The "Circle of the Earth"

While it is true that "circle" does not refer to a spherical reality, it is also true that "earth" does not refer to a global reality. In fact the word "earth," as used in the Bible, is never a planetary reference. The Hebrew 'erets, which sometimes appears as "earth" in the Bible, is most often translated: land, and is also given as country, ground, and field. Our word "earth" is not that flexible.Simply put: 'erets is a word for real estate. It is occasionally used metaphorically to describe a body politic but generally speaking, it simply means "land," as suggested by the fact that it is most often translated in that manner. Frequent use of the word "earth," by translators may be attributed to a desire for broader application of certain politically convenient biblical injunctions. Use of the word "earth" instead of "land" may enhance the Christian dream of global dominance.The old Latin (Vulgate), and all modern versions have the deity sitting "above" the circle of the earth rather than "upon" it (as the King James reads). This alters the interpretation considerably.A clue to the deity's perspective is revealed in this paraphrastic rendering by creators of the New Living Translation (NLT).

quote:

---

"The people below must seem to him like grasshoppers!"

---

Why do they seem like grasshoppers? Probably because he is viewing them from an elevated position. Anyone who has looked down from a few hundred feet above the ground can tell you that from up there, people look very small. Rise a little higher and they disappear entirely.When one surveys one's surroundings from the top of a high structure in a flat land: Two things become apparent.1): The land takes on a circular appearance; and2): The people below look very small, "like bugs."I know that chugg may be used to describe the firmament, however, in terms of geometric accuracy, dome is a better word for it. And chugg does describe something of a truly circular nature: the horizon. Proverbs 8:27The NLT reads:

quote:

---

"I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans."

---

Most modern versions agree with this understanding. Remember now, the "House of God" was located at the highest point in the land. The "Highest" point.Does this seem too low a seat for "God's" point of view?Consider the concept of theocracy, in which One "High Priest" embodies the Spirit of the deity. Consider the concept of monarchy, in which One "Most High Prince" is filled with that Spirit. These men represent the deity, they stand in his place, speak for him, and sit upon his throne.

quote:

---

"Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD ..."1Ch 29:23

---

As "God's representative on earth" a king is the de-facto deity of his "earth" (i.e land). If you don't believe it, just cross him and then try to escape his wrath. Is it so hard to believe that people "worshipped" their king?

quote:

---

And all the congregation ... worshipped the LORD, and the king. 1Ch 29:20

---

If the deity were viewing humanity from the tallest building in the ancient world, then yes: the people would seem like grasshoppers. If he were viewing them from twice that high they might seem as ants. But if he were viewing them from a much higher position, say from the firmament, then they wouldn't seem like anything at all. They would be invisible. (The firmament was about 100 miles up according to Babylonian calculations).So who was this "god" which the poet describes?

---

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

I am reminded of the previous verse:

quote:

---

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: ... Isa 40:7

---

Cheers

---

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

True.

quote:

---

Close only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.

---

The first words of Genesis are more limited in scope than I had previously imagined.For the sake of brevity I will focus on Genesis 1 verse 2. The popular interpretation of Genesis 1:2 (very like that of Philo) requires acceptance of an oxymoronic statement. The Hebrew expression tohu-bohu becomes complete nonsense when given the English: "without form and void." That rendering baffles the mind of the reader and leads to equally mind-numbing alternatives, such as the NLT’s: “formless mass.” Philo devotes a number of pages to explaining those two little words. He goes on and on trying to rationalize how there can be such a thing as an Unsubstantial Substance. I don't believe the writer intended to incapacitate the mental functions of his readers from the very first utterance. This nutty discussion reminds me of a few lines of verse which I heard in elementary school. I don’t recall the whole thing and have no idea who wrote it but, if memory serves, it starts out like this:

quote:

---

”As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there .

