The Bible's Flat Earth

Hi Coragyps.Just wondering why it is you cite the year 1620 as an end to people believing that the sun orbits earth.Is there some sort of documentation to indicate that churchmen were by then officially embracing Copernicus?I have been attempting to track the development of the changeover in that belief/doctrine and have a good deal of evidence to suggest that, for many Christians, it came much later. I would be pleased to learn the particular of any earlier, official, conversions to the new (Copernnican) doctrine.Thank you.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Greeting Friends,I have surveyed this very long thread and trust that I am not stepping on anyone's contribution when I say, The following has come to my attention:"four corners of the earth" is, in Hebrew, identical to: "four corners of the land."

quote:

---

"... thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land." Ezekiel 7:2

​

"... set up an ensign for the nations ... gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12

---

I'm sure that some among you can deal with the simple orthographic comparison required to verify my claim.And then, I couldn't help but notice this tidbit of first century cosmology revealed in the Book of Revelation where, as it is in Genesis 1:10, the term "earth" is not inclusive of "sea" nor even "tree."

quote:

---

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. Revelation 7:1

---

Not to spoil the fun, I hope, but (as I have asserted here for at least a decade) The Bible never speaks of earth as if it were planet. I can now, with confidence, add to that statement saying:The Bible never speaks of "earth" or "world" as anything larger than the territories ruled by Caesar.Click on my avatar for a ready-made illustration of the fact. And yes.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Have you considered that the Genesis narrative may have been a creationist reaction to global theory?The latest date estimated for the writing of Genesis is 500 BC, a few years after Pythagoras had proposed the idea of earth and sea being wrapped upon, an enormous sphere. And, a couple of hundred years later, Aristotle offered physical evidence in favor of the idea.But, based on use of the word "earth" (ghi) in the Apocalypse, it seems that first century Christians had not accepted global theory. They continued, apparently, to think of "earth" and "sea" as separate realities rather than as an integrated whole.By the end of the thirteenth century, the Church had embraced elements of Aristotelian cosmology and with it the notion of a terraqueous globe. The Church persecuted, however, (burned at the stake) certain philosophers who imagined the existence of other continents, on the other side of, the Big Ball of Water.Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the divinely inspired writers of the Bible (and presumptive forebears of Church hierarchy), would be likely to have accepted or conveyed belief in what was at the time considered, even among goyim, to be godless theory.Yes?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Please refrain from capping my posts if you're not going to respond to what I say.Sincerely

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

There. You have done it again. You have nothing to say but you have clicked your little button and gotten your name up in lights, as if you had something to say.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Appropriate choice of Avatar, I think.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Nothing comes to mind immediately, with the possible exception of a "new earth" (new land) which the prophet describes (Isaiah 65:17) but upon reviewing it just now I think his meaning is probably rather "renewed."I can tell you that the scope of Nebuchadnessar's empire is described as encompassing "the whole earth," and "all the earth" (Jer 50:23; 51:25). I'm sure the writer knew there were other lands out there which were not dominated by Babylon. It is also written that another kingdom, a kingdom of brass (often interpreted as Greecia/Macedonia) would follow Babylon and come to rule over "all the earth" (Daniel 2:39). Again, I'm sure the author understood that there were other inhabited lands exempt from that fate.Were the Jews aware of unknown lands beyond those already mapped by the empirialist powers of their day? Surely the better educated among them would have known that there were lands yet unexplored by those who specialized in exploring unknown lands. Did they name them or describe them? Not that I am aware.Alexander was instrumental in adding a great deal of real estate to the world map; and that map served virtually unchanged for nearly two thousand years. In all that time only three continents were identified, mentioned and mapped. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh continents were discovered only after the Portuguese tried to find a shorter route to the Spice Islands.The rest is recent history.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

*******Might those who pretend to represent Christ now speak to the issue at hand?I believe Granny Magda has already cleaned your clock, but, this worthy thread posits questions critical to Christianity's self-perceived World Mission.Therefore, I say, Let us on with it. [indent]I have long asserted in this forum that:
[size=3]

The Bible never speaks of earth as if it were a globe; much less a planet.

