THE BIBLE: God’s Word or Man’s?

Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are various types of religions in existence with their own sacred books called bibles. As a result, many people believe that all religions are valid and that they are simply different roads to the same place. Along that line, many feel that no type of religion can lay claim to which type of religious bible is really the word of God. For instance, Muslims claim the Koran is the correct bible, while Christians claim the Judeo-Christian Bible is the right one.

The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing the Judeo-Christian Bible was inspired by Almighty God. No other religious book has been able to prove such. For instance, hundreds of Bible prophesies have been fulfilled, some written centuries before the fulfillment of the prophesied events. Secular history and archeology bears this out. In addition, Bible writers were privy to information that was not discovered by scientists and explorers until centuries later. Below are two such examples.


Example #1: For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was proven as fact. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:


"{22} There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell, {28} Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite. He does not tire out or grow weary. There is no searching out of his understanding." (Isaiah 40:22 and 28)

SIDE NOTE: Circles can be 2D (flat) or 3D (an ORB or a SPHERE)


Example #2: Prior to the 17th century, none of the best scientific minds could explain what causes the earth to be positioned in a stable orbit. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton published his theory that gravitational forces are the explanation behind the earth's stability. (Gravity is also the reason why humans can move around without fear of toppling off the earth into space.) More than 3,000 years before Newton's existence, under divine inspiration Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing (indicating gravity), as follows:

"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..." (Job 26:7)


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. How could Isaiah have known that the earth is circular, considering that the writing of the book of Isaiah was completed in 732 B.C.E., and it wasn't until the 16th century AD/CE that the first person to attempt to prove the earth is a circle was Ferdinand Magellan? Magellan attempted to circumnavigate the globe in 1519 AD/CE or 2,251 years AFTER Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle.
http://didyouknow.org/sailing/
http://www.rmg.co.uk/magellan



2. How did Job know that the earth hangs upon nothing--indicating gravity--considering that the book of Job was completed in 1473 B.C.E. and it wasn't until 1687 AD/CE that Isaac Newton published his theory about gravitational forces--3,160 years AFTER Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing?
http://inventors.about.com/library/i...s/blnewton.htm



3. Where did Isaiah and Moses get this info?

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

What next? God didn't order genocide in the Old Testament?

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:


The people that were ordered destroyed by Jehovah, along with their women and children, had a history of wicked behavior during which they raided and destroyed other nations round about--including attacks against the ancient Israelites.

Their destruction was not indiscriminate. They were selectively destroyed for a reason. From God's viewpoint, they deserved to be destroyed. If you have an issue with that, take it up with God--the Creator of all life, including yours. As Creator, he has the exclusive right of deciding who is unfit to continue living.

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are being considered as merely nothing, and he [God] is doing according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of earth. And there exists no one that can check his hand or that can say to him, 'What have you been doing?' " (Daniel 4:35)

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Example #1: For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519 that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was proven as fact. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:

The Earth isn't circular, it is a sphere (no circles cannot be both 2d and 3d). Isaiah was merely repeating the commonly held notion at the time that the Earth was a circular disk, above which the "heavens" was a dome shaped objection that held the sun moon and starts.

This notion of the Earth existed for hundreds of years before Isaiah, dating back to the ancient Egyptians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Classical_world

Of course around the time Isaiah was getting this wrong (I await the inevitable 'its not literal' excuse), the Greeks were actually working out that the old notions of a flat circular Earth were wrong, and that the Earth in fact was a sphere, based on observations of the sun and some smart mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece

This was established long before Magellan. It is a myth that people in Magellan's time still seriously believed the Earth was flat.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Example #2:Prior to the 17th century, none of the best scientific minds could explain what causes the earth to be positioned in a stable orbit. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton published his theory that gravitational forces are the explanation behind the earth's stability. (Gravity is also the reason why humans can move around without fear of toppling off the earth into space.) More than 3,000 years before Newton's existence, under divine inspiration Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing (indicating gravity), as follows:
"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..."(Job 26:7)

Again Moses is repeating the common but incorrect view of the time (probably inherited from the Egyptians) that the Earth is a flat disk stretched out like a map or a shield. The reality of course is that it is not a disk stretched out over anything, but a sphere held together by gravitational forces. Funny that isn't mentioned in the Bible.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

The Earth isn't circular, it is a sphere (no circles cannot be both 2d and 3d). Isaiah was merely repeating the commonly held notion at the time that the Earth was a circular disk, above which the "heavens" was a dome shaped objection that held the sun moon and starts.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
You are in error. There are actually dictionaries that define a circle as 2D (flat) and 3D (spherical) objects.

Since Isaiah was writing under divine inspiration--meaning he was relaying God's thoughts and not his own, he would not have been talking about a flat 2D circle because God who created the earth was referring to a 3D circle.
.
"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell," (Isaiah 40:22)


Below are websites where the word "circle" is defined as "orb" and "sphere"—both of which are 3D objects. Two of the websites even reference the Biblical quotation as part of their definition.


Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows.
"a round body; a sphere; an orb"

http://brainyquote.com/words/ci/circle144156.html


Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and even ties it in with what I quoted from Isaiah 40:22.

"A round body; a sphere; an orb
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/circle


Definition #13 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and also ties in the definition with the quotation from Isaiah 40:22.

"a sphere or orb:
the circle of the earth."

http://www.definitions.net/definition/CIRCLE

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Since Isaiah was writing under divine inspiration--meaning he was relaying God's thoughts and not his own, he would not have been talking about a flat 2D circle because God who created the earth was referring to a 3D circle.

Wait a minute. Aren't you supposed to be using Isaiah's amazing ability to know that the Earth was a sphere as evidence that he was divinely inspired?

Now the only way you can do that is to assume he was divinely inspired in the first place. If you don't do that you just have Isaiah saying the same thing everyone said, that the Earth is a flat circular disk under a dome of sky.

I was wondering how long before circular reasoning would appear (ha, see what I did there)

Face it, Isaiah was doing what everyone else was doing, describing the Earth as a circular disk with the sky draped over it like a tent. This was by far the most common notion of the Earth back then.

Run_to_da_hills

Its Gods word because it claims to be "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" —2nd Timothy 3:16

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

This notion of the Earth existed for hundreds of years before Isaiah, dating back to the ancient Egyptians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Classical_world

Zombrex wrote: »

Of course around the time Isaiah was getting this wrong (I await the inevitable 'its not literal' excuse), the Greeks were actually working out that the old notions of a flat circular Earth were wrong, and that the Earth in fact was a sphere, based on observations of the sun and some smart mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
The book of Isaiah was written in the 8th century B.C.E. The Greeks (specifically Aristotle) did not theorize that earth is a 3D circle (a sphere) until 200 years later—in the 6th century B.C.E.

Isaiah did not write about a flat earth. Logically, he was referring to a 3D circle because he was writing by inspiration of Jehovah who created a spherical earth.

As for your reference source, Wikipedia, I encourage you to go back and read the language. They said the Egyptians thought the earth was flat. Then in the same paragraph, they referred to the "Homeric" account of a flat earth which had no connection with the Egyptians. Truth be told, the Egyptians thought the earth was square with four corners, and the website I'm providing you here is a university website.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm

As for the Homeric account which described the earth as a flat circle, the writers at Wikipedia are speculating on the dating of this account. In other words, they don't have a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric

Alter2Ego

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its Gods word because it claims to be "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" —2nd Timothy 3:16

I agree. And there's evidence that proves it was written by inspiration of God. I presented some of the evidence in my opening post. I will present more evidence later on.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

Wait a minute. Aren't you supposed to be using Isaiah's amazing ability to know that the Earth was a sphere as evidence that he was divinely inspired?

Now the only way you can do that is to assume he was divinely inspired in the first place. If you don't do that you just have Isaiah saying the same thing everyone said, that the Earth is a flat circular disk under a dome of sky.

I was wondering how long before circular reasoning would appear (ha, see what I did there)

Face it, Isaiah was doing what everyone else was doing, describing the Earth as a circular disk with the sky draped over it like a tent. This was by far the most common notion of the Earth back then.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
I already debunked your argument that circles are only 2D when I gave you three different dictionaries that define circles as 2D as well as 3D objects.

I also debunked your argument that the Egyptians said the earth was a flat circle. The Egyptians did not think the earth was a circle; they thought it was square with four corners.

In addition, I debunked your argument that the Homeric text (which says the earth was a flat circle) was written before the book of Isaiah. The writers at Wikipedia don't know when the Homeric text was written. Look at their language and you will realize they are speculating. It turns out, you were wrong about that too, because the book of Isaiah was actually written in the 8th century B.C.E.

I've debunked all of your arguments thus far, which brings into question the credibiity of your arguments. Unless you can prove Isaiah was not referring to a 3D circle, your argument is dead in the water.

By the way, watch for my next post on this thread in which I will debunk yet another of your arguments--your argument that Moses copied the info about the book of Job from the Egyptians.

MisterEpicurus

Alter2Ego wrote: »

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

1. The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing the Judeo-Christian Bible was inspired by Almighty God. No other religious book has been able to prove such.

2. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:


3. "He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..." (Job 26:7)

For point #1 above; don't you realize that if there was so much 'evidence' then everyone would believe it?...in much the same way there is so much evidence the Earth isn't flat. There is no evidence whatsoever. Nothing, nada. People don't arbitrarily become atheists with a mass abundance of evidence, they do it for the exact contrary reason.

As for point #2 above; it's not a circle, indeed not even a sphere, it's more of an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

Finally with #3; The Earth isn't hanging from 'nothing', the universe is amass with particles and 'stuff' which we can't see. You can't really get away with it by calling it 'nothing'.

QED
/close thread

StanMcConnell

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its Gods word because it claims to be "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" —2nd Timothy 3:16

Isn't that the very definition of a circular argument. It's inerrant because it claims to be (what Paul meant as 'all scripture' is another question).

