No no we cant have this !

[CaptainHaplo]

Not my fault you can't understand the term "brokered" - enjoy your ... bliss and your wedgie.

Not my fault you can't understand the term "brokered"

It is you who doesn't understand the term .
If a real estate agent attempts to broker a deal between a buyer and a seller he hasn't brokered anything unless the sale goes through , however if he succeeds in brokering the deal there will be a resulting document signed by both parties stating that they are in agreement .

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok tribesman - you seem to be stuck on this - so I will put this to you quite simply. Hopefully you will comprehend it (though I don't hold out much hope). I also hope it will help you stop living in the past since you can't seem to let go of it....

Just like actually reading the Bible would have corrected your misconception of the sun and earth and what revolves around what according to scripture, reading the articles I linked would have made it clear that there was an agreement. Allow me to quote the Huffington Post.

"A little more than six months ago, Egypt brokered a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. The truce ended on December 19, and it was Hamas, not Israel, that refused to extend it. In fact, The current attacks began before the cease-fire agreement expired. In the last six weeks, Hamas has fired more than 400 missiles into Israel, including 40 Qassam rockets and mortars since December 19."

Now - note it didn't say that Egypt TRIED to broker a cease fire. It said it DID broker one. Thus, per that article, an agreement EXISTED. Otherwise the agreement that couldnt exist - couldn't expire could it? What you want to see is some long drawn out "treaty" documentation signed by both parties. Excuse me, but it would help if you would extract your cranium from your rectum for a moment and realize the following:

#1 Israel isn't going to negotiate with terrorists directly, so everyone sitting down and having a nice chat, tea and crumpets to figure out the wording of an agreement just ain't going to happen. Nor did it.

#2 Hamas is not a government, thus they have no recognized diplomat authorized to sign any such agreement if it existed. They are a terrorist organization, and thus have no interest in signing a document that - as the above noted - they had no interest in complying with.

#3 Egypt acted as a go between and got both sides to agree to stop shooting and killing each other. Egypt stated clearly that both sides agreed to the ceasefire, and neither side disputed it. In fact, again, had you read the links I posted, a leader of Hamas first "embraced" the ceasefire. A week later he was inciting its violation. This further proved the point I was making - you can't trust terrorists to abide by any agreement.

Its unfortunate that you CHOOSE to remain ignorant when your provided with the facts. This is what makes your arguments laughable, and your diatribes a source of questionable worth, at best. Note the difference tribesman - you jabber on with this view or that, never actually providing any form of verification on your claims. I, and others, discuss and provide sources that support our respective views. We give specific points, and give others the ability to ascertain the veracity of those points. You throw snide remarks, inuendo and simply "expect" that everyone will see it your way. Sorry, but that isn't how discourse or debate work.

I will point out - Zachstar and I disagree on the labor bill before congress. However, we have addressed specific points and are debating the merits of each. He and I can agree to disagree, but we are at least discussing it. Such a discourse with you is a waste of time, because you have no willingness to comprehend that you may have a fact wrong, or a preconception incorrect. Your arguement on the ceasefire showed you can't accept facts that dispute your opinion, and your earth and sun argument demonstrated that reality takes a back seat to your preconcieved views.

In finality, you just feel free to continue to try and "rip apart" my posts. At least now I know what gave you the wedgie - must be from pushing your head into its normal orifice that did it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Frame57

You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. This notion and many other erroneous ones arose in the dark ages along with a myriad of other superstitions and poor theological references.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

If your planet is immovable, then the sun must be the thing moving here, according to scripture that is.

The ironic thing is that Copernicus, who provided evidence of a geocentric system, was a devout Christian in a time when people who uttered such things were branded as blasphemers, traitors, and heretics by the Church.

Originally Posted by Frame57

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.

Well actually, they didn't believe you would "fall off the edge". They believed that Earth had a solid skydome which protected us from the things outside of it. They did believe that there were great monsters in the oceans, though (somewhat true, if you consider all the gigantic things there are in the waters).

Here's a woodcut from the Middle Ages that basically displays what they thought perfectly:

Originally Posted by Frame57

Yet in Isaiah 40:22 and in Job 26:7 We see the earth as being a circle (Chugh) in hebrew which means "sphere".

