#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
is the bible truly from GOD?
yes it is
Side Score: 28
|
no its not
Side Score: 30
|
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Quite right. Beliefs are always informed by some tangible factor, and this usually pertains to either or both of two such factors: 1. Personal experiences 2. Being confronted by concrete evidence/reasoning. In the case of God one may be told about him, but such revelations bear feeble weight to listener unless they themselves can receive some form of affirmation. However, again in this case not everyone may have personal encounters; thus comes the aid of an inquisitive mind. This is something which incidentally the Bible advocates: Proverbs 18:15 states that 'the heart of the prudent acquire knowledge and the ear of the wise seek it out'. If one has questions there's no reason why one shouldn't venture to verify those notions; in fact all the better, because then it allows for a solid foundation to your beliefs from which to make cogent arguments. Side: yes it is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well, I find that problematic because you are formulating your life around your religion. The fact that you can't explain why you trust the religion seems very dangerous to me. As the book is used as justification in a lot of your decisions and the way you take on life, it is probably important to verify why you trust it. If, for example, you trust it because you have consistently had people around you affirm it's validity (which I think is the case for most everyone raised Christian, and is not inherently bad) well then you didn't actually have any real reason to trust it. Your opinions on it are based on others' opinions, not your own. That's where I find the problem. If you can't come up with a reason why you trust in what you believe, why should you trust what you believe in the first place? Why not accept everything that has the same justification? Side: no its not
1
point
1
point
Thank you! You don't need to have an answer now, just something to consider and stuff. That was one of the main reasons I moved away from religion (and not that any of this means that you should feel as though you must move away from religion by any means) just stuff to think about. Side: no its not
Well as pirateelfdog suggests, your beliefs should also arise from some tangible foundation. Yes as God's Word the Bible is sacred, but what else is there about it that affirms your faith in it? How does its content afford greater credence than other things? It's good to think about these sort of elements to strengthen your conviction ;) Side: yes it is
1
point
1
point
Well, my preceding post to you may be good place to start in asking yourself questions. Regarding anything really, you always want to have a solid foundation to ground your beliefs or else they become a house of cards: effortless to knock down under gentle prodding. Not only do queries help to undergird your faith, but they also heighten your appreciation for it, as I have found. To me, personal encounters/experiences are an ultimate determiner but they aren't always there. So commence with the basics: assess your views, compare with other perspectives, read extensively and measure the credence of all. Then return to your original foundation (beliefs) and see how you feel. It's effort but it's worth it ;) Side: yes it is
1
point
People believe in God, and religion is a construct based upon belief and faith so in the belief it is the word of God, so it is from God. Basically it is a book written and printed by people with many contradictions because there have been so many versions over the centuries that it is quite impossible for a lay person to understand what it means unless they can read and understand the language of the original version. Side: yes it is
1
point
The Bible is the word of GOD. People now a days are more secular than ever due to the fact that they believe that truth is relative. The Bible doesn't just communicate the word of GOD, it also helps humans live a better life. Many people who are secular today had ancestors that were religious. Modern society in general prefers individual pleasure to the point that they have taken the place of GOD, meaning that they believe that they can do whatever they like. During the Medieval ages, GOD was in the center of our life. Today in Modern society, man has taken over that place, which has made man more selfish, Narcissistic, and individualistic. Side: yes it is
1
point
People now a days are more secular than ever due to the fact that they believe that truth is relative. Do you have any source to back this claim up? Today in Modern society, man has taken over that place, which has made man more selfish, Narcissistic, and individualistic. During the Medieval Age, man struggled to survive, and therefore had little to no time for self realization. Once there became an abundance of food, self realization became a bigger thing in society. I find it hard to claim that religion alone would be the cause for the changes you are referring to. Side: yes it is
|
2
points
4
points
Is there anything else? Yes - it was a simple counterstatement I made to the preceding comment but of course I’ll elaborate: when we come across an account of any kind our first thoughts can often be that the text on the page bears the intelligence of the writer, however as I said before that is not always the case. There is such a thing as one writing to another’s dictation (like transcribing), so we can acknowledge that the originator of the concept itself truly bears the title of ‘author’. After all, I could tell you to write something down on my behalf but that does not necessarily indicate therefore that it is your mind at work. In the case of the Bible, when read from beginning to end one can see that it bears an acuteness of knowledge that could not be attributed to the human mind, the most striking being an account of Creation itself. There are numerous references to the construction of the Universe such as the water foundation of the Earth (Psalm 24:2; 2 Peter 3:5), the water consistency of skies (Genesis 1:6-7), the force of gravity (Job 26:7), the shape of the Earth (Isaiah 40:22) and the ongoing processes and demarcation of seasons (Genesis 1:14). Not only are the existence of these elements spoken about with complete certainty as opposed to speculation, but it is knowledge that, in the historical context of such writing, would hardly have been accessible to those living at the time through any means. Instead, these are facts that would wait over a thousand years before science caught up with its discoveries to substantiate them. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the lay persons at the time were documenting the design plan of the One who caused it to be so, as He relayed it to them. Another key characteristic of the Bible is its prophetic nature: certain future events are predicted such as the coming and crucifixion of Jesus in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53:5; Psalm 22:18), the scattering of the Jewish race throughout the nations and then their return to their homeland of Israel, describing it as "being reborn in a day" (Isaiah 66:8) - it was declared a nation on 14th May 1948, and the transformation from a barren wasteland to a prosperous landscape (Isaiah 41:18-20) – again something that happened after the Jews’ return. Such profoundness of language is what makes the Bible unique in its ability to withstand time where other accounts have not. Side: yes it is
bears an acuteness of knowledge that could not be attributed to the human mind This inherently makes no sense. The only way you can possibly know if the knowledge in the Bible is accurate is if someone at some point was able to verify using their human mind. Therefore, any knowledge in the Bible has to be able to be attributed to the human mind. Side: yes it is
1
point
If you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls (which I presume is what you’re referring to) you will see that they were dated from before the first century to 68AD. The author of 2 Timothy (otherwise known as Paul) had written his letter before his death in 67AD and the content of the DSS bears no disparity with that of the Bible centuries later as it stands today. Side: yes it is
1
point
1
point
Disputes generally provide a counter. A question would be a clarification. What makes you conclude that? The Bible itself notes direct messages from God like in Exodus 31:18. Basically, my conclusion is based on reading comprehension. Side: yes it is
Disputes generally provide a counter. A question would be a clarification. Yes of course, my mistake - thanks for pointing that out! The Bible itself notes direct messages from God like in Exodus 31:18. Indeed, I see your perspective with the verse you selected, but that doesn't indicate that the rest of the Biblical text was not also God's word. Yes, He could have used His own hand to physically write the Bible, but then doing so would not have fully harmonised with His wider intentions. I say this because for God it wasn’t simply about documenting a timeline of events. There was another dimension in that He wanted to develop His relationship with human beings by sharing and allowing us to experience the profoundness His mind and His character; including His children in the writing process would certainly have achieved that to a great end. It is one thing to read someone else’s work, but when that person has decided to impart those revelations to you first it then elevates to a higher level of intimacy. In fact, one could almost liken the Bible to a biographical account because it presents a very comprehensive image of who He is and how He works as well as how human beings experience Him. This is why the Bible isn’t written by one individual, but many over several generations. The premise of the Bible is written in Jeremiah 33:3 “Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and mighty things which you do not know” – hence what I meant when I said that the Bible bears an acuteness of knowledge that cannot be attributed to the human mind (especially when it comes to revelations of the future). The closer you are to someone, the more you are likely to reveal yourself to them, well it’s the same with God. He knew how paramount these scriptures would be so He was coming from a position of trust and the people He selected would have been of the same integrity to have been consigned such a task in writing down His words verbatim. Side: yes it is
It is clearly stated in the Bible that not all accounts are directly dictated by God. Are you suggesting that everything in the Bible was dictated by God? If so, you should probably visit one of the many Christian websites for some basic information on the Bible. Side: yes it is
It is clearly stated in the Bible that not all accounts are directly dictated by God. Erm…no, it does not state that anywhere in the Bible. Quite the opposite. Are you suggesting that everything in the Bible was dictated by God?
Yes! Or rather I’m stating it. This was the very basis of all my posts on this page if you look; I thought this was clear. If so, you should probably visit one of the many Christian websites for some basic information on the Bible. I do not need to visit anywhere for information on it when not only can I refer directly to the source itself, but its content is something I am already well-acquainted with. I think we need to take a step back and review matters – and please do try to consider everything I’ve written before making your rebuttals. God entrusted human beings to record His messages to the world (dictation), which means that all accounts are written by His knowledge, not man’s. If you look inside the Bible, there are no verses anywhere that describe it as arising partially from God; rather (and again as I’d posted before) it mentions in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God - not some. I understand that you may have misconstrued Exodus 31:18 as the basis for your argument because He used His own finger to write the Ten Commandments in the tablets of stone; however, this has no bearing on the rest of the Bible’s validity which He decided to communicate through human beings for reasons listed in my earlier post. Whether He used His own hand or He used the hand of human beings, the origin of its content is all traced back to His intelligence. So yes, in light of all I have said thus far, all accounts in the Bible are directly dictated by God. Side: yes it is
it mentions in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God - not some. Inspiration is not dictation. This would be akin to claiming muses are the true creators of art. Our disagreement comes from semantics. You believe divine inspiration equates to dictation and I do not. He used His own finger to write the Ten Commandments in the tablets of stone; however, this has no bearing on the rest of the Bible’s validity which He decided to communicate through human beings for reasons listed in my earlier post. Whether He used His own hand or He used the hand of human beings, the origin of its content is all traced back to His intelligence. The rest of the Bible? You do realize that the tablets are not the only time God directly communicates or interacts with people in the Bible? The fact that verses about God's direct messages exist indicates that there is a distinction between those direct messages and works created from divine inspiration. If you really hold the orthodox belief that the Bible was breathed forth by God and hold it as infallible/inerrant like God, then you are ignoring obvious mistakes and contradictions. Maybe it is time to switch to a reformed denomination. Side: yes it is
Inspiration is not dictation. 'Inspiration' is defined as being the cause of something; in other words, what is would not have come about were it not for a certain influence. It concerns originality and genius. It can also concern the drawing in of breath, a motion associated with verbal expression. Dictation is a method that can be employed as a result of inspiration if the objective is communication. The former can inform the latter. This would be akin to claiming muses are the true creators of art. A muse is defined as being a source of inspiration or a guiding spirit. The consequential work of the artist would not have manifested without said inspiration so in that sense, yes. However, there is some divergence: your comparison would suggest that God was a muse for those who wrote the Bible which would be incorrect. A muse does not select a vessel through which to manifest his or her genius; rather it is the artist who uses the muse to help shape their own creativity. With God it was the reverse: He used man as His vessel to manifest His genius in written form; therefore, the writers contributed nothing to the Bible's construction. Our disagreement comes from semantics. You believe divine inspiration equates to dictation and I do not. Our disagreement comes from differing perspective. You opined that only certain parts of the Bible came from God and the rest does not, meaning you believe the remaining content was as a result of man’s mind alone with no divine intervention featuring. I elected to use the term ‘dictation’ because that solely concerns the action of writing as well as speech: speaking to someone and the words being committed to paper, as is the case with this debate subject. Though the words ‘inspiration’ and ‘dictation’ are hardly synonyms, their purpose is not conflicting because their common ground is the source from which they arise.
