|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible's Flat Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Isaiah referred to the earth as a 'circle' which is flat, like a dinner plate. If he thought it was round he should have said it was round, or a ball, or a sphere, or a pebble, or any of a million other things that would have described a 3-dimensional shape.
Here is a list of some of the christian theologians who taught that the earth was flat, based on scripture: Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severian of Gabala. "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall" ~ Severian, Bishop of Gabala
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Welcome to EvC Thanks!
It helps the debate and avoids misunderstanding if you provide the scripture you are referring to. You're right. It wasn't Isaiah 40:12 btw, it was 40:22.
Isaiah is written as poetry, which means creative writing, not scientific. I agree. But then, I consider the entire bible to be metaphorical. To me its a more a book of lessons than a science book, but I digress.Lets accept that it is poetry and lets read it again: 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. As you can see, when Isaiah is not speaking literally he uses the word "like." When he refers to the circle of the earth, he appears to have been speaking literally. When I stand on a lookout tower and look around, the ground around me makes a "circle"; creatively speaking. Guess what - Satan did something just like this with Matthew.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. One would only be able to see all the kingdoms of the world from one vantage point if the earth was flat. Which the authors of the bible clearly believed it was. Plus there's a verse in Daniel that reads... 4:10 I 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. The tree was in the center...how interesting...and visible from everywhere on the planet. Sounds like he thinks the earth is round....NOT. The word translated as "earth" is not referring to the planet. This looks like an opinion being presented as though it was fact. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
What evidence do you have that the writer knew he stood on a planet? Its called the bible, and it says "earth." Earth is a planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Actually, purpledawn included a link to a relevant discussion thread, immediately following the sentence that you quoted. It sure did and I checked it out before I posted. After reading through paragraphs of speculation I gave up. I'd rather see the evidence, or at least some reasoning, than go on a wild goose chase.
That's a bit simplistic. The word "earth" can be used to refer to the ground that we stand on. Before Copernicus, planets were assumed to be wandering stars and we were taken to be at the center of the universe. The modern concept of planet did not even exist. The Copernicus comment is a red herring.And yes, the word "earth" can be used to refer to the ground we stand on. For example, as Granny Magda mentioned, I can use "earth" to pot a plant. However, those arguments fail when you read the verse in context. Lets look at the verses before and after: 21 Do you not know? Does this sound like he's refering to a scoop of dirt? When it says "the rulers of this world" do you think he's referring to enough dirt to pot a plant, a few square miles, or even a nation? Of course not. These verses are about God, sitting on His throne in heaven, looking down on the earth.Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? 22 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. 23 He brings princes to naughtand reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. And besides, if they believed the earth was round, why did so many Christian theologians teach that it was flat? "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall" ~ Severian, Bishop of Gabala
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Hi Granny Magda,
I agree with you, but that still doesn't mean that the author is referring to a planet. He's clearly not, since he would have had no idea that he was standing on a planet. So do I. I think we're in agreement here. Essentially what I'm saying is that Isaiah thought the earth was a flat disc and he wrote those verses accordingly.
In my view, the authors of Isaiah and the other quotes that have been discussed on this thread thought that they were standing on the uppermost face of a flat disc...I'd be genuinely interested to hear some examples of who said what. I already provided a list on the last page but here it is again: Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severian of Gabala.
