[quote]pushharder wrote:
There. The bishop just made another move. I see the knight is still…ummmmm…how shall we say it?..laughing?[/quote]
Yes, I am.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Several verses in the bible suggest that the earth is flat and doesn’t move, regardless of how you translate them.
“[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”
(Matthew 4:1-12)
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)
1 Chronicles 16:30: �¢??He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.�¢??
Psalm 93:1: Ã?¢??Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …Ã?¢??
Psalm 96:10: Ã?¢??He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …Ã?¢??
Psalm 104:5: �¢??Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.�¢??
Isaiah 45:18: Ã?¢??..who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…Ã?¢??
[/quote]
I’m as areligious as they get, but I kind of agree with Push about these not being compelling examples of biblical statements supporting a flat-Earth view.
The big problem with anything in the English language version of the Bible is unreliable translation (as you’ve probably discussed earlier in this thread given your polylingual demonstrations on the last few), but there’s unreliable interpretation of the original author too. The word earth could just mean “ground” as opposed to air or sea, or just land in the vicinity, rather than referring to everything there is. Or it could mean “continuous land-mass bounded by water”. I don’t know if the Bible has anything to say about distant transoceanic lands, but given who wrote it I would imagine a much smaller worldview.
The Daniel quote is of a different nature, but since it’s describing a vision of a biologically impossible giant tree, it can’t be taken to be describing the real world with any rigour.
The Matthew quote rests on what “world” and “kingdom” refer to. If “world” is defined as “the collective area covered by all the known kingdoms” it’s just another example of a parochial view from an ignorant author.
Even the allusion to movement. Is that movement through space, or simple movement up and down like water?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
There. The bishop just made another move. I see the knight is still…ummmmm…how shall we say it?..laughing?
Yes, I am.
You are a dirty dawg.[/quote]
I’m a dirty dawg who likes pussy cats. 
Discussing the actual intended meaning of certain verses in the bible is pointless. Not just pointless, it’s actually dumb. It’s a book that is hundreds of years old, has been translated from ancient languages, and wasn’t written by a single person, rather by a whole bunch of people. Trying to get to the “real meaning” of it is stupid, as there is no “real” meaning. If you want to read a fiction book and understand every little detail of it as the author meant it, go read something that has an author that is still alive. Try some Harry Potter.
My point was not to prove whether the bible describes the earth as flat or not. It was to show how creationists, or any religious person for that matter, pick and choose what parts are to be read exactly as they are written, and what parts are a) metaphors or analogies b) lost in translation c) let’s just ignore it because it’d be a pain in the ass to follow it to a T (silly rules such as not working on saturdays, for example).
And seriously, if you disagree with me on this one, you’re only proving my point, and you probably won’t even realize it. But I don’t expect you* to grasp this little concept.
*by you I mean anyone that tries to take the bible as more than an interesting fiction book, or a “guideline”.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Discussing the actual intended meaning of certain verses in the bible is pointless. Not just pointless, it’s actually dumb. It’s a book that is hundreds of years old, has been translated from ancient languages, and wasn’t written by a single person, rather by a whole bunch of people. Trying to get to the “real meaning” of it is stupid, as there is no “real” meaning.[/quote]
This.
Unless you guys can tell me they found ORIGINAL copies of the testaments, and they’re in a language that has either died out or hasn’t evolved (har har I used the word evolved) into a different dialect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I can understand how you would feel this way. It does take some study, i.e., work. It’s definitely complex especially for someone with preconceived ideas. There are a lot of distinctions to be made.
Please do me a favor and promise you’ll smile at me every time you post. I would hope it would be a “Push-is-my-buddy-and-I-sure-do-like-the-lug” smile but I’ll take whatever I can get.[/quote]
I think I’m not making myself clear. I’m not talking about the bible, nor am I talking about God. I’m talking about people. Yes, it’s a complex book, that’s why I chose as example one of its best known parts, the ten commandments. I think we can all agree, no matter if you’ve studied the matter for years, or just opened the book right now, that it says both “You shall not kill”, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”.
Yea, the words change a bit in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but it’s pretty clear that those 3 things are still there. Now let’s see, the “you shall not kill” is somewhat respected. Not entirely. But still taken somewhat seriously by religious people. The Sabbath part, not so much. Except for a few more orthodox denominations, people are fine with working and partying on saturdays. Now my favourite: not covet your neighbor’s wife? HA. RIGHT.
Now I see why the question you asked yesterday is relevant to the topic. I’m wearing shorts and a white tank top.
But you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, good Christian.
The definition of covet is to desire, not to steal. The word does carry a guilt connotation, which I dislike, but I was manipulating that exact fact on my post. In fact, most of the bible’s “rules” carry a sense of guilt, that I’m not a fan of.
Anyways, I wasn’t trying to be specific there, although that’s what it sounded like, I admit. What I meant is, according to the bible, just looking around is a sin. What sane human being doesn’t, to use your words, admire other people than their loved ones? Who doesn’t work and go out on Saturdays? Who has never “coveted” someone else’s property, like a nice car for example? How can one, by interpretation of the bible, draw a line at what’s wrong and what isn’t?
covâ??etâ??â??/Ë?kÊ?vɪt/
â??verb (used with object)
- to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another’s property.
- to wish for, esp. eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted.
“As leis de Moises diziam: Nao cometas adulterio. Eu porem, digo: qualquer que olhar para uma mulher com cobica, ja cometeu adulterio com ela no seu coracao.”
Better not post any pics, Beta. Wouldn’t want our buddy Push here to commit adulterio with you in his coracao.
(Hope that’s intelligible without the accents and cedillas and tildes. They come out as garbage when the post comes up.)
F**k. I should have read this first. Too late now, pic in my profile. It’s an old one, but happens to be the same top. Hmm, maybe I need new clothes.
It’s actually really interesting that you posted that. The word for those commandments in Portuguese, cobica (yea, cedilhas come out all funky), means exactly what I tried to explain: to want something regardless of whether you act on it or not. It’s the same word when used for property, so if you see a really nice house, it doesn’t matter if you break into it or not. If you as much as think “wow a lucky bastard lives in there”, ops, that’s a sin. On a side note, the bible refers to wives as properties more than once.
The tenth commandment: Nao cobicem o que os outros tem: a casa, a mulher, o gado e animais de carga - nada.
What’s very interesting is that the verb cobicar has two translations into English: “to covet” and “to lust after.” The word “covet” isn’t used very much outside of Bible discussions and Silence of the Lambs, but we all know about good old Deadly Sin Number One.
The Romans called it cupiditia, from which you get the Portuguese word cobica (lust), and we get the English word cupidity (which means unquenchable desire or greed).
It’s also where the Greek god of lust, Eros, got his Roman name, Cupid.
Ethymology is fun. I don’t really translate things in my head when speaking (not sure if you work like that too), so sometimes things that seem obvious in my head probably aren’t so much when written. Like assuming berry as feminine. And now the word covet. I still don’t really get how “to covet” and “to lust after” have different meanings, so I’d appreciate if you explained. I’m thinking it’s because lust has more of a sexual meaning, but I’m not sure about it because I can see the word being used to express a strong desire or craving, not necessarily sexual.
Also, I think the evolutionists that have been posting here would like this: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/