I have read the NT more than once in Greek, a good chunk of the OT in Hebrew (and all the Aramaic), as well as in the LXX. Not to mention my complete reading of the Bible in English several times. I have done advanced graduate studies in the Bible and ancient Christian literature. I edited several study Bibles in my days at Christian publishing companies. It is my deep knowledge of the Bible and the character of its contents that has led me to my current views.
@Puchicas9 LOL. That's hilarious. You claim all these credentials, yet show you do not have even a basic understanding of what the bible is. You say all the books and letters are written in the same way, for the same purpose, and make up one book that must be read one way throughout it.
But anyone having been a Christian for 15 minutes know there are many authors giving many perspectives about many subjects.
@TrustinJC You fail to understand my point. You are trying to defend the notion that the Bible doesn't teach that there is a flat earth. Well, of course, it does! Whether in Ecclesiastes or in other books, the view is consistent. You are attempting to defend the Bible from a fundamentalist point of view (a la Harold Linssell in "Battle for the Bible"). Fundamentalists recognize no distinction in the truth value of propositions presented in the various genres of biblical literature. (cont.)
@Puchicas9 It is you who are missing the point. Scripture does not describe a flat earth. And trying to use Ecclesiastes as proof that it does only shows the ignorance of atheists and their inability to read scripture in context. It is you who who are unable to read scripture in context and therefore are unable to recognize the truth. You use hyperbole criticism and have a total disregard for hermeneutics.
@Punchicas Pt 2 Proverbs is a book of wise sayings to guide people on the righteous path. The Song of Songs is a poem of courtship. The book of Revelation is one of prophecy, future events, and is based on a vision.
Many prophets speak of visions and dreams. Other books are historical records of the Hebrews that document wars, Kings and the law of Moses.
So I'd be careful about bragging about your credentials. For you only show your ignorance in doing so.
Respond to this video... (cont.) Are you saying that you do not hold to the Lindsell fundamentalist view? Do you hold that some propositions found in the Bible are literally true, while others are not? On what basis do you determine which genres can be regarded as factually accurate, and which genres cannot be so regarded? If you believe that any genre can be regarded as non-factual, then you are not a biblical literalist. Why then do you deny that the Bible teaches a flat-earth view?
@Puchicas9 I am a literalist. This does not mean that I don't consider dream, visions, and poems for what they are. Was the pharoahs dream of 7 cows each of skinny and fat to be taken literally? what if Joseph had not interpreted the dream, and you only had the pharaoh's telling of it? How would you interpret it? Can you honestly not understand what poetic writing means and that each writer was an idividual.
@Puchicas9 How much have you studied the apocrypha?
When stationed in Europe, I often heard the American military personel say, they were bound for the world in a few weeks. Or, they couldn't wait to get back to the world. they were, of course, refering to the USA. should I take it to mean they thought they were on another planet when in Europe?
Have you ever heard of the Miss Universe pagent? Are we to believe the pagent has entrants form other planets from across the universe?
@TrustinJC It is reasonable to say that Pharaoh literally had a dream in which he saw 14 cows, etc. This is explicitly stated to be a dream, not a real-world event. However, the biblical writers clearly presuppose a flat earth. This presupposition is occasionally made explicit in verses such as those cited by Brett. So what? How does that affect your purpose to convince people to trust Jesus as their Lord and Savior? I really don't understand why evangelicals waste so much energy on side issues.
@TrustinJC You might be surprised to learn that I am replying to you during breaks in my work of translating a recent book on biblical exegesis into English. The author, though, is not one who is so insecure that he insists that every word of the Bible is literally true. He is one of the more enlightened theologians who are able to accept the Bible as the Word of God, a guide to faith, without getting bogged down in the inanities that are a ball and chain to literalists.
@Puchicas9 So what you are saying is that you respect someone who does not take scripture literally, but will read what they want into it. You respect someone who reads what they believe rather than believe what they read?
@TrustinJC I respect someone who sees the Bible as an ancient document that should be studied in light of the cultural milieu from which it came, and the available historical evidence. However, the author of the book I am translating makes the point that faith is indispensable to proper exegesis. Coldly analyzing the Bible historically leaves it a dead document. Studying it with faith, while recognizing its actual level of historicity, makes it valuable spiritually.
@TrustinJC The literalist approach finally killed my faith because the level of cognitive dissonance caused by the clear gaps between biblical accounts and historical reality eventually became to great. An understanding of the Bible as what it is (a factually imperfect collection of ancient documents) has allowed me to appreciate the literary accomplishments of the authors, rather than make a mockery of their work by insisting that it just HAS to be accurate from a modern scientific viewpoint.
i think that Allah created this world and he also created all humans..
