The Bible's Flat Earth

And David (I'll refer to david as the psalms author, even if you seem to not agree) said he was 'immovable', yet I think no sane person would make the case that he was fixed at one spot. This is the problem when using the psalms to define the cosmology described in the Bible or believed by the author. At the very least, the psalms are completely neutral and a none-issue since we cannot determine if the author meant the verses in question to be literal or juste metaphors. (Unless you have some way to determine it) Of course I have, and I was even replying to a statement you made one page earlier. It was a response to my post where I said that the psalms did not support a geocentric view. You reiterated your position that it did, plus you said:

quote:

---

If the Bible authors actually had a reasonably accurate heliocentric view of their cosmos, they were way ahead of their time, yet strangely, they did not see fit to mention this anywhere.

---

Thus creating the false dilemna, since I was saying that geocentricism was not supported in the psalms, and you were saying thus that I was proposing David had a heliocentric view, as if it was the only other option. But it wasn't, since my position is that he wasn't aware of cosmology, or at least that he didn't express it in the bible (in a way we are 100% sure he was meaning it to be literal). I believe this because I do not know of a way they could have 'scientifically' known that the earth was rotating around the sun, and I highly doubt God came over to him one night saying: 'Let me tell you the truth about the solar system ...' You'll have to enlighten me on which verses you are speaking of, because although you can 'read cosmology' in the Genesis account, you will have to do so through Eisegesis, because I highly doubt someone with no knowledge of cosmology will get a clue of a hypothetical cosmological model solely by reading the book of genesis.On a final note, I will reiterate my position: neither geocentricism nor heliocentricism is supported by the Bible. You have to take into account that even today, people say all the time that 'the sun rises to the east and sets down to the west', and yet I doubt anyone saying this is giving a clue of what he believes the solar system looks like. From a relativistic point of view as seen from the earth, the sun is going around the earth. The moon is going around the earth also, but again from a relativistic point of view as seen from the moon, the earth is turning around the moon.The reality is that they are spining around their centre of mass of course, but even if we know this, it doesn't stop us from using expressions implying that the sun is going from east to west. the same would apply back in those days.EDIT: On a side not, I would think of one verse that would seem to suggest that the earth is not flat. in psalms 103:12

quote:

---

as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us

---

Knowing the psalmists trend to exagerate things, especially when speaking about the 'powers' and awesomeness of God. I would suggest that this verse did not mean that our transgressions are at a finite distance from us (as would be on a flat earth east-west), but rather that our transgressions are at an infinite distance from us, as is the case between the east and west on a spherical earth. It would make more sense I believe i nthe context that this are psalms with exagerations and extreme hyperbols everywhere.This would maybe be the only place where I would think that David at least knew the earth was spherical.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : grammar

Hi doctrbill,I have no dispute with what you're saying. You will notice that I have been careful throughout this thread, to distinguish between the modern concept of "Earth" and the ancient usage, which I have tried to leave uncapitalised.I do wonder though if there is any evidence that ancient Hebrew writers had any concept of lands beyond their knowledge, not necessarily on the other side of the globe, but simply terra incognita. Can you shed any light on this?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi slevesque,

quote:

---

This is the problem when using the psalms to define the cosmology described in the Bible or believed by the author. At the very least, the psalms are completely neutral and a none-issue since we cannot determine if the author meant the verses in question to be literal or juste metaphors. (Unless you have some way to determine it)

---

I have already agreed that psalms are not the best source of information about the authors' world-views. You are going over old ground here. Still, I see no reason to bin the entirety of the psalms just because they are poetry. True, it makes them a less dependable source, but they still provide us with an insight, not least because the choice of poetic language is very revealing even where no literal intent can be proved.Besides, I am not relying on psalms alone! There are plenty of other books of the Bible that are not psalms and that do hint at a flat or geocentric Earth. You are concentrating on these for no good reason.

quote:

---

Thus creating the false dilemna, since I was saying that geocentricism was not supported in the psalms, and you were saying thus that I was proposing David had a heliocentric view, as if it was the only other option.

