Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 362 of 473 (519072)
08-11-2009 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
02-17-2009 8:01 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
forgive me, this is an old message thread, but if nobody's picked up on this particular piece of duplicity, I thought I'd mention it, at least for the giggles.
quote:
Buzsaw said:
As has been cited, the Hebrew has a word for flat but not for sphere. Circle, meaning circle or sphere is the term used relative to the earth.
so...which is it? no word for sphere, or a word for sphere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 8:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 404 of 473 (546087)
02-08-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by doctrbill
02-01-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.
That is how I do it, and that is how I understand that it is to be done today but I am unclear on exactly what the thinking may have been in years past. I am quite sure, for example, that translators of the King James Version (1611) had a different system from those who revised it in 1769. In 1611, the opening line of Genesis reads:
quote:
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. Gen 1:1
In 1769 it was given to read:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1
In both the 1611 and 1769 editions, the word earth is capitalized at verses 10 and 11 but in verse 12 it is not.
I'm not sure, but this line of reasoning makes sense:
in 1611 (well, before then too), Earth meant "the dry bits where we can walk and the places that hold the seas" - the Earth was distinct from Heaven, hence they capitalized it the same way some capitalize Him and everything He does when talking about God or Jesus.
But in 1769, they'd discovered that the Earth was a planet, hence had a name, hence it was called the Earth - and capitalized as such.
And so now, the word "earth" in Genesis could no longer be capitalized because it was not referring to planet Earth and never had been and must change from Earth to earth to reflect this - the people who translated and were responsible for the bible being very dilligent about not lying through their teeth to prove a point.
The biblical world was the waters above, the waters below, the heavens and the earth - and the earth was just "ground". The planet Earth was named Earth (and the word capitalized) because of the bible, not the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by doctrbill, posted 02-01-2010 11:45 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by doctrbill, posted 02-10-2010 10:35 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 406 of 473 (546467)
02-11-2010 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by doctrbill
02-10-2010 10:35 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
That's an interesting idea but doesn't seem to fit the case.
Fair enough, but it's just an idea - so let's take a look at what you're saying:
quote:
"God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: ... God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:" Genesis 1:9,10
Strangely enough, I don't see this as conflicting with my idea! In this quote, God is specifically naming the Seas and the Earth - ergo they should be capitalized (the word "seas" wouldn't otherwise be capitalized also).
I don't think there's a problem with lumping the seas and the earth as "part of the creation where man can exist" (I don't have a single word for it) because "the waters above" and "the waters below" seem to be predominantly god's domain and were apparently there before he created "earth" for us (beginning of Genesis 1 when god walked upon the face of the deep).
I think they're described as seperate entities (earth and water) because, well, they are!
I think that they're also very distinct from "the waters above" and "the waters below", those two being two seperate realms from where the earth AND the seas are, and of course heaven (and hell).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by doctrbill, posted 02-10-2010 10:35 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 11:00 AM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 408 of 473 (546521)
02-11-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by doctrbill
02-11-2010 11:00 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Are you the same person who argued that the "earth" of Genesis 1:1 is NOT planet earth?
yes?
"Earth" as the name of a planet is "Earth" - capitalized.
"earth" as "land" is just...land.
"Earth" as a domain created by god is a Naming - ergo needs capitalization, the same that "seas" normally wouldn't be capitalized, but when Named as a domain, needs it. You can see this when the angel sets one foot in the sea and one on the earth...neither are capitalized, right? But when God Names them, they are?
Do you disagree with my idea?
You "think"? How about you read, and limit your conclusions to the evidence of Scripture?
I think you're not reading carefully enough.
you don't?
quote:
Gen 1:6 ... Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters ...
Gen 1:7 ... God made the firmament, and divided the waters (1)...
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.(2)..
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven(2) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: ....
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth;and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: ...
(1) the waters were divided by the firmament - God created the firmament, but the waters were already there - no? I certainly see God creating the heaven and the earth, but there's no mention of him creating the waters too.
(2) here is an example of what I'm talking about - when God "Named" "Heaven", it is capitalized. When it is described later on, it is not.
this is still consistent with my idea and you have shown me nothing which is not.
