|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 9, 2021 7:39:12 GMT
Look, I don't play games. Go and write an entire commentary on the Bible and see how far you get with that. I'm not gonna entertain your foolishness. This is not a game. You made a claim that there was "only one interpretation." 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? Most interpreters in the west would say it was because he squandered his wealth. Is that correct? Is that "the" correct interpretation? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? Exodus 34 says that Aaron and the people were afraid because of the glory of God radiating from Moses's face, so Moses covered it. Is this "the" correct interpretation? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? In John 1:21, when specifically asked, John explicitly denies being Elijah. Is this "the" correct interpretation? This is not a game. Those are interpretations. And if there is only one interpretation, then these are either correct or incorrect interpretations. Which is it? First of all, on my forum, I ban everyone who deviates from the topic. I give them one warning or maybe I don't. You are so far off topic I am done responding to you. Secondly, I charge $500 hr. for off topic conversations. I can set you up with payment if you want to continue off topic. If you pay I will play.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 9, 2021 8:18:41 GMT
This is not a game. You made a claim that there was "only one interpretation." 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? Most interpreters in the west would say it was because he squandered his wealth. Is that correct? Is that "the" correct interpretation? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? Exodus 34 says that Aaron and the people were afraid because of the glory of God radiating from Moses's face, so Moses covered it. Is this "the" correct interpretation? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? In John 1:21, when specifically asked, John explicitly denies being Elijah. Is this "the" correct interpretation? This is not a game. Those are interpretations. And if there is only one interpretation, then these are either correct or incorrect interpretations. Which is it? First of all, on my forum, I ban everyone who deviates from the topic. I give them one warning or maybe I don't. You are so far off topic I am done responding to you. Secondly, I charge $500 hr. for off topic conversations. I can set you up with payment if you want to continue off topic. If you pay I will play. In other words, you have no good answer, or you understand the implications. What kind of monk charges $500/hr to answer a question? Come to think of it, what kind of monk has a problem with evolution? The Roman Catholics don’t. The Anglicans don’t. Not sure about the Orthodox. Not sure what other traditions have monks. Now I’m really curious...
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 9, 2021 8:23:33 GMT
First of all, on my forum, I ban everyone who deviates from the topic. I give them one warning or maybe I don't. You are so far off topic I am done responding to you. Secondly, I charge $500 hr. for off topic conversations. I can set you up with payment if you want to continue off topic. If you pay I will play. In other words, you have no good answer, or you understand the implications. What kind of monk charges $500/hr to answer a question? Come to think of it, what kind of monk has a problem with evolution? The Roman Catholics don’t. The Anglicans don’t. Not sure about the Orthodox. Not sure what other traditions have monks. Now I’m really curious... A monk who refuses to discuss off topic rants. If you were on my forum you'd be banned for going off topic. So either stay on topic or send me money to debate off topic. I'm not into this scatterbrained type of discussion. Are you a scatterbrain? If not, stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 9, 2021 8:26:35 GMT
In other words, you have no good answer, or you understand the implications. What kind of monk charges $500/hr to answer a question? Come to think of it, what kind of monk has a problem with evolution? The Roman Catholics don’t. The Anglicans don’t. Not sure about the Orthodox. Not sure what other traditions have monks. Now I’m really curious... A monk who refuses to discuss off topic rants. If you were on my forum you'd be banned for going off topic. So either stay on topic or send me money to debate off topic. I'm not into this scatterbrained type of discussion. Are you a scatterbrain? If not, stay on topic. A “monk” who spam-pastes from his own site, lies about other people, and avoids questions that challenge his unsupportable assertions.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 9, 2021 8:37:07 GMT
A “monk” who spam-pastes from his own site, lies about other people, and avoids questions that challenge his unsupportable assertions. Blah blah. The topic is Isaiah 40:22. You say we cannot know what this verse means. You obviously did not read my research but made statements I already very well refuted in my first posts. And oh, copy-paste from my own site is so much easier than retyping it all again. Its my research. I can copy-paste if I want to. But I suppose you think I should retype it al instead of use the much easier copy-paste system.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 9, 2021 8:40:51 GMT
To force the Bible to fit the arguments of the 1700s-1800s is to miss the original intents of the texts, which have nothing to do with "proving post-Enlightenment viewpoints." This whole conversation is like "angels dancing on the head of a pin," but worse, because it draws inappropriate battle lines. To make a case for Isaiah 40:22 supported some kind of quasi-scientific viewpoint is to miss the entirety of Isaiah's social and religious critiques and his prophecies and promises of God's intentions. Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.