---

It pretty much is the only other option. Either the sun goes round the Earth or the Earth goes round the sun. If you can think of another cosmological model, feel free to provide some evidence for it. Until you do that and provide a third option, you are stuck with a) heliocentrism or b) geocentrism.

quote:

---

my position is that he wasn't aware of cosmology

---

Don't be silly. All cultures are ware that they live in "the world" and all cultures have some sort of explanatory framework for that world. Suggesting that the Hebrew people had no cosmology is both innately ridiculous and contrary to the evidence already presented in this thread. If they had no cosmology, what exactly is Genesis 1?

quote:

---

or at least that he didn't express it in the bible (in a way we are 100% sure he was meaning it to be literal).

---

There is not a single word in the Bible that we can be "100% sure" is literal, so you are wasting your time if that is your standard of evidence.No analysis of the Bible can ever be certain, but nonetheless, there is ample support for a flat earth/geocentric cosmology in the texts.Also worth mentioning is that even if the Bible authors had no intention of communicating their cosmology, they must still have had one. We may have to read between the lines a little, but it is still there.

quote:

---

I believe this because I do not know of a way they could have 'scientifically' known that the earth was rotating around the sun, and I highly doubt God came over to him one night saying: 'Let me tell you the truth about the solar system ...'

---

In which case they would have believed the same thing as every other culture with which they were in contact; a flat earth which was at the centre of the universe. This was the prevailing view at the time. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary ( and with the ample evidence for a flat earth which I have presented in this thread), it seems reasonable to propose that the Hebrews shared this view.

quote:

---

You'll have to enlighten me on which verses you are speaking of

---

Are you sure you read this thread? See Message 21I fail to see how a domed sky with stars attached to it and the earth beneath can be interpreted in any way other than geocentrically. Compare and contrast the model described in Genesis with the explicitly flat earth/geocentric Book of Enoch. They are an exact match.

quote:

---

On a final note, I will reiterate my position: neither geocentricism nor heliocentricism is supported by the Bible. You have to take into account that even today, people say all the time that 'the sun rises to the east and sets down to the west', and yet I doubt anyone saying this is giving a clue of what he believes the solar system looks like.

---

And why do we speak in such a way? Because we have inherited geocentric idioms from the days when people did think exactly that.

quote:

---

On a side not, I would think of one verse that would seem to suggest that the earth is not flat. in psalms 103:12

​

"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us"

​

Knowing the psalmists trend to exagerate things, especially when speaking about the 'powers' and awesomeness of God. I would suggest that this verse did not mean that our transgressions are at a finite distance from us (as would be on a flat earth east-west), but rather that our transgressions are at an infinite distance from us, as is the case between the east and west on a spherical earth. It would make more sense I believe i nthe context that this are psalms with exagerations and extreme hyperbols everywhere.

​

This would maybe be the only place where I would think that David at least knew the earth was spherical.

---

1) I thought you were against using psalms as evidence. Apparently you are only against anyone who disagrees with you using the psalms.2) I thought you were of the opinion that "David" did not know that the Earth was spherical. Now you seem to be saying that he did. Try to make up your mind.3) If "David" did know about the sphericity of the Earth, you must once again face the question of why he did not choose to mention this astonishing fact.4) East and West are not an infinite distance apart; they simply don't exist. There is no place called "East" and no "West". You can't speak of the distance between two completely imaginary places.5) I really don't think that the psalmists, whoever they were, had the concept of infinity as you describe it. If I am wrong about this, please do feel free to provide evidence to that effect.This passage is clear evidence that (ahem) "David" thought that East and West were extremes of the earth, just as North and South are. It speaks very directly of a flat earth. Your torturous apologetic is extremely unconvincing.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

