|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 12, 2021 3:38:52 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. You said it was "almost extinct." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 12, 2021 3:43:35 GMT
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. Not really. The problem is you "proving the correctness of the translation by referring to another English translation." That's circular. You've made multiple accusations about me and what I've said that were untrue. Even when corrected. What do you call that, if it's not "a lie"? Another lie. I do question, however, that your interpretation trumps evolutionary theory. Wrong again. I know more young earth creationists that habitually lie and misrepresent others than old earth creationists. I posted mine before I saw this. I've been off LNF all day, and only started my "commentary" this evening. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 16, 2021 1:36:31 GMT
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 transl linkation 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. Not really. The problem is you "proving the correctness of the translation by referring to another English translation." That's circular. Total cop-out! You're just like a grade school kid who can't handle that he lost an argument so now you come up with stupid excuses that you think are good but in reality are just cop-outs. The Latin says the same thing. Look up Isaiah 40:22 in Latin and it says "globe of the earth" in English--which is why the Douay-Rheims Bible translates it as "globe of the earth." The Vulgate is correct and you are wrong. Ambrose is right and you are wrong. Be a man and accept the truth. Oh, I provide the Greek for St.Clement who says the earth is a globe and antipodes exist. And Clement is 1st century and favorably mentioned in Philippians 4:8! You are out of excuses. Be a man and admit you're wrong! You said no globe earth reading before 1800!! I've given you a 1st century church father who disagrees with you!! Be a man and surrender the lie! libertynewsforum.boards.net/thread/3866/clement-reads-globe-earth-antipodesThe early church never read flat earth from the Bible. Serious, stop pretending to be a scholar because no real scholar agrees with you. In fact, you have 2000 years of Christianity against your Darwinist view on Scripture. Your heretical view that evolution theory is somehow mentioned in the Bible is very well refuted by a 2nd century theologian! libertynewsforum.boards.net/thread/3843/who-first-said-stardustSo right there you have absolute and total proof that evolution theory is a lie. You do realize that there's not supposed to be an evolution theory before Spencer and Darwin, right? Its supposed to be modern science. But here we see Theophilus of Antioch go through and refute modern claims in the 2nd century!! And yet you still believe in evolution despite the facts that its pagan mythology. That's why I cannot ever take you seriously. You see HARD PROOF that your position is well refuted and yet you still believe. That is so disingenuous! That's why I do not take anything you say seriously. You're just an argumentative fool. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 16, 2021 14:08:32 GMT
You claim that "I'm wrong." The problem is, I'm not claiming the Bible doesn't say "globe." My claim is the tit is irrelevant. I've said that a few times now. The point of the Bible is not to "refute the Big Bang" or to "refute evolution."
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 16, 2021 20:35:05 GMT
You claim that "I'm wrong." The problem is, I'm not claiming the Bible doesn't say "globe." My claim is the tit is irrelevant. I've said that a few times now. The point of the Bible is not to "refute the Big Bang" or to "refute evolution." No, you believe the Bible teaches flat earth. You said no globe earth interpretation until the 19th century. Hell, even flat earthers and atheists will claim there are no globe earth interpretations before 1492. But nooo, you gotta say 1800! You might as well push up the date to 1984 and say Reagan did it. So I have shown you ancient interpretations of verses and words that very strongly disagree with your position. You call me arrogant and yet you are the one who rejects sound learning. Is it irrelevant? Absolutely no! Its very relevant! I never said that globe earth was the most important message in the Bible. But if you deny sound learning than Scripture is rendered worthless. If the Bible teaches flat earth there is no God and everybody knows this! Isaiah was a Prophet of God. This means what Isaiah speaks is what God put into his mind to say. If Isaiah 40:22 means flat earth, and yet we know for certain the earth is spherical, then what does that say about the Prophet Isaiah and the message he spoke? How will anyone trust the Gospel message if that message has become the brunt of all jokes due to flat earth teachings that God told His Prophets to say? If God doesn't know the shape of the earth then He is no God. That simple. The Bible teaches globe earth The Apocrypha teaches globe earth Hebrew manuscripts teach globe earth Greek manuscripts teach globe earth Early church fathers read globe earth from Scripture Latin Vulgate teaches globe earth (the Bible of the Church before Columbus' voyage) All reputable modern scholars teach globe earth Though somehow you think its ok to teach flat earth? Or maybe the issue is irrelevant to you so you think the truth should be suppressed? You reject the Strong's definitions and all sound learning. And you call me arrogant? Hey, I have experience and am the world's top scholar on this issue. That's who you are arguing with! I earned my title. I worked endless hours investigating all flat earth claims and completed my research with 100% resolve! My research has been approved by scholars way above me. The Lord gave me a gift and I have utilized that gift to the fullest. I'm not arrogant. You're the one who's been arrogant in the face of hard facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 16, 2021 21:14:58 GMT