---

Surely Philo must have been trying to help his fellow Jews accept what they had long resisted on religious grounds - global theory. Global theory is the notion that Earth is a ball shaped object which includes both land and sea as two aspects of a greater whole hanging, without support, in the middle of the universe. Proposed by Greek Philosophers as early as 600 BC, embraced by Aristotle in about 300 BC, global theory had become popular science long before the birth of “Jesus who is called ”Christ.’” Genesis holds that Earth and Sea are separate realities; that Earth appeared in the Sea when the primeval water was drawn down. Philo had to have realized that the perceived universe described in the first chapter of Genesis was not compatible with the calculated universe known in his own time. Happily, for Philo and his cronies, Philo came up with a way to explain how Genesis does not mean what it says. Subsequent apologists and their pet translators have preserved and perpetuated Philo's brand of insanity. Unsubstantial Substance indeed!To the point: "tohu-bohu" is descriptive of a desert wasteland. I refer you to Strong's Hebrew/Chaldee Word List for the etymology.Witness the corroborating evidence:

• in verses 9 and 10, where the deity defines "Earth" as "dry land."
  ​
• in chapter 2 verse 4 which describes a land without rain where crops must be irrigated.

Those environments fit the definition of "tohu-bohu" very nicely whereas Unsubstantial Substance does not. Is it science yet?

---

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

I am inclined to agree in terms of what the author had in mind but have not yet found a translator willing to publish the text in that way. Are you aware of one who has?Even though I understand that the author may have intended to describe all of existence, it remains clear to me that his conception of "everything" was extremely limited. I stand by my earlier assertion that the biblical word 'earth,' never suggests a planetary concept; and now add, for the purpose of clarification, that it also never suggests a global concept as we understand the literal meaning of that word. Even biblical expressions such as "whole earth," "all the earth," and "all the world," may be demonstrated, in context, to depict relatively small areas of the globe. I did not say that it is. My point, and what I said, is that many interpretations require that we accept the oxymoronic notion of something which is nothing. The following commentary which I found, on what appears to be a Jewish website, does little to modify my opinion. (italic emphasis mine)

quote:

---

[4] Tohu refers to the initial state of utter formlessness. Bohu is an intermediary state where the four fundamental properties have been established (Nachmanides). These are fire, air, water and earth. These four are not to be understood as materials, but as potential properties of the materials that will come to be. In terms of quantum mechanics they are positive, negative, matter and anti-matter (the Rebbe). From them and through combinations of them will extend all states of matter. Matter itself, however, has yet to come into being. Just a moment...

---

This is simply a modernization of Philo's cockamamie something/nothing fantasy. I understand the temptation to view it in that way but in context it seems laughable. i.e. "When God created the earth, the earth did not exist, and was covered with water." I do no mean to make fun of the text but rather of the interpretation. Indeed. There are two things here which challenge the modern interpreter.Assuming, as many do, that the first two verses are an introductory summation of the cosmogony, then there is no serious obstacle to the interpretation which I have offered. {Note that the text does not actually say that "earth" is under the water at this point.} In addition to other advantages offered by said interpretation is its consistency with subsequent descriptions of Earth as "dry land" and a place where there is "no rain."Lending some strength to my argument regarding interpretation of tohu-bohu is the Septuagint reading of Genesis 1:2 which says: earth was unsightly and unfurnished. Sir Brenton's translation. The other challenge I see here is to explain why we imagine a water covered earth beneath the surface of which is that which God will call "Earth," defined in terms of its dryness; and then He defines "Sea" as the water in which Earth has appeared. This presents a fundamental challenge to creationist interpreters. The Bible, even the New Testament, is clear regarding the cosmological concept being presented here. Clearly, it is not one with which modern students are intimately familiar. It is not even remotely conceivable as a "global" view, in terms of solid geometry. I am thinking of how Saint Peter describes Earth as being partly in and partly out of the water.As to how a desert can exist under water, consider the annual flood of the Euphrates as it was experienced prior to the development and widespread deployment of river levees. The Mesopotamian desert was under water for some time every year. Does that make it something other than desert?

---

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

In English, perhaps. That is why we explore earlier versions. FYI: 'fluid' is a form of matter. Yes. They do. And how is that "without form?" What present environment would you say is "without form?"