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 - - -

I propose c) they didn't know or we can't know. Now don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Jews had a geocentric view. But it isn't reflected in the Bible without 'reading threw the lines' or doing some type of eisegesis. This is why I support the view that they didn't have a knowledge of cosmology. Could they have had one ? sure, but I'm not 'adventurous' enough to advance that I'm sure they did. I would suggest maybe that the Jews can't read as much Cosmology in Genesis then modern creationist do hehe I can be pretty much sure that the author of the psalms wasn't rooted in one place when he said 'I shall not be moved'. I usually try not to 'read between the lines' to confirm or descredit the innerracy of the Bible based on such type of assumptions. Now if you want to prove that it is possible the hebrews shared this view, I have no problem and I would tend to think the same thing, although we can't be sure. This doesn't go against the claim by christians that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Of course, but we don't believe it. In a similar way, the Jews could have had similar inherrited similar idioms from their pre-jewish ancestors (less likely) or from cultural influence from their surroundings, which in both cases doesn't mean they supported the geocentric view behind these idioms, just as we do.This is all hypothetical of course. But it is another alternative. Which is why I advanced it more as my opinion on the verse rather than basing any argumentation on it. I still find it interesting. I don't think we can know about heliocentricism, But I tend to think the Jews viewed the earth as spherical (without certainty). My first reason is that it is a much easier knowledge to optain via observations, as the Greeks did. And my second reason is because of the previous verse, which I do not view as a good enough basis to have any certainty about this issue (because it is in the psalms). What the saying in english ? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I think ? (I may be wrong, I speak french)Him not mentioning it is a non-issue, since he equally doesn't say anything about the 'fact' that the earth is flat. I remember when I was young my older brother explaining me that if you headed North, eventually you would reach the top and start going down to the south. But if you headed west, you would forever go west without ever start going east. Thus why the distance between East and west being infinite. Or at least that's how I viewed it when I was like 8 yo lol. I don,t have a lot of knowledge about ancient history, but is the notion of infinity that hard to optain ? I thought of it as a given as it is not an overly difficult concept. Now I do believe this: The psalmist viewed God as overly powerful and omnipotent, etc. etc. Would the same psalmist say the same God would have removed are transgression away from us, but at a finite distance ? My personnal opinion is that he was trying to show the contrary: that are transgressions are at an infinite distance from us. Thus why he uses East and West, and not North and South, which has a difference as shown by my childhood story.

Oh dear slevesque, you do seem rather confused. You say the Jews had no idea about cosmology. Then you agree with me that they were geocentrists and flat-Earthers; Then you go back to saying that you think the psalmists knew the Earth was round; Make up your mind. There is no point for me in holding a conversation with you when you talk rubbish and contradict yourself.

quote:

---

I propose c) they didn't know or we can't know.

---

They didn't know!? What kind of talk is that?Are you really suggesting that the Jews had no cosmology? Oh. You must think that they were retarded morons. To watch that big ol' sun glide across the sky every day and not even have a theory on what it was doing up there, they would had to have had the intellectual curiosity of garden snails. I am surprised that you have so low an opinion of these people who founded your faith.Anyway, you're wrong. 1 Enoch very clearly and explicitly lays out the picture of Jewish cosmology as does Genesis to an extent. To suggest that they had no cosmology is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "nuh-uh" like a mantra.

quote:

---

Now don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Jews had a geocentric view. But it isn't reflected in the Bible without 'reading threw the lines' or doing some type of eisegesis.

---

You have a short memory don't you.

quote:

---

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

​

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

​

His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
(Psalm 19)

---

The sun is described as moving. No reading between the lines or analysis is required to reach this conclusion, only a straightforward reading of the text. If you want to suggest that this verse is not saying that the sun is moving, you are the one who is reading more into the text than is actually there.

quote:

---

Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firmPsalm (93:1)

---

The earth is described as immobile. there may well be another meaning to this statement, but if you want to advance that argument, you are the one who is reading between the lines, not me.I am taking these statements at face value. The sun moves. The earth does not move. Sure sounds like geocentrism to me.

quote:

---

I usually try not to 'read between the lines' to confirm or descredit the innerracy of the Bible based on such type of assumptions.

