The Ancient Cosmos: Cultural Context of the Biblical World

Ancient Israel believed in a flat earth and didn’t know what the brain was for. Does that mean the Bible is flawed?
Join us at: www.inspiringphilosophy.org
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament - John Walton
The Lost World of Scripture - John Walton and Brent Sandy
Handbook on the Historical Books - Victor P. Hamilton
Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics - Manfred Bierwisch, John Searle, Ferenc Kiefer
Michael Heiser Lecture - • Video

[@nulakiustha]

As a linguist I love that you used pragmatics (specifically the speech act theory) to talk about the meaning of a text. Pragmatics is a very good tool for hermeneutics

[@iLoLedHaha]

I cant say that this automatically makes me an old earth creationist, but because of your videos, i'm no longer intimidated by such a model knowing what the bible truly says and its purpose when being written.

[@True_Christian]

Earth is young and enclosed and evilution is a myth from Hell.

[@stephendianda1543]

This will still fly over the heads of many Bible critics. Good work Michael, God bless you.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you, and I don’t care. You can’t win over everyone.

[@media-rn6zc]

Biblical authors? The book is not from God? Hindu vedic people knew that the earth is round and rotating around sun around 1500 BCE. Also that the moon was rotating around earth

[@True_Christian]

This work is crap. All the "facts" today that contradict the Bible are not actually "known" at all, rather they are Luciferian myths with no actual legitimate proof behind them whatsoever. Like CGI cartoons of the ba'al earth and space travel shams filmed on Hollywood sets. Biblical cosmology is 100% literal and accurate *as written* in the original ancient texts. Meaning, earth is flat, stationary, geocentric, and Firmament-dome-enclosed, and there is no such thing as outer space or ball rock planets or galaxies or anything like that.

[@butterjupitar]

44 x 2=88

[@realnazarene5379]

That's because haters don't need reasons to hate, but it sure would be helpful if they had reasons. Those who criticize the bible in good faith will grant or even accept reasonable arguments. The hope is that you can speak past the haters and directly to their fan base.

[@odec1831]

WHAT!? So all this time... back in first grade I wasn’t in the wrong for asking my teacher “can I go to the restroom” instead of “may I go to the restroom” ??? This means war.

[@305thief8]

Keep on watching this he is amazing

[@odec1831]

305 Thief Oh I saw it on Patreon 🙌🏽 just had to share that realization 😂

[@305thief8]

@@odec1831 oh wow didn't know you were subbed to him lol. You should chck out Sinental Apologetics as well as JMDApologetics.

[@jgr7487]

no, it means that you should know your grammar, so you can better understand the text. lol

[@odec1831]

JoaoG R Seems like the latter (your statement) implies the former (my statement)! It’s still war!

[@camilotorres8262]

Wife: I'm fine! IP: only an idiot would believe that! Answer: Angry wife! Hahahahaha love this in every level!

[@mihailupu5107]

I just found out about your channel, i've watched a few of your videos and as a guy who is curently struggling between religions this helps a lot. Thank You!

[@joshogbeide]

Hey. It's been 2 years now. How is it going?

[@kayleah6652]

As a student studying communication, this was very interesting and pleasing to me!! I love studying cultural words and meanings, especially in the Hebrew / Greek context!

[@therottingstench]

hamgurber.

[@diadhuitministries7079]

@@therottingstench Agreed.

[@TakingBackEdenFE]

sad he didn't actually go over evidence... I have it on my channel. no pressure @Kayleah

[@TakingBackEdenFE]

@Kayleah ​Most people would not sell both their eyes for even $1M/B 😍 Iris is a flat ring-shaped membrane, green for grass, brown for earth, blue for water 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰🧐 👁 FE on eyes/face Sclera (white) ice wall. Iris, land and sea(green,brown,blue).Pupil you/I/others centre of existence/eye. Black like the reported black magnetic mountain in the centre of the plane 👁 ​Tears, salty like the ocean. cornea, the firmament. 👀 sun and moon. 👃(contains magnetite) north pole magnetic mountain in the centre of face/plane. Hairline/beard, ice wall. nostrils, the two reported water vortices that change direction during the day. May be the true cause of tidal flux. (earth breathing in and out) heart beats 60bpm for a healthy person,internal clock DYK the human rib can regenerate? 12 pairs of ribs, 12 months. 24 ribs 24 hrs a day. born with 33 vertebrae in the spine. DNA in the rib deoXY(male) RIBonucleic acid Adam and Eve 👀🧬 💓❤‍🔥🏝earth and heart are an anagram. heart has a magnetic field that extends the body further than any other organ. Heart gives you time, the PRESENT 💝🎁

[@danielmatei5090]

I work as an engineer and I'm quite technical in my thinking and my working. Along side me I have managers that are not as technical as I am. Every time I talk with them to describe a progress or a technical issue I have to formulate my information in such a way that they will not fall asleep while listening. I learned this from previous experiences when I started to explain an issue in the way I would understand or at least a technical person will understand and, while doing so, I could see the manager's eyes were closing and he was not listening. It makes perfect sense to receive information in a way that we can understand it.

[@jeffphelps1355]

Science cant answer what most of us ponder" why am i here"

[@erincurrie1560]

@roasted pancakes Jesus didn't put us here

[@jeremiahmeade710]

@@erincurrie1560 The Bible says Jesus put us here in John chapter one.

[@michaz1021]

Yeah but a ton of religion can.

[@viniciusbueno2160]

One basic distinction people do ignore quite a bit is that scientism is not real science

[@boguslav9502]

Matt dillahubties fans fall into this trap... Severely so. Not to mention debate like him.

[@viniciusbueno2160]

@Melburys Brick yeah sure, scientism is not a thing yet the majority of what is trown at us is scientism. philosophy of science makes a clear distinction between real science, scientism and pseudoscience. You should look it up

[@mattyskilling4522]

@truthisstrangerthanfiction Did a great video about this the other day. Frank Herbert Author of the Dune books said plainly that Science is a religion in the way it sets its beliefs. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZSWXp2XjauKhKc the quote is in the first two minutes.

[@dennisalwine4519]

Scientism is not science, real or otherwise.

[@stevemiller887]

Isnt scientism a religion?

