The Bible's Flat Earth

hi Peg,
Look back at post #10 by Meldinoor. Nobody is arguing with him. Even GM quoted part of it and agreed with it. And yet he obviously believes in God. No one is telling you whether or not to believe in God. The argument is about whether ancient peoples had a correct, current, modern understanding of cosmology. If you support this view then you must support the idea that they also had correct views of math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Lucky for you they don't discuss these subjects very often in the bible then. Can you not see the absurdity of this position? What about Jacob using rods to cause the cattle to gender 'spotted and ring straked'? Not a very useful bit of biological science is it?But to stay on topic, let's look at your use of the statement from the book of Job to support the idea that they had a correct view of the earth in space. Is it God talking in that verse? No it is Job talking in debate with his friends. So you think that because his statements are found within the bible that they become inerrant?? Is that how it works? So all the examples of murders, adulteries, thefts, etc are proper examples then of conduct for the rest of us? They are in the bible. But the words of Job happen to support your position with a little bit of luck. That is the beauty of things that are vague enough to be interpreted in different fashions isn't it? How 'bout that circle of the earth quote?
This seems to be the agreed upon interpretation of scholars: This is a good article covering this topic.
The Infidel Guy Showfrom the article:
Isa 40:22 "[It is] he that sitteth [which can also mean rests] 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." This verse has occasioned considerable debate, as fundamentalist apologists have seized upon it as a foothold for their attempts to read modern cosmology anachronistically back into the text. According to [Henry] Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome. (Stephen Meyers, "A Biblical Cosmology." Th.M. Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary. 1989, pp. 63-69) Similar opportunistic use is made of Job 22:14, Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit ( hwg ) of heaven. But it is vain. H wg is a primitive root to describe a circle:--compass, as per Strong’s Concordance. Notice that hwgis most definitely not a sphere. There are perfectly adequate Hebrew words for sphere or spheroid if that is what one wanted to mention. First, there is the word meaning ball, rwd duwr . Second, the word for pot, dwd , duwd , a pot for boiling,or, by resemblance of shape, a basket. Third, the word meaning round, tlglg gulgoleth, a skull (as round) or a head. Fourth, there is the Babylonia loan word llg galal, the verb to roll, based on the description of a type of water pot shaped like a human skull. And the Bible never once uses any of these fine words to describe the earth. Again, we find the natural denotation of the word in cognate cultures of the day. ICANT has made use of these words to suggest that the bible anticipated the BB theory. Nice. Except for the fact that God does this to make space for us to 'dwell in'. That dome thing again?Is it you and buz and icant that are taking things out of context? and placing them within a 21st century context.
Why not rather view God as, like capt. Picard, under the prime directive?

1. There is considerably more evidence of the veracity of the Biblical record than the religions of the nations under paganism relative to archeology, fulfilled prophecy, social issues, prosperity and historical data.2. As for the corner/circle texts, the circle text implies that the corner text was idiomatic.3. That there is corroborating evidence of the veracity of the Biblical record supports my point that God who inspired the scriptures knew that the planet was spherical.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1 Sam 2:8 .. for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.And the pillar text implies the circle text was idiomatic..And the earth like a giant bowling ball had three holes in it that accepted the three pillars (preventing them from splaying apart and requiring extra reinforcement and paying welders overtime wages) and made it extra stable..and this that horses could be made more comfortable..Hey Buz, I appreciate the sacrifice you made of an education to help out with your father's business. I for one would be willing to contribute some funds to enable you to attend college. Perhaps others will feel so inclined as well. Don't waste that life of yours tilting at windmills.