Now do you have a more ancient quotation of Isaiah 40:22 that says it means flat earth? If not, you lose your argument.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 9, 2021 12:20:09 GMT
Oikoumene means the habitable (part of the) globe. And where there is oikoumene there are also antipodes. The two words are married to the Greek concept of the globe. Also, oikoumene was translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. In Latin the words tebel and oikoumene become orbis terrarum. Kosmos is interchangeable with oikoumeme. Kosmos can be applied depending upon the context its being applied to. Though, generally speaking, kosmos means and is applied to (1) universe/cosmos (2) world, earth, globe (3) people. Now I learn Greek from a Greek scholar from Greece. Your view on Greek shows your ignorance of the language. Here is a picture of kosmos from a Greek site. View AttachmentYou're just repeating yourself and appealing to some unknown authority. Then saying "my view on Greek shows my ignorance of the language." None of that proves your case. Neither does the picture (not link) you posted. But if you're correct, then you have bigger problems: Luke 2:1 - "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world [οἰκουμένην]" (NIV). So Augustus took a census...of the "globe"? That's flat out wrong, however you interpret it. Oikoumene is rarely applied to localized events but it does have that application as the lexicons I posted already pointed out. But you don't read those replies. You're just a troll who likes to argue. My friend from Greece is not a no name scholar. I'll bet your entire next stimulus check that he knows Koine Greek better than any scholar who does not live in Greece. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go to Greece and find out that I'm spot on every time. I do not care what some American OEC pseudo-scholar says. I go by Greek scholars only. So go to Greece and prove me wrong. Good luck with that
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 14:33:06 GMT
A “monk” who spam-pastes from his own site, lies about other people, and avoids questions that challenge his unsupportable assertions. Blah blah. The topic is Isaiah 40:22. You say we cannot know what this verse means. You obviously did not read my research but made statements I already very well refuted in my first posts. And oh, copy-paste from my own site is so much easier than retyping it all again. Its my research. I can copy-paste if I want to. But I suppose you think I should retype it al instead of use the much easier copy-paste system. I never said we cannot know what it means. Quote me. You're lying here.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 14:34:25 GMT
You're just repeating yourself and appealing to some unknown authority. Then saying "my view on Greek shows my ignorance of the language." None of that proves your case. Neither does the picture (not link) you posted. But if you're correct, then you have bigger problems: Luke 2:1 - "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world [οἰκουμένην]" (NIV). So Augustus took a census...of the "globe"? That's flat out wrong, however you interpret it. Oikoumene is rarely applied to localized events but it does have that application as the lexicons I posted already pointed out. But you don't read those replies. You're just a troll who likes to argue. My friend from Greece is not a no name scholar. I'll bet your entire next stimulus check that he knows Koine Greek better than any scholar who does not live in Greece. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go to Greece and find out that I'm spot on every time. I do not care what some American OEC pseudo-scholar says. I go by Greek scholars only. So go to Greece and prove me wrong. Good luck with that So what's his name? And what monastic order are you with? Benedictine? Franciscan? Dominican? Carmelite? Augustinian?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 14:35:05 GMT
To force the Bible to fit the arguments of the 1700s-1800s is to miss the original intents of the texts, which have nothing to do with "proving post-Enlightenment viewpoints." This whole conversation is like "angels dancing on the head of a pin," but worse, because it draws inappropriate battle lines. To make a case for Isaiah 40:22 supported some kind of quasi-scientific viewpoint is to miss the entirety of Isaiah's social and religious critiques and his prophecies and promises of God's intentions. Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.
Now do you have a more ancient quotation of Isaiah 40:22 that says it means flat earth? If not, you lose your argument. Not quite. That's a translation of an ancient quotation. Not the ancient quotation.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 10, 2021 21:54:36 GMT
Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.
Now do you have a more ancient quotation of Isaiah 40:22 that says it means flat earth? If not, you lose your argument. Not quite. That's a translation of an ancient quotation. Not the ancient quotation. So when someone quotes from an English translation of the Bible you can say the same thing? What a cop-out! I actually could probably find the Latin version of this but I doubt you know much about Latin to understand what you are reading. However I do have the Latin of Isaiah 40:22 in the first post of this topic. The Latin Vulgate was translated in the 4th century by St.Jerome. The Vulgate also says the earth is a globe. And English translation of the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims Bible. That says "globe of the earth". The English translation of St.Ambrose is accurate and translated by John J. Savage who's translation has not been called into question, neither are you in the position of authority to call it into question. But I really don't need Ambrose when I have the Vulgate. Either way you lose your argument.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 10, 2021 21:57:07 GMT
Various Christian authorities on Isaiah 40:22
🌎Bible Commentaries:
✅Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: Commentary on the Whole Bible,
“It is he--rather, connected to the last verse, Have ye not known?--have ye not understood Him that sitteth...? (vs.26) [MAUDER]. Circle--applicable to the globular form of the earth, above which, and the vault of the sky around it, above it, He sits. For “upon” translate “above.” as grasshoppers--or locusts in His sight (Num.13:33), as He looks down from on high (Ps.33:13, 14; 113:4-6).”