Here's what we know about this part: the Jews adopted most of the old Babylonian theological beliefs on Earth and science. The Babylonians believed that Earth was a flat discus plane-like object that existed with a dome covering it (not referred to as a skydome, however). The Hebrew word "chugh" can mean both "circle" and "sphere", so while it could mean "sphere", they believed what the Babylonians did, which was quite the contrary (if anything, it would be a half sphere since you've got the flat ground and the solid dome). If the author wanted to say Earth is a sphere, why not use the word "dur"? It means "ball" in Hebrew, and is a hell of a lot closer (by definition) than "chugh".

Please note the "skydome" was referred to as "The Firmament" by the Babylonians and Jews, and this is where they believed that their gods dwelled.

Originally Posted by Frame57

And Job states it is suspended by nothing.

I don't know about that (do you have a specific verse?), but I do know that the Babylonians and old Jews also believed that Earth stood on a fixed set of pillars.

Originally Posted by Frame57

Pretty accurate I would say.

As far as the spherical Earth is concerned, no, it's not accurate. The Job verse I won't fully comment on since I don't know precisely what he said (but as I did point out, the old Jews adopted the Babylonian beliefs, which said that Earth was fixed on a set of pillars).

Originally Posted by Frame57

If I were to have home schooled kids I would have to make clear distinctions between what is faith based and what is not.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Frame57

Kids obviously are not going to learn Algebra from the bible.

That's for true.

Originally Posted by Frame57

But they certainly can learn about morals in society that are perfectly applicable.

I would have to dispute that. The Bible has got some moral and good teachings, but it's got a lot of immoral things, too, such as saying it's alright to own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46; NLT), it's acceptable to stone rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:-24), and it's also acceptable to beat children who are viewed as fools (Proverbs 22:15). It's also got a lot of brutal deaths and violence in it.

Definitely a no-no for young kids, but I would say a 14 or 15-year-old home-schooled kid could handle it.

Thus, per that article, an agreement EXISTED.

Bloody hell , you base your whole position on a newspaper article .

#1 Israel isn't going to negotiate with terrorists directly, so everyone sitting down and having a nice chat, tea and crumpets to figure out the wording of an agreement just ain't going to happen. Nor did it.

Errrr... thats why they use intermediaries , you know other people to try and broker deal between themselves and other parties .

#2 Hamas is not a government, thus they have no recognized diplomat authorized to sign any such agreement if it existed. They are a terrorist organization, and thus have no interest in signing a document that - as the above noted - they had no interest in complying with.

Hamas is the elected government , the elected governement is recognised with certain powers for the purposes of negotiation and international representation(plus internal matters) .

#3 Egypt acted as a go between and got both sides to agree to stop shooting and killing each other. Egypt stated clearly that both sides agreed to the ceasefire, and neither side disputed it. In fact, again, had you read the links I posted, a leader of Hamas first "embraced" the ceasefire. A week later he was inciting its violation. This further proved the point I was making - you can't trust terrorists to abide by any agreement.

Just so wrong , Israel made no agreement and did not agree to the terms Hamas put forward through Egypt . That is why there was no ceasfire agreement , just unilateral decalarations . Its kinda like the current situation where there are two ceasefires decalred , both unilateral declarations .
And in ongoing negotiations to attempt an agreed ceasfire between both parties Egypt complains it is getting stabbed in the back by Israel every time they make any progress and Israeli negotitors are having to resign because they complain that their own government changes all the proposed terms any time they get close to achieving a deal .
And as for proving the point about dealing with terrorists to get them to abide by a deal , the last century gives hundreds of examples that prove you ignorant of facts . A prime example would be once again the usual outrage in the German media with the early release of yet another RAF terrorist , that is part of the deal the German government made with the terrorists , early release in exchange for stopping killing people .

Hey Stealth Hunter , those passages that were used to "prove" that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Holy Scripture , would they be from the bible or some other Holy Scripture ?

[CaptainHaplo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm

"Speaking on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the truce would be fragile and could be short-lived."