[/size=3]
Moreover, [size=3]

The Bible never speaks of "earth" as it were anything larger than Alexander's Macedonia;

​

And, never speaks of "world" as it were anything larger than the territories ruled by Rome.

[/size=3] [/indent] Accept my challenge, if you dare. Come now, let us reason together. If, on the other hand, you wish to behave as sore losers, you may, at this time, skulk away. Thank you for your response.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I don't believe the authors imagined a flat planet. I don't believe they imagined any kind of planet other than the ones they already knew, and those were lights in the sky. Global theory was new and was not well received at the time Genesis was being written (c. 500 BC). It was considered to be a "godless theory." It was not embraced by the Apostles (1st century), nor by the early Church (4th century). And while the later Church (13th century) conceded existence of the terraqueous globe, it did not by any stretch of the imagination believe that the globe is in motion. Thus, when confronted with Copernicus et al in the 16th century they quoted these passages of scripiture in defense of their position.Interestingly, it appears that the word "earth" was not, at that time, commonly used to describe the terraqueous globe; at least not among the religious. Even today, at least one dictionary suggests that "earth" is only secondarily a reference to the planetary globe; the primary meaning being "soil" or "ground." See: American Heritage DictionaryAs you may have already deduced from my answer, - I think my assertion counters that idea in every case. Indeed. And as it is based on a word for "stream" it suggests to me a river valley. A flood plain. The most likely place for civilization to appear, and indeed the very sort of place where all the great civilizations (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Indus Valley) did appear. As you have said:

quote:

---

"...the writers wrote from a human perspective and view of the land around them, not from a planetary viewpoint."

---

I couldn't say it better myself. And thus my perpetual and adamant assertion that:

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Indeed they did!They did not, however, deny the sphericity of the terraqueous globe. By the end of the 13th century the Church had conceded what I call "global" [or "big ball"] theory. That is the Pythagorean assumption (circa 500 BC) that all the lands and all the seas are wrapped together upon the surface of an immense ball (Latin: globus), which is so very big that observers on the ground tend to think of it as flat. Most ancient philosophers disagreed with this idea until Aristotle (c. 300 BC) argued in favor of the "big ball" theory although for a different reason than that which had inspired the Pythagoreans.But Aristotle did not believe that the "big ball" is in motion; neither rotating nor orbiting the sun. Some Greek philosophers of the time had asserted just that, but because Aristotle was so very popular and thought to be the smartest man in the world: many lesser philosophers bought into the "big ball" theory and refused to believe that the ball is in motion. Religious people, however, had several problems with the new idea. It is evident, from the Holy Scriptures, that Jews and Christians were among them. Such people continued to think and speak in terms which we see as evidence of their belief that the world is more or less flat, not spherical as the heathen imagined.When the Church finally embraced Aristotle, 1500 years later, they inherited both: belief in the terraqueous globe, and disbelief in the notion of its motion.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I doubt they missed it, but they may have lacked a good theory to explain it. Indeed. And that was Aristotle's argument. In fact, he used that argument to assert that there could be no other worlds. Just this one. Aristotle explained that everything just naturally falls to the middle, but he didn't propose any particular mechanism for that; just that heavy things sink, and lighter things rise.Aristotle got us to thinking about gravity but the idea is really quite mind boggling. The smartest mathematician of the 16th/17th century, Galileo, spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. A few decades after Galileo, Newton was able to describe gravity mathematically, thanks a great deal to the groundwork laid by Galileo. Even so, we still don't know very much about the force itself.Copernicus did not rely on gravitational theory to validate his heliocentric theory. He observed the motion of the heavens and proposed the best explanation. Those who came after: notably Kepler and Newton were able to demonstrate and quantify the natural laws at work in that motion. In like manner, Darwin observed that animals change over time and proposed a theory to explain it; while Crick and Watson, many years later, were able to demonstrate the biological mechanism which made those changes possible.The point being that it is sometimes a very long road from the first casual observation of a phenomenon to widespread understanding of it. It may take even more time before it is accepted as natural, and perhaps even possible for us to manipulate. I find this story, the development of heliocentric theory, particular interesting because the trail intertwines with the literature and religion of the Christian Church; an institution with which I have had a love/hate relationship.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

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.

quote:

---

Gen 1:10 - And God called the drie land, Earth, ....
Gen 1:11 - And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, ....
Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought foorth grasse, ...

