The "Circle of the Earth"

meaning is sometimes changed by edits or transmission errors. there's a prominent instance in deuteronomy, actually, which seems to have been changed because the meaning it implied was too polytheistic.however, in that case, the new meaning is nonsensical.the alternative is that it does make sense. and if that's the case -- how are we to know any different? in other words, why would such an argument make a difference? we can't pretend to know something we don't know about the text, what it "originally" said. if there is a specific instance relating to this verse from other manuscripts, please do share. i would be very interested, actually. otherwise, your point is really just a broad appeal to fudge the details.Edited by arachnophilia, : left out a whole phrase!

---

arachnophilia,Just because a verse or book in the Bible makes sense does not mean it's the original meaning. Just because a verse or book in the Bible does not make sense does not mean it's not the original meaning. The point, how can one know what the original meaning of any verse or book in the Bible was unless one has the autographs of the Bible? Since we don't have the autographs of the Bible, one can't realize the original meaning of those scriptures or any scriptures we don't have the autographs for. I will agree that if we compare scriptures it would be possible, in theory, that we could have some of the original meaning. In which case, understanding simply the metaphores of the Bible will do good enough, and most likely be a better understanding then interpreting it literally. However, I understand that I could be wrong. =).Edited by trossthree, : additionEdited by trossthree, : additionEdited by trossthree, : addition

---

Thank you

Metaphors, by definition, are made up. How can we possibly understand the metaphors of the Bible better than we can understand the plain text?If we see the phrase, "Cats like cream," we can take it literally or we can conclude that it means, "Musicians like to date rich girls."Why would we assume it is a metaphor? And how do we know that our metaphoric interpretation is the same as the author's?

---

“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

When it comes to the Bible, that is a little bit easier task than some of the homework assignments from Mr. French's English class. One nice thing about Hebrew is so much of it is written in a poetic format, where ideas and meanings are repeated, using different words each time to describe and paint a picture for us. We can also see if the passage is a reference to one of the older stories and folk tales of the Bible.But we still need to begin with the plain text. And in some areas, such as the description of the "Circle of the Earth", the intent does seem to be both poetic, but also representing a word picture of the universe itself.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In this case, of course, the poetic language does refer back to what is known about Hebrew cosmology - a flat, domed earth. Hence, the tent imagery. (I would suggest that it's more of an analogy than a metaphor.) Unfortunately, in their rush to prove that God told all His secrets to the Hebrews, literalists tend to miss the literary merits of the Bible.

---

“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

I don't know if anyones posted this response on here but theres 17 pages so i'm not going to check Ok, Isaiah 40:20:"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)If God were to side above the earth, he would see a circle. If you or i were to sit above the earth, we would see a circle. I will explain..- The word "sit" implies that one is stationary (even if momentarily).
- A circle (as used in Isaiah 40:22) is a 2-dimensional shape.
- A sphere or ball etc. is a 3-dimensional shape.
- The common argument against (as in this thread) is that the world is not 2D, it is 3D, so Isaiah 40:22 must be incorrect.However, this is simply a misinterpretation or lack of understanding of the passage. When one is stationary, one cannot see a ball (or shpere; the earth) in 3D. It would appear 2D, as to be able to see it in 3D would be to see X, Y, and Z planes of the object, which is not possible when stationary for a sphere, (as well as the ball being relatively stationary) as a shpere has infinate number of sides (on a X Y Z (3D) axis model). You follow?Basically, if God were to "sit" above the earth, he would see a circle. Try this for yourself, look at a football (or any sphere like the earth) when both of you are stationary. You will actually see a circular plane, and will only be able to recognize it is a sphere once you get up and look at it from different angles.

this is actually quite wrong.the word being rendered "circle" in most translations reflects the idea of encompassing something, and we can verify that both by its grammatical origin and by its other uses in the bible. the point here is that it is literally the boundaries, that god sees over everything. any other way of thinking about this verse (ie: a god over a planet in geosynchronous orbit) deprives the verse of this meaning.it is also consistent with what we know of the hebrew cosmology of the time (from elsewhere in the bible) and the cosmologies of every other culture from that region of the world at that time. the rest of the verse, relying on the imagery of a tent, is also consistent. you probably should do that. a good recommendation when joining a board is to read the discussion that has already occurred. thought, admittedly, some of it is some pretty wacky space-filling nonsense regarding UFOs.welcome to evc.

