Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1 of 473 (498859)
02-14-2009 1:28 PM


Peg and I recently came to a disagreement in Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God? over whether or not the Bible portrays a flat Earth. It is my contention that there are many Biblical verses that imply a flat Earth and that the writers of much of the Old and New Testaments considered the Earth to be flat.
Flat Earth cosmology was common in the ancient world. The Babylonians, Egyptians and pre-Classical Greeks all believed the earth to be flat. The Babylonians in particular viewed the Earth as a flat disc floating on a great ocean. I believe that this kind of cosmology was, at the very least, a profound influence on the Bible.
It seems that the Bible authors viewed the world as being flat, probably disc-like, with a dome above it and resting upon it, which was the sky. They viewed the earth as fixed and immobile, resting upon pillars or foundations. Here are some of the most revealing quotes;
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Peg has claimed that these passages refer to the Earth as being fixed in its orbit. There are several problems with this. Firstly, the idea of a geocentric Earth was part of Christian thought until the time of Galileo. Also, “immovable and firm” seems an odd way to describe something that is hurtling through space at thousands of km per hour. Further, the Earth’s orbit is not fixed. It varies over time, most notably in the process known as precession. As for never being shaken, it is quite conceivable that the Earth might be knocked out of its orbit by a massive enough collision with some comet or other huge celestial body.
These passages mean exactly what they say; the Earth is fixed and immobile.
In Daniel 4:10-11., the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”. Clearly this makes little sense if the Earth were spherical, but it makes perfect sense on a flat Earth, where a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to all.
In "Job 38:14, “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." This is reference to the ancient practice of stamping out clay tablets. This passage makes no sense at all if it is about a sphere, but it does make sense for a flat Earth.
Matthew 4:1-12 has the Devil taking Jesus atop a high mountain, to show him the world. "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them". This would only be possible on a flat Earth. I have heard it suggested that the Devil showed Jesus a vision, rather than a physical view, but if so, why bother going to the mountain?
Robert J. Shcadewald writes, in his excellent essay “The Flat Earth Bible”;
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
This concept of the “firmament” as a solid dome makes sense of a great many Bible passages, such as these;
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) writes:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
This clearly implies a solid, domed sky.
Job 22:14 writes:
(God) walks to and fro on the vault of heaven.
The dome of the firmament is apparently solid.
Genesis 1:6 writes:
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky."
With this, some waters are beneath the firmament (oceans and rivers) whilst others are above (rain, hail and so on).
There are a number of other passages, but I shan’t attempt a comprehensive list here.
One final item of note is that whilst the canonical books of the bible never explicitly state that the Earth is flat (why would they?), the apocryphal book 1 Enoch is much clearer. In this work, Enoch is described as journeying with the angel Uriel. He is witness to the ends of the Earth, where the dome of heaven meets the ground. He travels beyond this dome and sees the storerooms of the Sun and Moon. He sees the gates of heaven, through which rain and hail come. He travels to the extreme East and West of the earth, a concept that makes absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth.
The cosmos of 1 Enoch is explicitly flat. This is important, because the book dates back to 300-100 BCE and was highly regarded enough to be quoted in the New Testament (Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9). 1 Enoch’s depiction of a flat earth is in close agreement with the Bible’s Earth. If the Earth had been understood as being spherical, how could 1 Enoch have enjoyed any kind of popularity when it explicitly describes a flat Earth?
Doubtless there will be many objections to this. Every point I have raised will have an apologetic lined up in answer. My view is that these apologetics miss the point. One simple, parsimonious answer explains all of the problematic Bible passages at a stroke; the Bible authors thought the Earth was flat. Does this matter for the modern Christian? Not really. There are many errors in the Bible and this is just one of them. This is only an problem for extreme literalists, including the many kooks out there who still believe in a flat Earth.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 02-15-2009 7:00 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 5 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-15-2009 7:33 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2009 9:02 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 1:09 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 10 by Meldinoor, posted 02-16-2009 1:37 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 159 by Black, posted 02-22-2009 1:27 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 245 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 9:19 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 321 by doctrbill, posted 06-19-2009 6:34 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 354 by Young Earthling, posted 08-06-2009 4:11 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 364 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 4:17 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 367 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 4:37 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 378 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-18-2010 1:41 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 383 by doctrbill, posted 01-23-2010 10:07 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 464 by knight4christ, posted 04-07-2010 8:04 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 20 of 473 (499106)
02-16-2009 6:51 PM


The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Well, I sure seem to have disturbed a hornet’s nest here! I’m not going to reply to each message individually, as I don’t have the time, but I will deal with most of the objections raised so far in this post.
Daniel 4:10-11 Yes, I am aware that this is a dream. It is however, a dream that speaks of a flat Earth world-view. I don’t know about anyone else, but I tend to dream of those images that make sense to me. This dream (which one strongly suspects never actually took place anyway) helps inform us of the word-view of the characters and authors. It clearly presents a flat-Earth and nothing is said to contradict this impression.