MrIslamista 7 hours ago
bible is a lying turd it says earth is 6000yrs old. dinosaurs lived with humans and 50,000 other lies in the bible
mrlogicalman1 1 week ago in playlist What The Bible Got Wrong-Flat Earth
If they knew it was a sphere, they could of used a water melon or something else that was ball like.
illywacker1 1 month ago
So when will Creationists just get it? They are wrong.
pommyrooter 1 month ago
@JamesTheIdolSmasher Most Rabbis preach what they want to, and so do priests and mormon missionaries. They don't preach what sounds fuzzy or inaccurate.
rufuguru 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "circle" original word is chug. The cognate verb means "to draw a circle." The noun means horizon -- circle which defines the edge of your vision. It is extremely interpretive to understand the term as orb or sphere. In Hebrew aslo have similar word Dur but it's to show object from FOV. The word chug show that you are inside the Dur.
Bahauddin84 2 months ago
i have a question about the bible that really confuzzels me. Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and were WHITE. So, how did we get black, asian, french, so on and so on. I would gladly appreciate a answer
TheFrosty246 2 months ago
@TheFrosty246 Well, the Hebrew word 'adam comes from a root meaning red. Some claim, then, that the first people had reddish-colored skin. But, everyone's descended from Noah. The races came after the Tower of Babel when people split up into smaller groups/tribes. Apparently, God infused just enough genetic "variability" in humans to allow for the "microevolution" of different skin colors in the same "kind" (species?) of human. At least, that's how I've heard the (creationist) story told!
brettppalmer 2 months ago
@brettppalmer
1:33 A FLAT EARTH
this image makes sense but the global image makes ZERO sense.
UKGLfemaddict 4 weeks ago
@TheFrosty246 Adam and Eve were not the first humans either. According to scientist study research, humans were found over 6000 years ago, way before Adam and Eve. The first humans in the world were black actually in color and evolved over time.
DragonxxxFire 2 months ago
@TheFrosty246 where did u get that idea from? the KKK is not the final authority of the bible lol. Adam and Eve would have had the most genetic information.and over time as natural selection removed certain traits we got individual "races". think of dogs. the first dog would have been a wolf like animal, but over time as certain traits get weeded out we end up with everything from chiuauas to great danes. white skin is NOT the default, white skin is the MINORITY world wide.
freeze32007 2 months ago in playlist interesting
@TheFrosty246 well, if your source for information is the bible... I guess there's nothing to talk about. you know what I mean? ;)
assfau1t 3 weeks ago
Hebrew is really Phoenician! fucking Christians pushing their bullshit beliefs on me.....god made adam out of clay,,,,created eve out of Adams rib! all in seven days,,,,,,seems like the universe revolves around the earth,,,,,one tiny planet in one tiny solar system,,,in one tiny galaxy. in one massive universe! the bible states this all was "created" in seven days, and is only 12,000 years old,,,,,jesus christ how god damn dumb can you get!
cooldaddyy 2 months ago
The missing biblical verse:
The shape of the earth is as a pebble / boulder / stone, as you would find in a stream and you, my children, reside on its surface. The surface is so vast, that it seems flat to the eye, but I say unto you it is not flat.
This god stuff is easy.
Knightyme 2 months ago
@Knightyme Did God speak to you on a mountain where no one else was around to be your witness? :)
FitnessExpert 2 months ago
@FitnessExpert But ... that would mean I was talking to myself. :P
Knightyme 2 months ago
@Knightyme Well as long as you say God spoke to you, then I'll just believe you and not question it. :P
FitnessExpert 1 month ago
@FitnessExpert lol - have a fantastic 2012
Knightyme 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is the Bible wrong ? Well.................. It DOES claim that trees existed before the sun. It does expect you to believe that an 800 year old man survived a global flood on a boat full of every "kind" of animal ( which subsequently buried themselves into a perfect temporally stratified fossil record) It probably is a better bet for you if you only have one eyebrow and you mend swamp buggies for a living.
ilikezappa 3 months ago
ALL the earth". The Bible also declared " circle" of the earth.
ConnectionMagazine 3 months ago
Christopher Columbus was able to help discover America at a time most thought the earth was flat, because he saw the Bible verse that said "take the Gospel into AL
ConnectionMagazine 3 months ago
I just found a website with even more information on Hebrew words used in scripture that may give more understanding on Isaiah 11:12 and also confirm my findings. christiananswers. net/q-eden/edn-c017. ht ml
childofasavior 4 months ago
(part 1) since the original scripture was written in greek and hebrew, i would suggest looking in a concordance. If I am using this concordance correctly :/ from website biblestudytools, it appears that in isaiah 40:22 "he sits upon the circle of the earth" the hebrew word used for circle could mean - ball, circle, to encircle, encompass. And the equivalent greek word is - in a circle, around, round-about, on all sides
childofasavior 4 months ago
Comment removed
ElijahCheWhite 3 months ago
(part 2) Isaiah 11:12 was a little more confusing. The Greek referred to four corners as four winds. But the Hebrew only said - to be set in corners of cut off places. In Ben-Yehuda's english-hebrew dictionary, this same hebrew word means - extremity, or edge. One footnote at the website said corner could mean wings, so looking up wings in the hebrew dictionary gave another word (also used for "corner") and in the concordance the definition was - wing, extremity, edge, corner...any thoughts?
childofasavior 4 months ago
@Colibrianna08 - your series of responses in this 'four corners' debate is almost identical to an incident related by R. Dawkins, where a woman, in arguing against the fact of evolution, demanded "to be shown the (fossil) evidence," to which RD said, "its in the books." Her response was "those are just pictures." and on & on.