You claim that "I'm wrong." The problem is, I'm not claiming the Bible doesn't say "globe." My claim is the tit is irrelevant. I've said that a few times now. The point of the Bible is not to "refute the Big Bang" or to "refute evolution." No, you believe the Bible teaches flat earth. You said no globe earth interpretation until the 19th century. Hell, even flat earthers and atheists will claim there are no globe earth interpretations before 1492. But nooo, you gotta say 1800! You might as well push up the date to 1984 and say Reagan did it. So I have shown you ancient interpretations of verses and words that very strongly disagree with your position. You call me arrogant and yet you are the one who rejects sound learning. Nope. Haven't really said any of those things. Actually, um...NOT AT ALL. God's redemptive relationship with mankind climaxing in Jesus' death and resurrection does not depend on a globe earth. Uhhh....wut? How does that logically follow? I might guess that you are holding to and defending a strict inerrancy position in which any "error" in the Bible discredits God's existence (and everything else about him). That's an untenable position. Is the classification of a "bat" relevant? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 18, 2021 2:25:50 GMT
No, you believe the Bible teaches flat earth. You said no globe earth interpretation until the 19th century. Hell, even flat earthers and atheists will claim there are no globe earth interpretations before 1492. But nooo, you gotta say 1800! You might as well push up the date to 1984 and say Reagan did it. So I have shown you ancient interpretations of verses and words that very strongly disagree with your position. You call me arrogant and yet you are the one who rejects sound learning. Nope. Haven't really said any of those things. Actually, um...NOT AT ALL. God's redemptive relationship with mankind climaxing in Jesus' death and resurrection does not depend on a globe earth. Uhhh....wut? How does that logically follow? I might guess that you are holding to and defending a strict inerrancy position in which any "error" in the Bible discredits God's existence (and everything else about him). That's an untenable position. Is the classification of a "bat" relevant? Let me remind you that your first post on this topic was to suggest that Isaiah taught flat earth and preached culture. No, Isaiah never preached culture nor did he teach flat earth. But you disagreed with sound doctrine in your first post which is how all this started. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/47230/threadIf the Prophet Isaiah taught flat earth then its God Who told him that. Isaiah is a major Prophet of the Bible. He did not teach culture. He spoke the word of God. There are a few globe earth verses in Isaiah. When you reject that you also cancel out the entire Gospel. How so? Because if God doesn't know the shape of the earth then perhaps the entire Gospel message is also nothing but ancient mythology as atheists claim. Nobody with a thinking mind is gonna accept the Gospel of Christ if Scripture teaches flat earth. Its the scientific skepticism that turns many away from the Gospel message. Of course, you probably already know this but like to play dumb about it. Anyway, I have already won this debate. I used trustworthy sources and you did not. My sources were ancient and your claims are 21st century atheism. So you're a charlatan. Lots of people like you today. Nobody will respect a liar. If you cannot tolerate sound doctrine then you are not saved. 2 Timothy 4:3 Your rejection of orthodoxy is proof that this prophecy has fulfilled. Prophecy does not error. That all depends if the logical law of excluded middle is still relevant? You chose to mix apples and oranges as though they were the same thing. We are not talking about taxons for wild creatures. We are talking about the Biblical shape of the earth. Stay on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 18, 2021 2:31:46 GMT
Nope. Haven't really said any of those things. Actually, um...NOT AT ALL. God's redemptive relationship with mankind climaxing in Jesus' death and resurrection does not depend on a globe earth. Uhhh....wut? How does that logically follow? I might guess that you are holding to and defending a strict inerrancy position in which any "error" in the Bible discredits God's existence (and everything else about him). That's an untenable position. Is the classification of a "bat" relevant? Let me remind you that your first post on this topic was to suggest that Isaiah taught flat earth and preached culture. No, Isaiah never preached culture nor did he teach flat earth. But you disagreed with sound doctrine in your first post which is how all this started. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/47230/threadYou clearly did not comprehend what I wrote. You have a funny idea of what constitutes orthodoxy. And as for much of the other stuff you posted, it sounds like the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 18, 2021 2:54:45 GMT
