• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

Humanism and Death

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member

Humanism is an interesting belief system in that it attempts to be "non-religious" while at the same time suggesting what it believes to be "right" and "wrong" for humanity and the appropriate way we should look at ourselves.

So how do they come to the knowledge of what is "right" and "wrong"?

The video says that we don't know what happens after death. That there is no proof of life after death. How do they know?
 

roman8

Advanced Poster
I like the quote by Ken Ham when debating Bill Nye, whenever Mr. Nye suggested that " Well we just dont know" Ken would reply " Well Bill there is a Book"

They do not know what is right or wrong without God, their right and wrong will change , Gods word remains the same.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Interestingly, Atheism, which includes Humanism, fits the definition of 'religion' and the Supreme Court has declared Atheism a religion.

How can you know what is not if you do not know what is, concerning death? Sure sounds like a faith statement to me!
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster
Morals without God is an interesting topic.

Humanism puts it relativistic flag in the ground at humans, and then from there defines its objective morality.

Put basically, most humans have three basic desires:

1) Humans generally prefer to be alive than dead.
2) Humans generally prefer to be healthy rather then ill.
3) Humans generally prefer to be happy than sad.

The interaction of these three basic wants leads us in our moral direction.

Therefore with this moral system we can then make objective moral statements about now and the past. For example slavery, rape and murder are objectively morally wrong whether now or in the past, however acceptable they have been in certain time periods.

A deity driven moral system puts it relativistic flag at the feet of the deity. Therefore what the deity describes as right or wrong is what the objective moral code is derived from.

On death, we can only really speculate on what we observe, currently 155,000 people die a day. The observable evidence is that they all stayed dead. There have been historical figures that people have claimed to have returned from the dead, noticeably Jesus and Mithras (both rising up on third day). Both stories have problems. Firstly there is no-one alive who observed those events, secondly the people who recorded those events where not doing it first hand. The gospel writers where not the disciples, in fact no one knows who they were. The only salient facts from the gospels is they were written at least 40 years after the event, Mark was the first, and the other gospel writers largely plagiarized from him.

The observable evidence strongly suggests when you die you stay dead, it may not be what you want to hear, but that sadly is irreverent (as far as facts go).
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Atheism is relative to the time in which one lives. It is never objective, it is subjective to the feelings, wants and desires of the time, society, etc.

When slavery was acceptable, it was moral. If the conqueror, the conquered wealth belongs to you, including their women, etc. If the conquered, you belong to the victor.

Proof does not require a witness to be alive. No historian, etc will accept that demand.

What is relevant to Christ is enemies of Judaism and Christ gave written testimony to the reality. No one did for Mithas.

Sorry, but the writers were actually the Apostles or their disciples. You also have multiple writers agreeing with each other. Non Biblical and non Christian evidence is supportive as well. Manuscripts have long disproven the claim of being written well later.

Also, the argument of no living contemporary witnesses to the writing must also be applied to the claim of being written much later. You cannot have two disparent claims for the purpose of supporting one claim and disproving another.

Atheist make a lot of negative proof claims and demands. Nowhere in debate, court, logic, etc are negative claims acceptable as being proof of anything.

Atheists make a lot of claims based on faith, not fact and without evidence.

Far too many people have experienced things that are outside the realm of our physical reality to dismiss the spiritual.
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster
Atheism is relative to the time in which one lives. It is never objective, it is subjective to the feelings, wants and desires of the time, society, etc.

When slavery was acceptable, it was moral. If the conqueror, the conquered wealth belongs to you, including their women, etc. If the conquered, you belong to the victor.

Proof does not require a witness to be alive. No historian, etc will accept that demand.

What is relevant to Christ is enemies of Judaism and Christ gave written testimony to the reality. No one did for Mithas.

Sorry, but the writers were actually the Apostles or their disciples. You also have multiple writers agreeing with each other. Non Biblical and non Christian evidence is supportive as well. Manuscripts have long disproven the claim of being written well later.

Also, the argument of no living contemporary witnesses to the writing must also be applied to the claim of being written much later. You cannot have two disparent claims for the purpose of supporting one claim and disproving another.

Atheist make a lot of negative proof claims and demands. Nowhere in debate, court, logic, etc are negative claims acceptable as being proof of anything.