So typical of Logic Impaired Fairy-ists.
psycotria 4 months ago
Next time a christian asks me if I am an "evolutionist" I will respond: "I am a round earthist".
MWcrazyhorse 5 months ago in playlist Flat Earth Bible
@MWcrazyhorse omg how pathetic
drgaylord88 3 months ago
@drgaylord88 still true.
MWcrazyhorse 3 months ago
The Bible never claimed the earth as flat. The title of your video alone makes an erroneous interpretation of what the Bible stated.
MrJulRaz 6 months ago 2
worst video of all time, painful to watch an atheist making a fool of himself
LoneStar1776 6 months ago
lol bible. lol.
smellycheezeify 6 months ago
@brettppalmer Wait... (1.) When did the bible say the was disk shaped? (2.), Only spherical objects appear as a circle from every angle. (above, under, side etc.) Not a disk.
(3)Compare Isaiah 11:12 to Isaiah 40:22 and there would be two arguments. Did he mean round or square?
DecentExposureMedia 6 months ago
The truth is in the Quran !
AlgerianPhoenix 6 months ago
@gimaru It is very important that what they are saying is true
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
@gimaru1 Yes, but is its auntenticity the subject, besides the bible is supposed to be always right so it has to be you know right
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
The Bible never says or implies that the Earth is flat.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 yes it does. Ever read it?
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 : The Bible refers to things like "the circle of the Earth". This doesn't necessarily mean the Earth is flat. Spheres are round like circles. When you see a picture of the Earth taken from space, you see a circle.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 That's not all the Bible refers to. There's a story where the devil takes jesus to the top of a mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the earth, How could he see all the kingdoms when some were on the other side of the earth? The only way would be if he was seeing them on a flat plain
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 : Satan is very powerful. He probably conjured up some kind of vision to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 LOL! Good one. So he's more powerful than god?
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 : No. Not by a long shot. But he is powerful.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 I think your just trolling. You can't be seriouse right? Why would he have to take him to the top of a mountain then?
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 : Beats me.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Well then dont believe it. It's pretty simple
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 : Simple, yes. But personally I believe that this would be an incorrect response.
SummerSunshine1988 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SummerSunshine1988 So what are you proposing?
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 HAHAHA... no it doesn't. Ever read it?
Nathonaj17 7 months ago
@Nathonaj17 The devil takes jesus to the top of a tall mountain to show him ALL the kingdoms of the earth. How could he see whats on the other side of the planet? That does imply a flat earth
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 Or it implies the supernatural being of Jesus and the Devil
Erufailon42 7 months ago in playlist fknreligion7
@Erufailon42 HAHA y bother taking him to a tall mountain then if they have supernatural powers?
GoatSkinner666 7 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 Why not? The view is better from up there. In any case, "all the kingdoms" can very well just be a literary image (dunno if that's the phrase in english). Just like the roman empire is called "the whole world" in Luke. Doesn't mean they are literally seeing the whole world. I have no idea if Luke or John or whoever wrote that gospel thought the world was round or flat, but it doesn't really mean anything, does it?
Erufailon42 6 months ago
@Erufailon42 It means that believing in the bible is like believing in the boogey man or santa clause or any other man-made, made up fairytale that children could conceive as real. That's a problem.
GoatSkinner666 6 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 I thought the point of this discussion was whether the bible advocates a flat earth or not, not what you think about the bible. Apparently, I was wrong in assuming one could have an objective discussion with anyone on youtube...
Erufailon42 6 months ago
@Erufailon42 I was just cutting to the chase. Whether the earth is flat is just part of the authenticity of the bible and whether we can rely on it for other things as well
GoatSkinner666 6 months ago
@Erufailon42 Your the one who brought up jesus and the devil having supernatural powers. Y should anyone believ that?
GoatSkinner666 6 months ago
@GoatSkinner666 @GoatSkinner666 Ok, guess I overreacted. Sorry 'bout that. I still don't think the worldview of one of the author's of the gospels has anything to say about the authencity of the bible. The author is only telling the story of jesus, not presenting any scientific claim. When I mentioned the supernatural being of Jesus and Satan I was, again, referring to the author. Whatever you may believe, he definetly believed they were supernatural, and so presented them as such.
Erufailon42 6 months ago
The reason that I stopped being a christian is because I got tired of making too many excuses.
connerjd 7 months ago
You showed a pic at the beginning where they where showing a Hebrew writing but they wrote right to left not left to right,i know it is not you but whoever made that picture should have known specially since it was a not a modern day writer the picture looked liked from way back in the past...anyway just wanted to say that :)..as always great vid.
johndebbra 7 months ago
@truthuknow PWNED
JoeGLegalBitch 8 months ago
oh boy some of the arguments used by apologists is comedy GOLD!! no word for sphere in hebrew? haha.
halflifeproductionz 8 months ago
I wish your videos had better advertising..."word to mouth" only has so much power; I feel that 7,000 views is not enough...you're freakin' brilliant, my friend :) thank you for all you do!!!!
saiyanmanfour20 8 months ago
2:58 The Flintstones were gay? And you forgot the most recent word: Refudiate!