Let me remind you that your first post on this topic was to suggest that Isaiah taught flat earth and preached culture. No, Isaiah never preached culture nor did he teach flat earth. But you disagreed with sound doctrine in your first post which is how all this started. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/47230/threadYou clearly did not comprehend what I wrote. You have a funny idea of what constitutes orthodoxy. And as for much of the other stuff you posted, it sounds like the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. "Take your meds" "You sound mentally ill."  Thus spoke the Marxist who's in favor of concentration camps for all those who reject Marxism. If you can't win the debate, tell your opponent to take their meds or how they are mentally ill. I'll take that as your resignation of your position in this debate  I already laid down the orthodox position that refuted all of your 21st century heresies. I'm an orthodox Christian and have studied early Christianity from the early Church fathers. Every position you hold that counters mine is refuted by the early church. I need not explain anything more. Your modern heresies lost this deate and you will continue to always lose debates with orthodox Christians. Your 21st century version of Christianity is unknown by the Apostles and their successors. They would consider you an unrepentant pagan who needs to repent and be born again. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 18, 2021 12:26:53 GMT
You clearly did not comprehend what I wrote. You have a funny idea of what constitutes orthodoxy. And as for much of the other stuff you posted, it sounds like the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. "Take your meds" "You sound mentally ill." Thus spoke the Marxist who's in favor of concentration camps for all those who reject Marxism. If you can't win the debate, tell your opponent to take their meds or how they are mentally ill. I'll take that as your resignation of your position in this debate I already laid down the orthodox position that refuted all of your 21st century heresies. I'm an orthodox Christian and have studied early Christianity from the early Church fathers. Every position you hold that counters mine is refuted by the early church. I need not explain anything more. Your modern heresies lost this deate and you will continue to always lose debates with orthodox Christians. Your 21st century version of Christianity is unknown by the Apostles and their successors. They would consider you an unrepentant pagan who needs to repent and be born again. Or maybe actually respond to what I wrote instead of diverting, misrepresenting, and straight out lying about me. How about that? Then there are the arrogant claims of grandeur, the likes of which I have only seen in...well, people with mental issues. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 22, 2021 0:08:26 GMT
"Take your meds" "You sound mentally ill." Thus spoke the Marxist who's in favor of concentration camps for all those who reject Marxism. If you can't win the debate, tell your opponent to take their meds or how they are mentally ill. I'll take that as your resignation of your position in this debate I already laid down the orthodox position that refuted all of your 21st century heresies. I'm an orthodox Christian and have studied early Christianity from the early Church fathers. Every position you hold that counters mine is refuted by the early church. I need not explain anything more. Your modern heresies lost this deate and you will continue to always lose debates with orthodox Christians. Your 21st century version of Christianity is unknown by the Apostles and their successors. They would consider you an unrepentant pagan who needs to repent and be born again. Or maybe actually respond to what I wrote instead of diverting, misrepresenting, and straight out lying about me. How about that? Then there are the arrogant claims of grandeur, the likes of which I have only seen in...well, people with mental issues. what I read from you is that anyone who disagrees with your heretical views you label mentally ill. That is what fascist do. That's how concentration camps happen and how mass genocide happens. Yet my posts are back with over 2000 years of top scholarship. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 22, 2021 16:47:46 GMT
Or maybe actually respond to what I wrote instead of diverting, misrepresenting, and straight out lying about me. How about that? Then there are the arrogant claims of grandeur, the likes of which I have only seen in...well, people with mental issues. what I read from you is that anyone who disagrees with your heretical views you label mentally ill. That is what fascist do. That's how concentration camps happen and how mass genocide happens. Yet my posts are back with over 2000 years of top scholarship. If that's what you read, well then you're kind of demonstrated the characteristics of mental illness!  In other words, you intend to continue to divert, misrepresent, and straight up lie about me? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 22, 2021 23:17:51 GMT
I'm saying it doesn't matter. Whether or not it's a sphere or disc has no bearing on the prophecy and pretending it does means losing the intent of the prophecy for the sake of an irrelevant post-Enlightenment argument. Irrelevant, that is to the intention of the text. I wonder that God "changed his mind" when he revealed to John that the earth had four corners (Revelation 7:1)? Or did John get it wrong? Maybe it's because back then the Earth really had four corners... You know erosion and stuff... Plus god is the big... planer... isn't he? 