---

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

As much as I appreciate that as an alternative rendering and have embraced it in past, I am not now convinced that it is the be all end all of translations. I like that it pretty much obviates the notion of creation ex nihilo. i.e. When god began creating ... there already existed a body of water beneath which lay an earth waiting to be revealed. Two things:1) Many scholars see verses 1 and 2 as prologue, subsequent to which the acts of creation are narrated according to daily order. 2) When the "dry [land]" appears, God calls it "Earth." What reason can you offer to substantiate that conclusion? It's not like we don't know what tohu and bohu really mean. These words are used elsewhere in the Scripture. Yet nowhere else do Bible pundits offer so intangible a ”definition’ as here in the opening words of the text.Hope I have addressed your points.

---

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

Indeed. I'm sure our friend would benefit from a screening of that memorable classic, a copy of which no free thinking home should be without.I have upgraded my copy to DVD. Anyone care to buy a slightly worn VHS?

---

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

I agree, of course, that tohu is a reference to wasteland. And you are surely aware that the expression tohu bohu is utilized at Jeremiah 4:23 to describe the ruin of Jerusalem and its environs. Here, tohu bohu, apparently purposefully, calls to mind the creation story of Genesis chapter one.

quote:

---

I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.

---

Much of the imagery here is identical to that of Genesis. No humans. No animals. Only a ruin; a miserable waste. Oddly enough, the Septuagint apparently (according to Brenton) chooses this circumstance to comply with what you would have of tohu/bohu at Genesis 1:2.

quote:

---

I looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was not;

---

I do not, at this time, pretend to know a better translation of this. Interpretations of poetry are difficult, even in one's native tongue. What intriques me about this reading is it may suggest that in order to be fully 'erets, a place should be habitable (impossible amidst the ruins of Jeremiah's vision; and impossible in the newly revealed 'erets of verse 9 (lacking flora and fauna). Correct me if I misunderstand your point but I suspect the assertion is not precisely true in this instance.In closing I would like to lay out Dr. Strong's etymology of tohu and bohu, and ask if you have a problem with it and/or can offer a better, or perhaps more authoritative one.

quote:

---

{tohu} ... from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively - a worthless thing; adverbially - in vain

​

{bohu} ... from an unused root (meaning to be empty; a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin

---

I submit that the root meaning of tohu is concrete rather than figurative, thus putting 'waste(land)' at the top of the list of conceivable English substitutes. Coupling that with the notion of 'empty(ruin)' attributed to bohu suggests a meaning of "uninhabited wasteland," such as was the condition of the Mesopotamian prior to establishment of agriculture; and the environs of Jerusalem in Jeremiah's vision. Here again: Jeremiah 4:23, this time from the old Living Bible:

quote:

---

I looked down upon their land and as far as I could see in all directions everything was ruins.

---

This comparison is important in so many ways, not least of which is confirmation of the true meaning of 'erets or arats if you will; although I am personally tempted to give it eretz as do English writing citizens of Israel today.I'm sure you must see where this leads. I, of course, am not the first to notice it. Wasn't it Josephus who first penned the notion that 'earth' had been created (or re-created), many times? A proper understanding of eretz does nothing to detract from that assertion.

---

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

To clarify our discussion I present the KJ version here.

quote:

---

Isa 34:11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

---

The context is virtually identical to, although somewhat post traumatic of, the conditions in Jeremiah's vision. That is: a ruined 'erets, in this case 'erets Idumea.I thought you had meant to say that tohu and bohu appear three times as a couplet, i.e. tohu:bohu, so I drew your attention to the above verse which, unlike the other verses joins tohu and bohu individually to the nouns: "line" and "stones." This results in a considerably different impression. For example, if I say "black box" you might imagine it to be an idiomatic expression (what you seem to wish for tohu:bohu). But if I say "black plastic toy box," an entirely different expectation is created. Even so, I could accurately describe that toy container by simply calling it "black box." I suspect that you wish more for the expression tohu:bohu that it is capable of delivering. In other words, I feel that the burden of proof lies with those who wish tohu and/or bohu to mean something other than what they obviously do in every case, except Genesis 1:2 where they are wont to mean something else entirely; something beyond human comprehension. The dictionary was copyrighted by Strong. Its Preface suggests that Strong's principal contribution may have been in making the work of Gesenius and Furst more accessible. I have been favorably impressed with the frankness of certain of its revelations which in my opinion would be anathema to popular Christian dogma. Strong's work has the added advantage of widespread popularity, even among those who abridge his etymologies in ways which I think are less than adequately critical (you know: hypocritical ). What I am driving at is the idea that Genesis chapter one is describing a re-creation. A refitting of the world subsequent to a dark, very wet, windy, and destructive flood. I know it seems like a long reach but then so has been many a new thought which I look back on now as just another no brainer. The first long reach for me was accepting the idea that there are two different accounts of creation, chapters 1 and 2 (approximately). Was that a reach for you as well?

