The "Circle of the Earth"

simple,You do understand that the scripture in the Bible has been copied for ages by hand? When I say ages a better term would be millennia or millennia's.You do understand that the Bible you read today was devised by a council of people who were mostly pagan by heritage?You do know that the translation you use to understand the God of the Bible is irrelavant?You do know that there are other scriptures available that can help you have a deeper understanding of our supernatural world?My point is simply, it is fallacious to pretend that the Bible is a literal communication from a God.The Bible provides a metaphorical communication that certain things are unwise and some things are wise.Thus Isa 40:22 is simple, it's a portrayal of exaltation of "God".Edited by trossthree, : gram errEdited by trossthree, : gram errEdited by trossthree, : gram errEdited by trossthree, : context errEdited by trossthree, : add last note -conclusionEdited by trossthree, : verbageEdited by trossthree, : No reason given.

---

Thanks
trossthree

if you think simple has ever made a good point, you are probably being misled. well, the issue is this: can we take a verse from the bible, and switch around a few words here and there, and then claim it means something to back up our particular ideology?saying that i have no proof is rather ridiculous, in that it presupposes words can mean whatever we want, and so meaning is vague. meaning is not vague -- meaning is specific.what simple has done -- turn "circle" into "UFO" -- is really a more fantastic and obviously ludicrous version of what you would do: turn "circle" into "sphere." the verse really only makes any sense in light of the known hebrew cosmological perspective. that it would consistent with the description in genesis, and the sumerian descriptions, and the egyptian descriptions, and descriptions from all over the ancient near east should not be a surprise. it's not a coincidence. people who suppose any different are not working from the evidence and the text -- they are working from a person belief that the bible must be inerrant in every way, and perfectly handed down by god through the ages. and so little errors like this, that are totally consistent with everything else from that time and place, are "fudged" to line up better with reality by creative translations.and it's wrong. the text says what it says. for better or for worse. and it means what it says. if you attempt to apply another, more modern meaning, the imagery is totally lost, and things like the "tent" reference become broken nonsequitors.

---

er, no. context -- the rest of the chapter. read it. PLEASE. are you serious? you don't need to read, think about, study, and understand the text? really? you mean "satan." "lucifer" is a latin name for the planet venus, used as a translation for hillel or "glorious" in isaiah 14 (and only isaiah 14). and it's evident that you've misread that, too -- not only do you fundamentally misunderstand the dynamics of god and satan (seriously, read job) but this is one of those very verses where god is talking to a king (through isaiah). to say it's somehow about satan... a complete misreading. once again, it's starting with a particular idea of how things work, regardless of other textual support, and reading bits and peices into things that don't actually have anything to do with it. but i'll forgive you, because that's a common mistake here, and not the topic of this thread.of course, neither are UFOs. yeah? say the harder thing. you don't believe the bible. the evidence is clear from your distortion of the text, how you feel the need to change it.

---

right. knowledge = worthless. understanding = worthless. study = worthless.making shit up, and claiming to use the holy spirit as a decoder ring = win. no, UFOs are nonsense. your reading is nonsense. actually paying attention to what the text says and how it says it? muy importante. it's obvious that you've never taken a literature class. my "opinion" is based on a relatively simple analysis of the the facts including the language it was written in, basic vocabulary and etymology, context, grammar, style, structure, etc. i'm sorry you don't think that adds anything to discussion. it's gotta be about UFOs.there's a difference between an informed analysis, and "making shit up" which you don't seem to understand.

---

arachnophilia,By reading 40:22 you can't conclude that Isaiah believed in fact that the earth was a circle. We have no idea if, in "fact", Isaiah even used the word "chuwg" because, in "fact", we don't have the autographs of Isaiah.Edited by trossthree, : wordingEdited by trossthree, : gram

---

Thanks
trossthree

Where have I said anything about "science against the Bible"? I'm talking about both science and the Bible against simple.The Bible quite plainly talks about the shape of the earth, as seen from a height. Whether that circular view indicates a flat disc or a side-view of a globe is the topic we are discussing.There is no way that an "orbit" can be derived from the text.If the "circle" was an orbit, then God would be no better than a rock in a fixed path. But what you describe is plainly not an orbit. It's a path with no fixed direction or altitude. If He's free to move around like that, it's no orbit and the "circle" is irrelevant to it.Either way, you're wrong.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

we can conclude what the hebrew cosmology was by a multitude of examples. in fact, this verse only really makes sense in light of those examples, and a very careful understanding of the picture being painted. this is a completely bunk argument. we have no idea of knowing whether or not isaiah was a real person. it doesn't matter -- all we have is the text, and that's what we have to go by.now, we have a number of versions, translations, and ancient documents upon which we can base a conclusion about the changes made to the bible over the last 2,000 years. and mostly, the record of transmission looks pretty good. there are some instances of purposeful change, some accidental. but mostly, it's about 95-99% consistent in the documents still in the bible. the scribes seemed to prefer taking things at the scroll level -- if they liked it, the whole book was in. if not, it's gone. the only MAJOR editting comes from rearrangement of those scrolls, like how the torah was spliced together from several independent documents. but that is by far the exception to the rule, and even there shows the tendency to refrain from internal changes.if you doubt the accuracy of this word in particular (and it is possible, here), you might wish to consult the dead sea scrolls or the septuagint. but the hebrew has "circle."