[@jarredthomas3355]

I'm definitely going to want to share this with a fundamentalist Calvinist friend of mine!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

It should be public this Thursday

[@andrewcaswell2569]

I think it is more the fundamentalists as aposed to Calvinist that needs to hear. It is a shame that a Calvinist or a Wesleyan or an Arminian, would take issue with this. Though to be fair if they are able to give a reasonable critique of this position then fair enough we should be willing to hear them out even if we disagree.

[@utuberme1]

Why would a Calvinist disagree with anything in this video? Serious doubt.

[@emrysmccright3753]

@Collin Lutz Ok, that literally made me laugh out loud, thank you for that.

[@darthcole4668]

Collin Lutz As someone who leans Calvinist, I laughed at this.

I am learning many interesting and important things with your content. The first video I saw was your debate about the compatibility of evolution and genesis. Thank you!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you and welcome!

[@tankthomus]

Yeah same here, the first video I watched was also that debate. Now I am watching practically all of his videos.

[@jannaswanson271]

There is no compatibility between the lie of evolution and the truth of Genesis.

[@Shadow_Dark14]

I keep having trouble with losing faith but I feel like it’s coming back to me every time I watch your videos. Thank you god bless✝️

[@saintronin7633]

I appreciate the efforts you put into these videos and going out of your way to give us lessons like these when we don't have time to do so, by making it accessible through you. You are a blessing, IP.

[@svendomingus962]

100% absolutely!

[@odec1831]

Im so grateful that you use your studious spirit for the good of others! Thank you so much for these videos; they’re often as humbling as they are informative and I mean that in the best possible way. Keep it up!

[@jeffphelps1355]

I was a young earther for a long time. But IP has changed my mind.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you so much for sharing that with me!

[@hjc1402]

Jeff Phelps what videos? Can you link them?

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@hjc1402 his Genesis series

[@hjc1402]

Jeff Phelps thanks

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@InspiringPhilosophy when i stand before God he is going to judge my works not my thoughts on how old the earth. Debating the age of the earth with atheist a huge mistake that Christians make

[@lookatmepleasesir]

emotions are actually partly in the nerve plexuses in your chest and stomach, and even in your heart rate

[@joshuavandernoord6912]

Sending this to my Dad ASAP

[@generalviewer8347]

my dad is a creationist and we argue a lot

[@generalviewer8347]

@Ναζωραῖος yeah. its mostly him that argues when i say im not a creationist anymore. i couldnt care less but he wants me to know the "truth". a lot YECs think that if you believe something else about earth youre not a christian

[@generalviewer8347]

@Ναζωραῖος they were but they arent the bible. YEC doesnt make sence in the bible without sounding ridicoulous. if i accept its a metaphor i personally get much more information than trying to fit it in the creationist worldview. my dad does those kind of things. he calls his friends and talks for 4hours about some verse in genesis and how it means 4 different things at once and i get angry because at the end he gets nowhere. i dont think there is a point to picking apart the genesis. it serves to tell us god made the universe and made us. its not a scientific book. i cringe at people making it scientific. its laughable and atheist have a point to laugh at them.

[@almighty9539]

the universe is like an enormous, gigantic book, with a language that no being has ever seen, hard, but possible to translate, but it takes time.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

That modern science in the hands of Nero/Vlad was on point.

[@zhihanlim3500]

Tech we hv safeguards against the use of nukes (i.e.MAD etc) but wont modern science still can be used for harmful purposes by modern day tyrants?

[@zhihanlim3500]

@IL NGR in simpler words? Sry didnt understand ur point

[@leonardodoel3106]

You basically took the words out of my mouth on why I'm not a flat earther

[@leonardodoel3106]

Thanks for the heart

[@generalviewer8347]

me too but he speaks with SCIENCE!

[@mrs.g.9816]

Thank you for explaining how the Bible speaks to us! I used to know atheists (who are just as stubborn and clueless as fundamentalists). This video would help clarify for my old acquaintances the purpose and message of the Bible.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

Many vociferous anti-theists were fundamentalists, and they still are only that they're anti-God rather than pro-God. Trading one set of misconceptions for another, they're more alike than they think.....'>......

[@saintronin7633]

Welcome to the family ❤

[@True_Christian]

Anyone who uses the word "fundamentalist" as a pejorative term is a Hell-bound evil person, including mrs.g the OP here.

[@MPaulHolmesMPH]

I love your videos. Your speaking and graphic choices go so well together.

[@efrainderuyck6181]

Hi brother, I just want to say that I'm proud of what you have done and are still doing, I speak many blessings for you, health, growing in knowledge ... Thx also for your the effort you put in to this for sharing the knowledge of the Bible and helping people understand. God bless all and have a great day.

[@Alan112573]

This is a fantastic explanation of these concepts. I've thought similar things, but you laid it out so well.

[@Bonddeeee]

Having words or vocab and processes laid out really makes it easier to conceptualize the ideas that we sometimes have inklings about. This has helped me in that way

[@Alan112573]

@@Bonddeeee Been 2 years since my comment. I have to refresh myself over what it was I thought was so fantastically explained 😂

[@Bonddeeee]

@@Alan112573 for me it was the 3 types of locution, the wife analogy about being fine was pretty good

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

As a young earth creationist, I'm glad that God did not reveal nuclear physics in the Scriptures.

[@ftthuse5517]

great job. I love the different approach you've shone on this topic.

[@benjaminbethel5640]

My goodness Ip the visual in this video are beautiful and I really love the message in this video!

[@ChrisBucklin]

While this theory certainly applies to various aspects of Scripture, it cannot simply be laid out there as the definitive operating principle, nor can this survive without some hermeneutic to regulate it. Otherwise, one could simply claim that when Jesus said he was the only way, one could assert that this was simply the locution, and what he really meant was he was the one way available right now, but other ways are sure to come. This would lead to the breakdown of all meaning in the scriptures, with allowance for anyone to claim "This is what the Bible says, but it means something totally different."

[@johnbuckner2828]

I'm fine, I'm just fine, I'm not angry... LOL. You must be married

[@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498]

He is

[@misseli1]

@@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498 he did say "my wife"

[@derAllex]

but realizing you did something wrong doesnt necessarily mean you already know what you did. its easier to talk with the pharao 😅

[@jaxkommish]

And if she's using THAT many words, she's REALLY angry

[@shaneansell355]

Another well done video. Great insight ancient cultures.