---

That is exactly what you are doing, only you seem to want to argue for contradictory positions on top of it.

quote:

---

Now if you want to prove that it is possible the hebrews shared this view, I have no problem and I would tend to think the same thing, although we can't be sure. This doesn't go against the claim by christians that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

---

Are you sure you understood what I said? Go read it back again. If the Bible authors were geocentrists, it most certainly does go against any meaningful claim to inerrancy.

quote:

---

In a similar way, the Jews could have had similar inherrited similar idioms from their pre-jewish ancestors (less likely) or from cultural influence from their surroundings, which in both cases doesn't mean they supported the geocentric view behind these idioms, just as we do.

---

And that argument would make perfect sense if it wasn't demolished by the explicit geocentric/flat earth cosmology presented in 1 Enoch. Enoch's model is identical to that of the Bible. The fact that geocentrism and flat Earthism were widespread at the time also argues against this view; it is hard to believe that the ancient Jews were so far ahead of their time when it came to cosmology when no evidence exists to support the idea. If you are suggesting that they were beyond the point of geocentrism, you are suggesting, in effect, that they were heliocentrists and there is simply no evidence that they were heliocentrists.

quote:

---

I don't think we can know about heliocentricism, But I tend to think the Jews viewed the earth as spherical (without certainty).

---

*sigh*

quote:

---

I don't think we can know about heliocentricism, But I tend to think the Jews viewed the earth as spherical (without certainty any evidence of any kind).

---

There you go, I fixed that for you.

quote:

---

What the saying in english ? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I think ? (I may be wrong, I speak french)

​

Him not mentioning it is a non-issue, since he equally doesn't say anything about the 'fact' that the earth is flat.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure is a lousy foundation on which to base an argument. You are doing exactly that, arguing from zero evidence and indeed, in the face of ample contradictory evidence. Why? Is it so appalling to you that they Jews might have been just like everybody else of their day?They did not mention that the earth was flat because that was the standard assumption of the day. There was no need to mention it.

quote:

---

I remember when I was young my older brother explaining me that if you headed North, eventually you would reach the top and start going down to the south. But if you headed west, you would forever go west without ever start going east. Thus why the distance between East and west being infinite. Or at least that's how I viewed it when I was like 8 yo lol.

---

And how long ago was that exactly?You can't have a distance between two points that don't exist. End of story. Even an eight-year-old should be able to grasp this.

quote:

---

is the notion of infinity that hard to optain ? I thought of it as a given as it is not an overly difficult concept.

---

It was far from universal. Even the Greeks did not have a fully modern view of infinity.

quote:

---

The psalmist viewed God as overly powerful and omnipotent, etc. etc. Would the same psalmist say the same God would have removed are transgression away from us, but at a finite distance ?

---

Because they had no other alternative. All the psalm means is "a long way" or " a great distance". You are reading far more into the text than is really there in an effort to bale the Bible out of an embarrassing hole. The problem is that you have dug it into a much deeper and messier hole in the process.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

To make things very short, this is where we disagree: That the Jewish people believed in the spaghetti Monster during their history doesn't change the inerrancy of the Bible. I mean, they worshipped false Gods from other peoples for parts of their history, it does not change anything in regards to the Bible and claims to inerrancy, etc.If you wanted to discuss if the jewish people believed in flat-earth, you should have entitled this thread: the Jewish's flat earth ...In regards to if they had any knowledge of cosmology of some sort, and which one. I'll check this a bit more and revise my position if I find substantial evidence pointing in one direction or another. I'll start with Enoch (which I never read) and start from there I guess. Any link to useful sites on this would be nice.

BTW about the east-west thing, I'll look into that also, but I would guess that the solution resides in the fact that east and west are not imaginary points, but directions.

quote:

---

That the Jewish people believed in the spaghetti Monster during their history doesn't change the inerrancy of the Bible.

---

It would if the Bible reflected their Spaghetti Monster-ist tendencies as it does geocentrism and Flat Earthism. I have based my argument on the Bible and a few related texts. The evidence is there in the Bible for all to see, even if you choose to ignore it.

quote:

---

If you wanted to discuss if the jewish people believed in flat-earth, you should have entitled this thread: the Jewish's flat earth ...

---

I take the fact that you are forced to indulge in childish semantic games such as the above as evidence that you have no legitimate argument left to pursue.

quote:

---

In regards to if they had any knowledge of cosmology of some sort, and which one. I'll check this a bit more and revise my position if I find substantial evidence pointing in one direction or another. I'll start with Enoch (which I never read) and start from there I guess. Any link to useful sites on this would be nice.

---

As far as I know all peoples have a cosmology of some sort. Can you name a culture which does not?If you really want to wade through the Book of Enoch, feel free. It's here. I have already mentioned some of the relevant portions in this thread though. But you knew that of course, because you read the thread...

quote:

---

BTW about the east-west thing, I'll look into that also, but I would guess that the solution resides in the fact that east and west are not imaginary points, but directions.

---

That's even more ridiculous. Two points in space can be a particular distance apart. Two directions cannot. End of story.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I sent an email about the east-west thing to CMI, so hopefully in the next two weeks you will get the opportunity to demolish the response I'll get by Jonathan Sarfati BTW, I'm still checking on your various claims, but creation.com pretty much adresses most of the points.

Wow! You managed a reply with no substance whatsoever! Way to go.

quote:

---

I sent an email about the east-west thing to CMI, so hopefully in the next two weeks you will get the opportunity to demolish the response I'll get by Jonathan Sarfati

---

Why on Earth would you seek answers from Creation Ministries International? Do you really expect them to furnish you with an honest and unbiased response? All you will get from a lying idiot like Safarti is propaganda. He is no Bible scholar and his views on the topic are of no more value than yours or mine. Why not try putting your argument in your own words, rather than running to Jonathon Sarfati like he was your Mom.

quote:

---

BTW, I'm still checking on your various claims, but creation.com pretty much adresses most of the points.

---

Well bring it on then! Take those arguments, put them into your own words and bring them forward here, because as things stand, the claim above just looks kind of pathetic.If you have an argument to make, make it. If not, don't bother to reply with content-free posts.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

It wasn't an argumentative reply, it was an informative reply to keep tell you 'I'm still looking into this, I didn't forget this topic'In any case, how is your agressive response (with equally no substance ) even allowed on this forum ?

Please slevesque,

quote:

---

It wasn't an argumentative reply, it was an informative reply to keep tell you 'I'm still looking into this, I didn't forget this topic'

---

Then look into it and reply instead of wasting time with meaningless posts.You claim that my arguments are mostly refuted at creation.com, so if you have seen the refutations present them. Or don't.It's that simple.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Ok, I'll try to adress the specific verses in the Bible, one-by-one. I may miss some, if they are still relevant after what I will have said in this post, please post them. I'll start with an easy one, to get me started

quote:

---

These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

​

Daniel 4:10-11

---

This is an easily rebuted one. As someone else said at the start of this thread, this verse describes a vision seen in a dream. This by itself disqualifies it as an argument in favor of the Bible supporting a flat-earth view. However, there is one more interesting aspect of this vision: it was dreamed by a pagan king. (Nebuchadnezzar). And so even if this dream would represent an aspect of reality believed by the dreamer, it would only support the idea that Babylonians had a flat-earth view of the world.

quote:

---

Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

​

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

​

Job 38-12-13

---

This argument is usually presented showing only the verse 13. I chose to add the verse 14 for one specific reason: that we know that it is the Dawn who 'takes the earth by the edges'. This is very important, because taken alone we might think that is is God who dose this. Had it been God, then a literal interpretation of this verse would have been possible. But the fact that it is the dawn makes this verse much more poetic than literal. A phenomenological explanation could be applied to this verse as well, since it could mean no more than the visible horizon that the Dawn 'grasps' as the sun rises. Phenomenological language is used throughout the psalms, proverbs, etc. and so this option cannot be discarded unless their is valid reason to do so.

quote:

---

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.

