Violating 'Law'

[POI]

Wild claims are a dime a dozen. We hear them all the time, and they come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. The term 'wild' is somewhat subjective in and of itself and ultimately lies within the eye of the beholder. A 'wild' claim to you may not seem so 'wild' to me, and vice versa. Further, some of these 'wild' claims are a little more believable than others. And others, are instead downright dismissed without any initial consideration what-so-ever.

In this particular case, let's investigate claim(s) surrounding deemed clinically dead bodies; which are also presumed to be decomposing, due to 'natural law'. And these claim(s) assert that these dead and decomposing bodies violated "natural law" by returning to life. (See Matthew 27:52-53 and/or John 11:44 for reference). Do we agree that these are 'wild' claim(s)? Assuming we agree here, let's trek forward...

A believer in these assertions comes along and makes the following statement:

These people were so convinced in their experience and so believable and completely credible that others have fully accepted their testimony on the basis of their character, having little or even nothing to do with the details of the telling. You tell me something unbelievable and I believe it having not seen what you saw, but believing YOU. And I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and years later a couple of folks decide that this all should be written down and preserved for posterity.

But countless people are convinced of things which are false in reality. Hence, the steadfast and earnest belief itself renders no merit as to (whether or not) the claim is actually true. So maybe this particular arguing point isn't really that convincing after all? Further, the above touches upon the "Halo Effect" and "charisma". Meaning, believable and confident people project authority and likeability, which triggers a cognitive bias where others may assume their claims are accurate. Heck, some of the recipients of these tales told may later even become inspired to write about these received upon claim(s). Further, fallacious reasoning, or the 'appeal to ethos', may be presented here. Meaning, relying solely upon the speaker/presenter(s) character, rather than instead the actual substance. This is also known as "ad verecundiam", or the "appeal to authority".

For debate: I'm not saying that 'natural law' cannot be violated. I'm instead asking why I should believe in these particular expressed 'wild' claim(s), in violating natural law?

[POI]

Even better. He reigns over the circle of the earth, so that the LORD of heaven's reign is all around the earth, not any one flat side thereof.

You completely missed my point. In this context, "sits" means "reigns". The word "over" or "above" is implied, as you must reign upon or over something. The phrase "circle of the earth", in Isaiah 40:22, comes from the Hebrew word chûg, which refers to a round or circular shape, such as an arch, horizon, or compass-drawn circle. Further, the Hebrew word (chûg) translates literally to "circle" or "vault," rather than a three-dimensional sphere -- (for which a different Hebrew word, dûr, meaning "ball," exists). You demonstrate to inject wishful thinking here. The author used the wrong word, likely because he thought the world was a flat disk. Otherwise, there would be no reason to transpose chug and dur.

Hence, when I asked "where does it say that?", I was referring to your assertion that the Bible also suggests that in Isa. 40:22, it also speaks about "sitting around the earth, on the high firmament that encircles the earth.". It doesn't look to.

For all intents and purposes, all Isa. 40:22 speaks about is god's "reign". And of course, one can reign over a pancake, or a circular table, a piece of bologna, or anything else which is a flat and circular disk. In essence, had the word dûr been used, then countless exchanges would not persist. Thus, I have to ask again, unanswered...

Matthew 4:8 identifies two potential issues:

1) Jesus is not omnipresent and/or omniscient if the devil needs to bring him anywhere to see all (and/or)
2) The passage suggests Jesus must go higher to see the other side of a sphere?

Since the heaven of His throne is not flat, so also His footstool earth cannot be flat.

The Heaven(s) is/are thought to be dome shaped. The earth could most certainly be a round disk in which the Heaven's, aka "the sky" sits above.

[POI]

Since now that you agree the Bible context teaches a spherical circle, and not flat circle at all, then let's move on.

That's not what I agreed to RBD. I agreed that the Bible does not clarify specifically as to the shape. Which leads to the follow up question in post 49...