[@DanielApologetics]

Good job, Michael. Especially from 14:55 and onwards you had some really good points. May God continue to bless you with wisdom.

[@onedone7988]

I love your vids Michael. I just don't agree with your points 14:55 This point does not prove the point of contention at all Just because ancient people didn't care as much as we do today, doesn't mean they were wrong. We can easily turn around and say: ancient people didn't as have much distraction as we have today. Therefore ancient people's observation was more objective and accurate That's a strawman argument. Which is a pattern I see with you when it comes to the Biblical creation

[@danthumu2211]

Have been a Christian my whole life, but Thanks to IP, am am a totally different Christian than I used to be b4 I started following you..

[@jeremiahmeade710]

Is it always good to be different? Do you think that you're a better Christian as well?

[@fukukyun78]

2:40 fun fact, "Trust your gut" is not a metaphor. The intestinal tract contains a vast neural network even more complex than the brain, and it's literally where the "gut feeling" comes from, so the expression is actually literal, believe it or not. Not trying to sound like a know-it-all, i learned this from youtube lol, but yeah

[@svendomingus962]

Amazing job, well done. Thanks for putting in the effort 🙌

[@burlbird9786]

15:00 Like 21st century humans in general actually care about understanding special relativity.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Exactly

[@josephsack4918]

@@InspiringPhilosophy do you believe in evolution from literally singular cells? And do you think G-d made those cells if so, since they are insanely complex.

[@ceasedesist9676]

IP does believe so, but not that Elohim created those cells but something much more complex. Instead of Elohim directly creating the cells, Elohim created the laws of physics that construct those cells and all lifeforms afterwards.

[@michaelphiffer23]

Every married man can relate to the wife analogy! 😂😂

[@pentelegomenon1175]

This fits with the idea that God highly values free will, he is able to teach people scientific knowledge but instead gives them the wherewithal to figure it out for themselves.

[@luisr5577]

Great video! Thanks, IP!

[@leosailor2514]

In the New Living Translation, Proverbs 23:16 says “Everything in me will celebrate when you speak what is right.”

[@jgr7487]

dude, do we even understand everything that happens in the Universe, let alone in the Meta-Universe in which God exists?

[@turbothrottletrouble4217]

Le no lol

[@turbothrottletrouble4217]

Also, people try to comprehend god to fit their image (idols) yet completely reject the trinity. The trinity is complex, but we ourselves cannot comprehend the world, so who are we to try to understand God's nature to fit our minds?

[@rrose9161]

And we can't understand fully these three things, first of which is God followed by eternity and finally we are still struggling to understand infinity

[@claymcdermott718]

I had a poetry teacher who studied Dante. Dante often talked about the heart and liver and brain and kidneys as the seats of different processes which were not actually localized there. Whether Dante knew they weren't localized there, or didn't know doesn't really matter; he probably would have used the same language. My teacher was given to talking about kidneys, liver, heart, and brain the same way - knowing full well, that a robust empirical investigation, would give so minimal a role to the liver in one's sex drive, mentioning it as apropos could only lead to bad hepatological practice. Was he a liar? Karl Jung respected the personality types the medievals talked about (choleric, melancholic, sangine, and phlegmatic) and many people still use the language, but they know full well that bleeding someone to balance humors would be really bad medicine. With the anatomical language that implies emotional experience happens in the gut or chest, some of that is borne out by modern science (your gut and chest are responsible for some emotional register), but the ancients clearly believed, that what anatomists call the "gut-brain" was primary and the "head-brain" was secondary. What is important here is that the Bible never explicitly agrees with the scientific assumptions that the original speaker probably would have brought into the conversation. Instead, as IP points out, the Bible uses the versimilar cultural expressions - but without denying scientific truths. A lot of this is phenomenological language. "The sun also rises," is a basically literal, but phenomenological description of what occurs. As is referring to the "welkin" (English and German) or "raqia" (Hebrew) or "celestial dome" (modern astronomical jargon). All of these rely on a figure of speech that cannot be quite called "metaphorical," but if taken numenologically, would imply that modern people think there is a solid glass dome over our flat Earth.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Hi Michael. This was a great video! It helped bring a lot of clarity to this topic for me. I was wondering when you engage in this style of exegesis of the Biblical text, are you using a 'hermeneutic phenomenology' philosophical analysis approach? Thank you and Happy New Year! :)

[@sabinpanta4002]

Loved it. God bless you IP.

[@tedarbiter6362]

I mean, there is generally two extremes in interpretation. :EVERYTHING IS LITERAL AND METAPHORS DONT EXIST. :NOTHING IS LITERAL AND EVERYTHING IS A METAPHOR. Both are wrong. I literally had a college professor explain to me that the story of the flood was just a big metaphor for a woman giving birth. . . Metaphors in the bible are often very clear and noticeable. Much of the bible is literal and if it is worded in a literal fashion it should not simply be assumed to be figurative unnecessarily. That said, something literal and figurative often happens simultaneously in scripture. And often, real events can give us a great deal of esoteric wisdom and understanding. Btw. According to NASA and current accepted scientific opinion, the sun is not still. Everything, according to current understanding, (including the sun) rotates around the center of the milky way galaxy. Of course current understanding can always change. Almost everything we know about the universe is only mathematical. Which means if anything we base an equation on is wrong, every equation we use that equation for is also wrong. Math is just language and logic after all. "Rise" and "lower" are relative words just like left and right are. If I am facing you, my left is your right. If I am on the opposite end of a globe, my up is your down. My rise is your lower. This is even done in physics where you must define your position as well as which direction is positive and negative.

[@Austin1990]

YES, many Biblical texts are both literal and figurative!

[@charlesrankin1190]

Right, of course. But which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical? How does one know which is which?

[@tedarbiter6362]

@@charlesrankin1190 That is a matter of theology. I would argue that if something is plainly stated as fact, it probably is unless there is a reason for it not to be. For example 1 day is described as a 1000 years. There is some room for a day to be much longer than an actual day. Especially since a day is defined scripturally according to the position of the sun and there was no sun on the first day.

[@Austin1990]

Charles Rankin It is not that hard in context. Seeing how people in the New Testament, especially Jesus, speak about Old Testament texts help. Also, most parts are both, literal context that stands as a metaphor for something spiritual.