Job 38:14 This has been described as metaphorical and indeed it is. I would not care to contradict that. It is though, a metaphor that speaks to a flat-earth world-view. It makes no sense, even as a metaphor, if the author understood the Earth to be spherical (or spheroidal in fact). Has anyone ever stamped out a sphere? This line is poetic, but it the poetry of a flat-Earther.
Matthew 4:1-12 I see no reason to assume that this incident is metaphorical. In each instance of the story, the Devil takes Jesus to a high place to show him the sights. The obvious implication is that it is the elevated position that is allowing the view. If this story is metaphorical, how much more of Matthew should be considered metaphorical? The temptation of Jesus is a pretty central story in the New Testament narrative and it is usually interpreted fairly literally. If part of the story is metaphor, might the whole story be metaphor? What of the rest of Matthew? It is certainly not a literal approach to this text.
Buzsaw writes:
The devil never physically took Jesus anywhere. .. {snip} ...This was a visionary event.
If these events were merely visions, why describe them in a manner that suggests physical movement? The author was quite capable of describing a vision if he so wished. He did not. Why do you think the authors were so incapable of saying what they meant?
Job 22:14 & Isaiah 40:22 The clear implication of these verses is a solid dome-like sky. I am far from alone in this view.
However, it is agreed upo n by all the sources that at least some early church fathers did believe in a flat earth. And of course, those who believed in a spherical earth still believed that the earth did not move and that the "firmament" was solid, and Holy Scripture continued to be cited in support of those latter two assertions for centuries. Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant" (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
Source
How about another verse?
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Is that clear enough? It sounds very clear to me. The skies are solid, as in not gaseous. Job 37:18 makes explicit the etymology of the word raqiya, or firmament as the KJV has it. Raqiya is etymologically derived from riqqua, meaning beaten out, as per the beating out of a bronze pot, typical of the time. The concept of the skies as a bronze dome, an idea held by early Greeks as well, is made obvious here. They are also clearly dome or tent-like in shape, as is seen in this extract;
Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
This verse makes clear both the solidity of the dome and its tent-like shape. You can, of course, insist that it is poetic language and you would be quite right. It still remains though, poetry abut a flat-earth written by flat-Earthers for flat-Earthers.
Genesis 1 The creation story, which makes little sense from a modern perspective, is much clearer when understood in the context of a flat-earth. There are waters above the firmament, which fall through windows as rain. There are waters below as well, namely the seas and rivers etc. The stars are fixed in the structure of this firmament (Gen 1:17). The stars, amusingly, are quite small and, in other Biblical books, can fall to Earth.
Buzsaw writes:
I fail to see correlation to a flat earth here. As for the waters, we know that there is water in the atmosphere. What's the deal?
The concept of the domed sky is important to understanding the overall picture of Biblical cosmology. It is not sensible to attempt to understand one without the other. By the way, the waters are described as being separated by the firmament, not being part of the firmament. Only a solid dome could achieve this. Further, it would be able to hold back those pesky Flud waters.
Genesis is geocentric, it assumes the earth is immobile and that the sky is a solid dome, bedecked with (small) stars. The earth is the important bit, the rest of the universe is mere window dressing. The whole of Gen 1 and 2 make much more sense when viewed this way.
Job 26:7 Just because the earth is hung upon nothing, does not mean that it must be spherical. This verse is entirely consistent with the flat-Earth described in 1 Enoch, which has a great void above and below.
Peg writes:
Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres and this was the belief in the 16th and 17th centuries when his teachings were the status quo.
Yet nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging 'upon nothing at Job 26:7. In the original Hebrew, the word for nothing is beli-mah” and literally means 'without anything'.
There is no contradiction here at all. In those days, there was no sense of comparison between the earth (not non-capitalisation there) and the heavenly bodies. The earth was thought of as a completely different category of object, namely a flat disc-like structure at the centre of the cosmos. There was no concept of The Earth (with capitalisation). Stars and planets, the Sun and Moon were considered to be comparatively small objects that flew above the earth. The very difference in the way the Bible treats the earth and heavenly bodies, throughout, only serves to demonstrate that these Hebrew authors had no idea that the earth and the planets were comparable.
The Earth Does Not Move 1 Chronicles, Psalms and Isaiah all say that the earth is fixed and/or immobile. Peg insists that these statements cannot be taken literally, they are poetic in nature. I beg to differ. Take the statement Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.. This is clearly a statement in praise of God for his having fixed the earth in place. All it is saying is Isn’t God great? He fixed the earth in place!. It is a testament to God’s physical achievement in creating the immobile earth. Again and again the Bible makes reference to the foundations of the earth. By this, I propose, it means exactly what it says. The earth is fixed in place,upon solid foundations. It is immobile. "Immobile" does not mean "hurtling through space". To assume that it does is very far from a literal interpretation.
Early church fathers believed these verses to be literal and right through to the days of Luther and Calvin, the predominant view was that the earth was stationary at the centre of the cosmos. Only when these views were challenged by Copernicus and Galileo did the interpretation of these verses completely change. Some desperate few still cling on to the flat or geocentric Earth.
