A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MartinM:
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
Sounds flat to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------"The Earth is not a circle, it is a globe. A coin is a circle and it is flat."I won't hold out hope Nos could possibly comprehend or offer any proper answer, but I'll offer an answer anyway for the sake of MartinM's confusion. Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle, or its wondrous mechanics, and it appears MartinM compounds the error further. Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width.A circle does in fact define a sphere, whether intended or not, visible or not, whether the circle is a flat plane on a sheet of paper, or a hoop hanging in mid air. A sphere is mathematically implied. A perfect sphere would be represented by any circle segment encompassing its surface.Going on to the Scripture in question, let's quote it again, but this time in context:
(Notice while there in chapter 40 this prophecy concerning John the Baptist, in verse 3)Isaiah 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?(Note): Here we have a lenghthy description of attributes of God. This verse leaves no excuse for lack of knowledge of God, being revealed from the beginning.[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:(Note): Notice the often left out part about the grasshoppers. The idea is that God sits so far above the round earth that men look like mere grasshoppers. This is a striking illustration of man's insignificance as God sees him from the heavens. Man appears as a busy, agitated, raging multitude spread over the earth like bands of locusts over the plains of the East.The Hebrew word "chuwg" was translated there as "circle"; "circuit" in Job 22:14; and "compass" in Psalm 8:27. This word revealed that the earth was round by any means of envisioning it until some men presented the idea of the flat, four-cornered plane being the shape of earth, and the round disk-shaped earth. But the Bible makes no such claims. Find an interesting discussion about that myth here: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htmIt is true that some philosophers, scholars, and theologians contradicted the works of Aristotle and Pythagoras, but those were minority beliefs. None of it can be laid on the Bible. That the Stas wer siad there to have been flung out like a curtain under which God resided verifies they had at least the concept of spacial volume and not a flat plane universe. The major point the ancients apparently shared was not knowing why the sun/moon/stars travelled across the sky, whether it was from earth spinning or the heavens spinning, which would be understandible.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Would you mind naming those oldest known copies?WS: Save me some sleep time and just visit here: BFBS MAT - New Site Redirectquote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------As I understand it, there isn't a lot of overlap either so your conclusion that the copiers were faithful is questionable. At best, you can conclude that where the texts overlap the copiers can be shown to have been faithful.WS: You need to bone up on that. They are still unwrapping thousands of fragments, many overlapping, and all exactly matching pre-dead sea discovery sources. The studies will require a few more decades to go through all of those documents.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------But it is necessary to read the original if you are going to quibble over turns of phrase and vocabulary, as you often do. Any translation is subject to the biases of the translator, as no two languages exist in a one to one relationship. Translation is not science.WS: I have found not one credible scholar, secular or religious, that agrees. Because the various TRANSLATIONS by many different groups in different times agree so well, it is a settled matter as to the literal word translations. It is the INTERPRETATIONS that bother you. There is no significant benefit in re-translating the original texts. It's already been done by competing scholars many times, and not enough difference exists to warrant another lifetime of work repeating those efforts.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't follow. You are using a definition of Gnosticism I have not encountered.WS: http://www.xrefer.com/results.jsp?shelf=&term=gnosticism&...You might have to paste that one in to eliminate gaps to get it to work. If it doesn't, go to http://www.xrefer.com/search.jsp
and type gnosticims in. I must get to sleep soon. Moving quickly along....quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I've noticed a few passages suggesting that the Earth is flat. There are numerous references to the Earth resting on pillars and/or being stable and unmoving. Heaven as well is described as resting on pillars.WS: Please don't make such general statements. Let's dissect the actual verses IN CONTEXT.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Retrospectively this makes a lot of sense. That is, to modern ears it rings true. But considering that other cultures of the same region at that same time represented a flat Earth in much the same terms suggest that the Israelites as well believed in a flat Earth. You cannot cut them out of the context in which they lived and expect to analyze the religion properly.WS: You need to cite those claims about the neighbors believing in a flat earth. Where do you get that?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The rules of interpretation? Would those be the same rules used to evaluate other texts of ancient mythology?WS: You will find that by not having some knowledge of apologetics and the principles of exegesis, and other skills, you will fail in trying to argue the Bible. Those things are not needed among readers of the Bible who accept the call to take it by faith. Since you apparently cannot do that, you MUST take a scholarly approach and use logical, reasonable methods of analyzing texts. Like the Muslim, you will only meet with proofs you are ignorant of the subject. I've witnessed many Muslims come to belief in the Christian way once they realized something terribly wrong was there in their approach, especially adopting Muslim apologetics and unable to support that approach. I predict some here will necesarily realize the same thing, deciding for Christ, else choose to remain in ignorance in spite of the proofs their borrowed claims are so faulty.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------... a fine job of teaching how to interpret passages according to the biases of the textbook's author.wow.....WS: In fact, some such most popular textbook authors and college professors teaching those principles are agnostics and atheists working in religious seminaries, for about the past 60 years. Those principles work with all literary works. In spite of their skepticism, students survive to go on to preach the gospel armed with an impenetrable defense from wrestling with the unbelief associated with the courses. But, those fellows are really good instructors who teach well the principles they hope some will use to discredit the Judeo-Christian philosophy, somehow. Some students abandon their faith quickly at the feet of those professors, but most prevail.Some entirely Christian-authored textbooks are now available, but none as magnificent as the classics they replace. At least the unbelief and skepticism is disappearing from many seminaries, in exchange for a little literary genius.