Atheists make a lot of claims based on faith, not fact and without evidence.

Far too many people have experienced things that are outside the realm of our physical reality to dismiss the spiritual.

You need to show some examples where bible historians agree the gospel writers were the apostles, i'm afraid the consensus is very much that no-one knows who the writers were, but they were almost certainly not one the apostles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Atheism and humanism are two different things. Atheism is simply stating that the evidence provided for the existence of gods/the super-natural is not strong enough to be accepted. In the same way it is up to someone who claims bigfoot exists to give evidence that such a creature exists, it not up to everyone else to prove bigfoot does not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Your example of slavery being ok at some point, is the exact definition of relative morality. With humanism slavery has always been wrong, because it is objective to humans.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Well, humanists are atheists.

Your link is concerning people making declarations based on their own thoughts and opinions. I have listened to their presentations and debates in the past and they never offered any evidence backing their claims.

As for evidence:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

No other historical data scratches the depth of proof for the Bible. I you reject the Bible you have to reject all of ancient history.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
I'll add a link as well:
Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?

When we focus this data on the NT miracle stories, several conclusions stand out:

  1. The NT authors are different from the 'masses', in that their educational backgrounds would have made them more 'skeptical' of miraculous claims, and more sensitive to how their readers would react to such claims.
  2. The NT miracles are not in the low-order categories of magic, oracle, or sorcery. They are extravagant claims, quite different from any of the non-literary 'noise' about magic in the street.
  3. Being 'large' miracles and being pitched to an educated (at least merchant-class) level of readership, there is no reason to believe they would have been accepted as true withoutsome credibility of narrative, testimony, or coherence with personal experience. [That is, a 'bare' miracle story, of large scale, would have been immediately rejected by this readership. The fact that it was NOT, argues that either (a) the narrative accounts were sufficiently credible in the portrayal of the event to convey eyewitness-level accuracy; (b) the author and/or testamentary witness to the story was of sufficient credibility to substantiate the event [e.g., your closest and most trusted confidant said they experienced the miracle]; or (c) the described event matches or resonates with some personal experience of your own [e.g., in prayer, in interaction with Jesus]. What cannot be inferred from acceptance of the NT miracle stories is that the readership was actually gullible--this contradicts the socio-educational realities of the time.]
  4. The incessant calls in the bible to 'critical thinking' and 'be not deceived' and 'watch out for charlatans' and 'wake up' locates the authorship/readership in a social situation of anti-gullibility and anti-credulity. The 'test all things' motif is pervasive in the NT [see everythg.html], in line with the social setting we have noted for the gospel authors/recipients (e.g., Luke's 'scientific' preamble, in the genre of the Hellenistic schools--[PLG]).
  5. Although some of the effects would be lost in the post-NT church, the early origination of the gospel in non-urban Galilee provides a credibility-criterion for the first adherents. This can be seen from the opposite problem in Rome:


"As he often does, Galen resembles Lucian both in tone and description. Inveighing against the quack doctors who gain advancement while the genuine are neglected, Galen blames 'this great and populous city,' in which such charlatans can conceal their vices, and contrasts it with the small ones of the Greek world, in which everyone knows all about his neighbor's culture, possessions, and character. The wealthy of Rome honor the learned only to the extent that they can use them; unable to bear true experts or real philosophers, they are flattered by 'poor and uncultured' impostors who in turn are enticed by the prospect of large profits." (Culture and Society in Lucian, C. P. Jones, p.82f)
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster
Well, humanists are atheists.

Your link is concerning people making declarations based on their own thoughts and opinions. I have listened to their presentations and debates in the past and they never offered any evidence backing their claims.

As for evidence:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

No other historical data scratches the depth of proof for the Bible. I you reject the Bible you have to reject all of ancient history.

Thanks for the links Core.

Though some of their assertions are interesting, none of them say outright who wrote the gospels. This is of course because no one knows.

