The Bible's Flat Earth

For the record, I do not have any knowledge of Hebrew. All I can do is use the lexicon on Biblos.com, which simply has tebel as "the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. Land, as Babylonia, Palestine -- habitable part, world.". It makes no mention of timmot, simply using mowtHaving done some reading up though, I must concede that you may have a point. Tebel is associated with a poetic usage. However;-Most of the references I can find simply translate tebel as "the inhabited earth", which does not substantially change the meaning of 1 Chr 16:30.-The use of tebel to follow the previous use of eretz may simply be a poetic convention. It may not be changing the meaning. The two words are used together in this way (eretz followed by tebel) several times in the OT. Look at this use in Jeremiah 51:15; -The passage is still in error, even if we are talking about the inhabited earth. The Earth will not remain habitable for ever. Its habitability will indeed, one day, be shaken, notably when it is swallowed by the sun. This is no defence of inerrancy. Interestingly, the Genesis flood account uses eretz. -There are still plenty of other verses that support the wider theme of this thread, including ones which use eretz.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

Granny Magda claimed that the historic view of "biblical inerrancy" was different (less nuanced) from that expressed by the Chicago Statement, and provided this quote from Augustine as support: But this quote cannot be read in isolation of the rest of Augustine's writings. Augustine elsewhere said this: Together, these statements sound very similar to the approach of the ICBI in their Chicago Statement. It appears to me that Augustine and the Chicago Statement have similar perspectives.

Yes, it's exactly the same.The Bible is literally true, until some pest comes along and proves that it's not. That is when we must find a new interpretation that proves it is true after all.The possibility that the old interpretation was the one intended, even though it was wrong seems not to occur to either Augustine or the Chicago inerrantists.Mutate and Survive

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?

[qs]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.;/qsThat's precisely what I would assume. Humpty-Dumpty to the contrary, I know, but words really do have meanings, Peg. And the meanings of the English word "immovable" all center around "not moving." And your verse from Psalms reinforces what granny has been saying for a couple of weeks now: the guys that wrote all that down believed that the earth stood still - "fixed" - in the middle of everything.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm afraid I'm with Coragyps on that one, I would assume that you meant what you said. You have chosen an extremely odd way to phrase that statement, indeed, you have deliberately made it as misleading as possible.Eccl 1:4 is pretty clear. The earth (eretz by the way) is being described as permanent. That is quite absurd for an astrology-savvy author, but a reasonable mistake for a bronze age spiritualist.I have no idea why you mention Psalm 119. Look at the KJV translation; It clearly describes the earth as abiding, yet it seems to be using the present tense. That's true. The Earth does abide, at least, so far, so good! The psalm does not seem to be making a prediction about the earth's future status. It is certainly not making any reference of any kind to that earth's stability (in the sense of not being physically shaken). Even I would not push for that one to be considered as an error! If it said that the earth will always abide, that might be different, but it doesn't.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

quote:

---

The Bible is literally true, until some pest comes along and proves that it's not. That is when we must find a new interpretation that proves it is true after all.

​

The possibility that the old interpretation was the one intended, even though it was wrong seems not to occur to either Augustine or the Chicago inerrantists.

---

I can imagine a non-scientist saying, "Light is actually a wave, until some pest comes along and shows that it is a particle. That is when we must find a new interpretation that explains how it can be both at the same time."Be it science or theology, this is how academic disciplines are done. Early ideas are often too simplistic, and become more sophisticated and more nuanced with further study. (And yes, sometimes these layers of sophistication become too much of an overbearing patchwork and the idea must be abandoned, e.g. geocentrism.)

You've written some good posts over the past few days, but this strikes me as breathtakingly asinine.

quote:

---

I can imagine a non-scientist saying, "Light is actually a wave, until some pest comes along and shows that it is a particle. That is when we must find a new interpretation that explains how it can be both at the same time."

