No. Will respond soon.

Great. I look forward to hearing which people in history hadn't figured out if you lose too much blood then you die.

Speaking only for myself, you put out so much garbage that it's not worth parsing line by line. In your post, you cherry pick some very ambiguous phrasing that supposedly shows revealed truth.

Saying the earth is a circle is not the same as saying it is a sphere, and you conveniently leave out the description of a "firmament", etc.

Mentioning that the number of stars is vast isn't impressive, but you left out the part where the stars fall to earth (as if they are simply suspended above the earth).

If we're going to have revealed truth, why have so many falsehoods? Witches? Really? Why not some truth about germ theory.


So, don't be so smug and conclude that because no one responded it must be because we all acknowledge the validity of your post. Quite the opposite. You've shown such a penchant for posting apologetic drivel that you are not worth the time.

Strawman Fallacy. DUCY?

There is a slight problem with the bolded: It is totally wrong! People have still been responding to my "apologetic drivel" quite a lot long after I posted the "drivel" currently under discussion.

No, obviously not.

The reason people aren't interested in responding is because these are such obvious post hoc arguments. You take ambiguous statements out of context and claim they mean things discovered by modern science, when the actual people reading the Bible before science got going gave no evidence of believing these things. Meanwhile you ignore the statements that can be interpreted to imply false scientific claims. And you aren't even doing the work yourself, but just copy-pasting from another source.

For example:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Flat Earth beliefs are often based on literal interpretations of the Bible.

A circle is not a sphere. Also, many ancient Greeks also claimed that the earth was round. This included well-known philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, etc.

Uh...not sure how you think this either comports with modern science as it more seems to imply a stationary planet than a moving one. The earth doesn't "hang from nothing" but rather is constantly moving through space.

It isn't that difficult to estimate the number of the descendants of Abraham that have so far existed and it isn't even close to the number of stars that exist.

I think knowing that islands exists is probably sufficient to talk about mountains in the sea. However, you are ignoring the fact that Jonah is talking about some place called Sheol at the base of these mountains. What is that?

You think ancient seafaring peoples such as the Phoenicians were unaware that the ocean has currents?

Lol, good job guys, you've discovered that rain somehow comes from clouds.

Too bad it is false that all living things reproduce after their own kind.

Another false statement: plants are living organisms, but have no blood. Otherwise this is some kind of unscientific claim about "life."

Lol. This has nothing to do with science.

You left out the important epidemiological advice in verse 11:

Wouldn't want any solders who have wet dreams around as they might pollute everyone around them.

Congratulations on discovering that "policies are needed," a great scientific breakthrough.

Now you've diluted it by going through the full list I'm never going to find out which people didn't realise you needed blood to live.

I'd also like to hear how this is a strawman.

Devotional on Leviticus 17:11 by the late, great Dr. Henry Morris himself:


https://www.icr.org/article/12495

The above verses support Geocentrism, but not necessarily Flat Earthism.


True. But it was later before it was proven by science.

I am a Geocentrist.

As far as I know, it has always been known that losing too much blood can be deadly.

Then a statement like "life is in the blood" is one any person in history could've said. It's not some special knowledge the Bible had before anyone else. It's trivial. Can we drop it from the list now?

The bolded is not a standard you have otherwise used when quoting verses as evidence for your claim about the Bible prefiguring scientific claims. But if you want more explicit evidence of a flat earth viewpoint:

“And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come” (Jer 49:36, KJV).

“Son of man, this is what the Sovereign LORD says to the land of Israel: “The end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land!”” (Ezek 7:2).

“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree” (Rev 7:1; 20:8).

It was proven well enough by the ancient Greeks. Eratosthenes was even able to get a relatively accurate estimate of the earth's size.
You believe the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth doesn't move?

Just read through the complete book of Grimm's fairy tales ... with continuous appearances of St. Peter at the Gate, the Lord, paradise, heaven/hell/purgatory, Lucifer, Satan, angels, magic, fairies, pixies, miracles, 12 Apostles, etc. Some written 5000 years ago. People living hundreds of years in the stories when we know life expectancy then was about 25 years.

Hmmmm. How do we know it happened? It's in the book. Exactly what the fancied story genres were back then. Hmmm ... any parallels anywhere?

The common practice of bloodletting up until the nineteenth century seems to belie the notion that "life is in the blood" was an accepted fact.

Now you're straight contradicting yourself. You said that all people knew that blood was necessary for life. That includes bloodletters.

Bloodletting was largely based on the idea of the humours and keeping them balanced. Removing some blood would supposedly restore the balance. But they very much knew that blood was vitally important to life. They would easily have been able to accept a statement like "Life is in the blood" (which I still don't think is technically true in a modern understanding anyway).

Can we drop it from the list now?

Scientists and even most ordinary folks have known for centuries that blood is necessary for life, but not that the blood and its proper circulation is essentially the cornerstone of the life of humans.

I'll keep it on the list for now.