I always wondered how you determine where the 4 corners of a circle are to say nothing of a sphere.
I think it's clear that the earth is a square.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 23, 2021 23:45:04 GMT
Maybe it's because back then the Earth really had four corners... You know erosion and stuff... Plus god is the big... planer... isn't he?
I always wondered how you determine where the 4 corners of a circle are to say nothing of a sphere.
I think it's clear that the earth is a square.
The four corners of the earth in Jewish terminology means the far reaches of the earth in all four cardinal directions. This expression is ancient and still used by Israeli Jews today. Its just the four cardinal directions. That's all it ever meant. Both Isaiah and Revelation have many globe earth verses. Its just that most modern English speaking people don't understand expressions foreign to their native English language. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 24, 2021 0:16:44 GMT
I always wondered how you determine where the 4 corners of a circle are to say nothing of a sphere.
I think it's clear that the earth is a square.
The four corners of the earth in Jewish terminology means the far reaches of the earth in all four cardinal directions. This expression is ancient and still used by Israeli Jews today. Its just the four cardinal directions. That's all it ever meant. Both Isaiah and Revelation have many globe earth verses. Its just that most modern English speaking people don't understand expressions foreign to their native English language.
Ah, so you're saying that current day bibles are just mistranslated.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 24, 2021 6:32:24 GMT
The four corners of the earth in Jewish terminology means the far reaches of the earth in all four cardinal directions. This expression is ancient and still used by Israeli Jews today. Its just the four cardinal directions. That's all it ever meant. Both Isaiah and Revelation have many globe earth verses. Its just that most modern English speaking people don't understand expressions foreign to their native English language. That's not what I said at all. Ah, so you're saying that current day bibles are just mistranslated. However, if indeed you want the best Hebrew rendering of the verses I'll break it down for you. Revelation 7:1
Flat earthers read this verse absolutely literally. The Book of Revelation is a Book of prophecy which contains lots of symbolism and figurative expressions for the purpose of explaining much deeper spiritual events which will take place in the last days. Hence, Revelation is not meant to be understood so literally as flat earthers read it. The "four corners of the earth" is an expression which means "the extremities of the earth" in all cardinal directions (north, east, south, west -- the four points of a compass). Revelation 7:1 also alludes to the four spirits of heaven as mentioned in Zechariah 6:5, Believer's Bible Commentary -- Rev.7:1-4,
Thus the four winds are the winds of change which will bring about a terrible destruction upon the earth and in all four quarters of the earth. But God delays this coming storm of disaster by holding back the winds of change. And again we see "the four corners of the earth" in Isaiah 11:12, The word "corners" is Strong's H3671 כָּנָף kânâph, which is also used in Isaiah 24:16, In this verse the expression is defined as "the extremities of the earth" according to the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. But kânâph is not just used in context of the entire globe. It is also used to express a regional area as further expressed in Ezekiel 7:2, It is very clear by reading the verse that kânâph is used as an expression for all four directions and not a reference to the shape of the earth itself. The Greek word used in Rev.7:1 is Strong's G1137 γωνία gōnía. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as "the four extreme limits of the earth, Revelation 7:1; Revelation 20:8." Rev.20:8 says, Once again γωνία (gōnía) is used to express the far reaches of the earth in all four quarters (i.e., directions). It is not saying the earth is flat. 🔐 Common Sense
From the 1st century on up to the present now, Christian leaders have always taught globe earth. But why would the early church fathers teach globe earth from the Bible if Scripture says its flat? The Bible does not teach flat earth and if it did you better believe the early church fathers would have left for us a flat earth tradition. But they didn't. They didn't because Scripture teaches globe earth. Rev.7:1 is an expression which was never intended to describe the literal shape of the earth. The early church fathers were not Godless men, but had a very strong knowledge of Scripture which is why they were chosen by the Apostles to teach the Gospel after they were gone. So they knew about verses such as Isaiah 40:22 -- "the circle of the earth." So why would the Apostle John contradict Isaiah? He wouldn't and he didn't. Verses like Isaiah 40:22 are about the shape of the earth. Rev.7:1 is not about the shape of the earth. Whenever the Bible speaks about the shape of the earth its in context with God's creation and dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. Rev.7:1 simply expresses the extremities of the earth.  