The Bible's Flat Earth

Hi Rockondon, I agree with you, but that still doesn't mean that the author is referring to a planet. He's clearly not, since he would have had no idea that he was standing on a planet.In my view, the authors of Isaiah and the other quotes that have been discussed on this thread thought that they were standing on the uppermost face of a flat disc, covered by a dome-like vault of the heavens. Isaiah describes God as being enthroned atop this dome. Clearly, that is not a planet. When the word "earth" is used in this context, I think it is referring to all the land atop that disc, or at least much of the land (the known world). It's not referring to the whole thing and certainly not a planet. I'd be genuinely interested to hear some examples of who said what. I don't think that Severian actually said that, at least not in those words. I googled it and found this interesting post;

quote:

---

The Wikipedia flat-earth article quotes Severian thus:

​

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.

​

A reference is given of J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary Systems’, (1906) which needs to be verified. A limited preview of it is here, and Severian is on p.211-2. Here is what is said:

​

A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters 1, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,2, in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that. As an angel is spirit without body, so the upper heaven is fire without matter, while the lower one is fire with matter, and only by the special arrangement of providence sends its light and heat down to us, instead of upwards as other fires do3. The lower heaven was made on the second day; it is crystalline, congealed water, intended to be able to resist the flame of sun and moon and the infinite number of stars, to be full of fire and yet not dissolve nor burn, for which reason there is water on the outside. This water will also come in handy on the last day, when it will be used for putting out the fire of the sun, moon and stars4. The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent or tabernacle; it is Hethat stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in5; the Scripture says that it has a top, which a sphere has not, and it is also written: The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar6. 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, and he quotes: The sun goeth down and hasteth to his place where he ariseth7. When the sun goes more to the south, the days are shorter and we have winter, as the sun takes all the longer to perform his nightly journey1.

​

Few of those familiar with Wikipedia will be surprised, then, to discover that the quote is in fact the words of Dreyer, not of Severian. Amusingly the quote has made its way, sans reference, into the French and German articles.

​

But the exciting part is that Dreyer clearly has read Severian, albeit in the Latin version, and so it should be possible to identify the material properly.

---

Source; Why Severian of Gabala is famous – Roger PearseSo whilst the quote may portray an accurate summary of Severian's opinions on the sun and Earth, the words are not his, they are Dreyer's.Please understand, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here, I'm more concerned that our criticisms of the Bible should be valid ones

That pretty much describes what it looks like when looking out from the observation deck near the top of Sears Tower. Oops, I've got to remember that they renamed it to "Willis Tower".When I first took my children there (and it was "Sears Tower" back then), they commented that the people on the ground looked like ants, and "like grasshoppers" is just a slightly different metaphor expressing the same idea.It seems to me that you are reading far too much into those verses. A pizza is both round and flat (well, relatively flat except for a few bumps of pepperoni or whatever) at the same time.

Hi Granny Magda, So do I. I think we're in agreement here. Essentially what I'm saying is that Isaiah thought the earth was a flat disc and he wrote those verses accordingly. I already provided a list on the last page but here it is again: 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. Of course its Dreyer's words - he's transliterating from Latin.To put it another way:
Person A writes "bonjour."
Person B translates that to mean "hello."
Then this poster comes along and says that the "hello" was person B's 'own words' and how amusing it is that the "hello" would be attributed to person A. If correcting my mistakes is a pain in the ass then please please please be a pain in the ass all you want. I prefer to learn, not stubbornly cling to error.

Hi again, Yeah, I know that, but what did they say and where did they say it? Lists without references to original sources aren't worth much. Attributed quotes with proper citations on the other hand would be a valuable addition to this thread. No he's not. Look again;

quote:

---

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,

---

Note the quote marks around "as if hidden by a wall". Dreyer is directly quoting that bit; it is a translation. The other part of the text is not a translation. It is a summary of Severian's opinions. If you look at the article you will see various sections in quotes (translations of Severian's own words) and other sections not in quotes (Dreyer's summations of Severian, using modern phrases like "This water will also come in handy", etc.).The "quote" you cite may be true to the spirit of Severian's writings, but it is inappropriate to attribute it to him, since he didn't actually say it.Mutate and Survive

