|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible's Flat Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I don't think Psalms 93:1 is speaking of the planet or the ground as immovable. The writer seems to be talking about their civilization. 4131. mowt (mote) A primitive root; to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip. The Jews knew other cultures had gods. I don't know what timeframe this Psalms was written, but it may have been a time when Israel and Judah were kingdoms and the people felt secure. It's hard to say what prompted the song. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I agree the people of the time probably weren't aware that the planet was moving, as opposed to the sun moving around our planet. I don't know how many earthquakes took place in that timeframe, but there is always the possibility that the word translated as immovable was talking about the cessation of earthquakes in that time. The Psalm is classified as a song of praise and thanks. Since we aren't the target audience, I agree that it is hard to say for sure. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
When my sister was stationed in Italy in the late 80s there were several earthquakes and/or tremors. She wrote and said entertainment was sitting in her room watching the walls shake.
That's what made me wonder about that possibility of the song.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I guess one other issue I have with using Psalms as a means to discern the world view of the writer, is that in poetry writers can also pull terms from the past. Old terminology and phrases that have crept into regular usage are great resources for poets. They can also have a slightly or very different meaning than the original usage. Again, we speculate because we aren't the target audience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Given your assertion in "Not The Planet" concerning the words translated as earth and world, how does that change what the author's are saying in the verses presented to reflect a flat planet?
I thought about your other thread concerning the words earth and world when I read this thread. I am curious how that changes whether the author's were describing a flat planet or not. I would think your assertion would counter that idea in some cases. From Message 1: (I added Hebrew word.)
1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth (tebel) firm, immovable. Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth (tebel) immovable and firm ... Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth (tebel) firm, immovable ... Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth (eretz) on its foundation so that it never can be shaken. Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth (erets) and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast... These passages mean exactly what they say; the Earth is fixed and immobile. I'm going to avoid using the word earth to hopefully avoid confusion. So Granny is saying that these verses say the planet is fixed and immobile. As you know erets means land, ground, or country and tebel refers to inhabited land. So how does this change what the author was telling his audience? 1 Chronicles 16:30 is part of a song of thanks to God. We need to look at the song for what it was celebrating. David had victory over his enemies, the Ark was in Jerusalem. David's throne was secure. The nation of Israel was secure. This verse actually uses both words.
16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth (erets)! The world (tebel) is firmly established; it cannot be moved. The word erets is used several times in this song. Given your assertion, IMO, this song and this verse specifically aren't speaking of the planet. David is speaking of the country around him and his kingdom. His kingdom is firmly established and cannot be moved. (Little did he know.) Psalm 93:1 I addressed in Message 312 and still feel the writer seems to be talking about their civilization.
93:1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world (tebel) is firmly established; it cannot be moved. The song speaks of leadership, not creation. Their civilization is firmly establish and cannot be moved. IMO, Psalm 96 is also referring to God's greatness and the security of the civilization, namely Israel.
96:10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. Given that the Psalms are songs, which are creative writing by nature; I think it is difficult to take our English translations so literally. Psalm 104 is another song of praise. Again I don't think the writer is speaking of a flat planet. but that God created the ground he stands on and it won't go anywhere. The same for Isaiah 45:18. The writer isn't referring to the planet as not moving, just the ground. Realistically, I don't feel the planet moving. I would not describe the ground in my backyard as moving. I would describe it as a foundation on which I build and walk. That doesn't mean I consider the planet to be flat. From Message 1In Daniel 4:10-11., the king 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. Clearly this makes little sense if the Earth were spherical, but it makes perfect sense on a flat Earth, where a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to all. In this verse the Aramaic word "ara" is used for land both times. It is equivalent to erets. When we take the planetary meaning out of erets, then in a vision Daniel sees a tall tree in the middle of the land, not the middle of the planet. Along the same lines as Matthew 4:1-12. Job 38:14, also makes more sense when the idea of planet is taken away and ground or country is understood. Isaiah 40:22 uses the word erets. The verse makes more sense if country or land is understood and not planet. Given your assertion, I feel the writers wrote from a human perspective and view of the land around them, not from a planetary viewpoint. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:This is one of those occasions that capitalization makes a difference. Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground. Dr. Bill's assertion is that Bible writers didn't refer to the planet when using the various Hebrew words translated as earth and world. They were describing their view of their surroundings. A flat planet never existed as far as I know, but "flat" ground does exist. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Welcome to EvC,
It helps the debate and avoids misunderstanding if you provide the scripture you are referring to.
