This is a good article for anyone interested in understanding the Bible's cosmology: The Flat-Earth Bible

P.S. I know that ZAROVE will protest that because he learned Hebrew 3 years ago that makes him the final authority on this board as to what the Bible really says. Sorry, ZAROVE, but knowing a language for 3 years does not make one an expert in that language, let alone an expert in Biblical exegesis. All that you learned was shaped by the biases and prejudices of those who taught you.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

You arent too bright. You leave us alone for two weeks, then come back with a web article that supports yoyu, and think THIS is a final authority... this and you misrepresent what I said. See below.

This is a good article for anyone interested in understanding the Bible's cosmology: The Flat-Earth Bible

{Only if yoy take this atiles word for it. Not takign this artcles word for it may make us seem like closed midned fools to one liek you, btu takign its word makes ytoyu seem tha same to us.

You see, you look for whatever supports your preposition that the Bibelk is "Wrong, wrong, wrong", and refuse ot even contemplate thta it is your deficiency to undertsand it that is evidence d here, rather than Biblical flaes.

The article says nothign new.Ive heard it before, and shall address these matters, not that you will lsiten, your midn is made up. The Bibel teaches that the earth is flat, the centre of the Universe, and surrpinded by a solid odme that is the heavens. Any article that supports this is true, and any article that denies it is false.

You arent beign hoenst in yuor papproach and coidl car eless about truth, all you want is to support your attacks on the Bibel to suit your onw vanikty and egotism.}-Zarove

P.S. I know that ZAROVE will protest that because he learned Hebrew 3 years ago

{No, I studies it FOR three years. I learned it between the ages of 18 and 21. Im now 27. ive effectivley knwon Hebrew since I was 21, makign it 6 years.}-Zarove

that makes him the final authority on this board as to what the Bible really says.

{Im not the only oen lad. want me ot post apologetics sites that ear your article to chreds? or woudl you condier them biased? why isnt your aticle considered as Biased since it ha a clear agenda though?}- Zarove

Sorry, ZAROVE, but knowing a language for 3 years does not make one an expert in that language,

{How about 6, and leanrign it for 3, makign it a tiotal of 9, and beign able to use it conversaitonally...

Just disregardign my year sof Knwoekdge ( and gettign the number wron g) doesnt make my objectiosn magiclaly vanish...Its just an Ad Hominim attack.}-Zarove

let alone an expert in Biblical exegesis.

{As oppsoed to Sceptical websites that start off tryign to find falt wihthe Bible and managing to advance arguemtns we hear all the time? reslly you must tink all this is new to us, btu its not.

Your arucels fail at Biblcial exegesis, and often so poorly a child couild correct there errors, yet you critisise me and my abilitites?}-Zarove

All that you learned was shaped by the biases and prejudices of those who taught you.

{That woul be peopel who actulaly speak Hebrew...I learned it because a close firned of mine is Jewish, and they SPEAK THE RUDDY LANGUAGE AT DINNERS. At there house I was expected to know the language they where using when they spoke to me...

Whats relaly Ioronic is that after dispRAGING me, and not ommenting on my objection , only makign such inkind remakrs, all you have to show us s an article that can easily be dismisse dont he same veiwn.

Why is it that if I show tou articles by brilliant theologians, they are baised and not to be taken seriosuly, and your artucle is to be taken at face value?

Are we relaly to expect that your article is unbiased? Your article has an agenda, which is the same as your own. You want to discredit the Bibel, and so do they.

They do not start out tryign to undertsand it, merley tryign to discredit it, and often distrot what is and isnt said to support there charges. You support them as they agree with you.

Then you disregard me by cliaming my skills are subject to predjudices, even though you dont know who taught me and why? For all you knwo I learend in an Ahtiestic envirpnement in University...

I mean, relaly, why is your biased article wiht an agenda better than my obvious fact? Why shoudl we beelive it over what we jknopw as fact? Becaue you said Im not to be trusted and this article is correct?

Heck, th article makes no use of advanced hebrew skills at all, and Im to be made ot feel infirior to it?

Are you serisouly trying to make yourself look liek a total idiot?

Again, I ask you, why shoudl we trust this Biased article over imperical Data?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

Zarove,
You aren't arguing with someone who shows good will. He is here to bait you and feed his own ego. by responding you merely cater to his ill-will.

I suggest you give him all the rope he desires, just agree, yes, yes, Yes, YES! He can't hang you, he only hangs himself. Do not click on his links, and do not reply.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 18, 2004.

you know the funny thing about a very large circle? better yet, lets take the kicker about a straight line segment. we can define a straight line segment as a portion of the circumferance of a circle as the radius goes towards infinite. thus, with a circle as large as the earth is, we can consider a small enough area of it to be flat.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@NotAnAddress.com), December 18, 2004.

Bozo canot argue, thats why he spent the greater part of his post attakcign me. He cannot refute my claim, he can only attak me in a sad and pathetic attempt to undermine my cliam by makign me lookbad.

But guess what? If I whre a satanist Nazi from hell who drank Bbays blood for dinner and raped virgin preteen girls, while commitign insurance fraud, I woudl noentheless not be prven worng by pointing this out. ( noen of this is true,a nd sorry for the crudity, Im just relaly disapoitned in how the NonChrisain world operates...)

You cannot prove me wrong by complainign abiut me. And whats worse, his ad Hom attakcs don work. He ADMITS I kow Hebrew, and then just duisregards it as if thats not relevant.

Clealry, this is another "Truthseeker" with an agenda to prove his case, not listen to reason.

He will not answer my objectiosn tot he "Dome ' argume, becaus ehe cannot, he will still insit it wa a solid dome and he Bileis dead wrong, and not even consider my argment, and rathe rpretend mien doesnt matter, nor does my exprience.

Adoni, Cakal Muwl Enoush.Shalach Azar.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

sdqa wrote:

i know hebrew also:)

Good. Then maybe you can straighten out ZAROVE.

ZAROVE wrote:

You leave us alone for two weeks...

Didja miss me?

...then come back with a web article that supports yoyu, and think THIS is a final authority...

I never said that it was the final authority. I said that it was a good article. And it IS a good article. It's food for thought and a starting point for further research.

...and you misrepresent what I said.

An honest and inconsequential mistake. You've known Hebrew for SIX years rather than three years. In your post on the other thread -- chipper, what do you know of evolution? -- you said that you studied Hebrew for three years, so that's how three years stuck in my mind. I learned it because a close firned of mine is Jewish, and they SPEAK THE RUDDY LANGUAGE AT DINNERS. At there house I was expected to know the language they where using when they spoke to me...

Well now, I'd say that that was ruddy rude of them, wouldn't you, old chap?

Why is it that if I show tou articles by brilliant theologians, they are baised and not to be taken seriosuly...

As I recall you made reference to only one article in all of the exchanges that we've had. I read it and commented on it, showing how that article actually supported me rather than you. If you've got other articles that you would like me to read then let's see them. Show your hand, ZAROVE.

Are we relaly to expect that your article is unbiased?

No. But it's a good starting point for further research.

Then you disregard me by cliaming my skills are subject to predjudices, even though you dont know who taught me and why? For all you knwo I learend in an Ahtiestic envirpnement in University...

I suspect that you were taught by Orthodox Jews, correct?

I mean, relaly, why is your biased article wiht an agenda better than my obvious fact? Why shoudl we beelive it over what we jknopw as fact? Becaue you said Im not to be trusted and this article is correct?

What "obvious fact" are you talking about? The fact that you know Hebrew? So what? Why should I take your word over that of recognized authoritative sources such Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible or the New American Bible that is on the U.S. Catholic Bishops website?

