I respect the dedication, zeal and knowledge of what the scriptures say of fundamentalists and biblical literalists. But I can’t believe that those who wrote the Scriptures were God’s inerrant stenographers, recording His words exactly as He spoke them. This is making a claim for the Bible that the Bible doesn’t make for itself.
Paul wrote that all scripture was inspired. But when he wrote this the Old Testament would not be canonized for several decades and much of the New Testament was not yet written and wouldn’t be canonized for over two hundred years. To what scripture was Paul referring?
The scriptures generally reflect the context in which they were written. In New Testament times, for instance, sickness was frequently seen as God’s punishment and mental illness as demon possession. Few believe that today, and rightly so. And if God spoke directly to the Old Testament scribes, why didn’t He inform them that the world was a globe, an oblate spheroid. They generally wrote from a flat–world, geocentric perspective. I could continue but it shouldn’t be necessary.
Rigid fundamentalism forces us to cling to doctrines, dogma, institutions and a narrow understanding of Christianity that are fast becoming irrelevant, leaving our beliefs almost devoid of meaning in view of the realities of today’s world.
From its very beginnings Christianity was never a static faith and shouldn’t be today. We must try to understand the Jesus reality in light of the ever-changing reality of human experience, including science.
An endemic rigidity and a failure to meet people’s needs in a changing world have made the Christian church in Europe, long bound by dogma and convention, a dying institution. With our traditions of religious and academic freedom we have the wherewithal to keep that from happening here.
George B. Reed, Jr., Fort Oglethorpe
The Prophet Isaiah said the world was round more than 700 years BC. He was not a sailor, it was revealed to him. Flat-Earthers denied the Bible because of their own self-righteous beliefs that they are not accountable to God. They trusted "science falsely so called" instead.
Churches here in the United States have already become like Europe because they trust in Salvation by works (self-righteousness). Why would any person, saved or unsaved want to enthusiastically attend a Church that either teaches "you are a good person" or "The wrath of God will doom you because of your sins"?
Instead they should be teaching "yes, you are a sinner but Christ took your sins to the cross and died in your stead, was buried and rose again". The hope is in the rapture out of this world when we die or when he comes to meet us in the clouds.
Our hope is that He will do as he promised. If a Church isn't teaching that then how depressing it would be to attend said "Church".
The Bible does not change, man changes the Bible.
The world isn't round; it's spherical, and, without exception, every book of the Bible containing a relevant reference, including Isaiah, regards the earth as flat--either a flat, round disc, or a flat, square one. The flat earthers reject science, in favor of biblical inerrancy on this point.
The matter of divine inspiration for scripture is less interesting. It is, however, worth noting that the citation of Paul on this point comes from 2 Timothy, which is widely regarded as pseudo-Pauline, and a creation of the 2nd century (long after Paul's death).
2 Timothy was a letter written directly to Timothy (a young pastor) while Paul was in prison. By the way, saying "widely regarded" is just as ridiculous as the "widely used" translations that originated out of Egypt.
The Hebrew word in question--chuwg--means "circle" or, less often, "circuit." In no ancient Hebrew text is it used for "sphere"--not once. That's a modern invention, created by apologists for the purpose to which you just tried to put it (the actual word for "sphere"--the one that was used in the biblical texts and would have been used if it was intended to be read as "sphere"--was "duwr," but even it isn't used consistently). What you cite from Isaiah reads
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
If we're to take that literally, rather than as poetry, it's a FLAT earth being described, and there's no way around that.
"By the way, saying 'widely regarded' is just as ridiculous as the 'widely used' translations that originated out of Egypt."
2 Timothy (like 5 and maybe more of the other canonical Pauline writings) wasn't written by Paul at all. Not when he's in prison. Not at any time in his life. It deals with second-century pastoral issues that didn't even arise until well after his death, and the language is all wrong for both the period and for Paul himself. VERY few scholars on the subject (and no serious ones) disagree with any of this. That's why "widely regarded."
I perceive you are not a Christian that believes in: the depravity of man, Jesus Christ that died, was buried, and rose from the dead in the stead of all mankind.
Why do you debate about a book you do not even believe?
1Cr 2:9-13,14 "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."