The Bible's Flat Earth

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?

Modern is the only one which concerns me in this discussion, beginning with Wycliffe's Bible in the late 14th century. That may be OK in terms of the rules of writing English but with regard to awareness of cosmic realities I compare Wycliffe for the Pre Columbian perspective of its producer. Thank you for bringing it here to be tested. One must be careful when testing his hypotheses on persons less intelligent than himself. They are clearly misguided in that, aren't they? I think you misunderstand what I have said. The inconsistency is among "modern" versions; beginning with Wycliffe (1382) and running to present. The versions without such niceties as punctuation and capitalization are the truly ancient ones. The scheme of capitalization does exert an influence on them. What? You mean by showing them the inconsistency in schemes of capitalization? You've got me there. It's been a long time since I was introduced to the rules, and since then, some rules appear to have changed. Some nouns once considered proper, are now used commonly. The Germans may be onto something in this regard. They capitalize ALL their nouns.As I compare the texts in question, in terms of how they treat the word "earth," i.e. to capitalize or NOT capitalize, I see no rhyme or reason in them. Perhaps this is a phenomenon born of the method used to translate the old texts. The KJV translators, for example, were a group of 54 (?) scholars segregated into sub-committees. In this style of translating, majority rules apply. Thus, as is typical of committee actions, a single strong-minded individual, however looney, might influence the final outcome in some cockamamie fashion. You realize, of course, that the KJV underwent many corrective redactions before arriving at the final, 1769 edition.To conclude: I would be careful of putting too much stock in whether or not a word is capitalized. There are other biblical words which present the same kind of tantalizing possibilites, especially the word "god." Here, the question has been three fold: 1) whether or not to capitalize it, 2) whether to make it singular, or plural, and 3) whether to make it masculine or feminine. In practice, all three questions have been answered in various ways by various scholars, even within the same translation, even from one edition to another.Example: Gen 3:5

quote:

---

1611 - For God doeth know, that in the day ye eate thereof, then your eyes shalbee opened: and yee shall bee as Gods, knowing good and euill.

​

1769 - For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

In the Hebrew text from which this verse is drawn, there is no distinction between "God" and "gods." It is all the same word. The Greek text (LXX) indicates the first usage as singular and second as plural (and, of course, no capitalization). The Latin (Vulgate) doesn't include a second reference to deity.What would be the significance of this; according to your hypothesis?

---

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

So, if I understand you correctly: Is that what you are saying?And by extension asserting that "the earth" at verse 1 should be understood as "dry land." i.e. opposite of what the text itself indicates and suggests?Is that what you are saying?'Cause it seems to me that the text is clear on what is being called "Earth."It is the "dry land" which is being called "Earth."And the "earth" of verse one is lumped together with the "heaven," which fact iself suggests to me a regional conception, i.e. that of a Domain.

quote:

---

Gen 1:26,27 KJV - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

---

I am wondering what you make of this? The "domain" of man, according to this verse, includes land, sea and air. By your reasoning then, should not all of these domains be capitalized? But they are not.{still testing your hypothesis}

---

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

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?

May I remind you that by enclosing the word "land" in brackets, the translator is letting us know that he has added it in, where he thinks it belongs. The Greek, Latin, and Hebrew versions do not include the word "land" here; unless you consider the fact that their words: ghi, terra and 'erets, which mean "land" are placed where English readers see the word "earth." This is not the case for readers of the NIV and NLT, but that is another kettle of fish. So, when the ancients read their Bible, they may have gotten a somewhat different impression. I'm going to boldly assert that every classic Bible simply says, We may assume that the Hebrew word - "yabbeshah" implies land, much as "desert" implies "land" in our language. It may interest you to know that the Greek word is XIROS, from which we get our word "Xerox" (dry process) and the Latin word is ARIDA, from which we get (DUH) "Arid." In the great lexical work of Gesenius concerning the Hebrew term, we read:

quote:

---

"... that which is dry ... Hence used for dry land as opposed to sea, ...

---

see fuller text Here.So, NO. It does NOT mean "land at the bottom of the sea," but rather points up the contrast between land and sea; the one being "dry" and the other being, well ... "water." It may interest you to know that where Gen 1:26 refers to "... the fowl of the air ..." - the word "air" is given for the Hebrew: shamayim; - the "Heaven" of verses, 1 and 8; both of which are capitalized in the 1611 edition.It may also interest you to know that where Gen 7:23 refers to "... the fowl of the heaven ..." - the word "heaven" is given for the Hebrew: shamayim; - the "air" of Gen 1:26, and the "heaven" of Gen 1:1,8.Pardon me if you were already aware of that.My point is that the Hebrew terminology employed in the creation narrative does not appear to discriminate between, "earth" and "land," "water" and "sea," or "heaven" and "air." In the Genesis narrative, "earth" IS "land," "water" IS "sea," and "heaven" IS "air."The Sumerian myth from which Genesis is apparently derived, describes the air-god Lil puffing into the water, which creats an airspace, which lifts the sky from off the land and holds it aloft. In like manner, the spirit (breath) of El is depicted gusting (my translation) on the waters primeval (the deep), thus separating them into upper and lower regions: water above and below the firmament which He calls Heaven, an air space (shamayim) which holds up the overhead waters and prevents them from drowning the land which appears when the lower waters are pooled.This is a very brief sketch of the matter, the full evidence of which has persuaded many a scholar to conclude a Mesopotmian origin for the Hebrew creation myth. It is, of course, only one of many lines of evidence which converge on that conclusion. This disagrees with much of the current thinking among fundamentalist Christians but I think one must look to what the original writer had in mind and not be very concerned for what King Henry, Queen Elizabeth, or King James wanted us to get out of their "Authorized" versions of the Bible. And that my friend is determined, among other things, by which words have been capitalized and where.Yes?