Chuwg versus Dwur I think that this argument is patronising to the Bible authors. These were not stupid men. They were not some bunch of wandering goat-herders, they were the most educated men of their time and culture. They were quite capable of describing a sphere, as Isaiah’s use of duwr demonstrates. They could have described the earth as like a ball if had they so wished. They did not. They called it as they saw it and not unreasonably; the earth does, after all, look flat. They were not stupid for thinking this. They merely lacked a critical (and non-obvious} piece of information.
What is especially ridiculous is the idea that these authors, especially the Old Testament authors, had access to special knowledge that the earth was a sphere and didn’t bother to mention it! A passing reference that might just be interpreted as meaning sphere is not enough. If these people had this knowledge, at a time when everyone else on earth believed they were living upon a disc, why did they not embrace this idea and promulgate it? If it were me, I would take special care to communicate this important new idea. Are we to suppose that these authors just ignored it? Were they idiots? No. They just didn’t have any such idea; they thought the earth was flat.
1 Enoch Peg objects to my mention of Enoch, saying that it is not canon and thus not relevant. I find this argument without merit. Only a dyed in the wool Christian could find this compelling. If we were inquiring into early Islamic thought, would we only view the Haditha that are currently accepted by Muslims? Or would we prefer to examine all sources for whatever insight might be found? 1 Enoch and other apocryphal works give us an insight into the mindset of people at the time. Enoch in particular gives us an important insight into Hebrew thought in the inter-Testamental period. There is no reason to strike it from the record simply because it fell out of favour later on.
1 Enoch was clearly respected by New Testament authors. It contains many themes that are picked up in the New Testament. The cosmos presented is a near perfect match for the cosmos implied in the Bible. If the NT authors knew Enoch’s sci-fi vision quest to be an absurd flat-earth nonsense, why did they trust and respect him enough to quote him? Why did the author of Jude believe 1 Enoch to have been authored by the eponymous Enoch himself, as certainly seems to be the case?
The Big Picture If I had presented any one of the arguments above on its own and claimed a flat-Earth Bible form that alone, I would be taking the piss. But the fact is that these passages, alongside many others that I have yet to mention, add up to form a coherent whole. Viewed as a whole, the bible has far too many passages that seem to presuppose a flat earth for us to dismiss. Never does it explicitly describe the earth as spherical, mobile or orbital. Backed up by the prevailing flat-earth mythologies that surrounded the Hebrew world and the opinions of early Church fathers, the case for a flat-earth Hebrew cosmology is strong.
Okay, enough for now...
There is one thing that I agree with though;
Meldinoor writes:
Christians have interpreted the bible differently ever since it was written, and do so still. Obviously when new discoveries are made, like evolution, heliocentrism, etc. people read different meanings into the same words.
Nowhere does the bible say that the writers (yes, human writers, even if inspired by an omniscient deity) knew all the facts of the universe.
This is true. Nowhere does the Bible claim to have all the facts. Indeed, it does not. The problem is that when those facts inconveniently intrude upon scripture, the scripture is re-interpreted to fit the new facts, as though it had never been otherwise. I think that this does an injustice to the Bible. It is not a modern science primer and it does not describe modern views. It describes the world as it was understood at the time, sometimes with more accuracy than others. This is its real value and torturing it until it says what it was never intended to say does nobody any favours.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 8:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 25 of 473 (499129)
02-16-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
02-16-2009 8:52 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
Are you ignoring the scripture that clearly states
quote:
He is hanging the earth upon nothing' Job 22:14
No, and I believe that I did specifically address that. Hanging on nothing does not imply spherical. As for the contradiction between "foundations" and Job 22:14, I never said that the Bible was entirely consistent. There are contradictions whichever way you slice it. For instance, the earth is described as a circle, but the earth also has both corners;
quote:
Isaiah 41:9
you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";
Also Job 37:3, Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 and more.
The earth also has ends/edges;
quote:
Job 38:13
that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Also Deuteronomy 28:64, Psalms 22:27 and about a dozen more.
These are contradictions whether the intent is a circular flat Earth or a spherical one. Circles don't have corners (cardinal directions is probably closer to the intent) and neither do spheres (where exactly is the East Pole?). Circles don't have ends either. They might have "skirts" or edges though, whereas a sphere could not.
What's that you say? metaphorical language? You are not so keen for the language to be metaphorical when it appears to support a spherical world-image are you?
quote:
You are placing an interpretation on something that is clearly not there.
No, I am merely reading the text as it is written. The authors were not cretins. They were capable of saying what they meant. If they knew that the earth was a spherical planet, they would have made that clear, given the novelty and import of such information.
quote:
when we first saw pictures of the earth from space, it IS a circle we see
Unless I have badly understood my bible history, it was not written in orbit. You're not Erich von Dniken are you?
From the ground, the Earth looks flat. Look out your window; does the world look spherical? Not especially.
quote:
and from an earthly perspective, when you look up at the sky, it IS a dome that we see.
Yes, it does look like a dome. That is why Bronze Age Hebrew writers thought that it was a dome and why later Proto-Christians followed suit.
quote:
Does not the Atmosphere act as a dome?