From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

Raqiya = firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

From the New American Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1, Footnote 2:

The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13).

From Genesis 7:11 NAB:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

Are you serisouly trying to make yourself look liek a total idiot?

In this one post alone you've called me a vain, egotistical, not too bright total idiot. And you accuse ME of making ad hominem attacks?

eugene c. chavez wrote:

Zarove, You aren't arguing with someone who shows good will.

Why do you say that? What would I have to do differently to show good will? Agree with you?

He is here to bait you and feed his own ego. by responding you merely cater to his ill-will.

What's with this "ego" stuff? Every time I post it seems that someone brings up my "ego." I don't get it.

sdqa wrote:

zarove ben zona

Sorry, I don't know Italian.

paul h. wrote:

with a circle as large as the earth is, we can consider a small enough area of it to be flat.

Good point. I don't think that the flat-earth verses are all that compelling. But the verses showing that the sky is a solid dome are a different story.

It makes you wonder what men who lived 2000 to 3000 years ago thought about rain. Water falls from the sky. How did the water get up there in the first place? What's holding it up there? Why doesn't it all fall down once and for all?

You can see how the belief that the aky is a solid dome would make so much sense:

Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8 NAB)

ZAROVE, again:

Bozo canot argue...

My objective is not to argue but to enlighten. And it's BoNzo, not Bozo. Don't you get it? Bonzo, as in the Ronald Reagan film, "Bedtime for Bonzo," the chimpanzee. As an evolutionist I see human beings as relatives of chimpanzees, although you probably think that I am more closely related to them than you are.

He cannot refute my claim...

Claim about what? That the Hebrew language was not able to properly convey the concept of the sky? How about giving us some links to some websites that refute the claim that the Bible says that the sky is a solid dome. I will read them with my usual open mind and give you my thoughts on them, OK?

But you must admit that once you think of the sky as a solid dome then some verses make more sense:

But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56 NAB)

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17 NAB)

Besides, how could the waters stay above the dome (sky) if the dome were not solid?

He ADMITS I kow Hebrew, and then just duisregards it as if thats not relevant.

Do you have a Ph.D. in Hebrew or Biblical Studies? What have you published that has been reviewed by your peers?

Adoni, Cakal Muwl Enoush.Shalach Azar.

Like I said earlier -- I don't speak Italian.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.

You know, some people are just evil, simple as that.

It's wierd that we actually have to watch our step even in the light of the knowledge that someone is purposely being mean or egotistical.

-- Jacob R, (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

sdqa wrote: i know hebrew also:)

Good. Then maybe you can straighten out ZAROVE.

{i DOUBT HE KNWOS hEBREW,TIS MORE THAN LINELY mACHINE GENERATED...}- Zarove

ZAROVE wrote:

You leave us alone for two weeks...

Didja miss me?

{Yo be honest, no.}-Zarove

...then come back with a web article that supports yoyu, and think THIS is a final authority...

I never said that it was the final authority. I said that it was a good article. And it IS a good article. It's food for thought and a starting point for further research.

{what makes tyoy think we havent researhced this before? Oh thats righ, if we had we wdl be enlightened former Christausn who relaise tis all myth... heaven forbid we actually have studied this before.........}-Zarove

...and you misrepresent what I said.

An honest and inconsequential mistake.

{You think the differental between 9 and 3 yeas expeirnce wih a langage is inconsequential?}-Zarove

You've known Hebrew for SIX years rather than three years. In your post on the other thread -- chipper, what do you know of evolution? --

{Quiet a lot, I use to be a sicnece nerd till two or three years back ... and just this last year began intensive studies of religion...Thohg to be hoenst i focused mainly on Physics.}-Zarove

you said that you studied Hebrew for three years, so that's how three years stuck in my mind.

{Studyign ot for three eyars doesnt mean that I just ende dmy studies. This is a leaped to conclusion, which was clealry false.}- Zarove

I learned it because a close firned of mine is Jewish, and they SPEAK THE RUDDY LANGUAGE AT DINNERS. At there house I was expected to know the language they where using when they spoke to me...

Well now, I'd say that that was ruddy rude of them, wouldn't you, old chap?

{Stop trying to mock the Britush way of speach, and no, sicne I was in there house and didnt have to be there at all, its nto rude of them to contnue there culture and traditions with me there. I towudl be rude fo me o demand 30 peopel give upt here jewish Heratage so I, a lone englishman, can eat wiht them.}-Zarove

Why is it that if I show tou articles by brilliant theologians, they are baised and not to be taken seriosuly...

As I recall you made reference to only one article in all of the exchanges that we've had.

{I don even remember one. I used mainly my own knoledge...off the topof my head no less, to anser tis tired old claim...}-Zarove

I read it and commented on it, showing how that article actually supported me rather than you.

{Now I remmber. And it id nto supprot you, you just read o it support by ignorign the bulk of it, and missing the point.

the poin was that heliocentirsm was older than you had thought. this artcle mentioend peopel who held to Heliocentirsm, and you sumerily sdismissed them.

It didnt support yor psoitiont at everyone eas a geocentirst, and contradicted this, yet you claim it supported you... becaue it said most where. ( All i said was thta it wasnt Universlly accepted. Tjhis proved true. Rather than admit you where wrogn though you say it proves you correct...)}-Zarove

If you've got other articles that you would like me to read then let's see them. Show your hand, ZAROVE.

{This isnt a poker game, and I dont have a stockpile of wensites. I argue with the likes of you on my own wit alone. I use the net sparingly for this end, becaue tis a waste of time to do researh that you wll ignore.}-Zarove

Are we relaly to expect that your article is unbiased?

No. But it's a good starting point for further research.

{which presupposed that we havent researced htis matter before, and ausmes that we ar eignorant of these claims and how vlaid hey are... sadly, I have researhced this, and find it wanting.}-Zarove

Then you disregard me by cliaming my skills are subject to predjudices, even though you dont know who taught me and why? For all you knwo I learend in an Ahtiestic envirpnement in University...

I suspect that you were taught by Orthodox Jews, correct?

{In the scial seting, there where Orthodox, reform, Liberal, and Neutral,a nd even Atheist Jews preasent. I leanred hebrew fom a range of divergent beleifs, form the Bible as pure myhtology and symbolism, tot he Bible as actual fact, to some real some fantacy.

Presumign it was all Orhodox is absurd. But then, ti has to be since I am incapable of formign my own mind and just aprrot what I was proigrammed by my hwish masters, just lieke now I parrot what my Cahtolci masters tel me...

really this is gettign derogitory. You rpesume too much.}-Zarove

I mean, relaly, why is your biased article wiht an agenda better than my obvious fact? Why shoudl we beelive it over what we jknopw as fact? Becaue you said Im not to be trusted and this article is correct?

What "obvious fact" are you talking about?

{That the Hebrew langage in Biblical times was incapable of expresing an infinite expance... soemthign you never addressed, and instead continued to berate me and claim that my knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant.

well, what about the actual arguent I made, why not address this?}- Zarove

The fact that you know Hebrew? So what?

{so, I knwo for a fact tha Biblical Hebrew wa sincapable of expressing an infinite area and needed qualifiers. even though you cliam that y knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant, you fail to even address the argument I mad, and simpley dismiss it by claimign my knowin the langag eis immateiural.

tis dispite the actthat you confudse Hebrew for Italian...

Again, please adress the argument.

The Hebrew language is incapable of exprssing an infinite area, this is why the word "firmament" in the KJV is used, because no other word coudl be used in this palce snce it was impossible to describe an open space back then in that spacific language.