---

What?! Science studies a thing called "REALITY". Reality has a funny habit of being in agreement with itself. Now this may come as a shock to you, but the Bible is not reality. It is (and I can't believe that you need this pointing out to you) a book. That's all it is. Just a book, written by men (and to steal Bill Maher's gag, by "men" I mean people with penises).Reality is reality. It is not in disagreement with reality.
A book is not reality. It may be in disagreement with reality. Got it?

quote:

---

Be it science or theology, this is how academic disciplines are done.

---

Except in science, all knowledge is held tentatively. In religion (which is not an academic discipline) this is not the case. Theologians may claim that their understanding of God is tentative, but the last time I went to a funeral, the officiating cleric was quite happy to claim "sure and certain hope of the resurrection".Science does not claim inerrancy, of any kind. Religion does.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

quote:

---

What?! Science studies a thing called "REALITY". Reality has a funny habit of being in agreement with itself. Now this may come as a shock to you, but the Bible is not reality. It is (and I can't believe that you need this pointing out to you) a book. That's all it is. Just a book, written by men (and to steal Bill Maher's gag, by "men" I mean people with penises).

​

Reality is reality. It is not in disagreement with reality.
A book is not reality. It may be in disagreement with reality. Got it?

---

But books (including the Bible) are "real" in some sense, aren't they? Science is the study of nature. Theology is the study of Scripture. Whether or not nature or Scripture are "reality" is a philosophical question. (As you are probably aware, there is a view that science is only concerned with developing models, and that these models may have nothing to do with reality.)You also seem to be restricting "reality" to merely "physical reality." Perhaps you are a philosophical naturalist, and deny that there is such a thing as "spiritual reality"? Not all of us share this worldview.

quote:

---

Except in science, all knowledge is held tentatively. In religion (which is not an academic discipline) this is not the case. Theologians may claim that their understanding of God is tentative, but the last time I went to a funeral, the officiating cleric was quite happy to claim "sure and certain hope of the resurrection".

​

Science does not claim inerrancy, of any kind. Religion does.

---

You seem to take the view of Dawkins, who thinks that theology is not an academic discipline and does not deserve to be taught in universities. But the academic study of theology in universities long predates the study of science. Augustine called theology "the Queen of the sciences" (Note that he was using the term "science" quite broadly, as synonymous with "knowledge").Any responsible theologian will hold his biblical interpretations somewhat tentatively, just as the responsible scientist will hold his interpretations of nature somewhat tentatively.

Regardless of the interpretation, there was an original intent in the authors mind when a given passage was written down. That is beyond dispute. If that intent is to make a statement which is in disagreement with reality, then the author and the book are wrong. End of story. The thing to do is admit that the author was wrong. Unlike the scientific consensus of the day, the content of the Bible does not change and neither does the intent of the long dead author. It cannot be right one day and then wrong the next, because it is unchanging, literally hidebound in fact.The scientific consensus may change, but the reality upon which it is based is not in disagreement with reality.Theology is an ever changing description of an unchanging Bible, yet whatever the changes that take place, the claim is always that the Bible is basically correct. That is clearly illogical.

quote:

---

Augustine called theology "the Queen of the sciences".

---

I would call theology the inbred halfwit cousin of academia, the one the rest of the family are kind of embarrassed by. I wouldn't say that it is not a legitimate field of study, but it is no science (not in the modern sense, certainly). It is a subdivision of literary analysis, nothing more.This whole conversation is interesting, but we have diverged too far from the original topic. If you would like to pick up these themes again, I think you should propose a thread.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

quote:

---

This whole conversation is interesting, but we have diverged too far from the original topic. If you would like to pick up these themes again, I think you should propose a thread.

---

You're right--we should let the thread get back to the original topic.

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.

I don't understand what you're getting at. "Endures", "abides", it makes no difference. The passage is in the present tense. It makes no prediction about the future status of the Earth. It has nothing to do with the flat Earth or Hebrew cosmology. It's completely irrelevant. 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

ok GM... i'll lay offbut you really should get a more modern bible... i like reading the KJV because the english back then is interesting, but our language has changed so much and many of the words are no longer usedbesides, as i mentioned, scholars have a much better understanding of Hebrew then they did in the 1500'sthey are better able to translate them today.