The "Circle of the Earth"

quote:

---

"The circle of the earth". The most direct reading of that phrase is the shape of the earth, not the path of motion of some object not even mentioned in the verse.

​

"The inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers". The most direct reading of that phrase is that God sees them from a distance. Again, there is no mention whatsoever of God moving.

---

The earth moves! I wonder if His orbit, or circle could be staying put just the right way, and letting the world revolve around His mobile throne??
Maybe a bit like this, just to give an idea, here.
"A geostationary orbit (GEO) is a geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator (0 latitude), with orbital eccentricity of zero. From the ground, a geostationary object appears motionless in the sky and is therefore the orbit of most interest to operators of artificial satellites (including communication and television satellites). Due to the constant 0 latitude, satellite locations may differ by longitude only." Anyhow, all it says is that the inhabitants are AS grasshoppers. If one took a helicopter through LA area, one would see a lot of 'grasshoppers'!! Since God was on the circle, if we knew what that was, we would already maybe know He was moving. He is a moving God, you know. That is one of the chief signs of life.-movement.Like right at the getgo of the bible, there He is moving over the waters, as well as hovering. Now, if fact, the hebrew word used for God moving there MEANS hover!!!! The plot thickens, the evidence mounts!
Moved
" 1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
2. (Piel) to hover "Interlinear Search for '' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.orgAs for the circle OF the earth, in no way can you prove that that feature is any more the shape of the earth, that, if we say, 'shadow of the earth'. That is strictly, it seems apparent here, your assumption. We need to separate the fact from the fiction here, the actual meaning, from the assumed one.

quote:

---

Now, that is certainly "making stuff up", as anybody can see.

---

Oh, really?? I already pointed out that God moves and hovers! That is not an issue, and we have shown the vessel that He is known to travel in. Not like the clues are not there! In black and white to read.
Now, although some interpret the next bit to mean the 'sun', some, like me, interpret it to refer to God."5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." Ps 19I think most Christians would know who the Bridegroom is.Or this bit hereJob 22:13 And thou sayest, How doth God know? can he judge through the dark cloud? 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
Circuit here means
1. circle, circuit, compass
2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)!!! So, now we know that the universe has a circuit as well as the earth having a circle! Are you suggesting that the universe has to be the shape of a circle now!!!???

quote:

---

But I'll remind you again: even if the "orbit" nonsense was plausible, it's not the topic. The topic is about whether or not the phrase "circle of the earth" suggests that the author(s) of Isaiah knew that the earth is spheroidal.

---

In establishing that the circle of the earth was NOT referring to it's shape, the topic is addressed. As for the present shape of the earth, I do not see that it will not change a bit in the new heavens coming, that the bible talks about anyhow.

quote:

---

You have made it very clear that what you call an "orbit" isn't a real orbit at all. God would be free to move about in any direction at any speed and any height in this "vehicle" of His. Unless the motion is constrained by gravity, it isn't an orbit.

---

You use your limited scope of forces available to a spiritual vessel, to imagine it needs gravity to plot a course or orbit. No.As in the equator orbit idea I just mentioned, God's wheels could easily ride the circle of the earth. The shape of the earth bit is pure unbased speculation, that you cannot even loosely relate to the actual text.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Yes. This is a science thread and the laws of physics apply. Your fantasy "spiritual vessel" has no place in this discussion. Speculation or not, that is the issue of this thread: Did the author(s) of Isaiah know that the earth is "round"? Your "orbit" or "hovering" doesn't address that issue at all. God could presumably pedal His celestial tricycle around an object of any shape.

