The "Circle of the Earth"

the question, more appropriately, should be "is there an ancient hebrew word for planet?"and there is not. the modern word for "planet" or "world" is the ancient hebrew word for "eternity." there is, however, a word for "ball" as sidelined pointed out. had that been what isaiah meant, he could have written that. the "hh" seems to be representing the hard "h" sound, which typically renders "ch" and "chutzpah" and "chanukah." there isn't a sound for it in english. chagag ’’ is a different word, the root from which chug ’ originates. the first one has to do with celebrations, and the second comes from it, and the aspect of dancing in a circle.the verse is actually very poetic:

quote:

---

‘ —-’
‘ ’‘

— —‘

​

h'yashab al-chug ha-aretz
v'yashabyah ki-chagabim
hanoteh ki-doq shamim
v'matachem ki-ohel l'shabet

​

"he dwells on the vault of the earth
and those that dwell within are as grasshoppers
he stretches the heavens like a curtain
and spreads them as a tent to dwell in."

---

the chag or "grasshoppers" repeats the chug of "vault," and the shab is repeated three times. ki is used three times, and the -im endings match in the middle two lines. the natah from hanoteh matches the matach from matachem. there's a lot of "sound alikes" in the hebrew that just don't come into english.anyways, i've rendered the verse rather sloppily, but it does seem that "vault of the earth" is the correct translation, and that it refers to something that both encircles the earth, and forms non-flat shape: the dome of the heavens.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo spotted too late!

---

we used to have some members who were fluent, such as amlodhi. but i haven't seen him around here recently.this is a verse that even if i knew all there was to know, i wouldn't be able to settle this once and for all. the particular sense of the word (which you can check with the concordance, for the other instances) does not seem to be spherical, but rather something that surrounds to puts boundaries on the earth. and in hebrew cosmology, that would be the dome of the heavens. from the context of the verse, that seems to be what it means here.however, i'd also like to point out that this is one of the modern words for "sphere." probably because of this verse. i'd like to point out something, which i really feel blue letter bible should take some effort to correct. when you click their "concordance" link, you get taken to a page that has two functions: a dictionary definition, and a list of places it appears in the text. the concordance is the second part, and not the first. because BLB is popular, people on the internet typically conflate the two. but concordances don't define words. dictionaries do.strong did not write those defitions. he just cataloged where root words appear in the text. the definitions on that site seem to be related to the graphics below them, from the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testamament Scriptures by Wilhelm Gesenius. bible dicionaries, such as BLB's, are notoriously biased, often inserting personal interpretation of the authors (see leviathan, for instance).you will get better results with a hebrew bible and a modern dictionary, and a little knowledge of the language. that's all i use. yes, i would agree with that.

---

actually, that is what a concordance is for.

quote:

---

Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

---

quote:

---

Pro 8:27-29 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

​

When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

​

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

---

quote:

---

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

---

...and that's it. it's used three times total in the bible. that doesn't give us a lot to work from. but all references seem to talk of surrounding (which reflects the word's grammatical origin). no, i don't believe so. please contribute.

---

minor quibble: it says on, not above. you use al like you would say he "he lives on a mountain" or "we talked about something[/i]. i think this is important to how we read the verse. he's clearly on something, looking down at the people of the earth. i don't think god living on the sphere of the planet earth makes sense here. it seems to parallel "vault" with "heavens" and relate the idea to a "tent." er, this is one of the problems i have with BLB's "concordance." ohel means tent. period. it can be used to refer to the tabernacle -- that's imagery that's important here, actually. in 345 verses, it's translated "home" once, in judges 19:9, where it says:

quote:

---

— ——

​

...v'haleket l'ohelek

​

literally: "and you can go to your tent."

---

but since it's much more likely the levite in question lived in a city, the KJV (and most other translations) renders it "and you may go home." which is probably idiomatically acceptable, although it does not contain the negative connotations you might be able read into it if it were read literally.the problem comes when one starts with an ideology, pulls out a concordance, and thinks that because a word was translated that way once, it can mean that whenever it suits their needs. and that's just not the case.