I would agree. The unanswered question remains... Did the author of these passages think they knew what the shape of the earth is? If so, is there enough text present to suggest what shape the author thought it was?

Again, harken back to my given hypothesis about how the rest of this exchange is going to go, in post 43.

Jesus in the flesh of man is not the Spirit's body everywhere at once. Which He laid down to come to earth in the flesh.

Then you cannot have your cake and eat it too RBD. If he lacks attributes as a human, then going higher won't allow him to see the other 50% of a sphere either.

The passages say they see all the kingdoms of the world, not the earth itself. So, it has nothing to do with the earth itself.

All means all. This means kingdoms would exist on the opposite side. Unless the author was under the impression that no kingdoms existed on the other side? No matter how high one travels, seeing the other side of a sphere is not going to happen without being 'omni'.

Mat 4:9
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

The devil promises the power and glory of all people on earth, not the earth itself, which is reserved to the God of heaven and earth. The devil has never possessed the earth itself, so cannot offer it to another: The earth itself was not seen and promised to Jesus by the devil.

I'm referring to how Jesus must go higher to see all kingdoms. Since you admit he is of flesh here, this means he lacks 'omni'. It seems Matthew is under the impression that if one goes high enough, they will have a better view. This is a position one might take if they thought the world was a large and wide flat/round disk.

[RBD]

Even better. He reigns over the circle of the earth, so that the LORD of heaven's reign is all around the earth, not any one flat side thereof.

You completely missed my point. In this context, "sits" means "reigns". The word "over" or "above" is implied, as you must reign upon or over something. The phrase "circle of the earth", in Isaiah 40:22, comes from the Hebrew word chûg, which refers to a round or circular shape, such as an arch, horizon, or compass-drawn circle. Further, the Hebrew word (chûg) translates literally to "circle" or "vault," rather than a three-dimensional sphere -- (for which a different Hebrew word, dûr, meaning "ball," exists). You demonstrate to inject wishful thinking here. The author used the wrong word, likely because he thought the world was a flat disk. Otherwise, there would be no reason to transpose chug and dur.

Circle and circling can equally be sperical and flat.

Heaven being His reigning seat and the earth His footstool, is sufficient to understand the earth is round, since the heavens are not flat. And sitting on the circle of the earth for His observation and judgment of all inhabitants, is much more sensible than sitting on the sphere of the earth.

And, If we must go to Hebrew, then the argument is already weak, since context is available. But we can go to Septuagint Greek, where the circle is a form made round.

Since the heaven of His throne is not flat, so also His footstool earth cannot be flat.

The Heaven(s) is/are thought to be dome shaped. The earth could most certainly be a round disk in which the Heaven's, aka "the sky" sits above.

Same again. We can speculate sphere or flat, since neither is specifically recorded. Context has more credit for round form of the earth.

[RBD]

Since now that you agree the Bible context teaches a spherical circle, and not flat circle at all, then let's move on.

That's not what I agreed to RBD. I agreed that the Bible does not clarify specifically as to the shape. Which leads to the follow up question in post 49...

I would agree. The unanswered question remains... Did the author of these passages think they knew what the shape of the earth is? If so, is there enough text present to suggest what shape the author thought it was?

Irrelavant to the record. The writer doesn't have to understand it, but only record it. There are many examples of the writers not understanding what they write at the time.

The only challenge is for the record, not the writer.

[RBD]

The passages say they see all the kingdoms of the world, not the earth itself. So, it has nothing to do with the earth itself.

All means all. This means kingdoms would exist on the opposite side.

In a moment of time is all at once, which kingdoms can be by gathered together in one place, even as before the LORD on earth at His return;

Mat 25:31
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:


And, since this is a supernatural event, then all kingdoms of all time on earth can be seen all at once.

Once again, without critical challenge of the natural man, then the explanation is not necessary, since the record is of the supernatural unruled by the natural world.

Mat 4:9
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

The devil promises the power and glory of all people on earth, not the earth itself, which is reserved to the God of heaven and earth. The devil has never possessed the earth itself, so cannot offer it to another: The earth itself was not seen and promised to Jesus by the devil.