No, it acts as a layer of gas around a sphere, because that's what it is. And it bears very little resemblance to the Bible's description of it.
What's the big deal anyway? The Bible is wrong about lots of things. This is just one of them. It's no biggie. Just accept it and move on.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Missed a bit.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 8:52 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 10:02 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 7:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 31 of 473 (499189)
02-17-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
02-16-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
You are misrepresenting my argument.
quote:
yet it still doesnt say the earth is flat
find a verse that calls it flat...you cant because its not there.
I never said it was. I do not claim that the Bible explicitly describes the Earth as flat and if you were paying attention, you would know that. My claim is that it implies a flat Earth. My claim is that a great many passages make it clear that the authors presupposed a flat Earth. They had no need to state this explicitly, since everyone of the day believed in a flat Earth. They had no need to state the obvious.
You are the one who is making the claim that these Bronze Age Hebrews knew that the Earth was a sphere, at a time when everyone else believed in a flat Earth. You are making the extraordinary claim, not me.
quote:
People have used the colorful language of the bible as a means of claiming that it says things that it quite obviously does not say.
Its interpretation and nothing more.
Of course. When the Bible is clearly wrong, it is "colourful language". When it can just about maintain plausible deniability, it is the literal truth. The fact is that interpreting "fixed" and "immobile" to mean "moving" is a far greater stretch when it comes to interpretation.
Perhaps you would care to interpret this;
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
End of the heavens? How exactly should one interpret this, except to say that it means the... er... end of the heavens? The fact that we are aware that the heavens have no end does not imply that the author of this psalm knew it.
quote:
the book of Job said the earth was hanging upon nothing...unlike other beliefs at the time that it was attached to something solid.
One reference. Against about a dozen references to foundations or pillars, including ones from Job (Job 9:6 and 38:4-6). Which is it Peg? If the Bible is a unified work, which promotes a spherical Earth throughout, why does it mention these foundations so frequently? Why did it not strike the authors as being misleading (which it most certainly is)? Why did they not make more explicit reference to the earth's sphericity? Why should we assume that the foundation/pillar verses are the metaphorical ones? Why should the "hangs upon nothing" reference not be the metaphor?
In any case, I have already demonstrated that the concept of "hanging upon nothing" is entirely consistent with flat Earth cosmology. 1 Enoch describes "an empty place" above and below the earth. This is clearly consistent with Job's "empty place". Enoch also mentions the foundations of the Earth by the way. He apparently saw them first hand!
quote:
Isiaha clearly stated that it was circular. The Hebrew word he used was 'chugh' In hebrew it can also mean sphere...
You have neither demonstrated that it can mean "sphere" nor, more importantly, provided any evidence that it does mean "sphere". As I have said ad nauseum, circularity is entirely consistent with the picture of the flat earth that is presented both in the canonical Bible and, more clearly, in 1 Enoch.
quote:
which is why some translators chose 'globe' and 'round' in this verse...thats in the Douay Version and Moffatt bible.
Since these translations were made long after the knowledge of the Earth's sphericity was commonplace amongst educated folk, I can only say... well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Just because the Douay-Rheims has "globe" does not mean that it is correct. Where is the evidence that chuwg, in this case, means "globe"? Oh, and round doesn't mean spherical. A disc is round. Moffatt won't help you out there.
You are relying on a couple of passing references for your case for a spherical Earth Bible. I have a far greater number of flat Earth texts, many of them far more explicit. I am afraid that it is you who is stretching the evidence.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 10:02 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 02-18-2009 4:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 32 of 473 (499190)
02-17-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peg
02-17-2009 3:16 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
quote:
GM is simply repeating what the 'flat earth society' are claiming...its nothing more then their interpretation.
Actually, I am in agreement with many modern Bible scholars and I am not basing my argument upon Flat Earth Society material. Apart from anything else, their flat Earth differs from the Bible's.
quote:
I've pointed out that the hebrew word for circle is the same for sphere
And you have failed to point out why we should suppose that the intent was "sphere" and not "circle".
quote:
i've shown the full context of the scriptures GM used in her initial post...the context itself was enough to disprove the claim that the writers were talking about a flat earth
You are getting mixed up. The quotes you mentioned dealt with the Earth's immovability, not it's flatness. Try to keep up. Also, I have already answered your claims of context and you have chosen to ignore my reply. Please either address that reply or stop repeating yourself.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 02-17-2009 3:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 47 of 473 (499297)
02-18-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
02-17-2009 7:45 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Buz my dear fellow, you are starting to sound desperate.
quote:
Well, it certainly doesn't imply the sort of foundations that you have been calling for, Granny.
I am not calling for anything. I am merely quoting your favourite book to you. It mentions foundations of the earth. In every instance the literal interpretation is that these foundations are actual, solid foundations, as here;
2 Samuel 22:16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
Plainly, these are physical foundations, much the same as were seen by Enoch.
quote:
It's implication is that those foundations are as we have been advocating, i.e. a planet foundational in orbit.