quote:

---

WS: Save me some sleep time and just visit here: BFBS MAT - New Site Redirect

---

'k. Thanks.

quote:

---

WS: You need to bone up on that. They are still unwrapping thousands of fragments, many overlapping, and all exactly matching pre-dead sea discovery sources. The studies will require a few more decades to go through all of those documents.

---

Exactly matching? Did you say exactly matching? ForbiddenNotice how various books change size, Jeremiah for example. How is this possible with an EXACT match?Added by edit:Take a look at Genesis according to the Dead Sea Scrolls: Amazon.comNotice how some verses are missing, particularly in Chapter 2? What I do not know is the method used to number the verses. As you can see, some verse numbers are completely missing. Verses could be numbered to reflect corresponding verses in modern Bibles, or they could reflect the actual numbering used in the scrolls, with the missing verses being lost. The latter seems odd, as it would reflect a non-standard method of translation. Usually, missing portions are more clearly delineated.

quote:

---

WS: I have found not one credible scholar, secular or religious, that agrees.

---

Guess somebody should tell these guys: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

quote:

---

Because the various TRANSLATIONS by many different groups in different times agree so well, it is a settled matter as to the literal word translations.

---

I thought some of those translations had "damnable verses" yet now you claim the unity of the translations as proof that the issue is settled?

quote:

---

It is the INTERPRETATIONS that bother you.

---

It is? Tell me, do the interpretations of the Rig Vedas bother you? Or the implications of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? I thought not. Why? Because you don't believe the underlying mythology.

quote:

---

There is no significant benefit in re-translating the original texts.

---

I never said re-translate. I said read. God choose to speak to humankind in HEBREW. Yet no one seems to think it worth the bother to learn the language. Why is it that no one sees the irony of this?

quote:

---

WS: Please don't make such general statements. Let's dissect the actual verses IN CONTEXT.

---

Oh come now, WS. You are just chock full of general statements.

quote:

---

WS: You need to cite those claims about the neighbors believing in a flat earth. Where do you get that?

---

It isn't hard to figure out. Look up the civilizations mentioned in the Good Book-- the Babylonians, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Sumerians.I'll get you started: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/religion.htmOr you could just try reading some of the mythology...

quote:

---

WS: You will find that by not having some knowledge of apologetics and the principles of exegesis, and other skills, you will fail in trying to argue the Bible.

---

You didn't answer the question. Do the same rules apply to the Bible which apply to other religious texts?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002][This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002][This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]

sigh... this is the problem using translations as backup. I cannot see what you are talking abouthttp://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
"Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]My brothers at Answering Christianity said that this is their preferred translation.
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Correct translation of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]And you offered you preferred translation, telling me that Jesus Christ was the one referred there. And you don't offer me the Hebrew. Again, you have original texts?