I'm referring to how Jesus must go higher to see all kingdoms.

No, your only challenge is of going higher to see all the earth, which is not the case. Your argument is about the shape of the earth, not the manner of kingdoms being seen and where.

Neither the earth nor the shape of the earth is the subject of the supernatural event. In fact, we can easily argue that it's not even a high mountain of the earth.

If you want to argue then about Jesus' natural body being in such locations, then there are several examples of prophets, apostles, and men taken by supernatural power to many unearthly places, including the 3rd heaven.

And any argument about natural impossibility, is not disproof, but only unbelief.

[POI]

From post 43:

I'm going to submit a hypothesis... The a) falsified claim or b) the claim proven to never to have happened; isn't actually so because:

a) the claim is not detailed enough to actually investigate
b) it hasn't actually been falsified yet

Heaven being His reigning seat and the earth His footstool, is sufficient to understand the earth is round, since the heavens are not flat. And sitting on the circle of the earth for His observation and judgment of all inhabitants, is much more sensible than sitting on the sphere of the earth.

Why couldn't the earth be a flat circular disk and the skies above, where the "Heavens" are thought to reside, are domed above it? You know, like the shape of a desktop snow globe, where the base of it is flat, but round?

And, If we must go to Hebrew, then the argument is already weak, since context is available. But we can go to Septuagint Greek, where the circle is a form made round.

Irrelevant, since we both agree the Bible is speaking about something 'round'. The unanswered question remains, is it like a pancake, or, like a ball?

The writer doesn't have to understand it, but only record it. There are many examples of the writers not understanding what they write at the time.

Well, do we know what the author knew, in regard to the form of our planet, or not?

Further, IS there enough data to discern a conclusion about the earth's actual shape, or not? If not, then maybe we can just move on to the next one??? See the top, via from post 43?

In a moment of time is all at once, which kingdoms can be by gathered together in one place, even as before the LORD on earth at His return;

Matt. 25:31 states "gathered all nations". Which means they are all bunched together. Hence, this verse is irrelevant.

No, your only challenge is of going higher to see all the earth, which is not the case. Your argument is about the shape of the earth, not the manner of kingdoms being seen and where.

Since Matt 25:31 is irrelevant, as the passage specifies all parties will be gathered together, we can again address Matt: 4-8. In order for your apologetics to mean anything here, you will need to try and explain away the fact that the verse states that the devil/Jesus go up a very high mountain to see all the kingdoms, as opposed to the devil taking Jesus up to a 'magic mountain.' Can you do that?

[RBD]

Why couldn't the earth be a flat circular disk and the skies above, where the "Heavens" are thought to reside, are domed above it? You know, like the shape of a desktop snow globe, where the base of it is flat, but round?

A novel idea for explaining a flat earth but round heaven. Good job. If the earth were flat, which the Bible doesn't say.

The accusation must be proved. The Bible doesn't have to disprove an absence of proof.

The point being that the Author is not rquired to include what He deems unnecessary for the purposes of the Book. Whatever shape of the earth, sperical, perfectly round ball, a box, or flat, it makes no difference to the content of revelation, prophecy, and doctrine of the Bible.

Now, if you want to try and prove that the earth's shape is necessary to know in the Bible, then I'd be glad to hear it.

Well, do we know what the author knew, in regard to the form of our planet, or not?

Such as here. It's irrelavant. Does it matter what the writer knew about the shape of the earth. No. Does it matter that the Author does not definitely say? No.

Further, IS there enough data to discern a conclusion about the earth's actual shape, or not? If not, then maybe we can just move on to the next one??? See the top, via from post 43?

We make the same conclusion. It doesn't and it doesn't matter.

In a moment of time is all at once, which kingdoms can be by gathered together in one place, even as before the LORD on earth at His return;

Matt. 25:31 states "gathered all nations". Which means they are all bunched together. Hence, this verse is irrelevant.