Foundational in orbit? That sentence doesn't even make sense. How could the breath of God lay bare an orbital path? You are not making any sense. Besides, as I have already said at least twice, "fixed" and "immobile" are bloody silly and misleading ways to describe a body moving through space at great speed. If the authors had access to such knowledge, they were smart enough to express it clearly. Why do you insist upon portraying them as morons?
quote:
2. How did the East, South, North and West become established? The Middle East is established. Why was the Middle East not the Middle West? Because something or someone established these directional corners of the earth.
No, the Middle East is called that because it lies East of the Europeans who decided to call it that. It is not so named in East Asia. It is only Eastern from a Western perspective. Compare this with;
Psalms 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
This verse implies that East and West are not relative, but are in fact a set distance apart, and a great distance at that. Again, this is entirely consistent with the flat Earth of 1 Enoch, with its four cardinal directions on the disc-like earth.
There is a lack of clarity in this area, so I am inclined to think that what is intended by "corners" is reference to the four cardinal directions. That still leaves the Hebrew cosmos with a flat Earth though.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 7:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 02-19-2009 6:02 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 473 (499299)
02-18-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
02-18-2009 4:19 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Don't take the piss. Are you actually interested in taking part in a debate? If so, you will need to do a lot better than mindlessly repeating the same refuted point and responding to reasoned arguments with a glib sentence or two.
There is no context into which you can place the word "immobile" that will make it mean "mobile", as you have attempted to do. If this is your idea of "context", I think the Bible is better off without it.
Doubtless, you can find a context into which you might forcibly crow-bar each of the verses I cite. The problem for you is that when these verses are viewed together, the most parsimonious answer by far is that the authors in question viewed the earth as flat, or at least wrote of it as such.
The simple explanation is that the Bible got something wrong. Why are you so afraid of that?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 02-18-2009 4:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 50 of 473 (499301)
02-18-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
02-17-2009 12:58 PM


Re: Timing
Hi Chi,
I completely take your point. The concept of a spherical Earth was well known to the Greeks at the time of the exile. That doesn't mean, however, that it was well known or widely believed outside of that culture. It would have been viewed by Hebrews of the day as being a heretical pagan idea.
Whilst the OT may have been taking shape in the 6th century BCE, much of its content would have been far older and dominated by an older world-view.
What is interesting is that the New Testament authors, educated men who understood Greek very well, must surely have been aware of the idea of a spherical Earth. They might not have believed it, but they must have known about it. It is certainly true that the majority of the verses I have been citing are Old Testament.
On balance, I find it hard to believe that all of the NT authors were ignorant of the idea. Some may even have believed it. If so however, they did not mention it and some of them even made comments that fly in the face of a spherical Earth.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2009 12:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 02-18-2009 8:41 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 58 of 473 (499345)
02-18-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
02-18-2009 10:48 AM


Re: Definition: Corner
Buz you are being increasingly ridiculous.
5. A remote, secluded, or secret place: the four corners of the earth; a beautiful little corner of Paris.
This definition simply does not fit. How many secluded little corners do you think one might find in Paris? The phrase use in the Bible is invariably "the four corners of the earth". This is clearly referring to four specific places. There would obviously be an almost limitless number of secluded spots on the earth if the phrase was being used in this context, not just four. It is clear that the four cardinal directions are being referenced here, the four extremities of a flat earth.
The economic definition of "corner" is irrelevant, since it is obviously not what is meant by the text and the idiom "around the corner" is making metaphorical use of an actual corner, that one might walk around.
Mutate and Survive
AbE: By the way Buz, "bibliophobic" means "afraid of books", all books that is, not just your favourite.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-18-2009 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 473 (499765)
02-20-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
02-19-2009 6:02 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Hello Peg,
Please forgive the delay in reply; I've had internet problems at my end. Some comments:
1) You ask why we should take the "foundations of the earth" verses as being literal. There are many reasons. They have been traditionally interpreted as being literal. They form part of an overall picture of a flat-earth-domed-sky cosmology, alongside over a score of other passages. They make sense of other Bible passages, especially Genesis. They are mentioned many times, in apparently literal contexts. Take another look at this;
Proverbs 8:27-29
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
A circle on the deep. Foundations of the earth. Even fountains of the deep, the same ones that Fludists are so insistent are literally true. This verse is extolling God's magnificent achievements. This would hardly be very impressive if those achievements were only metaphorical. They are clearly literal, just as the foundations seen by Enoch were literal. They are one and the same. The ancient Hebrews believed in foundations of the earth. Live with it.
2) If we are not to take any of these passages literally, including those that have been literally interpreted for centuries, why take any Bible passage literally? If Isaiah 48:13 is not to be taken literally, why should Genesis 1 be taken literally?
3) You talk about interpreting verses in context, but you have chosen to concentrate on a single verse for most of this thread. Basing your views on that single verse, to the exclusion of the rest of the many flat-earth and domed-sky quotes I have produced is hardly an example of proper context. If there were only a handful of these passages in the text, I would not give the idea any credence. There are not though, there are many such quotes.