---

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

I'm going to stand on the fact that these matters were irrelevent in the original context. No capitalization remember. No punctuation. No spaces between words. All that has been added for the convenience of subsequent generations. What does that say about our ability to read? Anyway, I have half a mind to cook up a lecture entitled "Can the Bible Be Translated?" And I am thinking that it cannot be translated in such a way as to fulfill the popular expectation of what a Bible translation should be. It would not be the sort of thing you could simply sit down and read with comprehension and enjoyment. People have been trying to accomplish just that for a long long time. We are simply too far removed from the historical and cultural context in which it was written. We need lots of extras to go with our Bibles: Dictionaries, Concordances, Commentaries, and more.Historically it appears that all efforts to produce an improved translation have been conducted by believers. There has probably never been a Bible produced by skeptical, non-theistic scholars who have no axe to grind; are NOT beholding to a religious institution; and/or are not driven by some sort of "spiritual" motivation. In other words, there has never been and probably never will be an "unbiased" translation. I said it. I believe it. And that's that.

---

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

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?

Yes. NOT in the Bible. An excellent question, and one which I am currently investigating with the help of Babylon.comThey have an expression which roughly translates as "earth globe," which is what people were learning to call our planet in the latter part of the eighteenth century. During the Protestant Reformation, when English language Bibles were all the rage, no one seems to have been using the term "earth" as a reference to the globe, much less the planet. Columbus (54 years before Copernicus published) referred to it as the "terraqueous globe," i.e. a "ball of earth and water." They have modernized it, but as Rabbi David told me, they do not speak of a difference between the "old" language and the "new." I'm not sure whether that policy applies among Israeli scholars. I am doubting it. But the languages are similar enough to make certain assumptions based on usages. At this point in my study, the current "theory" that the Bible NEVER refers to planet earth appears to be undiminished.The root "yabesh" apparently still means the same: "dry."

---

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

Isaiah referred to the earth as a 'circle' which is flat, like a dinner plate. If he thought it was round he should have said it was round, or a ball, or a sphere, or a pebble, or any of a million other things that would have described a 3-dimensional shape.Here is a list of some of the christian theologians who taught that the earth was flat, based on scripture: Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severian of Gabala."The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall" ~ Severian, Bishop of Gabala

Welcome to EvC,It helps the debate and avoids misunderstanding if you provide the scripture you are referring to. Isaiah is written as poetry, which means creative writing, not scientific.The word translated as "earth" is not referring to the planet. Not the Planet
When 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 numberEdited by purpledawn, : Fixed link

Thanks! You're right. It wasn't Isaiah 40:12 btw, it was 40:22. I agree. But then, I consider the entire bible to be metaphorical. To me its a more a book of lessons than a science book, but I digress.
Lets accept that it is poetry and lets read it again:
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.
As you can see, when Isaiah is not speaking literally he uses the word "like." When he refers to the circle of the earth, he appears to have been speaking literally. Guess what - Satan did something just like this with Matthew.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
One would only be able to see all the kingdoms of the world from one vantage point if the earth was flat. Which the authors of the bible clearly believed it was. Plus there's a verse in Daniel that reads...
4:10 I 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.
The tree was in the center...how interesting...and visible from everywhere on the planet. Sounds like he thinks the earth is round....NOT. This looks like an opinion being presented as though it was fact. Do you have anything to back up this claim? Its called the bible, and it says "earth." Earth is a planet.

Hi Rockondon and welcome, I'll take a stab at that. How about the fact that no-one thought of Earth as a planet at all until centuries later? Or the fact that the name "Earth" as the name of a planet postdates the Book of Isaiah by centuries?Now I agree with you that the Bible authors had a flat land mass in mind when they use the word erets (earth), but they are not referring to a planet in the modern sense. They had no such concept. You are being obstinate. The word "earth", in English can have more than one meaning. Similarly, the Hebrew word erets could have more than one meaning. None of those meanings involved planets though, not in reference to the Earth.If I told you that I had filled a plant pot with earth, would you assume that I had thrust an entire planet into a plant pot?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Actually, purpledawn included a link to a relevant discussion thread, immediately following the sentence that you quoted. (The referenced thread was: ---> Not The Planet <---). That's a bit simplistic. The word "earth" can be used to refer to the ground that we stand on. Before Copernicus, planets were assumed to be wandering stars and we were taken to be at the center of the universe. The modern concept of planet did not even exist.

It sure did and I checked it out before I posted. After reading through paragraphs of speculation I gave up. I'd rather see the evidence, or at least some reasoning, than go on a wild goose chase. The Copernicus comment is a red herring.
And yes, the word "earth" can be used to refer to the ground we stand on. For example, as Granny Magda mentioned, I can use "earth" to pot a plant.
However, those arguments fail when you read the verse in context. Lets look at the verses before and after: Does this sound like he's refering to a scoop of dirt? When it says "the rulers of this world" do you think he's referring to enough dirt to pot a plant, a few square miles, or even a nation? Of course not. These verses are about God, sitting on His throne in heaven, looking down on the earth.And besides, if they believed the earth was round, why did so many Christian theologians teach that it was flat?"The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall" ~ Severian, Bishop of Gabala