SWhy nto address the argument rathe rthan disparage my knwledge.}- Zarove

Why should I take your word over that of recognized authoritative sources such Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible or the New American Bible that is on the U.S. Catholic Bishops website?

{why cant you actually address my argument rather than simpley rely on souces hat appear to support yor claim? By the wya, strngs is a good resorce, but has soem errors in it due to lakc of knowledge of the Hebrew Language hey had in the 19th century...}-Zarove

From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

Raqiya = firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

{And new linguistical and archeological eidnece found fom 1920-1945 proved this assertion wrong. Strng used the assertiosn of his day to makw this claim, and has since been proven worn goion this one point.

Using Strings is like Using HG Wells. Mych of His outlien of Hisotyr is still vlaidly considered, but much oof it has fallen ito disfaovur in academia...Strngs is still sued because no oen has the patence to replicate it.}-Zarove

From the New American Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1, Footnote 2:

The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13).

{sicne when do i use the NAB?}-Zarove

From Genesis 7:11 NAB:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

{You know, soem thigns can be read as fugures of speech. I know, this is burring my head int he sand while toy pontificate the atual menaign whihc is "Plain", buet why cant the loodgates of the sky here be a figure of peach? simple wurasion.DOnt say its not and launch into a tirade abotu ancient peopels beelifs, just answer why it cant be.}-Zarove

Are you serisouly trying to make yourself look liek a total idiot?

In this one post alone you've called me a vain, egotistical, not too bright total idiot. And you accuse ME of making ad hominem attacks?

{either before, or after, i saythis, i also exalin why I call you these things, which is the key difference...}-Zarove

eugene c. chavez wrote:

Zarove, You aren't arguing with someone who shows good will.

Why do you say that? What would I have to do differently to show good will? Agree with you?

{Its less because you disagree with us and mroe because of yor attitude. Not hat you will acknowledge this fact.

Plenty of peopel have disagreed and gotten on well here.

You, on the other hand, can do nothign but berate us as posters for disagreeign with ou. You spent an enture paragraph disparagin me personally and sayign my knwoeldg eof hebrew is immaterial...yet never addrerssed my arguments, instead sidesteppignthem in favur of alternate soruces you can use to your DSVANTANGE.

POUR PREASENCE HER EISNT TO ENLIGHTEN, BUT TOFORCE YOR CONCLUSIONA DN EEL SUPERIOR.

This arrognce is what has lead us to conclude you mean no good will, and your blatant attacks are further proof.}-Zarove

He is here to bait you and feed his own ego. by responding you merely cater to his ill-will.

What's with this "ego" stuff? Every time I post it seems that someone brings up my "ego." I don't get it.

{why not read your own posts. its les the ideas you advocate and mre the way you treat others here.

Youconstantly ignore there pis and call them worng whtoutthe slightest researhc while demanding we do mofr researhc and asuming we havent looked nto this. ou likewise asume that we ar all Biblcially illeterate and do nothign btu beeloive whateve te masters of out midns say. You likewsie beleive that we shoudl simpley acknwedge hw right and cleaver you are and how wrong we are, and rfue to even admit the posisbiliy that you mad an error.

These tings seem to indicae egotism.}-Zarove

sdqa wrote:

zarove ben zona

Sorry, I don't know Italian.

{Hebrew lad, Hebrew...which is evidnet form his saying " I knwo Hebrew also". Hes callign me the son of a Prostitute...}-Zarove

paul h. wrote:

with a circle as large as the earth is, we can consider a small enough area of it to be flat.

Good point. I don't think that the flat-earth verses are all that compelling. But the verses showing that the sky is a solid dome are a different story.

{ The operative word beign "splid", which is never used. it merely calls them a dome, not solid. for that matter it coud be referign ot eh Atmosphere... semthign else you didnt consider. The Atmopshere is a dome, of sorts, tha encompasses the earth...

Likjewise, you continue to ignore my initial arugment and dismiss it out of hand, the arugment that goes that it was imposisbel to mentin an infinite expance...and I suspect you will never durectly address it, and isnetad will throw soruces a tme...}-Zarove

It makes you wonder what men who lived 2000 to 3000 years ago thought about rain. Water falls from the sky. How did the water get up there in the first place? What's holding it up there? Why doesn't it all fall down once and for all?

{The anciens whent as midnless and without knwleldgeas we like to beelve,and many knew of evaporation at leats in he year 1000 BC when Bbaylonain tablets rcord the aters evapiratign and rain beign he result...}-Zarove

You can see how the belief that the aky is a solid dome would make so much sense:

{except the Bibel never reers o it a solid, that is your ineterpolution, based on your presumption, based n or desire to discredit the Bible, which is obvious...}-Zarove

Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8 NAB)

{des it ll it a "Solid dome" by chance? r just a dome? If it doesnt refer tto it as a slid dome, thenhwo do you knwo he dome is solid, and its not just refern to the Atmosphere? If its refergn the Atmosoehere, then it is accurate, sinc it encompasses the whoel earht liek a dome. Its just not solid. And the Biel doesnt say solid dome, you just beleive it means solid dome based on preconcieved notions.

I switched argumets sinced i know you arent brave enough to even consider the ofrmer, and will never addrss it...}-Zarove

ZAROVE, again:

Bozo canot argue...

My objective is not to argue but to enlighten.

{No, you objective is to discrei the Bibel and feel superior. Youc annot enlighen us with what we have heard a few thousand tmes alreayd and alreayd know is flase. Nor can yo enlighen us when you import the word " Solid" nt the NAB by claming the dome wa a solid dome. Nor do you enlighten whn you ignore the earlier linguistical arumet I made and instead siadestep it completley. Neither cna you enlighten when ytou isnsit you are right and cnanot be worng and the Bile is all myth and no merit, wihtout een listenign to what ww beelive baout the Bible in the firts palce.

You are hee to feed your ego, not to englghten.}-Zarove

And it's BoNzo, not Bozo.

{sory, took me readign this 5 times to get it, sicne I rlay am effectvley illeterate...I read by geenral association. looked like Bozo to me.}-Zarove

Don't you get it? Bonzo, as in the Ronald Reagan film, "Bedtime for Bonzo," the chimpanzee.

{See aboce and keep in mind Im a severe dyslexic who wa sonce told I woidl never be able to read...}-Zarove

As an evolutionist I see human beings as relatives of chimpanzees, although you probably think that I am more closely related to them than you are.

{Make no presumptions as ot what I eleive. Likewise, im not he one rejectign evlutionary thery.}-Zarove

He cannot refute my claim...

Claim about what? That the Hebrew language was not able to properly convey the concept of the sky?

{That is cannot properlyconvey the conept of an infinite expance, not the sky...

The second argumnt is poinitng outthat the New American Bibel doesnt call the doem a solid dome. You only tink it refers to a lid dome because the ancent peopels, in your beelif, beelived it was a solid dome, so you assume this is a refernee tot hat, base don prconcienved notions you had aboyththe text.

Those two argumens you ignore.

No mention of the dome beign solid, and the lingisoical argukn abohte infinite expance, wil liekly continued to be ignored to feed your ego.}-Zarove

How about giving us some links to some websites that refute the claim that the Bible says that the sky is a solid dome.

{How abour readnthr New Ameican Bibel again? where is the word "Solid" used in reference to this dome?

Its not. It can eaisly be seen as just a refernce ot he Atmophere, which is a dome over the Earth.

It need not be a reference to a "Solid dome", and no Bible verse in any translation refers to it as a "Solid dome". The NAB just sys Dome. Not Solid DOme.

