|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Circle of the Earth" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
arachnophilia,
Thanks Edited by trossthree, : err Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2794 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
While it is true that "circle" does not refer to a spherical reality, it is also true that "earth" does not refer to a global reality. In fact the word "earth," as used in the Bible, is never a planetary reference. The Hebrew 'erets, which sometimes appears as "earth" in the Bible, is most often translated: land, and is also given as country, ground, and field. Our word "earth" is not that flexible.
Simply put: 'erets is a word for real estate. It is occasionally used metaphorically to describe a body politic but generally speaking, it simply means "land," as suggested by the fact that it is most often translated in that manner. Frequent use of the word "earth," by translators may be attributed to a desire for broader application of certain politically convenient biblical injunctions. Use of the word "earth" instead of "land" may enhance the Christian dream of global dominance. The old Latin (Vulgate), and all modern versions have the deity sitting "above" the circle of the earth rather than "upon" it (as the King James reads). This alters the interpretation considerably. A clue to the deity's perspective is revealed in this paraphrastic rendering by creators of the New Living Translation (NLT).
quote: Why do they seem like grasshoppers? Probably because he is viewing them from an elevated position. Anyone who has looked down from a few hundred feet above the ground can tell you that from up there, people look very small. Rise a little higher and they disappear entirely. When one surveys one's surroundings from the top of a high structure in a flat land: Two things become apparent. 1): The land takes on a circular appearance; and 2): The people below look very small, "like bugs." I know that chugg may be used to describe the firmament, however, in terms of geometric accuracy, dome is a better word for it. And chugg does describe something of a truly circular nature: the horizon. Proverbs 8:27 The NLT reads: quote: Most modern versions agree with this understanding. Remember now, the "House of God" was located at the highest point in the land. The "Highest" point. Does this seem too low a seat for "God's" point of view? Consider the concept of theocracy, in which One "High Priest" embodies the Spirit of the deity. Consider the concept of monarchy, in which One "Most High Prince" is filled with that Spirit. These men represent the deity, they stand in his place, speak for him, and sit upon his throne.
quote: As "God's representative on earth" a king is the de-facto deity of his "earth" (i.e land). If you don't believe it, just cross him and then try to escape his wrath. Is it so hard to believe that people "worshipped" their king?
quote: If the deity were viewing humanity from the tallest building in the ancient world, then yes: the people would seem like grasshoppers. If he were viewing them from twice that high they might seem as ants. But if he were viewing them from a much higher position, say from the firmament, then they wouldn't seem like anything at all. They would be invisible. (The firmament was about 100 miles up according to Babylonian calculations). So who was this "god" which the poet describes? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2794 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
trossthree writes: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 I am reminded of the previous verse:
quote: Cheers Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
It may have been touched on, but here is my take on what the circle of the earth may mean there.
God is known to have a flying throne, or 'saucer'. (Eze 1) If He maintained some orbit,(on various visits) that would be a circle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Simple
As more prosaic explanation for the notion of a circle in the ancient world would be from a mountain vantage point wherein the view to great distances can indeed be thought of encompassing a great circle beyond the horizon of which nothing can be determined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Well, that could be a circle to some, but the particular circle here is one God sits on. Since God is known to have a flying saucer, there is no reason to assume that He would not orbit the earth, or even hover. Either way, the verse is no challenge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Simple writes: Well, that could be a circle to some, but the particular circle here is one God sits on. Since God is known to have a flying saucer, there is no reason to assume that He would not orbit the earth, or even hover. Either way, the verse is no challenge. Simple, I would urge caution in making such statements. IIRC from Fox News, god is no longer in the possession of said flying saucer. It seems he left the keys in the switch after parking it in one of his less infallible moments and the terrorist outfit known as the 'Three Billy Goats Gruff' made off with it. It appears they even cite you as a source, although it is as one denying the evidence that god is no longer in possession of the flying saucer. In fact, last I saw in one of those 'fair and balanced' updates, the gang was looking for you for insinuating that god did not actually sell the saucer and that they had the title (aka word of god) to prove it. As the saucer can observe all ground movement from its lofty heights and can even control things like weather, I would suggest going into hiding. I understand bridges are good places to hide under should you be confronted by any tornadoes. If, by accident, the goats discover you under the bridge, be sure and demand to speak to the head goat as I'm sure he will set you straight on the issues involved. Edited by anglagard, : reason? what reason? Edited by anglagard, : completeness Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
While it is true that "circle" does not refer to a spherical reality, it is also true that "earth" does not refer to a global reality. In fact the word "earth," as used in the Bible, is never a planetary reference. The Hebrew 'erets, which sometimes appears as "earth" in the Bible, is most often translated: land, and is also given as country, ground, and field. Our word "earth" is not that flexible. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
OK. so you have some problem believing there really is a cool Almighty that has wheels. OK. So?