[@ea-tr1jh]

@Christian Slayer who hurt you?

[@orthodoxtheosis]

Can you make a video on Sodom and Gamorrah

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, in 2021.

[@charlesrankin1190]

@@InspiringPhilosophy You're kidding, that long?

[@charlesrankin1190]

@@InspiringPhilosophy What about homosexuality?

[@thomasnes6471]

Charles Rankin he has to go along the genesis series in chronological order

[@marwan7411]

@@InspiringPhilosophy happy new year it's 2021 now,just a reminder

[@poppylove3673]

You explain things very good, thank you! 👍🏽

[@davidcarfagnini]

Love this video! Incredible explanation 🙌

[@TryHardCryHarder]

All these cringy comments of men who are afraid of women. Grow a backbone.

[@tedarbiter6362]

What?

[@Justin_Reimer]

Can you jet let me know if the logical conclusion of your theory is that the Bible is limited to the understanding which the original reader would have understood? Or can they say things that are actual prophecies as the New Testament describes them even though they are completely unaware of it?

[@jackplumbridge2704]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. But if you are trying to suggest that there is a contradiction between God choosing to not disclose a full understanding of the cosmos thousands of years ahead of their understanding, and God choosing to give specific details of specific events before they happen, then I have to tell you that there isn't a contradiction there. In other words, there is a very big difference between teaching ancient people about quantum mechanics and telling them the location of the messiah's birthplace for example.

[@Justin_Reimer]

@@jackplumbridge2704 You misunderstood me, If the inspired language God chose was one to fit the understanding of the original reader, it binds the exegesis to only what they would have understood. We can't take it any further than what Israel would have understood about what Moses wrote if the language God chose was to fit them perfectly. I am not going to use all the scholarly words IP does, but if the intended perception of the whole kidney statement was about emotions and that is the ONLY way to read the Bible then you have to be consistent when talking about rest of the narrative. I have not trouble with IP's exegesis of that passage. So for example when you have Abraham offering up his son as a sacrifice showing true faith with God's provision of the Ram which the Israelites in the desert would have understood, it would not be able to refer to Christ in anyway because it is bound to the understanding of the original reader because God picked language to communicate to them. I am not claiming that this is what IP believes, it just seems to be an easy conclusion with that specific logic if misapplied.

[@Austin1990]

Justin Reimer I think that IP takes many things too far. The Bible is extremely rich literarily, and things usually have at least two meanings, a literal physical meaning and a spiritual meaning. The Bible loves to use real, physical metaphors for spiritual things. And, it lays down cultural framework for such metaphors. And, the kidney analogy is really poor. Anyone who has ever felt sick from anxiety, felt chest pain from heartache, or lost all energy from sadness should realize that his comment was very belittling while splitting hairs. In fact,I would think it more likely that the materialists have it wrong. Personally, I think their is more mingling of spirit and body than we realize.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@Justin_Reimer no it doesn't bind the exegesis to only what ancient Israel would have understood. It's very easy to write a message that one group of people can understand whilst also writing it in a way that a later group of people can understand. IP gave an example of this in the video. Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son and then God providing the sacrifice has both an immediate meaning to the Israelites as well as foreshadowing Christ. I really don't understand why you think it is impossible for a text to have multiple layers of meanings.

[@kingattila506]

This is brilliant! Thank you so much!

[@GJP1169]

Thank you . You were a big help . You strength my faith

[@archangel7052]

IP I wish you could sit down and have a chat with John Lennox and David Berlinsky.

[@northoftoofar3772]

I appreciate the effort, but Flat-Earthers will immediately dismiss this entire video as "mental gymnastics". I seriously doubt that any will turn around. I hope I'm wrong.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I don’t care what the delusions think.

[@zhihanlim3500]

@@InspiringPhilosophy u meant delusionists?

[@hackman669]

Not brain, no sanity!

[@renrichardson6517]

​@InspiringPhilosophy Resorting to ridicule is hardly a commendable way to demonstrate sound thinking, "Inspiring Philosophy". One can only regard Biblical cosmology as delusional when he has trusted in secular authorities as a little child and has never investigated what they are. That spirit of ridicule will one day be a great source of shame when you come to see who it is you have put your trust in, friend.

[@thomaseubank1503]

This has helped me a lot. Thank you!

[@ethanm.2411]

Great video!

[@therealhardrock]

It's a classic comedy trope to take the Locution at face value and act like you don't understand the Illocution or Perlocution. Like in Star Trek: The Next Generation when someone says to Data "Don't look at me" when the Illocution is "I can't help you with that" but Data turns his head away from her and she has to go "no no I mean..." to explain the Perlocution.

[@marydetray6776]

Yes! THANKYOU for this video! I have been having a conversation with a Muslim for the past few weeks (trying to open his eyes to the truth of Jesus) and THIS topic is almost impossible for him to understand, I've tried explaining it about as many ways as I can possibly think of and he STILL stuck on the "scientific" inaccuracies in the bible, which is really hilarious given the ones found in the Qurran, which was initially intended for people MUCH closer to our time period than those the bible was, I hope he will watch this video and something will click! For some reason he is more concerned with whether or not The bible and Qurran are scientifically accurate than if they are theologically coherent, the mind set on the flesh is truly a frustrating thing to try to overcome!

[@Austin1990]

There is a strong Muslim machine for attacking the Bible and teaching Muslims how to. They simply believe what they are told. And, they are told that legitimate attacks on the Quran are just lies. But, also, there can be extreme social pressure that make Muslims literally afraid to question their faith.

[@nickj5451]

Good for you. I'll pray for you and your friend :)

[@webbangel2054]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5e5f2Btq75jgaM

[@erichoceans]

Gotta enjoy David Wood for assistance there

[@jabedhus]

​@@Austin1990 bigot

[@joekeenan6435]

Great work!

[@davelikesbacon]

This video went differently from how I thought it would. Probably not a bad thing to. Good job I.P. 👍 this video got me questioning how I've dealt with this topic.

[@fdsajfldaskjf]

I believed in flat young earth creationism for most of my freshman year in high school.

[@fdsajfldaskjf]

Be patient with me I have autism

[@MikeToG___]

You should

[@chrisd6976]

Interesting, once most people go flat they dont go back.