It's an example of all nations on earth gathered together in one place on earth.

And so, Biblically that's possible.

No, your only challenge is of going higher to see all the earth, which is not the case. Your argument is about the shape of the earth, not the manner of kingdoms being seen and where.

Since Matt 25:31 is irrelevant, as the passage specifies all parties will be gathered together, we can again address Matt: 4-8. In order for your apologetics to mean anything here, you will need to try and explain away the fact that the verse states that the devil/Jesus go up a very high mountain to see all the kingdoms, as opposed to the devil taking Jesus up to a 'magic mountain.' Can you do that?

Now that you agree the verse is irrelavant to the shape of the earth, then calling it a 'magic' mountain is meaningless to any argument.

I've already show Bibilically, that men in natural bodies can be supernaturally taken safely to strange environments hostile to the flesh. And so, even as the shape of the earth, which exceeding high mountain is irrelavent to the passage: All the kingdoms of the world were shown and seen at once.

One teaching though, is that the devil always overdoes things by pride: Exceeding high implies unnecessarily over the top...Afterall, he was trying to impress the man Jesus by overwhwleming His senses all at once. Which was the next trial to the flesh, after refusing to make bread of stones.

[POI]

Keeping this on top, originally from post 43:

I'm going to submit a hypothesis... The a) falsified claim or b) the claim proven to never to have happened; isn't actually so because:

a) the claim is not detailed enough to actually investigate
b) it hasn't actually been falsified yet

A novel idea for explaining a flat earth but round heaven. Good job. If the earth were flat, which the Bible doesn't say.

The accusation must be proved. The Bible doesn't have to disprove an absence of proof.

I'm essentially asking if it is even possible, based upon what we read in the Scriptures, that <the author> thinks this is how things are shaped? Yes or no?

The point being that the Author is not rquired to include what He deems unnecessary for the purposes of the Book. Whatever shape of the earth, sperical, perfectly round ball, a box, or flat, it makes no difference to the content of revelation, prophecy, and doctrine of the Bible.

No RBD. My OP ultimately asks why we should believe that <the Bible god> did or does suspend any 'law(s)'? And your paraphrased answer stated that if I can demonstrate an error in the Bible, then the Bible can be ruled out as a viable option. Hence, I'm asking if the author, (who is also apparently inspired by the one who is claimed to suspend such laws), is giving this author information to tell us?

Listen, I understand what you are saying here... Hence, to move this conversation forward, allow me to try and steelman your argument. God gave the author some info, but none of the intended info was in an attempt to inform us about the actual shape of the earth?

Now, if you want to try and prove that the earth's shape is necessary to know in the Bible, then I'd be glad to hear it.

See above.

Does it matter what the writer knew about the shape of the earth.

It depends... Was the author under the assume about the shape of the earth, or not? Again, refer to the top of this response, originating from post 43.

Does it matter that the Author does not definitely say?

It depends... Was the author under the assume about the shape of the earth, or not? Again, refer to the top of this response, originating from post 43.

And so, Biblically that's possible.

Sure, but context still matters. Matt. 25:31 is about 'final judgement'. Further, the passage also explicitly states that they will all be gathered. Alternatively, Matt. 4:8 instead speaks about pre-final-judgement - (before all folks are gathered for judgement); and also, that the devil and Jesus go to a 'very high mountain' to see all the kingdoms. Matt. 4:8 never insinuates anything other than that the mountain is very high, so they can actually see all the kingdoms. If you want to have your cake and eat it too, then you must apply the same kinds of hermeneutics in Matthew 4:8 as you are doing in Matthew 25:31. So, again, if you wish to jump through some extra hoops to make Matthew 4:8 work in your favor, I'm ready to hear it. Does this mean it is just implied? Meaning, that without the Bible saying so, that this "very high mountain" contained special powers? Further, if supernatural forces are at play, then why the need to go up this very high mountain?