---

Modern translations tend to follow the precedents set by the KJV in 1769 but there are exceptions. Thoughts anyone? An excellent point my friend.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

That's an interesting idea but doesn't seem to fit the case. In fact, while the word "earth" is no longer capitalized at Genesis 1:1 (1769 edition); it continues to be capitalized at Genesis 1:10. There appears to be no textual clue as the nature of "earth" at Genesis 1:1, unless one takes it to be the same earth as that of Genesis 1:10. The "Earth" of Genesis 1:10 does in fact provide a textual clue as to its nature. That verse appears to define the term as a "dry" place and contrasts its dryness with the wetness by which it is surrounded.

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

---

This verse, with "earth" capitalized, might serve to illustrate your point regarding the significance of capitalization, i.e. that it indicates a planetary status; except, unhappily for your theory, the "Earth" in this case is the "dry" place which appeared in the water when the water had been pulled from off it; gathered together into a pool (i.e. "one place"). Sounds very much like how "dry land" appears when the tide goes out. Doesn't sound at all like a planet which "appears" in the ocean.

quote:

---

"... the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" 2 Peter 3:5 KJV

---

In both of these cases, and as otherwise evidenced numerous times throughout the Scriptures, Earth and Sea are never lumped together as if they were parts of a greater whole called "earth" but are alway mentioned discreetly, as if they were wholly separate realities.Consider the angel who:

quote:

---

"... set his right foot upon the sea, and [his] left [foot] on the earth," Revelation 10:2

---

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Are you the same person who argued that the "earth" of Genesis 1:1 is NOT planet earth? You "think"? How about you read, and limit your conclusions to the evidence of Scripture?I think you're not reading carefully enough.

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 ...

​

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven...

​

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven 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: ...

---

So "Earth" appeared in the water under the heaven; the water which had been "gathered together into one place."If "earth" did not "appear" in "the waters under the heaven" then where did "earth" appear? "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.If you have evidence to the contrary, then,Please present it.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I think you make a good argument, but it doesn't seem to "hold water." Problem is, there appears to be no consistency in the matter; neither within the KJV itself, nor among its predecessors and competitors. For example, the first English language Bible to appear in print, 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.

---

The Geneva Bible (1560) and the Douay Bible (1609) also follow this pattern.This challenges your theory about capitalization being related to awareness of "earth" being a planet. Observe verses 11 and 12 in the 1611 KJV:

quote:

---

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, ...

​

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought foorth grasse, ....

---

What will you do with that, I wonder.And compare that with the 1769 edition:

quote:

---

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, ....

​

12 And the earth brought forth grass ...

---

And what of "earth" in the follwoing instance?

quote:

---

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen,...

​

Gen 1:15 ... lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: ...

​

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: ...

​

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth:

---

In these verses, "earth" is NOT capitalized in either edition of the KJV. Should we then conclude that it is NOT intended in a global sense?I don't think so.If the translators intended to comment on either the global or planetary issues raised around the word "earth" there is certainly no evidence to support it; at least not any which makes itself apparent in the creation narrative as it exists in the numerous version I have surveyed prior to my assertions in this regard.A bit of trivia: The New International Version and the New Living Translation have eliminated the word "earth" from verse 10. And THE MESSAGE has capitalized every instance of the word "earth" throughout this chapter. No can do. It is a fact that ancient "science" held water to be the primeval element from which all others (earth, wind, and fire) were created. The Bible does not propose to tell us where the water came from.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -