The "Circle of the Earth"

i don't think i brought it up last post, but tohu is translated "confusion" a number of times in the KJV. i looked at a few, but didn't see any readings that really mandated that -- but it is possible the word reflects a chaotic state, before the creative process of ordering and sorting. i'm looking into it. it's a very subtle point, really... check the concordance again. it says something like "qav-tohu v'ebeni-bohu." it's just that tohu has been translated "confusion" here. well, i wouldn't trust strong for the definitions, personally. the concordance is a useful tool for working out definitions, but the dictionaries usually attached are generally not very good for meanings -- correct me if i'm wrong, but dr. strong only authored the concordance, and the definitions come from elsewhere.in any case, i'm not saying that i know more than the scholars (far, far less in reality), i'm just saying that "nothingness" is certainly one of the modern senses of the word, and it makes a good deal of sense of the other contextual meanings to have derived from that one. of course, as always, that could be totally the other way around. i'll look into it. i'm not sure if josephus was the first, but it does go back a ways. i don't feel that this necessarily supports a gap theory, per se (which i'm not sure is what you're driving at?) as the genesis flood would also constitute a destruction/recreation.

---

Right. That is the circle verse.

How would riding a mobile throne through the universe, made of a precious stone, make One a pimp??

Well some homie drive some sapphire pimpmobile gotta at least be ghettolicious.But what does any of this have to to with the circle of the earth, or is this just another thread you want to fargle?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You seem to have a problem with the circle of the earth that the Almighty sits on could be an orbit, while visiting here. Fine. But I would point out that there is a throne in the Sceptre. What does One do on a throne? The obvious answer is 'sit'. Please notice what the Almight was doing in that verse in Isiah, on the circle of the earth!!!!! The evidence mounts.Now, can you provide witness, as I have, from the bible, that the Almighty sat on the equator, or some place, that someone might contort into meaning the circle of the earth?? No. You can't.Fits like a glove, and leaves the bible high above silly science, smelling like a rose. True, as always. And actually interesting.
Work on that.

Sorry you missed that, but at least got some hood talk in there.The circle of the earth that God, on His throne was sitting on, likely was an orbit. To understand the bible, one does need to look at the preponderance of scripture. It needs to fit. This does, rather than leave the bible as wrong.

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 - - -

quote:

---

The first long reach for me was accepting the idea that there are two different accounts of creation, chapters 1 and 2

---

A stretch indeed. By chap 2 it was already a done deal, finito, complete. We simply go back and look at a few things in more detail, no competing order at all. The order was in chap 1. Period.Chap 2 starts with that very clearly, setting the stage for what the chapter will get into.1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and [/b]all the host of them.

first of all, orbits aren't circles. they're eliptical.second, that's obviously not what the verse is talking about. the circle is the earth, or rather the edge of it. someone else wanna field this one? i haven't the foggiest idea what he thinks he's proving. try reading back a few pages, where i went to some length to not only explain the translation of the verse, but the parallelism, and wordplay in hebrew. see, that's thing. you're distracting from actual literary analysis and interpretation with this UFO garbage. yes, science is silly. but UFOs, now that's serious. right.to borrow a line from outkast, "lean a little bit closer, you'll see that roses really smell like ooh ooh wee."

---

quote:

---

first of all, orbits aren't circles. they're eliptical.

​

second, that's obviously not what the verse is talking about. the circle is the earth, or rather the edge of it.

---

First of all God is a spirit, and the vessel He rides is spiritual, so they could not be assumed to need a physical based barycenter, based on a force that attracts physical objects--gravity!!! --><
Don't compare apples and oranges.

quote:

---

someone else wanna field this one? i haven't the foggiest idea what he thinks he's proving.

---

God sitteth on the circle. Why would He be sitting? A throne covers that nicely. A mobile throne as described in the bible. It is a motis operandi, and an observed way He got around.

quote:

---

try reading back a few pages, where i went to some length to not only explain the translation of the verse, but the parallelism, and wordplay in hebrew. see, that's thing. you're distracting from actual literary analysis and interpretation with this UFO garbage.

---

There is no need for a literary analysis, if this is talking about something real. Why fabalize it??

quote:

---

yes, science is silly. but UFOs, now that's serious. right.

---

If you DON'T think so, why would you be trying to comment on it?? But science is only silly when compared with eternal, spiritual realities. God's mobile throne is a known fact, and only could be considered silly in the mind of an unbelieving person, locked out of the true essence of what the bible, and God are all about. That would be the spiritual. No getting around it. If He sat on a circle of the earth, then I start off assuming there is such a thing.Edited by simple, : No reason given.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Why indeed? The word "sit" has more to do with where He is situated than with what position His "body" is in. He is situated above us.You're ignoring the context of the verse, which I quoted for you:

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:
Isa 40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

---

It's comparing His power to the powers of men. By describing Him as a little green Martian in a spaceship, you're diminishing Him to our level. The "circle" can not be an orbit because that would be a constraint, in direct contradiction to the text.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Why indeed? The word "sit" has more to do with where He is situated than with what position His "body" is in. He is situated above us.