Edited by simple, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Who cares what they had, or what you think they had?? The important point is what did the One that inspired the bible mean??? And let's not pretend that you have some evidence He never inspired it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
simple writes: OK. so you have some problem believing there really is a cool Almighty that has wheels. OK. So? The unexamined assertion is not worth expounding. So I take it your god would drive some cool wheels? Which one would you figure, Austen-Martin? Lamborghini? 67 Shelby Cobra? I figure Jesus for a 69 Volkswagen Beetle and Spinoza for a 72 Datsun Pickup. Buddha would probably hitchhike but if he did I hope he can dive out of the way rather quickly, there are a lot of bad drivers around you know. I understand that those who proclaim to be intermediaries between God and human favor brands like Cadillac, Mercedes, and Rolls Royce. I suppose that's what they meant by the circle of the earth, it's just King James talk for when the rubber hits the road. Despite the amusement, I best not respond to your silly posts anymore as I'm sure I have incited the wrath of the admins. Edited by anglagard, : forgot Mercedes Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Who cares what they had, or what you think they had?? The important point is what did the One that inspired the bible mean??? And let's not pretend that you have some evidence He never inspired it. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
simple writes: The important point is what did the One that inspired the bible mean??? You have the horse firmly hitched at the rear of the cart...
simple writes: And let's not pretend that you have some evidence He never inspired it. i suppose the default assumption would be that we would need evidence that it was inspired. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2794 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: well, it's never a planetary reference because they didn't have a concept of the earth as a planet. True.
but this particular instance (and the one in genesis 1) are about as close as you will ever get in the bible. quote: The first words of Genesis are more limited in scope than I had previously imagined. For the sake of brevity I will focus on Genesis 1 verse 2. “... earth was without form and void . ” The popular interpretation of Genesis 1:2 (very like that of Philo) requires acceptance of an oxymoronic statement. The Hebrew expression tohu-bohu becomes complete nonsense when given the English: "without form and void." That rendering baffles the mind of the reader and leads to equally mind-numbing alternatives, such as the NLT’s: “formless mass.” Philo devotes a number of pages to explaining those two little words. He goes on and on trying to rationalize how there can be such a thing as an Unsubstantial Substance. I don't believe the writer intended to incapacitate the mental functions of his readers from the very first utterance. This nutty discussion reminds me of a few lines of verse which I heard in elementary school. I don’t recall the whole thing and have no idea who wrote it but, if memory serves, it starts out like this:
quote: Surely Philo must have been trying to help his fellow Jews accept what they had long resisted on religious grounds - global theory. Global theory is the notion that Earth is a ball shaped object which includes both land and sea as two aspects of a greater whole hanging, without support, in the middle of the universe. Proposed by Greek Philosophers as early as 600 BC, embraced by Aristotle in about 300 BC, global theory had become popular science long before the birth of “Jesus who is called ”Christ.’” Genesis holds that Earth and Sea are separate realities; that Earth appeared in the Sea when the primeval water was drawn down. Philo had to have realized that the perceived universe described in the first chapter of Genesis was not compatible with the calculated universe known in his own time. Happily, for Philo and his cronies, Philo came up with a way to explain how Genesis does not mean what it says. Subsequent apologists and their pet translators have preserved and perpetuated Philo's brand of insanity. Unsubstantial Substance indeed! To the point: "tohu-bohu" is descriptive of a desert wasteland. I refer you to Strong's Hebrew/Chaldee Word List for the etymology. Witness the corroborating evidence:
Those environments fit the definition of "tohu-bohu" very nicely whereas Unsubstantial Substance does not.
Is it science yet? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024