[@ionutpaun9828]

Hey, Romanian here, loved the Vlad the impaler reference. I think that he would have definitely used the atomic bomb on the ottomans. Love your videos, keep up the good work.

[@Ayushgraphy]

And the whole world

[@cristiancuscenco9912]

@@Ayushgraphy Nah, just the ottomans, and Hungarians of course :)

[@moorzy8385]

I love that you tossed in the “everything’s fine” with your wife analogy. 👍😅

[@bijoythewimp2854]

14:11 - Sir, you got me there (LOL)

[@annoyingdude76]

when friends ask me if I'm on my way to the party and I say ''yes'', it usually means that I haven't even got out of bed yet. Thankfully they are not literalists so they know what I mean

[@jeremiahmeade710]

Do they know that you're in bed?

[@annoyingdude76]

@@jeremiahmeade710 of course

[@ChristopherSummer89]

Good Video, a good Defense, and as a Linguist I appreciate that you include Speech-Act Theory in your Argument. But I personally think that it should not necessarily be assumed that the ancient People believed in literal Readings for some of these cosmological Things you brought up: The Windows in the Sky sound to be like a Metaphor, considering that 1) Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Jeremiah 10:13 teach the Water Cycle, so the ancient Hebrews had some Understanding of the natural Science behind Rain, and 2) no Matter whether today or back then, any Idiot can tell that Rain emerges from Clouds, not from literal "Windows" (i.e. Holes) in the Sky (Sky ≠ Clouds) -- assuming they actually believed that when it would not even match what is seen with the Eye (akin to the Sun "rising", that is something that can at Least be visually perceived, so that seems totally believable) is to assume that they were just dumb, and that is "chronological Snobbery" (as C.S. Lewis called it). Reading Psalm 29:10 the Way you present it (probably from Heiser -- Heiser can be good, but he can occasionally be a damn chronological Snob if I've ever seen one) is inaccurate because the Word for "Flood" (מַבּוּל mabbûl) is not used for the Firmament anywhere in the OT, but is used exclusively for the Great Flood, the Deluge (in Genesis 6 & 7, and later referred to throughout Genesis 9-11); the Preposition used before it (לַ la) does not mean "above" but "to, for, toward, into; belonging to, with[/in] regard to" (Kohlenberger/Mounce); and the Verb for "sit" is used in the Qal Perfect (יָשָׁ֑ב yashav) first, where it is applied to the Flood, and then in the simple Qal (יֵּ֥שֶׁב yeshev). Thus, Psalm 29:10 should better be understood as, while it may be referring to heavy Rain or Rain in general (as it reminds People of the Great Flood), God SITS in Power now and forever as he SAT in Power IN REGARDS TO the Great Flood back in the Days of Noah. [EDIT: You may be referring to the Targum Translation which inserts על (al) "on/upon/against" instead of לַ (la); The Septuagint reads κύριος τὸν κατακλυσμὸν κατοικιεῖ ("the Lord shall-establish the Deluge"), which some Commentators consider a Mistake and that it should be κατοικεῖ "he shall sit", but the given LXX-Reading is actually closer to the Interpretation I have just given -- aside from the odd Future Tense. Overall, we should look to the Hebrew MT though.] The Thing about Heart and Guts for Emotions isn't entirely wrong either, because those Phrases did not necessarily refer to those Organs as "that is what produced my Emotion" but rather "that is where I notice Emotion", just like the Hebrew Word for "Anger" is literally the Word for "Nose/Nostril(s)", because one's Anger could be noticed when the Nostrils would tremble and push out heavy Rushes of Air -- but that doesn't mean that they believed that "Anger was seated in the Nose", it was just the Place where it would be noticed. Regarding their Cosmology, maybe they believed that a literal Sheol was literally in the Earth below them, but if we take that literal, but considering the often brought up "Hellmouth"-Motif in Regards to Sheol, we would then also have to think that they literally believed the Earth to literally open its literal Mouth to literally swallow People up (e.g. Ex 15:12; Num 16:30,32-34, 26:10; Deut 11:6; Ps 106:17, 124:3; Proverbs 1:12) -- and I assure you that that is not something anyone would have believed from actual Observation and visual Perception, I just doubt the Earth tended to do Stuff like that back in the Day; rather, all this Sheol Talk makes more Sense taken together with Genesis 3:19 (one of the oldest Stories handed down in the OT) and Ecclesiastes 3:20 (one of the latest Books written down in the OT) affirming a "From Dust you came, to Dust thou shalt return"-Idiom, which isn't even all that wrong from a scientific and literal Standpoint either. I just think that ancient People should be given the Benefit of the Doubt, they were clearly capable of understanding Metaphors as Metaphors.

[@ttsnews8035]

Thank you for your well-informed post, sadly it was probably down voted to push it down on the msgboard as it cuts through the propaganda peddled by Heiser and other wolves in sheep garb

[@ChristopherSummer89]

@@ttsnews8035 Thank you for your nice Comment. :)

[@rockytopbritt]

Thank you. I very much agree with your very thoughtful and well supported comment. I was getting a little discouraged from all the people either saying that we have to accept the Bible as unscientific or that the Earth is really flat. You seem more informed than I am, but I had the same though about "the floodgates" being metaphorical due to other verses understanding that rain comes from clouds. William Lane Craig makes a similar argument to yours using Babylonian sources. I typically am very found of Hieser, but couldn't go with him on this issue.

[@Ale90fcb]

Great comment. Thank you !

[@obad.iah.]

Good insight. Thank you for the comment

[@delightk]

15:10 omg this made me chuckle out loud.

[@cliffwilson7258]

very well done!

[@peterleadley7103]

I've always wondered what Flat Earthers thought was on other side of their concept, and where was the edge of it. Ancient mariners knew that the earth was at least curved, because ascending the mast gave a better view (greater distance) than standing on the deck. This centuries before it was proven by scientific means.

[@gamer7916]

“The last thing we would’ve wanted to see would’ve been atomic theory or combustion engines in the hands of Nero or Vlad the Impaler” replace “Nero or Vlad the Impaler” with Gandhi and “combustion engines” with “democracy” and you have Civ 1 in a nutshell

[@petercarlson811]

But the atom was a product of ancient greek philosophy around 400 BC.