quote:
--------------
sigh... this is the problem using translations as backup. I cannot see what you are talking about--------------WS: There is no possible alternative message in there. I took each Hebrew word of the text, checked each word in some lexicons, and found the translations consistent.quote:
---------------
http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
"Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]My brothers at Answering Christianity said that this is their preferred translation.
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Correct translation of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]WS: If that is logical deduction method, then so is "yea, he is WORDSWORDSMAN." It is ME! Oh, THANKYOU for that revelation....that shall be my preferred translation that cancels that of your brethren.That translation of theirs is pure nonsense, as rediculous as my parody above. You apparently didn't read the reference I gave. Whether it is authoritative or not, the observations prove you are right now mocking your prophet. YOU MOCK MUHAMMAD. If what you say is at all true, then you must also insert "Muhammad" into the other 12 places the Hebrew word is used, regardless the outcome. That makes Muhammad a false prophet, a fool.Andya Primanda's "Muhammad" of the Bible:"1 Kings 20:6: "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."
2 Chronicles 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels."Isaiah 64:11: "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste."Lamentations 1:10: "The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation."Lamentations 1:11: "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."Lamentations 2:4: "He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire."Ezekiel 24:16: "Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down."Ezekiel 24:21: "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword."Ezekiel 24:25: "Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters." Hosea 9:6: "For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles."Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb."Joel 3:5: "Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things."If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea.When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely related to the clause -- Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan."
Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting Thankyou, Andya, for assisting me in proving the disciples of Muhammad, your brethren that are responsible for that foolishness, follow a shadow in the sand. Western civilization is too sophisticated to fall for such mirages of the mind.quote:
---------------
And you offered you preferred translation, telling me that Jesus Christ was the one referred there. And you don't offer me the Hebrew. Again, you have original texts?
---------------WS: Here's a fitting explanation of this Muslim joke."Does Song of Songs mention Muhammad's name?
Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root ([1], [2])But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.In Arabic many words are formed from the same root, but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi 'lalamin ("Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds"). In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give "Rum" as if derived from the root "ram". This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement.A newsgroup article in regard to that:Song of Songs 5:16 shyr hshyrym 5,16his mouth is sweets Hkw mmtqym
and all of him is delights wklw mHmdym
this is my love zh dwdy
and this is my darling wzh r`y
daughters of Jerusalem bnwt yrwshlmSong of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play. Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures.The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists...Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, lust after
Hmd z delight, loviness
Hmdh n desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt covetousness, lustfulnessIt is also interesting to note: Many Muslims are "outraged" that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible. But then, they completely "forget" this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman's desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6. The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur'an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn't help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur'an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.:WS: This shameless penchant of Muslims seeking legitimacy by perverting the Scriptures is telling, an alarm for all reasonable people that the religion Islam is a sham. There is no connection between the Bible and Islam. Ishmael and his mother went away led by an angel of God, carrying with them the knowledge of the God of Abraham. From history it is known the children of Ishmael continued with Jehovah until the perversions of the sand pirate Muhammad, who one day must have been victim of heat stroke. The fellow suddenly decided he didn't like the Torah and Christianity, thinking all that took a wrong turn, thinking himself a prophet with power to change all that to suit his existence. He began a large lie, a deception that removed many from the presence of God, into the doom of godless despair.

What is that stench? Oh, I know now it is the foul odor of apologenics.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]

The debate over the Bible's teachings of a flat earth has already been addressed in the thread, "There you go, YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs." The geocentric concept was also addressed in that thread.

Backslipping into your old ways here, nos?Also WS (message 110):

quote:

---

...the perversions of the sand pirate Muhammad, who one day must have been victim of heat stroke.

---

I THINK AN APOLOGY IS CALLED FOR HERE!!!(This message is now an Adminnemooseus "Keep an eye on this topic flag")Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
Backslipping into your old ways here, nos?

​

---

Backslipping? He is getting all the response he deserves, I don't want to start banging my head against his wall of apologenics. BTW don't hold your breath for that apology from him. The only apology he'll ever give is for his beliefs as in apologenics.Also, I don't believe in compelled apologies or the like. They either have to be voluntary, as in realizing one's mistake on one's own, or they mean nothing. It is just saving one's ass, IMO.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]Adminnemoose comment: I noticed the nos comment first, and posted my message. I then noticed WS's comment, and made an addition by edit. I must admit, that nos's comments in this message, have made me realize that his "offending" message may have been sadly appropriate.