My own view is that the Bible is the Word of God in that it's carry man's understanding of God's words and thus is unique in the revelation of the divine.

To say it's true in every fact is ludicrous. The Bible contains more claims for a flat earth, then a spherical earth anyway. (Rev. 7:1, Isa. 11:12) Does that it's wrong in these instances take away from its revelation of Jesus and God? Not at all.

tvc15

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

1. The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing the Judeo-Christian Bible was inspired by Almighty God. No other religious book has been able to prove such.

2. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:


3. "He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..." (Job 26:7)

For point #1 above; don't you realize that if there was so much 'evidence' then everyone would believe it?...in much the same way there is so much evidence the Earth isn't flat. There is no evidence whatsoever. Nothing, nada. People don't arbitrarily become atheists with a mass abundance of evidence, they do it for the exact contrary reason.

As for point #2 above; it's not a circle, indeed not even a sphere, it's more of an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

Finally with #3; The Earth isn't hanging from 'nothing', the universe is amass with particles and 'stuff' which we can't see. You can't really get away with it by calling it 'nothing'.

QED
/close thread

It certainly isn't hung on 'nothing' either,in fact that is the opposite of the theory of gravity where all object with mass have a force applied to them by every other object in the universe

ArtSmart

Of course it's the word of God.

If you look carefully on the original manuscripts you can clearly see God's signature in the corner.


plus, the bible 'speaks' to people. Which means it is alive - and who is doing the speaking?

God of course.

Ipso, dipso, facto.

GarIT

Doesn't the bible say that when got was talking to Moses he told Moses that the 10 commandments apply to all the land on the earth and all the water that the land is floating on?

Should god not have known that land doesn't float?

And doesn't the bible say that god talked to a few different people, then it says he cannot communicate with humans, and now priests claim to have the ability to talk to god.

daelight

Written by many incompetent men. Used as excuse to wipe out many native species of man.

GarIT

The other thing is that the bible had to be written over 500 years if you go by what is in the bible. They didn't have emails to send each other a draft or anything. So basically this book made of papyrus travelled thousands of miles over 500 years and managed to stay in good enough condition to read. There were no copiers then and it could take one man a year to copy a book because it had to be so precise and its been historically found that usually there were never copies made of incomplete books.

Back in those days it was normally religious organisations that made copies of books to make money, so are the church trying to suggest that it was Muslims or Jews that made a book that said what they believed was wrong?

StanMcConnell

Gar, the Bible is a collection of documents. The OT would have been known to every observant Jews in the time of Jesus and every synagogue would have had a copy of the entire scriptures.

The New Testament was written in a period of about 50 years and is a collection of letters (some to individuals, some to groups), biographies of Jesus and one book outlining a vision (Revelation). These was all done by a group of Jesus' followers. These documents were eventually copies and gathered in what was considered an authoritative collection.

GarIT

StanMcConnell wrote: »

Gar, the Bible is a collection of documents. The OT would have been known to every observant Jews in the time of Jesus and every synagogue would have had a copy of the entire scriptures.

The New Testament was written in a period of about 50 years and is a collection of letters (some to individuals, some to groups), biographies of Jesus and one book outlining a vision (Revelation). These was all done by a group of Jesus' followers. These documents were eventually copies and gathered in what was considered an authoritative collection.

The Jews were completely against the new testament, they still are. Was the bible not fully put together around 500AD?

Monty Burnz

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Example #1: For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was proven as fact.

This is a myth. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere (note: not a cirlcle - a circle is 2-dimensional) and even gave a very good estimate for its circumference.

I must say I'm surprised and disappointed that such a well-documented myth is used in an argument designed to support one particular god.

StanMcConnell

Yeah, the Jews are fully against the New Testament, but that doesn't change the fact the New Testament was built on the foundation of the OT.

No, it had come to together gradually. Then gnostics cults started producing forged Gospels to justify their beliefs (such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary Magdalene). To combat this, the church had a council and closed the canon, based on those books that were generally considered authentic.

Monty Burnz

By the way, 'hanging on nothing' to me suggests that it's a miracle that it is there - the power of god. Of course, now we know that it's not 'nothing', it's the same gravity that keeps our feet on the ground as we walk around.

Odd that your god left that information out when it would be as easy to explain it.

Alter2Ego

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing the Judeo-Christian Bible was inspired by Almighty God. No other religious book has been able to prove such.

For point #1 above; don't you realize that if there was so much 'evidence' then everyone would believe it?...in much the same way there is so much evidence the Earth isn't flat. There is no evidence whatsoever. Nothing, nada.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER EPICURUS:
Unless you can prove otherwise, you are expressing your personal opinions that are driven by your decision to not believe. Surely you realize that everybody has an opinion and that people change their opinions based upon their personal experiences throughout life. In other words, opinions are not reliable.

I presented two pieces of evidence in my opening post for the authenticity of the Judeo-Christian Bible as the inspired Word of God. What evidence have you presented to overcome what I said in my opening post?

ANSWER: Nothing, nada.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

People don't arbitrarily become atheists with a mass abundance of evidence, they do it for the exact contrary reason.

