The Bible's 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?

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.

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).

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 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? 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?

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. 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.

aahhh you noticed the pun but seriously... 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.

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

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?

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). Nope, right way round. We're talking about ignorant bronze-age goat herders - why assume there are sailors?

Hi doctrbill, 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. 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! 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. 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.

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?

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?