The verse quoted:
“For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof…”

It doesn't say anything about circulation. It doesn't say anything about being the "cornerstone". It doesn't say anything a bloodletter wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with. And blood being the "cornerstone" of life isn't something a modern biologist or doctor would say anyway.

You're just trying to suppose any reason you can think of to make this fit somehow.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about circulation. Blood being an important thing for life to happen seems like not the extraordinary insight you make it out to be.

From the same religion that killed witches, that practiced genocide, that condoned slavery, that is and was intimate with the KKK, that borrowed doctrine wholesale from myths, that believes demons and devils cause illness, whose characters chat with snakes and donkeys, whose god killed every fetus on earth in “The Flood” and is now held up as fetus rights advocate, whose god is night and day different between Old and New Testament but “never changes,” that demeans women, that instructed to kill homosexuals and non-virginal women and rebellious children (just stone them, what the heh?), that brought us the virgin birth, whose god is into blood, torture and sacrifice, that brought us the Crusades and Inquisitions, that brought us the sinful nature of newborns, that brought us systemic predation greenlighted within the church structure …

Such a god could have chosen anything under the sun for a system, and he chose this one. To accept it is to refuse to think in the realm of religion. Any time a true believer feels threatened by uncertainty, by existential anxiety, he chooses this god of “certainty.” He runs to this fantasized caretaker who resolves all such issues and offers streets of gold forever. These same assume that purpose and meaning, to be had, must be handed by a supernatural being or it can’t exist. Why? “God answers all my existential problems magically … do not expect me to entertain such issues with realism.”

There are a lot of evils in the world that purport to be good, and that ensnare humankind. None are more so than this kind of obedience, whose god can proclaim: “I can murder every child and fetus on earth and you will call it good, holy, and righteous.” This kind of amorality -- ceding it to evil others -- is how evil propagates throughout the world. When in fact a reasoned system of morality, of moral and immoral, is available, but I choose this one … I am in service of ancient, superstitious ignorant barbarism. And I call my obedience to it virtue.

There is a grand defense for it all. To wit: the religion exists but the god doesn’t. We are then free to delete the abominations from it (as being from a primitively ignorant barbaric society, not an all-knowing god), and continue on with it as an attempted but failed system of morality. But that entails getting one’s own agency involved instead of surrendering it to otherworldly powers. A humane, reasoned humanism of that sort is the enemy of religion. When I say I want my morality system to be objective, and therefore need it to come from god, what I really mean is I want it to be universal and authoritarian and certain. After all “coming from the supernatural” is hardly the definition of “objective.” But a moral system coming from an omniscient, morally perfect god would indeed be universal, ultimate, hand fed to us, authoritarian, absolute. So I make “Him” up. And abandon agency. Then I concoct an “eternal life card,” and boy is this system great …

The willful doubling down on something when it is exposed as false is a stubborn, stoopid “Leave me alone with reality … I’m closed minded about this …” It's a human vice. As is so often the case, the “self behind the self” (Emily Dickinson poem) is the one calling the shots, and this is even more true with religious proclamation. And it is precisely then that we see the stubborn return to the hard line miming of the ritual belief, such as: "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of the living God and in the salvation of my soul from being human thru grace from eternal hell damnation ..."

Because that is what religion is: a miming of a hard line that staves off the existential threat of being alive, and of hosting a consciousness. This host, lurking behind the self, is where the power is. It doesn’t mime.

There is a tension created when the understanding of God as sovereign, just, and good is put in conflict by our direct experience of unnecessary, irreconcilable suffering and evil. To avoid that existential crisis, many choose to sacrifice the truth of their direct experience and instead habitually and unconditionally reconcile through various rationalizations in order to relieve the tension. I understand why you don’t find this admirable.

However, there is another common pattern of behavior often used to avoid this crisis. It is to deny the sovereignty of God while at the same time trying to salvage the ideal, the transcendent good, through frameworks such as Humanism. The result is a good which is no longer transcendent divorced from God. It’s the pattern of building sandcastles and tyrannically blinding yourself to their inadequacy.

When this second person gets exposed to himself and loses the cover of self deception, he will find himself back at the unresolved crisis point and will often scapegoat the first type of person (the habitual reconciler) in a desperate, shortsighted attempt at relieving his built up resentment as a result of his victimhood.

The reality is that God and the sustainable good are two sides of the same coin. Punting on the idea of God, or denying the sovereignty of God, is not a solution to the internal splitting of existential crisis. Just as denying our judgment and unconditionally reconciling with God is not a solution. We are to wrestle with God - an idea that those ignorant, barbaric ancestors of ours already figured out.

I'm really not sure what you're saying in your entire post, but here you seem to be contrasting two types of theists: one that rationalizes an all-powerful god with the reality of life's suffering vs. one that doesn't consider god to be all-powerful. So, why bring Humanism into it?

Unless, by "denying the sovereignty of God" you really mean to deny the existence of god? For such a person, why would you even presume an existential crisis exists?

It is impossible for anyone to lose their soul completely, no matter what they believe. With that said, if someone is committed to their status quo, then no truth besides suffering will be brought into awareness for them until that commitment changes.

Wat?