Isaiah 40:22 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. Isaiah is written as poetry, which means creative writing, not scientific. The word translated as "earth" is not referring to the planet. Not the PlanetWhen I stand on a lookout tower and look around, the ground around me makes a "circle"; creatively speaking. What evidence do you have that the writer knew he stood on a planet? Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected error in verse number Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Thanks for catching the typo.
quote:The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth. It refers to the ground. It can also refer to territories. All the definitions of our English word "earth" are not definitions of the Hebrew word erets. Only the definitions referring to ground and soil fit with erets. The English word "earth" doesn't mean planet.
earth O.E. eore "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.N. jr, M.Du. eerde, O.H.G. erda, Goth. aira), from PIE base *er-. The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400. In reference to the planet, it is only a name.
quote:If you feel he is speaking literally concerning the words that are translated circle and earth, then the literal meaning of the Hebrew words must be understood. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. What you have is the horizon of the land. No, the surrounding text doesn't imply planet, unless you can show me that the author knew he was on a planet. He creatively describes the environment around him.
quote:In Matthew 4:8, kosmos does not refer to planet. It is referring to kingdom's of the known inhabited world. The author of Luke uses the word oikoumenēs in his rendition of the verse. This refers to inhabited land and probably more precisely the Roman Empire. (Kosmos - Message 42) Daniel had a vision and saw a tree in the ground or middle of a territory. Again, show me that Daniel understood he stood on a planet, as opposed to land.
quote:I've provided links to definitions and discussions. 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. Naming one's cat Chocolate, doesn't mean that the word chocolate now means cat. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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. Show me that these words refer to the planet and not the soil.
quote:This link doesn't support that the word refers to the planet. In Genesis 12:1, God sent Abram to another land (eretz). Now the LORD had said unto Abram Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred and from thy father's house unto a land that I will shew thee Then it follows:
And I will make of thee a great nation and I will bless thee and make thy name great and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed The literal translation says "ground", but odds are land was understood as the meaning for adamah in that verse. Given that they were an agrarian society, they may have understood it as ground, but definitely not planet. The word earth makes sense to us today because we think of the planet, not the ground. Neither eretz nor adamah were names for the planet.
quote:No and it's irrelevant. A current song using the word Eretz as a name for the planet is not the same as the ancient use of the word. Originally the English word "earth" was not a name for the planet, but referred to ground, soil, or dry land as I showed in Message 442.
quote:Yes it does, but is that the definition required by the verse? If the author didn't know he was on a planet, he can't be referring to the planet. He would be referring to the land around him or known to him. So he's referring to all the ground known to man at the time. I doubt if he was including the North and South Poles or the Americas. If you feel he was, then show me the evidence. quote:Apologetics aren't always on the side of reality, so I don't understand how that supports what eretz actually means and how it was understood by the author and his audience. quote:We do today, but did they when the verse was written? They were inspired to write what their audiences would understand. They knew what a throne was and they knew what God was, so not hard to understand. They understand the horizon and the sky above, but not a planet under their feet. They understood ground. The planets were wandering stars in the sky. quote:Eretz refers to earth (dry land), but not to Earth (planet). God called the dry, eretz, not the wet. You have not shown that eretz was used to refer to the planet, as opposed to just known land. The verse does not describe a flat planet. The description is consistent with a creative ancient view of the land as it looks through the human eye. Land would be seen as "flat", not a globe. So yes they describe flat land, not a flat planet. What Christian theologians teach is irrelevant to what the Bible says. There's a difference between earth and Earth. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:In Message 442, I provided links to definitions of eretz and earth. It is quite obvious in those links that there are several meanings. I agreed with your definition in Message 444, which also showed several meanings. So I guess I'm an honest person, since I've clearly shown and agreed that eretz and earth have several meanings. (Thanks CS ) quote:Disagreeing with you doesn't make me dishonest or disingenuous. Unfortunately for you, planet is not in the definition of the English word earth or the Hebrew word eretz. 4 often capitalized : the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun It is just the name of a very specific planet that we live on and I've shown you the etymology in Message 442. It wasn't used as the name of the planet until about 1400. The definition you provided didn't say planet.
earth - whole earth (as opposed to a part) The English word earth does not mean planet. It also doesn't mean globe. A word can have many meanings, but it is important to use the right one. Show me evidence that Isaiah knew he was standing on a planet, as opposed to ground.