Im repeatign myself wihthte limited Hope ths you will pikc up on tis fact soemtime...}-Zarove

I will read them with my usual open mind and give you my thoughts on them, OK?

Jysy declargn that you have an open mind doesnt mean tyou do. You clearly dont, sicne you read "Solid domer' whent he NAB says "Domer" and since you constantly ignroe everything we say that contradcts yur worldview.

I ask again, where in the NAB does it say, outside of the footnotes, that the dome is solid? do you just presume its solid based onw hat you think ancient pepels beleived and what this is an illusion to? If not, can you show from scrpture where it mentions tis dome as solid?}- Zarove

But you must admit that once you think of the sky as a solid dome then some verses make more sense:

{Threes the word "Solid' again. And again I ask, where int he NAB does it refer tot his dome as Slid? Arent yo just presuming the dome to be solid becaue ot fits with your earlier beleifs?}-Zarove

But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56 NAB)

{This makes mro snece if the sky is a solid dome why? Its referign to a vision, not een a drect physical realiry, and the term "Skys are open" doesnt mean the solid dome rmoved, its jyst a fugur of speech stll commonly emploted in most of the english speakign world...}- Zarove

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17 NAB)

{Heavens wher epened dosnt mean, nor make more snece with, a solid dome... It just means that the airs are parted...}-Zarove

Besides, how could the waters stay above the dome (sky) if the dome were not solid?

{Same way they do now... how does all tha eaptorated water nto fsll until it rains??? You asusme it had ot be solid in this cosmology and ignore the obviosu facts...and the ancents did lknow of the water cycle.}-Zarove

He ADMITS I kow Hebrew, and then just duisregards it as if thats not relevant.

Do you have a Ph.D. in Hebrew or Biblical Studies? What have you published that has been reviewed by your peers?

{Ill be publishign my masters thesis next year. Besides that, I am in a PH.D programme for Psycology an theology currently.

Interestgnly, you demand my credintials, where are yours?

What credintials doa you HAVE?

WHERE ARE your PEER REVIEEWED PAPERS? WHRRE ARE your PEERR REVIEED THESIS?

where di you get your education?

If I have to have a PH.D to be taken serispoluy, socmtig I am workign toward right now, why dont you?

Its this sort of arrogance that lends us to dislikign your approach and claign it egotism.}-Zarove

Adoni, Cakal Muwl Enoush.Shalach Azar.

Like I said earlier -- I don't speak Italian.

{It means "Lors, fools destory men, send help", and is Hebrew. I also don speak Italian...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

Oh and do try to answer my arguens, rather than just dismiss them as wrong and throw references...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

Bonzo's Cousin,

The author of the source you cite was a hack pseudoscientist and delusional proponent of many whacky endeavors including the "Flat Earth" mythology you too now mistakenly promulgate.

Myth of the Flat Earth

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 19, 2004.

This perfectly illustrates my point about why we must not let the nonsense of “creation science” (and anti-scientific “new age” mumbo- jumbo, magic crystals, “alternative” medicine etc.) take root in our schools and our society. You see how militant atheists, like Bonzo’s Cousin here, DESPERATELY WANT to convince themselves and others that Christianity is anti-science and just a bunch of silly old myths trying unsuccessfully to explain things which science now explains.

We know our religion is based on truth and has nothing to fear from science’s continuing search for understanding of the mechanisms of the universe. As Catholics especially, it is our duty to see that the integrity of the scientific methods and standards of proof are not diluted or debauched by fakery.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.

Daniel Hawkenberry wrote:

The author of the source you cite was a hack pseudoscientist and delusional proponent of many whacky endeavors including the "Flat Earth" mythology you too now mistakenly promulgate.

You're just like ZAROVE! You link me to an article that not only fails to support what you say but actually ends up supporting me instead.

The author of the article I cited is Robert J. Schadewald. The article that you cited doesn't even mention his name or anyone associated with him! What gives? Really, I'd like to know. What's going on here?

Schadewald never said that the medieval Church taught that the earth was flat. Nor did he say that most Christians believed that the earth was flat. His issue is with the Bible, not the Church. It is the Bible, he claims, which teaches a flat earth:

"The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book."

Those Christians who believe in a flat earth do so because of the Bible:

"Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century."

This is confirmed by the very article you cited:

"A few—at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements."

In other words, it was the Bible that led them to believe in a flat earth. That's exactly what Schadewald is saying.

The article you cited goes on to say:

"On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."

But that's not the point at all as far as we're concerned. The point is WHY no educated person believed in a flat earth. Was it because of what they learned from the Bible? No. It was because of what they learned outside the Bible, from math and science:

"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans."

Since Greeks and Romans already knew that the earth was round, it's only natural that when they became Christians and adopted the Jewish Scriptures as their Bible they would avoid interpreting any flat-earth passages literally.

It's the same reason why most Christians today don't interpret the creation story or the geocentric verses literally. You know better now so you put a different spin on these verses.

Furthermore, the article you cited mentions nothing about what the Jews believed. Since the Torah was composed prior to the 3rd Century B.C. then it was composed at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, so there is no reason to believe that the Jews would not write flat-earth verses and interpret those verses literally.

Steve wrote:

This perfectly illustrates my point about why we must not let the nonsense of “creation science” (and anti-scientific “new age” mumbo- jumbo, magic crystals, “alternative” medicine etc.) take root in our schools and our society. You see how militant atheists, like Bonzo’s Cousin here, DESPERATELY WANT to convince themselves and others that Christianity is anti-science and just a bunch of silly old myths trying unsuccessfully to explain things which science now explains.

With regard to preventing "creation science" from being taught in our public schools, nobody would agree with you more than Robert J. Schadewald, the author of the article I cited. He was president of the National Center for Science Education, which is dedicated to "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools." He died four years ago. Here is his obituary.

The NCSE battles against Creationism being taught as a science in the public schools. Schadewald took a special interest in the Flat Earth and Geocentric movements. He recognized that Creationism, Geocentricism, and Flat-Earthism were are all based today on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It's ironic that both atheists and fundamentalists agree on what the Bible teaches. And both sides agree that it conflicts with what science teaches. For the atheist it means that science discredits the Bible whereas for the fundamentalist it means that the Bible discredits science.

We know our religion is based on truth...

How do you know that, Steve? Isn't it a matter of faith rather than knowledge? And isn't that faith based on your cultural environment? Wouldn't you believe just as strongly in the Koran if you had been reared in a Moslem culture?

Response to ZAROVE:

The reason that I asked for your credentials is that you keep insisting that I accept what you say on your own authority.

I argue with the likes of you on my own wit alone. I use the net sparingly for this end, becaue tis a waste of time to do researh that you wll ignore.

Great. So I'm supposed to accept whatever you say. It just proves that I was right when I wrote in my opening post for this thread, "I know that ZAROVE will protest that because he learned Hebrew 3 years ago that makes him the final authority on this board as to what the Bible really says."

Come to think of it, the only objection that you had to the above statement was the length of time that I said you spoke Hebrew. You never did object to my assertion that you regarded yourself as the final authority on the Bible. Talk about vanity.

...you confudse Hebrew for Italian...

I was making a self-deprecating joke. I figured that it must be Hebrew. Why would I think that it would be Italian? But I didn't know what it said. Later, when I put it on Google, the translation popped up right away.

With regard to my use of Strong's to show that "raqiya" means a solid dome, you wrote:

why cant you actually address my argument rather than simpley rely on souces hat appear to support yor claim?

Well, gee, excu-u-u-use me.