---

that's not the first time i've been accused of being overliteral.the thing is, we cannot simply make the text say whatever we want it to. we have to start with what it says on the page, and the meaning comes from that. this particular verse is a very common theme in the prophets: the power of god, and god as a protector. look at the earlier verse too, for context, if you like. this one sums it up well:

quote:

---

Even as a shepherd that feedeth his flock, that gathereth the lambs in his arm, and carrieth them in his bosom, and gently leadeth those that give suck

​

Isaiah 40:11

---

but we can learn other things from the imagery used. and we can argue against inappropriate interpretations or misrepresentations of that imagery, quotemined to serve an ulterior purpose. using this verse to back up the accuracy of the bible is an inappropriate use. not only does not support that, but the usage doesn't actually make much sense.the intent of the verse relies upon the imagery of the flat earth, with the dome of the heavens, and god watching over all. it relies on the imagery of the tabernacle in the wilderness. by changing around the literal qualities of the text, one can rob it of its meaning and significance, trading in a powerful message for a consolation prize of a little supposed accuracy that doesn't even make sense in the verse.all meaning and symbolism must be drawn from what the text literally says, first and foremost. all exegesis (midrash) is founded on the simple meaning of the text (pshat).

---

before you editted it out: personally, i don't think belief should have any impact on how the text is read. i am a person of faith, but i do frequently argue against fundamentalism. specifically of their mistreatment of the bible. well, this thread is in reply to people who insist that this verse indicates that isaiah had a correct (supernatural) understanding of the universe, and the shape of the earth. he very plainly did not.

---

then we agree. the whole is made from the sum of the parts. in this case, the particular misunderstanding of the universe is actually a very important image and concept in this verse, and works into the whole context of the chapter.

---

i think the details matter. all of the details.the kind of image that isaiah wishes to portray -- god literally watching and towering over everyone, and god forming the heavens like a protective tend similar to his own house of worship -- aren't particularly as salient if we fudge the details to make it describe a round planet without a solid division just outside our own atmosphere. the cosmology is important to the image isaiah is trying to paint.

---

i think i elaborated on that fairly well above?

it's generally bad form to bump threads here. this board, for whatever reason, doesn't handle threads with greater than 300 posts or so very well at all. everyone gets email notification of replies, and that helps keep things efficient, no need for bumps.i saw your reply. i've responded several times -- i'm not sure what better explanation you want, but your last several responses have not had any real content to speak of.now, if you have a question to ask, or a comment or argument to contribute, that's fine. but ask your question, or make your argument -- don't just pointlessly bump the thread.

---

well, it's never a planetary reference because they didn't have a concept of the earth as a planet. but this particular instance (and the one in genesis 1) are about as close as you will ever get in the bible.

---

yes, he used his mind control ray from his UFO. since the authors of the bible had not invented tin foil hats just yet, they had no choice but to comply.

---

er, no, we're talking about the bible. you're talking about flying saucers, and grossly mishandling the text in order to support some supposed correlation between the two.it's not my fault that hearing your own points makes them sound like gibberish. they're gibberish. it's like you find the single most crackpot interpretation of the text, and run with it. hey, maybe it's referring to isaiah's cd-rom collection?and, in any case, i happen to be a closet UFO fanatic. enough to know that "flying saucer" is a misnomer -- they're rarely circular. and the person who accidentally coined the term wasn't describing circular UFOs, either.

---

er, well first of all, is a dualism, which idiomatically means "everything." i'm not sure how you can say that's limited in scope. genesis 2 is the cultural, localized mythology, but genesis 1 is trying (literarily) to usurp babylonian (and other) mythologies, and portray the hebrew god as creator of everything. it's a somewhat globalized story, without the concept of a globe. i think the aretz here is probably meant to apply to land in general -- all land, anywhere. the description we are given is certainly one of god setting up the hebrew cosmology (dome of the heavens, etc). so it seems to me that this is about the whole of their cosmos. ‘ doesn't seem to me to be an oxymoron. tohu can mean "emptiness" or "desolation" (as in a desert wasteland) but i think in this case it more accurately reflects the idea of nonexistance: "nothing." bohu reflects the same idea -- a void. the best idiomatic translation would be "and the earth did not exist." or more literally "and the earth was unformed and nonexistant."it's not precisely ex-nihilo because the water is there, but the idea of the verse seems to be that land -- any land -- does not exist. the standard rendering does create some problems, yes, but imho they're an artifact of translation. a desert wasteland... underwater? that makes very little sense.

---

please read the entire chapter. in fact, read revelation while you're at it. if i, mister "overliteral," am inclined to say any books are pretty strictly metaphor, it's these two. and the vast majority of jewish commentary agrees.in any case, god's throne is not "a flying saucer" or even one of ezekiel's "wheels within wheels." if you read the description, there are four such wheels, as well as four drivers, forming the basis of god's chariot. the whole contraption is called the merkabah.in no way is it circular. this is missing the entire point of the verse. god does not see men as grasshoppers because he drives a UFO. he sees men as grasshoppers because he is all powerful. the height issue, having god be above earth, is secondary to that meaning of the verse -- you are attempting to rob the verse of its meaning and belittle god, just to stick him in a UFO.

---