[@gamer7916]

Peter Carlson Democritus’ idea of the atom wasn’t widely accepted until John Dalton provides empirical proof of it during the 1800s. Democritus’ idea of an atom was also flawed since Democritus saw them as unsplittable whereas atom splitting is not only possible but done on a daily basis in power plants

[@parktol02]

gamer7916 So Jesus shoulda taught the Jews modern political theory?

[@petercarlson811]

@@gamer7916 The greeks were in a debate about if there existed a smallest indivisible part or if you could continue to divide something infinetly. It was a 50/50 chance one side was correct. What was thought to be this "atomos" during the 1800's was shown to be totally wrong when first the electron could be stripped and then the nucleus could be divided as well.

[@gamer7916]

Aquinas clives it was a joke. In Civ 1, when India gets democracy, they become ultra aggressive because of a bug. Since they get democracy around the time they get nukes, they often end up nuking every nation around them

[@feliperincon3687]

Excellent work

[@CuriousBipedal]

Bless the man, that helped make this message possible, and those that work with him, they have been a blessing.

[@williammadgwick9757]

You did a good job explaining it, but it feels to me that this should be obvious. The only people using these types of arguments will be people who already decided that the bible is false and then searched for reasons why.

[@howardbaxter2514]

Or fundamentalists that believe everything in the Bible is perfectly literal. That's one of the biggest gripes I have about American Christianity. Too many people get hung up on literalness, instead of trying to understand the message God is trying to give us.

[@rrose9161]

Jesus taught by using parables and communicated with metaphors and wordplay. Why wouldn't God

[@jeba8680]

Very beautifully explanation 👍

[@regodorabo]

Actually there is a The Gut-Brain Connection. A testable one. Science says it all the time. So, I dont see any point in trying to refute biblical ancient wisdom in this particular point.

[@joaosolreis3004]

Atheists want God to talk to us in a way we wouldn't be able to understand. A little longer and they'll be wondering why He used a human language and not a new language that no one has ever heard.

[@JHohenhauser]

I think IP just found an excuse to teach grammar

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Damnit! You caught me on one of my guilty pleasuring. Now I have to cancel my video on prepositions!

[@HiFugly]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Don't teach grammar until you know how to use commas, Michael.

[@PlantChrist]

InspiringPhilosophy IP it’s not good to swear

[@JHohenhauser]

@@PlantChrist That's what happens when you take man's word over God's

[@pedrojunior5996]

@@JHohenhauser getting old

[@shefinjose4575]

Can you post list of upcoming videos with an approximate date?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is mainly shared with patrons and donors: www.patreon.com/inspiringphilosophy

[@emmanuelbudke6499]

Incredible. This stuff merge to be spoken of on Sunday school

[@marekfoolforchrist]

Wonderful.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

Can't wait to watch.

[@jedibattlemasterkos]

Flat Earthers Mad. Thank you IP for FINALLY addressing this! 😎🌎🌍🌏

[@generalviewer8347]

how can you believe the earth is flat. its like how people are mormons ot muslims its a religion and not scientific at all

[@termingyou]

@@johnny50424 I can't tell if you're joking but here's a few proofs 1) how ships disappear on the horizon 2)solar and lunar eclipses 3)pictures from space

[@akeem4772]

@@termingyou i know This sounds stupid just as i once thought before. But once you understand who God is and what is really going on in this world, youll know that the ultimate lie was to hide the shape of our world. People are realizing this by the millions. If you truly care for the truth and wish to escape the matrix, i strongly urge you to look into this. Im not asking you to find out if the earth is flat, im asking you to look into the subject matter, cause youll find out theres alot of hidden science from the world

[@akeem4772]

@Christian Slayer With a responce like that, how is society suppose to move foward? Even if you think your right, what good is ad hominem attcaks? have you no civil manners?

[@someperson2789]

I think associating emotions or the psyche (and purity or impurity of the state of the soul) with the heart in the modern age is good and beautiful and people today still use phrases like tender or hard hearted. Associating the psyche with the heart transcends scientific discovery, because people naturally spoke in spiritual terms, because people have an inherent spiritual nature. We don't see people saying "I love you with all of my brain" in the modern scientifically advanced world do we? Neither does man naturally associate himself in his full entirety with his brain.

[@PatrickHutton]

Just so I get it. With a high context language the difference between locution and illocution would tend to be greater than with a low context language.

[@DoveArrow]

As a Buddhist, I tend to point out that Christ used a lot of parables when speaking to his disciples. If the Son of God did that, why is it hard to imagine that his Father might not do the same with Genesis, Exodus, and many other stories in the Bible? The literal and even historical truth is not what the authors of the Bible were trying to convey. Nor was it what God wanted them to convey. It was spiritual truth. When you take it literally, you miss the spiritual nature of the text. That's why I bristle at literalism in any religion. It's like the Buddhist parable of the man pointing at the moon and mistaking his finger for the moon. When you mistake the text for truth, you miss the spiritual truth it's pointing at.

[@romeostojka7232]

No historical occurrence in the Bible must taking literary since the NT authors quote them as valid history. 2 Peter 2:4-6 and Jude 1 and 1 Corinthians 10 are examples

[@cantunderstandnotry6130]

@@romeostojka7232 false and your requirement of willful ignorance pushes people away from God not to him please stop

[@bikesrcool_1958]

No because archeology can prove the Bible as historical

[@zenchakra53]

So glad we subscribed to you.

[@kellykizer7014]

The sundial went backwards.

[@landonhaire3903]

How do you think we should take the evening and morning in Genesis 1, shouldn’t that mean these are literal days or can they mean different things in Hebrew

[@HiFugly]

My left ear is lonely.

[@rockzalt]

I was looking forward to this and even though I'm familiar with the two contexts in the Bible. Words like locution, illocution and perlocution are not in everyday speech and wouldn't help me explain the gospel to the people I encounter.

[@41A2E]

Terms you may be able to use instead include "semantics", "imply" and "infer". These words are closer to the layman, and might allow you to get further in your discussion. "Semantics" is the dissection of the exact/literal words used compared to what is meant. To "imply" is what the intended meaning of your message is. To "infer" is to understand the meaning spoken by someone else, and thus how to act upon it. Of course, these words are not perfect synonyms, but I think they can at least get you started. Remember the saying, "Do not be concerned with the use of fine words, but with the fine use of words." ;)

[@theplanetruth]

9:19 -link to previous video? Who told you day 1 was about temple?