The rest of the Bible? You do realize that the tablets are not the only time God directly communicates or interacts with people in the Bible? Well obviously, and as I mentioned before, the primary essence of the Bible is to document God’s relationship and interaction with human beings from Genesis to Revelation. His efforts to interact with us are vast, be it through audible voice (Habbakuk 2:2), visions (Daniel 7:13), angels (Luke 1:30), dreams (Acts 2:17), circumstances and so on; He is not so one-dimensional as to affiliate with a single method of communication and whichever is appropriate for the time is the method He will use; all of this is shown in the Bible. I’m not entirely sure what argument you were trying to make with this statement since it is already something I have alluded to. The fact that verses about God's direct messages exist indicates that there is a distinction between those direct messages and works created from divine inspiration. Again this is not at variance with anything I have said to you hitherto. Your original claim pertained to there being discriminating aspects of Biblical text on the grounds of authorship, thus positing that part of the Bible cannot be attributed to divine intelligence. I am taking your response to the original debate question which was ‘Is the Bible truly from God?’ However, this section of your argument if anything corroborates my own: that in spite of the distinction, the origin remains the same. What you are describing are the events in the Bible that see God interacting with people, not the composition of the Bible itself. There are numerous instances where God will give messages to people, particularly His prophets , by telling them Himself directly; other times He will give a message via another party; and other times the same message may evince in the work one does. The method is the dependent variable, the source is the independent variable, to put it another way. If you really hold the orthodox belief that the Bible was breathed forth by God and hold it as infallible/inerrant like God, then you are ignoring obvious mistakes and contradictions. Oh well, do point them out to me then, these ostensible mistakes and contradictions. I think you’ll have a bit of a task on your hands, mind. Maybe it is time to switch to a reformed denomination. The phrase ‘reformed denomination’ refers to Protestantism designed to be congruous with Biblical text so would in fact be orthodox. However, in considering your preceding statement around the Bible’s origins, if you mean a denomination whose teachings deviate from God’s word to the extent that they may verge on apostasy then, no thanks. My preference is for the timeless original blueprint as He established it as opposed to any meddling by human beings – far more accuracy in the former. Side: yes it is
Most of this was still an argument about the difference or similarity between dictation and inspiration. The phrase ‘reformed denomination’ refers to Protestantism designed to be congruous with Biblical text so would in fact be orthodox. However, in considering your preceding statement around the Bible’s origins, if you mean a denomination whose teachings deviate from God’s word to the extent that they may verge on apostasy then, no thanks. My preference is for the timeless original blueprint as He established it as opposed to any meddling by human beings – far more accuracy in the former. Reformed denominations tend to be less literal than orthodox sects. One example would be Orthodox Christianity which practices a far more literal version. For anyone who has read the Bible, it should be obvious that it was not meant to be interpreted literally. Oh well, do point them out to me then, these ostensible mistakes and contradictions. I think you’ll have a bit of a task on your hands, mind. Things like the firmament, the order of creation (Earth before Sun), creating animals with both genders but only creating man, the days of creation, Earth flatness (tall trees seen by the whole world), geocentrism, etc. Interpretations have been modified many times in order to match new discoveries. It is hard to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible in the 21st century. Side: yes it is
Reformed denominations tend to be less literal than orthodox sects. One example would be Orthodox Christianity which practices a far more literal version. For anyone who has read the Bible, it should be obvious that it was not meant to be interpreted literally. The reformed denominations derived from Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin rebelling against Catholicism (hence ‘Protest’) because they recognised the discrepancies between Scripture and Catholic doctrine (e.g. purgatory). So the reform pertains to reforming the way in which the Church carried out God’s Word. Therefore, any Church that is concerned with reverting back to the foundation of Christian precepts which is the Bible would be considered Orthodox (or Fundamentalist). Moreover, when people speak like that it seems to imply that God was not being serious when He commissioned the Bible and therefore its content should be taken with a grain of salt. This seems rather insulting to God when you consider the purpose for which He formed it and disparaging to His intentions. Things like the firmament, the order of creation (Earth before Sun), creating animals with both genders but only creating man, the days of creation, Earth flatness (tall trees seen by the whole world), geocentrism, etc. So…..basically everything that was in the Bible in the first place (the original). Just to correct you on two matters though: firstly, we are clearly told that both men AND women are created in His image, not one (Genesis 1:27). Secondly, the shape of the Earth is described as being spherical (Isaiah 40:22); flatness is not documented anywhere. What you describe is Daniel 4:11, which was in fact a description of a dream, not a physical reality, most likely a message God was trying to communicate to its recipient, King Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, as a dream, its content does not contradict Creation as it stands in reality. Interpretations have been modified many times in order to match new discoveries. It is hard to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible in the 21st century. There is nothing to substantiate this new claim of yours (though I must say, the contradictions and ‘revamp’ of Biblical content is a myth that has been bandied about many times previous so not very new). In spite of the numerous language translations the Bible has undergone from its original Hebrew, the content itself has withstood this to remain intact; there is categorically no indication that it has undergone modification at any stage in history. The best evidence of this would be the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century) only discovered relatively of late in 1947 which include all of the details you listed. The discoveries that have been made are we human beings catching up with God’s design plan and that is something that will never change. On that basis, there is no reason why a Bible in 2015 is any less reliable than a copy from centuries earlier. Side: yes it is
The Reformation also had to do with the ecclesiastical structure. People were tired of the rampant abuse by the centralized church authority. It was not just about interpretation. There are fundamentalist sects in Protestantism. It doesn't mean the entire group is fundamentalist. firstly, we are clearly told that both men AND women are created in His image, not one God created male and female animals one whole day before creating man. God only created Eve because Adam was lonely. This does not make sense. If God creates partners for animals one day before so they would not be lonely, why would God think creating just Adam would be fine? Secondly, the shape of the Earth is described as being spherical (Isaiah 40:22); flatness is not documented anywhere. We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel). A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit). If you apply logic to literal interpretations, things quickly fall apart. PS: You just noted the how the book of Daniel is not inerrant or infallible. Human descriptions of dreams can be mistaken. Your definition of divine inspiration cannot. Side: yes it is
The Reformation also had to do with the ecclesiastical structure. People were tired of the rampant abuse by the centralized church authority. It was not just about interpretation. Indeed, people were affronted by the misconduct of church leaders and believed the Church was growing increasingly corrupt as a result. This was likely to happen when the leaders were failing to observe Scripture in their eminent positions. There are fundamentalist sects in Protestantism. It doesn't mean the entire group is fundamentalist. Yes, you’re not wrong: within Protestantism there do exist many branches predicated on differing degrees of doctrine – over the years. However, as mentioned before, Fundamentalists are really only concerned with full adherence to Scripture and are unwavering in their efforts to do so. They were, (and still do) taking God as He is when reading the Bible. In the past this was something society at large did and so the term ‘Fundamentalist’ in this respect did not exist; however, as Christians have veered away from the original foundation we have seen the birth of later denominations with alternative stances and consequently in modern society we have a cacophony of Christian perspectives. So now, when someone identifies themselves as a Protestant, as you said it is not to suggest that they are wholly traditional in their outlook. God created male and female animals one whole day before creating man. God only created Eve because Adam was lonely. This does not make sense. If God creates partners for animals one day before so they would not be lonely, why would God think creating just Adam would be fine? That’s not what He thought. As you have pointed out God created male and female animals so there would be no reason why, when it came to human beings He would not apply the same framework in creating female humans as well, especially when His intention was for us to multiply and produce generations: this is not something that would happen had Adam existed on his lonesome. We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel). A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit). Well I only mentioned the dream quote from Daniel because that seemed to specifically be what you were referring to when noting the ‘tall trees’. Nevertheless, I can see where you are coming from, but not quite. If I apply Scripture to what you have described then that would perhaps relate to verses such as Isaiah 11:12 where it mentions that 'the scattered people (the Jews) will be assembled from the four corners of the Earth'. The use of the term ‘corners’ might suggest something other than a spherical shape but when you look at Revelation 7:1 which describes angels ‘standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds’ - this gives the wider context of cardinal direction (north, south, east, west= 4). Still, this does not actually state the Earth’s shape in the way Isaiah 40:22 does. Having said that another verse that may be more in line with your reference would be Job 28:24 which describes how God ‘looks to the ends of the Earth and sees everything under the heavens’. True, but as I have said the Bible was written from God’s viewpoint, and as the quote mentions, there is no part of His creation that He cannot see. The line of sight for the Earth is capped for us humans, but it is not so for God. Again the actual shape of the Earth is not referenced here as being 'flat'. If you apply logic to literal interpretations, things quickly fall apart. In relation to your earlier argument I can see your reasoning, but again I say not necessarily: you need to look at the bigger picture. A belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible would refer to the Bible actually being the Word of God. As someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible then, a Fundamentalist would believe it when the Bible mentions Scripture as being inspired by God and in considering the definition of inspiration as I’d mentioned earlier, they would not be wrong in supposing this. It would indeed mean taking God at His word about the beginning and end of the world together with the principles He laid out for human beings to live by in between. It includes full regard for the text. So Biblical descriptions of for instance the Universe as they are written do not mean the interpretation becomes soluble the moment logic is applied; rather they are complimentary. PS: You just noted the how the book of Daniel is not inerrant or infallible. Human descriptions of dreams can be mistaken. Your definition of divine inspiration cannot. Well firstly, no I did not: what I described specifically centred round a verse in the Book of Daniel, not the whole book of Daniel. Secondly, the implication of your subsequent sentence would be that the dream bore no connection to God. Correct, with what I have described divine inspiration to be this is not infallible but that is precisely it: if God was relaying the dream to the writers of the Bible to record then there would be no mistakes in it at all, particularly as He was the giver of the dream. Side: yes it is
True, but as I have said the Bible was written from God’s viewpoint, and as the quote mentions, there is no part of His creation that He cannot see. The line of sight for the Earth is capped for us humans, but it is not so for God. Again the actual shape of the Earth is not referenced here as being 'flat'. It would not matter what God's perspective is, there are no ends to a sphere. If the verse had left out the ends of the Earth, it would make sense. That’s not what He thought. As you have pointed out God created male and female animals so there would be no reason why, when it came to human beings He would not apply the same framework in creating female humans as well, especially when His intention was for us to multiply and produce generations: this is not something that would happen had Adam existed on his lonesome. I was talking about the fact that he deliberately hesitated to make female humans even though there was no hesitation a day earlier during the creation of animals. So now, when someone identifies themselves as a Protestant, as you said it is not to suggest that they are wholly traditional in their outlook. My point was that some of the less fundamentalist denominations do not have to twist logic in order to justify the contradictions in the Bible. Pretty much the whole creation vs evolution debate. Well firstly, no I did not: what I described specifically centred round a verse in the Book of Daniel, not the whole book of Daniel. Secondly, the implication of your subsequent sentence would be that the dream bore no connection to God. Correct, with what I have described divine inspiration to be this is not infallible but that is precisely it: if God was relaying the dream to the writers of the Bible to record then there would be no mistakes in it at all, particularly as He was the giver of the dream. My point was that the passage was not a direct message from God, but a recount of a dream about God. If the dream had been divinely inspired and therefore dictated, it would not have any errors. This supports my original claim that only parts of the Bible are directly from God. Side: yes it is
It would not matter what God's perspective is, there are no ends to a sphere. If the verse had left out the ends of the Earth, it would make sense. Of course it matters what God’s perspective is because the content is coming from Him, not man. When you see an end to anything that means that you have seen ALL of it; therefore this is referencing the fact that God can see everything about the Earth so no, the verse did not need to be left out because it does not concern the construct of the Earth, merely how it appears to God.
I was talking about the fact that he deliberately hesitated to make female humans even though there was no hesitation a day earlier during the creation of animals. Depends on where you start from. If you look at Genesis 1 there is no such hesitation. It simply outlines that He created living creatures, categorised into a myriad of species, before stating that they should be fruitful and multiply. It then goes ahead to say that man should be made in His image and that ‘He created them male and female’ (Genesis 1:26). He did not necessarily have any higher purpose for the animals to fulfill beyond reproduction so the details could be left at that. With human beings however, as we are made in His image naturally we would take precedence over every other living thing. Furthermore, in being His children, God would want to give more detail regarding our creation than that of the animals as is the case throughout the rest of the Bible (revolving predominately around humans) because we have a more important role to play and the purposes for our existence bear far more weight. This is why in Genesis 2, He elaborates on the aforementioned chapter, this time specifying the first purpose for our respective sexes: marriage (Genesis 2:24). My point was that some of the less fundamentalist denominations do not have to twist logic in order to justify the contradictions in the Bible. As I have said before, there are no contradictions in the Bible so there is nothing to be justified. Then again, I suppose contradictions would appear to anyone who neglects to read things properly and in their entirety.
My point was that the passage was not a direct message from God, but a recount of a dream about God. If the dream had been divinely inspired and therefore dictated, it would not have any errors. Dreams are direct messages from God and inclined to be prophetic: the most prominent example would probably be the story of Joseph because interpreting them was His gift; having said that, the dream in question was interpreted by Daniel, whom God sent to reveal His message to the King. Moreover, just because a dream is from God does not mean to say that it is about God; in this case the dream was actually God’s rebuke to Nebuchadnezzar for His unscrupulous rule as King and how, if He wished to keep His throne, He might atone for His sinful ways by being righteous – particularly in regard to the poor.