---

arachnophilia,What's your point? The entire thread is a bunk argument, any debated issues of the Bible are bunk, and debating any context in the Bible is bunk. My point: any understanding one has of the Bible is theoretical.Edited by trossthree, : No reason given.

---

Thanks
trossthree

this seems like it's on the brink of becoming a philosophical argument about how we can never truly know anything.

---

quote:

---

Where have I said anything about "science against the Bible"? I'm talking about both science and the Bible against simple.

---

Well, Ringo, let me use gentle lingo, show us the science you mean. See if you got bingo.

quote:

---

The Bible quite plainly talks about the shape of the earth, as seen from a height. Whether that circular view indicates a flat disc or a side-view of a globe is the topic we are discussing.

---

great, show us where this is. I never saw any such thing.

quote:

---

There is no way that an "orbit" can be derived from the text.

---

I see, in you opinion, of course. Maybe back it up, so it can gain some currency?How about the circuit of the universe? What was that, the shape of you favorite galaxy tooth fairy, if we connect the dots just right!? Try dealing with the issues.

quote:

---

If the "circle" was an orbit, then God would be no better than a rock in a fixed path. But what you describe is plainly not an orbit. It's a path with no fixed direction or altitude. If He's free to move around like that, it's no orbit and the "circle" is irrelevant to it.

---

Last I checked a circle was something that went round. Foe example we could say something circled the earth!!Even the equator has changed, they say. Once the equator ran through Israel, it seems.

quote:

---

HTTP Status 404 — Not Found

---

Anyhow, if God took His wheels over the earth, and hovered over an area He wanted to focus on, He could sit on the circuit of the earth. The circle of the earth. For example, a path that He usually took, whether hovering or going right around.If He had a preferred, or usual path around the universe, He could also hover on a point of that circle as He wished, or traverse the whole circuit. get it??

Stop making up that God was not the Lord that was on the throne and flew in those wheels. Stop pretending you have the slightest inkling what the circle of the earth is. Stop pretending He could not hover on the circuit, and look down on us as grasshoppers. Start backing up your words.Rhetoric is empty, and the time for sounding brass is long past. Unless you got something, you got nothin.

blah blah blah. projection if i ever heard it.look, you don't even have rhetoric. you've got the same one-liner, over and over. and you're getting frustrated now that people don't just blindly accept your god-given epiphany that everything relates to UFOs.now, please, stop muddying up this thread. you're hindering the real discussion. come back when you've read, thought about, studied, and understood isaiah. not just looked for flying saucers in it.oh, right. you don't need to read it. or think about it. or study it. or understand it. it's god's word, right to your keyboard.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

Sorry for the delay. For some reason I did not receive notification of your reply. I am not as proficient with the Hebrew as yourself. Perhaps you can offer a transliteration for my simple mind?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

There is no "circuit of the universe" in the passage we are discussing. You need to look at Isaiah 40 and understand what it means before you can assume that other passages are related. We've only been saying "circled the earth" since we've known the earth is round. In this discussion, the shape of the earth is the question. Claiming that "the circle of the earth' means going "around" the earth is a circular argument. No He wouldn't. Hovering is not circular motion.Edited by Ringo, : Spleleing.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

arachnophilia,A question since you know more about the bible than I ever cared to find out.In the OP there is this quote: But in one of your posts you have this quote: If "the circle of the earth" is the outside rim of a flat disk earth the first quote makes sense. The second quote says he's sitting on "the circle of the earth" which means he's on the horizon if we go with the same flat disk earth. That doesn't make much sense.Does the Hebrew word being translated as "above" and "upon" shed any light on this? Upon, at least in English, connotes physical contact, while above does not.Since these people believed the sky was a solid dome, the movement of the sun, moon, and planets would trace a semicircle on the inside of this dome. What do you think about the idea that "the circle of the earth" might be a phrase meaning the ecliptic? God being upon or above it would still give him the same grasshopper view. Or do you think this idea too complex for the ancient Hebrews?Thanks