There were a few logical fallacies :

1) Just because a manuscript has been copied many times does not make it any more reliable. The Koran had been copied many times as well, this does not mean it is right.
2) You cannot compare the claims of the gospels to other historic events. Why? Well if you compare say Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river, there is nothing in that claim that says Julius Caesar did anything unusual. We are simply placing a historic character (that is referenced in thousands of other documents) at a geographical point (that people agree exists). The gospels are claiming supernatural events that are never repeated again. In fact worse than that there has never been a verifiable supernatural event (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

We all apply this logic; if I claimed i saw a yellow car while cycling to work, very few people would argue with this assertion. If claimed i saw a yellow dragon while cycling to work, then people would question far more thoroughly my assertion - why? - because its far less likely to have happened. People would expect far more evidence for yellow dragons than yellow cars.
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster
I'll add a link as well:
Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?

When we focus this data on the NT miracle stories, several conclusions stand out:

  1. The NT authors are different from the 'masses', in that their educational backgrounds would have made them more 'skeptical' of miraculous claims, and more sensitive to how their readers would react to such claims.
  2. The NT miracles are not in the low-order categories of magic, oracle, or sorcery. They are extravagant claims, quite different from any of the non-literary 'noise' about magic in the street.
  3. Being 'large' miracles and being pitched to an educated (at least merchant-class) level of readership, there is no reason to believe they would have been accepted as true withoutsome credibility of narrative, testimony, or coherence with personal experience. [That is, a 'bare' miracle story, of large scale, would have been immediately rejected by this readership. The fact that it was NOT, argues that either (a) the narrative accounts were sufficiently credible in the portrayal of the event to convey eyewitness-level accuracy; (b) the author and/or testamentary witness to the story was of sufficient credibility to substantiate the event [e.g., your closest and most trusted confidant said they experienced the miracle]; or (c) the described event matches or resonates with some personal experience of your own [e.g., in prayer, in interaction with Jesus]. What cannot be inferred from acceptance of the NT miracle stories is that the readership was actually gullible--this contradicts the socio-educational realities of the time.]
  4. The incessant calls in the bible to 'critical thinking' and 'be not deceived' and 'watch out for charlatans' and 'wake up' locates the authorship/readership in a social situation of anti-gullibility and anti-credulity. The 'test all things' motif is pervasive in the NT [see everythg.html], in line with the social setting we have noted for the gospel authors/recipients (e.g., Luke's 'scientific' preamble, in the genre of the Hellenistic schools--[PLG]).
  5. Although some of the effects would be lost in the post-NT church, the early origination of the gospel in non-urban Galilee provides a credibility-criterion for the first adherents. This can be seen from the opposite problem in Rome:


"As he often does, Galen resembles Lucian both in tone and description. Inveighing against the quack doctors who gain advancement while the genuine are neglected, Galen blames 'this great and populous city,' in which such charlatans can conceal their vices, and contrasts it with the small ones of the Greek world, in which everyone knows all about his neighbor's culture, possessions, and character. The wealthy of Rome honor the learned only to the extent that they can use them; unable to bear true experts or real philosophers, they are flattered by 'poor and uncultured' impostors who in turn are enticed by the prospect of large profits." (Culture and Society in Lucian, C. P. Jones, p.82f)

I honestly dont know how you judge miracles (does anyone?). Certainly we can perform scientific 'miracles', that far out weigh anything in the NT.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
Dragons are mythical creatures.

The Gospels are not myth. They are categorically ancient biographies.

Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?

So, the historical evidence demonstrates that the gospels (and gospel stories) were NOT understood as mythic by the readers most qualified to judge--the authors, the earliest well-educated critics, and the earliest well-educated defenders.

Summary:


1. The gospel literature does not manifest the characteristics of anthropological myth, especially of the setting in some distant, sacred, pre-history.



2. The gospel literature is not in the genre of 'myth' since there is no such genre in G-R lit at the time.



3. The gospel literature is not even written in any of the genres that were used to express myth, at the time of their origination.



4. The gospel literature is in the genre of bioi--ancient biography--and could be used for historical, fictional, or hybrid compositions.



5. Just as the gospel lit was unsuitable for Greek myth, so it was also for Roman myth.



6. The gospels are likewise not set in ANE mythic pre-history, nor are any of the ANE mythic figures present in the narratives.



7. Jewish myth is a questionable category altogether, but wouldn't be close enough to Greco-Roman meanings of mythos to apply to our argument here.



8. Not only are the gospels overall not myth in genre or character, but they also do not seem to include mythic scenes or elements which are explicit, recognizable, and functioning as myth.