This supports my original claim that only parts of the Bible are directly from God. Nope, if anything supports mine: that all of the Bible bears its foundation in God and a reflection of how He exercises His wisdom to the world. Just as if I were giving you a full account of events in my life, it would be direct communication because I am telling it straight to you with no intermediary source: even if you wrote it all down, it does not detract from its directness. In the same way since God relayed it to the writers, the Bible can still be considered direct information from Him Himself. Side: yes it is
Of course it matters what God’s perspective is because the content is coming from Him, not man. When you see an end to anything that means that you have seen ALL of it; therefore this is referencing the fact that God can see everything about the Earth so no, the verse did not need to be left out because it does not concern the construct of the Earth, merely how it appears to God. You have merely modified the definition for end in order to justify that verse. End ≠ ALL. Depends on where you start from. If you look at Genesis 1 there is no such hesitation. It simply outlines that He created living creatures, categorised into a myriad of species, before stating that they should be fruitful and multiply. It then goes ahead to say that man should be made in His image and that ‘He created them male and female’ (Genesis 1:26). He did not necessarily have any higher purpose for the animals to fulfill beyond reproduction so the details could be left at that. With human beings however, as we are made in His image naturally we would take precedence over every other living thing. Furthermore, in being His children, God would want to give more detail regarding our creation than that of the animals as is the case throughout the rest of the Bible (revolving predominately around humans) because we have a more important role to play and the purposes for our existence bear far more weight. This is why in Genesis 2, He elaborates on the aforementioned chapter, this time specifying the first purpose for our respective sexes: marriage (Genesis 2:24). Still does not explain why an omnipotent being created gender pairs for animals, but did not do so for man (until man became lonely). As I have said before, there are no contradictions in the Bible so there is nothing to be justified. Then again, I suppose contradictions would appear to anyone who neglects to read things properly and in their entirety. Twisting context and redefining words in order to remove contradictions is not exactly "read[ing] things properly and in their entirety." Dreams are direct messages from God and inclined to be prophetic: the most prominent example would probably be the story of Joseph because interpreting them was His gift; having said that, the dream in question was interpreted by Daniel, whom God sent to reveal His message to the King. Moreover, just because a dream is from God does not mean to say that it is about God; in this case the dream was actually God’s rebuke to Nebuchadnezzar for His unscrupulous rule as King and how, if He wished to keep His throne, He might atone for His sinful ways by being righteous – particularly in regard to the poor. You still have not explained why the dream from God contained erroneous information. Nope, if anything supports mine: that all of the Bible bears its foundation in God and a reflection of how He exercises His wisdom to the world. Just as if I were giving you a full account of events in my life, it would be direct communication because I am telling it straight to you with no intermediary source: even if you wrote it all down, it does not detract from its directness. In the same way since God relayed it to the writers, the Bible can still be considered direct information from Him Himself. If the entire Bible is from God, then it should be as perfect as God. You deny the obvious mistakes by twisting logic. I doubt any amount of rational reasoning will make you see otherwise. Side: yes it is
Apologies for the somewhat late reply... You have merely modified the definition for end in order to justify that verse. End ≠ ALL. Modified it to what? If you look in the dictionary you’ll see that the word ‘end’ is a broad enough term to not be confined to a singular context and therefore has more than one definition, in this case being ‘A point that indicates the full extent of something’. Though I guess by your rationale this does not exist. Still does not explain why an omnipotent being created gender pairs for animals, but did not do so for man (until man became lonely). As an omnipotent being there is nothing that extends beyond God’s capabilities. Moreover, just because God stated that it was not good for man to be alone’, does not mean Adam experienced any feelings of loneliness . The creation of a second sex was already preordained by Him, it was not as a consequence of Adam’s emotional state at the time. At the risk of repeating myself, in describing this detail He was laying the foundation for His further aspirations for human existence. Twisting context and redefining words in order to remove contradictions is not exactly "read[ing] things properly and in their entirety." In that case you must read a very different dictionary to that used by the rest of us because I have not redefined any words in my arguments to you nor contorted any context. All I have done is allocate those words to the appropriate context. Failure to do this is what constitutes misreading and consequently misidentifying contradictions as you seem to have done. You still have not explained why the dream from God contained erroneous information. Wow, well I must say that is a first: I have heard dreams accorded a slew of adjectives, but ‘erroneous’ has never been one of them! The information presented in dreams bears its root in revelation from the Sender, therefore it does not have the capacity to be erroneous (any more than someone revealing their own message to the world via art or music). If the entire Bible is from God, then it should be as perfect as God. It is. You deny the obvious mistakes by twisting logic. I doubt any amount of rational reasoning will make you see otherwise. If your view of the Bible was always so decided then I could deduce precisely that about you, especially when you overlook the crux of my responses to your arguments. Your conclusions (both in this post and your prior one) seem incongruous with true comprehension of many points of mine, leading to you identifying non-existent mistakes. Your claim of my denials are also untrue: rather than eschewing I have confronted head on all that you have put to me, particularly in finding the appropriate Biblical sections to address your points (as someone who has read the Bible cover to cover). In accounting for what we as humans construe logic and rationality to be, I have referred to the Bible in the physical sense regarding Creation principally so again this last sentence of yours is misapplied. Consequently I have little more to say on the matter; we evidently are not going to see eye to eye on this. Side: yes it is
Modified it to what? If you look in the dictionary you’ll see that the word ‘end’ is a broad enough term to not be confined to a singular context and therefore has more than one definition, in this case being ‘A point that indicates the full extent of something’. Though I guess by your rationale this does not exist. kindness without end; to walk from end to end of a city. Notice that the definition begins with "a". It is singular. The examples are also singular. The verses from the Bible are plural. They also reference "corners". Like I said. You have to twist a lot in order to justify the mistakes. As an omnipotent being there is nothing that extends beyond God’s capabilities. Moreover, just because God stated that it was not good for man to be alone’, does not mean Adam experienced any feelings of loneliness . The creation of a second sex was already preordained by Him, it was not as a consequence of Adam’s emotional state at the time. At the risk of repeating myself, in describing this detail He was laying the foundation for His further aspirations for human existence. If we go by the logic that nothing extends beyond his capabilities and that he is omniscient, then would not the original sin of Adam and Eve also be preordained? In fact, everything that happens would be preordained, so God is basically watching a play that he wrote. Side: no its not
Notice that the definition begins with "a". It is singular. The examples are also singular. The verses from the Bible are plural. Whether they are plural or singular is a trifling detail here; either way the meaning does not alter in that it still equates to the full extent. They also reference "corners". I know. I in fact mentioned this before if you go back earlier in our exchange in reference to cardinal direction. Like I said. You have to twist a lot in order to justify the mistakes. Like the ones you imagined, well yes, then in that sense there is much to justify! This whole latter dispute has revolved around the ostensible contradiction regarding the shape of the Earth, with you thinking that the word ‘end(s)’ corresponds to flatness. You accused me of modifying the definition of ‘end’ but if anything I would say that very claim is more applicable to yourself, for in all the definitions of the word the term ‘flatness’ or any such synonym does not feature at all. Declining to consider context really does little to aid one’s understanding of anything, let alone the Bible and, as said before, leads to misidentification of errors. If I even take one of your examples: ‘kindness without end’, it is indicative more of an all-encompassing exercise of the quality and less likely to prompt notions of ‘flatness’ amongst observers (in any context actually). Comparably, when it comes to the Earth, the shape is clearly defined; when it comes to activity on the Earth i.e. ‘A witness to the ends of the Earth’, that is not in reference to the shape, but the degree of their endeavours. Nevertheless, something also perhaps worth considering in light of this (as I mentioned with the ‘corners’), is measurement: ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth which in definition would concern the limits/boundary of it which dovetails with what Bible describes. When in the correct context nothing is justified, it just ‘is’. If we go by the logic that nothing extends beyond his capabilities and that he is omniscient, then would not the original sin of Adam and Eve also be preordained? In fact, everything that happens would be preordained, so God is basically watching a play that he wrote. Well, this last point of yours is another debate entirely but nonetheless I’ll answer it: absolutely not. Correct, God is omnipotent and omniscient, but He is also something else – autonomous. When God created us He created specifically to be in His image. It therefore follows that He would infuse us with like qualities, be it the capacity for intellect, wisdom, emotion, spirit, but most of all free will. This was given to us because He wanted a relationship with us based on mutual love and affection. He desired that should we choose to know Him and follow in His footsteps that it would be of our own volition and therefore infinitely more meaningful and gratifying to Him than programmed devotion. We are His children, not His marionettes. Thus when Adam and Eve sinned, this was something that they had elected to do against His behest. As with everything, God had warned them beforehand about the consequences of their actions, but it was their neglect to heed His word that prompted the devastating outcome, so their actions cannot be attributed to Him at all. With every generation He mourns at the various ills of the world, but what pains Him most is that they could all have been prevented had we listened to Him in the first place. Side: yes it is
Whether they are plural or singular is a trifling detail here; either way the meaning does not alter in that it still equates to the full extent. How is it a trifling detail if the usage of "end" as "full extent" only works for the singular case? What would be the "full extents" of anything? How can an object have more than a single full extent? Like the ones you imagined, well yes, then in that sense there is much to justify! This whole latter dispute has revolved around the ostensible contradiction regarding the shape of the Earth, with you thinking that the word ‘end(s)’ corresponds to flatness. Corners and ends do not indicate flatness, they indicate a non-spherical object. Nevertheless, something also perhaps worth considering in light of this (as I mentioned with the ‘corners’), is measurement: ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth which in definition would concern the limits/boundary of it which dovetails with what Bible describes. When in the correct context nothing is justified, it just ‘is’. There should only be one correct interpretation for an inerrant Bible dictated by God. Also, no one refers to the circumference of a sphere as "the ends of the sphere". With every generation He mourns at the various ills of the world, but what pains Him most is that they could all have been prevented had we listened to Him in the first place. What are you talking about? Terrible things happen to devoted Christians all the time. How would devotion prevent "ills of the world"? Side: no its not
How is it a trifling detail if the usage of "end" as "full extent" only works for the singular case? What would be the "full extents" of anything? How can an object have more than a single full extent? It doesn’t. That is just how the English language is. The word ‘end’ exists in both the singular and the plural, e.g. the phrase ‘burning the candle at both ends’. The word ‘extent’ however does not exist in the plural case, but that does not therefore signify that in alignment with this phrase an ‘s’ must therefore be added so it becomes ‘extents’: that would be improper grammar. After all, ‘extent’ merely pertains to the distance or the degree of something, neither of which have the letter ‘s’ attached, yet the weight of meaning is hardly diminished. Corners and ends do not indicate flatness Well....I knew that already but I am pleased that you now recognise this too :) they indicate a non-spherical object. Hmm no, not quite; perhaps I can contextualise your reasoning in the form of an orange. In describing its whole appearance one can liken its shape to that of a sphere due to its roundness. However, if one were to divide it into four segments we would now be exposed to its interior and there would new details to consider: for instance one slice would be described as having two points. They could also be termed as ‘ends’ should you opt to measure it along the interior with say, a ruler (width). If you venture a step farther and sever that particular slice again you would get something of a 90 degree angle (or a ‘corner’ to give a generic term). To you these details would indicate a non-spherical object, but in their entirety they are sphere. Depends on how much you take into account. There should only be one correct interpretation for an inerrant Bible dictated by God. Also, no one refers to the circumference of a sphere as "the ends of the sphere". If people approach it with a comprehensive eye then there is. In response to your next sentence circumference is still relevant because its only application is to that of a circle ‘the boundary line’, no other shape (as its name suggests). Therefore, as that shape, the Earth has a circumference which would include finding the length of measurement. What are you talking about? Terrible things happen to devoted Christians all the time. How would devotion prevent "ills of the world"? Correct, tribulation befalls Christians all the time and always has done…but again that is the fault of a lack of devotion to God’s ways. If humanity in general had allowed God’s principles to form the cornerstone of their lives from the beginning there would be no ills to prevent. Regretfully that is not the case, and a correlation can be drawn between a decline in belief and adherence to His values and an increase in the ruination of Creation (ourselves included) which becomes more defined with each generation. All the devoted Christians in existence cannot impel the rest of world to keep a heedful ear of His message if it be against their want to do so. Thus, the devastation will persist. Side: yes it is