✅The MacArthur Bible Commentary
"40:22 sits above the circle of the earth. The word circle is applicable to the spherical form of the earth, above which He sits. This implies that God upholds and maintains His creation on a continuing basis (Col. 1:17; Heb.1:3). As He looks down, people seem like insects to One who has stretched and spread out the universal heavens."
✅Matthew Henry's Commentary,
"Now that which is here said of God is (1.) That he has command of all creatures. The heaven and the earth themselves are under his management: He sits upon the circle, or globe, of the earth, v. 22. He that has the special residence of his glory in the upper world maintains a dominion over the lower world, gives law to it, and directs all the motions of it to his own glory. He sits undisturbed upon the earth, and establishes it. He is still stretching out the heavens, his power and providence keep them still stretched out, and will do so till the comes that they shall be rolled together like a scroll. He spreads them out as easily as we draw a curtain to and fro, opening these curtains in the morning and drawing them close again at night. And the heaven is to this earth as a tent to dwell in; it is a canopy drawn over our heads, et quod tegit omnia coelum --- and it encircles all. --Ovid. See Ps.104:2 (2.) That the children of men, even the greatest and mightiest, are as nothing before him. The numerous inhabitants of this earth are in his eye as grasshoppers in ours, so little and inconsiderable, of such small value, of such little use, and so easily crushed. Proud men's lifting up themselves is but like the grasshopper's leap; in an instant they must stoop down to the earth again. If the spies thought themselves as grasshoppers before the sons of Anak (Num.13:33), what are we before the great God? Grasshoppers live but awhile, and live carelessly, not like the ant; so do the most men. (3.) That those who appear and act against him, how formidable soever they may be to their fellow-creatures, will certainly be humble and brought down by the mighty hand of God."
✅The Bible Knowledge Commentary (1985 Edition)
“God’s sovereign control over the world (40:21-26). 40:21-22. From His sovereign position in heaven God watches over His created universe. You (used four times in v.21) refers to people in general. The force of the first question, for example, is “Doesn’t everyone know this?” (cf. v. 28) The Lord is like a king sitting enthroned above the circle (hug, “horizon,” which is circular; cf. Job 26:10: Prov.8:27) of the earth and over His people who by comparison seem like mere grasshoppers. The heavens (the sky) are pictured as spread out like a tent for Him to live in (cf.Ps.104:2). Isaiah was not presenting a detailed idea of God’s abode. He was merely using imagery that his readers would easily understand.”
✅Henry Morris Study Bible,
“40:22 circle of the earth. Hebrew khug, translated “compassed” in Job 26:10 and “compass” in Proverbs 8:27. All three, in context, clearly refer to the spherical shape of the earth. 40:22 stretcheth out the heavens. This phrase is possibly a reference to the expanding universe, as envisioned by modern astronomers. There are numerous references in Scripture to the “stretching-out” or “spreading-out” of the heavens (space) when God created the universe. See, for example, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12. Alternatively, the “heavens” referred to here may refer simply to the atmospheric heavens, spread out like a curtain or “tent to dwell in” around a circle of the earth. This atmospheric “tent”, refracting and spreading light over the hemisphere, is sharply distinct from the darkness outside.”
✅Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.
"And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).