---

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

I assume you meant "for" children. I got the same impression when I first began studying the Hebrew language of Genesis (with my few crude tools). I agree. And must therfore reiterate my position that "without form and void" has confused many would be interpreters and baffled millions of sincere Sunday School students. It is, conceptually, completely different from what one would expect, given how the same Hebrew language is treated anywhere else in the Bible. While it is true that your interpretation is preferrable in terms of eliminating that particular confusion, I am still concerned by what seems to me an unnecessary mental gymnastic.My impression, correct me if I am wrong, is that you reject Philo's spiritual interpretation and imagine a substantive 'erets created (on day three) under water and subsequently revealed when the water is drawn down. Yes? I am often tempted by apparent connections but it's a hazardous venture. That said, I see and appreciate your observation; especially because it does not seem to threaten my theory. On the other hand, better scholars than I have proposed that tehom is an Hebraicism of Tiamat. Both indicative of the waters of chaos. Not that this would obviate the connection which you propose. Are you saying that tohu may be an evolved form of tehom? Or that tehom might be the plural of tohu? How cool is that, in terms of discovery?! Yep. I was reachin'.

---

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

Sorry for the delay. For some reason I did not receive notification of your reply. I am not as proficient with the Hebrew as yourself. Perhaps you can offer a transliteration for my simple mind?

---

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

Very Good. Thank you.I was wondering why there was no reply. Was waiting for an email reply. Had even come looking for it once to no avail.While we are on the subject of Hebrew ... Recently I was pretty much forced into acquiring a new computer. It uses Vista, of course, which, for some reason, does not seem to provide or support the SLHebrew and SLGreek fonts which I have depended upon for many years. Know anything about that? I searched the web a bit and found nothing on the subject. Tried to download the fonts as freeware but with no success. Any experience? Tips?I would appreciate assistance from any knowing person who might happen to be reading this.

Not to put too fine a point on it - it is poetry after all but the height, at which people might seem like grasshoppers to the unaided eye, is far lower than what the ancients imagined to be the height of the firmament. To me, this suggests some interpretation other than that of the deity looking down from a position "upon" the circle and favors one consistent with "above" it.From a few hundred feet overhead, people do indeed "seem as grasshoppers" but climb a little higher and they disappear entirely. This phenomenon one may observe from the comfort of a small aircraft.In such case, we may look to the horizon as the circle in question. This perspective inherits no altitude limitation, as does the alternative, and allows for the deity to be viewing humanity from the top of a temple tower such as people of the time were wont to create as housing for their gods.

---

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

The word chugg, appearing only three times in the Scripture, is not translated "firmament" by any version I have yet found, although "circuit of heaven" (Job 22:14) does seem to suggest something more elevated, the ecliptic perhaps.At Proverbs 8:27 we seem to have a clear indication that chugg (compass) is about the horizon, {emphasis mine} At least two modern versions here give chugg as "horizon" (NIV & NLT).The firmament, or "dome", is not actually a circular construct and aside from what may seem like a suggestion to that effect at Job 22:14, we have the more apparent interpretation observed at Proverbs 8:27. That said, and considering the difficulties encountered while attempting to defend the notion that this circle is the firmament, I find the aforementioned alternative more plausible. And, I understand why mainstream translators may be reluctant to commit that possibility to print, especially when they consider the issues it may raise with audiences who are steeped in the traditional rendering.

---

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