The Bible's Flat Earth

The 4 horsemen are not literal...but the bible writer used the symbolic imagery of 4 horsemen to describe literal events.He probably did not know what they represented, but if we look at the earth today, we can see that there is a literal fullfilment to the symbolisms of the 4 horsemen.literally we do see war, famine, disease and deathbut the descriptions of the 4 horsemen who ride forth in the earth, are symbolic of these things. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

we were discussing the fact that the bible contains symbolisms and metaphors and analogieswe dont take them literally as if 4 ghouls on horseback are going to ride throughout the earth declaring war and spreading disease...they are symbolicthis is why not everything in the bible is to be taken literally as you seem to be doing

dont give up so quickly.the cited scriptures do not 'prove' that the writers believed the earth was flatGM says that part of the evidence is that "it was the prevailing view of the time" (msg 180)
This is not evidence for what Hebrews believed. Actually the hebrew writings show a completely different mind set in many instances and on many subjects...completely contradictory to prevailing views of the time which proves that the Hebrews were not influenced by the beliefs of the nations around them.

quote:

---

Psalms 136:6 'to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;

​

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth

​

Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

​

Job
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;

---

We are being told that these scriptures prove beyond any doubt that the writers believed in a flat earth.look closely at the last scripture... if we are to take this literally then we must also agree that the Hebrews also believed that all humans were in fact grasshoppers and the sky was a curtain.Seriously! ...its merely the way the writers chose to describe the natural world, in a way that could be visualized by their readers. The writers never claimed to be scientists, they were'nt teaching people about the sun and the earth...they had a completely different purpose for writing and so did not need to be scientifically specific.It in no way proves that they believed the earth was flat.GM also states that when the bible says 'All the World' it means it literally. Which world? The bible talks about the 'world of mankind' and this is surely figurative...once again proving that it is not to be taken out of context... If someone cannot discern the context, then its best not to speculate on what is being spoken of dont you think? The world of mankind and the World one in the same? Other versus say 'the restless sea of humanity' and 'people are waves of the sea'The book of Enoch has been mentioned repeatedly as evidence but this book is not even part of the bible... yet its contents are somehow being used to prove what bible writers believed...ok now im confused!Over and out.

it could be a topic for a new thread and i'd most definitely be up for that. I think i could prove otherwise. Great. But tell me why the 'dome' cannot be taken in the same way...or the 'Four Corners' ... why would you choose to read these literally and not attribute them to being nothing more then a simile or an expression of speech.After all, people today still say 'the sun rises/sets' even though they know the sun does not move. We know this and yet still call it the way we see it...why could the writers not call it the way they see it? to the contrary, the bible does not say much about the cosmos & earth at all. The only detailed account we have about the earth is in Gen Chp 1 & 2 and a few pages in the book of Job. the Genesis account is very general about the creation of the planet. thats not true. As i said above, today we use the same imagery when talking about sunrise and sunset. We still say that the sun will rise at 6.20am and set at some time in the evening. Why do we use such language if we know that the sun does not set or rise.Its nothing more then a figure of speech and we know that...the hebrews used the same figures of speech. the point was that the bible calls both 'earth' and 'people' the world. It uses the same term for both. Showing once again that the language of the bible is often metaphorical or symbolic. Jude may simply have quoted a common source such as an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation. Its never been proved that he actually quoted from that book, not that it makes any difference to me if he did because there are other teachings in there that prove that it is not an inspired book.
The ethiopian church's also have the ark of the covenant in 3 or 4 sacred locations under guard... im not sure how reliable they are lol. thats a fine point.Although its based on the assumption that the jews did think in terms of flat earth though.