I got their names from here: CA662: Church teaching a flat earth
I don't see the fact that Christian theologians taught a flat earth is even questionable. Even Jonathan Wells mentions that Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes teaching a flat earth. I agree with this. Looking at his the page in question here, it seems that the sections in quotes are direct translations and the sections outside of quotes are paraphrased.
Is this not fairly standard practice when transliterating from one language to another? Do you think its possible to do a direct translation of every word (many of which do not exist in both languages)? Do you think that english and latin have the same grammar and syntax? I believe a certain amount of paraphrasing is necessary to make the translation meaningful to your readers.

Sure, but I don't think that's what's going on here. I think the passage is too brief to be a translation, however indirect. It is a summation of Severian's views on certain specific points, not a direct translation and as such, not attributable to Severian. I will keep an eye on Roger Pearse's page and see if he updates on this topic.Mutate and Survive

Thanks for catching the typo.

quote:

---

Its called the bible, and it says "earth." Earth is a planet.

---

The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth. It refers to the ground. It can also refer to territories. All the definitions of our English word "earth" are not definitions of the Hebrew word erets.Only the definitions referring to ground and soil fit with erets. The English word "earth" doesn't mean planet. In reference to the planet, it is only a name.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you feel he is speaking literally concerning the words that are translated circle and earth, then the literal meaning of the Hebrew words must be understood. What you have is the horizon of the land. No, the surrounding text doesn't imply planet, unless you can show me that the author knew he was on a planet.He creatively describes the environment around him.

quote:

---

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.

---

In Matthew 4:8, kosmos does not refer to planet. It is referring to kingdom's of the known inhabited world. The author of Luke uses the word oikoumenēs in his rendition of the verse. This refers to inhabited land and probably more precisely the Roman Empire. (Kosmos - Message 42)Daniel had a vision and saw a tree in the ground or middle of a territory. Again, show me that Daniel understood he stood on a planet, as opposed to land.

quote:

---

This looks like an opinion being presented as though it was fact. Do you have anything to back up this claim?

---

I've provided links to definitions and discussions.Show evidence that the Hebrew word "erets" refers to the planet. You've already been shown by several that just because the English word "earth" is used, doesn't mean it is referring to the planet named Earth.Naming one's cat Chocolate, doesn't mean that the word chocolate now means cat.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Granny's right: It isn't only about Christian theologians teaching a flat earth being unquestionable: You're a teacher here too. You are teaching me, well, lurkers in general, good debate practice. Not to mention upping the quality of EvC by including proper citations.

---

"Mom. Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

Even when I confine myself to Christian only sites (I presume you will argue the validity of secular ones), in about two minutes I found 5 examples of sources that feel that eretz can refer to the planet earth.Either Hebrew word "erets" or "adamah" can
refer to a country, land, or earth.
Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,600 BC and ended in Turkey. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. In you will all of the families of the eretz [earth] be blessed.
http://familybible.org/israel/Index.htmHave you heard this song by Debbie Friedman: Hodo al Eretz (His Glory Is Upon the Earth)Here is the Hebrew Lexicon definition for erets. Its got numerous definitions but I will just show the first one: And check out this christian apologetics page designed solely to refute claims that Christians taught a flat earth: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Isawa/flatearth.htm
Sounds to me like these Christian apologetics are saying that eretz usually means the earth as a globe, but not always. What does this even mean? Not only is this an absurd request, but virtually everyone knows they're on a planet. Children know they're on a planet. Most handicapped people I met know they're on a planet. And btw - even if he didn't know, isn't his work divinely inspired? Why would you ask how he knows he's on a planet but not ask how he knows that God is sitting on His throne?But anyway, now that we've established that eretz often refers to earth, lets look at that verse again. God is sitting on His throne up in the heavens and looking down on the circle of the eretz.
Gee...maybe it refers to a few acres or something...and if you actually believe that then there's really no point in attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you.

quote:

---

Either Hebrew word "erets" or "adamah" can
refer to a country, land, or earth.
Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,600 BC and ended in Turkey.