9. The New Testament epistles specifically distance the Jesus story from the word/concept 'myth', demonstrating that they never intended the gospels to be taken as myth.



10. There is a difference between miraculous and mythical, in the sense being discussed here.



11. The various "uses" of myth in literary settings are not visible in the NT: it is not used for doctrine, parable, or symbol.



12. The early church and the early pagans ("intended readers") did not understand the gospel stories to be myth, as evidenced by their arguments concerning the truth of the documents.



13. The earliest Jewish and pagan opponents of the gospel story all attacked the miracles of Jesus as being magical instead of mythical--they were assumed to have happened in historia, not in myth.



So, I think it is safe to conclude that the gospel authors did NOT intend their literary productions to be taken as myth (in the anthropological or Classical literary sense).
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Well, humanists are atheists.

Your link is concerning people making declarations based on their own thoughts and opinions. I have listened to their presentations and debates in the past and they never offered any evidence backing their claims.

As for evidence:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

No other historical data scratches the depth of proof for the Bible. I you reject the Bible you have to reject all of ancient history.

Thanks for the links Core.

Though some of their assertions are interesting, none of them say outright who wrote the gospels. This is of course because no one knows.
Then you cannot accept any claim by anyone. After all, you cannot prove a scientist did his research correctly. You cannot prove a witness got it right. You cannot prove any author didn't lie.
There were a few logical fallacies :

1) Just because a manuscript has been copied many times does not make it any more reliable. The Koran had been copied many times as well, this does not mean it is right.
The Koran was not written until 600 years after Mohammed. There were many different versions and the official one was picked by a political leader. Not a good comparison.
2) You cannot compare the claims of the gospels to other historic events. Why? Well if you compare say Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river, there is nothing in that claim that says Julius Caesar did anything unusual. We are simply placing a historic character (that is referenced in thousands of other documents) at a geographical point (that people agree exists).
But you do not know he was actually there by your criterion. Could have been a publicity stunt written by others or embellished history. So most assuredly I can compare and exert the need for equal standards of evaluation.
The gospels are claiming supernatural events that are never repeated again. In fact worse than that there has never been a verifiable supernatural event (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
You need to study the research on places like Sodom and Gomorrah and Jericho. Most assuredly Jericho has been proven to have been an evident that defied scientific norms.

Plus some of us have experienced miracles. I was instantly healed once from an incurable lung condition, in example. A friend broke his leg with the bone sticking out and it was healed instantly.

I do not demand you believe me. But for me it is proof the supernatural is there and miracles happen.
We all apply this logic; if I claimed i saw a yellow car while cycling to work, very few people would argue with this assertion. If claimed i saw a yellow dragon while cycling to work, then people would question far more thoroughly my assertion - why? - because its far less likely to have happened. People would expect far more evidence for yellow dragons than yellow cars.
Less likely does not mean it didn't.

Plus, demons can mimic dragons, etc.

There was a time when logic said the earth was flat. The Bible says otherwise in the OT long before proven it was not

Do not rely on human logic on everything. It has proven false far too many times.

Not everything is a miracle. But some things are.
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster
Well, humanists are atheists.

Your link is concerning people making declarations based on their own thoughts and opinions. I have listened to their presentations and debates in the past and they never offered any evidence backing their claims.

As for evidence:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

No other historical data scratches the depth of proof for the Bible. I you reject the Bible you have to reject all of ancient history.

Thanks for the links Core.

Though some of their assertions are interesting, none of them say outright who wrote the gospels. This is of course because no one knows.
Then you cannot accept any claim by anyone. After all, you cannot prove a scientist did his research correctly. You cannot prove a witness got it right. You cannot prove any author didn't lie.
There were a few logical fallacies :

1) Just because a manuscript has been copied many times does not make it any more reliable. The Koran had been copied many times as well, this does not mean it is right.
The Koran was not written until 600 years after Mohammed. There were many different versions and the official one was picked by a political leader. Not a good comparison.
2) You cannot compare the claims of the gospels to other historic events. Why? Well if you compare say Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river, there is nothing in that claim that says Julius Caesar did anything unusual. We are simply placing a historic character (that is referenced in thousands of other documents) at a geographical point (that people agree exists).
But you do not know he was actually there by your criterion. Could have been a publicity stunt written by others or embellished history. So most assuredly I can compare and exert the need for equal standards of evaluation.
The gospels are claiming supernatural events that are never repeated again. In fact worse than that there has never been a verifiable supernatural event (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
You need to study the research on places like Sodom and Gomorrah and Jericho. Most assuredly Jericho has been proven to have been an evident that defied scientific norms.