"Hamas's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said the truce would "bring stability to Israel if they commit themselves to it"."

Yea your right - the Prime minister of Israel and the leader of Hamas in Gaza both say there is an agreed truce - How is that unilateral???

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wo...ideast.html?hp

"The prime minister and defense minister of Israel have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with Hamas for the Gaza area starting Thursday, Israel Radio reported on Wednesday morning."

"Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, confirmed at a news conference there on Tuesday evening that a truce was about to come into effect and that it would last for six months.

A senior Israeli defense ministry official, Amos Gilad, traveled to Cairo on Tuesday night to receive final clarifications from the Egyptians. On his return Wednesday morning, he told Israel Radio that an understanding had been achieved.
Maintaining a note of caution, Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel said on Tuesday that it was "difficult to determine how long" an agreement would last."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55362

"JERUSALEM – A truce Hamas made with Israel in Gaza last November is "officially over," Hamas leaders told WND today, threatening to send suicide bombers into Tel Aviv if the Jewish state retaliates for a major attack carried out this morning. "

Ok the leaders both announce it - then one party "OFFICIALLY' ends the agreement - but I guess there wasnt one.

And no - Hamas is a terrorist organization - and while they did win SOME political power in an election - their actions of forcibly securing Gaza shows they are no government - but a bunch of thugs.

My position remains rooted in the statements of leaders in the know. So I guess now your going to dispute leaders of both sides who say they had an agreement? Lemme guess - you know better than they do?

I fully expect some lame argument from you about this - but the folks here can decide for themselves. I suspect what really has occured is that you read somewhere about a unilateral decision - it being a different date in this issue - and now have yourself backed into a corner and are simply too proud to admit you made a mistake. Either way - not my problem. The facts are above - where are yours to refute the words of the Isreali Prime Minister or multiple Hamas leaders being quoted? Oh thats right - you dont have any..... :rotfl:

So far I have provided multiple sources that say I am right. You can't provide any that disputes me. I know it works different in little tribesmanworld - but in the big grown up world of reality - facts exist.

Where is the document Haplo ?
Come on , if it exists where is it ?

And no - Hamas is a terrorist organization - and while they did win SOME political power in an election - their actions of forcibly securing Gaza shows they are no government - but a bunch of thugs.

Wow talk about rewriting history :rotfl:
Are you missing out the attempted coup that sparked that incident for some reason ?

[CaptainHaplo]

Wheres your proof that the Israeli PM and leaders of Hamas were lying about an agreement? I guess everyone reading your inane posts are just supposed to take your word for it? So what qualifies you to be more knowledgable than leaders of the entities involved?

Wait - I know - its because you say so right? Like I said - maybe that works in the fantasy land of tribesmanworld, but here where the grown ups are - it doesnt. Last chance - put up some backing for your position (I know thats an unfair challenge - as you CAN'T -whereas I have) and show a level of maturity that thus far has escaped you, or be content to be seen as the little boy with a big mouth who knows not of what he speaks.

Ultimately - your likely to continue in your ignorance - as you seem to be more about the drama than facts. With that being considered - rise to the challenge or enjoy your bliss. I will waste no further time on trying to be helpful enough to drag you out of your pit of self-rightous delusions, since you choose to ignore reality.

Last chance - put up some backing for your position (I know thats an unfair challenge - as you CAN'T -whereas I have)

You mean put up the text of an agreement between the two parties involved ?
Errrrr...there isn't one , it doesn't exist , thats the point .:rotfl:
Which is why all your newpaper articles don't amount to anything , because there wasn't an agreement between two parties there were unilateral declarations because Israel didn't agree to the terms set by Hamas and Hamas didn't agree to the terms set by Israel .
But I know its too hard for you to understand , so hard that if you look into one source you use you will see it written in black and white . There was no actual agreement because they couldn't agree on the terms .

since you choose to ignore reality

Says the man who not only thinks a non-existant document exits but also thinks the bible doesn't say what it says.

[CaptainHaplo]

StealthHunter - Thank you for posting an intelligent arguement regarding Biblical teaching. I will take the opportunity to address them. What I found is that you did not specify which "version" of the Bible you used - not faulting you, but I prefer to know which version your referencing. For consistency sake, I will use the KJV (original version) with notes after on Hebrew where appropriate.