It doesn’t. That is just how the English language is. The word ‘end’ exists in both the singular and the plural, e.g. the phrase ‘burning the candle at both ends’. "Burning the candle at both ends uses the definition of ends that you rejected. How does this support your case? Use the "full extent" definition in the plurality. Not all forms of a word will have a plurality. The word ‘extent’ however does not exist in the plural case, but that does not therefore signify that in alignment with this phrase an ‘s’ must therefore be added so it becomes ‘extents’: that would be improper grammar. After all, ‘extent’ merely pertains to the distance or the degree of something, neither of which have the letter ‘s’ attached, yet the weight of meaning is hardly diminished. Of course extent cannot be pluralized. This is why I asked you: "How can an object have more than a single full extent?" Well....I knew that already but I am pleased that you now recognise this too :) Go review the comments. You were the one to mention corners as indication of flatness: If I apply Scripture to what you have described then that would perhaps relate to verses such as Isaiah 11:12 where it mentions that 'the scattered people (the Jews) will be assembled from the four corners of the Earth'. The use of the term ‘corners’ might suggest something other than a spherical shape I only mentioned: "Earth flatness (tall trees seen by the whole world)" and "A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit)." Based on the chronology, it seems like I should be pleased that you now recognize this too. Hmm no, not quite; perhaps I can contextualise your reasoning in the form of an orange. In describing its whole appearance one can liken its shape to that of a sphere due to its roundness. However, if one were to divide it into four segments we would now be exposed to its interior and there would new details to consider: for instance one slice would be described as having two points. They could also be termed as ‘ends’ should you opt to measure it along the interior with say, a ruler (width). If you venture a step farther and sever that particular slice again you would get something of a 90 degree angle (or a ‘corner’ to give a generic term). To you these details would indicate a non-spherical object, but in their entirety they are sphere. Depends on how much you take into account. Notice how far you have to twist in order to justify your interpretation? There is no mention of slicing the Earth in the Bible. If people approach it with a comprehensive eye then there is. In response to your next sentence circumference is still relevant because its only application is to that of a circle ‘the boundary line’, no other shape (as its name suggests). Therefore, as that shape, the Earth has a circumference which would include finding the length of measurement. A sphere only has one circumference. How does this relate to "end" referring to "circumference" if the verse uses "ends"? "Ends of a sphere" would translate into "circumferences of a sphere". Time to put it into the verses. I took you from the circumferences of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the circumferences of the earth." Makes perfect sense. Correct, tribulation befalls Christians all the time and always has done…but again that is the fault of a lack of devotion to God’s ways. If humanity in general had allowed God’s principles to form the cornerstone of their lives from the beginning there would be no ills to prevent. Regretfully that is not the case, and a correlation can be drawn between a decline in belief and adherence to His values and an increase in the ruination of Creation (ourselves included) which becomes more defined with each generation. All the devoted Christians in existence cannot impel the rest of world to keep a heedful ear of His message if it be against their want to do so. Thus, the devastation will persist. Sin is personal. Your sin is separate from my sin. Why would a devout Christian be punished for another person's sins? Side: yes it is
It doesn’t. That is just how the English language is. The word ‘end’ exists in both the singular and the plural, e.g. the phrase ‘burning the candle at both ends’. "Burning the candle at both ends uses the definition of ends that you rejected. How does this support your case? Use the "full extent" definition in the plurality. Not all forms of a word will have a plurality. The word ‘extent’ however does not exist in the plural case, but that does not therefore signify that in alignment with this phrase an ‘s’ must therefore be added so it becomes ‘extents’: that would be improper grammar. After all, ‘extent’ merely pertains to the distance or the degree of something, neither of which have the letter ‘s’ attached, yet the weight of meaning is hardly diminished. Of course extent cannot be pluralized. This is why I asked you: "How can an object have more than a single full extent?" Well....I knew that already but I am pleased that you now recognise this too :) Go review the comments. You were the one to mention corners as indication of flatness: If I apply Scripture to what you have described then that would perhaps relate to verses such as Isaiah 11:12 where it mentions that 'the scattered people (the Jews) will be assembled from the four corners of the Earth'. The use of the term ‘corners’ might suggest something other than a spherical shape I only mentioned: "Earth flatness (tall trees seen by the whole world)" and "A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit)." Based on the chronology, it seems like I should be pleased that you now recognize this too. Hmm no, not quite; perhaps I can contextualise your reasoning in the form of an orange. In describing its whole appearance one can liken its shape to that of a sphere due to its roundness. However, if one were to divide it into four segments we would now be exposed to its interior and there would new details to consider: for instance one slice would be described as having two points. They could also be termed as ‘ends’ should you opt to measure it along the interior with say, a ruler (width). If you venture a step farther and sever that particular slice again you would get something of a 90 degree angle (or a ‘corner’ to give a generic term). To you these details would indicate a non-spherical object, but in their entirety they are sphere. Depends on how much you take into account. Notice how far you have to twist in order to justify your interpretation? There is no mention of slicing the Earth in the Bible. If people approach it with a comprehensive eye then there is. In response to your next sentence circumference is still relevant because its only application is to that of a circle ‘the boundary line’, no other shape (as its name suggests). Therefore, as that shape, the Earth has a circumference which would include finding the length of measurement. A sphere only has one circumference. How does this relate to "end" referring to "circumference" if the verse uses "ends"? "Ends of a sphere" would translate into "circumferences of a sphere". Time to put it into the verses. I took you from the circumferences of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the circumferences of the earth." Makes perfect sense. Correct, tribulation befalls Christians all the time and always has done…but again that is the fault of a lack of devotion to God’s ways. If humanity in general had allowed God’s principles to form the cornerstone of their lives from the beginning there would be no ills to prevent. Regretfully that is not the case, and a correlation can be drawn between a decline in belief and adherence to His values and an increase in the ruination of Creation (ourselves included) which becomes more defined with each generation. All the devoted Christians in existence cannot impel the rest of world to keep a heedful ear of His message if it be against their want to do so. Thus, the devastation will persist. Sin is personal. Your sin is separate from my sin. Why would a devout Christian be punished for another person's sins? Side: yes it is
"Burning the candle at both ends uses the definition of ends that you rejected. How does this support your case? Um no, I have not rejected the definition of end in either form – it was the word ‘extents’ if you review. Use the "full extent" definition in the plurality. Not all forms of a word will have a plurality. You have essentially answered your own query here. Of course extent cannot be pluralized. This is why I asked you: "How can an object have more than a single full extent?" Hence why I replied ‘It doesn’t’. A full extent is a full extent, it concerns everything as a whole. One is sufficient. Go review the comments. You were the one to mention corners as indication of flatness: If I apply Scripture to what you have described then that would perhaps relate to verses such as Isaiah 11:12 where it mentions that 'the scattered people (the Jews) will be assembled from the four corners of the Earth'. The use of the term ‘corners’ might suggest something other than a spherical shape. You present a rather mistaken review of the comments I see, so yes I did review them myself. Firstly, as can even be seen by the point of mine you quoted, there is absolutely no use of the word ‘flatness’ in what I said. Secondly, you cannot just feature half of it: that was a point made in a bid to elucidate the issue of extracting verses from their entirety of context, hence why it was followed by this: “but when you look at Revelation 7:1 which describes angels ‘standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds’- this gives the wider context of cardinal direction (north, south, east, west= 4). Still, this does not actually state the Earth’s shape in the way Isaiah 40:22 does”. I only mentioned: "Earth flatness (tall trees seen by the whole world)" and "A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit)." Not true, the preceding statement to your latter quote read: “We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel)”. The mention of said word came from you, not me; all of my arguments have opposed the notion of flatness. Based on the chronology, it seems like I should be pleased that you now recognize this too. Well now that the comments have been reviewed correctly I am inclined to disagree. Notice how far you have to twist in order to justify your interpretation? There is no mention of slicing the Earth in the Bible. What I have noticed is how far I have had to dissect something straightforward in order to highlight the flaws in a negligent rationale, particularly when your focus is myopic. Case in point “Corners and ends do not indicate flatness, they indicate a non-spherical object”. Because you decline to analyse things in their entirety this would to you represent a valid observation, but my argument (as has been from the beginning) is that this does not necessarily apply to the Earth’s contour. If anyone describes the Earth’s shape they will describe it as spherical or round, but we can also accept that it has four points (cardinal direction), hence ‘the four winds’ as well as the capacity for measurement (to obtain its circumference the line of measurement would need to have an end). Therefore, it does not now mean that the Earth’s shape has changed in description. This explanation did not appear to register so I decided to resort to a small scale one by exemplifying an orange in direct response to this point of yours. A sphere only has one circumference. How does this relate to "end" referring to "circumference" if the verse uses "ends"? My explanation of this would be identical to that of the one concerning the word ‘extent’. Refer back. "Ends of a sphere" would translate into "circumferences of a sphere". Time to put it into the verses. I took you from the circumferences of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the circumferences of the earth." Makes perfect sense. Considering the time the Bible was written, your little ‘adjustments’ are hardly necessary. It is good that you revised the appropriate Bible verses however because they illustrate the argument of mine that has been exhausted due to repetition. “From its farthest corners I called you” – the word ‘farthest’ refers to maximum distance. “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." – precisely that: delivering the Lord’s message all over the Earth. So yes, it makes perfect sense. Sin is personal. Your sin is separate from my sin. Why would a devout Christian be punished for another person's sins? That is not what I was insinuating. Of course sin is personal, I am not answerable for your sins any more than you are for mine so we are not going to be punished for each others. As human beings we are given to erring ways, and as such even Christians can fall prey. What I was saying was that because sin is now inherent in the world, grief and hardship would never be far behind for its inhabitants and again Christians are included in that. They are an unfortunate consequence of man’s wrongful behaviour, but that does not always indicate that their manifestation was punishment from God (if that is perhaps what you were getting at). Side: yes it is
Hence why I replied ‘It doesn’t’. A full extent is a full extent, it concerns everything as a whole. One is sufficient. Then what does "ends of the sphere" mean? If it was using the "full extent" definition, it would be "end of the sphere". You present a rather mistaken review of the comments I see, so yes I did review them myself. Firstly, as can even be seen by the point of mine you quoted, there is absolutely no use of the word ‘flatness’ in what I said. Secondly, you cannot just feature half of it: that was a point made in a bid to elucidate the issue of extracting verses from their entirety of context, hence why it was followed by this: “but when you look at Revelation 7:1 which describes angels ‘standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds’- this gives the wider context of cardinal direction (north, south, east, west= 4). Still, this does not actually state the Earth’s shape in the way Isaiah 40:22 does”. You implied that I brought up corners and ends as an indication of flatness, when I actually brought up the tall tree as evidence. I quoted the first mention of corners which was by you. I did mention ends first, but that was "A sphere does not have ends". Not true, the preceding statement to your latter quote read: “We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel)”. The mention of said word came from you, not me; all of my arguments have opposed the notion of flatness. Yes. Flatness from the tall trees. Unhindered line of sight is only possible on flat terrain. Combine that with the ends of the Earth, we can infer that the Earth is not a sphere and that it is flat. By the way, the fact that the dream was inspired/dictated by God should mean it is infallible. Why would the dictation by divine inspiration in Daniel be inaccurate, if you claim that it is accurate in throughout the entire Bible? Considering the time the Bible was written, your little ‘adjustments’ are hardly necessary. It is good that you revised the appropriate Bible verses however because they illustrate the argument of mine that has been exhausted due to repetition. “From its farthest corners I called you” – the word ‘farthest’ refers to maximum distance. “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." – precisely that: delivering the Lord’s message all over the Earth. So yes, it makes perfect sense. You suggested the use of circumference instead of end. Just inserted it to show you how ridiculous it sounds. It also does not make perfect sense because you cannot have multiple full extents. The proper usage would have been "to the end of the Earth." As human beings we are given to erring ways, and as such even Christians can fall prey. What I was saying was that because sin is now inherent in the world, grief and hardship would never be far behind for its inhabitants and again Christians are included in that. They are an unfortunate consequence of man’s wrongful behaviour, but that does not always indicate that their manifestation was punishment from God (if that is perhaps what you were getting at). So, grief and hardships are not punishment for lack of devotion, but "a correlation can be drawn between a decline in belief and adherence to His values and an increase in the ruination of Creation (ourselves included) which becomes more defined with each generation. All the devoted Christians in existence cannot impel the rest of world to keep a heedful ear of His message if it be against their want to do so. Thus, the devastation will persist." How does this contradiction work? Side: no its not