---

quote:

---

the word being rendered "circle" in most translations reflects the idea of encompassing something

---

This cannot be a correct interpretation of "cirlce" in this context, Arachnophilia, because then God could not "sit" as the passage says (one cannot both sit and encompass - unless God was sitting on a moving chair etc. but this cannot be the case as then the passage does not make sense).

quote:

---

ie: a god over a planet in geosynchronous orbit

---

I think the earth moves slow enough for one to sit still and not see the earth in 3D. For example, the moon moves around the earth, but we can still sit still on earth, look at the moon, and see a circle. Edited by Macuahuitl, : No reason given.

this can be understood one of two ways.

1. the object that encompasses the earth at its boundaries, in the hebrew cosmology, is heaven. god looks down from heaven.
2. the hebrew word al can mean either "on" or "above," though the first is more common. it reflects the idea of being on top of something.

thus, you will see translations that render the verse as "he sits above the circle of the earth" or "he sits upon the vault of the earth." in my post #54 i translate it the second way. this places undue restriction on god, which is precisely the opposite of the intention of the verse. it also limits god's perceptual ability, also not exactly what isaiah is trying to do. by attempting to justify the verse with modern scientific thought, you are essentially betraying the meaning it was supposed to have. it is far better to understand the verse in context of its time and origin. the meaning is still as salient and powerful as it ever was, even if we now know that isaiah's picture of the universe was innaccurate.i realize this is hard for a lot of people who read the bible. but i would rather not sacrifice the intention of the verse in favor of maintaining the factuality of the details.

---

quote:

---

thus, you will see translations that render the verse as "he sits above the circle of the earth" or "he sits upon the vault of the earth." in my post #54 i translate it the second way.

---

Ok, but my argument is that if God were to "sit" and look at the earth, God could well describe it as a circle, because that is what God would see if he were to sit. Again, to prove this, sit on earth, look at the moon. You will see a circular shape (as long as you can see the full moon).

quote:

---

this places undue restriction on god, which is precisely the opposite of the intention of the verse. it also limits god's perceptual ability, also not exactly what isaiah is trying to do. by attempting to justify the verse with modern scientific thought, you are essentially betraying the meaning it was supposed to have.

---

If God wanted to sit. i'm sure God would be able to do it, even if God has no shape or body to confine in - because by definition, God can do anything.

Well then, let's just all throw our hands up into the air and consider the pursuit of knowledge a wasted effort! Don't you nd it a little embarrassing that your god doesn't even know the shape of his own created planet well enough to describe it by any terms other than in the 2-dimensional?

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

Can God make a rock that is too heavy for Him to move?

So God can create people with free-will who won't sin and go to Hell. So creating Adam and Eve knowing that billions of people would go to Hell for eternity was entirely gratuitous on his part. That's what I thought, but many literalists disagree. Thanks!

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Adam and Eve had a free will, yes. So they were responsible about their own actions. Now, they wouldn't have sinned, but they have sinned. God is not responsible because of them.

The word "circle" clearly resembles an understanding from Isaiah that he had insight to the shape of the planet. There really is no clear reason to deny the great possibility that a round earth was in his thoughts, yet at the same time it would be imprudent to rely on his statement as "ultimate proof" for Isaiah knowing of the spherical shape of the earth.To conclude that the term "circle" can still mean "flat", such as in a "flat plate" is erroneous and unfounded thinking, because even if the world was flat yet a circular plate, how was Isaiah to know this? The "circle" terminology was probably his best way to describe it in Isaiah's thinking, imho.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.