I googled it and found this interesting post... Of course its Dreyer's words - he's transliterating from Latin.Few of those familiar with Wikipedia will be surprised, then, to discover that the quote is in fact the words of Dreyer, not of Severian.... But the exciting part is that Dreyer clearly has read Severian, albeit in the Latin version To put it another way:Person A writes "bonjour." Person B translates that to mean "hello." Then this poster comes along and says that the "hello" was person B's 'own words' and how amusing it is that the "hello" would be attributed to person A. Please understand, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here, I'm more concerned that our criticisms of the Bible should be valid ones If correcting my mistakes is a pain in the ass then please please please be a pain in the ass all you want. I prefer to learn, not stubbornly cling to error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Yeah, I know that, but what did they say and where did they say it? Lists without references to original sources aren't worth much. Attributed quotes with proper citations on the other hand would be a valuable addition to this thread. I got their names from here: CA662: Church teaching a flat earthI don't see the fact that Christian theologians taught a flat earth is even questionable. Even Jonathan Wells mentions that Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes teaching a flat earth. Note the quote marks around "as if hidden by a wall". Dreyer is directly quoting that bit; it is a translation. The other part of the text is not a translation. It is a summary of Severian's opinions. If you look at the article you will see various sections in quotes (translations of Severian's own words) and other sections not in quotes (Dreyer's summations of Severian, using modern phrases like "This water will also come in handy", etc.). I agree with this. Looking at his the page in question here, it seems that the sections in quotes are direct translations and the sections outside of quotes are paraphrased.Is this not fairly standard practice when transliterating from one language to another? Do you think its possible to do a direct translation of every word (many of which do not exist in both languages)? Do you think that english and latin have the same grammar and syntax? I believe a certain amount of paraphrasing is necessary to make the translation meaningful to your readers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth Show evidence that the Hebrew word "erets" refers to the planet. You've already been shown by several that just because the English word "earth" is used, doesn't mean it is referring to the planet named Earth. Even when I confine myself to Christian only sites (I presume you will argue the validity of secular ones), in about two minutes I found 5 examples of sources that feel that eretz can refer to the planet earth. Either Hebrew word "erets" or "adamah" canrefer to a country, land, or earth. Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,600 BC and ended in Turkey. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. In you will all of the families of the eretz [earth] be blessed.http://familybible.org/israel/Index.htm Have you heard this song by Debbie Friedman: Hodo al Eretz (His Glory Is Upon the Earth) Here is the Hebrew Lexicon definition for erets. Its got numerous definitions but I will just show the first one: erets: earth - whole earth (as opposed to a part)'erets Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard And check out this christian apologetics page designed solely to refute claims that Christians taught a flat earth: the Hebrew term for earth, eretz, does not always refer to the earth as a globe per se. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Isawa/flatearth.htmSounds to me like these Christian apologetics are saying that eretz usually means the earth as a globe, but not always. unless you can show me that the author knew he was on a planet What does this even mean? Not only is this an absurd request, but virtually everyone knows they're on a planet. Children know they're on a planet. Most handicapped people I met know they're on a planet. And btw - even if he didn't know, isn't his work divinely inspired? Why would you ask how he knows he's on a planet but not ask how he knows that God is sitting on His throne? But anyway, now that we've established that eretz often refers to earth, lets look at that verse again. God is sitting on His throne up in the heavens and looking down on the circle of the eretz.Gee...maybe it refers to a few acres or something...and if you actually believe that then there's really no point in attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Purpledawn,
Usually when someone makes a claim like...
The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth. ...and they are shown something like...erets: ....they usually have the integrity to admit that they were wrong.earth - whole earth (as opposed to a part) 'erets Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard But not you. An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.But not you. You decided on a particular interpretation and are so steadfastly opposed to the idea that your interpretation could be wrong that you refuse to accept alternative definitions even when they are put right in front of you. Let me show you what disingenuous looks like...Either Hebrew word "erets" or "adamah" can It seems that the word 'earth' always means ground, never a planet, according to you...so long as that arbitrarily chosen definition supports the interpretation that you cling to because its your interpretation and its impossible that you could be wrong. And don't get me wrong, I might not be right either, but I'm not going to lie to myself and others to support my position.refer to a country, land, or earth. Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,600 BC and ended in Turkey. I agree with this statement. Neither of these words are referring to a planet. The English word earth in this usage refers to the ground, not planet or the name for the planet. And when Christian apologetics, whom are highly motivated to agree with your assertion, but have the integrity and honesty to admit the truth, how do you respond?Apologetics aren't always on the side of reality ...you respond by calling them INSANE! That's right purpledawn, its the world that is crazy, not you. (any by 'world' I mean the planet earth as a whole - just in case you thought it meant 'ground' or something)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Purpledawn,
I've clearly shown and agreed that eretz and earth have several meanings. Sadly, this has nothing to do with our conversation. Everyone and their dog accept that those two words have different meanings, nobody cares. These are your words in msg 442:The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth And I've clearly shown that one of the meanings of erets is the earth...the entire earth. Not just dirt, or ground, or land, but the entire planet. Instead of simply admitting the error and moving on, you go on this tedious path of rebuttals like that silly moving-the-goalposts-style equivocation about "eretz and earth have several meanings" - please tell me who on this forum was insisting that both 'earth' and 'eretz' have only one meaning so you and I can destroy their arguments together. You can respond to the erets/earth argument 100 more times if you like, but it really doesn't interest me anymore. As for the interpretation of the verse(s), I propose we simply agree to disagree. Incidentally, I apologize for being unduly harsh. I felt that as you scrutinized my arguments and encouraged me to support them to the highest standard (I felt like I was writing another essay or something, lol), I would return the favor and try to dissect your arguments as well.I hope we meet again on the literary battlefield. Feel free to hate me if you like, but I respect you as a worthy opponent. Catholic Scientist, How dare you! PD is a very nice, reasonable, and honest person. You're just being a dick. Yeah, probably.