By the wya, strngs is a good resorce, but has soem errors in it due to lakc of knowledge of the Hebrew Language hey had in the 19th century...And new linguistical and archeological eidnece found fom 1920-1945 proved this assertion wrong. Strng used the assertiosn of his day to makw this claim, and has since been proven worn goion this one point...Using Strings is like Using HG Wells. Mych of His outlien of Hisotyr is still vlaidly considered, but much oof it has fallen ito disfaovur in academia...Strngs is still sued because no oen has the patence to replicate it.

Now that's very interesting. It would have been nice if you linked me to an article on it so that I could read more about it. I guess I'll have to dig it up on my own.

sicne when do i use the NAB?

Why not? It's a Catholic Bible and this is a Catholic message board. What's wrong with it?

Well, ZAROVE, I've got to break away for now. As I see it, there are 3 points you raised that I need to address:

1. That the NAB says "dome" and not "solid dome."

2. The the Hebrew language had no word to express an infinite space.

3. That the "dome" could be the atmosphere surrounding the earth.

Patience, ZAROVE. Enlightenment is on its way. :)

P.S. You wrote, "I switched argumets sinced i know you arent brave enough to even consider the ofrmer, and will never addrss it..."

So now you call me a coward in addition to calling me a vain, egotistical, not too bright, total idiotic fool. (Sigh.) The things I suffer to spread truth and enlightenment.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

You spread trouble and deceit. Not enlightenment.

Also, BC, this isn't suffering. You're meeting with much more tolerance than your impudence deserves.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

Daniel Hawkenberry wrote: The author of the source you cite was a hack pseudoscientist and delusional proponent of many whacky endeavors including the "Flat Earth" mythology you too now mistakenly promulgate.

You're just like ZAROVE! You link me to an article that not only fails to support what you say but actually ends up supporting me instead.

{tHIS IS SIMPLEYLYING NOW.

The article I linekd sdid not actulaly support you an your claism rathe thna my own. The poutn in linking it was to Prive that otehrs beelived in eliocentirsm before Capernicus. Teh artcle mentioend this. just because the article said Aristotilainism won out in the end and was predomenent, does not mean you where supported in the actual claim I said was flase, that beig that everyone beleived in Geocentirsm.

by cinstantly saying my actucle didnt relay support what I said and rellay reinforced yoyer case, you ignore the fact that you said that all people accepted geocentrism, and no one beelived in heliocentirsm, which is obviously false, as evidence d by the article I linekd.

Daneils article sows ow peopel int he midel ages did nto beelive the dearth to be flat... the poiun is that the pepel inthe Middle ages did not accept the Earht as flat, as your other article claimed.

Ignorign this fac tis like ignoring mine.

You see only what you will to see.}-Zarove

The author of the article I cited is Robert J. Schadewald. The article that you cited doesn't even mention his name or anyone associated with him! What gives? Really, I'd like to know. What's going on here?

See above, i exlaiend both yor wrror aut how my article supproted you, and what Daneil was tlakign about. if you are too thick headed and stubborn to accept the pjtn and design instea dot ignroe it to twist details, you will continue to be thoguth of as a narrow midned egotist.}-Zarove

Schadewald never said that the medieval Church taught that the earth was flat. Nor did he say that most Christians believed that the earth was flat. His issue is with the Bible, not the Church. It is the Bible, he claims, which teaches a flat earth:

{But the Biblke has no unequivocol statements that say "The earht is Falt', onl yor eagerness to force this interpretaiton on select passages and claim it makes mroe senc ein that cosmology is evideced, NOT yur casae in total. Nor that the Bibel is a flat-earth book. ( Indeed, tis not even "A Book", but several...}-Zarove

"The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book."

{No, its not. Indeed, the Bible seldom if ever speaks of the spacific shape of the earth. only your misrepresentaton of varosu pasages renders it so. such as a misrepresentaiton of the Dream Nebuchanezar had. Yes, the dream indicats a flat earth. it also has a tree grow thats the size odf the Earth. Beign a Dream means it snot real, and isnt a rflection fo reality...

By misrepresentin this, you clearly show a wllinenss to use manipulative and eceptive tactics to bolster your case.

( and the artcle you linked says this, you offer no disclaimers, so you make the smae claim as te article you present.)

The Bible is not a flat Earht book snce no satgements in the Bible claim the earht ot be flat.}-Zarove

Those Christians who believe in a flat earth do so because of the Bible:

{No, they did so becaue of a mistake about a meanign of a certain passage of the Bible,not because of th Biel itsself...}-Zarove

"Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century."

{I rrlaly don care about otes form your article, least of all when this sint true. Out o the over 200 Church Fathers, only 5 held to a flat earth position.

You may want to say they arrived at this conclusion purely frm the Bible an thus this proves the Bibel to be a flat earht book, but why fifnt the other 195 or so chch fathers arrive at the same conclusion if th Bible was so cut-and-dry and they lacked t benefit of Modern sicne?

Its called "Graspign at straws."}-Zarove

This is confirmed by the very article you cited:

"A few—at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements."

In other words, it was the Bible that led them to believe in a flat earth. That's exactly what Schadewald is saying.

{It lead at leats 5 out of 200 to belive this. Are you sayign the other Hurhc Fathers wher ignorant of the Bible, or else ignoring it, nt eh very time when , acordng o you, most peepl flt the Earth as flat and the centre of the Universe?

Why didnt they also arrve at the conclusion?

Men can be mistaken, hwoer, claiming hte bible isobviosuly a flat earht book base don the writigns of 5 men out of 200 is absurd andincredulous.

Aain, you use what supports you and ignroe evidence aisnt, this clealry shows not only bias, but agenda in yur writings.

It doesnt matte if 10'000 said the earht was round and based this on the scruotrues, with wole chapters dedicated to bilical proof, form the firts century, what wodl matter is the one who said it was flat, as this supports your claim.}-Zarove

The article you cited goes on to say:

"On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."

But that's not the point at all as far as we're concerned. The point is WHY no educated person believed in a flat earth. Was it because of what they learned from the Bible? No. It was because of what they learned outside the Bible, from math and science:

{whihc is not relaly incongruous, since the bibel tells us to seek knwoeldge and wisdom. ( Priverbs chapoter 4...)

However, the issue you raise is rather or not the Bibel claims the Earht to be flat, which it does not. only uf you waro the meanign of soem texts does it, and you o so eagerly.}-Zarove

"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans."

Since Greeks and Romans already knew that the earth was round, it's only natural that when they became Christians and adopted the Jewish Scriptures as their Bible they would avoid interpreting any flat- earth passages literally.

{ro daye you have yet ot show any flat earth pasages. You only distort pasages, an claim we arnt takign them literlaly and they origionallyw hre flat earth verses.

In short, you contoinuously avoid issues raised agsin your case and dismiss thm out of hand in a childish fashion...}-Zarove

It's the same reason why most Christians today don't interpret the creation story or the geocentric verses literally.

{There are no Geocentirc verses... I kow ecc 3:21...clealry geocentirc...cant be henomenologicla and clealry the man wwho write it wa a gnocntirst...

But at leats give benefit of a dubt here.

show a clear referene ot geocntirsm bisdes tou "Two legs to stand on". A vers that clealry states "The Earht is the Centee of Creation', and we shall blve you.

show a flat earht verse...

Show anyhtign that supports your claim other than acusaiton agasint the Bibel and acusain agaisnt us when we don play along with your delusions.}-Zarove

You know better now so you put a different spin on these verses.

{Can you prove that any ancient Jewish fathers intepreted them "Literally' as flat earht , gocentic, or dome int he sky verses? Can yo show exampels of ancent gexegeis proot to the :"More advancerd' greeks interpolitijg the scene and maing the verses metaphorical and not literal?