[@louism8911]

Joshua prayed to God for the sun and the moon to stand still or freeze for a day - Joshua 10:12-13... Earth don't move but only sun, moon, and stars (dome) because...Earth is immovable. Psalm 93:1 1 Chronicles 16:30

[@MichaelEHastings]

Everyone is waking up!

[@ChecedDomingcil]

I used to be a young earth creationist until I encountered IP's videos. Good to know that Christians don't need to reject science to adhere to the Scriptures. (Looking at you, fundamentalists!)

[@ChecedDomingcil]

@PushandillPushback I'll just hope someone more qualified to speak on that subject will refute you on that eventually.

[@ChecedDomingcil]

@PushandillPushback Well look here. The age of the earth is not even a major issue in Christianity. You don't need to believe in a young earth to go to heaven. There are many Christians that embrace old-earth creationism or theistic evolution. There are no theological issues with old-earth creationism either. If you want to shoot them at me, go right ahead.

[@tedarbiter6362]

@@ChecedDomingcil You can interpret various passages differently in favor of different ages. Absolutely. And as the order of creation is different from current evolutionary thought, you could argue that the creation story is simply a myth to explain the power of God. But why would you put more faith in a very flawed and biased theory than miracle? The very concept of a physically human body walking on water, feeding masses with a bit of bread, healing leprosy with a touch, healing various other conditions and diseases, bringing back the dead, resurrecting from the dead,etc. would be laughed at by most evolutionary scientists. Christian scientists are actively censored from scientific journals and mocked. And even several alternative evolutionary theories are routinely mocked and scorned within the community. All while multiple science journals have accepted articles based on star trek that were submitted as a joke to test their scientific literacy. They failed the test severely and blamed the group for being unethical by not introducing extra variables and telling them they were planning to submit fake articles beforehand. . .

[@tedarbiter6362]

@@ChecedDomingcil Without going into all of the issues of modern evolutionary thought and modern science, here are a few questions involving modern science for you to ponder. 1.) How can you have an infinite mass or an infinite density in a location with finite resources, space, and size? This is a common mathematical trick to come up with several space/cosmos theories. How can the same particle simultaneously exist in multiple locations at once? / How can merely witnessing nonliving matter change the results of a controlled experiment without extra exposure to light, air, etc. Both of these ideas are accepted in Quantum sciences. I would explain the first one as scattered particles and you are measuring random particles, not the same one. I would explain the second as experimental errors or a faulty hypothesis. Scientists would essentially call me a heretic for this. Lastly, pertaining to evolution, if the environment was suitable to create living matter, why is it necessary for all life to have the same lineage? Why is it impossible for different modern life forms to have different microscopic ancestors? Why is it absolutely necessary that humans share a common ancestor with corn when it is much more reasonable to suggest there were different microscopic organisms that evolved differently? Some scientists even recognize there was likely was multiple first life forms. . . But even they argue that all the others just died off completely... that just isnt how competition works. An ecosystem is developed and competition keeps other organisms from becoming the sole organism on earth.

[@deborahlagarde7182]

Only God knows how old the Earth is, how long each of the six days were, how old humanity is, etc. And God invented mathematics as well. Math is truth, and God is truth.

[@anthonyburrell5761]

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of Jesus's statements on divorce. God isn't teaching new moral law through Jesus because humanity has graduated to a new level. Jesus is consistent with the OT law. Jesus is simply pointing out that divorce wasn't part of God's original design and only exists because of sin ( the hardness of men's hearts). He's not changing morality. Notice the distinction between "putting away" and "bill of divorcement" in the OT and look at the Greek in the NT. A bigger issue is simply the premise that "God will reveal new morality as humanity matures". Why think humans were more mature in the 1st century AD than the 10th century BC? Does that mean that the NT is insufficient now since we've doubled that "maturity gap"? What about the next 1000 will we then get to see Gods "fully mature" morality? Or do you think we've conveniently peaked? Seems like a slippery and anti biblical slope.

[@ericbrown6203]

No because God already told them that there would be a new covenant someday. There's nothing beyond this.

[@anthonyburrell5761]

@@ericbrown6203 God also went on to say what that new covenant would be. It would be that His law would be written on their hearts...not that there would be new laws.

[@hillaryfamily]