Coffeeisnecessary 8 months ago
You don't have to lose ALL your blood to die, the cardiovascular system delivers oxygen to the brain and organs. When you suffocate, your brain does not get enough oxygen to survive. Same thing with loss of blood: the death is due to oxygen starvation of the brain. The blood can be thought of as a transport- system, sure it may stop supplying oxygen, but in the end, one only dies when the brain dies. Losing blood is like losing your lungs, I can argue that the LUNGS are the life-force LOL :D
Nverdis 8 months ago
God gave us intelligence to discover the cosmos on our own.
karmalevel 8 months ago
@karmalevel Why couldn't the same god gave the primitive biblical people the intelligence and knowledge to boil water before they drink it, or proscribe a commandment to stop close relatives from intermarrying. Our scientific achievement is due to the fact that we were able to move beyond the superstitions of the bible, not afraid of its absurd claims, and look for answers ourselves. We're developed and acquired our knowledge in spite of god, not because of him.
petion2010 8 months ago
Hebrew word for circle is דּוּר dûr dure, a ball or pile: - ball, turn, round about. There is N O word for sphere in the Hebrew language.
phillip78 8 months ago
Nice Video. Beautiful job
suzukidas2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, that's a really looong intro. Great video though. #ThumbsUp
RichieJohnSauls 8 months ago
exelent series, truly superb
Ihatemelee 8 months ago
Comment removed
Ihatemelee 8 months ago
Outstanding! Just totally outstanding!
iamgoddard 8 months ago
preachers i have heard said it wasn't that the writers of the bible did not know the word it was the people that read it and they had to write it so the people of the time knew what he was trying to say....lol pastors should be politicians they have more excuses for anything
johndebbra 8 months ago
BIble is a joke again and again, non-changing ever bible, now that people are smarter and more scientifically educated, bible becomes even more than a joke, it's a joke book in clown suit.
mykegoh 8 months ago
"The Bible's divine intellectual integrity."
LOL!!!
JamesMorlan 8 months ago
The translation of BALL in the Bible (KJV)
Isaiah 22:18, He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
apeek7 8 months ago
I honestly don't understand why someone could be literally stupid enough to believe the bible is the divine word of their god. Anyone who thinks that is either crazy, mentally deranged, or stupid.
TheTexanCanadian 8 months ago
then bend it and can see the difference in shadow cast.I can't find the part two of this if there is one.
johndebbra 8 months ago
didn't the egyptians know the earth was round as well i remember reading that the way they proved was simply by placing a large pillar at one spot then they traveled and placed another and one person sttod at each pillar at the same time of day and the shadow of the sun on each pillar was recorded and when they compared them both they saw the difference with how far the shadow went,the experiment can be easily repeated,take a piece of large paper even cardboard and on each end place a stick
johndebbra 8 months ago
God had never tried to teach anybody cosmology. The purpose of the Bible is other than revealing cosmology. Thus said square minded people will always find something to stumble upon..
Studying the Bible should be approached with another kind of attitude.
gimaru1 8 months ago
@gimaru1 "Studying the Bible should be approached with another kind of attitude."....Yes: Fear and Disgust.
216trixie 8 months ago
A quote from Aron Ra: " The bible has been shown to be logically, historically, philosophically, sociologically, scientifically and even morally dead wrong about everything back to front". Just because religious people are brainwashed is not a valid excuse.
Dwicker64 8 months ago 16
Though its easy to understand what you meant by calling languages living things, I would caution using the word to describe things that aren't biologically alive. Biology plays an important role in the argument against religion and apologists love throwing around the word living in the wrong context.
justhebegining 8 months ago
This is grasping at straws! The phrase "the ends of the earth" or "the four corners of the earth" are common idioms for the four directions in a compass and ARE STILL USED TODAY! Duh!
ColibriAnna08 8 months ago 3
@ColibriAnna08 Really? Interesting. Then how come the Bible was written -before- compasses were invented and before the concept of magnetism arrived in what is currently known as the Middle East?
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 Aw, you think you're so clever! It's simple. The Kings James Version. The phrases "the four corners of the earth" were used in the Bible by King James I - not in the original text. It was a very popular English idiom in 17th century literature. You need to understand that sayings and idioms do not translate into other languages, and for each idiom used in the Bible, another one is used in it's place when translated into a different language.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Very interesting. Did you know that they were -also- used in the Myles Coverdale version - which was published in the 16th century?