Can you>?

Go to "Early Jewish writings .com" and you will see all the ancient Jewish writitngs. Look throgh htem. See how many flat earthers you see in the 9th Century BC, see how many Geocentirsts, who take the Bible "literlay' as you claim.

we can take the verses literlaly and STILL disagree wiht yor claims of what theysay.

And NO ONE in hisotyr interpeted the Bibel they way yo claim, een before the Greeks.}-Zarove

Furthermore, the article you cited mentions nothing about what the Jews believed. Since the Torah was composed prior to the 3rd Century B.C. then it was composed at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, so there is no reason to believe that the Jews would not write flat-earth verses and interpret those verses literally.

{But there ar eno erses in the otrah menioned that show a flat earth. Likewise, if you can show us Jews intepreting any verse to meanthe earht was flat, or else sho us anciet Jewish writigns that ar geocentirc and i the majority an useing th same verses, hrn we will beelive.

We DO interptet the verses literlaly, HOWEVER w do not agree wih your interpretaton which iften sint literal, but designer...}-Zarove

Steve wrote:

This perfectly illustrates my point about why we must not let the nonsense of “creation science” (and anti-scientific “new age” mumbo- jumbo, magic crystals, “alternative” medicine etc.) take root in our schools and our society. You see how militant atheists, like Bonzo’s Cousin here, DESPERATELY WANT to convince themselves and others that Christianity is anti-science and just a bunch of silly old myths trying unsuccessfully to explain things which science now explains.

With regard to preventing "creation science" from being taught in our public schools, nobody would agree with you more than Robert J. Schadewald, the author of the article I cited.

{Howeve, his hisotry and exegesis of the Bibel ar einadequate...}- Zarove

He was president of the National Center for Science Education, which is dedicated to "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools." He died four years ago. Here is his obituary.

{we dotn rlay care...}-Zarove

The NCSE battles against Creationism being taught as a science in the public schools. Schadewald took a special interest in the Flat Earth and Geocentric movements. He recognized that Creationism, Geocentricism, and Flat-Earthism were are all based today on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

{he idnt "rswlaise ' this, he was just an anti-Christain atheist. I know, I read interviews with the man. He hated rleigion and especially Chrisyainity, and didnt mind sloppy research to discredit religiosu peopel as a whole...}-Zarove

It's ironic that both atheists and fundamentalists agree on what the Bible teaches.

{No, they dont...}-Zarove

And both sides agree that it conflicts with what science teaches.

{At leat in tor own little world...}-Zarove

For the atheist it means that science discredits the Bible whereas for the fundamentalist it means that the Bible discredits science.

{And both are wrong.........}-Zarove

We know our religion is based on truth...

How do you know that, Steve? Isn't it a matter of faith rather than knowledge?

{yah the whole " If you knwo semthign, yo don need faith" argument. Lad, faith isnt always defiend as beelif without knwoeldge. soemtimes kweldge leads to faith. I have faith that the planet Pluto orbits th sun... becae I know it does...

Faith is mrley firm conistion or beleif, its another word for confedence.

If we KNOW semtign is true our faiht in it is GREATER.

The canard that is tired and old an sueles is that faiht is incompatale with knwoeldge.

We knwo the Bible is true, because we can compae it tot he real world, and see where it cems form, and test its claims.}-Zarove

And isn't that faith based on your cultural environment? Wouldn't you believe just as strongly in the Koran if you had been reared in a Moslem culture?

{Not nessisarily. You asme we are only prodicts of our cultures and only belive the religon we where brouht up in. some of th members here ar ocnverts to Christanity, for instance. And I personally knwo peopel who where Muslim form birth, and who grw up in muslim natons, who onetheless converted to Chrisyaimity.Likewise, many chrisaisn convert to variosu other rleigions...

We arent just midnelss drines here.}-Zarove

Response to ZAROVE:

The reason that I asked for your credentials is that you keep insisting that I accept what you say on your own authority.

{I ask you to counter the arugment, if you don wan to take my word for it, fine, look it up yourself. However, you cannot dismiss my argument sumemrily by saying "S what, yo kow hebrew, btu the sky is stil a solid dome in Genesis because I said so and I doint evn have to address you argument so there, ney!".

Basiclaly, you know my arugment is worng becsaue you knwo the Bibel ta of a solid dome and the sky is a solid dome becaue the ancens who worte it where all too prmitive to knwo beer and all beelived it. My arugment doesnt even get addressed whthe possiblity that Im rght and yor worng. Insetad,you just asime your right and then assume I wring even if I know the language.

whats the difference between me tellign yuo flat pou that Hebrew had no way of rexpressing an infinite expance,and me positng to an apologetics webste that says the same thing?}-Zarove

I argue with the likes of you on my own wit alone. I use the net sparingly for this end, becaue tis a waste of time to do researh that you wll ignore.

Great. So I'm supposed to accept whatever you say.

{ You coidl actually answer what I say. I dotn expect ot be taken at face, btu relaly what do you have to couner my arugments? Simpelydismissing them as wrong without tellign why there wring is askign me to accept at face value your summerydismissal of my arguments...}-Zarove

It just proves that I was right when I wrote in my opening post for this thread, "I know that ZAROVE will protest that because he learned Hebrew 3 years ago that makes him the final authority on this board as to what the Bible really says."

{I bever claimd to be the final authority, but you sure did. You claimed that my knoledge of Hebrew is irelevant and the sky is a solid dome, base dupon your say so and one net article. Youdotn even address my arugment to TRY to refute it, you just asusme its worng and expect everyone else to follow your line that its worng or not worth discussion.}-Zarove

Come to think of it, the only objection that you had to the above statement was the length of time that I said you spoke Hebrew. You never did object to my assertion that you regarded yourself as the final authority on the Bible. Talk about vanity.

{Thats because I didnt htink it was all that relevent. And its nto vanity sicne I never claimed to be the final authority, I simpey ignroed your vain, egotostical, malicious personal attakc, which you now try to twist to make another attaCK AGAISNT MY CHARGCTER.

cANT YOU ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS?}-Zarove

...you confudse Hebrew for Italian...

I was making a self-deprecating joke. I figured that it must be Hebrew. Why would I think that it would be Italian? But I didn't know what it said. Later, when I put it on Google, the translation popped up right away.

{ Well it certianly idnt come off as a joke, now did it lad?}-Zarove

With regard to my use of Strong's to show that "raqiya" means a solid dome, you wrote:

why cant you actually address my argument rather than simpley rely on souces hat appear to support yor claim?

Well, gee, excu-u-u-use me.

{sayin g"Well Excu-u-use me' is not an address to my argument.

I did not ask ot be beelived on face, btu I did expect some sort of rebuttle, not a general dismissal becaue you feel oen who knows the language isnt qualified to speak agisnt your gibberish becaue you ar right by default.}-Zarove

By the wya, strngs is a good resorce, but has soem errors in it due to lakc of knowledge of the Hebrew Language hey had in the 19th century...And new linguistical and archeological eidnece found fom 1920-1945 proved this assertion wrong. Strng used the assertiosn of his day to makw this claim, and has since been proven worn goion this one point...Using Strings is like Using HG Wells. Mych of His outlien of Hisotyr is still vlaidly considered, but much oof it has fallen ito disfaovur in academia...Strngs is still sued because no oen has the patence to replicate it.

Now that's very interesting. It would have been nice if you linked me to an article on it so that I could read more about it. I guess I'll have to dig it up on my own.

