The Bible's Flat Earth

quote:

---

Sadly, this has nothing to do with our conversation. Everyone and their dog accept that those two words have different meanings, nobody cares.

---

I said several meanings, not different meanings.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have not shown that erets means planet. Remember, earth does not mean planet. At most you have entire land.

quote:

---

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 implied in Message 446 that I didn't accept that they had multiple meanings. I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet.

quote:

---

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.

---

Isaiah creatively described his environment and his view of God. Isaiah wasn't writing a scientific document. It was written as a poem. Even if he did know the ground curved, it wouldn't necessarily change the way that poem was written.That verse doesn't necessarily support that the Bible isn't inerrant. I'm sure there are better verses to make your point with. Even today, I wouldn't expect a poem to be scientifically correct. Unless, of course, it was a science poem.

---

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

I promised an update on the Severian of Gabala issue and here it is. I will continue to update as Roger Pearse pursues this further at his site.Pearse has translated part of one of Serverian's homilies. Here is the bit that we're interested in;

quote:

---

Let us now ask where the sun goes down, and where, during the night, it purses its course? According to our adversaries, under the land; and we who look at the sky as a tent, what is our feeling on this? Look and see, I beg you, whether we are in error, or whether the truth of our opinion appears clearly, and whether reality is in agreement with our hypothesis.

​

Imagine that above your head a pavilion has been set up. East would be there, north here, south there and west there. When the sun has left the East and starts to set, it will not set under the land; but crossing the limits of the sky, it traverses the northern areas where it is hidden by a kind of wall from our gaze, the upper waters concealing his journey from us; and, after having traversed these areas, it returns to the East.

​

And where is the proof of this assertion? In Ecclesiastes, an authentic and not interpolated work of Solomon: The sun rises and the sun sets, it is written there; while rising, it moves towards its setting, then it turns to the north; it turns, it turns, and it rises again in its place. Eccl., i, 5. Otherwise it is during the winter that you will note this southward journey of the sun, and its movement in the direction of the north; then, it does not rise in the centre of the East, it inclines towards the south, and, following a shorter route, it makes the day shorter; once it has set, it continues its circular direction, and the nights then are longer.

​

We all know, my brothers, that the sun always does not start at the same point. How then do the days become shorter? Because the sun, to rise, moves from the south; then, from where it rises, it follows an oblique path, and from this comes the brevity of the days. As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night. When the distance traversed and the speed of travel are the same, the nights then are equal to the days. After that, it moves northwards as during the winter it had moved south; it rises in the northern heights and makes the day longer; on the other hand the curve which it must follow during the night being shorter, the nights also become shorter.

​

This is not what the Greeks have taught us: they do not want these teachings, and they claim that the sun and the stars continue their course beneath the land. But no, the Scripture, this divine mistress, the Scripture leads us and dispenses her light to us.

---

Note that Pearse describes his efforts as "translated roughly"; he is planning to get a better translation done.Source; Severian of Gabala, Homily 3 on Genesis, chapter 5 – Roger PearseSeverian clearly thinks the sky-as-tent metaphor, much discussed on this thread, is intended to describe a literal domed sky, sitting upon a flat disc. He's clearly a flat-Earther. Of course Severian may be mistaken in his interpretation and the Bible authors may have intended another meaning. Nonetheless, here is a Christian Bishop, writing towards the end of the Forth century, who clearly thinks that the scripture is flat-Earth. His opinions do not appear to have been sufficiently heretical to have caused him or his writings any problems.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Severian clearly thinks the sky-as-tent metaphor, much discussed on this thread, is intended to describe a literal domed sky, sitting upon a flat disc. He's clearly a flat-Earther. Of course Severian may be mistaken in his interpretation and the Bible authors may have intended another meaning. Nonetheless, here is a Christian Bishop, writing towards the end of the Forth century, who clearly thinks that the scripture is flat-Earth. His opinions do not appear to have been sufficiently heretical to have caused him or his writings any problems.

---

Fascinating! Considering that by the 4th century Hellenistic Astronomy had supposedly established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.I noticed that what we have written today is different than what the Septuagint had. I wish we knew which way he was pointing. I assume by what he describes that he is pointing up towards the sky as north. I also assume that he means the ground is south. It sounds like he's redefining the directions to fit his purpose and making up his own "science." It would be interesting to know where he was placing the directions.If he is staying true to accepted directions, then he really has the sun doing a dance.The author of Ecclesiastes at least was describing creatively what we see concerning the sun. Severian seemed to create his own story for whatever purpose. I'm curious why he would need the sun to behave as he described.

Not necessarily. The sun does go south of you and then come back towards the north. Standing in my back yard, the sun is not directly over head, it is to the south. When it sets, it comes back towards the north a little and sets closer to due west.Like this: or this:

Thanks for the photos. Your first photo was also a visual I had, but didn't know what to call it. I thought it would be odd for someone to think up was north.So the Septuagint version is still describing what one can see and understand standing in their backyard. Assuming the text is correct, of course. Severian apparently doesn't like the geocentric or Ptolemaic view of the universe. He doesn't like the idea that the sun and stars "go beneath the land". So is Severian saying the sun goes back across the sky behind the "curtain" or "wall" as he put it? Basically enter stage left, run across the stage, exiting stage right, run behind the curtain to enter at stage left again.If that is true, then Severian is still going against the Greek reasoning of the time and I don't see that the scripture supports the idea of "going behind the curtain". Unless I'm still not understanding what he's saying.Thanks again for the photos. I like visuals.

Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. I think you're getting it right, and it does go against the Greek reasoning, but what scripture are you thinking of that doesn't mesh with it? Oh yeah. Way better than trying to describe that path of the sun in words.Google Images FTW!

quote:

---

I think you're getting it right, and it does go against the Greek reasoning, but what scripture are you thinking of that doesn't mesh with it?

---

Severian was using Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 to support his position of the trek behind the curtain. I don't see that that scripture supports what he's saying. The scripture doesn't really imply how the sun got back to the "starting point".By then the Greeks knew the earth was spherical. Was Severian really proposing that the earth wasn't spherical or just that he didn't agree about the path of the sun and the stars? At that point they still thought the earth was the center. Even though the Greeks knew the planet was spherical, did they understand what was on the "underside" or did they view all mankind on the "topside"?Could Severian and his people view a spherical earth, but the "tent" was only on the top?Interesting thoughts. More to research.

---

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 Magda, thanks for the update. I'd read about Severian's absurdly literal interpretation of the bible and its interesting to see it in more detail.Purpledawn, We're meaning the same thing - several different meanings. I agree that there is numerous better examples but the forum is biblical accuracy and inerrancy and the thread title is the bible's flat earth - so I went with the Isaiah example. Sure I have: Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.On topic, it appears that most or all of us agree that the bible is not inerrant. In which case, I'm off in search of more interesting debate.

Here's the KJV:

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 1

​

1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

​

2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

​

3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

​

4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

​

5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

​

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

​

7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

​

8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

​

9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

​

10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

​

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

---

Yeah, there's just not much there. Although, its odd that the sun quickly goes back to where it started. The writer obviouly though the sun went over the earth and did not think that the path it took during the night was the same length as the day.Severian says:

quote:

---

As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night.

---

And this doesn't really fit with what I'm getting from Ecclesiases. So, I'm with you on the lack of scirptural support. I don't know. It seems like he was supporting the dome-and-disc idea though. I don't think we can say from just his interpretation of Ecc 1:5-6, but have to take the whole idea into account. Yeah, I could see it going either way. I just don't have enough info to be confident in one or the other.Let me know what else you find.

Even as referring to the entire earth, it cannot be referring to a planet (as in flying through space like we understand it today).

I agree that the verse is NOT saying that its a round/globe/planet/sphere hurtling through space.
I hope that now we can move on with our lives and find people who disagree with our position to argue with - OKAY?!

quote:

---

Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.

---

Yes, it means earth as in ground, it does not mean Earth as in planet. Do you really not see the difference?

quote:

---

Message 461
I agree that the verse is NOT saying that its a round/globe/planet/sphere hurtling through space.

---

But the verse is also clearly not presenting a flat "planet". That's what started this whole issue of earth and planet. As you said in Message 432: Earth is the name of a planet and eretz means earth; but eretz does not mean planet or the name of a planet at that time.

quote:

---

I agree that there is numerous better examples but the forum is biblical accuracy and inerrancy and the thread title is the bible's flat earth - so I went with the Isaiah example.

---

I disagree that Isaiah 40:22 is an example of an error or referring to a flat planet. The visual created by the poetry is consistent with how a person in high place would describe what they see. Even a low place without visual obstruction would give the same visual. The horizon. It's a poem, not science.

quote:

---

Yeah, there's just not much there. Although, its odd that the sun quickly goes back to where it started. The writer obviouly though the sun went over the earth and did not think that the path it took during the night was the same length as the day.

---

Maybe he wrote during the summer, shorter nights.

quote:

---

I don't know. It seems like he was supporting the dome-and-disc idea though.

---

It has been an interesting read about Ptolemy and why he went with the fixed earth. I couldn't find any more on those who believe the "sky as a tent" and how they envisioned the Earth in relation to the sky. The Greeks had the heavens as a sphere and it seems Severian was at odds with that for whatever reason. Those who were considered flat earthers didn't really seem to carry much weight at the time. It wasn't the predominant view. This article on The Scandalous Flat Earth Myth brought up more ideas of what perpetuated the flat earth myths.It would be nice if they used verses that weren't written poetically to support their flat earth issue. It is too easy to see the "man on the street" viewpoint in the poem, as opposed to factual science.Needless to say I haven't found a lot more on my thoughts, but it was an interesting hunt. More may surface.

---

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

by immovable the various bible writers were saying that the earth pretty much followed the same rotation also in isaiah are tents flat or spherical? and in daniel it was a dream or a vision it was symbolic for what was about to happen and it actually happen. in matthew it says that jesus shown all of the kingdoms in an instant so by the sounds of it it was only a vision i get all my bible quotes from the niv version its a lot easier to understand

Hi knight4christ and welcome to the forum, Most certainly not. The quotes in question come from centuries before anyone was aware that the earth rotated at all. they thought that the sun moved, not the Earth. If you want to pursue this idea, you are going to need to demonstrate that the authors were aware of the actual movements of the Earth and celestial bodies. You are trying to view these words through the eyes of modern readers, with modern knowledge. That is grossly inappropriate. You've misunderstood. The sky is compared to a tent, not the ground. The tent metaphor is describing a dome (the vault of the heavens) not the ground. So what? It was a dream or vision that only makes visual sense in a flat Earth environment. If visions and poems use the imagery of a flat Earth and only a flat Earth, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they believed in a flat Earth. No it doesn't. It says nothing about "an instant". Go and read it again. Then why the emphasis on using height to gain vantage? A vision could be shown anywhere, but the devil takes Jesus to a great height in order to show him first the world.Mutate and Survive