The Bible's Flat Earth

Here's the KJV:

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 1

​

1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

​

2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

​

3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

​

4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

​

5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

​

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

​

7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

​

8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

​

9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

​

10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

​

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

---

Yeah, there's just not much there. Although, its odd that the sun quickly goes back to where it started. The writer obviouly though the sun went over the earth and did not think that the path it took during the night was the same length as the day.Severian says:

quote:

---

As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night.

---

And this doesn't really fit with what I'm getting from Ecclesiases. So, I'm with you on the lack of scirptural support. I don't know. It seems like he was supporting the dome-and-disc idea though. I don't think we can say from just his interpretation of Ecc 1:5-6, but have to take the whole idea into account. Yeah, I could see it going either way. I just don't have enough info to be confident in one or the other.Let me know what else you find.

Even as referring to the entire earth, it cannot be referring to a planet (as in flying through space like we understand it today).

Once again, I'll point out that it is impossible for the writers to have the concept of a planet. We all agree that it is referring to the earth in its entirety.You're equating that with the concept of a planet and we're saying that it could not be that. We're not saying its "merely refering to the ground", as we've ackowledge it can refer to the entire earth, we're saying that it cannot be referring to a planet.I think you're equating 'entire earth' with planet, and 'not planet' with not the entire earth. Both of those are wrong. 'Not planet' can still be the entire earth, and entire earth could not have been refering to the conept of a planet. Will you ackowledge that the writers were incapable of having the concept of a planet and that we accept it referring to the entire earth while not being the concept of a planet?

That's very interesting, PD. Thanks for posting it.I'll read into it further later.