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 I would have to ask you to prove that statement. Unless there is a version of that Bible still floating around, I seriously doubt you could even know that the same idioms are used in it. So in short, you're full of it.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Y'know, it would've been a lot faster if you'd just Googled "Myles Coverdale Bible" - it -is- the second recommendation, after all. You can go on a (Christian) site called Studylight where you can search the entire thing - it was released in 1535. The phrase "four corners of the earth" is used in Revelation 7:1 and Isaiah 11:12.
P.S. I'd appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that I'm "full of it" - it's really quite disrespectful.
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 No, what's disrespectful is your sudden, unprovoked interrogation of me over a comment three months old. What exactly are you trying to prove? Your own satisfaction in your intelligence by starting internet debates?
Anyway, I went to Studylight and it was a website for lamps. Seriously, I'm starting feel I'm more than right in saying you're full of it. You made the claim. Now prove it or begone.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Interrogation? I was just looking to have a discussion - why else would you have posted that comment, if not to discuss it? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just a seeker of the truth - I assumed you to be one as well.
Zemed87 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 I also assumed you would've Googled the word and found that the correct website ends in "org". I gave you the name of the site and specific passages. What more do you need? I can't link stuff on YouTube, so you have to do the hard work yourself. You'd save yourself a lot of trouble if you just used Google, y'know. :/
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 If you are that damn desperate to be a know-it-all and have the last word and prove that you are right (as if that gives you any kind of fucking benefit to prove that on the INTERNET), then send me a link in a message to that website with the Myles Coverdale Bible and "corners of the earth" in it's verses. I dare you.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Here's the quote: "And after that sawe I foure angels stode on ye foure corners of the earth, holdinge ye foure wyndes of ye earth, yt ye wyndes shulde not blowe on ye earth, nether on ye see, nether on eny tree." Put that into Google - it's the second result.
From Isaiah: "And he shal set vp a toke amonge the Gentiles, and gather together ye dispersed of Israel, yee and the outcastes of Iuda from the foure corners of ye worlde."
Why are you being so vitriolic? It's not nice. :(
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 And now that we got that out of the way, what is that you are trying to prove with this verse? So the idiom "four corners of the earth" originated in the Myles Coverdale Version? It's still just a figure of speech *NOT* found in the original text and *NOT* a literal meaning. If you can't prove it to be anything other than such, then you really ought to stop trying to so aggressively prove that you're right over the internet - as if there is much to be had in that.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Oh, and furthermore: No matter when the text was translated into English, the original Bible was written before compasses were invented - so it did refer to the four corners of the Earth, just in a different language.
I'm trying my best to imagine Jesus saying these things that you're saying. I can't imagine he would approve of you insulting me and being evasive instead of addressing my argument. :/
Zemed87 5 months ago
(cont.) As I said early, when the Bible was translated phrases and idioms familiar only to that language or certain words cannot be translated literally. For every word in Aramaic or Greek, there is not an exact translation in English. For any phrases or cultural idioms in Aramaic or Greek, the same phrase or idiom does not mean the same thing in English. Idioms like "four corners of the earth" were added upon translation into English.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
(cont.2) I already explained this once. Because you have the convenience of being ignorant of linguistics does not mean you are right. As for what you deem insults, please. Get your panties out of your crack and don't be such a child. You started this mess with a hostile attitude. Don't start internet fights if you get your feelings hurts that easily, little boy.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 This is called "moving the goalposts" - you originally said that the phrase was first used in the KJV. When I disproved that the phrase was not, in fact, used for the first time in that, you immediately jumped to another point instead of conceding that you were mistaken.
This is something that I -can- do, however. If I was mistaken, please prove it. I'd love to readjust my views based on evidence.
I was hostile first? If so, shouldn't you still turn the other cheek?
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 I read once that the phrase was first used in the English translation. I believed that the KJV was the first English translation, and so I assumed that "four corners of the earth" originated in that version. It's nothing more than a simple mistake that you are using to your advantage while avoiding your proof that "four corners of the earth" existed in the original Biblical texts which is, I assumed, your argument.
Prove it or stop embarrassing yourself.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 "Idioms like "four corners of the earth" were added upon translation into English." Do you know what burden of proof is? You made -several- positive claims, but didn't bother backing any of them up with evidence.
If you Google "biblos revelation 7:1," the fourth result should include the original passage, as well as definitions of all the words in Hebrew. I took a look and the only plausible way to translate them is, indeed, "the four corners of the earth."
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 Ha! No, do YOU know what the burden of proof is? It's two things: 1) a bullshit phrase used by Atheist to lazily avoid contributing any proof for their opinions and beliefs while harassing other for proof and 2) a phrase that does *NOT* originate in science or logistics but the legal system, and it's only purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant to be innocent until proven guilty. It has nothing to do with debate or science or logic.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
(cont.) Also, if you believe in burden of proof, then it does not only apply to positive claims. It also applies to negative claims. After all, a claim is a claim and all claims must be verified to be taken as a truth.. Even if I was wrong there, too, you made the positive claim that "the four corners of the earth" originates in the original text. According to your own standards, it is your responsibility to prove that unless you want to be a hypocrite.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Yeah, and I showed you evidence. What more do you need? I'm confused.