The Hebrew word תבל (tebel) is an ancient Hebrew word that means "the habitable globe." Here you can see how tebel is used even today. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9CNow when you click on the verb globe it takes you to a page that uses tebel in a sentence as an example of one of the applications tebel is applied. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9C#globeSince you are too lazy to click the link I'll post the example first in Hebrew and then in the English translation provided. Hebrew example:. English translation:Don't you atheists ever get sick of losing every single debate? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 24, 2021 12:01:22 GMT
That's not what I said at all. Ah, so you're saying that current day bibles are just mistranslated. However, if indeed you want the best Hebrew rendering of the verses I'll break it down for you. Revelation 7:1
Flat earthers read this verse absolutely literally. The Book of Revelation is a Book of prophecy which contains lots of symbolism and figurative expressions for the purpose of explaining much deeper spiritual events which will take place in the last days. Hence, Revelation is not meant to be understood so literally as flat earthers read it. The "four corners of the earth" is an expression which means "the extremities of the earth" in all cardinal directions (north, east, south, west -- the four points of a compass). Revelation 7:1 also alludes to the four spirits of heaven as mentioned in Zechariah 6:5, Believer's Bible Commentary -- Rev.7:1-4,
Thus the four winds are the winds of change which will bring about a terrible destruction upon the earth and in all four quarters of the earth. But God delays this coming storm of disaster by holding back the winds of change. And again we see "the four corners of the earth" in Isaiah 11:12, The word "corners" is Strong's H3671 כָּנָף kânâph, which is also used in Isaiah 24:16, In this verse the expression is defined as "the extremities of the earth" according to the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. But kânâph is not just used in context of the entire globe. It is also used to express a regional area as further expressed in Ezekiel 7:2, It is very clear by reading the verse that kânâph is used as an expression for all four directions and not a reference to the shape of the earth itself. The Greek word used in Rev.7:1 is Strong's G1137 γωνία gōnía. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as "the four extreme limits of the earth, Revelation 7:1; Revelation 20:8." Rev.20:8 says, Once again γωνία (gōnía) is used to express the far reaches of the earth in all four quarters (i.e., directions). It is not saying the earth is flat. 🔐 Common Sense
From the 1st century on up to the present now, Christian leaders have always taught globe earth. But why would the early church fathers teach globe earth from the Bible if Scripture says its flat? The Bible does not teach flat earth and if it did you better believe the early church fathers would have left for us a flat earth tradition. But they didn't. They didn't because Scripture teaches globe earth. Rev.7:1 is an expression which was never intended to describe the literal shape of the earth. The early church fathers were not Godless men, but had a very strong knowledge of Scripture which is why they were chosen by the Apostles to teach the Gospel after they were gone. So they knew about verses such as Isaiah 40:22 -- "the circle of the earth." So why would the Apostle John contradict Isaiah? He wouldn't and he didn't. Verses like Isaiah 40:22 are about the shape of the earth. Rev.7:1 is not about the shape of the earth. Whenever the Bible speaks about the shape of the earth its in context with God's creation and dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. Rev.7:1 simply expresses the extremities of the earth. View AttachmentThe Hebrew word תבל (tebel) is an ancient Hebrew word that means "the habitable globe." Here you can see how tebel is used even today. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9CNow when you click on the verb globe it takes you to a page that uses tebel in a sentence as an example of one of the applications tebel is applied. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9C#globeSince you are too lazy to click the link I'll post the example first in Hebrew and then in the English translation provided. Hebrew example:. English translation:Don't you atheists ever get sick of losing every single debate?
If it's not mistranslated then it's wrong.