thats a fair point also and deserves to be considered. It could be off topic here... if it is, Admin is welcome to move my reply to a new threadMetaphors highlight a similarity between two very different things. ie You are the light of the world. (Matt. 5:14) or The tongue is a fire. (Jas. 3:6) Similes do the same but not so directly as in 'you are 'like' this or that'.That being said, the story of the flood in no way resembles a metaphor or a simile. Its a story about an event. Its characters are real people who lived and other writers make reference to and confirm the Genesis account. The family line of Noah is recorded and included in the bibles genealogical records.its very unlikely that if Noah and the Flood was merely an illustration to impart some sort of lesson for life, the characters would be spoken of as real people and their family lines recorded. Those details would not need to be mentioned because they would be irrelevant.Also why mention the instructions about the way the ark was to be built? Why would the writer mention things like the width and depth and height of the vessel, why would details about the windows and tar be included? It would not be important to do so.Its the same with Adam and Eve, they are also mentioned by other writers as historical persons. They are included in the geological records.
At Matt. 19:4,5: [Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read that he who created them [Adam and Eve] from the beginning made them male and female'The bible also has stories that were for teaching purposes and in these stories, names are usually left out as in the 'Good Samaritan' story. The man was never given a name. Unlike Noah & Adam his birth and family details are not mentioned in the story. This is why we know it to be a story for teaching purposes and not a real event.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Job 38:31'Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki′mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke′sil constellation? 32Can you bring forth the Maz′zaroth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth?'The Ash constellation. Heb., ‛Ash. Thought by some to be the constellation Ursa Major (Great Bear).The Kesil constellation. Heb., Kesil′. Thought by some to be the constellation Orion.And the Kimah constellation. Heb., weKhimah′. Thought by some to be the Pleiades stars in the Taurus constellation.The One making the Pleiades and Hesperus and Arcturus and the storerooms of the South, LXX; Vg, who makes Arcturus and Orion and the Hyades and the interior rooms of the South. The interior rooms of the South are understood to be the constellations below the equator, in the southern hemisphere.Amos 5: 8'The Maker of the Ki′mah constellation and the Ke′sil constellation, and the One turning deep shadow into the morning itself...;Isaiah 13:10'For the very stars of the heavens and their constellations of Ke′sil...'the hebrew OT seems to imply that they did know something about the galaxy

Wind is something that he would not have seen though...no one can see wind, so in this verse wind is obviously representative of something else.
It would make no sense that he saw 4 literal corners, but no literal wind and yet say that the saw both...therefore neither of them can be literal. Both must be symbolic or metaphorical. In this verse it is asked if Job could 'beat out' [tarqi′a‛] the skies hard like a molten mirror?
When you look at the Hebrew words used, you see that its not a literal beating out of some solid celestial vault becasue the word 'skies' here comes from a word (sha`chaq) also rendered 'film of dust' or 'clouds' (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror which gives off a bright reflection. well the quote in Jude says that 'Enoch prophecied concerning all the ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way'Enoch was a real person, but the Apocrypral book of Enoch was not written by him. It was written in 2-1BCE. This means that the knowlege of Enochs prophecies was most likely handed down thru oral tradition as i said, otherwise any made up story coming on the scene would have been laughed out of town. The jews are proud and stubborn race, they are today and were back then...there is no way they would have adopted new teachings. The only answer is that they knew of enochs prophecies via word of mouth tradition. This means that Jude may not have quoted from the book at all but rather relayed information that his audience were already familiar with. From Wiki 'the Astronomical book describes a Solar calendar that was later described also in the Book of Jubilees and that was used by the Dead Sea sect. The use of this calendar made impossible to celebrate the feasts in the same days of the Temple of Jerusalem.'This means that the writer of Enoch was not part of the general jewish religious system...he was a follower (perhaps a teacher) of the Dead Sea Sect. Attempting to attribute the Enoch book to jewish scripture is like trying to tie the mormons and the catholic church together as one... it cannot be done. They are uniquely different.from this site ABC.net.au: Page Not Found

quote:

---

Scholars refer to three kinds of writings represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). A little under 1/3 is made up of biblical texts, containing all the books of the Hebrew Bible in whole or in part, except for Esther. About 1/4 are writings (known and unknown) which were part of the Jewish literary heritage that remained outside the Bible, such as apocryphal books like the Testament of Levi. A third are writings which pertain to the specific beliefs, practices, and membership requirements of a Jewish sect, headquartered at Qumran. An eighth of the fragments are unidentified. Many documents are found in multiple copies, with Isaiah and Psalms appearing most frequently.

​

What time period do they cover?
None of the Scrolls are dated. But scholars date them using the methods of (1) internal historical references (which are rare) (2) paleography (the science of identifying script types) and (3) carbon 14. They range from the middle of the second century BCE to around 70 CE. According to carbon 14 dating, for example, The Thanksgiving Psalms are dated between 21 BCE to 61 CE.