---

I agree with this statement. Neither of these words are referring to a planet. The English word earth in this usage refers to the ground, not planet or the name for the planet.Show me that these words refer to the planet and not the soil.

quote:

---

I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. In you will all of the families of the eretz [earth] be blessed.
http://familybible.org/israel/Index.htm

---

This link doesn't support that the word refers to the planet. In Genesis 12:1, God sent Abram to another land (eretz). Then it follows: The literal translation says "ground", but odds are land was understood as the meaning for adamah in that verse. Given that they were an agrarian society, they may have understood it as ground, but definitely not planet.The word earth makes sense to us today because we think of the planet, not the ground. Neither eretz nor adamah were names for the planet.

quote:

---

Have you heard this song by Debbie Friedman: Hodo al Eretz (His Glory Is Upon the Earth)

---

No and it's irrelevant. A current song using the word Eretz as a name for the planet is not the same as the ancient use of the word.Originally the English word "earth" was not a name for the planet, but referred to ground, soil, or dry land as I showed in Message 442.

quote:

---

Here is the Hebrew Lexicon definition for erets. Its got numerous definitions but I will just show the first one:

---

Yes it does, but is that the definition required by the verse? If the author didn't know he was on a planet, he can't be referring to the planet. He would be referring to the land around him or known to him. So he's referring to all the ground known to man at the time. I doubt if he was including the North and South Poles or the Americas. If you feel he was, then show me the evidence.

quote:

---

Sounds to me like these Christian apologetics are saying that eretz usually means the earth as a globe, but not always.

---

Apologetics aren't always on the side of reality, so I don't understand how that supports what eretz actually means and how it was understood by the author and his audience.

quote:

---

What does this even mean? Not only is this an absurd request, but virtually everyone knows they're on a planet. Children know they're on a planet. Most handicapped people I met know they're on a planet. And btw - even if he didn't know, isn't his work divinely inspired? Why would you ask how he knows he's on a planet but not ask how he knows that God is sitting on His throne?

---

We do today, but did they when the verse was written?
They were inspired to write what their audiences would understand. They knew what a throne was and they knew what God was, so not hard to understand. They understand the horizon and the sky above, but not a planet under their feet. They understood ground. The planets were wandering stars in the sky.

quote:

---

But anyway, now that we've established that eretz often refers to earth, lets look at that verse again. God is sitting on His throne up in the heavens and looking down on the circle of the eretz.
Gee...maybe it refers to a few acres or something...and if you actually believe that then there's really no point in attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you.

---

Eretz refers to earth (dry land), but not to Earth (planet). God called the dry, eretz, not the wet. You have not shown that eretz was used to refer to the planet, as opposed to just known land.The verse does not describe a flat planet. The description is consistent with a creative ancient view of the land as it looks through the human eye. Land would be seen as "flat", not a globe. So yes they describe flat land, not a flat planet. What Christian theologians teach is irrelevant to what the Bible says.There's a difference between earth and Earth.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Purpledawn,Usually when someone makes a claim like... ...and they are shown something like.......they usually have the integrity to admit that they were wrong.
But not you.An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.
But not you.You decided on a particular interpretation and are so steadfastly opposed to the idea that your interpretation could be wrong that you refuse to accept alternative definitions even when they are put right in front of you.Let me show you what disingenuous looks like...It seems that the word 'earth' always means ground, never a planet, according to you...so long as that arbitrarily chosen definition supports the interpretation that you cling to because its your interpretation and its impossible that you could be wrong. And don't get me wrong, I might not be right either, but I'm not going to lie to myself and others to support my position.And when Christian apologetics, whom are highly motivated to agree with your assertion, but have the integrity and honesty to admit the truth, how do you respond?...you respond by calling them INSANE!That's right purpledawn, its the world that is crazy, not you.(any by 'world' I mean the planet earth as a whole - just in case you thought it meant 'ground' or something)

Erets cannot be referring to a planet, as in a large sphere flying around in space. The concept was simply unavailable at the time.Even it meaning "whole earth (as opposed to part)" is not referring to a planet as a large sphere flying around in space. Those people just did not have that concept available to them. How dare you! PD is a very nice, reasonable, and honest person. You're just being a dick.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

quote:

---

An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.
But not you.