Zemed87 5 months ago
(cont.) You never showed me evidence that "the four corners of the earth" is an idiom that exists in either the original text or the Greek text of the Bible. If you didn't claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat, you certainly claimed that the this phrase existed before the English translation. Otherwise, you really, really are here just to fight.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColibriAnna08 Four corners of the earth is mentioned in Revelations.
hunkallgood73 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColibriAnna08 Four corners of the earth is mentioned in Revelations.
hunkallgood73 4 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Actually, scratch that - the very first result is much better. It shows the literal translation of the original Hebrew alongside the words, so you don't have to click on all of 'em separately. Much more convenient!
Zemed87 5 months ago
(cont.) By the way, the idea that "the four corners of the earth" means "the earth is flat" is a desperate stretch. Many things have corners but are not flat including pyramids and cubes. Unless you have a phrase that directly states the earth is flat in shape, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass and trying to criticize the Bible by taking it out of context is the most exaggerated way.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Actually, I never even made the argument that the Bible calls the earth flat. I don't see what this has to do with our current discussion. In what way am I taking the Bible out of context, and what is its original context?
Zemed87 5 months ago
(cont.2) You are certainly DEFENDING the claim that the Bible calls the earth flat. Don't try to backpedal. To claim that the Bible is saying that the Earth if flat because it mentions on numerous occasions "the four corners of the earth" is taking things gravely out of context because it is figurative speech and not literal. Plus, many things have corners but are not flat.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Where did I say this?
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 Honestly, if your point is not in defense of the point of this video which is the Bible claims the earth is flat, then I would really like to know why you are wasting your time talking to me. Since my post was only a rebuttal to that claim, why else would you disagree with it? The only other explanation is that you are looking for a fight to pass the time, and I'd rather not bicker for sake of it.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Could you respond to the evidence I gave you instead of trying to derail, please?
Zemed87 5 months ago
=| You can't be serious. My point is that I am asking you for evidence that "the four corners of the earth" was in the original text or the Greek text or that the Bible says the Earth is flat. If neither is your purpose, then why are you talking to me?
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 I did that. I told you exactly where you could find the original passages - it's not like they'd be hard to find, anyway. It seems to me that you're really not too interested in the truth; do I really need to spoonfeed you the evidence before you take a look at it?
Zemed87 5 months ago
@Zemed87 Excuse me, liar, but you never told me where to find the passages in the ORIGINAL TEXT - as in the original books of the Bible. Please do that before you debase me on looking for truth, when you yourself can't face the truth of a simple damn request. I'm getting so bored with you at this point.
ColibriAnna08 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 Define "the original books of the Bible" - as far as I know, those have never actually been found.
Zemed87 5 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 The original texts of the books of the bible are long lost to antiquity. It is doubtful we will ever know anything of what they said. So what you are asking is impossible.
petmensan 5 months ago
For your next question to examine, how about the rainbow? That’s another word we use today because we got it from the Bible, yet people don’t often stop to think about what that word literally means, and more importantly, what the Hebrew word “qesheth” used repeatedly in Genesis 9:8–17 literally means — namely, the same thing it means in all of the other 70+ times it appears in the Bible.
It means “BOW.” As in, “AND ARROW”!
COMALiteJ 8 months ago
@COMALiteJ
How abot tree or rock? Was the bible advanced enough to identify this amazing advance concepts?
benaberry 8 months ago
Wouldn't an easier video be on what the bible got right? Because it piratically got nothing right. So there is far less right stuff than wrong stuff. I think it got a few town names right and that is pretty much it.
Relativisticism 8 months ago
I really do like the way you present your arguments, well-researched and all. I'm happy to subscribe, but I feel like you deserve more popular recognition. Thanks for your work, and I'm proud to share a last name with you!
jcpalmnj 8 months ago
@archeng123 The Hebrew word is 'chug' but you are absolutely right in it's definition.
Ridleysama 8 months ago
Hi Brett,
I was wondering if you'll touch on the contradictions about god's omniscience?
e.g. at the very beginning (in Genesis), god seems to ask a lot of questions. The idea of an omniscient being asking questions is ludicrous. A favorite is when god asks Adam "Where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9) -- there are only 2 people in existence, and he can't find one?
He also gets angry a lot. Anger is a reaction from the unexpected, which makes no sense for a being who is omniscient.
cheers!
sined13 8 months ago
Why would the bible be written with so many complex abstract metaphors...? Isn't it's purpose to convey the meaning to as many people as possible.. you know, the everyday person?
It's very desperate and absurd to suggest that the bible was written to be interpreted only by scholars and therefore we need to take almost all of it literally.