Otherwise, Matthew 4:8 reads as if the writer thought all the kingdoms could be seen if one simply goes high enough?

[RBD]

I'm essentially asking if it is even possible, based upon what we read in the Scriptures, that <the author> thinks this is how things are shaped? Yes or no?

And once again, doesn't matter what the writer knows or doesn't know, but only what the writer knows is the Author's words given him to write. There are many places where the writer makes it clear, that he doesn't know everything the Author is saying, but only that He's saying it.

All the prophets and apsostles also need to study the words of Scripture to learn their truth, the same as any reader of the Author's writings.

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

They are taking dictation from the Author's knowledge, not writing their own personal knowledge. They are pens in the hands of the Author. Holy pens with pure hearts to write only what Thus saith the LORD, but only pens nonetheless.

The point being that the Author is not rquired to include what He deems unnecessary for the purposes of the Book. Whatever shape of the earth, sperical, perfectly round ball, a box, or flat, it makes no difference to the content of revelation, prophecy, and doctrine of the Bible.

No RBD. My OP ultimately asks why we should believe that <the Bible god> did or does suspend any 'law(s)'?

Well then, in that case, once again it doesn't matter whether the read believes the words are true or not. The natural man doesn't have to believe anything that superceeds natural law.

The only matter is if the words contradict established and known facts, as in this case, that the earth, she be a round, not flat.

Anyone believing the earth is flat, cannot have that proven from the Bible. And anyone knowing the earth is round, doesn't need that proven by the Bible.

The Author is not seekiing faith by revealing physical things, that no one on earth can know at the time.

Hence, I'm asking if the author, (who is also apparently inspired by the one who is claimed to suspend such laws), is giving this author information to tell us?

The Author does, that the He sits on the circle of the earth overseeing all the inhabitants as crosshoppers.

If anyone wants to know if that circle is round or flat, then they need to go elsewhere. The Author doesn't say, because it's not important to the revelation and doctrine of the Book.

Whether anyone accepts the Author decision, is also irrelavant.

Listen, I understand what you are saying here... Hence, to move this conversation forward, allow me to try and steelman your argument. God gave the author some info, but none of the intended info was in an attempt to inform us about the actual shape of the earth?

Correct. Unless there is any other info saying so. The Scriptures never give the exact shape nor deminsions of the earth; nor does He say such knowledge is necessary to believe His revelation and doctrine.

1Jo 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

We can say that all Scripture is written to us for one main thing: Don't do evil. The shape of the earth is irrelavant to doing good or evil.

It depends... Was the author under the assume about the shape of the earth, or not?

And once more, that only matters to know the factual errancy of the Book or not.

Mat 27:42
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

"Let the Bible sway the earth is round, before any man has proved it, and I'll believe..."

Neither would believe, even if The LORD does what is demanded of Him to prove He is the true God:

Mat 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight

Readers only seeking fault, will find fault that's not even there, yet they say ought to be there to not have fault.

And so, Biblically that's possible.

Sure, but context still matters.

Only if there is context to prove one way or the other. If not, it doesn't matter to the Author. It's His Book, not the reader's. If a reader thinks such things matter, let them write their own book already.

[RBD]

Matt. 25:31 is about 'final judgement'.

False. It's the judgment of nations by the Lord returned to reign over all nations.

His Mellinium with begin on with neighborly sheep, not any worthless goats. The wicked pursuing evil will have been destroyed with their armies around Megiddo.

The final judgment recorded in the Bible is at the GWT at the end of His mellinial kingdom on earth.

Further, the passage also explicitly states that they will all be gathered. Alternatively, Matt. 4:8 instead speaks about pre-final-judgement - (before all folks are gathered for judgement);

You must have the wrong passage. There's nothing in Matthew 4 about the judgment of nations on earth.

and also, that the devil and Jesus go to a 'very high mountain' to see all the kingdoms. Matt. 4:8 never insinuates anything other than that the mountain is very high, so they can actually see all the kingdoms.

Already argued enough.