1 Chronicles 16:30 (King James Version)

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 (King James Version)

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 (King James Version)


Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5 (King James Version)

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Isaiah 45:18 (King James Version)

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Note that in your postings, your quotes often used the term "fixed" - whereas other translations use the term "established" or "stablished" - meaning to set up. These passages declare that the world is not to be moved (have its current track altered by outside forces), while you are concluding they say the world does not move. There is a big difference. The root word in Hebrew that is causing this is mowt. It is the same hebrew word used in Psalm 16:8.

Psalm 16:8 (King James Version)

I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

Now if mowt meant "Incapable of movement" - ie - FIXED in a specific physical location - then the Psalmist here would be saying that because the Lord is at his right hand, he (the writer of the psalm) is now and forever rooted to the spot where he wrote the verse. I think its reasonable to say that is not a logical statement. However - he says I shall not be moved - ie - swayed from his path. Thus we see that the confusion for some revolves around an incompete understanding of the hebrew language. The Bible is not geocentric. Just as you going to the local store by the shortest path would mean a "FIXED" or set path, it does not mean you do not move. To get there, you have to. It simply means a set path is one in which no outside force will force you to deviate from. I hope this helps clear up the question in your mind, and again I thank you for posting specific points to be dealt with. Doing so shows a willingness to discuss and learn, as well as inform and instruct others.

[NeonSamurai]

You can't use the King James bible to refute heresy charges from the catholic church, that bible didn't exist back then (and its a protestant bible). You have to use a Latin bible from the time period (or an accurate translation of said bible which the King James is not).

[CaptainHaplo]

Well on that point Neon - I can't speak to defending CATHOLIC teaching - as catholicism isn't Biblically based. The question here is does the BIBLE teach a geocentric view, not whether Catholicism did at one time. The BIBLE does not teach such a thing. As I pointed out in an earlier post to tribesman, quoting some guy who was elected to wear a big pointy white hat who has alot of things wrong with his whole theology does not mean the Scripture is what he says it is. I could claim that the Torah says the moon is made of green cheese - doesn't mean its so (and its not - that was an example). To say that the Bible teaches a geocentric view is wrong.

Now StealthHunter quoted what appeared to be a non-latin Bible (though which version is in question) - and to understand its meaning we must look at the hebrew wording. I used KJV only as an example, one could use any number of other translations - but it all goes back to understanding the language it was translated FROM. Thus my note on the Hebrew word apply regardless of the "variant" of the Bible you choose to use.

I won't put forth any effort defending Catholicism. People can believe what they choose. Bottom line here is that SCRIPTURE doesn't claim the earth is stationary or teach a geocentric view.

[NeonSamurai]

Though it may be worded differently now, it did indeed at one point say just that and was "scripture" at that time. I would also further point out that the KJV was written long after Galileo's theories had been widely accepted, so naturally the bible changed to incorporate that bit of knowledge. Lastly the bible is a constantly evolving entity with many variants and spin offs.

Also in case you forgot the Catholic Church's Latin bible was what the KJV bible was based on and was the only bible back when heliocentric thought was being argued. Also the Catholic Church was Biblicaly based (virtually all bibles in use today are decedents of the 'original' Latin bible, and not the teachings of the Cathars, or the dead sea scrolls).

As for Hebrew that's very dicey to use for many reasons not including the fact that ancient Hebrew did not have or indicate vowels which means that there can be many different possibilities for what word was meant, and on top of it each word can have multiple meanings. This is why debating what the Torah actually means is so popular in the Jewish faith. If you like though I do have a copy of what is considered one of the best (and most recent) translations of the Torah to English with full foot notes on the various debates on words and meanings, So I could check and see what it says on some of those "old testament" quotes.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

If you like though I do have a copy of what is considered one of the best (and most recent) translations of the Torah to English with full foot notes on the various debates on words and meanings

Could you cite that here? That sounds like a good addition to my library.

[CaptainHaplo]

Absolutely Neon - any additional reference material I can get to help my own understanding is always welcome!