Plus some of us have experienced miracles. I was instantly healed once from an incurable lung condition, in example. A friend broke his leg with the bone sticking out and it was healed instantly.

I do not demand you believe me. But for me it is proof the supernatural is there and miracles happen.
We all apply this logic; if I claimed i saw a yellow car while cycling to work, very few people would argue with this assertion. If claimed i saw a yellow dragon while cycling to work, then people would question far more thoroughly my assertion - why? - because its far less likely to have happened. People would expect far more evidence for yellow dragons than yellow cars.
Less likely does not mean it didn't.

Plus, demons can mimic dragons, etc.

There was a time when logic said the earth was flat. The Bible says otherwise in the OT long before proven it was not

Do not rely on human logic on everything. It has proven false far too many times.

Not everything is a miracle. But some things are.

The Koran was written down during the life time of the Muhammad under his own supervision. But it was not in book form. It was written on different materials. It was first compiled in book form during the reign of Abu Bakr (632 - 634 AD) - Muhammad died in 632.

I really think its pushing it to say the Bible thought the earth wasn't flat, if that is so, its hard to understand why the bible makes a number of references to the 'Four corners of the earth' - something a spherical planet does not have.

BTW the earth was shown to be spherical in the 3rd century BC through Hellenistic astronomy; although Greek philosophy had speculated on this as early as the 6th century BC.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

The history of the Koran is chaotic, changing and unproven. There is no comparison with the history of the Bible and its manuscripts, which are consistent. unlike the Koran.

I could have phrased the "600" statement better. Sorry.

As for the BC on the earth being round, I am fully aware of that. I was talking Europe under the Catholics. As you say, it was speculation, not fact.

On the four corners of the earth in the Bible, that is not an issue. "earth," means the dry land, not the whole planet. As science agrees the planet had one land mass only in ancient times. It indeed had four corners point to the compass points. The land was divided in the time of Peleg, Genesis 11, I believe.

Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:22 say round, not square.

All that predates Pythagoras.
 

xhacker

Advanced Poster

Well at the very least the bible is contradictory:

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on 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. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
(Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed. )

Compared to this one verse:

"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. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"

First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member

Well at the very least the bible is contradictory:
No, it is not.

First of all, the KJV is not the best translation of the Bible. That is a different discussion.
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Try the NIV:
He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.
Four quarters, not corners.
Strong's Number: 3671
Original WordWord Origin
@nkfrom (03670)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
KanaphTWOT - 1003a
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
kaw-nawf' Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
    1. wing
    2. extremity
      1. skirt, corner (of garment)
In example, the wing of a building is not a corner, but a quadrant.
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on 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. (KJV)
Strong's Number: 1137
Original WordWord Origin
goniaprobably akin to (1119)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Gonia1:791,137
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
go-nee'-ah Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. corner
    1. an external angle, a corner
    2. internal corner, i.e. a secret place
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Strong's Number: 3671
Original WordWord Origin
@nkfrom (03670)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
KanaphTWOT - 1003a
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
kaw-nawf' Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
    1. wing
    2. extremity
      1. skirt, corner (of garment)
I could go on, but the definitions show it does not mean what you are saying.

In fact, we still use expressions like that today knowing the earth is round.
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
(Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed. )
Satan is not human or bound by the laws you and I are.
Compared to this one verse:

"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. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"
Well, I gave you two verses as example, not one.
First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.
Look at the horizon, and scan 360, that is a circle. Cut a ball and look at the cut face. It is a circle.

But you said the earth was square, since you gave it corners. Then the horizon would make a square, not a circle.

I have never accused the Catholics of reading any other Bible back but their own man made one. In fact, it was a death penalty for anyone but a priest to have any Bible.

The Bible never says the world was flat. Genesis states God separated the land, not lands, from the water. Science has confirmed there once was only one land mass.

The Bible also says God divided that one land mass. Science has confirmed that.

I see nothing other than the Bible got it right.
 
Last edited:
Top