Michael Jones is incorrectly interpreting the hardness of heart argument and interpretation of the Lord, and you are right that the Lord is consistent with the law of Moses as found in Deuteronomy. Marriage and divorce and remarriage are fundamental human institutions, and God's will for these are communicated and found in Deuteronomy as well as in the Lord's rulings in the gospel accounts and sayings. The distinction between putting away and the divorce certificate is not particularly important: the putting away is the dismissal, the cancellation of the contract and the divorce, in legal terms. The divorce certificate is merely the evidence or purported evidence of this action. The divorce certificate is only important if it is denied in the case of a lawful divorce, or produced in the case of an unlawful divorce. The Lord rules clearly in Mat. 5:31-32 and 19:3-9 that a divorce certificate is insufficient, on its own, to constitute and cause and effect a lawful divorce, and that any certificate that purports to represent a lawful divorce of those God has joined together is a nullity, and that any subsequent remarriage to other parties, by either spouse, while the other still lives, is adultery and adulterous. The Lord never rules on the converse situation, when there is a lawful divorce but no certificate. I would expect he would rule that any such action would be an invalid and incomplete divorce: the certificate is a necessary element of the procedure, without which the divorce has not taken place, even if it might be lawful for a divorce to separate those God has not joined together, and that can only separate by lawful divorce. (For the case of a marriage that is adulterous or otherwise unlawful from inception, while it might be possible to call the separation a divorce, it is more accurately a ruling that the marriage was void ab initio. The lawful divorces in Deut. 24:1-4 do not have this character, however, and are true divorces.) The divorce law exists because of sin, but that does not mean that the sin is hardness of heart. Hardness of heart means unwillingness to reverse, whether by compromise or forgiveness or simply by a change of mind. In the divorce context, the marriage contract, at the conditional stage of betrothal, has been breached or repudiated. Either case is a breaking of the terms of the contract by at least one party. A betrothal is a contract to wed, and to meet the conditions to wed, and may also contain express or implied representations. For example, Mr. John Smith betroths himself to marry Miss Jane Doe, and the parties promise to keep themselves only for the other, to prepare for the wedding, and to confirm their agreement and to perform the agreement by going through with the wedding. Either party could then change their mind and repudiate the agreement, which is a form of breach. They promised to go through with the marriage, but then refused to, and told the other party that the deal was off. Or, one party may get involved with a third party, breaching the contract. Or, one party may discover that one of the representations, such as the bride's virginity, was a misrepresentation, for example, if Smith discovers that Doe is pregnant to another man, and the conception date was prior to the betrothal date. In all these cases, whether repudiation, breach or misrepresentation, at least one party has sinned. The other party, upon discovery, may cancel the contract, and financial compensation may be payable depending on the terms of the betrothal, any bride price, losses incurred etc. But the hardness of heart comes in after the repudiation, breach or misrepresentation is discovered. The parties have the choice whether to waive the conditions, forgive the breaches and/or re-negotiate the terms of the contract, or affirm the contract. If they do this at first, no divorce happens, the parties just address the issue between themselves, perhaps informally. However, the wronged party may formally sue out a divorce, and this leads to both parties being discharged from the contract, neither of them are bound to perform it any further. As such, either party may marry a third party. Financial compensation may be payable. After such a divorce, a second choice exists for the parties: to re-negotiate and re-marry each other, i.e. to re-betroth themselves to each other again. It is at this point that the law of Deut. 24:1-4 permits them this choice, but prohibits it after the woman (and we presume, after the man) marries someone else. The hardness of heart refers to the decision not to forgive, not to re-negotiate, to divorce, and not to remarry each other, before things go too far and one of the parties marries a third party. The Lord recognised and taught this in his argument that the divorce law of Deut. 24:1-4 was not a law permitting the separation of those God joined together in marriage, but addressed a separate set of facts and circumstances that involved hardness of heart, i.e. the decision to use divorce law to separate what God had not (yet) lawfully joined together, and to persist in that decision, and to marry another party instead of re-negotiating a marriage back to the same person so as to have God lawfully and fully join the two together for life. The divorce law context of Deut. 24:1-4 is the new marriage context of 'when a man, takes a woman, and marries her' and then a problem occurs during that process, and during that betrothal period. The new marriage context is also indicated by Deut. 24:5. If the law addressed a problem arising independently of the betrothal and marriage process, the law would have been written more simply as 'If a man's wife finds no favour in his eyes, because he found some indecency in her, and he divorces her ...' The divorce law in Deut. 24:1-4 is in the context of the divorce law of Deut. 22:13-21, which has substantially the same facts and introduction, which ruled that if a woman is truly a man's wife, he may not divorce her all of his days, with the exception of lawful divorce, quietly and properly and promptly pled for porneia committed by the woman before or during the betrothal period, not disclosed to the man until after the betrothal contract was made. See my paper here for more details: www.academia.edu/35774310/Critique_of_the_David_Instone-Brewer_Divorce_and_Remarriage_Theory

[@marshapple]

I wish I could give you a high five for this one. We may to agree with everything but personally this one hit my heart. ....not literally haha!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

*air five!

[@anniebodyhome1000]

Insp. Philosophy - Please watch some Chuck Missler videos on Genesis. He considers the possibility that the firmament was an early plasma during creation. Altho he briefly mentioned Gerald Schroeder's (MIT physicist) amazing theory on time and creation, I think it didn't fit well enough with Chuck's preconceived ideas. Schroeder shows thru mathematical formulas how both a six day creation and a thirteen billion year creation can both be correct. It's an exciting and thought provoking theory. Many of Chuck's ideas are also insightful and scientifically sound. And the depth of his biblical research is awe inspiring. I thank you for your devotion, and especially for sharing with us.

[@liquidtoo123]

Ah... selective reinterpretation! I agree! When the Bible is obviously wrong, you COULD say that it is not an error! Rather it is a necessary reinterpretation... to fit the times. Especially ancient societies that didn't understand how reality works. But wasn't the Bible written or inspired by a supreme being who KNOWS reality? Can we still call the Bible a book of truth, an instruction guide for humanity? Why wasn't there a Bible part "B" for when humanity finally did understand science? If the New Testament was really a "New Covenant" that replaced the hundreds of rules in the Old Testament, where is the 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) Testiment for life in the 21st century? If we take your assumption that God gives us false information or "time-limited" truth (but doesn't say so)... how does that affect the Bible? It means that some parts are universal and eternal, some are "true" but only for a while (i.e. slavery, genocide, torture, the beating of women, sex with minors and relatives, etc.), some "truth" is fudged to make a point, and the rest is fairy tales (would you prefer "parables"?). Which is which? Some Christians say everything is true, even if it cannot be true. Others disagree over what is historical and what is a fairy tale. Are you truly OK if I apply your rules to the rest of the Bible? Two hundred years ago, people reinterpreted the Bible, "Slavery no longer makes sense; Christians should believe in human rights." A hundred years ago, people reinterpreted the Bible, "Women are not inherently inferior; Christians should believe in Women's rights." If I say, "Oppressing people who are not like you no longer makes sense; Christians must treat gays and trans like human beings with the same rights and respect as everyone else.", then no one will object? Can anyone object and still believe in selective interpretation?

[@notbryantlong6567]

If y’all are really thinking this guy is wrong, examine yourself. Do you really idolize the flat earth. He is not calling God a liar. He brings context in. Your salvation does not depend on the earth’s shape

[@thegoblin957]

8.48 how do you know this how do you know the author was literally saying that physical windows actually closed to prevent water from flowing downwards?

[@manne8575]

Very interesting video. What is your opinion on the verses often cited by Christians to prove that the Bible contains scientific facts, like Job 26,7 ("he hangeth the earth upon nothing")? Are they reading too much into the text?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I don’t agree with that type of apologetic, it is a misunderstanding of the ancient view of the cosmos.

[@305thief8]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Aww dang....

[@intheworldnotoftheworld1873]

That verse means its not hanging on anything. Its on a foundation. Thats what the scriptures say over and over again. Why follow science, falsely so called? Who are the founding fathers of science? What did they believe? Who did they worship, if anyone? These are questions you should have and research. The scriptures actually do teach real science, to a degree. Things observable and measurable.