​

As for the "compelled" apology - I would prefer to think of it as a suggestion. I think, that if WS does not retract that offensive statement, and admit that he was wrong in making it, it is going to brand him as a bigot, and essentially destroy his credibility in the related discussion/debate. - AdminnemooseusHe had no credibility with me soon after he began to speak.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Abraham worshipped Jehovah, the Lord God. Islam insults Abraham. If any substitution, it was the adoption of the pagan Moon god "Allah"

---

You do realize that Hebrew and Arabic are closely related and that "Allah" comes from the same root as "El" and "Elohim"?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
I won't hold out hope Nos could possibly comprehend or offer any proper answer, but I'll offer an answer anyway for the sake of MartinM's confusion. Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle, or its wondrous mechanics, and it appears MartinM compounds the error further. Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width

---

A circle's topography is the Cartesian product R1 x S1, correct. In the limit of negligible depth, this reduces to S1, the circle. A coin is a circle in the same sense that a piece of paper is flat - not strictly true, but a good enough approximation for everyday usage.

quote:

---

A circle does in fact define a sphere, whether intended or not, visible or not, whether the circle is a flat plane on a sheet of paper, or a hoop hanging in mid air. A sphere is mathematically implied

---

No. No, it isn't. A circle is S1, a sphere S2. They are very different. One could equally well argue that one can associate with any circle an imaginary cylinder, but it's a very silly concept.The context does not change the statement at all.

quote:

---

The Hebrew word "chuwg" was translated there as "circle"; "circuit" in Job 22:14; and "compass" in Psalm 8:27

---

Isaiah had previously used the word 'duwr' to mean 'ball' - an infinitely more accurate description of the Earth. So there was certainly at least one better word he could have used. But he didn't, suggesting that he did not think the Earth spherical.

quote:

---

This word revealed that the earth was round by any means of envisioning it until some men presented the idea of the flat, four-cornered plane being the shape of earth, and the round disk-shaped earth

---

Round != spherical

quote:

---

But the Bible makes no such claims. Find an interesting discussion about that myth here: Simon Fraser University philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

---

Thanks for the link. From there -"Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote a book called "Christian Topography" in which he claimed the earth is flat.""the ancient Hebrews, like all of their contemporaries, were flat earthers, and their flat earth cosmology is written between the lines in numerous passages of the Hebrew Bible. This was not lost on many of the Fathers of the Church. Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Diodorus of Tarsus have been correctly cited by others as flat earthers. I could name many more, some minor figures, some major (John Chrysostom, for example, and probably Basil of Caesarea). Flat earthism seems to have been uncommon among the Latin Fathers (Tertullian seems to have been one exception). Among the Greek Fathers, the Alexandrians tended to interpret scripture allegorically, and they likewise could accept sphericity without a problem. The Antiochene theologians, however, originated the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible beloved by modern fundamentalists, and I can't name a single one of them who endorsed sphericity but several who condemned it. The Old Syrian Church seems likewise to have been hostile to sphericity"

WS: I beg you, please learn to use the quote feature. [quote][b]Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle[/quote][/b]Right.....

quote:

---

circle (srkl)
n.

​

A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
A planar region bounded by a circle.
Something, such as a ring, shaped like such a plane curve.
A circular course, circuit, or orbit: a satellite's circle around the earth.

---

quote:

---

sphere (sfr)
n.

​

Mathematics. A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.
A spherical object or figure.

---

Both definitions are from Dictionary.com-- editted for brevity, but look them up yourself.Notice that a circle refers to a plane -- ie. two dimensional space -- while a sphere refers to three dimensional space. [quote]Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width.[/b][/quote]This is ridiculous, WS.It is patently absurd to apply modern mathematical definitions to 4000 year old mythology. That you even consider such sophistry is almost beyond belief.Secondly, colloquially, a circle DOES mean coin or coin-like object. Grab a thesaurus. You'll see synonyms like "disk" and "ring" and "circlet".Here is the clicher for me: why do the many scholars who have translated the Bible with utmost perfection not render this as 'sphere', which is undeniably the better English word if it in fact means what you claim it means? In other words, you are equivocating on the accuracy of the translations.

quote:

---

A sphere is mathematically implied.

---

Like hell.... [quote][b]Going on to the Scripture in question, let's quote it again, but this time in context:[/quote][/b]And the context adds what to the discussion?

quote:

---

(Note): Notice the often left out part about the grasshoppers. The idea is that God sits so far above the round earth that men look like mere grasshoppers.