---

In Message 442, I provided links to definitions of eretz and earth. It is quite obvious in those links that there are several meanings. I agreed with your definition in Message 444, which also showed several meanings. So I guess I'm an honest person, since I've clearly shown and agreed that eretz and earth have several meanings. (Thanks CS )

quote:

---

It seems that the word 'earth' always means ground, never a planet, according to you...so long as that arbitrarily chosen definition supports the interpretation that you cling to because its your interpretation and its impossible that you could be wrong. And don't get me wrong, I might not be right either, but I'm not going to lie to myself and others to support my position.

---

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me dishonest or disingenuous. Unfortunately for you, planet is not in the definition of the English word earth or the Hebrew word eretz. It is just the name of a very specific planet that we live on and I've shown you the etymology in Message 442. It wasn't used as the name of the planet until about 1400.The definition you provided didn't say planet. The English word earth does not mean planet. It also doesn't mean globe.A word can have many meanings, but it is important to use the right one.Show me evidence that Isaiah knew he was standing on a planet, as opposed to ground.

quote:

---

And when Christian apologetics, whom are highly motivated to agree with your assertion, but have the integrity and honesty to admit the truth, how do you respond?

---

What to they admit exactly?
From the apologetics I've read, they would prefer it refer to the planet. It messes up some doctrines when it doesn't.

quote:

---

That's right purpledawn, its the world that is crazy, not you.
(any by 'world' I mean the planet earth as a whole - just in case you thought it meant 'ground' or something)

---

You actually mean the people on the planet, unless of course you truly feel the planet itself is crazy.Notice you said "planet earth". That would be redundant if earth meant planet.Meanings are added to words over time. Show me that the ancient Hebrews referred to the planet as eretz at the time of Isaiah, as opposed to the land around them.
Show me that they knew they were on a planet.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Purpledawn, Sadly, this has nothing to do with our conversation. Everyone and their dog accept that those two words have different meanings, nobody cares.These are your words in msg 442: And I've clearly shown that one of the meanings of erets is the earth...the entire earth. Not just dirt, or ground, or land, but the entire planet.Instead of simply admitting the error and moving on, you go on this tedious path of rebuttals like that silly moving-the-goalposts-style equivocation about "eretz and earth have several meanings" - please tell me who on this forum was insisting that both 'earth' and 'eretz' have only one meaning so you and I can destroy their arguments together.You can respond to the erets/earth argument 100 more times if you like, but it really doesn't interest me anymore. As for the interpretation of the verse(s), I propose we simply agree to disagree.Incidentally, I apologize for being unduly harsh. I felt that as you scrutinized my arguments and encouraged me to support them to the highest standard (I felt like I was writing another essay or something, lol), I would return the favor and try to dissect your arguments as well.
I hope we meet again on the literary battlefield. Feel free to hate me if you like, but I respect you as a worthy opponent. Catholic Scientist, Yeah, probably. But wasn't it divinely inspired? Isn't the bible inerrant?My answer to both those questions is 'no.' My position is that Isaiah described the world as he thought it was, a flat disc. I've often heard that Isaiah said the earth was round before anyone else knew it was, so I'm pointing out that not only is that wrong, but that his claims are further proof that the bible is not inerrant.

The Bible is clearly not inerrant, and nobody knows whether or not it was divinely inspired.If you want to assume its divinely inspired, then you have to wonder why God would tell them something that's true meaning was completely different than what they thought it to be (i.e. erets referring to a concept they were unable to have). And that is not a planet, so you don't think they were referring to a planet either.So why argue otherwise? I think that you think that when they referred to the earth in it entirety, that that must mean a planet. But that is our modern understanding of the earth in its entirety and they were incapable of having that concept, so them referring to the entire earth could not be them referring to a planet as we understand it today. Arguing that erets does refer to a planet isn't anything close to the argument above No. The entire earth does not equal a planet for their conception of our world. Showing it refers to the enitre earth does not show that they're referring to a planet. As you said, to them the enitire earth was a disc.