“That needs to be proven. You have not proven that they have lied to me. All you’ve done is given me your opinion.”
The fact that I cannot change your mind does not mean I haven’t proven anything. It just means you are stubborn. The evidence is not all presented in part 1 btw and it’s unclear to me why you thought it would be. This is a 6 part series. Go read parts 2 through 5.
“Yeah I am aware but at the end of the day, it is their opinion.”
Go back and read over our exchange, comparing your command of the English language to mine. In many places you made incorrect use of certain words or had what I am assuming was a mild stroke, posting jumbled up word salad. A dog rolling around on a keyboard might’ve done better.
As a further example, later on in this exchange you struggle to imagine how the vault could be a dome if the Earth is flat, when it’s as simple as turning a bowl upside down and putting it on a plate to form a snowglobe-like structure. Then of course there’s the fact that you regard flat Earth YEC as stupid and wrong, but you are yourself a YEC which is only one step above them.
”Again, this is an opinion. People considering a group of people to be dumb, does not prove that they are dumb.”
Their own frequent errors and bad reasoning do, however. Did you follow Dover vs. Kitzmiller? Are you familiar with the term “Cdesign Proponentsists”? Or the near endless parade of hilarious creationists hoaxes? Remember the kid who said he went to Heaven during a near death experience, only to later confess his father coached him to say that?
”You need to prove that Flat-earthers are a subset of YEC”
Nearly every flat Earther is also a creationist, while not all creationists are flat Earthers. A flat Earth does not make sense without a creator, as it is a structure which could not form naturally. My evidence is “Go talk to absolutely any flat Earther”. As many as you like.
”instead of just saying it, and not providing any evidence and then expecting everyone else just to believe you.”
You mean like Christians constantly do? By regurgitating scripture and personal anecdotes at people, as if that will impress them?
“It does not matter what people thought it described or meant when it isn’t supposed to be taken literally.”
Verses describing the firmament, openings in said firmament through which the sun and moon pass (six for each, to account for their different paths across the sky depending on season) are very obviously sincere claims concerning cosmology:
“This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2–5).”
The openings in the vault of heaven in the east and west are matched to the seasons. On the longest day of the year, the sun rises and sets through the northernmost pair. On the shortest day, it rises and sets through the southernmost pair. The return routes of the sun and moon are outside the dome. Perhaps they rest in their “storerooms” during their time off.
”That is the problem. You seem to think that the verses are supposed to be being taken literally and they aren’t. It is simply a fact that they are not supposed to be taken literally.”
If exegesis were that cut and dry, there would only be one denomination of Christians in the world. Certainly much of scripture has an allegorical meaning. But this is not a free license to sweep errors under the rug, where it is very clear that the authors had wrong beliefs about nature.
”Yeah it does, when what he says, refutes what you claim to be true.”
Only in the minds of Christians willing to eagerly latch onto any plausible sounding excuse.
”Okay and what is your point? If the article is wrong, then you need to prove that the articles are wrong. Giving me your opinion and lots of other peoples opinion that YEC are considered to be dumb, that does not prove that the articles are wrong. What will prove the articles to be wrong, is you reading them and telling me where they are in error.”
Here you will find answers to every creationist argument that has ever been posed. If you read through it, you will come to understand specifically why YEC is dumb. The reasons are too numerous to cover in a comments section.
”And of course you don’t want to get into an exchange with me. You don’t have any actually evidence that the articles that I sent to you are wrong. That is why you didn’t actually refute what I said. You just gave me your opinion.”
I gave ample evidence in the six part series of articles to which you have replied that the authors of scripture had wrong ideas about nature which they shouldn’t have if scripture was, to any degree, the result of divine input or influence. That is enough by itself for a reasonable person. If you don’t accept this, the fault is yours.
”That is an insulting claim and is also nothing but your opinion. Also, you don’t get to tell me anything. You don’t get to say that I am only to learn from you and not the reverse. That is not your decision to make.”
Yes, it is. You deserve to be insulted. You are biting the hand which feeds you. Even though you’re not aware yet, you are deceived and I have patiently tried to help you stop being deceived, but you have stubbornly fought me every step of the way.
”No, because they are dishonest and they choose to pretend that their are contradictions when the so-called contradiction has already been explained and shown to not be one.”
The opposite is true. It is the creationist sites that are dishonest. You have been programmed to reflexively mistrust all sources of information outside of your religion. Think hard about why that is.
“No, it doesn’t. It comes from people either taking the Bible Verses literally when it is supposed to be taken literally or taking it out of context or just flat out being dishonest.”