Fyapowar 8 months ago
Bret, what are u doing? This is boring. Unless you can find me a guy that believes the earth is flat to mock, move on plz. The bible is full of shit, thats your point but we all know this is futile. At least focus on more entertaining aspects like the giants and the dummys who believe in it. Still love ya. k thanks, bye
rocier 8 months ago
@rocier Oh, then you're gonna LOVE my upcoming roast of JPHolding. Stay tuned!
brettppalmer 8 months ago
@rocier
theflatearthsociety. org
You'll find quite a couple of them here
karablak1 8 months ago
it feels so short. its left me thirsting for more. can't wait :)
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
Good luck...I've done the "Flat Earth according to the Bible" series. It's amazing how they adjust their critical thinking skills to accept the words of this book of fables.
KingHeathen 8 months ago
@KingHeathen exactly. its the 'I get 2 make stuff up now' responses I get.
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
I find this to be one of the most infuriating topics to discuss... The apologetics for "sphericity in the bible" are amongst the very worst, and a sure sign you are dealing with someone who knows very little or is very deeply brainwashed. Usually both.
uvauva2 8 months ago 2
That information is almost a direct quote from Edward T. Babinski in 'The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails', Chapter 5 - 'The Cosmology Of The Bible' (2010) Prometheus Books.
yeshuahfullofit 8 months ago
(cont) meaning for "chug". In Dan. 4:10-11, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and asks Daniel to interpret it: "I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth." If a tree's height was indees so "great" that it "reached unto heaven" then it might very well be seen to the "ends of the earth" on a flat earth. It does not apply to a "sphere".
yeshuahfullofit 8 months ago
What is the shape of the earth according to the Bible? Is. 40:22 provides the answer: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle (Heb. chug) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." The context of that verse has nothing in it implying sphericity, only "tent-icity," The Hebrew word 'chug' has a primary meaning of "circle" and no lexicon of ancient Hebrew offers "sphere" as a (cont)
yeshuahfullofit 8 months ago
Hey Brett. I think you should've flashed that "The Bible Skeptic" a couple more times. :V
laflugantabastardo 8 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori Did I say the bible was a poetic way of describing things? Or did I say the book of Ecclesiates? god's word is made of of many books and letters by many authors. Some give historic accounts of events. Some are words of wisdom. Some are commandments. And some use poetic wording to teach and express the thoughts of the authors as they are guided by the holy spirit. And I never suggested that the bible not be taken literally.
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC the book is strapped 2gether in one, comprehensive text, if one is 2 b taken literally, it all must. ieither the bible is literally god's word, word for word, or its an interpretation of rem cycles and/or hallucinations from mental illness. if its an interpretation of dream, poetic and symbolic, well we hav scientific explanations for rem cycles and what causes them, and its not god
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
What about the word BALL. You know that had clay balls or matza balls. Couldn't they have described the Earth as having the shape of a MATZA BALL?
TheDano1947 8 months ago 4
So your arguement is that because they never invented a word to sufficiently describe the globe to your liking, it must than mean that they understood the world to be flat? And if if they had described the earth as a round stone? What than? Would you complain that they got it wrong because they described it as round?
It's used time and again? Really? Than why not simply list the verses so viewers can read for themselfs?
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC Job 38: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?...To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...." (God thinks the Earth is just big architecture?).
Psalm 104: "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (God didn't know it orbits the sun?)
Ecclesiastes 1: "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (so, the earth doesn't move, but the sun does?)
artgoat 8 months ago
@artgoat And what do these foundations look like? Please describe the foundations? What exactly are they?
Even today, scientistst use the same jargon. DNA, for example, are the building blocks. So does this mean people are made from the kind of building blocks children play with? Of course not.
Have you taken the time to research or study Ecclesiates? It uses poetic speach full of what have come to be known as maxims to teach us the true meaning of life. It is not a scientific journal.
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC "It is not a scientific journal." Precisely! Yet fundamentalists usually insist that every assertion made in the Bible is absolutely, literally, scientifically correct, because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of the omniscient God. It would appear that you do not adhere to this most extreme view. So why do you object to Brett pointing out the obvious flaws in this view?
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 Was I speaking of the bible? Or was I speaking of the book of Ecclesiates?
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC Since Ecclesiastes is in the Bible, you were speaking of both.
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 If you are going to discuss the bible, scripture, and the contents there of, please have at least some basic understanding of what the bible is made up of. Otherwise, you just show shear ignorance.
Brett is not pointing out obvious flaws. Scripture does not speak of the earth being flat.
And the person citing Ecclesiates just showed their ignorance about scripture. Each book, letter and author are unique, as I explained.
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC "Scripture does not speak of the earth being flat." You need to wait until the end of this series before making such an ill-informed statement. Here's a preview: Yes it does. And the Book of Enoch can't get you off the hook on this one, Trustin. And it's obvious you didn't even watch THIS one very carefully. I've already addressed the apologetic that "we still use that same language today."
brettppalmer 8 months ago
@brettppalmer Oh, I watched your vid and understand your so called reasoning. But you didn't you didn't address anything. Stating that they should or could have evolved a word. Why, when it is obvious what they believed, and that they didn't believe the world was flat. As you stated, language evolves over time. Now compare the stages of language evolution of the Hebrews compared to modern language. It takes time for language to evolve.
Con't
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@brettppalmer Pt 2 I addressed a similar topic with the story of the great flood and the fact that scripture is clearly talking about a regional flood.