1. I have both Hebrew and Greek interlinear texts which I use regularly for reference, as well as unabridged Cruden's and Strong's Concordances. Though I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, I know some things about the ancient Hebrew and the Greek. I stated that there are around three times as many words in the English language than the Hebrew. Speaking of reading posts, did you bother to read or consider that post?2. Does Kanaph have multiple meanings? I answered that if you had been reading me and others objectively and thoughtfully.Of necessity, in translating the Hebrew, due to the limited vocabulary, many Hebrew words have multiple meanings which must be understood and translated relative to context. A good example of this are the English terms, sphere/spherical, ball, circle/circular and curve/curvature. (Note, relative to ball, that nothing is said to be ballical or ballular, so relative to the shape of the planet, ball doesn't fit the ticket for circle/circular or sphere/spherical. Thus circle was used by the prophet Isaiah to describe the curvature of the earth.Interestingly, my Hebrew/English interlinear's rendering of Isaiah 11:12 is wings of the earth. Though the interlinear renders the nearest English equivalent to the text. i.e. wings, the translators have, for the most part, selected to use the word corner for this text as well as other similar texts. Why? Imo, it is indicative that the terms wings and corner pertaining to this text are idiomatic terms depicting the far reaches of the planet. Perhaps the translators figured the corner word would be more readily understood by English speaking readers.Likely nobody here wants to argue that the Bible claims that the earth flies in the cosmos flapping four wings, all flapping in different directions any more than that they would argue that the wings of the White House or a school building are flapping appendages suitable to flying. Yes, good advice, Theodoric. After carefully reading, if you think you have a case, go for it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Without the benefit of current scientific understanding and knowledge regarding the shape of the Earth would you treat the term "corner" literally or idiomatically in this context?Did the authors of the bible have the understanding or knowledge that you have regarding the shape of the Earth?Is the flat earth conclusion a common sense conclusion based on the limited viewpoint of one who has never travelled "over the horizon" or seen satellite images of a spinning ball in space?

How to you equate with

Hi Shal.....bobbi. My, how gracious of you! Thanks, but my GI benefits finally kicked in a few years ago. I joined the Air Force back in March of 1954, missing out on the education bill by a month. They included us decades later. Mmm, having read and debated ideologies of educated folks here for the past six years, I'm understanding how providential it was that I missed the freebee higher education.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It was prophesied by the prophet Daniel that travel and knowledge would increase in the end time of the age. God revealed to the nations what they needed to know. There comes a time for understanding relative to end time prophecies and other scripture so as for the readers of the scriptures to know the signs of the times. Our knowledge relative to fulfilled prophecy and things pertaining to science etc, has significantly increased since the industrial revolution and particularly since the nation of Israel (messianic) was restored.Daniel 12:4:

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So did any of the authors of the bible actually know that the Earth was spherical or not?

How to you equate with What? You can't figure that out? Wings = idiomatic area terminology. corners = idiomatic area terminology. Savvy?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I believe Isaiah and many others figured it was spherical, though we can't verify that. Observation of the crescent phases of the moon etc may have enhanced their understanding to some degree that the bodies were spherical. Perhaps some near the seas watched the ships sinking into the horizon and observed the curvature. Likely they knew more than we give them credit for.As it is today, Perhaps it was the pagan ideologies which originated and promoted the notion of a flat earth.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

but should we put a literal interpretation to words that may simply be descriptive?if I told you that 'Time Fly's' would you assume i meant that literally?im sure you wouldnt. Why must it be assumed that every verse in the bible is to be interpreted literally?When Solomon wrote about a womans breasts as being like mountains, should we take that literally?or when it speaks of 'the waters are a garment covering the earth'or when it says that 'the sky is a tent'or the people are 'waves of the sea'so much is simply descriptive language, its unfair to take a few of these verses and say the bible is wrong because scientifically the sea is not a 'garment' and breasts are not 'mountains' and the sky is not a 'tent' and people are not a part of the ocean

get over what?the word circle has been translated from a hebrew word that can also mean sphere...this is significant. Just becuase the english translator chose to use the word 'circle' does not mean the writer intended for us think he mean 'flat'it just means the translator chose to use circle... and as the understanding of ancient hebrew has increased, so have modern translators been adaptable and more accurate in their translations.

LOL sorry but i gotta laughpages of debate and its all just words on a pageTake it from GM that the bible teach's a flat earth and be done with it. Anyone who doesnt agree is wrong anyway.[insert smiley face here]

Or maybe the circle text was idiomatic. Or maybe different authors held differing views about whether it was square or circular? Why give one reading more credence than the other?We know many people in that area believed the earth was flat. The authors of the Bible used language that implied at least some of them also thought it was flat. There is evidence that people that read these works thought that it meant the world was flat.Other than "But the Bible is true.", is there any other reason to think that the authors in question believed the earth was not flat?