Then what does "ends of the sphere" mean? If it was using the "full extent" definition, it would be "end of the sphere". No. To review: the word ‘end’ exists in pluralistic form. The word ‘extent’ does not. In the same way you can also use the idiom ‘I had gone to great lengths’: another word in pluralistic form, yet still it bears the same basis as ‘He had changed to a great extent’. Both are a large exercise of action, thus the grammatical category in such a context is immaterial because it does not alter the meaning. You implied that I brought up corners and ends as an indication of flatness, when I actually brought up the tall tree as evidence. I quoted the first mention of corners which was by you. No. I only attributed the word ‘ends’ to you as an indication of flatness as evidenced by the quoted section of your argument beginning ‘We can infer…’ .Nor did I repudiate my mentioning the word ‘corners’ first; rather it was your attempt to associate this mention with your notion of flatness that I was against. The tall tree also did not stand as evidence because, as pointed out quite a while back in our conversation it arose from a dream, not reality. I did mention ends first, but that was "A sphere does not have ends". You are correct….to an extent. Don’t forget what preceded it. Yes. Flatness from the tall trees. Unhindered line of sight is only possible on flat terrain. Combine that with the ends of the Earth, we can infer that the Earth is not a sphere and that it is flat. Wait…. so you are now asserting that the Earth is flat?? Words fail me. By the way, the fact that the dream was inspired/dictated by God should mean it is infallible. Why would the dictation by divine inspiration in Daniel be inaccurate, if you claim that it is accurate in throughout the entire Bible? Goodness, I thought we had been over this. You have simply rephrased your notion that the dream contained ‘erroneous information’, remember? Please scroll back up and re-read my response. You suggested the use of circumference instead of end. Just inserted it to show you how ridiculous it sounds No. I talked about circumference, but the exchange of end for this was your doing and something I classed as unnecessary; your decision was ridiculous. To measure the circumference of the Earth means to commence measurement from the centre and continue to the uttermost part (thus to obtain the answer the measurement would need to end at some point). Since I imagine you will attempt to distort my explanation somehow I will explain further in as plain a way as possible: No, just because we have one measurement for the Earth does not mean we need others to pluralise the word ‘circumference’. If you revise the same method of measurement a thousand times you will still get the same amount of km so there is no need. No, this does not now mean that the Earth only has one end because unlike circumference the word ‘end’ does not specifically pertain to unit measurement, simply to the farthest possible point. This also means that it’s usage is versatile enough to be incorporated into various contexts. Therefore, no, this still does not mean that the Bible is wrong. In the Biblical context, when said disciples were told by Jesus to witness to the ends of the Earth, if they were to begin in the centre (their homeland) and travel to the ends of the Earth, this would be them travelling to the farthest possible point, meaning everywhere, meaning ceaselessness in their efforts until all/whole/full extent of the Earth is reached with His message, so no place unvisited. So, grief and hardships are not punishment for lack of devotion, but "a correlation can be drawn between a decline in belief and adherence to His values and an increase in the ruination of Creation (ourselves included) which becomes more defined with each generation. All the devoted Christians in existence cannot impel the rest of world to keep a heedful ear of His message if it be against their want to do so. Thus, the devastation will persist." How does this contradiction work? It has the air of a contradiction because yet again you have severed an explanation in two and adopted one half as the basis for your query. I firstly stated that as human beings observe His values less and less with every coming generation, the prevalence of sin has increased. Grief and hardship are by-products of sin and as I said they can befall anyone and everyone, including Christians…BUT they are not always a punishment from God. A Christian may be as noble as can be in how they conduct themselves in accordance with Biblical principles, so evidently if God is happy with them He would not be out to punish them. Yet still they may receive tribulation. Sometimes it is a matter of love and faith. For instance, the words ‘I love you’ come very easily to a satiated tongue whose owner is showered with gifts and has every whim catered to without fail, but the capacity for true love does not only stretch to the ‘nice and finer’ things in life. That would make it too effortless an act. It includes the darker periods too that edge far from rosiness. It is about finding your way through the thorns and emerging from the other side with your love unaffected if it means you can still have that person in your life. As I’m sure you can agree, people can be very superficial when it comes to such matters and again I include Christians too. So yes, the trials experienced may not have been intended, but with how things are, sometimes God will employ them as an opportunity to strengthen the mettle of those affected and build trust in Him to deliver them out of it. “And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you” (1 Peter 5:10). Side: yes it is
No. To review: the word ‘end’ exists in pluralistic form. The word ‘extent’ does not. In the same way you can also use the idiom ‘I had gone to great lengths’: another word in pluralistic form, yet still it bears the same basis as ‘He had changed to a great extent’. Both are a large exercise of action, thus the grammatical category in such a context is immaterial because it does not alter the meaning. The word "end" exists in pluralistic form for specific definitions. You have not used "ends" based on the "full extent" definition in one example yet. This is probably the fourth time I've asked you to come up with an example for this specific usage. "Gone to great lengths" is plural because it refers to the fact that an individual would go to several different lengths in order to achieve something. This is still not an example using "ends" in the context of "full extent". The tall tree also did not stand as evidence because, as pointed out quite a while back in our conversation it arose from a dream, not reality. A dream dictated/inspired by God and transcribed by man. Why would a dream dictated by God be in error? Wait…. so you are now asserting that the Earth is flat?? Words fail me. I have always asserted that the Earth was flat because of the line of sight. You suggested that I was basing it on ends and corners instead. Goodness, I thought we had been over this. You have simply rephrased your notion that the dream contained ‘erroneous information’, remember? Please scroll back up and re-read my response. Ok. The accuracy of the dream is debatable. What about Matthew 4:8? The Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. No. I talked about circumference, but the exchange of end for this was your doing and something I classed as unnecessary; your decision was ridiculous. Actually, you indicated that "ends of the Earth" could mean circumference of the Earth. Your comment is below. Nevertheless, something also perhaps worth considering in light of this (as I mentioned with the ‘corners’), is measurement: ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth which in definition would concern the limits/boundary of it which dovetails with what Bible describes. When in the correct context nothing is justified, it just ‘is’. You also seem to ignore Isaiah 41:9, "I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you." You claimed corners referenced the cardinal directions, so what does "farthest cardinal direction" mean and how does it relate to the "full extent of the earth"? Side: no its not
The word "end" exists in pluralistic form for specific definitions. You have not used "ends" based on the "full extent" definition in one example yet. This is probably the fourth time I've asked you to come up with an example for this specific usage. And this is probably the fourth time I am telling you that it is of no consequence. ‘Full extent’ can refer to either singular or pluralistic form. You were trying to assign a pluralistic status to the word ‘extent’ (adding an ‘s’) based on the one ‘ends’ and I was saying that in this context it was unnecessary because the definition still does not change. Whether you have seen ‘an end’ to something or you have seen something at both ends either way it still means you have seen the full extent of it. "Gone to great lengths" is plural because it refers to the fact that an individual would go to several different lengths in order to achieve something. This is still not an example using "ends" in the context of "full extent". Continuing from my first point: I used ‘gone to great lengths’ to illustrate that even in pluralistic form it still translates into the magnitude of effort exercised. I was not necessarily comparing it to the word ‘ends’; I was just showing you how it tallies with ‘to a great extent’ , but whereas the former uses plural, the latter does not, but the definition is no different. Your claim was that because the word ‘ends’ exists we should therefore have the word ‘extents’ to parallel and that is what I was disputing. A dream dictated/inspired by God and transcribed by man. Why would a dream dictated by God be in error? It wasn’t. I have always asserted that the Earth was flat because of the line of sight. You suggested that I was basing it on ends and corners instead. That is precisely my point. Your assertion is not one I would have associated with someone living in contemporary society with what has been discovered about the Earth’s shape; are you sure you meant to say that? Moreover, I have already said you were basing said assertion primarily on ends, NOT corners. Ok. The accuracy of the dream is debatable. Nope. What about Matthew 4:8? The Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. Yes, in an endeavour to tempt Him into turning on God and swearing allegiance to him the devil. What was it you were trying to ask here? Actually, you indicated that "ends of the Earth" could mean circumference of the Earth. Your comment is below. Nevertheless, something also perhaps worth considering in light of this (as I mentioned with the ‘corners’), is measurement: ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth which in definition would concern the limits/boundary of it which dovetails with what Bible describes. When in the correct context nothing is justified, it just ‘is’. Yes, in response to your foremost argument. You opined that ends indicate flatness and consequently meant the Bible was incorrect and to me that was a very narrow perception. Since this is principally about the Earth I mentioned circumference because that requires the measurement of distance in circular objects, the Earth being one of them, as explained in the above quote. As I even stated in my last post to obtain a measurement of any kind there needs to be a point of end as there is with the Earth, but this still does not mean that the Earth is flat as you supposed. So I was not disputing that; what I was disputing were your efforts to alter Biblical text by substituting the word ‘ends’ for the word ‘circumferences’, and the fact that the latter does not exist in pluralistic form so is therefore unnecessary. It was an explanation to your counters, not a suggestion, as you put it. You also seem to ignore Isaiah 41:9, "I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you." I do not see how you can accuse me of ignoring Isaiah 41:9 when I was the one who referenced it in the first instance and have cited it more than once in my explanations (even when you quoted it). You claimed corners referenced the cardinal directions, so what does "farthest cardinal direction" mean and how does it relate to the "full extent of the earth"? As far in that direction as possible. So to the northernmost, southernmost, easternmost and westernmost points until you can venture no further: the full extremity. Side: yes it is
And this is probably the fourth time I am telling you that it is of no consequence. ‘Full extent’ can refer to either singular or pluralistic form. You were trying to assign a pluralistic status to the word ‘extent’ (adding an ‘s’) based on the one ‘ends’ and I was saying that in this context it was unnecessary because the definition still does not change. Whether you have seen ‘an end’ to something or you have seen something at both ends either way it still means you have seen the full extent of it. You still refuse to give a valid example. If it is of no consequence, then just provide an example. Continuing from my first point: I used ‘gone to great lengths’ to illustrate that even in pluralistic form it still translates into the magnitude of effort exercised. I was not necessarily comparing it to the word ‘ends’; I was just showing you how it tallies with ‘to a great extent’ , but whereas the former uses plural, the latter does not, but the definition is no different. Your claim was that because the word ‘ends’ exists we should therefore have the word ‘extents’ to parallel and that is what I was disputing. You are arguing semantics without even accounting for context. "Great lengths" refers to multiple lengths, end just refers to the full extent. Until you can provide a single valid example, your entire claim is for this specific usage is unsupported. That is precisely my point. Your assertion is not one I would have associated with someone living in contemporary society with what has been discovered about the Earth’s shape; are you sure you meant to say that? Moreover, I have already said you were basing said assertion primarily on ends, NOT corners. Line of sight has to do with seeing the entire world from a tall tree or seeing all the kingdoms of the world from a tall mountain. It has nothing to do with ends. A flat Earth allows for unlimited line of sight, a spherical Earth does not. Yes, in an endeavour to tempt Him into turning on God and swearing allegiance to him the devil. What was it you were trying to ask here? Matthew 4:8 has the same issue as Daniel 4:11. You cannot see the entire world from a tall tree or mountain if the world is a sphere. It only works for a flat surface. You should go back and read my comments again. Flatness has to do with line of sight not ends. Yes, in response to your foremost argument. You opined that ends indicate flatness I indicated that ends indicated a non-spherical shape because spheres do not have ends. You are still confused about the difference between line of sight and ends. Since this is principally about the Earth I mentioned circumference because that requires the measurement of distance in circular objects, the Earth being one of them, as explained in the above quote. As I even stated in my last post to obtain a measurement of any kind there needs to be a point of end as there is with the Earth, but this still does not mean that the Earth is flat as you supposed. So I was not disputing that; what I was disputing were your efforts to alter Biblical text by substituting the word ‘ends’ for the word ‘circumferences’, and the fact that the latter does not exist in pluralistic form so is therefore unnecessary. It was an explanation to your counters, not a suggestion, as you put it. You mentioned circumference as an alternative way to explain "ends of the Earth". " ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth" What does pertain mean to you? As far in that direction as possible. So to the northernmost, southernmost, easternmost and westernmost points until you can venture no further: the full extremity. Based on conventional cartography, you can always venture further east or west. It makes no sense. Side: yes it is
You are arguing semantics without even accounting for context. "Great lengths" refers to multiple lengths, end just refers to the full extent. Until you can provide a single valid example, your entire claim is for this specific usage is unsupported. Right, just to review: this entire section of argument commenced with you asserting that the word ‘end’ as full extent only worked for singular case and that therefore the word ‘ends’ would translate to ‘full extents’ . I provided an idiom earlier: ‘Burning the candle at both ends’ – this is used figuratively to emphasize extreme effort of activity with little to no rest. You are using the 'full extent' of your energy. If you even take it in the literal sense you are again setting fire to the full extent of the candle. If you 'hold a rope at both ends' you are holding the rope at its full extent – NOT full extents, just full extent. If you see 'a light at the end of the tunnel', taking this in the literal setting you would need to travel the full extent of the tunnel in order to reach said light. End and/or Ends = Full Extent. This notion of the singular and plural is the very thing you were endeavouring to dispute and I do not believe I have deviated in addressing it. Line of sight has to do with seeing the entire world from a tall tree or seeing all the kingdoms of the world from a tall mountain. It has nothing to do with ends. A flat Earth allows for unlimited line of sight, a spherical Earth does not. To reiterate the tall tree reference was a dream, thus it was not physical. Another previous mention: the unlimited line of sight does not apply to human perspective (we do not possess that quality). It applies to God’s perspective because it is His sight which extends in totality. Something to be mindful of is this: because God is a supernatural being (and that is His primary operative), His word is not merely comprised of physical detail, but also spiritual detail: dreams and visions form part of this. Everything He does bears that undercurrent; therefore, if people mistake spiritual aspects like the aforementioned (particularly without looking at the entire section) then they are going to misidentify contradictions as you have done, hence why I keep talking about context (not eschewing it as you do and accuse me of doing). Matthew 4:8 has the same issue as Daniel 4:11. You cannot see the entire world from a tall tree or mountain if the world is a sphere. It only works for a flat surface. You should go back and read my comments again. Flatness has to do with line of sight not ends. Thank you for elaborating. This is much akin to my prior point: ‘Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory’. In being committed to human form, Jesus became like us, meaning He would not have been able to actually view the world in its entirety from anywhere, let alone a high mountain. His physical vision was capped and the devil, also being supernatural, knew