That's true. I've debated atheists at other forums, and they have various reasons for choosing to reject God. I'm sure you will agree it's not the responsibility of believers to convince people who have made up their minds to reject evidence of God and evidence of the Bible's authenticity. The best any believer can do is present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

Alter2Ego

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

As for point #2 above; it's not a circle, indeed not even a sphere, it's more of an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER EPICURUS:
The Bible says the earth is a 3D circle, meaning it's spherical. Something does not have to be a perfect sphere to be defined as a sphere. All that is required is that it have the "approximate" shape of a sphere. This is confirmed by the American Heritage Dictionary, as follows.

a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.
b. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/spherical?

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Finally with #3; The Earth isn't hanging from 'nothing', the universe is amass with particles and 'stuff' which we can't see. You can't really get away with it by calling it 'nothing'.

What you don't seem to understand is that Moses, in the book of Job, was giving a description of how the earth looks from outer space.

It was not until the 20th century—some 3,500 years after Moses wrote the book of Job—that humans mastered space flight and astronauts were able to look down and see what Moses described: an earth apparently floating in mid-space with no apparent visible support (since gravity is invisible).

"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..." (Job 26:7)

Below is a photograph of earth taken from outer space. Notice that it indeed appears to be hanging upon nothing—literally floating mid-air.

oldrnwisr

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Example #1: For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was proven as fact. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:


"{22} There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell, {28} Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite. He does not tire out or grow weary. There is no searching out of his understanding." (Isaiah 40:22 and 28)

SIDE NOTE: Circles can be 2D (flat) or 3D (an ORB or a SPHERE)


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. How could Isaiah have known that the earth is circular, considering that the writing of the book of Isaiah was completed in 732 B.C.E., and it wasn't until the 16th century AD/CE that the first person to attempt to prove the earth is a circle was Ferdinand Magellan? Magellan attempted to circumnavigate the globe in 1519 AD/CE or 2,251 years AFTER Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle.
http://didyouknow.org/sailing/
http://www.rmg.co.uk/magellan

There are several problems with your assertion here.

First of all, in case you didn't know, the Bible, wasn't written in English. This presents a problem for your circle = sphere assertion.

In Isaiah 40:22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

the word for circle used is the word:

ח֣וּג

This word means a flat circle and is used in this meaning in Proverbs 8:27:

"I was there when he set the heavens in place,when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep"

Had the author intended to mean sphere then he would have used the word:

כַּדּ֕וּר

as in Isaiah 22:18:

"He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there your splendid chariots will remain— you disgrace to your master’s house!"


Secondly, there is the problem with the divine inspiration claim itself. Even if you claim that Isaiah was divinely inspired, the passage you quoted wasn't written by Isaiah. The scholarly consensus is that the book of Isaiah was constructed in three parts. The first part, Proto-Isaiah (Chapters 1-39) is attributed to Isaiah albeit with some expansions written in the 7th century BCE. However, the passage you quoted is from the Deutero-Isaiah portion (Chapters 40-55) which is attributed to an anonymous author writing in the 6th century BCE near the end of the Babylonian captivity.

This creates another problem for your opening assertion since the passage you quote was written at a time when the Greeks had formulated the concept of a spherical earth.

Thirdly, it's not as if the evidence for a spherical earth wasn't available to people of the time. The biggest pieces of evidence which convinced Greek thinkers of a spherical earth are something that anyone can confirm for themselves. First of all, the Greeks noticed that ships returning from afar appeared over the horizon mast first which wouldn't have happened on a flat earth. Secondly, the Pole star appears higher in the sky as you travel further north which wouldn't happen if the earth was flat. Thirdly, lunar eclipses (which the Greeks realised were caused by the earth passing in front of the moon) were always circular which wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc. Clearly no divine inspiration is required.

Finally, the quote from Isaiah itself doesn't help your argument. It describes the sky being stretched out over the circle of the earth as if it were a tent. This alone indicates that the author was referring to a flat earth.

Anyway I'll get to your other passage later.

gkell3

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thirdly, it's not as if the evidence for a spherical earth wasn't available to people of the time. The biggest pieces of evidence which convinced Greek thinkers of a spherical earth are something that anyone can confirm for themselves. First of all, the Greeks noticed that ships returning from afar appeared over the horizon mast first which wouldn't have happened on a flat earth. Secondly, the Pole star appears higher in the sky as you travel further north which wouldn't happen if the earth was flat. Thirdly, lunar eclipses (which the Greeks realised were caused by the earth passing in front of the moon) were always circular which wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc. Clearly no divine inspiration is required.

As an empiricist,you too have a creationist view of history - like schoolboys who never grew up and never really learned how our ancestors thought other than to make yourselves look good.Even Greek history comes under the dull empirical treatment in this matter making you no better or worse than the person you are addressing.