---

“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

so, god is a physical object when it suits you. but he isn't when it doesn't. ok. simple, we're not talking about the bible. i wish we were, but we're not. we're talking about your particular misrepresentation of it. it just doesn't mean what you think it means. i'm "doubting the bible." i'm arguing against your UFO garbage that totally butchers it. actually, this is all a different thread. in fact, it should be in this thread. all of it.and what you think the word "sceptre" has to do with it, i dunno. as if the bible were written in english. in hebrew the word could much more easily be related to "saturday" (shabet, shabat). you're clearly just picking random words and ascribing new and random meanings to them. that's sort of the point. you don't start saying, "i believe this -- now how can i make it true." you start by reading the verse and determining what it says. from that, and the verses around it, you determine what it means. you don't finagle truth into it. truth is irrelevent -- feel free to determine that on your own, after you've thought about the verse.but changing the meaning of the verse to make it true is just dishonest, unethical, and overall it's disrepectful to the bible. if i thought the bible was foolish, i wouldn't have just quoted it. now would i. you make the mistake of thinking that god and the bible are on your side -- they are not. you are misrepresnting both. that's why i'm arguing with you. so, to find out about god, we read the bible. but to read the bible, we need god's help. well, what's the point in having a bible then? this is a common theme among crackpots -- treating the bible like a secret code, and the holy spirit like a decoder ring. why would god write a book for us, if he has to be around to tell us what it says? why not just tell us without the book? you make god out to be a fool -- and that is blasphemy. see, that's exactly the problem. you don't understand what the verse is talking about at all. otherwise, you would understand what i meant, too.

---

indeed. i got it reading the english. i don't think it's really gymnastics -- it's definitely a modern usage of the word. i'm not sure if it goes back to ancient hebrew, admittedly. and there are better choices of words to relate that concept. for instance, i would have written if i meant that, and be done with it. that's far more clear, if a lot less poetic. i'm not suggesting that this is the interpretation, just a road well worth exploring. i think the ideas of chaos and nonexistance are somewhat consistent with the idea. to be frank, i reject any spiritual reading of anything in the torah. many later books are quite overtly spiritual, but the torah seems very "down to earth" as it were, and written in terms of physical reality. god is physical here, heaven is a physical place, etc.my understanding of what the text probably means is that the material that made the land was originally in solution with the water. the initial state of creation seems to be chaotic, and god creates by means of separation and sorting. light from darkness, the celestial deep from the ocean, land from sea. on day 3, when land is made, god collects the water into specific places, and the land into other places. like darkness, the water still exists. just a thought. it does seem that they're connected ideas, though it might simply be by rhyme. the hebrew authors liked to repeat sounds -- see my translation of the "circle of the earth" verse earlier. yes, this is likely. at least, sort of. the ideas of chaos being primeval does come from the babylonian mythology, and the name may come from there as well. but it's a mistake to think that it translates directly (they were trying to replace other mythology and make it hebrew, not copy it). rather, tiamat shows up later in genesis 1, as a created entity, the great taninm. it's possible that the hebrew word for serpent, tan is related to the root of tiamat as a cognate. there are also hints in isaiah and other books of a mythology very much like hadad and tiamat, only with elohim and livyatan. sort of what i was getting at, actually -- that the initial state was chaotic. i think tohu might be used to represent chaos. yes, i'm saying they could be related. though i'm not entirely sure how.

---

quote:

---

Yes. This is a science thread and the laws of physics apply. Your fantasy "spiritual vessel" has no place in this discussion.

---

They do not apply to God, or the bible get used to it, like it or not. If your little law was valid you simply may not discuss them in the confines of physical only laws. Doesn't work that way. You can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want science, and natural law, forget the bible and God. The verse is the core issue here, remember. Finding out what that circle is, is not science.

quote:

---

Speculation or not, that is the issue of this thread: Did the author(s) of Isaiah know that the earth is "round"? Your "orbit" or "hovering" doesn't address that issue at all. God could presumably pedal His celestial tricycle around an object of any shape.

---

Right. Or He might be able to find just the right spot on the circle of the earth, and hover, and let the part of the earth He wanted to watch go by. In fact, being the center of the universe, I suppose, while here, and hovering He may have the whole universe revolving around Him! Quite a trick.Now, the author of Isaiah made the earth, so obviously knew all about it. Often in the bible, God speaks right through the men, so it is Him talking. I hope you don't think you can leave Him out of the picture?? That would leave you in the dark something fierce.

You misunderstand. The laws of physics do apply in this thread and your conception of God does not. The core - and only - issue here is how the Bible stands in relation to science. If you ignore science, you automatically forfeit the debate.

---

“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

"forfeit" may not be the right word. "lose" might be better.if the question is, "is the bible scientifically accurate" and the answer simple provides is "you have to ignore science to understand the bible" then he has simply provided an answer of "no, the bible is not scientifically accurate."although in much more convulated and nonsensical phrasings. and frankly, i'm not even sure we can address that sort of issue until we get him to read the bible correctly. if he keeps going on about UFOs and that sort of mumbo-jumbo, there's no way we can ever engage in this discussion fruitfully.