this. Therefore, what he showed Jesus was most likely a vision of the kingdoms, in the same way that figures throughout the Bible have dreams and visions which represent the communication of the spiritual world. Moreover, taking Him up an exceedingly high mountain would have just served to amplify the intensity and allure of the vision for Jesus, an additional tool the devil would use to assist his method of temptation. This was particularly important as the devil had already made two earlier attempts to entice Jesus (the wilderness and the top of a temple) and both had been to no avail so he decided to hitch things up a notch. So this still bears no semblance to the Earth’s contour as it exists or to the notion of it being flat. I indicated that ends indicated a non-spherical shape because spheres do not have ends. You are still confused about the difference between line of sight and ends. Hmmm…no, I think you are rather: ‘We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel). A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit)’. That is the full context of your point – you mentioned them both as you can see. ‘Combine that with the ends of the Earth, we can infer that the Earth is not a sphere and that it is flat’. ‘Flatness has to do with the line of sight, not ends’ I was only running with what you presented me, however since your sentiment has now changed which is it? You mentioned circumference as an alternative way to explain "ends of the Earth". " ‘ends of the Earth’ could easily pertain to the circumference of the Earth" What does pertain mean to you? My criticism was of the grammatical form you assigned to the word, i.e. circumference with an ‘s’, that was not necessary because circumference does not exist in the plural. I was not disputing my intention as quoted above. It was an explanation to support my refutation of your claim regarding alleged Biblical errors and I used ‘circumference’ in its only existing form which is the singular. To reiterate, I was not and have not disowned my intention. Nevertheless, if this was previously unclear then I do apologise: you may be under no illusion now of what I meant. You mentioned that a sphere cannot have ends; going on that wavelength I took ‘ends of the earth’ and mentioned circumference (expounding further in my example of oranges later on). As I have maintained all along, you cannot simply pick out random verses from the Bible, throw them together and then claim that they contradict one another. The rudiment of any analysis is to account for all aspects i.e. context. If one refuses to do this then their findings seem less informed by fairness of approach, and more informed by prior skepticism of belief. The same way if one person notes that they saw a man standing at a bus stop and another notes that they saw him seated at a bus stop we cannot suddenly argue that both accounts are inconsistent without looking at the larger picture. Then when you do that you perhaps discover that the man had been standing at the bus stop for some time in awaiting the bus’ arrival and thereafter decided to sit down as he wanted to rest and there were seats at the bus stop. Thus, the accounts bear equal validity because both actions happened; they do not nullify each other. Based on conventional cartography, you can always venture further east or west. It makes no sense. But we use that terminology all the time – they are referred to as ‘extreme points’. The southernmost point of the Earth is the South Pole (Antarctica) so you would have to have passed everywhere else in the south in order to reach there. I fail to see how this is nonsensical. Side: yes it is
Right, just to review: this entire section of argument commenced with you asserting that the word ‘end’ as full extent only worked for singular case and that therefore the word ‘ends’ would translate to ‘full extents’ . I provided an idiom earlier: ‘Burning the candle at both ends’ – this is used figuratively to emphasize extreme effort of activity with little to no rest. You are using the 'full extent' of your energy. If you even take it in the literal sense you are again setting fire to the full extent of the candle. If you 'hold a rope at both ends' you are holding the rope at its full extent – NOT full extents, just full extent. If you see 'a light at the end of the tunnel', taking this in the literal setting you would need to travel the full extent of the tunnel in order to reach said light. End and/or Ends = Full Extent. This notion of the singular and plural is the very thing you were endeavouring to dispute and I do not believe I have deviated in addressing it. 1. the last part or extremity, lengthwise, of anything that is longer than it is wide or broad: the end of a street; the end of a rope. 2. a point, line, or limitation that indicates the full extent, degree, etc., of something; limit; bounds: kindness without end; to walk from end to end of a city. 3. a part or place at or adjacent to an extremity: at the end of the table; the west end of town. 4. the furthermost imaginable place or point: an island at the very end of the world. Those examples all the use the definition of #1. Notice the same example of "end of a rope" and "end of a street" (similar to tunnel). Your claim is that "ends of the Earth" is #2. You still have not provided a single example of "ends" using the definition from #2. You keep providing examples using #1. A candle, a piece of rope, and a tunnel all have a length and an extremity. #1 A sphere does not have a component that represents "an extremity, lengthwise, of anything that is longer than it is wide or broad". Not #1. The only one of your interpretations that was close was a slice, which would have end points. The problem with that interpretation is that would suggest the world was a slice of a sphere and not a sphere. To reiterate the tall tree reference was a dream, thus it was not physical. Another previous mention: the unlimited line of sight does not apply to human perspective (we do not possess that quality). It applies to God’s perspective because it is His sight which extends in totality. Something to be mindful of is this: because God is a supernatural being (and that is His primary operative), His word is not merely comprised of physical detail, but also spiritual detail: dreams and visions form part of this. Everything He does bears that undercurrent; therefore, if people mistake spiritual aspects like the aforementioned (particularly without looking at the entire section) then they are going to misidentify contradictions as you have done, hence why I keep talking about context (not eschewing it as you do and accuse me of doing). The tall tree was from the perspective of a human king, not God. I bet your twist would be that it was a vision given to King Neb by God which would allow the king to view the world from an unlimited divine perspective. Thank you for elaborating. This is much akin to my prior point: ‘Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory’. In being committed to human form, Jesus became like us, meaning He would not have been able to actually view the world in its entirety from anywhere, let alone a high mountain. His physical vision was capped and the devil, also being supernatural, knew this. Therefore, what he showed Jesus was most likely a vision of the kingdoms, in the same way that figures throughout the Bible have dreams and visions which represent the communication of the spiritual world. Moreover, taking Him up an exceedingly high mountain would have just served to amplify the intensity and allure of the vision for Jesus, an additional tool the devil would use to assist his method of temptation. This was particularly important as the devil had already made two earlier attempts to entice Jesus (the wilderness and the top of a temple) and both had been to no avail so he decided to hitch things up a notch. So this still bears no semblance to the Earth’s contour as it exists or to the notion of it being flat. Taking him up to a high mountain was pointless if he was not even going to look around. If the devil was just going to produce a vision of the kingdoms for him to see, it could have been done on the ground. The devil could have set the perspective of the visions from the bird's eye view and still "amplify the intensity and allure of the vision". By the way, this interpretation that the Devil showed Jesus a vision instead of the actual landscape is a fairly slanted interpretation. He did not present him with supernatural visions in the other tests. He starved Jesus for 40 days and told him to jump off of a temple. He used the physical location of the dessert and the temple for the other tests, but chose to not use the mountain for the third test? ‘We can infer flatness by various references to ends of the Earth or unhindered line of sight (not dreams or from the book of Daniel). A sphere does not have ends nor can a line of sight extend infinitely on a sphere (unless if gravity was strong enough to bend light into an orbit)’. That is the full context of your point – you mentioned them both as you can see. ‘Combine that with the ends of the Earth, we can infer that the Earth is not a sphere and that it is flat’. ‘Flatness has to do with the line of sight, not ends’ Yes. Combined with line of sight. Ends alone does not suggest flatness. Ends just indicates that the shape is not a sphere. You mentioned that a sphere cannot have ends; going on that wavelength I took ‘ends of the earth’ and mentioned circumference (expounding further in my example of oranges later on). As I have maintained all along, you cannot simply pick out random verses from the Bible, throw them together and then claim that they contradict one another. I claimed the verses contradicted physical observations of the world not each other. I pointed out that various verses supported one another in these contradictions. In addition, you example of orange slices does not make sense at all. If the shape of the Earth is a sphere, why would the reference be regarding a slice of a sphere. That orange slice interpretation would only work if the Earth was a slice. But we use that terminology all the time – they are referred to as ‘extreme points’. The southernmost point of the Earth is the South Pole (Antarctica) so you would have to have passed everywhere else in the south in order to reach there. I fail to see how this is nonsensical. I specifically pointed to east and west, but you use an example of the South Pole. There is no western/eastern extremity. Side: yes it is
1. the last part or extremity, lengthwise, of anything that is longer than it is wide or broad: the end of a street; the end of a rope. 2. a point, line, or limitation that indicates the full extent, degree, etc., of something; limit; bounds: kindness without end; to walk from end to end of a city. 3. a part or place at or adjacent to an extremity: at the end of the table; the west end of town. 4. the furthermost imaginable place or point: an island at the very end of the world. Those examples all the use the definition of #1. Notice the same example of "end of a rope" and "end of a street" (similar to tunnel). Streets exist in cities. To walk from end to end of a city you would need to walk along its streets. Same principle applied. Your claim is that "ends of the Earth" is #2. On the basis of my first answer ‘ends of the Earth’ could fit into any of these, with your #4 example bearing the strongest resemblance. I am somewhat surprised you gave this as an example though, particularly since it seems to encompass the very aspect of my argument you have refuted repeatedly in relation to the Bible. You still have not provided a single example of "ends" using the definition from #2. You keep providing examples using #1. Right……. So, pray, what is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extremity’ (#1) and ‘limit/bounds’ (#2), when both exist as synonyms for the other and are thus interchangeable? What is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extent’ and the word ‘length’ when the latter exists as a synonym of the former along with the words: degree, scale, level, range, scope and area? What is the difference in meaning between ‘walking from end to end of a city’ and ‘walking from end to end of a tunnel’ other than the place in question? The definition primarily concerns the action, not the place or the object. If you traverse either you would be described as having walked the full extent of both and you would have walked a certain distance. To measure said distance would be to measure the length of your journey. A candle, a piece of rope, and a tunnel all have a length and an extremity. #1 As do cities. As do towns. As does the world. Otherwise we would not have measurements for them. You cannot examine the length without obtaining the distance - the two are entwined. A sphere does not have a component that represents "an extremity, lengthwise, of anything that is longer than it is wide or broad". Not #1. Bearing in mind the ‘area’ examples you provided all exist inside one big sphere, but I suppose this is inconsequential if you are effectively positing that a sphere does not have the capacity for measurement. In a bid to reel this back to your central argument, what specifically does any of this have to do with the apparent flatness of the Earth? The only one of your interpretations that was close was a slice, which would have end points. :O But an orange in its wholeness is a sphere! Does this not counter your preceding point? The problem with that interpretation is that would suggest the world was a slice of a sphere and not a sphere. How so? You would need to measure the orange from its interior in the same way you would with the Earth. That does not mean the rest of the Earth, or the rest of the orange is non-existent just because we are concerning ourselves with measuring distance. The tall tree was from the perspective of a human king, not God. I bet your twist would be that it was a vision given to King Neb by God which would allow the king to view the world from an unlimited divine perspective. “These were the visions of my head while on my bed” [Daniel 4:10]……You mean like what is actually recorded in the Bible? Right. Furthermore are you implying that, should someone have a dream where they have grown wings and can fly like a bird it is an accurate picture of how human beings physically experience things in reality? Excuse my incredulity. Taking him up to a high mountain was pointless if he was not even going to look around. If the devil was just going to produce a vision of the kingdoms for him to see, it could have been done on the ground. The devil could have set the perspective of the visions from the bird's eye view and still "amplify the intensity and allure of the vision". Yes he could have done, but by this stage he probably thought that would be too small an approach to take. Comparable to, say, you having never been to the top of a skyscraper like The Shard and a friend visits there and relays to you the magnificent view from the tip: the account may conceive a positive impression in your head about the scene but this would ultimately not be cemented until you’d ventured all the way there and experienced it for yourself. Also the good view acquired from half way would be automatically enhanced as you reached closer the top. Sometimes when we are on the periphery of decision-making, time, place and perspective can serve as the ultimate nudge in propelling us to make said decision: the same tactic was being employed here. It was of especial importance to the devil because it was something of a last resort - therefore, it could not be enough to simply feature perspective; he would need to magnify his influence by manipulating all possible factors such as locomotion i.e. Jesus engaging in the act of walking higher and higher up the mountain. This way, the devil hoped that the amalgamation of the vision’s content and the physical sensation of the mountainous surface would work in his [devil’s] favour. By the way, this interpretation that the Devil showed Jesus a vision instead of the actual landscape is a fairly slanted interpretation. He did not present him with supernatural visions in the other tests. He starved Jesus for 40 days and told him to jump off of a temple. He used the physical location of the dessert and the temple for the other tests, but chose to not use the mountain for the third test? All of the physical locations were utilised but each of them served a different purpose. On the first occasion the devil was trying to experiment with Jesus’ physical status as a human being and the wilderness was used to create desperation. Nutriment is a basic requirement for human beings and by leading him into such a remote area (where the likely of procuring sustenance was highly improbable), he thought in desperation Jesus might choose His physical need over His righteousness of spirit and yield to him the devil. However, that was unsuccessful. The second occasion saw the devil then attempt to test Jesus’ spiritual status as the Son of God by urging Him to jump off the tip of a temple so that the angels would descend and save Him. The temple was used as means of performing said action. Again however, this proved ineffective as Jesus recognised it would be tempting God for the sake of it, a disrespectful action to His Father. The third saw the devil trying to appeal to His royal birthright: Jesus is Christ the