​

Job 38:13

---

This verse is always half-quoted, the second part of it is never mentioned. Yet it is in the second part of the verse gives us an essential hint: the focus of this verse is the earth's 'features'. This is revealed also by the choice of the analogy: there are many ways to make a pancake, but if you want to focus on the features on it, then a seal is probably the best analogy to take. Thus, if the focus really is on the features, then it is not a stretch to think that the earth has the features (mountains, valleys, etc.) that God wanted it to have.Finally, I will address the book of Enoch. The real issue here is not if the Bible is the innerant word of God (after all, it is not part of the Bible) but if the author of Enoch had a flat-earth view. After reading it, I cannot rebute this second option. But two things have to be also considered: 1- The oldest manuscripts of it was found amongst the Dead sea Scrolls (incomplete), and although they are old, they are far away from Enoch, who is the great-grandfather of Noah. 2- There is no evidence whatsoever that it was taken as history by the Jews. Even Josephus, who viewed the six-day of creation as history, did not include it in his writings. As of such, it could very well be the oldest case of historical fiction. In regards to the quoting by Jude, there seems to be quite some controversy on the subject, as Enoch is thought to have been reworked over time by both christians and jews. Enoch and Jude could be quoting some other work now lost. Or Enoch could even be quoting Jude for all as we know. There is still some active debate on this. I'll start with the weakest ones. In my opinion:

quote:

---

as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us

​

Psalms 103:12

---

The weakest one as long as I don't get more insight on this. On a spehrical earth, If you keep going North you will start at one point to head back South, without changing direction. But if you head out west, you will never ever head back East, in fact you'll be heading West infinitely. Knowing that the author of the psalms does massive exaggerations to describe God's power, it would seem logical that this same God would remove our transgressions at an infinite distance from us. If he had meant a finite distance, he could as well have used North-South instead. (Although I acknowledge that it is a one chance in two)

quote:

---

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 40:22

---

The hebrew word for circle here is Chwug, which can be used to talk about sphericity as well a round and flat. The most common objections to this is why doesn't he use the word 'ball' (Dr) he uses in Isaiah 22:18 ? The answer is quite easy: Dr no more means sphericity then Chwug. In fact, Dr is also used in a context that would be illogical from a spherical perspective:

quote:

---

I will encamp against you all around;
I will encircle you with towers
and set up my siege works against you

​

Isaiah 29:3

---

Unless you are an incredible tactician, I doubt you could camp in the shape of a sphere around city.

quote:

---

The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

​

Ecclesiaste 1:6

---

This verse is as obvious as I have ever found concerning the sphericity of the earth in the Bible, and yet it is not well-known. On a flat=earth, it makes no sense. How could it head to the south, and turn to the north, round and round ? It makes a lot of sense on a sphere though.There, I'm pretty tired right now. So I'll address geocentricism and a domed sky as soon as I can. I have no doubt you will have objections to all this, and I will listen to them carefully. But I doubt I will respond unless it is very compelling, since in my opinion, it will turn out to be a debate between two different interpretations, with no real conclusive evidence.PS I agree that the predominent view of the time is a flat-earth, but we have to remember that the authors of the different books of the OT are for the very most part totally not influenced by pagan mythics and beliefs, about Gods etc. And I find no evidence that it would have been different for the flat-earth view.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Are you serious?What does 'very most part' mean?