I'm not a biblical scholar, but my idea appears to hold water, yes?
"the waters above" and "the waters below" seem to be predominantly god's domain and were apparently there before he created "earth"
"Apparently"?!
Where is this apparent?
It is NOT apparent in the text of the Holy Bible. You may have heard it said. You may have imagined it to be so. But you DID NOT read it from the Bible. The Bible clearly states that the separation of the water was a direct result of placing a firmament "in the midst of" the water.
Well, I see god creating the heaven and the earth and dividing the waters (the firmament became heaven) - but I don't explicitly see god creating the waters!
Can you show me where he does?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 11:00 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 12:12 PM greyseal has replied
 Message 412 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 2:06 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 410 of 473 (546532)
02-11-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
I like it. To me it does read as god naming the dry land Earth... but it still isn't referring to the whole planet.
Precisely! He's Naming a domain when it is capitalized - Earth, Sea, Heaven, etc - none of which refer to outer space or planet Earth as such, and only appears so to people who already have the notion and would like it to apply to validate their own world views.
I think I read something here before about some Jewish folklore with the whole face of the deep and waters thing being the null, or default, state of all exstence.... or something like that.
Many religions have a "formless" default state of creation, it is often identified with "water", probably because water doesn't shape itself, and it's not obvious that the sky isn't water (why does it rain if the sky isn't made of water?) and it's not obvious the Earth is a planet and not flat...
of course, to people who presuppose ancient knowledge far in advance of our own, despite all evidence to the contrary (I don't see Adam going to school, neither did he have a cellphone - this doesn't negate God knowing everything), presuppositions trump everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 1:40 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 414 of 473 (546562)
02-11-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by doctrbill
02-11-2010 2:06 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
I think you make a good argument, but it doesn't seem to "hold water."
aahhh you noticed the pun
but seriously...
the Coverdale Bible (1535), at Genesis 1:1 reads:
quote:
In ye begynnynge God created heauen & earth:
and at Genesis 1:10 reads:
quote:
And God called ye drye londe, Earth: and the gatheringe together of waters called he, ye See. And God sawe yt it was good.
This follows what I said - the first two talk about them as a place - i.e. heauen(sic) and earth, the second is when he is naming them - i.e. Earth and See(sic). The first example is use as a noun, the second as a proper noun.
I appologize if I wasn't being clear enough - it's not about "awareness" of the Earth as a planet or not as such, but the usage that *first* dictated capitalization, not the status. I hope that doesn't sound like a retro-fit because it's not.
My opinion (and it really is just opinion) is that "earth" as "dry land" was usage as a common noun, and Earth was usage as a proper noun, but it didn't mean the planet.
I think it possible and likely that the "domain" may have changed over time, and especially likely to have been changed after Galileo's ideas were no longer considered heretical.
When God orders the Earth (domain) to bring forth seed, earth (the land) does so because they wouldn't be much use growing in the sea - however you noted that the capitalization disappears in the 1769 edition; this would be after Galileo's ideas were considered potable, because (IMHO) they were sure it didn't mean Earth the planet, so to avoid confusion changed it.
Do we have records of why and how it changed? We know roughly when (to within 150 years or so) from your fine detective work - all I've got is my suspicions!
My suspicions seem to be leading somewhere - at least there's no talk of the Earth as a sphere, many times as a circle or plane and many times as having corners, as having the sky draped above it like a tent, and so on.
Naming the domain doesn't mean they knew it was a planet (they quite obviously didn't as otherwise Galileo would never have been in trouble!) and doesn't ignore the deep/waters above the sky/heaven and below the ground which the bible is quite clear are there.
It's the earth (dry land) that needs the lights of heaven, not Earth the domain - I don't see any problem there with them deciding to talk about the land as land, and I don't see it contradicting.
I'd also have great problems trying to reconcile new translations made in light of not only new knowledge, but new socio-policitical drives to appear, for example, more correct than older "inferior" versions.