quote:What to they admit exactly? From the apologetics I've read, they would prefer it refer to the planet. It messes up some doctrines when it doesn't. quote:You actually mean the people on the planet, unless of course you truly feel the planet itself is crazy. Notice you said "planet earth". That would be redundant if earth meant planet. Meanings are added to words over time. Show me that the ancient Hebrews referred to the planet as eretz at the time of Isaiah, as opposed to the land around them.Show me that they knew they were on a planet. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I said several meanings, not different meanings. quote:You have not shown that erets means planet. Remember, earth does not mean planet. At most you have entire land. quote:You implied in Message 446 that I didn't accept that they had multiple meanings. I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet. rockondon writes: 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. quote:Isaiah creatively described his environment and his view of God. Isaiah wasn't writing a scientific document. It was written as a poem. Even if he did know the ground curved, it wouldn't necessarily change the way that poem was written. That verse doesn't necessarily support that the Bible isn't inerrant. I'm sure there are better verses to make your point with. Even today, I wouldn't expect a poem to be scientifically correct. Unless, of course, it was a science poem. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Fascinating! Considering that by the 4th century Hellenistic Astronomy had supposedly established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. I noticed that what we have written today is different than what the Septuagint had.
Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 (NIV) The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. Septuagint 5 And the sun arises, and the sun goes down and draws toward its place; 6 arising there it proceeds southward, and goes round toward the north. The wind goes round and round, and the wind returns to its circuits. I wish we knew which way he was pointing.
Imagine that above your head a pavilion has been set up. East would be there, north here, south there and west there. When the sun has left the East and starts to set, it will not set under the land; but crossing the limits of the sky, it traverses the northern areas where it is hidden by a kind of wall from our gaze, the upper waters concealing his journey from us; and, after having traversed these areas, it returns to the East. I assume by what he describes that he is pointing up towards the sky as north. I also assume that he means the ground is south. It sounds like he's redefining the directions to fit his purpose and making up his own "science." It would be interesting to know where he was placing the directions. If he is staying true to accepted directions, then he really has the sun doing a dance. The author of Ecclesiastes at least was describing creatively what we see concerning the sun. Severian seemed to create his own story for whatever purpose. I'm curious why he would need the sun to behave as he described.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Thanks for the photos. Your first photo was also a visual I had, but didn't know what to call it. I thought it would be odd for someone to think up was north.
So the Septuagint version is still describing what one can see and understand standing in their backyard. Assuming the text is correct, of course.
5 And the sun arises, and the sun goes down and draws toward its place; 6 arising there it proceeds southward, and goes round toward the north. The wind goes round and round, and the wind returns to its circuits. Severian apparently doesn't like the geocentric or Ptolemaic view of the universe. He doesn't like the idea that the sun and stars "go beneath the land".
This is not what the Greeks have taught us: they do not want these teachings, and they claim that the sun and the stars continue their course beneath the land. But no, the Scripture, this divine mistress, the Scripture leads us and dispenses her light to us. So is Severian saying the sun goes back across the sky behind the "curtain" or "wall" as he put it? Basically enter stage left, run across the stage, exiting stage right, run behind the curtain to enter at stage left again. If that is true, then Severian is still going against the Greek reasoning of the time and I don't see that the scripture supports the idea of "going behind the curtain". Unless I'm still not understanding what he's saying. Thanks again for the photos. I like visuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Severian was using Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 to support his position of the trek behind the curtain. I don't see that that scripture supports what he's saying. The scripture doesn't really imply how the sun got back to the "starting point". By then the Greeks knew the earth was spherical. Was Severian really proposing that the earth wasn't spherical or just that he didn't agree about the path of the sun and the stars?
Message 452 Let us now ask where the sun goes down, and where, during the night, it purses its course? According to our adversaries, under the land; and we who look at the sky as a tent, what is our feeling on this? Look and see, I beg you, whether we are in error, or whether the truth of our opinion appears clearly, and whether reality is in agreement with our hypothesis. At that point they still thought the earth was the center. Even though the Greeks knew the planet was spherical, did they understand what was on the "underside" or did they view all mankind on the "topside"? Could Severian and his people view a spherical earth, but the "tent" was only on the top? Interesting thoughts. More to research. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes, it means earth as in ground, it does not mean Earth as in planet. Do you really not see the difference? quote:But the verse is also clearly not presenting a flat "planet". That's what started this whole issue of earth and planet. As you said in Message 432: Its called the bible, and it says "earth." Earth is a planet.
Earth is the name of a planet and eretz means earth; but eretz does not mean planet or the name of a planet at that time.
quote:I disagree that Isaiah 40:22 is an example of an error or referring to a flat planet. The visual created by the poetry is consistent with how a person in high place would describe what they see. Even a low place without visual obstruction would give the same visual. The horizon. It's a poem, not science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024