---

quote:

---

so, god is a physical object when it suits you. but he isn't when it doesn't. ok.

---

Where did I say He was physical? You think someone that rides a spiritual vessel could be physical?? God is a spirit.

quote:

---

simple, we're not talking about the bible. i wish we were, but we're not. we're talking about your particular misrepresentation of it. it just doesn't mean what you think it means. i'm "doubting the bible." i'm arguing against your UFO garbage that totally butchers it.

---

Then go ahead and argue against it, so far you have nothing on offer. The fact that God has wheels is crystal clear. The bible makes it clear it was the Lord on that throne. What is you point?? That is pretty common knowledge even.

quote:

---

and what you think the word "sceptre" has to do with it, i dunno. as if the bible were written in english. in hebrew the word could much more easily be related to "saturday" (shabet, shabat). you're clearly just picking random words and ascribing new and random meanings to them.

---

The throne is a place to rule from. A sceptre is something associated to a king on a throne.Like the star of Bethlehem never departed till Jesus was born, and the wise men came.'The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.'

quote:

---

that's sort of the point. you don't start saying, "i believe this -- now how can i make it true." you start by reading the verse and determining what it says. from that, and the verses around it, you determine what it means. you don't finagle truth into it. truth is irrelevent -- feel free to determine that on your own, after you've thought about the verse.

​

but changing the meaning of the verse to make it true is just dishonest, unethical, and overall it's disrepectful to the bible.

---

Sonce you have no idea what the circle of the earth is, how could I change it??? All I try to do is see what it means, by comparing scripture with scripture. That is a good thing. Relax.

quote:

---

if i thought the bible was foolish, i wouldn't have just quoted it. now would i. you make the mistake of thinking that god and the bible are on your side -- they are not. you are misrepresnting both. that's why i'm arguing with you.

---

Try telling us what you think, so we can see what you think you arguing for. So far you seem simply to doubt that God has wheels. like the bible says, and can't seem to offer a reason that the verse is trying to tell us the shape of the earth.

quote:

---

so, to find out about god, we read the bible. but to read the bible, we need god's help. well, what's the point in having a bible then? this is a common theme among crackpots -- treating the bible like a secret code, and the holy spirit like a decoder ring. why would god write a book for us, if he has to be around to tell us what it says? why not just tell us without the book? you make god out to be a fool -- and that is blasphemy.

---

He reveals it to the babes, but hides it from those that think they are wise. He gives us the keys of heaven to unlock the mysteries. Others, who don't ask for His spiritual help, like those that are born of the spirit have, just can't break the code. He wrote it mostly for His people, and not for all. All may read it, and get some things, like the way to get His help, but they simply have no way of understanding the deeper things without His spirit.

quote:

---

see, that's exactly the problem. you don't understand what the verse is talking about at all. otherwise, you would understand what i meant, too.

---

So, let me get this, the way to understand the verse, is to figure out what you are talking about. OK. Frankly, it sounds to me like you don't know what you are talking about. Precisely what, then, is English, according to you, is this circle of the earth??

no, it's not. nor is it ufology.it's linguistic and literary and contextual. three areas you have ignored -- which is just as well. because you evidently don't know any hebrew, can't read critically, and haven't read much of isaiah at all, which makes you totally unqualified to discuss the text on that level.now, i agree that this is the way to start. "what does the verse mean?" is the first question we should ask, before we get to "does it match reality?" but please, feel free to come back when you have read, thought about, studied, and understood isaiah, even in the slightest. until then, making up nonsensical interpretations to fit your crackpot ideology of the month just won't cut it. but perhaps, this is your answer, and you should leave it at that. no -- the bible is NOT scientifically accurate. if you want science, forget the bible. even you agree. the prophet isaiah created a planet?!?seriously, come back when you've actually read the bible.