{I didnt get this off the net, got oit out of several printed soruces.Form Discover Magazine to "hisotry of sicnece'.}-Zarove

sicne when do i use the NAB?

Why not? It's a Catholic Bible and this is a Catholic message board. What's wrong with it?

{Its a praphrase and use Liberal Theology. And Im not Catholic...}- Zarove

Well, ZAROVE, I've got to break away for now. As I see it, there are 3 points you raised that I need to address:

1. That the NAB says "dome" and not "solid dome."

2. The the Hebrew language had no word to express an infinite space.

3. That the "dome" could be the atmosphere surrounding the earth.

Patience, ZAROVE. Enlightenment is on its way. :)

{If this trend continues, I suspect you swill dismiss or ignroe the main poitns and find someone who agree with you who wrote an artlce ont he net...}-Zarove

P.S. You wrote, "I switched argumets sinced i know you arent brave enough to even consider the ofrmer, and will never addrss it..."

So now you call me a coward in addition to calling me a vain, egotistical, not too bright, total idiotic fool.

{Havent you demonstrated hubieus, pride, egotism,a nd cowardice in the above? Your refusal to addres smy arugment and insistanc eon personal attakcs rather han arguents sows a fear of addresisng the arugment as you may prove wrong after all...}-Zarove

(Sigh.) The things I suffer to spread truth and enlightenment.

{Suffer? You cam here, of your own accord, in order to make personal attakc son controbutors and rfuse to listen to a word they say. You arnet here to spread enlightenment, butony your own agenda to fuel your egotism. You arent suffering, yor just beign a neusance and dsliek beign called on it.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.

Bonzo's Cousin,

You have disproved your original point -your continuance suggests a broader point?

Do you now suggest that objective material scientic 'truths' and or 'theories' which have not to date contradicted a well informed understanding of devine revelation in matters objectively material somehow impinge upon the supernatural aspects of devine revelation that science can not quantify?

I request you be succint and speak of your own understanding rather than attempt to cut and paste quid pro quo that which you 'feel' appears relevant.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 20, 2004.

“We know our religion is based on truth... How do you know that, Steve? Isn't it a matter of faith rather than knowledge?”

My faith is based on my knowledge. Your attempt to assert, without any evidence, some kind of essential conflict between faith and knowledge, is as barren as your attempt to assert, without any evidence, a conflict between The Bible and science. “And isn't that faith based on your cultural environment?” IOW, “aren’t you a Catholic because your parents were Catholic?” Tell us about YOUR parents Bonzo boy. Were they Christian? If so it defeats your argument that people only have a faith because their parents had it. Were they atheist? If so, by your own reasoning, you are only an atheist because you irrationally continue to blindly and unthinkingly accept what your parents told you.

I was one of seven children. Five of them have rejected Catholicism, as have many of the people brought up in the same cultural environment I was brought up in. I know some have become atheists, Buddhist, ‘New Age” and other faiths. Your atheism is just as much a faith as any of the others. A large proportion of the Catholics in my parish were brought up in another religion. And overall, the cultural environment I have lived in most of my life has been extremely secular and often aggressively anti-religion and anti- Christian in particular.

“Wouldn't you believe just as strongly in the Koran if you had been reared in a Moslem culture?” If I did I would be wrong. But no one could possibly know the answer to that hypothetical question.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.

The Bible is given us as a way to go to heaven, not a book explaining how the heaven's go.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.

OK, ZAROVE, here is my response to the points you said I wasn't addressing:

1. The NAB says "dome" and not "solid dome."

You're right. I could not find the exact phrase -- "solid dome" -- in the NAB version of the Bible or in its footnotes. But I think that this is close enough:

Do you spread out with him the firmament of the skies, hard as a brazen mirror? (Job 37:18 NAB)

I guess I got the phrase "solid dome" from an article on the firmament in The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in 1909:

"The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us...On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time."

If the dome were not solid then how could it hold the waters above it? Why would God have to open windows in it to make it rain and close windows in it to stop the rain? (Genesis 7:11 & 8:2) If it were not solid then how could it even have windows?

2. There is no word in ancient Hebrew to express an infinite expanse.

There may not be any ONE word to express an infinite expanse, but why must it be limited to one word? When God told Noah to build the ark He gave Noah its height, width, and length. To express infinity you could simply say that something has a height, width, and length without end.

Actually, I forget why this is important. It's clear that the firmament, dome, expanse, or whatever could not be infinite because it had water above it.

That "upper water" presents real difficulties in trying to reconcile Genesis with science. But it makes perfect sense when you accept the fact that Genesis simply reflects the erroneous cosmology of the time.

3. The "dome" could be the atmosphere surrounding the earth.

No chance. The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars and set them in the dome. So the dome can't be the atmosphere. Furthermore, the Bible says that the upper water is ABOVE the dome. So what would the upper water be?

Also, the order of creation is backwards from a scientific wiewpoint. First you would have the sun and then earth's atmosphere. But the Bible says that the dome was created first and then the sun later.

If the dome is a solid structure (instead of the earth's atmosphere) then the Bible's order of creation makes perfect sense. God would make the dome first because then He can attach the sun, moon, and stars to it so that they don't fall down to earth.

Now, ZAROVE, here's a point for you to ponder:

The Septuagint translates "raqiya" as "stereoma," which denotes something solid. Assuming that this is the original Greek word chosen by the Jewish translators, we must ask why they chose it. The same goes for Jerome's choice of "firmamentum." Were both Latin and Greek incapable of conveying the true meaning of "raqiya"? Or has the "true meaning" of "raqiya" been changed to fit the truth?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.

Joe,

But the fact is that it DOES explain how the heavens go. And it gets it wrong. If it's wrong about that then what else is it wrong about?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.

Daniel Hawkenberry,

I take it you are the board's resident Polonius.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.

The Bible is wrong about astronomy for the same reason a cookbook is wrong about auto repairs - that isn't the purpose for which it was written. If you try to use a cookbook while fixing your car then that is an error on your part, not an error in the book. Likewise if you try to use the Bible as a science text, you are not using it for its intended purpose, which is an error on your part, not on the part of the text. The Bible is God's revelation about Himself and His relationship to us. On these matters it is inerrant. What it says or what you think it says about science or economics or gardening or skiing or any other area of human activity is at best incidental to and at worst utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the text.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2004.

OK, ZAROVE, here is my response to the points you said I wasn't addressing:

1. The NAB says "dome" and not "solid dome."

You're right. I could not find the exact phrase -- "solid dome" -- in the NAB version of the Bible or in its footnotes. But I think that this is close enough:

iF YOU ADMIT THE TERM "sOLID DOME' IS NOT USED, THEN DOES HTIS MEAN YOU WILL DROP TH ARGUMENT? i DOBT IT...

Do you spread out with him the firmament of the skies, hard as a brazen mirror? (Job 37:18 NAB)

And who is speakign in Chapter 37 of Job? Is it God?

Do tou relaise that most of Job is human philoosphy beign examined? Much of whats in job is flatly wrong! that was the whole point of the Book!

The whoel 37th chapter is Jobs all too human Lament. why on earht do ou think this pves tour case? Let me guess, tis in the Bilt herefore hads to be the word of God thus nfallable, therefre provignthe Bil to be false, right?

Your as basd as the atheists I once debated who woidl claim the Biel advocated adultery because it recorded David commiting adultery...

Likewise, and as stated already numerous times, the Hebrew Language was unable to express an infinite expance.

I guess I got the phrase "solid dome" from an article on the firmament in The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in 1909:

"The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us...On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time."

which isnt rlaly relvant to me, and I doubt ou ever read that before you sought to discedit my argumets...

