...Why do people continue to argue with Manus? We know that he doesn't pay attention to answers, and he never tries to make logical arguments. The last time I argued with him on Healthcare, he never actually answered any questions, just made arguments without listening.

Also, for his various Bible verses:

He totally missed the point. He is arguing that the whatever version he quoted managed to translate the source correctly.

For example, his Chronicles 16:30 quote:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

That is merely the translation. The actual Hebrew can be interpreted far differently:

FearH2342 beforeH4480 H6440 him, allH3605 the earth:H776 the worldH8398 alsoH637 shall be stable,H3559 that it be notH1077 moved.H4131

Now, lets look at H3559, H1077 and H4131:

H3559
כּוּן
kûn
koon
A primitive root; properly to be erect (that is, stand perpendicular);. hence (causatively) to set up, in a great variety of applications, whether literal (establish, fix, prepare, apply), or figurative (appoint, render sure, proper or prosperous): - certain (-ty), confirm, direct, faithfulness, fashion, fasten, firm, be fitted, be fixed, frame, be meet, ordain, order, perfect, (make) preparation, prepare (self), provide, make provision, (be, make) ready, right, set (aright, fast, forth), be stable, (e-) stablish, stand, tarry, X very deed.

H1077
בּל
bal
bal
From H1086; properly a failure; by implication nothing; usually (adverbially) not at all; also lest: - lest, neither, no, none (that . . . ), not (any), nothing.

H4131
מוט
môṭ
mote'
A primitive root; to waver; by implication to slip, shake, fall: - be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall (-ing down), be (re-) moved, be ready shake, slide, slip.

Now, given the actual meanings of the words, what kind of interpretation should one derive? I am not a rocket scientist, but given the actual meanings of the words, its either figurative, or the litteral sense is arguing that the current orbit of the earth is 'firm'. I really think H4131 is very interesting, as the word has direct correlation to many terms used in astronomy. Manus really took it out of context.

Not so much to convince him, but inform people who might of believed him.  Also, i kinda hope he starts researching his points more as he keeps getting proven wrong.

He's not like a troll that doesn't research his points at all... he just has a nasty habit of believing something and finding some evidence that he half reads and posts.  Like a while back where he posted a nationmaster poll that suggested that the US was 256 in ease of hiring people, along with like 12 other countries.

To have tons of countries equal at the same number is ridiculious, had he checked slightly more and went to the source he'd of seen US was actually number 1 in that area.

I really don't get the people who say the ancient people who lived near water didn't know the earth was round though... I mean,  a 10 year old wpild know that... or at least know the world wasn't flat if they saw someone on a ship go over the horizen.

I mean, people believe the CHINESE thought the world was flat?  Really the same chinese that had one of the earliest and farthest reaching navies in the world?  They didn't know the world wasn't flat until the Christians got there?

Silly.

Well, though I enjoy Mr. Stickball and Kasz making fools of themsevlves, it is bothersome that they don't see how foolish they are. Logic and reason evade them, so I dont know what else I can do but quote Bible verses that show them that they are wrong. I shouldn't have to explain this to most people, but for these two it is necesary, you can not see the entire wrold from tall trees and mountains as the world is round. However, if the world was flat, as the Bible states, then you could.

Thus were the visions of my head upon my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.
- Daniel 4:10-11

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
- Matthew 4:8

Here are the verses in the New American Standard Version, as it may be difficult for some people to comprehend older versions of English.  I also capitialized and bolded important parts to offset any inabilities to focus that some may have.

Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. The tree grew large and became strong and its height reached to the sky, and IT WAS VISIBLE TO THE END OF THE WHOLE EARTH. - Daniel 4:10-11

Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and SHOWED HIM ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD and their glory. - Matthew 4:8

Manus! Good to have you back. Now, in reference to the verses you cited:

The Daniel passage speaks of a dream that Daniel was having. The tree symbolizes king Nebuchadnezzar, and--- well, that's really all you need to know. It was a dream. A vision. Not reality.

The Matthew passage speaks of Jesus being tempted by Satan, as Satan shows him "the kingdoms of the world". This is clearly a supernatural event. It's another vision.

I am curious to know specifically where you are finding these "bible-says-the-eath-is-flat" arguments. Are they from reputable scholars? Because I am having a hard time believing that they are.

Yea, I'm gonna go with a no. I used to believe in religion, angels, demons years ago though.......

Clearly a supernatural event?  I guess you could say that about any fact a religious person says, and immediately every claim a religious person makes about any religion becomes valid.  Can we say that everything in the Bible is a supernatural vision then?  Perhaps Jesus didn't raise from the dead, its just a vision the Disciples had.  Maybe there was no garden of Eden, it was just a vision.  And so forth.

Lets try to be reasonable here.  This is a claim made by the Bible, that the Devil took Jesus to a high mountain to show him the entire world.  Why did the mountain have to be high?  So that Jesus could see the entire world.  This claim is now known to be incorrect.

Logically speaking:

The Bible says you can see the entire world from a high mountain.

You cannot see the entire world from a high mountain.

The Bible is false.

Did it ever occur to you that they may have gone to the top of a high mountain because of its remoteness, far away from other people? If a bunch of other random people had seen the vision that the devil was showing to Jesus, then it would have caused a lot of complications; the devil was only focused on tempting Jesus at the time, and no one else. Seems you have only assumed that they went to the top of the high mountain in order to physically see further. Don't ignore the context.

Also, "the kingdoms of the world" ≠ "the entire world"; this is another unfounded assumption you have made. 

ManusJustus, you are repeatedly twisting the words of the Bible to fit around your own truth instead of seeking the truth that is already in it. There's only one way that the Bible's own verses can be used against itself, and it's called cherrypicking.

Your reading of that verse defies logical thought.  Using your logic, If I said that "I went to the Super Bowl to watch the game", you wouldn't think I watched Super Bowl (perhaps I watched curling on my cellphone) even though thats what I would mean, or what any logical person properly using language would mean.  Using your logic, we would have to eliminate pronouns from language, since a statement like "I saw Bill at the store.  He brought a loaf of bread." would be too vague because 'he' could be mean anything.

The reason the Devil took Jesus to the high mountain was to show him ALL the kingdoms of the world.  I'm not twisting words here, I'm directly quoting the Bible, which I will admit is damning to your argument.

If cherrypicking was a profession, you'd be making a killing.

See if you can name five reputable scholars who actually hold to the belief that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat. Considering that I made a similar request of you two posts ago and never heard back, I'm assuming you can't do it; nobody with an ounce of credibility in the academic world would try to argue your point, because it just doesn't hold water. Every time you've been proven wrong on a particular verse, you just move on to the next one that seems to vaguely support your view.

If you want to prove that "the Bible is false," you will never get anywhere with this argument. It's been debunked way too many times.

I can see this is a lost cause.  If believing in fairy tales was a profession, you'd make a killing...

The source you sited was laughable, from its argument of the 'myth of evolution' to its conclusion on the subject of a flat Earth being John 10:35

I've read a lot on the subject, as both a Christian and then when I became more educated as a skeptic.  The last source I recall reading on this subject, other than the Bible itself, was Robert Wright's "Evolution of God," and I think Freud wrote on it as well.  I'd advise you to seek non-Christian bias writings if you are unable to read the Bible and think independently, and even if you disagree with them it will help you to better forumulate your own opinions.