The "Circle of the Earth"

arachnophilia,The Ancient Hebrew conception of the Universe is interesting indeed. I have a question though, do you really believe that Isaiah perceived a Earth that had so many limitations? I mean it is clear, just by looking at the picture, that if you walk in one direction it eventually has a limit that will cause you to fall off the planet.Edited by trossthree, : errEdited by Abomination, : er

---

Thank you

yes. the earth is finite, god is infinite. that's basically isaiah's point. not fall off, run into the sky.

---

arachnophilia, Yes. However, I can't believe a literalist like yourself is using basically in any context..... What shape(both horizontal and vertical circumferences) is the actual earth to Isaiah?

---

Thank you

not sure what that's supposed to mean. isaiah's point is, specifically, that god is much larger than we mortals who populate his creaton. he can look over the whole of it, and has created the boundaries of it as protection."basically" was an ironic understatement. and there's nothing wrong with being a literalist. the literal needs to be the basis for anything else. i do not strictly confine myself to the literal, either. there are very many places that figures of speech, euphemisms, or even outright extended metaphors are used. ezekiel in particular was fond of extended metaphor, as was jesus. the earth is circular (flat) and the heavens are hemispherical (domed). i posted a cross-section back in message 198. you can find more information around the internet, if you do a search for "hebrew cosmology."

---

arachnophilia, I think you have a good understanding of Isa 40:22, but I understood your interpretation without reading it literally. If you remove the understanding that Isaiah used the word CIRCLE(ISAIAH 40:22), one can still understand that the LORD is being exalted above all. The question is where does this picture play an important role in the interpretation of Isaiah 40:22?

---

Thank you

sort of. the imagery on the hebrew cosmology is actually quite an important part of the how isaiah constructs his point. isaiah specifically likens the heavens (shaped like a dome, covering the earth) to a tent (recalling imagery of the tabernacle). i would call that very important, a visual metaphor if you will. that's aside from the obvious connotations of scale, and looking down from above on all creation.today, we can appreciate these messages strictly on their symbolic level. but we also have to recognize that the symbolism comes from a very literal (and very wrong) picture of what the universe looks like. to ignore the roots of the meaning entirely is rod the verse of a lot of its power and impact.

---

arachnophilia, Says who? In any context the heavens that we understand(the universe) dwell around us(forget literal crap). So, it really is not important to understand scripture as a literal boundry around earth. The point is that the heavens are exalted to us.I already understand that the scriptures in the Bible were written to a different people. So, when we read scripture we are reading a message that was ment for a different people(dont assume im implying in any case we are not ment to read the bible). However, in anycase, I still can't see how interpreting the Bible literally is important. I mean, what if the message was corrupted overtime through the copy process or translation process? I mean, it seems that none of the manuscripts/translations we have today congrue 100%.Edited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : err

---

Thank you

"the point" is not actually the point here, but the way the prophet arrives at justifies the point. the conclusion is important, but so is the argument. err, no, BY different people. it was, of course, meant to be taught to generations afterward, but we should not view the text as if god sat down and told the prophets specifically what words to write. such points of view are common, but clearly indicate a poor understanding and at best a passing familiarity with the bible. this particular verse is in praise of god, written by a man. much of the bible is like this -- read literally, the only parts that can be claimed to be the "word of god" are the parts where god is speaking. and even then, rationality would dictate that these words have necessarily been fed through the human brain including all of its shortcomings -- or worse, simply invented when it suits an authors purpose.all we can look for is what the authors meant to say, and how they meant to say it. the "how" is still important, even if the technical details are now known to be in error. because the foundation for all other levels of meaning is what the text actually says. we cannot simply ignore what the text says. this is actually the case in many instances. translation in particular -- some are better than others, and most lack the flavor and connotations of the original. which is why i decided to take a few hebrew classes. but this does not mean that we can known nothing about the bible. such cases can be studied in their own right, and much about the bible can be learned from them.

---

arachnophilia, I realize that. However, it is unimportant to interprete ISA 40:22 to mean the heavens are a literal tent over earth. It is important however to undestand that God is in heaven and he dwells/exalted to the earth. Isaiah was exalting the LORD in ISA 40:22. Isaiah was speaking to Jarsualem hence a different people. It is luck that we have any context of Isaiah's writings to this day. All words are literal ofcourse but when reading scripture the interpretation should be metaphorical.EXAMPLE: My metaphorical interpretation: God dwells exalted to the Earth in the heavens and anything in the Earth is insignificant to God.Why would it be important to understand that there is a tent involved or that there is grasshoppers or people are like grasshoppers?Edited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : err

---

Thank you

yes, so you keep saying. but the point is that the meaning of the verse is derived from the contents. the conclusion comes from the arguments. discard the arguments, and you've got no basis for the conclusions. if we just cut the bible down to "what it meant to say" we've watered down the text, neutered it, and trivialived it.what is poetry without the poetry?

---

arachnophilia,it is simply the words Isaiah used and there are many other sets of words he could have used to mean the same metaphore. I have had many conversations, reports, journals and things of that nature I have been involved with that later after revisiting them I wanted to change some of the words used in them. Even in this forum I edit my posts so that they make more sense. However, later on I go back and reread the threads and think why did I use those words. Don't think Isaiah or any other genius can't have these problems.We also have the typical errors done through the copy and translation processes over the ages. Who knows what the original words in scripture were.Edited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : err

---

Thank you

so i see:

quote:

---

Edited by trossthree, 11-01-2007 12:11 AM: err

​

Edited by trossthree, 11-01-2007 12:13 AM: err

​

Edited by trossthree, 11-01-2007 12:14 AM: err

​

Edited by trossthree, 11-01-2007 12:16 AM: err

​

Edited by trossthree, 11-01-2007 12:17 AM: err

---

yes, and if you look at my old posts, you'll find many opinions of mine that have changed over the years. but the thing is, i still made those arguments. and the conclusions i came to were still based on the arguments that supported them. even if i might regret it now. this is still a non-issue until you can actually show that there is a difference. until then, all we have are the words on the page. and the general sign of an edit, a change to the original wording, is when an argument doesn't follow. this one does. but the metaphor he uses draws from the (inaccurate) hebrew cosmology. that's sort of the point here -- that isaiah had limited knowledge of the universe, consistent with every other ancient near eastern civilization.

---

arachnophilia,There is evidence of err in scripture. The fact that the different manuscripts and translations we have don't congrue is one of them. Please Refer to this thread that I started a long time ago.http://EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? -->EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?Edited by trossthree, : P.S. BED TIMEEdited by trossthree, : ERR

---

Thank you

yes, i am well aware of them. in fact, i could point out some rather interesting instances myself.but the conclusion that "therefore, we can disregard the details of what the bible says while interpretting it" does not follow. it's like saying that because i make typos, i don't actually mean what i write.

---

arachnophilia,the point is that the meaning intended by Isaiah and others in scripture may not remain. Anyways I have had fun its bed time... ttyl...

---

Thank you