Hi Robert: A sphere does indeed appear circular from a distance. Actually your eye receives the light as in a conical shape. This is not difficult.
A sphere might appear to be circular from a distance, assuming that the observer was in geosynchronous orbit. However, such an assumption necessarily reduces the observer to finite in size, which I had gathered was *not* one of the necessary characteristics of God, was I mistaken? And if Ezekiel was taken up into the sky, he would most certainly have been able to observe the recession of the horizon as he ascended, as well as the near sphericity as he moved parabolically, relative to the surface. One would also expect that he would have been able to note that the shadow cast by the earth on the moon is always circular, regardless of time of night or phase, and thus the earth must be spherical, rather than circular, or it would occasionally cast an oblong, and then a linear shadow.
I admit that my Hebrew is not quite as good as I'd like it to be, but did the people who wrote these passages not have a word for spheres? That seems to be the best way to explain why they used "circle" when they meant "sphere," if such were in fact the case.
Still, That's all beside the point. Your argument is that the bible is inerrant, IF we interpret it correctly, am I right? So our interpretations may be mistaken, even if the bible is not, (e.g. the "flat-earth society," who take the "circle" passages literally, even though your non-literal interpretation is more accurate) correct? So on what basis can we determine if our interpretations of the inerrant text are the correct interpretations or not?
IOW, what is the final arbiter of the accuracy our interpretations? I'm not questioning the accuracy of the text itself, which you argue is absolute truth and I'm not interested in debating that. Rather, I'm wondering how we should evaluate the relative veracity of differing interpretations of that text, which you argue are potentially faliable, based as they are on imperfect human perceptions and thoughts. For example, how would you convince someone who interprets the "circle" passages as literal truth (i.e. they believe that the earth is a flat disc) that their interpretation was mistaken? How would you demonstrate to them that some passages of the bible need to be taken as parables or metaphors, rather than as literal descriptions? (Again, I'm not baiting you here, I'm quite serious. This is the fundamental question about several of the apparent conflicts between religion and science, and I'm honestly interested in your answer.) You interpret "circle" to mean "sphere, as seen from a distance," while others interpret it literally. How can we demonstrate to the literalists that, in fact, "sphere seen from a distance" is a better interpretation than "flat disc?" I agree with you, completely, that "a sphere that looks like a circle, when seen from far away" is a much more accurate description of the earth's actual shape than "flat and discoidal, like a coin or frisbee," don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering what test we use to demonstrate that our interpretations are correct to people who interpret the passages differently.
In this case, clearly direct observation of the world from space has shown your interpretation to be correct. Should we generally use observations of the natural world as a way to see if our interpretations of scripture are more accurate than other interpretations? I think that might be a good place to start, since we can actually see the stuff in front of us, don't you agree? Or do you propose some other way, besides observation of the material world, for us to determine which interpretations are correct and which are not?
: Of course, I have merely a fallible mind, for which God's Word is an ever-shining light of truth for me.
Oh you're too modest. Your mind is clearly more flexible than some biblical literalists (who think the world is flat, who pick up snakes and drink poison because they think Jesus told them to, and so forth).
: Cheers and God Bless.
Thank you. May Hawkings and Einstein bless you!
-Floyd
None.