King and in considering His humble beginnings in the physical sense (born in stable), the devil thought that by allowing Jesus to actually view all of the potential power and opulence He technically should have as King, it would overwhelm Him and He would consequently capitulate. The vision was the principle tool, but as a physical location the mountain served to enhance its effect. Yes. Combined with line of sight. Ends alone does not suggest flatness. Ends just indicates that the shape is not a sphere. The point is that you were pressing this from the beginning, only to then in your prior post deny that ‘ends’ had any relationship with flatness, whether fully or partially. I followed along with this in my arguments, only for you to then claim that I was confused as to the difference between line of sight and ends when it was your doing, not mine. I claimed the verses contradicted physical observations of the world not each other. I pointed out that various verses supported one another in these contradictions. I had highlighted the Earth’s shape described in Isaiah 40 which is consistent with physical observation and you believed this was contradicted by ostensible references to flatness, the latter being a misread on your part. In addition, you example of orange slices does not make sense at all. If the shape of the Earth is a sphere, why would the reference be regarding a slice of a sphere. That orange slice interpretation would only work if the Earth was a slice. The conclusion you have derived from it is what escapes sense. Once you slice an orange you are exposed to its interior, right? Therefore, any measurements you obtain from the interior translate to the orange as a whole. We evidently cannot walk across an orange so this is why I used slices as a small scale comparison. We do not need to sever the Earth in half to form segments because we live in it; we would simply travel to the farthest point of either side and measure the distance from there. Therefore, the orange (like any other sphere in existence) mirrors the Earth in having a circumference, a diameter and a radius. The slice is a minute detail: what is of central importance are the measurements. I specifically pointed to east and west, but you use an example of the South Pole. There is no western/eastern extremity. Yes I concede I should have tallied my response more in line with your point. The western and easternmost points are both islands if we take the International Date Line. Even so, if I take your earlier point on this matter, one would still cover the Earth in its entirety so it needn’t be out of keeping with the 'full extent' concept. At some stage you would reach far in the east and if you proceeded with your journey you may very well reach it again. Side: yes it is
Streets exist in cities. To walk from end to end of a city you would need to walk along its streets. Same principle applied. Those two "end" refer to different definitions. They are not the same principally. It would be like saying "leading a march" and "leading a team" are the same principally. They share the same word, but have different usages based on different definitions. The "ends" in "ends of the Earth" would only have one definition/interpretation, unless if you are suggesting that it is a double entendre. On the basis of my first answer ‘ends of the Earth’ could fit into any of these, with your #4 example bearing the strongest resemblance. I am somewhat surprised you gave this as an example though, particularly since it seems to encompass the very aspect of my argument you have refuted repeatedly in relation to the Bible. If I am interpreting this statement correctly, I believe you are suggesting that verses in the Bible have multiple correct interpretations. This would mean that the Bible itself has multiple correct interpretations. So, pray, what is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extremity’ (#1) and ‘limit/bounds’ (#2), when both exist as synonyms for the other and are thus interchangeable? Read the entire definition. It provides context to those specific words. The extremity in #1 is the lengthwise portion of something that is longer than it is wide or broad. How would that be equivalent to a limit/bounds that indicates the full extent? What is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extent’ and the word ‘length’ when the latter exists as a synonym of the former along with the words: degree, scale, level, range, scope and area? What is the difference in meaning between ‘walking from end to end of a city’ and ‘walking from end to end of a tunnel’ other than the place in question? Same as above. You are isolating words in a definition without regard to context. I think you might be confused about the format of a dictionary. Each number represents a distinct form of usage. As do cities. As do towns. As does the world. Otherwise we would not have measurements for them. You cannot examine the length without obtaining the distance - the two are entwined. A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad. You need to learn how dictionaries work. Bearing in mind the ‘area’ examples you provided all exist inside one big sphere, but I suppose this is inconsequential if you are effectively positing that a sphere does not have the capacity for measurement. In a bid to reel this back to your central argument, what specifically does any of this have to do with the apparent flatness of the Earth? A square is composed of two triangles. When one describes the shape of the square, one generally does not point out that the triangles contained within have three points. In the context of the verses, it makes no sense. When describing the "ends of the Earth", it would not make sense to relegate those "ends" to some arbitrary part of the Earth. This has nothing to do with the original argument. I was just pointing out that your interpretation of orange slices does not work. :O But an orange in its wholeness is a sphere! Does this not counter your preceding point? Refer to the above explanation. How so? You would need to measure the orange from its interior in the same way you would with the Earth. That does not mean the rest of the Earth, or the rest of the orange is non-existent just because we are concerning ourselves with measuring distance. This is because the verse was talking about the measurement of the Earth, not a part of the Earth. “These were the visions of my head while on my bed” [Daniel 4:10]……You mean like what is actually recorded in the Bible? Right. Furthermore are you implying that, should someone have a dream where they have grown wings and can fly like a bird it is an accurate picture of how human beings physically experience things in reality? You claimed that the entire Bible was dictated by God. These dreams/visions were inspired by God. A normal person's dream can be full of random errors. God is perfect, remember? Excuse my incredulity. Yes he could have done, but by this stage he probably thought that would be too small an approach to take. Comparable to, say, you having never been to the top of a skyscraper like The Shard and a friend visits there and relays to you the magnificent view from the tip: the account may conceive a positive impression in your head about the scene but this would ultimately not be cemented until you’d ventured all the way there and experienced it for yourself. Also the good view acquired from half way would be automatically enhanced as you reached closer the top. Jesus had been on several mountains throughout the Bible. I am not sure how this nameless mountain would be different. Sometimes when we are on the periphery of decision-making, time, place and perspective can serve as the ultimate nudge in propelling us to make said decision: the same tactic was being employed here. It was of especial importance to the devil because it was something of a last resort - therefore, it could not be enough to simply feature perspective; he would need to magnify his influence by manipulating all possible factors such as locomotion i.e. Jesus engaging in the act of walking higher and higher up the mountain. This way, the devil hoped that the amalgamation of the vision’s content and the physical sensation of the mountainous surface would work in his [devil’s] favour. So you are saying that the devil can conjure visions into Jesus's mind, but could not emulate the sensation of an extreme altitude as well? What happened to supernatural powers? The vision was the principle tool, but as a physical location the mountain served to enhance its effect. If he wanted to, he could have done the desert and temple stuff all inside of Jesus's mind as well. He didn't. He chose to use a physical desert and a physical temple. Why would he suddenly rely on visions for the last test while still climbing a mountain? The point is that you were pressing this from the beginning, only to then in your prior post deny that ‘ends’ had any relationship with flatness, whether fully or partially. I followed along with this in my arguments, only for you to then claim that I was confused as to the difference between line of sight and ends when it was your doing, not mine. A relationship with flatness does not mean it indicates flatness. For example, let us say I wanted to prove that it was rainy (flat) instead of sunny (spherical) today. Cloudy skies are related to rain, but not indicative of rain. I could use cloudy skies to prove that it was not sunny (not spherical). By the way, this has nothing to do with the actual argument. Same as orange slices. Once you slice an orange you are exposed to its interior, right? Therefore, any measurements you obtain from the interior translate to the orange as a whole. Interior measurements do not translate to the whole. Read the verses. They refer to distances of the Earth, not a part of the Earth. Side: no its not
Those two "end" refer to different definitions. They are not the same principally. It would be like saying "leading a march" and "leading a team" are the same principally. They share the same word, but have different usages based on different definitions. Not necessarily. A march can refer to a group of people the same way a team can, for instance: if someone was leading a march in protest they would typically be leading a group of however many people. If someone was leading a team again that would be a group of however many. The "ends" in "ends of the Earth" would only have one definition/interpretation, unless if you are suggesting that it is a double entendre. Jesus’ parting words when He reappeared to His followers was for them to go into all the world and deliver the gospel. It was a physical as well as a spiritual endeavour. In contemporary society the idiom ‘ends of the Earth’ is used in a more figurative context (e.g. a declaration in the name of love) to emphasize the extent to which they would exercise an action. However, in the Bible’s case it was literal: Jesus wanted even the remotest parts of the world to be enlightened as to His message. The more remote a location is, the fewer its inhabitants and we know such places tend to be found at the very edge of the Earth – or rather: the border, boundary, extremity, limit or end. I would not say it was a double entendre because that would be to suggest an additional implicit meaning quite divorced from the foremost one which is not the case. Despite its wide usage today outside the Biblical context, the meaning has not altered in that it continues to illustrate the extremity of dedication to something or someone. To physically venture to the ends of the Earth you would need complete dedication and to use it in description would indicate the very same. If I am interpreting this statement correctly, I believe you are suggesting that verses in the Bible have multiple correct interpretations. This would mean that the Bible itself has multiple correct interpretations. My answer to this tails off from the preceding one, I suppose. All of the examples you provided regarding the word ‘end’ were physical examples; thus this was what I was alluding to with my response. When it comes to this particular verse there is only one correct interpretation which relates to dedication of a cause. If the verse had simply read: “Go to the ends of the Earth” then perhaps it could be ripe for multiple interpretation. As it was, this expedition was governed by a clear purpose: to deliver the gospel. Therefore, this is not something that can be mistaken for anything else. Again however, the burden of correct interpretation cannot be placed solely on single verses here and there; the following and preceding ones must shoulder it too, otherwise the interpretation more often than not becomes incorrect. Read the entire definition. It provides context to those specific words. The extremity in #1 is the lengthwise portion of something that is longer than it is wide or broad. How would that be equivalent to a limit/bounds that indicates the full extent? Read the entire definition. You are attempting to differentiate the context of word definitions where they are not plausible. Even if something like a tunnel has an extremity in length by virtue of its definition it also has a limit. 1. Extremity – The furthest point or limit of something. 2. Limit – A point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass 3. Extent – The size or scale of something. You are isolating words in a definition without regard to context. I think you might be confused about the format of a dictionary. Each number represents a distinct form of usage. I think you might be confused about the format of the English language. Certain words are interchangeable and versatile enough to maintain the essence of their definition regardless of whatever context they are applied to. The ones we have been discussing are prime examples of this. For instance: if someone has walked to the end of a certain street, they have reached the limit of said street; they cannot go any further without departing it altogether. If someone is at the end of their tether then they have been pushed to the full extent of their temperament. They have reached the extremity of their mental resources. A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad. Length: the linear extent or measurement of something from end to end. So not only are spheres not subject to measurement, these three are not either; nor may they afford the usage of its units (i.e. miles, metres/yards). Guess the scope of Rome can never be determined as it has no extremity. Nor may we ever know the distance from town to town due to their lack of length in proportion to their breadth. Got it. You need to learn how dictionaries work. You need to learn how words work. A square is composed of two triangles. When one describes the shape of the square, one generally does not point out that the triangles contained within have three points. In the context of the verses, it makes no sense. It appears to make no sense because you are not comparing like with like. Every shape in existence has the capacity for measurement, however, the shape of something will always dictate the means of this acquirement. Since the verses in question concern distance, if one wishes to determine the area of say, a square plot of land, they could do so by way of measuring its outline. One could measure the internal triangles if they wanted to, but it would bear little relevance to the established measurement at large so of course people are less likely to mention them. Contrastingly, a circle does not allow for such flexibility when it comes to measurement so we have to rely wholly on obtaining all measurements from its interior - the width, because that is the common feature it shares with every other shape. Consequently this limitation would mean that, unlike its square counterpart, the interior would be the key factor when it comes to determining distance. When describing the "ends of the Earth", it would not make sense to relegate those "ends" to some arbitrary part of the Earth. How could any part of the Earth be arbitrary when the above term concerns it in its entirety? Jesus’ followers would be starting from the centre (i.e. the place where they were given this instruction) and travelling until they had reached so far that they could not possibly venture any further without retracing their steps. Moreover, the notion of arbitrariness is invalid when there was an express purpose for their voyage: the intention to make the gospel reach every part of the Earth, however remote. This is because the verse was talking about the measurement of the Earth, not a part of the Earth. Yes, but it concerns the Earth’s centre, just as with the orange. The end result is still the same in that the measurements of both would translate to the whole sphere. The orange slice measurements, however many, would all be identical due to their evenness of segment, it would not be as though one part is different to another. You claimed that the entire Bible was dictated by God. These dreams/visions were inspired by God. A normal person's dream can be full of random errors. God is perfect, remember? Yes He is perfect. So are His messages, but honestly: what in your mind constitutes ‘error’ in a dream? Dreams and visions are a form of communication from the supernatural to the physical world. Just because the scenarios they present to you are discordant with those experienced in our everyday lives by no means indicates that they are erroneous. As you