They could reason the moon was round as is the Earth from shading,why the moon's phases was reflective rather than intrinsic to the moon itself,they came remarkably close to identifying both daily and orbital motions and lots of other things that you can't handle due to the homocentricity of modern day empiricism -

"For they (the Stoics) quarrel with Empedocles for making the moon ‘a congelation of air, of the nature of hail, embraced by a sphere of fire;’ whilst they themselves pretend that the moon, a ball of fire, contains air dispersed in different directions, and this, too, though she has neither fissures in her surface, nor deep places, nor cavities (things which those that make her out an earthly substance concede to her), but this same air is lying, forsooth, superficially upon her convexity. This arrangement is preposterous with respect to permanence, and impossible with respect to sight in the times of full moon; for, in that case, it ought not to define anything black and shaded, but either be hidden and darkened [completely], or else to be lighted up at the same time when the moon is taken possession of by the sun. For amongst ourselves, the air in the deep places and hollows of the earth, whither the light doth not enter, continues obscure and unilluminated; whilst that from without diffused around the earth acquires brightness and a lustrous color.."

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html

Of course you are the people who imagine a spinning moon when nobody in the entire history of humanity ever proposed it apart from Newton and that defies the common sense approach often taken by the ancients when dealing with astronomical observations.

The moon orbits the Earth each month and keeps the same face to us,walk around a central object with an outstretched arm pointing at that object and you have the answer that the moon doesn't spin as opposed to the Earth which turns daily while also moving around the Sun.If you acquired common sense first you could then consider what Divine inspiration is and I have yet to see it,Christian or not.Personally speaking,the standard is so low for science and faith at the moment due to the lack of detailed technical and historical perspectives that it is sometimes difficult to discern who comes off worse.

When they discovered Newgrange,investigators attributed the structure to every other nation on Earth other than the native Irish until Petrie,as usual,took a pragmatic approach.The historical perspectives which make it appear than Royal Society empiricism inherits the works of astronomy from Copernicus and Kepler through Greek endeavors even when the Greeks themselves looked back into antiquity as an almost most golden era and it is a great shame that few appear to develop any sort of depth beyond a superficial view that is ultimately disruptive and downright meaningless.

Monty Burnz

Why do the writers of the bible think that the earth stands still and the stars and sun move around it?

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

And why do they think that from one high point you can see the whole of the earth as if it is flat?

Daniel 4:10-11
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.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Medicine333

GarIT wrote: »

The other thing is that the bible had to be written over 500 years if you go by what is in the bible. They didn't have emails to send each other a draft or anything. So basically this book made of papyrus travelled thousands of miles over 500 years and managed to stay in good enough condition to read. There were no copiers then and it could take one man a year to copy a book because it had to be so precise and its been historically found that usually there were never copies made of incomplete books.

Back in those days it was normally religious organisations that made copies of books to make money, so are the church trying to suggest that it was Muslims or Jews that made a book that said what they believed was wrong?

That is one of the most incorrect and cringe-worthy posts I have seen in a long time. Please, do a bit of basic research on the Bible.

Medicine333

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why do the writers of the bible think that the earth stands still and the stars and sun move around it?


And why do they think that from one high point you can see the whole of the earth as if it is flat?

You do realise that the quotes you have googled rather hap-hazardly there, do not come out and say the Earth is flat, and that the stars(Sun included) orbit the Earth?

'The world shall not be moved', can mean that nothing can alter the world, or destroy it, because God is in control. Obviously it's open to more interpretations, but your argument is not improved by those quotes.

gkell3

Medicine333 wrote: »

You do realise that the quotes you have googled rather hap-hazardly there, do not come out and say the Earth is flat, and that the stars(Sun included) orbit the Earth?

Many of these quotes are figuratively speaking. 'The world shall not be moved', can mean that nothing can alter the world, or destroy it, because God is in control. Obviously it's open to more interpretations, but your argument is not improved by those quotes.

You are unwittingly on the back foot defending something which doesn't need or require defending against people who's only attribute seems to be able to type words and not much else,they don't like astronomy and they don't like faith and have no understanding of either.

The reasons for discovering the Earth's motions were partly theological in nature,the idea of an astronomical 'above' and 'below' went against the idea of God in all things and besides,they had already taken a wider view for thousands of years in the arrangement of celestial objects seen from Earth,whether they considered it moving or not.

The great Archbishop Cusa in the 15th century explained the absurdity of the stars moving in shorter circuits around the pole star and knew the Earth's motions were involved so at no time did Christians really require the Earth to be stationary,the opposite in fact as they searched for the proper arguments for its motions.Copernicus eventually found the correct resolution by shifting focus to retrograde motion of planets leaving daily rotation to account for the return of the Sun to noon -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

In short,there is nobody with the slightest sense of responsibility toward putting together a stable narrative that reins in so much nonsense and ,to my understanding,it is mostly due to people being terrified or lazy that it involves effort or talent.

This business of answering everything about the Bible as 'figurative' has to stop and especially as the people you are addressing are as bad as flat Earthers,that is not an insult but a genuine fact.

Monty Burnz

Medicine333 wrote: »

You do realise that the quotes you have googled rather hap-hazardly there, do not come out and say the Earth is flat, and that the stars(Sun included) orbit the Earth?