It's one of the reason that so many people poo-poo the NIV as "the comic book bible" and flat out trash many others as hopeless misguided, and stick to the KJV as being the best - it was made with older manuscripts than the Catholics and came from scholarly language not the vulgar language of the unwashed masses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 2:06 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 3:09 PM greyseal has replied
 Message 417 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 4:40 PM greyseal has replied
 Message 419 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 4:54 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 416 of 473 (546572)
02-11-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 3:09 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Huh?
Growing up Catholic, we always used the KJV.
O RLY?
learn something new every day! I thought the official Catholic bible was the vulgate from...google tells me "Saint Jerome" and that the KJV was ordered by it's namesake, King James V who was protestant.
Catholics hate protestant version, protestants hate the catholic version, they both hate the comic book new international version, etc, etc.
Can't be a Real True Catholic(tm) then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 3:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 4:46 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 420 of 473 (546605)
02-12-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by doctrbill
02-11-2010 4:40 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
If all this is about the rules of English, then several somebodies must be disseminating bad translations!?!
Given that the classics did not feature such refinements as capitalization, punctuation, and spaces between words, the issue goes to: What, if anything intelligible, does the Bible say?
I think you've hit the problem on the head - the rules of "English".
In about two thousand years, "English" has changed more than three times from Old, to Middle to Modern English and the styles and rules have changed and been codified all along that time.
The only timeframe I can talk about is with Modern English, and it would have to cover times after which the syntax and grammar of English was set firm, and THEN we should be comparing usage in bibles printed/copied before about 1900 but after about 1500.
I freely admit I don't have the skill - nor more importantly the time - to make a thorough investigation. All I have is a pet hypothesis.
The reason I don't believe it's totally invalid is due to the claim by people even more ignorant than me that "Earth" meant the planet, and they believe this because they demand that the bible be the first and foremost bastion of truth and can't ever be wrong.
You've just displayed that I may have something - remarkable inconsistency in earlier versions, many of which didn't have spaces between words, punctuation, capital letters nor other niceties.
Given that, somebody has been changing the text (many somebodies) waaaaay after it was written, and now people are claiming that the new capitalization meant the original writers had knowledge that it is otherwise clear they didn't, I think it's one way to point out those people are dead wrong.
I still think that Earth as a proper noun only means a planet if you know that "The Earth" is a planet - and that use of "Heaven" and "See/Seas" as proper nouns tells us they were talking about something I'm calling a "domain" - if the writers knew (and the capitalization reflected this knowledge) that the Earth was a planet, then "seas" would never be a proper noun, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 4:40 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by doctrbill, posted 02-12-2010 11:07 AM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 421 of 473 (546606)
02-12-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by doctrbill
02-11-2010 4:54 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
You seem to be confused. The situation is "Earth" the dry land. Gen 1:10.
no, my opinion is "Earth" in Gen 1:10 is the "domain" as I'm calling it (I count Earth, Seas, Heaven, the Waters/the Deep and probably a few others).
So which is it, do you think? Is it "earth" when it's dry land and "Earth" when it is domain? Or is it the other way 'round?
Nope, right way round.
And, why would you assume that sailors at sea don't need the lights?
We're talking about ignorant bronze-age goat herders - why assume there are sailors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 4:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by doctrbill, posted 02-12-2010 12:17 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 424 of 473 (546761)
02-13-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by doctrbill
02-12-2010 12:17 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Hi doctrbill,
So, if I understand you correctly:
You're saying that "God called the dry [land] Earth" should rather read "God called the domain Earth"?
Is that what you are saying?
erm...yeah - I'm not saying the bible should remove "dry [land]" and change it to the word "domain" though, and I've heard on this site that the hebrew word for "dry [land]" can also mean the land that's under the seas and oceans.
And by extension asserting that "the earth" at verse 1 should be understood as "dry land." i.e. opposite of what the text itself indicates and suggests?
well that's a tough one - I have to either say I'm wrong (which indeed is most likely, or that my pet theory is flawed/incomplete) OR that "heaven" is part of the domain "Heaven" in the same way that "dry land" or "earth" is part of the domain Earth, and water and the seas are part of the domain "Sea" - and the writer isn't talking about domains. It's up to you whether I'm stretching it a bit though!
