Bible Writers Believed the Earth Was Flat (page 3)

JosephAlward

Scorpion,

If you can ask how we could know that the "original manuscripts" contain errors, then one equally well ask how we could know that they contained the story of the resurrection.

We have to deal with the Bible we have, not a hypothetical Bible in which one could imagine anything whatsoever could be written; to do the latter is to base one's faith on quicksand, an ever-changing foundation of speculation.

Now, as for your hoped-for further elaboration of my argument: I explained already why I must decline your invitation. It's not enough for you to declare without any argument of your own that you don't think my argument is inadequate and that you want to see more evidence; if such a debate weapon were allowed, any argument could be effortlessly defeated. If you want forum readers to take your objections seriously, you will have to put some effort into constructing a counter-argument that explains exactly why the mountain and tall-tree verses are insufficient to indicate that the Bible writers believed that the Earth was flat.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Scorpion

JA,

I understand you being hard pressed to come up with any more Scriptures to prove your claim.

JosephAlward

Scorpion,

I've presented an argument to support my view, but all you've done is declare that you don't think my argument is good enough to convince you. At least I've presented a logical argument; you've presented nothing.

You will have earned the right to request more evidence once you've explained to the forum why you believe my evidence is inadequate. If you don't wish to construct a logical argument rebutting mine, then I will rest my case on the argument I've presented.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Scorpion

JA,

AS far as your argument being logical, maybe to you and a few others it is. To me your argument that the Bible teaches the earth is flat is lacking.

It's not so much that I think your argument is inadequate as it is presumptuous.

JosephAlward

Scorpion,

Twice now I've explained that it's not enough for one to merely state that the argument of another is insufficient. Surely you don't expect people just to take your word for it, do you? You're expected to explain why the evidence or argument is lacking. If you don't want to do that, you probably should direct your attention to another thread.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Scorpion

JA,

Surely you do not expect me or others to take your word or explanation as the undeniable truth as far as what you claim as the Bible teaching the earth to be flat?

I asked you for more proof, and you have not given it. Would it be wise to take a few Scriptures and develope a belief or non-belief around it? This is what the religious radicals do. Are you an anti-religious anti-Bible radical?

JosephAlward

Scorpion writes, "Surely you do not expect me or others to take your word or explanation as the undeniable truth as far as what you claim as the Bible teaching the earth to be flat?"

Alward responds:

How many times do I have to explain it to you, Scorpion? If you will tell me what's wrong with the argument I've already presented, I'll be happy to explain it further, or else add more evidence. I'm not going to bother to provide more evidence at this time, because I--and everyone else on this forum--could have every expectation that you would just declare the enhanced argument to be inadequate as well, and then I'd have to provide more evidence, and then you'd declare it to be inadequate, and this would go on forever.

What's so hard for you to understand, Scorpion? Have you never debated a point before? Just tell me and the other readers exactly what it is that you find lacking--and WHY--in the argument I've presented. If, in response to this, you for the FOURTH time come back without a reasoned rebuttal and say that you want more evidence, I'm going to have to ignore you. My time can be spent more productively with those who know how to--and are willing to--construct a logical argument.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

JanH

Joseph,

I don't think this has been mentioned. Some apologists may argue that Jesus' view of all the world's kingdom's was a "vision" and thus can be dismissed as 'symbolic'.

However, another temptation was that the Devil put Jesus on top of the temple wall and challenged him to jump. This was not a vision, the point is that Jesus was physically there or he could not have jumped to prove his divine protection. The same language is used when Satan placed Jesus on the tall mountain. The story tells us that Jesus was on top of an actual mountain, and could see the entire world from there. The author is thus telling a story that requires a flat Earth to be true. Otherwise, it is a false tale. It never could have happened.

- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

Bible Writers Believed the Earth Was Flat

Share this