Um...it says the earth does not (and will not) move. That seems pretty clear, no?

Medicine333 wrote: »

'The world shall not be moved', can mean that nothing can alter the world, or destroy it, because God is in control. Obviously it's open to more interpretations, but your argument is not improved by those quotes.

Well we know that the earth can be, has been, and will be massively altered - so that interpretation is equally wrong.

How about the (haphazard ) quotes that indicate that you can see the whole surface of the earth from a sufficiently high point?

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

This business of answering everything about the Bible as 'figurative' has to stop and especially as the people you are addressing are as bad as flat Earthers,that is not an insult but a genuine fact.

Perhaps - in your uniquely patronising way - you can explain from which mountaintop the devil and Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world? Seeing as it is - as you indicate - clearly not intended as figurative?

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...it says the earth does not (and will not) move. That seems pretty clear, no?

Well we know that the earth can be, has been, and will be massively altered - so that interpretation is equally wrong.

How about the (haphazard ) quotes that indicate that you can see the whole surface of the earth from a sufficiently high point?

Here is the Earth -

http://www.taurus-tech.com/Vol2/Vol2Fig24.JPG

Its equatorial circumference is 24901 miles

15 degrees difference is therefore 1037.5 miles

15 degrees difference is also a 1 hour time difference

Put the facts together - the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour and its full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.

What makes you think you are any better than flat Earthers because of you inability to express these basic facts ?.One of the core tenets of Christianity is that if you can't understand earthly things how could you possibly understand life of the spirit and faith.

The Earth is round and rotating with very specific values and dimensions attached,it is a fact you should learn before coming here unless you are a 12 old child who can be excused -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w_Vr2KbJrw

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

Here is the Earth -

http://www.taurus-tech.com/Vol2/Vol2Fig24.JPG

Its equatorial circumference is 24901 miles

15 degrees difference is therefore 1037.5 miles

15 degrees difference is also a 1 hour time difference

Put the facts together - the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour and its full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.

What makes you think you are any better than flat Earthers because of you inability to express these basic facts ?.One of the core tenets of Christianity is that if you can't understand earthly things how could you possibly understand life of the spirit and faith.

The Earth is round and rotating with very specific values and dimensions attached,it is a fact you should learn before coming here unless you are a 12 old child who can be excused -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w_Vr2KbJrw

I notice you haven't actually addressed any of my points.

Bravo. I don't think anyone noticed.

By the way, assuming an air of high intellectualism is rather dangerous when you don't know how smart the person you are talking to is.

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I notice you haven't actually addressed any of my points.

Bravo. I don't think anyone noticed.

By the way, assuming an air of high intellectualism is rather dangerous when you don't know how smart the person you are talking to is.

There you go on the back foot,unable to state a simple fact that would interest any individual with the barest knowledge of Longitude,planetary geometry and time -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywgw9_1sQ&feature=relmfu

Two minutes in and you get an education you badly need and so does everyone else,I wouldn't call it high intellectualism or anything else other than common sense but then again,I am not the person disputing the relationship between time,planetary rotation and the geography of the planet.

I am indignant with Christians for allowing Biblical texts to be kicked around like a football by people who can't express a normal fact that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific values attached .

Medicine333

I understand you completely, gKell, with regard to trying to debate with people who, effectively, are failing to debate.

MontyBurnz last comment there showed just how 'mature' he thinks he is.

I think it epitomises the attitude of atheists in general.

gkell3

Medicine333 wrote: »

I understand you completely, gKell, with regard to trying to debate with people who, effectively, are failing to debate.

MontyBurnz last comment there showed just how 'mature' he thinks he is.

I think it epitomises the attitude of atheists in general.

They are free to believe whatever they wish Medicine333 and even using the term 'debate' sound repulsive given that they are unable to express the normal fact that the Earth has a circumference of 24901 miles with 15 degrees difference equating both to 1037.5 miles and 1 hour time difference.

At the very least it isn't even a Christian issue but an educational one and this particular train wreck that evolved over centuries has quite some twists and turns to it.If people were honest they would accept that mathematics in primary school generally shades off into physics in secondary school where it disappears into the language of equations and laws and nobody questions anything beyond that.It is almost drilled into our skull that the language of astronomy is equations and notation but geometry has always been the language of astronomy and that is what people are unfamiliar with or forget -

"The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics ... the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word." Galileo

Students in the 21st century deserve simple explanations and facts consistent with our technology and here you have these guys unable to give you the dimensions of a round Earth and the speed the equator turns in an hour and a day !.This should be an issue of raising the standard for science and faith above a level which doesn't bear thinking of and it genuinely falls to Christians to do just that and leave the non believer on the back foot at all times.It is not an assault on science but on that toxic strain of empiricism which overreached in its agenda and now tries to undermine faith and there is a huge distinction which will emerge with a more detailed look at history.

At least people now know there the fault lines exist so the debate at the moment should really be a Christian one based on getting a number of things in order.I am prepared to leave for those reasons.