Erets cannot be referring to a planet, as in a large sphere flying around in space. The concept was simply unavailable at the time. But wasn't it divinely inspired? Isn't the bible inerrant? My answer to both those questions is 'no.' My position is that Isaiah described the world as he thought it was, a flat disc. I've often heard that Isaiah said the earth was round before anyone else knew it was, so I'm pointing out that not only is that wrong, but that his claims are further proof that the bible is not inerrant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Granny Magda, thanks for the update. I'd read about Severian's absurdly literal interpretation of the bible and its interesting to see it in more detail.
Purpledawn,
I said several meanings, not different meanings. We're meaning the same thing - several different meanings.
That verse doesn't necessarily support that the Bible isn't inerrant. I'm sure there are better verses to make your point with. I agree that there is numerous better examples but the forum is biblical accuracy and inerrancy and the thread title is the bible's flat earth - so I went with the Isaiah example.
I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet. Sure I have:
Purpledawn: The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth.
Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.erets: a. earth 1) whole earth (as opposed to a part) 2) earth (as opposed to heaven) 3) earth (inhabitants) 'erets Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard On topic, it appears that most or all of us agree that the bible is not inerrant. In which case, I'm off in search of more interesting debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Even as referring to the entire earth, it cannot be referring to a planet (as in flying through space like we understand it today). I agree that the verse is NOT saying that its a round/globe/planet/sphere hurtling through space.I hope that now we can move on with our lives and find people who disagree with our position to argue with - OKAY?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Purpledawn,
rockondon: Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.
Wow, its not just a river in Egypt anymore.Purpledawn: Yes, it means earth as in ground, it does not mean Earth as in planet. Do you really not see the difference? I no longer believe a reasoned argument will penetrate this impenetrable wall of denial you've erected, but I'll provide some more sources that agree that 'erets' does indeed include the planet Earth as one of its meanings for EVC's more objective members to read. If you were right about erets, Genesis 1:1 would read that "God made the heavens and some ground." Doesn't quite have that same ring to it hey? I've already shown the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon...erets: ...which I think would have laid the issue to rest for pretty much any rational person. I think its absurd to think that the "whole earth" and "earth as opposed to heaven" is merely refering to the ground and not the planet. But maybe that's just me.a. earth 1) whole earth (as opposed to a part) 2) earth (as opposed to heaven) 3) earth (inhabitants) 'erets Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard Here are some other equally 'ambiguous' definitions Smith's Bible Dictionary Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but "the name of the planet on which man dwells" kinda sounds like a reference to the planet Earth to me.
The term is used in two widely-different senses: (1) for the material of which the earth's surface is composed; (2) as the name of the planet on which man dwells. The Hebrew language discriminates between these two by the use of separate terms, adamah for the former, erets for the latter. http://dictionary.babylon.com/earth/ As the rendering of _'erets_, it means the whole world (Gen. 1:2); http://define.com/earth The Hebrew word for earth (erets) and the way it is used in the Old Testament very adequately depicts and is a type of the earthly portion of Christianity. It occurs over 2,500 times in the Old Testament. It is not only used to denote the entire planet earth, but it is also used for... http://www.openheavensministries.org/...essages/nog1c1v1.htm Erets can mean the planet, the land and its inhabitants, ground, soil, country, or territory http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html Hebrew word for earth is usually transliterated as ‘erets. (Strong’s Hebrew #776) The Greek word is usually transliterated as Ge. (Strong’s Greek #1093) Both of these words can refer to the planet earth. Isaiah 44:24 – Jehovah was Alone | The Son of Jehovah Eretz; hence its definition as planet Earth here is... First Things First - In the Creation of the Universe: A Conciliatory Translation of Genesis by Barbara Pfeffer Billauer :: SSRN Hence mention of mountains and formation of the earth ('erets, physical planet) http://www.sage.edu/faculty/salomd/ld/psalms5.html Do you still want to pretend erets never refers to the planet earth? Doesn't matter to me either way since the truth of the matter is pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024