Could a Muslim not use this exact same defense to dismiss any problems you might identify in the Qur’an? What does that tell you?
”The article I sent you deals with the verses that are said to support a flat earth and they prove that they don’t. You need to prove otherwise. You have not done so.”
The opposite of that statement is true. Part 1 of this 6 part series is light on information being that it is only an introduction to the topic. If you didn’t find what you wanted in this part, go look at the other 5. The articles you have posted cannot possibly disprove facts, and it is a fact agreed upon by all qualified historians that the cultures in that part of the world at that time had flat Earth cosmologies, including Egypt and Bablyon.
Are we meant to believe only Israel got it right, in some contorted allegorical sense, even though their description of the structure of Earth reads extremely similar to the Egyptian and Babylonian models, which you are content to conclude are simply incorrect? Do you see what’s wrong with that?
“I will say the same to you. The article I sent you refutes what you said”
No, it doesn’t.
“I suggest you try re-reading it with an open-mind”
There is no way to make something false become true just by being more ‘open minded’ about it.
“and then telling me where you think it is wrong, and why. Surely, if it is mistaken, you would have no problem at all showing me where it is wrong, and why it is wrong, right?”
Creationism is false. Information from a creationist source, predicated on creationism being true, is not going to be correct. If you don’t understand why creationism is false, I can’t help you. You are beyond help, at that point and the only recourse is to wait for you to die and be replaced by someone who doesn’t need to be convinced of the obvious.
”I don’t ignore anything. I look at the verses that people claim support a flat earth and then I research and discover that they don’t, and it has been proven that they do not point to a flat earth.”
First, Creationist apologetics websites are not “research”. That’s just running straight to the only people you know will tell you what you want to hear and believing whatever they have to say.
Second, you absolutely have ignored loads of my arguments, liar. Do I need to repeat them again, only for you to continue ignoring and deflecting, then insisting you haven’t done so?
”Until you actually prove this article wrong, I will continue to use it, because I have no reason to not use it, to instead turn to an Atheist or Skeptic Website that it Dishonest.”
It is the Christian apologists who are dishonest. There are many documented examples of their dishonesty. Think long and hard about why you have been conditioned to mistrust all nonbelievers. Isn’t that a good way to keep you in the fold?
“These books were originally written in Hebrew, not Early Modern English (i.e. the stage of the English language that includes the KJV and Shakespeare). And as explained in our article, the word translated ‘circle’ is חוּג (khûg), which is a generic word meaning ‘roundness’.”
Biblical חוג is usually regarded as a circle around some central point. See for example רש”י, מלבי”ם. A related word מחוגה appears in Isaiah 44:13 and is the equipment used to draw a חוג, “pair of compasses”. This relates to the verse in Proverbs mentioned in the article, where a compass is used to draw the circle of the Earth upon the face of the deep.
Here you can find scholarly analysis of this passage, in the column on the right. Note that they all agree with me concerning what the authors of the Bible believed about the structure of the Earth.
”Biblically, it is also used to describe the ‘vault’ of heaven.”
That’s “raquiya” actually. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
”Flat-earthers insist the vault is a solid dome, i.e. a 3-D roundness (Job 22:14). So, it can’t be limited to 2-D roundness. It cannot mean ‘flat disk’ even to a flat-earther.”
Yes it can, because the vault and the Earth are not the same thing in Hebrew cosmology. Go find a sufficiently flat, circular object in your home. Say, a plate. Now, turn a bowl upside down and put it on the plate. The plate is the Earth, in this model, and the dome is the vault. This is incredibly basic spatial reasoning. How were you confused by it?
“Another point against them is that the earth could mean the dry land, and since one meaning for khûg is any sort of ‘circuit’, the ‘circle of the earth’ could mean the shorelines.4”
Anything could mean anything. But the only reason to make this interpretive stretch would be if you had an emotional committment in Christianity to protect.
”This clearly explains the verse and what it is saying. It explains what the verse means.”
I disagree. The verse explains itself. The apologetics you supplied contort the verse and infuse it with modern understanding not available to the authors in order to make it defensible.
”This whole article addresses the Verses dealing with “a solid dome”, again refuting what you have claimed, until you prove otherwise.”
I already did, with the original article and the five others in this series which you never read. Your refusal to change your mind does not mean you are right, it only means you are stubborn, as the elderly often are. I do not want to waste any more time on you. Grow old, die, and be replaced by somebody I do not have to convince of the obvious. You can only improve this world by vanishing from it.