And the "earth" of verse one is lumped together with the "heaven," which fact iself suggests to me a regional conception, i.e. that of a Domain.
they're spoken of together, but is the writer now talking about the land and the sky? Or the domain? Is the translater thinking the writer meant the land and sky - and everything else of course - or the domains?
Personally, I would have capitalized them at first glance, but on second thought it makes sense not to as well.
quote:
Gen 1:26,27 KJV - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
I am wondering what you make of this? The "domain" of man, according to this verse, includes land, sea and air. By your reasoning then, should not all of these domains be capitalized? But they are not.
I think you may have me there! Some of them are clearly just the places, "fish of the sea", "fowl of the air" - but at least one of those I would have capitalized, and it's not one you bolded. I would have capitalized "replenish the earth"!
IF we assume the writer was talking only about things in the domain of "Earth" in that passage then it makes sense that none would be capitalized (because the context should be obvious, and the Domain of "Earth" has land, sea, air - some Seas are not in the Domain of Earth though, I think they're thought of as belonging to the Water/the Deep) ...except for the one I noted in the previous sentence. Would you think that would have meant the Domain? I would have - unless Man wasn't supposed to have dominion over the entire domain of "Earth"...just the dry land?
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by doctrbill, posted 02-12-2010 12:17 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by doctrbill, posted 02-13-2010 10:54 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 425 of 473 (546762)
02-13-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by doctrbill
02-12-2010 11:07 AM


Gods or gods (slightly OT)
To conclude: I would be careful of putting too much stock in whether or not a word is capitalized. There are other biblical words which present the same kind of tantalizing possibilites, especially the word "god." Here, the question has been three fold: 1) whether or not to capitalize it, 2) whether to make it singular, or plural, and 3) whether to make it masculine or feminine. In practice, all three questions have been answered in various ways by various scholars, even within the same translation, even from one edition to another.
Example: Gen 3:5
quote:
1611 - For God doeth know, that in the day ye eate thereof, then your eyes shalbee opened: and yee shall bee as Gods, knowing good and euill.
1769 - For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
In the Hebrew text from which this verse is drawn, there is no distinction between "God" and "gods." It is all the same word. The Greek text (LXX) indicates the first usage as singular and second as plural (and, of course, no capitalization). The Latin (Vulgate) doesn't include a second reference to deity.
What would be the significance of this; according to your hypothesis?
I think that's a difficult one, and again all I have is conjecture - would it make sense to a scribe, seeing a very holy word "Gods" being written to transcribe it as having a capital letter because it was "important"? The same way I see "the Serpent" capitalized? But that later, somebody different might see it as blasphemous, or seek to "correct" the English and replace it with "gods" either for a) nobody could EVER be like "God"-god or b) it shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun but a common noun (albeit a very powerful one)?
Thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by doctrbill, posted 02-12-2010 11:07 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by doctrbill, posted 02-13-2010 11:20 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 428 of 473 (546828)
02-14-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by doctrbill
02-13-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
I have to either say I'm wrong ... OR that "heaven" is part of the domain "Heaven" ...
It may interest you to know that where Gen 1:26 refers to "... the fowl of the air ..." - the word "air" is given for the Hebrew: shamayim; - the "Heaven" of verses, 1 and 8; both of which are capitalized in the 1611 edition.
It may also interest you to know that where Gen 7:23 refers to "... the fowl of the heaven ..." - the word "heaven" is given for the Hebrew: shamayim; - the "air" of Gen 1:26, and the "heaven" of Gen 1:1,8.
Pardon me if you were already aware of that.
Very interesting! Nope, i did not know that. So, all of the Capitalizations are due to scribes (you actually did already say that) and all the distinctions we see are also as a result of this.
So "yabbeshah" doesn't mean planet, so "Earth" can never mean planet, right? Do modern-day Jews have a word for "Planet Earth"? I mean they've cooked up a language older than Jesus to speak to prove some point, have they "modernized" it, or do they claim it's perfect as it was, and that "yabbeshah" now means Earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by doctrbill, posted 02-13-2010 10:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by doctrbill, posted 02-14-2010 1:16 PM greyseal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024