If the dome were not solid then how could it hold the waters above it?

How does the atmpspehre hold all that water that evaporates? If the Dome is just the Atmopshere, then the waters are held within it, as clealry proven by the water cycle...though this is anothe rpossibility you will ignore int he name of "enlightenment' as you have all the answers and cant be bothered to exmaien yorslf...

Why would God have to open windows in it to make it rain and close windows in it to stop the rain? (Genesis 7:11 & 8:2)

You do realise the Bible used figures of speech, right? Or is that imposisble, and must we take every stray line literlaly to take th overall acocut literally?

Let me guess, all the ancient Hebrews veiwed the verse as literal windows, and we knwo this because Binzo said so.

Again, find any accredited Ancient Jewish Soruce tha confirms your claim, go to www.earlyJewishwrittings.com and see what you come up with...

If it were not solid then how could it even have windows?

1: Its a figure of speech. Much like the phenomenological language in ecc 3:21 which you prsume to mean the sun revovles aroudn th earht if taken literlay and that it coidl be posisbely written by a Heliocentirst...

Only a fool thinks that the Bibel choi no be taken literlaly, but he is equelly a fool who takes every line as such. Never has this been the case.Not even among the ancients most close to its origions.

2. There is no word in ancient Hebrew to express an infinite expanse.

There may not be any ONE word to express an infinite expanse, but why must it be limited to one word?

I did not, hwoever, merly limit it to one word. The Hebrew langag is ncapable in Biblical times to exptress an infinite expance at all, no mater how many words you use.

Go on, try to use Bilcial hebrew to expess an open expance, use as many words as you like.

When God told Noah to build the ark He gave Noah its height, width, and length.

which all had definitive values...

To express infinity you could simply say that something has a height, width, and length without end.

which woiudl, of coruse, be both mechaniclaly imposisble in Hebrew, inwhich onlytime, and not space, codl be psiken of in this way, and which woudl detract formt he tetramic rhythme of the pem. ( And yes, Genesis; Opening Chapter is poetic, a fact you failt o appriciate.)

Actually, I forget why this is important. It's clear that the firmament, dome, expanse, or whatever could not be infinite because it had water above it.

In which case, and becaue Im too bored wth you o bother expalning in detail, why cant htis simpely rtefer tothe evaporated water int he atmosphere which een the ancient babylonaisn before Moses was born knew about?

That "upper water" presents real difficulties in trying to reconcile Genesis with science.

I suppose if you ignore the water cycel and the fac thtta above my head right no it appriximatley 42 Metric tonnes of water... in evaporated form...

But it makes perfect sense when you accept the fact that Genesis simply reflects the erroneous cosmology of the time.

Or if you simpey apply it tot he water cycle and claim that the waters are above the heavens, as one use to speak, becaue thi is where evaporated water rsides...

3. The "dome" could be the atmosphere surrounding the earth.

No chance. The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars and set them in the dome.

even the ancients who did beleive in a dome over the earthbeleived in multiple domes. Look up Plutonianism...

And again, the Actual hebre doesn spport your claims.

You asusme hat the dome was a one stop slid objedt wih windos because ou refus ot se t anyother way, hwoever, the stars, moon, and sun ar ein that firmament, they merle reside above the waters,hich are evaporated.

ow do try tothink for a change...

So the dome can't be the atmosphere.

Yes it can, if there are higher levls, hih extend pastthe atmosphere. And again the linguistics nees o be considered, whichyou do not...

Furthermore, the Bible says that the upper water is ABOVE the dome. So what would the upper water be?

well this certianl implies that the sun and moon cna be likewise above it, doesnt it.

Again, thinkign on yur predjudices is the dufficulty, you do not seek to understand the Bible, merly discrdit it.

Also, the order of creation is backwards from a scientific wiewpoint.

Not copletley. lants di evolve before animals... only arts are off, and sinc its a poetic couplet deigned to tell what was creatd and is not to be taken Linerarly, andsin th Hebrew midn wasnt linear athtis time, that much is irrelevant, not that you will understand...

First you would have the sun and then earth's atmosphere. But the Bible says that the dome was created first and then the sun later.

And the pupose of the peom is to tell what is created and give a basic essence,nto a sicntific acount. Therefore rnderignthis moot.

If the dome is a solid structure (instead of the earth's atmosphere) then the Bible's order of creation makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sicne even if the dme isnt solid but the general cosmolog of the flat earht and geocentism is correct... it liekwise makes perfect sicne wth heliocentirsm, and a host of other things...

Pojn being?

God would make the dome first because then He can attach the sun, moon, and stars to it so that they don't fall down to earth.

At leay, this is wht you presume using cirsular logic. the ancients thoht the sn reovled roufn the earht, theegfore this is hat Genesis says, and genesis says it, therfore it mean hye beelived it...

In reality the facts seak agsint you since how woidl the sun and moon be able to move if they wher fixed in the firmament?

And again, do you even remotely undersand the poin of Genesis? Are you even tryign to? No, your just ramblign again...

Now, ZAROVE, here's a point for you to ponder:

The Septuagint translates "raqiya" as "stereoma," which denotes something solid.

Am i to put more faith in a translation than th origional hebrew?

Assuming that this is the original Greek word chosen by the Jewish translators, we must ask why they chose it.

I woidl rather not, and wudl rather rely on th origional. No translation is perfect. evn mhy KJV as soem errors in it. I relay dontthink th eptuegent is reliable in all things.

The same goes for Jerome's choice of "firmamentum."

Funnily enough, Im leanrign latin, nd can address this. Jeromes choice is similar to the KJV choice. Closest Latin word tot he Hebrew in a Literal word for word translation. It does not, hwoever, nessesarily follo fom this that the Hebre ord impleis a solid dome. Any more thanth term Firmament in the KJV applies. Its the same arguent byt in Latin.

Were both Latin and Greek incapable of conveying the true meaning of "raqiya"?

This is linguistical misrepresentation. in either case I asume ( Since I fdo not knwo ancient Kione Greek) that they chose the cloest posisble word. However, this does not meanthat the translation wil be 100% accurate, as linguisical drift will occure and osme thigns will be lost in translation.

Re;ying on trnaslations fo tour argument, form languages far more ocmpelxe than the Hebrew, is remarkabely stupid.

Or has the "true meaning" of "raqiya" been changed to fit the truth?

OK, let me slowly explain. forgiveme for talkign down to yo, but you did literllay ask for this.

The Hebre is incapable of exptessing an infinite physical soace.So they have to put qualifers in the text to limit a givenohysical spce.

A translation from the Hebrew will also limit the ohysical space if tis a literal transaltion, becaue this is hat the Hebrew dos...

This des not make the trnaslation nessisarily bad, but it does meanthe origional languageslimitatiosn wil hsow up in the tranlation, even if the trnaslationis capabl of better xpression.

Or are to that moronic as not to see this?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 21, 2004.

Bonzo's Cousin,

I am not here posting often enough to be Polonius -maybe you consider me meddlesome?

As to yor latest attempt -I still await your purpose?

Let me suggest you consider something that fatally flaws your 'argument'. If the scripture was divinely inspired and it's purpose was to communicate whatever was communicated -would not the context, content, and audience(both writers of the day and readers ad infinitum) have to be considered in any interpretation?

Why belabor argument so painfully -is it but attempt to add authenticity to errant argument?

By using that which you claim errant can you 'prove' its errancy?

Why not just say something like the Bible makes no mention of automobiles and be clearly done with and realize your painful futile exercise?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 21, 2004.