​

You're ignoring the context of the verse, which I quoted for you:

---

Says WHO?? Of course He is above us. If He visits earth in the mobile throne, He is still above us, of course. You seem to want Him so far above, in some ethereal form, that there is no reality to Him? If He had no body, how did He walk in the garden? How does He sit on a throne with spirits approaching Him, as we saw in Job?? The context of the verse is that He is somewhere, sitting on something, that we don't know what it is. Namely the circle of the earth. That does not make Him any less powerful, because He has a mobile throne.

quote:

---

It's comparing His power to the powers of men. By describing Him as a little green Martian in a spaceship, you're diminishing Him to our level. The "circle" can not be an orbit because that would be a constraint, in direct contradiction to the text.

---

Says WHO?? There is no constraint to Him coming here for a visit, He also left again!! You seem to want to constrain Him to some fantasy limbo la la land that really doesn't exist. You therefore make the bible sound like a pack of fables. There is absolutely no reason to do so.

It's not what I want, it's what the text says. Once again, the passage makes no sense if God is just another Martian in a sputtering, smoke-belching contraption. An orbit is constrained, by definition. If God can wander about as He pleases, it's not an orbit. Well, there's nothing wrong with fables, of course. It's better to learn something from a fable than to pretend it's a science textbook.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

indeed -- they very commonly refer to desolation or emptiness. well, as i'm sure you're well aware, there's a bit of flexibility involved in how parallels are arranged, depending on the particular style and poet. genesis is not very poetic, and just jams the two together (it does this with a lot of parallels, btw). later more poetic works will separate them, but place them in similar grammatical positions from one line to the next.so, for instance, genesis 1 (verse 1) might say:

quote:

---

When god began creating the heavens and the earth...

---

but isaiah (66:1) would write:

quote:

---

Thus saith the LORD:
The heaven is My throne,
and the earth is My footstool;
where is the house that ye may build unto Me?
And where is the place that may be My resting-place?

---

they're a pair either way. anyways, what i was driving at is that tohu is often used on its own, but bohu is only ever used in conjunction with tohu, as its pair. why? i don't think it's beyond human comprehension. it can't be -- genesis is a very simple book, written by humans, for humans, and largely avoids the mystical. the god of the torah is personal, physical, and very human. books like ezekiel -- those are more mystical. by comparison, it's like genesis was written from children. because, well, it was.so i feel it has to mean something quite plain, and easily understood.i'd also like to suggest something strong did not. is almost certainly related to another word in the sentance: tehom. the dictionary on BLB (gesenius) links it to another word, but i think the connection is more obvious here. seem to me they're both talking about emptiness and chaos. no. that's entirely inconsistent with the function of the text. it's a creation story, and it starts in the beginning. it's meant to be the foundation of time, primarily, so the notion that there was a time before this is frankly inconcievable. we also already have such a story in the bible. why not begin with that one, then? it is for many the apparent way to justify a literal account in genesis with the reality of the old earth. i think we should set that notion aside, and leave modern knowledge out of our determination of what the authors of genesis meant.i have had many no brainer conclusions in my time, including this one, that in retrospect turned out to be things that i just should have actually used my brain on. actually, no. i never figured out how to two were supposed to fit together to begin with. it was this big question mark for me until the documentary hypothesis explained it. none of the other classical apologetics ever quite made sense.

---

simple, we've had whole topics on this, and frankly, you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. we have a standard convention here of refering to "genesis 1:1-2:4a" as "chapter 1" and "genesis 2:4b-2:24" as "chapter 2." modern textual analysis (or, really, anyone who can read analytically) has shown that this is where the two stories originally broke. verse numbers (and chapter division) weren't added until well into the christian period, and this happens to be the most prominent case of numbering screwup.look at it like this. forget the numbers exist. read it as one solid block of text. where does the language change? where does one structure end, and the next begin? where is one story finished, and the next beginning? the answer should be obvious -- day seven is part of the same story the other six days are. when the concept of the creation of earth and heaven (this time, reversed) is introduced again, it's a new story. told in different language, referring to god differently.they're two stories. there's not even a question about this.now, can we get back on topic, or are you just going to drag this as far off-topic as you can, jumping at ever instance to spit back the standard anti-reality textually-ignorant ad-hoc apologetics and crackpot UFOlogy you're about these days?

---