---

Actually, it isn't very high up at all. I'd say, maybe thirty or forty floors will do it. Heaven is pretty close. No wonder God was afraid of the building of the Tower of Babel.

quote:

---

The Hebrew word "chuwg"

---

Is defined as (Davar Hebrew Lexicon):
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompassNot terribly sphere-like. It sounds more like a king delineating his kingdom that a God surveying a planet.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]

A significant disparity is evident in your judgment in that, Administrator. You merely mention Nos has "gone back" to his old ways, not even mentioning his initiating of personal insults, and continuing them, calling me "nuts". I responded by measuring his show of maturity as childish, which is accurate, yet he blathers on.Off topic, Andya slides to second base with:
"Strangely, I happen to adhere to a view that someone can be sent to hell if he/she accepts any substitute for God. That includes Jesus. He's not God to us Muslims."That, in all fairness, opened the door to well deserved insult of Islam's false prophet Muhammad. We now know Andya subscribes to a belief Jesus is not what He and His disciples claimed Him to be, making Him a false prophet they regard as a valid prophet, insulting the central figure of Christianity. Now everyone knows my opinion of a man they regard as their chief prophet, which is no prophet at all, but a perverter of history and Holy Scripture, spokesman for Satan, opposer of Jehovah God and His Son Jesus. Apologize for what? My contrasting of core beliefs? This is no idle speculation on my part. I have my beliefs based on the Bible, which itself identifies anyone coming with such false teachings to be OF the spirit of antichrist, the devil. The Bible easily identifies such a false prophet as Muhammad as a fool, a madman, a reprobate. You desire that I apologize for the message of the Bible? I apologize for insinuating the man might have had a medical excuse for his biblically described insanity. It isn't known whether he suffered stroke and lost mental acuity when writing the Quran. Pure speculation on my part, a common exercise here among several post contributors. I should have stuck to the obvious truth that Muhammad was demon possessed. That, too, can be verified in the Bible as an accurate explanation of anyone contradicting the Word of God like his followers do. Is that a little better?

You are nuts, IMO.

""the ancient Hebrews, like all of their contemporaries, were flat earthers, and their flat earth cosmology is written between the lines in numerous passages of the Hebrew Bible.""WS: I saw that and noted it was entirely speculation without reference.A circle, a closed gometric figure defined such that all the points on the circle are at a constant distance from a center. This distance is called the radius of the circle.
"Spheres are the most basic three dimensional objects that you will encounter in Astronomy. A sphere is defined much like a circle, except it is in 3 dimensions. Therefore, it is defined as the set of all points in space that are equally distant from a center. As such, one of the characteristic paramters of a sphere is its radius."
http://dosxx.colorado.edu/~atlas/math/math4.htmlA sphere can be represented by infinite sets of identical circles defining the surface of a sphere, each circle having the same attributes of circumference and distance to the center of the sphere. Therefore, just one of those circles represents the sphere, it having no less attribute that the other parts of the sphere. The only difference is that many identical circles are associated with a sphere, but it is only necessary to consider one of them.The only relationship between a disk and a circle is that the base of a disk (the coin) is "circular". But the circle of the base can't possibly represent the disk, like a circle can represent a sphere, since the disk has a third dimension unrelated to circles- height.It is inescapable the curvature of the earth would be observed by mariners of ancient times, seeing ships rise from below the horizon. I've seen that myself. On an oceanic voyage (Navy) one sees many other ships in the lane rising from one horizon, passing, and dropping off into the other horizon, wherever one travels, demonstating that principle applies everywhere. I realize the bulge of the ocean magnifies that effect in shorter distances than the limitations of the eye on land, but that would be a constant in any age for any observer. There imply was no obvious discussion of a "flat earth" in biblical times, for that would have been a source of great concern with many references to the potential problem of falling off the edge. It just isn't there, not until fairly modern times. None of the great philosophers referred to the Hebrews or any other ancient group as believing the earth was flat. Some speculation of the earth being more of a squared off disk was present by the time Aristotle envisioned his correct deduction the earth was a sphere, but he didn't entertain that at all. Only a small minority could be assigned to that belief, mostly other philosophers.Some late Christians took up the secular beliefs of a flat earth, finding the obscure references Bible skeptics like to quote, but that still doesn't prove the Bible taught them that concept. Once they believed it they mistakenly relied on the Bible to support their view.Any claim the circles and corners of the earth are biblical teachings of a flat earth are simply false and unsupported. All teachings of such a concept comes from misuse of Scripture. Those few verses are hardly reasonable as sufficient to address such a topic as an earth being something other than what we know it to be. Much was said of the moon and stars, also important objects to men, but such little said of the nature of earth's shape? It should be an exercise of simple logic those people knew something of the earth's shape just from viewing the sky. If you can still view the moon and stars without interference of city lights, try to let the moon teach you the earth might be flat. It was there for them too, the ball in the sky, and so were the eclipses. Vain philosophers meddled with that simple lesson of nature.