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

There you go on the back foot,unable to state a simple fact that would interest any individual with the barest knowledge of Longitude,planetary geometry and time -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywgw9_1sQ&feature=relmfu

Two minutes in and you get an education you badly need and so does everyone else,I wouldn't call it high intellectualism or anything else other than common sense but then again,I am not the person disputing the relationship between time,planetary rotation and the geography of the planet.

I am indignant with Christians for allowing Biblical texts to be kicked around like a football by people who can't express a normal fact that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific values attached .

Again, you didn't address any of the points I made. Keep dodging the questions...

Monty Burnz

Medicine333 wrote: »

MontyBurnz last comment there showed just how 'mature' he thinks he is.

I reacted negatively to the insulting and patronising tone of your buddy, and pointed out that his post ignored my points. That is immature?

Medicine333 wrote: »

I think it epitomises the attitude of atheists in general.

Um...I'm not an atheist. Your presumption epitomises the attitude of Christians in general. (see what I did there?)

MisterEpicurus

Alter2Ego wrote: »

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER EPICURUS:
Unless you can prove otherwise, you are expressing your personal opinions that are driven by your decision to not believe. Surely you realize that everybody has an opinion and that people change their opinions based upon their personal experiences throughout life. In other words, opinions are not reliable.

I presented two pieces of evidence in my opening post for the authenticity of the Judeo-Christian Bible as the inspired Word of God. What evidence have you presented to overcome what I said in my opening post?

ANSWER: Nothing, nada.


That's true. I've debated atheists at other forums, and they have various reasons for choosing to reject God. I'm sure you will agree it's not the responsibility of believers to convince people who have made up their minds to reject evidence of God and evidence of the Bible's authenticity. The best any believer can do is present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

It's quite amazing how you are happy to reject my opinion (as well as most atheists) as "unreliable", but you're perfectly happy to rely on ignorant Bronze age peasants. You claim that "opinions are unreliable", then you should really question the history of your faith more often.

Regarding your "two pieces of evidence" above, don't you find it fascinating that we do not actually learn anything directly from the Bible? Everything is retrospective. For example, we learn that the heliocentric model is true (despite fierce opposition from the Church), and then it's retrospectively adopted by Christianity as they deliberately choose to re-interpret a passage from the Bible. In other words, the Bible doesn't teach you anything and all you're doing is attempting (failing indeed) desperately to conform current scientific principles with your faith in a retrospective fashion (and mal-translated as OP described above, which you've failed to account for).

If the Bible actually had something so amazing (like having a chapter on quantum theory or electromagnetism; even though it was out of reach from the peasants), then you'd have a point. And if you reply along the lines of 'oh, well they wouldn't have understood it', then that's a cop out for saying they can't learn anything and haven't learned anything, which is indeed the case.

As for you questioning me to provide evidence against the opening post; well, I don't actually have to 'provide evidence', your claims of 'evidence' can be debunked with a basic knowledge of the Bible and science. There's nothing more to it. You're desperately clinging on to words in the Bible which you extend the definition so far (because you're 'interpreting') that the sentence doesn't really mean as much as you think it does. Either it's the word of God or it isn't. Either Noah/Adam/Eve existed or they didn't, either the Earth is flat or it isn't...the Bible claims all the former are true, science tells us the opposite.

Get over it.

Monty Burnz

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Get over it.

Brace yourself for a hilarious attempt at an 'intellectual' response from GKell3...

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Again, you didn't address any of the points I made. Keep dodging the questions...

You see how normal people don't have a problem with a round and rotating Earth yet you cannot enjoy this simple relationship between time and geography -

"if you know the time difference between two places, you know by how many degrees of longitude they are separated! For example, if it's 6:00 AM at one place and 9:00 AM at another, they are separated by 45° of longitude - 3 times 15."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/linksa/findlong.html

There is a whole bunch of things that only really concern an astronomer yet it would be good enough for your level where you have difficulties accepting the equatorial Earth is 24901 miles in circumference and 15 degrees is also one hour time difference hence the equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour.

The non believers are always on about the 'mind of God' when they should concern themselves with the mind of common sense.In any case,all you are doing is showing Christians that you can't handle facts that they probably shrug at and move on.I often wish Christians would get into the spirit of things as the dimensions of a round Earth are a 100% certainty as are the division of the round Earth into divisions of 15 degrees and 1 hour so there is no chance that they are going to be on the wrong side of the argument as you unfortunates are and if you can't accept the values for 24 hours and 360 degrees in terms of dimensions then you would have to accept that you are no better than a flat Earther.

[Having just received a 'mod' warning,I guess you can continue to happily taunt Christians as I am not prepared to put up with such restrictions]

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

You see how normal people don't have a problem with a round and rotating Earth yet you cannot enjoy this simple relationship between time and geography -

"if you know the time difference between two places, you know by how many degrees of longitude they are separated! For example, if it's 6:00 AM at one place and 9:00 AM at another, they are separated by 45° of longitude - 3 times 15."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/linksa/findlong.html

There is a whole bunch of things that only really concern an astronomer yet it would be good enough for your level where you have difficulties accepting the equatorial Earth is 24901 miles in circumference and 15 degrees is also one hour time difference hence the equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour.