​

What Did the Sect Believe?
The Dead Sea Sect believed that it was the last remnant faithful to the covenant between God and Israel, and that their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, gave "the last interpretation of the law" on all aspects of life. The group believed that only its own members were among God's elect and were united already on earth with the angels of heaven.

---

very interesting reading there. And so my conclusion to your question is that because the book of Enoch was written by a break away of the Jewish religion, its flat earth teachings cannot be connected in anyway with the bible.They may have been influenced by greek philosophy. They may also have carried over some of the oral teachings of the jewish system and so the information about the historical person 'Enoch' could very well have been common knowlege among the jews and if so explains why Jude could rightly use it in his writing. Keeping in mind that the book of Enoch was written centuries after the rest of the bible, Jude may not have been copying from the Dead Sea Sect at all...they were likely copying from the jewish religion.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

it does have similarities which isnt surprising seeing they were an offshoot of the jewish faith. Such as the ressurection from the dead, the destruction of sheol and hell, the righteous one taking possession of the earth for eternal life on it, the Messiah is spoken of...the kings of the earth are to be destroyed by God and his own kingdom is to rule earthBut there are many things that are contrary to the bibleIt teaches that Noah was a son of an angel in the 'fragment of book of Noah'
It names the angels Raphael and Phanuel who are not mentioned in any bible account.
They were of the conviction that the whole course of the world, the history of nations, and of every single individual, was in every respect predetermined by God...this is not a biblical concept at allThe number of the archangels is said to be 7 whereas the bible says there is only 1 archangel.Sin was said to be the result of the he fallen angels whereas the bible clearly states that Adam & Eve were the cause of sin.so its certainly contrary to the bible on some pretty major teachings.

i'll be sure to send a letter to the australian govt and tell them that the southern cross is non existent and they can stop using it on their flag now LOL

Here Here!I hope this very succinct point does not fall on deaf ears

depends how you read the word 'immovable'it could carry various meanings such as something solidly stuck as you are reading itor as the online dictionary states2. Impossible to alter: immovable plans.
3. Unyielding in principle, purpose, or adherence; steadfast.
4. Incapable of being moved emotionally.
5. Law Not liable to be removed; permanent: immovable property.

quote:

---

1Cor 15:58'Consequently, my beloved brothers, become steadfast, unmovable, always having plenty to do in the work of the Lord...'

---

Here Paul tells christians to become 'unmovable'... in this sense he meant for them to be solidly fixed in their faith...unmovable.there is more to the meaning of the word then the way you've chosen to interpret it. In a sense, i can say that you are 'immovable' in your position in this instanceunless you want to accept that the word 'immovable' has more then one meaning. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

im sure we picked up on that without you needing to mention it...that kind of spoils the joke

yet im sure you already believe the earth has been in the universe for billions of years...im sure you believe it could be here for billions more. If i said to you that "the earth has been an immovable part of the universe for a long long time", im sure you wouldnt assume i was trying to tell you that it was sitting motionless and idle or non rotating.You dont think its at all possible that the writer had this in mind when he said it is 'immovable'?much like these verses show...
__________________________________________
Eccl 1:4'... the earth is standing even to time indefinite.'
___________________________________________
Psalm 119:90'You have solidly fixed the earth, that it may keep standing'
____________________________________________Or would you read these versus as claims that the earth has legs?

except that those verses clearly show that they are not talking about the physical nature of the earth but rather its permanence. It says it will 'stand to times indefinite'The Hebrew language is rich in metaphors and the earth being 'immovable' is just another one.It signifies the permanence of the earth just as the 'head of the mountain' signifies the crest, the 'lip of the sea' signifies the seashore and the 'mouth of the cave' signifies the opening of the cave.

there is a good reason why the KJV has been revised several times...old english is one reason...we've stopped using itand 2ndly, understanding of ancient Hebrew has come a long way since the KJV was made ... they have found many more manuscripts since that time, which have added to the understanding of certain words and how they should be translated.I would suggest you use a modern english bible as these take all current knowledge into consideration.That same verse in the NIV (New International Version) bible says '...you established the earth and it endures.'i'm sure you'd agree with that 'abide' and 'endure' are very different.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.