can at least acknowledge, dreams do not discriminate in their occurrence – they are experienced by anyone and everyone. As such, there is no such thing as a ‘normal’ person regarding the recipient of their content. Incidentally we can also delve into the anatomy of dreams here: firstly, although they can incorporate all five senses, their most definitive quality is their visual format – to encounter a dream is almost akin to viewing an episode which lends itself to description of various happenings, however ‘peculiar’ they may seem. Secondly, dreams typically occur during REM sleep which sees brain activity levels at a peak much like being in a wakeful state. Without this our minds would be in no position to have access to those visuals and if God wants to communicate with us a certain degree of cognizance is needed. God had a definite message for King Neb regarding his behaviour, but the language used in the dream was symbolic imagery. Imagery of any kind is the offspring of the creator’s sentiment, hence why as I have said countless times it can never be incorrect. You would not refer to Surrealist art as being full of random errors because it is grounded in symbolism and simply needs interpretation to decipher the meaning. Jesus had been on several mountains throughout the Bible. I am not sure how this nameless mountain would be different. The significance of an event is not lessened simply because the location is nameless. Mountains feature throughout the Bible; some of them already had names, others did not. For instance, The Mount of Olives afforded its name by virtue of its olive groves so it was already an established landmark before Jesus came. This was the location from which He ascended into heaven. On the other hand, Matthew 17 recounts another significant event: the transfiguration of Jesus on a high mount - this time there is no name given for the featured mountain. The distinction exists less in the name and more in the activity conducted there; that said, the documented magnitude in height of the mountain the devil used was most likely noted for reasons I mentioned earlier. So you are saying that the devil can conjure visions into Jesus's mind, but could not emulate the sensation of an extreme altitude as well? What happened to supernatural powers? The possession of supernatural power does not necessitate whole dependence upon them in every minute aspect of an occasion; often it is about combining them with the physical reality. In this case it was more to do with personal pleasure. Everything the devil does bears its foundation in complete and eternal enmity for God and consequently anything of God (including us). Thus, any opportunity to claim victory over God is highly relished. This why the devil attempted three times to get Jesus to surrender unto him. The first two occasions proved futile so the third time he would have really wanted to make it count. It would be a chance for him to savour the moment when the Son of his nemesis sent for the salvation of mankind relinquished his birthright and destiny to him. If you savour something you not only appreciate every moment but you protract the time spent as much as possible. To stand Jesus on the ground, conjure the vision and emulate the altitude sensation could have been done, yes, but the comparable brevity of the experience would have dulled the gratification for the devil. The only way to extend the scene would have been to commit it in part to the physical reality: actually witnessing Jesus making the lengthy trek up the extraordinarily high mountain in an already weakened physical state (and possibly even succumbing on the way there) would serve to heighten the pleasure for the devil – irrespective of his supernatural capabilities. If he wanted to, he could have done the desert and temple stuff all inside of Jesus's mind as well. He didn't. He chose to use a physical desert and a physical temple. Why would he suddenly rely on visions for the last test while still climbing a mountain? I answered this in my last post and elaborated in the above point. Refer there. A relationship with flatness does not mean it indicates flatness. For example, let us say I wanted to prove that it was rainy (flat) instead of sunny (spherical) today. Cloudy skies are related to rain, but not indicative of rain. I could use cloudy skies to prove that it was not sunny (not spherical). Your example is a little difficult to reconcile with your stance regarding flatness. You had initially associated ends with flatness but taking into account this example of yours to what I had said, if I have understood it correctly, would this not now be suggesting that just because something has ends does not indicate that it is flat? It seems an alteration of viewpoint but just wanted to clarify. By the way, this has nothing to do with the actual argument. Same as orange slices. Well, by virtue of what they represent they must do. Your weather illustration concerned flatness, my orange slices concerned roundness of shape - a minor tangent but hardly a full partition. Interior measurements do not translate to the whole. Read the verses. They refer to distances of the Earth, not a part of the Earth. Your last sentence seems like a reverberation of all I have said previously regarding that phrase: ’ends of the Earth’. Side: yes it is
The significance of an event is not lessened simply because the location is nameless. Mountains feature throughout the Bible; some of them already had names, others did not. For instance, The Mount of Olives afforded its name by virtue of its olive groves so it was already an established landmark before Jesus came. This was the location from which He ascended into heaven. On the other hand, Matthew 17 recounts another significant event: the transfiguration of Jesus on a high mount - this time there is no name given for the featured mountain. The distinction exists less in the name and more in the activity conducted there; that said, the documented magnitude in height of the mountain the devil used was most likely noted for reasons I mentioned earlier. You missed the point entirely. I was referring to your claim that this high mountain was so special that the Devil brought Jesus to it in order intensify the vision. He had been on several mountains, how would being on another mountain suddenly be so different? This is a semantic argument. Since we cannot agree on the usages indicated in English, there seems to be no point to continue further. Even for something basic such as - A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad. Length: the linear extent or measurement of something from end to end. So not only are spheres not subject to measurement, these three are not either; nor may they afford the usage of its units (i.e. miles, metres/yards). Guess the scope of Rome can never be determined as it has no extremity. Nor may we ever know the distance from town to town due to their lack of length in proportion to their breadth. Got it. Lengthwise: in a direction parallel with a thing's length. "halve the potatoes lengthwise" A city and town do have a lengthwise direction unless if it they happen to be squares. A square is usually not the case for a city or town. A spherical Earth would not have a lengthwise direction. Those two "end" refer to different definitions. They are not the same principally. It would be like saying "leading a march" and "leading a team" are the same principally. They share the same word, but have different usages based on different definitions. Not necessarily. A march can refer to a group of people the same way a team can, for instance: if someone was leading a march in protest they would typically be leading a group of however many people. If someone was leading a team again that would be a group of however many. These two phrases have different meanings. They are not the same. A word can have multiple usages, but a sentence/phrase only allows for one usage (except for intentional multiple entendres). This is the purpose of communication. If you cannot understand that, then you need to go take a language class. Side: yes it is
Again, apologies for the somewhat delayed response.... You missed the point entirely. I was referring to your claim that this high mountain was so special that the Devil brought Jesus to it in order intensify the vision. He had been on several mountains, how would being on another mountain suddenly be so different? That was your claim, not mine. Aside from its colossal height, it bore no especial properties to attract interest for manipulative purposes on the devil’s part; nor did I ever aver as such. To clarify: the mountain was purely a means to an end, i.e. There is zero distinction between this location and any of the other mountains on which Jesus appeared in the way of significant happenings. The devil used it in a similar fashion to how one may use a guitar as a means of accompaniment to their vocals: in terms of execution it is the individual’s activity with the guitar that is the focal point (in that they would use the instrument to enhance the sound of their performance), not the guitar on its own. This is a semantic argument. Unfortunately the discussion at large has been reduced to a semantic dispute quite needlessly, particularly regarding a phrase which is fairly explicit in its meaning when full context is observed. Lengthwise: in a direction parallel with a thing's length. "halve the potatoes lengthwise" A city and town do have a lengthwise direction unless if it they happen to be squares. A square is usually not the case for a city or town. A spherical Earth would not have a lengthwise direction. Potatoes seem a weak instance considering they vary with shape and size (some taking on a rounder shape than others). I appreciate that, due to equidistance from the centre, a spherical Earth would not typically elicit a description of length by width in the proportionate sense. Be that as it may, this still does not detract from its having an extent of distance as far as its existence goes; thus, the term length is not wholly inapplicable because its definition is not confined to the state of being ‘long’, simply from one end to the other. These two phrases have different meanings. They are not the same. A word can have multiple usages, but a sentence/phrase only allows for one usage (except for intentional multiple entendres). This is the purpose of communication. If you cannot understand that, then you need to go take a language class. What you have described is not beyond my comprehension, thank you, but you could hardly have expected a different response given how you exemplified it. You contend that a sentence only allows for single usage and therefore equivalence of meaning is implausible, yet the specific comparisons you provided allow for multiple usage on account of the words chosen. It is the verb that categorises the usage of a phrase not the noun, and it is this that is the purpose of communication. That said, in the context of your examples the word ‘march’ can actually be either so on that footing I have not erred in what I said. One may decide to march i.e. ‘walk steadily and rhythmically forward in step with others’ or they may be in a march i.e. ‘a procession of people organised as a protest or demonstration’. ‘Leading’ merely concerns assuming authority on the grounds of guidance or direction; therefore, used in conjunction with ‘march’ suggests a noun status. Someone leading a march may well be at the fore of a group of people (procession); by the same token they may be leading a team, in which case they would again be fronting said ‘group’. This parallels the similarity between the phrases ‘walking to the end of a city’ and ‘walking to the end of the street’, to return to the original refutation. Since we cannot agree on the usages indicated in English, there seems to be no point to continue further. We have talked about this rather extensively so if you wish to draw matters to a close that is fine with me. Either way this disagreement over said usages has served and is serving no purpose in invalidating Biblical content in its entirety as God’s Word devoid of human influence. Side: yes it is
What you have described is not beyond my comprehension, thank you, but you could hardly have expected a different response given how you exemplified it. You contend that a sentence only allows for single usage and therefore equivalence of meaning is implausible, yet the specific comparisons you provided allow for multiple usage on account of the words chosen. It is the verb that categorises the usage of a phrase not the noun, and it is this that is the purpose of communication. That said, in the context of your examples the word ‘march’ can actually be either so on that footing I have not erred in what I said. One may decide to march i.e. ‘walk steadily and rhythmically forward in step with others’ or they may be in a march i.e. ‘a procession of people organised as a protest or demonstration’. ‘Leading’ merely concerns assuming authority on the grounds of guidance or direction; therefore, used in conjunction with ‘march’ suggests a noun status. Someone leading a march may well be at the fore of a group of people (procession); by the same token they may be leading a team, in which case they would again be fronting said ‘group’. This parallels the similarity between the phrases ‘walking to the end of a city’ and ‘walking to the end of the street’, to return to the original refutation. You still miss the point. A sentence is created to communicate a specific point. The fact that words have multiple meanings is separate from the specific usage in a sentence. When someone writes down a sentence, they intend for the sentence to communicate a specific message. While a sentence may be interpreted in multiple ways, that does not mean the original intention was ambiguous. Like you said, God dictated the Bible through inspiration. This means God had a specific message he intended to communicate through every verse. You have been presenting multiple interpretations to suggest validity but that actually weakens the argument for dictation. You should be presenting a single interpretation as intended by God. Side: yes it is
You still miss the point. A sentence is created to communicate a specific point. The fact that words have multiple meanings is separate from the specific usage in a sentence. When someone writes down a sentence, they intend for the sentence to communicate a specific message. While a sentence may be interpreted in multiple ways, that does not mean the original intention was ambiguous. Like you said, God dictated the Bible through inspiration. This means God had a specific message he intended to communicate through every verse.
Quite right, though I cannot help but feel I am reading my own words here... You have been presenting multiple interpretations to suggest validity but that actually weakens the argument for dictation. You should be presenting a single interpretation as intended by God. Again no - that was you. From the offset I have maintained that all of the Bible was inspired by God and subject to His dictation and you were of the mind that this was only to a partial degree. To corroborate this perspective you selected a number of verses you believed indicated contradiction of text, the key one of course regarding the shape of the Earth. Because of your conviction that the Bible documented flatness of surface it meant that our exchange branched out into various tendrils of discussion from denominations to dreams to Adam and Eve and lately to Jesus and the devil on the mountain. You introduced all of these points to buttress your stance and I disproved them with in depth explanations as to why they were not the case and were in fact misinterpretations. There was nothing equivocal about any of the verses you referenced , particularly ‘ends of the Earth’ which I expressly stated was a clear instruction from Jesus to His followers concerning His message for humanity and had nothing to do with the Earth’s contour. Nevertheless, your omission of context meant that you were discounting this ‘single interpretation’, ergo making it difficult for us to progress without it devolving almost entirely into a trivial semantic dispute primarily of your instigation. Whilst I am pleased you seem to now have an understanding of things, what you are saying to me is a reverberation of what I have been saying to you all this while but you were constantly rejecting. As such, since you were willing to disregard my initial responses and strip this down to semantics you cannot criticise me for attempting to meet you on your wavelength and adapt my explanations accordingly. You were contending a series of errors in the Bible, but the only thing that was erroneous was your identification of them, so I corrected you. If one reads the Bible comprehensively from cover to cover, it is evident that only one interpretation was intended, for He is not an author of confusion to be obscuring His language. To reiterate, selecting sections here and there does little to aid accurate analysis of any text in totality. Side: yes it is
If you rephrase your question Was the bible truly from GOD? than I will be on other side of the table. Bible in its present versions is absolutely not the word of GOD, there are so many changes carried out in every ages in the old and new testament by human being that the bible is not truly from GOD. Side: no its not
1
point
1
point
|