I don't actually know who this gibberish is addressed to. Perhaps I should just starting random chunks of Wikipedia back at you?

gkell3 wrote: »

The non believers are always on about the 'mind of God' when they should concern themselves with the mind of common sense.In any case,all you are doing is showing Christians that you can't handle facts that they probably shrug at and move on.I often wish Christians would get into the spirit of things as the dimensions of a round Earth are a 100% certainty as are the division of the round Earth into divisions of 15 degrees and 1 hour so there is no chance that they are going to be on the wrong side of the argument as you unfortunates are and if you can't accept the values for 24 hours and 360 degrees in terms of dimensions then you would have to accept that you are no better than a flat Earther.

I notice that this is the third time you have failed to address any of the points I made.

Cool_CM

The Bible is basically an anthology of short stories that can be and has been translated by people as they see fit to suit their own beliefs.
As long as people live their lives in keeping with the one true commandment of "don't be a dick" they should be grand.

Monty Burnz

Cool_CM wrote: »

As long as people live their lives in keeping with the one true commandment of "don't be a dick" they should be grand.

Intuitively I do feel that this is the core of the Christian message, and an eminently sensible and admirable philosophy it is.

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't actually know who this gibberish is addressed to. Perhaps I should just starting random chunks of Wikipedia back at you?

I am curios,did you get a warning in your private e-mail not to discuss the fact that none of you can manage to state the Earth is 24 901 miles in circumference and divided by 24 hours give a rotational speed at the equator of 1037.5 miles per hour.

I would safely say that any non believer coming to this forum would go away congratulating themselves that they do not follow Christianity for to all intents and purposes it is run like an anti-Christianity forum,I am not complaining but pointing out that it is.

Somehow it is all too easy to put empiricists on the back foot but that does not answer why the standard of Christian thinking is at a level skirting Arianism.

Anyway,now you know

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

I am curios,did you get a warning in your private e-mail not to discuss the fact that none of you can manage to state the Earth is 24 901 miles in circumference and divided by 24 hours give a rotational speed at the equator of 1037.5 miles per hour.

I would safely say that any non believer coming to this forum would go away congratulating themselves that they do not follow Christianity for to all intents and purposes it is run like an anti-Christianity forum,I am not complaining but pointing out that it is.

Somehow it is all too easy to put empiricists on the back foot but that does not answer why the standard of Christian thinking is at a level skirting Arianism.

Anyway,now you know

I'm wondering whether you got a message telling you not to discuss the fact that none of you can state that gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses. Gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe.

Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

Anyway, now you know.

---

I was hoping for a serious (and ideally, respectful) discussion about the points made by the OP on the question as to whether the bible is the word of the Christian god, or of men. It seems to have gone rather off the rails unfortunately.

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm wondering whether you got a message telling you not to discuss the fact that none of you can state that gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses. Gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe.

Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

Anyway, now you know.

---

I was hoping for a serious discussion about the points made by the OP on the question as to whether the bible is the word of the Christian god, or of men. It seems to have gone rather off the rails unfortunately.

You cannot have any discussion with a person who can't state simple planetary facts or a round and rotating Earth,look at it as a gift of God that you ended up the way you did which allows genuine Christians to discuss matters without empirical riff-raff thrashing the Biblical texts.Thrash away at them for all I mind,when you base your belief in empiricism,be sure you check why 15 degrees of geographical separation also corresponds to one hour time difference denoting a round and rotating Earth.

Thanks for replying anyway as I thought my response would disappear as usual,these 'mods' belong nowhere near Christianity much less a forum and it genuinely looks like it is designed to cast Christianity in the worse possible light using Christians to do it,again,not a complaint but an observation.

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

You cannot have any discussion with a person who can't state simple planetary facts or a round and rotating Earth

What has this got to do with anything? If these are scientific facts available to all, what does it matter whether I state them or not?

This is bizarre.

gkell3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What has this got to do with anything? If these are scientific facts available to all, what does it matter whether I state them or not?

This is bizarre.

You see,none of you accept the Earth turns its 24901 mile equatorial circumference in 24 hours of what amounts to the same thing - 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour hence you have a flat Earth ideology going there or near enough to it.

That is how stupid you are and to watch Biblical texts kicked around by your kind without objection says more about Christians than it does you.

Monty Burnz

gkell3 wrote: »

You see,none of you accept the Earth turns its 24901 mile equatorial circumference in 24 hours of what amounts to the same thing - 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour hence you have a flat Earth ideology going there or near enough to it.

Who said I did not accept it?

gkell3 wrote: »

That is how stupid you are and to watch Biblical texts kicked around by your kind without objection says more about Christians than it does you.

So now asking questions about texts and their interpretation is 'kicking it around'?

And what is 'my kind'?

smcgiff

There are none so blind as those that wish not to see...

By which I mean the likes of the op and the ponderous waffle posted by some of the others :-)