Modern scholars agree with ancient scholars.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 10, 2021 22:31:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 23:28:24 GMT
Not quite. That's a translation of an ancient quotation. Not the ancient quotation. So when someone quotes from an English translation of the Bible you can say the same thing? What a cop-out! I actually could probably find the Latin version of this but I doubt you know much about Latin to understand what you are reading. However I do have the Latin of Isaiah 40:22 in the first post of this topic. The Latin Vulgate was translated in the 4th century by St.Jerome. The Vulgate also says the earth is a globe. And English translation of the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims Bible. That says "globe of the earth". The English translation of St.Ambrose is accurate and translated by John J. Savage who's translation has not been called into question, neither are you in the position of authority to call it into question. But I really don't need Ambrose when I have the Vulgate. Either way you lose your argument. The point is that quoting an English translation to justify your case for the translation is quite obviously illegitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 23:29:06 GMT
Not quite. That's a translation of an ancient quotation. Not the ancient quotation. Keep in mind that I don't have to convince an atheist of any of this since atheists reject all truth. All I have to do is quote from top Christian authorities. In this case, I'm going to the 4th century Latin Vulgate to debunk your claim that reading globe earth from Scripture only happened a few hundred years ago which is a lie. Have I made that claim? I would love you to quote that for me.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 11, 2021 0:32:04 GMT
So when someone quotes from an English translation of the Bible you can say the same thing? What a cop-out! I actually could probably find the Latin version of this but I doubt you know much about Latin to understand what you are reading. However I do have the Latin of Isaiah 40:22 in the first post of this topic. The Latin Vulgate was translated in the 4th century by St.Jerome. The Vulgate also says the earth is a globe. And English translation of the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims Bible. That says "globe of the earth". The English translation of St.Ambrose is accurate and translated by John J. Savage who's translation has not been called into question, neither are you in the position of authority to call it into question. But I really don't need Ambrose when I have the Vulgate. Either way you lose your argument. The point is that quoting an English translation to justify your case for the translation is quite obviously illegitimate. By your same standard all English Bibles are illegitimate. No, the translation stands. You're just too immature to accept facts. You don't want to believe the Bible teaches globe earth because then you have to question your blind faith in evolution. But I can do this all day. Every non-point you make I can refute with a solid point. I have led the movement against flat earthers and contributed a great deal of useful theology on the subject. I know my subject very very well, with a full mastery. I do have even older church fathers to draw from as well as Jewish works. I just figure that starting in the 4th century is strong enough to refute the atheist claim that Chritians only began interpreting globe earth into the Bible after Columbus. There are so many ways I know how to refute that atheist claim. When all is done you are left with a world of evolutionists who are busted in their lies. Why trust liars? I surely don't.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 11, 2021 5:39:41 GMT
The point is that quoting an English translation to justify your case for the translation is quite obviously illegitimate. By your same standard all English Bibles are illegitimate. Nope, never said that either. Another lie. Circular. “Immature”? Not blind. I used to be a staunch young-earther. You’ve LED the “movement against flat earthers”?!😱 That was never really my point. My point was that the argument is irrelevant. And yet you seem to lie quite frequently. And accuse. Who else is known for doing that? I’m kind of tempted at this point to write my “Commentary on Genesis 1” and post it here. Maybe over the next few days or the weekend if I have time. I love Genesis 1. It’s rich in meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 11, 2021 5:52:38 GMT
By the way, in your other thread, the Clement one (that’s locked for some reason), you have some questionable history. You say that “By the 1st century A.D. the Hebrew language had nearly become extinct.” That’s a direct quote (see how that is done?).
But the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew and some date to at least the 4th century. They’re cool. I’ve seen some in person, including the impressive Isaiah scroll.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 11, 2021 11:08:47 GMT
By the way, in your other thread, the Clement one (that’s locked for some reason), you have some questionable history. You say that “By the 1st century A.D. the Hebrew language had nearly become extinct.” That’s a direct quote (see how that is done?). But the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew and some date to at least the 4th century. They’re cool. I’ve seen some in person, including the impressive Isaiah scroll. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the 3rd century B.C to the 1st century B.C. I never said Hebrew was extinct. Greek was the common language. Just study the preservation of the Hebrew language and you'll see my point.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 11, 2021 11:21:12 GMT
By your same standard all English Bibles are illegitimate. Nope, never said that either. Another lie. Circular. “Immature”? Not blind. I used to be a staunch young-earther. You’ve LED the “movement against flat earthers”?!😱 That was never really my point. My point was that the argument is irrelevant. And yet you seem to lie quite frequently. And accuse. Who else is known for doing that? I’m kind of tempted at this point to write my “Commentary on Genesis 1” and post it here. Maybe over the next few days or the weekend if I have time. I love Genesis 1. It’s rich in meaning. So let me get this straight. You reject the writing of St.Ambrose because its an English translation? Or maybe it because it disagrees with you preconceived ideas that globe earth was a much later interpretation of the Bible done after Columbus? The translation is correct. You just don't want to accept the facts. If I gave you the Latin texts of it would you be able to understand any of it? As it is, I already provided Isaiah 40:22 from the Latin Vulgate and gyrum terrae (i.e., gyrus terrae/gyrus terrarum) is correctly translated to "globe of the earth" as we read in the Douay-Rheims Bible which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. Oh, by the way, I have a very goo reputation for not lying. I never lie. Like never. But you seem to be jealously guarding your dubious belief that the Bible is just not as accurate as evolution theory. You fear man more than God. I have no fear of evolutionists or evolution theory. OEC is nothing but hypocrisy, lies, and charlatans. They worship man's vain imaginations. They have no love of God in them. I don't worship humans. Therefore I reject evolution and OEC. As for writing your own commentary on Genesis Chapter 1, that might actually be goo for you. In fact, to make matters easy, I'll open a topic ad do so in a way that we can discuss the chapter verse by verse, Day by Day. I think that would be good.
|
|