4) You say that chwg can mean sphere. if this is so, perhaps you might indulge me by providing a clear and unambiguous example of chwg being used to describe a sphere other than the Earth. Should be easy right?
5) Even if one were to accept that chwg can mean sphere, you have provided no evidence that it does mean sphere, in this particular verse. You are simply assuming that it does because you know the Earth to be spherical and you have a preconceived notion that the Bible must be correct. Why should we assume that chwg in this case means sphere, when there is so much else in the Bible that suggests a flat earth and therefore an interpretation as circle?
6) There's no need to be snotty.
quote:
Take it from GM that the bible teach's a flat earth and be done with it. Anyone who doesnt agree is wrong anyway.
I don't know for sure what the authors thought. I can't go back in time and ask them. The point is neither can you, yet you seem to be certain of your ability to correctly interpret the text, as though you were some kind of oracle.
I don't have exclusive access to the truth. All I can do is study the text and read what it says. It says a lot of things that make sense only on a flat Earth. That is why I am forced to surmise that the authors believed the Earth was flat. I have produced many passages to back this up, along with other corroborating evidence. You have chosen to challenge very little of this.
7) It's "time flies", not time fly's". If I took that literally I would be thinking of time travelling insects!
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 02-19-2009 6:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 473 (499790)
02-20-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 11:02 AM


Four Corners, Four Winds
Hi there thingamabob and welcome to EvC Forum. If you enjoy being presented with difficult questions, you've come to the right place!
quote:
Gen. 1:9, 10 tells us that all the land mass was in one place and it was called earth.
If a man was standing on the sea shore and began walking following the coast line he would eventually end up where he started.
Would this man have any way of knowing he was not on a flat piece of ground, except for the rises he could see?
In my opinion, no. In fact many people today who are unfortunate enough to not have been educated to the contrary, assume that the Earth is flat. Children tend to assume that the Earth is flat until they are told otherwise.
I once saw a rather moving segment from a travel programme, where an African man, living on the equator, was confronted with an inflatable globe. Although he seemed to be far from unintelligent, he had clearly never before encountered a globe or the idea of a spherical Earth. He clearly recognised the outline of the African continent as he traced it with his finger, with an attitude of amazement. He wanted to know why we didn't fall off, a very reasonable question in the circumstances.
No-one had told him otherwise, so he, quite reasonably, assumed that the earth was flat. It's fair enough. It does look flat. Only at sea would the ancient peoples of the Middle East have been able to see the curvature of the Earth, by the way ships appeared or disappeared at the horizon, and the Hebrews were no great seafarers. The curvature can be measured, but it is far from obvious. The Greek philosopher Eratosthenes used a comparison of the lengths of shadows in different locations to measure the Earth's diameter, but he already knew that the was spherical. In short, the sphericity of the Earth is far from obvious and the ancient Hebrews can easily be forgiven for not noticing it.
quote:
If this same man was standing in the middle of the earth (land mass), there would be four points on the sea shore.
There would be the North, South, East and West points on the sea shore from where he was standing.
Would this not be the four corners of the earth (land mass)?
Good question. As far as I can make out, this is very much how the Bible authors viewed the world. One interesting observation is that the Bible, as well as referring to the "four corners of the earth" makes repeated reference to "the four winds". There is one at each "corner" (probably the four cardinal directions). There are several, but take a look at these as examples;
Jeremiah 49:36
I will bring against Elam the four winds from the four quarters of the heavens; I will scatter them to the four winds, and there will not be a nation where Elam's exiles do not go.
Ezekiel 37:9
Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.' "
Mark 13:27
And then they will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Apparently, these winds are kept in chambers, as can be seen here;
Job 37:9
The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds.
These chambers are mentioned in the apocryphal Book of Enoch, were they are described in detail.
1. I saw the treasuries of all the winds: I saw how He had furnished with them the whole creation and the firm foundations of the earth. 2. And I saw the corner-stone of the earth: I saw the four winds which bear [the earth and] the firmament of the heaven. 3. ⌈⌈And I saw how the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven⌉⌉, and have their station between heaven and earth: ⌈⌈these are the pillars of the heaven⌉⌉. 4. I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and all the stars to their setting. 5. I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw ⌈⌈the paths of the angels. I saw⌉⌉ at the end of the earth the firmament of the heaven above.
These are very clearly literal chambers that house the four winds. The mainstream canonical Bible (the Book of Enoch is canon in the Ethiopian church) contains nothing to contradict this view. Food for thought.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 11:02 AM thingamabob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2009 7:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 139 of 473 (499972)
02-21-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
02-20-2009 7:24 PM


Re: Flat Not Feasible
quote:
I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an intelligent mature adult person in ancient times. I believe I would look at the moon and the sun and assume that the stars and all bodies in the cosmos would be spherical.