Your bias will come through in your videos and you will be exposed as someone taking the passages out of context.
Is there really such a difference between sphere and circle when looking at the context of the passage?
A disk shape planet? Really? Why are you not listing the specific passages?
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC Oh, that's rich, TJC! I have read the NT more than once in Greek, a good chunk of the OT in Hebrew (and all the Aramaic), as well as in the LXX. Not to mention my complete reading of the Bible in English several times. I have done advanced graduate studies in the Bible and ancient Christian literature. I edited several study Bibles in my days at Christian publishing companies. It is my deep knowledge of the Bible and the character of its contents that has led me to my current views.
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 LOL. That's hilarious. You claim all these credentials, yet show you do not have even a basic understanding of what the bible is. You say all the books and letters are written in the same way, for the same purpose, and make up one book that must be read one way throughout it.
But anyone having been a Christian for 15 minutes know there are many authors giving many perspectives about many subjects.
Con't
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC You fail to understand my point. You are trying to defend the notion that the Bible doesn't teach that there is a flat earth. Well, of course, it does! Whether in Ecclesiastes or in other books, the view is consistent. You are attempting to defend the Bible from a fundamentalist point of view (a la Harold Linssell in "Battle for the Bible"). Fundamentalists recognize no distinction in the truth value of propositions presented in the various genres of biblical literature. (cont.)
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 It is you who are missing the point. Scripture does not describe a flat earth. And trying to use Ecclesiastes as proof that it does only shows the ignorance of atheists and their inability to read scripture in context. It is you who who are unable to read scripture in context and therefore are unable to recognize the truth. You use hyperbole criticism and have a total disregard for hermeneutics.
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@Punchicas Pt 2 Proverbs is a book of wise sayings to guide people on the righteous path. The Song of Songs is a poem of courtship. The book of Revelation is one of prophecy, future events, and is based on a vision.
Many prophets speak of visions and dreams. Other books are historical records of the Hebrews that document wars, Kings and the law of Moses.
So I'd be careful about bragging about your credentials. For you only show your ignorance in doing so.
TrustinJC 8 months ago
Respond to this video... (cont.) Are you saying that you do not hold to the Lindsell fundamentalist view? Do you hold that some propositions found in the Bible are literally true, while others are not? On what basis do you determine which genres can be regarded as factually accurate, and which genres cannot be so regarded? If you believe that any genre can be regarded as non-factual, then you are not a biblical literalist. Why then do you deny that the Bible teaches a flat-earth view?
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 I am a literalist. This does not mean that I don't consider dream, visions, and poems for what they are. Was the pharoahs dream of 7 cows each of skinny and fat to be taken literally? what if Joseph had not interpreted the dream, and you only had the pharaoh's telling of it? How would you interpret it? Can you honestly not understand what poetic writing means and that each writer was an idividual.
Con't
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 How much have you studied the apocrypha?
When stationed in Europe, I often heard the American military personel say, they were bound for the world in a few weeks. Or, they couldn't wait to get back to the world. they were, of course, refering to the USA. should I take it to mean they thought they were on another planet when in Europe?
Have you ever heard of the Miss Universe pagent? Are we to believe the pagent has entrants form other planets from across the universe?
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC It is reasonable to say that Pharaoh literally had a dream in which he saw 14 cows, etc. This is explicitly stated to be a dream, not a real-world event. However, the biblical writers clearly presuppose a flat earth. This presupposition is occasionally made explicit in verses such as those cited by Brett. So what? How does that affect your purpose to convince people to trust Jesus as their Lord and Savior? I really don't understand why evangelicals waste so much energy on side issues.
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@TrustinJC You might be surprised to learn that I am replying to you during breaks in my work of translating a recent book on biblical exegesis into English. The author, though, is not one who is so insecure that he insists that every word of the Bible is literally true. He is one of the more enlightened theologians who are able to accept the Bible as the Word of God, a guide to faith, without getting bogged down in the inanities that are a ball and chain to literalists.
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@Puchicas9 So what you are saying is that you respect someone who does not take scripture literally, but will read what they want into it. You respect someone who reads what they believe rather than believe what they read?
TrustinJC 8 months ago
@TrustinJC I respect someone who sees the Bible as an ancient document that should be studied in light of the cultural milieu from which it came, and the available historical evidence. However, the author of the book I am translating makes the point that faith is indispensable to proper exegesis. Coldly analyzing the Bible historically leaves it a dead document. Studying it with faith, while recognizing its actual level of historicity, makes it valuable spiritually.
Puchicas9 8 months ago
@TrustinJC The literalist approach finally killed my faith because the level of cognitive dissonance caused by the clear gaps between biblical accounts and historical reality eventually became to great. An understanding of the Bible as what it is (a factually imperfect collection of ancient documents) has allowed me to appreciate the literary accomplishments of the authors, rather than make a mockery of their work by insisting that it just HAS to be accurate from a modern scientific viewpoint.
Puchicas9 8 months ago