Corner: the place at which two converging lines or surfaces meet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 24, 2021 15:05:26 GMT
That's not what I said at all. Ah, so you're saying that current day bibles are just mistranslated. However, if indeed you want the best Hebrew rendering of the verses I'll break it down for you. Revelation 7:1
Flat earthers read this verse absolutely literally. The Book of Revelation is a Book of prophecy which contains lots of symbolism and figurative expressions for the purpose of explaining much deeper spiritual events which will take place in the last days. Hence, Revelation is not meant to be understood so literally as flat earthers read it. The "four corners of the earth" is an expression which means "the extremities of the earth" in all cardinal directions (north, east, south, west -- the four points of a compass). Revelation 7:1 also alludes to the four spirits of heaven as mentioned in Zechariah 6:5, Believer's Bible Commentary -- Rev.7:1-4,
Thus the four winds are the winds of change which will bring about a terrible destruction upon the earth and in all four quarters of the earth. But God delays this coming storm of disaster by holding back the winds of change. And again we see "the four corners of the earth" in Isaiah 11:12, The word "corners" is Strong's H3671 כָּנָף kânâph, which is also used in Isaiah 24:16, In this verse the expression is defined as "the extremities of the earth" according to the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. But kânâph is not just used in context of the entire globe. It is also used to express a regional area as further expressed in Ezekiel 7:2, It is very clear by reading the verse that kânâph is used as an expression for all four directions and not a reference to the shape of the earth itself. The Greek word used in Rev.7:1 is Strong's G1137 γωνία gōnía. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as "the four extreme limits of the earth, Revelation 7:1; Revelation 20:8." Rev.20:8 says, Once again γωνία (gōnía) is used to express the far reaches of the earth in all four quarters (i.e., directions). It is not saying the earth is flat. 🔐 Common Sense
From the 1st century on up to the present now, Christian leaders have always taught globe earth. But why would the early church fathers teach globe earth from the Bible if Scripture says its flat? The Bible does not teach flat earth and if it did you better believe the early church fathers would have left for us a flat earth tradition. But they didn't. They didn't because Scripture teaches globe earth. Rev.7:1 is an expression which was never intended to describe the literal shape of the earth. The early church fathers were not Godless men, but had a very strong knowledge of Scripture which is why they were chosen by the Apostles to teach the Gospel after they were gone. So they knew about verses such as Isaiah 40:22 -- "the circle of the earth." So why would the Apostle John contradict Isaiah? He wouldn't and he didn't. Verses like Isaiah 40:22 are about the shape of the earth. Rev.7:1 is not about the shape of the earth. Whenever the Bible speaks about the shape of the earth its in context with God's creation and dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. Rev.7:1 simply expresses the extremities of the earth. View AttachmentThe Hebrew word תבל (tebel) is an ancient Hebrew word that means "the habitable globe." Here you can see how tebel is used even today. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9CNow when you click on the verb globe it takes you to a page that uses tebel in a sentence as an example of one of the applications tebel is applied. context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%9C#globeSince you are too lazy to click the link I'll post the example first in Hebrew and then in the English translation provided. Hebrew example:. English translation:Don't you atheists ever get sick of losing every single debate?
If it's not mistranslated then it's wrong.
Corner: the place at which two converging lines or surfaces meet.
Or it's operating under a different paradigm than "scientifically true." Where I am, sunrise was at 7:11 today. But..."the sun doesn't rise." So..."that's wrong"? No, it's simply not a scientific statement. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 24, 2021 16:03:46 GMT
If it's not mistranslated then it's wrong.
Corner: the place at which two converging lines or surfaces meet.
Or it's operating under a different paradigm than "scientifically true." Where I am, sunrise was at 7:11 today. But..."the sun doesn't rise." So..."that's wrong"? No, it's simply not a scientific statement.
Then it's useless because there isn't a way to know what anything actually meant and it's all up to interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 24, 2021 17:36:17 GMT
Or it's operating under a different paradigm than "scientifically true." Where I am, sunrise was at 7:11 today. But..."the sun doesn't rise." So..."that's wrong"? No, it's simply not a scientific statement.
Then it's useless because there isn't a way to know what anything actually meant and it's all up to interpretation.
Absolutely not. You're suggesting that "science" is the only interpretive lens we have? Not only is it not true of almost any text that's not specifically scientific (Anna Karenina? Dune?), it's also not true of some of the biggest questions in life--relationships, beauty, justice... Science may explain how we understand those things, and could even postulate origins (although the explanations tend to be dubiously speculative), but they don't explain them...the why, the how... |
|
