Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical Inerrancy

Well some eaily answered points there1) From a closer reading of Genesis it is apparent that the light concerned is daylight - the relevant verses describe the creation of the day-night cycle.2) Concerning relativity of time, I very much doubt that even modern readers think of God zooming around the cosmos at near-c speeds. A more likely interpetation is that it prefers to the varying perceptions of time passing which we have all experienced (e.g. "time flies when you're having fun").3) Hanging on nothing still makes little sense.4) A flat circular world may be an advance on a rectangular flat world, but not a great one. And the Hebrew word does indeed refer to a circle, not a sphere.5)Since I have never heard of the idea that the Bible says that humans began in Africa - and since the rivers supposedly flowing out of Eden include the Tigris and Euphrates (Genesis 2:14) I have to doubt this claim6) I suspect that other sources of mythology are read more critically.
Certainly many interpretations of the Bible are blatantly unscientific (YEC, or Noah's Flood as a global event).

1) I didn't say SUNlight, I said DAYlight. And that's what I meant. Clearly the author of Genesis didn't realise that the Sun was the source of daylight - and moonlight2) Your answer is nonsensical. Either the answer that I suggested or the simple idea that temporal duration is of no great concern to an eternal being make more sense. It certainly does not imply that God could be considered "outside of time" (and just as well !). Stil, even your answer concedes that it is not a reference to anything scientific.3) No the Earth isn't "hanging" on anything4) I didn't realise that I was talking to a Flatlander. In the three dimensional world I exist in spheres are not circles.5) Well without knowing more it is impossible to evaluate the claim. The only clear evidence of location I can see is the reference to the Tigris and Euphrates.IF you read Genesis 1 literally it does say that nothing much greatly preceded the creation of man. Which certainly makes the Earth very much younger than science has determined. The Glacial meltings certianly didn't flood the entire planet nor did they kill all air-breathing life except for the occupants of one large boat. If the Noah story has anything to do with the Glacial floodings the story has been exaggerated considerably.This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-22-2004 05:55 PM

1) I'm not reaching. Try reading Genesis 1 instead of making assumptions about what it says. Want to explain why Gnesis 1:4-5 ISN'T about day and night ?2) "before" is a temporal concept. It therefore cannot apply to something "outside of time"3) Why would this man say that the Earth was hanging on anything ? Come on you can't really claim that this is any real indication of adcanced knowledge.4) So your argument is that the Hebrews were too stupid to tell the difference between a circle and a sphere ? The Hebrews certainly DID have vocabulary that would have let them indicate that the world was spherical (a word for "ball" for instance). And stll Isaiah uses the word for "circle".5) I'm not ducking the other two - but the origin of the Tigris and Euphrates is NOT in North Africa - the rivers don't even reach there, they flow into the Persian Gulf, from a northerly direction.As for your equation of the glacial meltings I have to tell you that it takes more than your wanting something to be true to make it a "scientific fact". Nor do I think that the differences between glacial meltings and the flood story can be explained by God not telling Noah all the details - Noah would have been better advised to move to higher ground, and he certainly wouldn't need to take every "kind" of animal since most of them would survive just fine, thank you, without the ark.

2) It's not my fault if what you say doesn't make sense.3) Resting on nothing makes exactly as much sense as hanging from nothing. So it seems clear that we have no evidence of "inspiration" here.4) In the language of people today the world is often described as a globe. It is never described as a circle except possibly by Flat-Earth proponents.
Oh and Genesis 1 associates the Sun with the day - it "rules" the day as the moon rules the night. What it never does is state that the sun is the source of daylight.5) Rivers change their course but they don't move their sources long distances from their course as you are trying to suggest. Try looking at an atlas before embarrassing yourself further.As for your "flood" I would say that Noah could move to higher ground far more easily than he could build and stock a massive boat as the Bible describes. And I think you will find that the Bible does not provide any clear limits on what life should be taken on board - certainly "unclean" animals were. And with all air-breathing life except that on the ark supposedly being killed the natural reading is that the ark has to accomodate all of that.

Well lets say that I'm more critical than Ned. But if you are going to accuse others of sloppiness you need to avoid it yourself.Firstly if you want precision remember that we are dealing with Hebrew and not English. And every source I've checked indicates that the Hebrew word ("chuwg") indicates a circle, not a sphere.Secondly the Earth is an oblate spheroid (and I did NOT need to look that up) rather than a perfect sphere - but that doesn't mean that "sphere" is not an adequate description in circumstances where that level of precision is not required. And "sphere" is still far more accurate than "circle".Thirdly even ignoring the Hebrew, the best you can argue is that the English is ambiguous and only possibly means "sphere" - and it is more likely to indicate a flat disk.Finally let us be clear about dictionary.com. It lists several SETS of definitions. The fourth entry of ONE set includes "sphere". None of the rest do (and we have NO examples of that usage other than the very verse in question - where such a reading is incorrect).If your motive is to argue that the Bible does not say that the Earth is a circle as the word is usually understood you would do far better to actually consider the relevant in context, recognise that it is poetic an argue that it is not intended to accurately describe the shape of the planet.Let me give you one more piece of advice, just as it is not good to accuse others of sloppiness when your own arguments are even sloppier it is even worse to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to agree with you. At least give them the chance of a rebuttal before assuming that there can be no possible answer to your arguments. Especially when your arguments are so very weak.

My post was less hostile than yours - I didn't call anyone intellectually dishonest unless they agreed with me. That was you.And your arguments just continue to get worse.Firstly it is HIGHLY relevant to point out that we are dealing with a Hebrew text and that the word written by the actual author was "chuwg". The definition of "chuwg" is obviously more relevant than the definition of "circle".Mreover your whole argument was to try to support the idea that "circle" could mean "sphere" and you even insisted that the original author could have written "circle" meaning "sphere". But the original author wrote "chuwg".Moreover it is fallacious to argue that if one approximation is adequate that a more distant approximation is also adequate as you do. The Earth is a close approximation of a sphere, it is not even close to being an approximation of a two-dimensional figure. A disk might reasonably be described as a circle but not any object that is roughly spherical.You are right to say that the Bible is not a science textbook - but I went further in my original post and pointed out that the context is poetic and the verse should not be taken as describing the shape of the planet. But you must remember the xontext - the discussion was dealing with the claim that the Bible staed that the Earth was spherical and that the verse SHOULD be taken as a fully accurate description.And finally I do not beleive that your point was to show that the definition was really obscure and virtually unknown (there is even the possibility that it is an apologist's invention). And completely irrelevant since there is absolutely no reason to assume that "chuwg" and "circle" are exact synonyms so that an obscure definition of "circle" would also be shared with "chuwg".