Indeed. The sphericity of the heavenly bodies is obvious. The cycle of the moon is enough to demonstrate this. No-one is suggesting otherwise. As far as I can tell, the Bible authors believed the sun and moon to spherical. They probably thought of the stars as much the same, only smaller.
quote:
It would not be (abe:likely) for thin discs to be positioned exactly parallel to the face of the earth
I am not suggesting that anyone ever thought this way.
quote:
It would be more logical to think that they were spherical and that the earth would be shaped like they were.
This is where your argument falls down. There is no reason why the ancient Hebrews would have thought of the earth (note deliberate lack of capitalisation) as being in the same category of objects as the moon or planets. This is the piece of the puzzle that they lacked. They thought of the earth as being special, at the centre of things. They did not see it as merely one of a number of heavenly bodies . This view of the Earth was not held until after Copernicus and Galileo. Ancient peoples had no idea that the heavenly bodies were as massive as they actually are. The Bible has stars falling to earth. They had no conception of what stars really, were, as is evidenced by the consistent distinction between the sun and the stars, which are, in reality, the same thing. For them, there was no reason to connect the earth with any of the heavenly bodies.
Added by Edit; I have just found a lovely verse illustrating this point;
1 Corinthians 15:40-41
There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
According to the wiki page on the flat Earth, Chinese astronomers, not stupid men by any standards, continued to believe the Earth to be flat into the Seventeenth Century. Your assumption that you would have been able to idly deduce what eluded them for millennia is wholly unwarranted.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Added 1 Corinthians quote.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2009 7:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2009 8:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 141 of 473 (499980)
02-21-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peg
02-21-2009 1:11 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Are you not talking to me any more Peg? Do you have nothing to say regarding Message 109? Ah well...
Firstly, (and not just for Peg's attention) can we please stop talking about rabbits? This thread is not about rabbits. The original text wouldn't even have mentioned rabbits. There were no rabbits in the area. Anyone who wants to talk about bunnies should set up a bunny thread. I'll bring my recipe for coney casserole.
quote:
If i tried to tell you that the word 'immovable' means 'flat' you would laugh at me.
They mean completely different things yet an 'immovable earth' is being translated as 'a flat earth'
it doesnt make sense.
I'm not saying that "immovable" means "flat". The reason I have brought immovability, the domed sky, the four winds and other elements into this discussion, is to build a wider view of the Hebrew cosmos. It is no use trying to understand the flat Earth without putting it into context. I thought you wanted more context?
quote:
Again, it comes down to the context. Can you read one sentence in a paragraph and know the context?
no, not likley.
Can you hold up one verse that may just possibly describe the Earth as a sphere and use it to trump all the others that contradict it? No, not really.
quote:
just because the writer wrote that the sun stood still, does not have to mean that it literally stood still.
it stood still by their perspective only...and the inpsired writer saw the same event and so recorded it as the way he saw it.
So the author believed the sun to be moving and the Earth to be still. That concurs with what I've been saying. The authors thought the Earth was motionless, just as they thought it was flat. God, one must assume, knows better.
quote:
it stood still by their perspective only...and the inpsired writer saw the same event and so recorded it as the way he saw it.
Indeed, he wrote it as he saw it. If he had understood the real cosmos, he would have mentioned the far more impressive miracle of God stopping the entire universe just to affect a battle on Earth. Now that really would be impressive.
quote:
About the book of Enoch...its not a bible book and its writings are quite different to what is found in the bible.
On the contrary, it is extremely similar. Four ends of the Earth? Check! Cornerstone of the Earth? Check! Solid firmament? Check! Waters above and below this firmament? Check! Windows and gates in the firmament? Check! Distinction between sun and stars? Check! Anthropomorphic stars? Check!
In fact the similarities between 1 Enoch and both the Old and New Testaments go way beyond cosmology, but that is another discussion.
With all these points of agreement, as well as the high regard in which the author of Jude held the book, there is compelling reason to suppose that the cosmos of Enoch was on general agreement with the wider view of Hebrew cosmology. If not, perhaps you might like to point out the differences.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 1:11 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 144 of 473 (499997)
02-21-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Buzsaw
02-21-2009 8:05 PM


Re: Flat Not Feasible
quote:
That the earth would be regarded as flat compared to all other spherical bodies would be illogical. That the positioning of the constellations and observational cosmological changes occurred should imply that the earth was global.
By this logic, the idea of a flat earth could never have existed at all, which it clearly did. The Egyptians and Babylonians both believed in a flat earth. The evidence of a spherical Earth was always there; the earth was spherical after all. It's just that the evidence was subtle and took a while to get noticed. It was far from as obvious as you are implying.
quote:
Imo, if they regarded the other bodies as global, they should have deduced that the earth was global.
You're not getting it. They didn't regard the other bodies as being earth-like. They had no concept of "the Earth". They only knew about the earth, i.e. the land at their feet. It looked (more or less) flat, so they assumed it was flat.
They regarded the earth as one category of object, the planets, the moon, the sun and the stars as another category of object. There would have seemed to have been no reason to connect the two.
quote:
Perhaps the unlearned and more superstitious would have bought into the flat earth, but not so likely the Biblical writers, especially those like Isaiah who stated that it was circular.