---

uh, this whole bit about riding around in a flying saucer. you trying to make the picture isaiah present -- one of a flat earth, with a solid domed heavens upon which god sits -- into a more naturalistic-sounding god-in-spaceship-in-orbit image. on the contrary, simple. you have nothing to offer. you just drag discussions off-topic.i started off in this thread by translating the verse myself. i then talked about the imagery it presents and how it lines up with genesis and external sources, and how it repeats sounds in hebrew for poetic effect.you have brought up UFOs, and retreated through ad-hoc mental gymnastics. no. it's not. have you read ezekiel? i think not. did god literally resurrect a field of several thousand skeletons, as ezekiel discribes? no -- it's a vision, one of coded metaphors. the field of dead is judah in exile, and their resurrection is their return. did seven sickly cows really eat seven fat cows in genesis 41? no, it was pharaoh's vision of seven good years followed by seven bad. ezekiel 1 is a vision. and it is not the only way god appears to mankind. why, just look at how he appeared to abraham: as a man, at the door to abraham's tent. look at how he appear to the israelites in wilderness of sinai: a pillar of fire. do you really not understand this verse? what tribe was david from? his son solomon? what tribe was jesus from? i'll save you the trouble -- they're from judah. judah is the ruling tribe of the 12 tribes of israel. every king of judah and israel were from he tribe of judah. this is the verse where that is laid out, by israel himself. it's talking about an earthly throne, the throne of david. maybe you don't have an idea what it is. but the rest of us do. no, that is not what you are doing. you are quotemining scripture for your own ends. if you were trying to figure it out by comparison -- something that is valid -- you surely would have pulled out a concordance, found the other verses the concept appears in, and posted them. then you would have compared those to other verse describing the hebrew cosmology, such as the first chapter of genesis.you just posted a verse you happened to know from your recent pet idea, and said, "look, 'cirle' here, 'circle' there, it must be the same thing!" when pretty clearly, it's not. i'm arguing for a careful and analytical reading of the bible. listen, i've read ezekiel. this is not about ezekiel. ...because that's what it says? listen, either the bible supports your point, or it does not. you can't say, "it does, but only if you use my imagination." your "secret code" idea is simply an excuse for making up whatever you feel like, and claiming it to be "god's word." and if i read the bible, and think it means what it actually says, well, clearly i'm deluded or hell-spawn or something. no, see, you misunderstood again. if you knew what the verse meant, you would have also understood my reference to it. i gave my opinion eight whole pages ago before you completely ruined this topic with your nonsense.

---

Arachnophilia,I think simple makes a good point, and that is, you have no fact, no proof, that Isaiah did undestand or did not understand that he dwelled on a planet(spherical earth).The passage IS 40:22 simply provides a context as stated in my other posts previously.

---

Thanks
trossthree

quote:

---

it's linguistic and literary and contextual. three areas you have ignored -

---

The context is that GOD was sitting on the thing, whatever it is. The universe also has a circle, so the context is not shape of earth.He was sitting on this 'circle' and the folks here looked small. Not rocket science that.

quote:

---

but please, feel free to come back when you have read, thought about, studied, and understood isaiah, even in the slightest.

---

No need at all for that. We just need the spirit to interpret what He meant. Sometimes, we need to see past the surface, like when God is talking to a king, and launches into talking to Lucifer in prophesy, etc. You just can't sort it all out with man's wisdom, literary smarts, and natural context assumptions of man!!!

quote:

---

but perhaps, this is your answer, and you should leave it at that. no -- the bible is NOT scientifically accurate. if you want science, forget the bible. even you agree.

---

I don't believe you. That is easy to say.

quote:

---

i started off in this thread by translating the verse myself. i then talked about the imagery it presents and how it lines up with genesis and external sources, and how it repeats sounds in hebrew for poetic effect.

---

So what!!?? Forget external sources for an internal understanding of what God says. Forget so called imagery, that is absolute nonsense! And forget so called poetic effect, and other bible fabalizing mental gymnastics.Hebrew can come in handy if one takes it in the spirit of what is actually being said. Aside from that, stop blowing your own horn, and clearly, and simply state your opinion, preferably on topic!!! I looked at you eight pages ago link, and could see nothing cohesive or relative there. You'll have to do better than that.

Then show us the science that you think is relevant here, and be done with it. No idea what you are talking about. You won't find science against the bible, but in your head.The laws of physics do not apply to God or the bible in or out of this thread. Prove it, if you claim it!!!! What a scream.

quote:

---

uh, this whole bit about riding around in a flying saucer. you trying to make the picture isaiah present -- one of a flat earth, with a solid domed heavens upon which god sits -- into a more naturalistic-sounding god-in-spaceship-in-orbit image.

---

Absolute bunk. God having wheels and a mobile throne does not make the earth flat. And there can be no denying that it was God in the wheels and throne. You should know that.