Learned they may have been, but only by the standards of a comparatively ignorant age. As for superstitious? Please! The authors of the Bible were clearly as superstitious as they come.
Also, for the nth time, "circular" does not mean "spherical". Even if chwg can mean "spherical", you have not provided any evidence that this is the intended meaning.
quote:
I think it not likely that they would regard the earth as the only flat disk or dome in the cosmos, especially since scripture had it hanging on nothing as were the other bodies.
There is no reason why a flat disc couldn't "hang upon nothing", especially since that is exactly what is portrayed in 1 Enoch.
quote:
I cannot conceive of them thinking the stars were not distant, thus large, some more distant and of various sizes relative to brightness. Your citation of the Ist Corinthians 15 text seems to bear this out.
No it doesn't. The stars vary in "glory", by which I presume they mean "brightness". There is nothing in the verse about distance. The verse quite clearly demonstrates that they thought of the earth and the heavenly bodies as being quite different categories of object.
quote:
Certainly you don't think they regarded them all as being he same distant from earth.
Naturally not, and I never said that they did.
quote:
That some were very dim compared to others would also tell them something. They, like most moderns were likely confused as to what that meant.
Yes, they thought that it meant that some were more glorious than others, i.e. brighter.
quote:
We have what would have been regarded as stars by someone on earth if they didn't know that the time would come when there would be scores of man made starlike satellites in our atmosphere. Likely these are what falls when the heavens are "shaken" at Jesus's advent. Also, missiles and other modern phenomena would have been regarded as star objects by the prophets for lack of what else to call them.
Once again, literalism goes right out of the window whenever it is convenient. Jesus, whoever he might have been, was presumably intelligent enough to say what he meant. I have no idea why you are so keen on constantly twisting his words.
quote:
I believe the doctrines and ideologies of cultures not inspired by Jehovah the true god, such as were the Chinese, were more prone to getting things wrong than the Biblical prophets. That is not to say that Biblical writers and readers fully understood all that written or read. Far from it, but that they would be more likely to get it right in their record.
How incredibly patronising towards the Chinese. If the Bible authors were so enlightened, why did they explicitly refer to the Earth as motionless? Why the nonsense about the four winds and their chambers? The text is just not especially inspired when it comes to the cosmos.
Face facts, the Bible paints a picture of the cosmos that no modern astronomer would recognise.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2009 8:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 163 of 473 (500037)
02-22-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Black
02-22-2009 1:27 AM


Hello Black and welcome to EvC.
quote:
Prove that "this kind of cosmology was, at the very least, a profound influence on the Bible".
No. Can't be done. You can't prove what the authors thought one way or another. All that either of us can do is producing a convincing argument one way or another. I have presented the argument for a flat Earth Bible. I find it convincing. You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish.
quote:
Flat-Earth? {List of verses}
I choose the NASB version of the verses you listed, above, and I noticed a different context for them and it does not imply any specific dimension/s for Earth.
No, and I never said that they did. Except for the last one, they address the earth's immobility. As I have explained already, I am trying to build up a big picture here. To understand the flat earth of the Hebrews it is necessary to understand other aspects of their cosmology, such as the immobile Earth and geocentricity.
Further, some aspects of Bible cosmology are themselves evidence for a flat earth Bible. The domed firmament, for example, makes absolutely no sense when discussing a sphere, but it makes perfect sense on a flat disc. The four winds make no sense on a sphere, but are internally logical when considered on a flat Earth.
quote:
Did the kingdoms of the earth, at that time, cover the whole spherical world as we know it?
Yes. There were kingdoms in the Americas at the time. This passage cannot be literally true except on a flat Earth.
quote:
The below verses are better interpreted as all the earth "known" at that time.
How do you know that they are "better" when interpreted that way? They might have been intended to describe the literal whole Earth. Just because they seem less erroneous when interpreted that way does not mean that the interpretation is any closer to the original intent.
You are making the mistake of trying to shoehorn the text into a modern world-view, a view that is entirely anachronistic.
quote:
Job 38:13-14
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?
It is changed like clay {under} the seal; And they stand forth like a garment.
Actually this is useless information if one is trying to hypothesis that some of the authors in the Bible implied that the earth is flat.
No, it is totally relevant. First, it describes the "ends of the earth" ("skirts" in the KJV). A sphere has no ends that God might grasp. A flat Earth fits much better with this text, giving the impression of God shaking the Earth like a blanket.
The clay seal reference is also quite telling. It describes the earth as being changed in a way that is like the stamping of clay under a seal. That is a reference to the Bronze Age practice of stamping clay under seals, as is shown in this picture;
There is no way that this makes sense on a spherical Earth. The author would have been quite capable of describing God as "rolling up" the Earth or some such. The obvious implication is that the earth is basically flat, like a clay tablet, with mountains and other landscape features being equivalent to the letters.
It is also worth noting that these two verses come together, providing a stronger case that the author(s) thought the earth flat.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Black, posted 02-22-2009 1:27 AM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Buzsaw, posted 02-22-2009 5:37 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 178 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 4:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024