Isaiah 40:22 -- "Globe of the Earth"

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican


"A circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry.
Good.

I don't want it to mean "sphere."

I want it to mean "circle."

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

God sits "upon" it.

Not "in" it.

Not "inside" it.

Not "within" it.

Upon it.

The circle is perpendicular to the equator/meridian.

What we call the z-axis.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I hope there's a typo in the last line? "The "proper grammar demands gyros here" should read "gyron"?

Else your whole pityful admittance of having been wrong the whole time makes no sense. Not only would your "scholar" have said: "Here it should be S based on grammar, but elsewhere it could be that same S." You still would have shown no clue that the very verse you repeatedly quoted does indeed say N.

But I am willing to assume that you made a mistake here.

It was in quotation marks so the typo was his. Yes, it looks like he either meant to write gyro or gyron but you get the point.


So, to conclude: after several posts, where you repeatedly declared that what you were told by the "atheists" was definitly wrong, that there wasn't such a word, that the letters didn't say what we told you, that "atheists" made that up in order to discredit the Bible... after repeated posts where you demonstrated that you personally do not have the necessary skills to read a word with five letters... now you simply drop all that posture and declare: "Oh, I was wrong. But I am still right".

I was wrong about gyron not being a variant. But the article from Richard Carrier is wrong. The scam is exposed and Carrier is flat out busted for teaching an unwarranted bias based on his own atheism which he is unable to support.

You didn't accept a single word of what I said - not even so far as to go and check the sources, because "it's all an atheist scam." That is not a scholarly approach.

And who are you? 16 years of research has provided the same results over and over again. Atheists will either lie or lack knowledge. My task is to expose the fraud in the scam even if that means pressing atheists to prove their point. Richard Carrier was proven wrong as he tried to claim gyros means flat earth. But this is not how gyros is understood in Greece where the language originated from and still spoken. I was right by using the word gyros to begin with as he said gyron and gyros are the same word. In Greece the word is used even today to describe the circumference of the earth.

So that was the first part. That was all that my post was about. A simple claim of yours that was wrong, and that you now hopefully admit was wrong.

Oh stop it! There are several pages of this topic where you atheists lost every single argument and not one of you admitted to it. This gyron mistake of mine was a loss of a point in discussion but by argument still wins. But will you admit to that? Nope. I guess after losing round after round here you have to feel good about winning that small point. But that point does't change the outcome of my argument.

But there is more. This whole exchange demonstrates that you don't have the necessary basic skills to translate or analyse another language. All you do it cherry-pick stuff that you agree with, without understanding it, and declare yourself the winner.

You're right. I don't know Greek that well. I've mainly studied Hebrew and Latin which atheists here cannot admit supports globe earth. Then there is the têbêl and oikouménē where I supplied lexicons and all atheists did is deny it and say the lexicons are wrong. I supplied 4 Hebrew lexicons for têbêl and still atheists here say it means flat earth. No change of position from atheists as usual. The word oikouménē is one of the few Greek words I've studied which fortunately was used in the NT making it much easier for me to study. The opposition here lost their argument about oikouménē because that word cannot be separated from antipodes and there are no antipodes on a flat earth. Its clear that Clement of Rome read oikouménē from Scripture and also understood têbêl which is how he arrived to his antipode statement.

You are wrong here also.
Your friend is correct. "Gyros" does not mean "circle"... not exclusively. It basically just means "something that turns".
But there is more: derived from that it can have all sorts of meaning. Something round. Something that goes around. Something that is around something else. It can mean "circle" or "disk". As well as "sphere" or "globe".

Round is the common use of the Greek word. Though if you go back to the early church and read their words on the issue they all read spinning globe. I'm sure if it meant flat disc they would have left us a long flat earth tradition. But since there is no flat earth tradition the atheist argument loses to greater known facts. Will atheists admit it? Nope.

And that is the point that I did make earlier in one of my responses to you: you always concentrate on the "globe" part, be it in hebrew, greek, latin, or english. But you constantly ignore, deliberately and willingly, that your own sources - sources you even quote - also say that it can mean "circle".

Circle is an old English word and when applied to the earth it always meant globe. I have already proven this. Only atheists see the word circle and say it means flat earth. This nit-pick does not go over well in Latin or old English. In fact, it still does't go over well today as circle is still a synonym for sphere or globe.


The Bible does not teach or declare that the Earth is a disk or circle.

But the Bible also does not teach or declare that the Earth is a sphere or globe.

So is a circle a shape? That is what we've been discussing here. Plus chuwg is not the only word in the OT that means globe. The word tebel is used more than chuwg and no atheist will admit that 4 Hebrew lexicons have proven their bias wrong!
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican


"A circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry.


Looking at these usages together, I am hard put to see how anyone could justify rendering chûgh in Isa. 40:22a as "sphericity."22 The earliest translations of these Scriptures bear this out. In the Septuagint (LXX), the translators render the nominal and verbal forms of chûgh in every case with the Greek gýros (noun), "circle" or "ring," which they use in Isa. 40:22a, or gyróo (verb), "to make or inscribe a circle."23 Gýros does not mean "sphere,"24 and in fact nowhere in any Greek recension of the Hebrew Scriptures will one find the proper word sphaíra used in this context at all.25 The history of the formation of the LXX is largely lost, and we do not know if the Prophets were translated in Alexandria as the Torah was in the third century BC.26 But if they were and if the translators were familiar with the concept of a spherical earth taught at the Museon of Alexandria, then the center of Greek science, they give no hint of it in their translation of chûgh.

Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus--present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)--in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church's master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen's fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as "qui tenet gyrum terrae."29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, "dwells," to sedet, "sits."30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth.32

When we come to English versions, both early and recent, we find chûgh interpreted in two different ways. The translators of the Authorized Version of 1611 were guided by the Geneva Bible, the version produced by English exiles in 1560, and adopted the latter's reading verbatim: "... sitteth upon the circle of the earth ..."33 Many late twentieth-century versions follow them (NKJV, NJB, NIV, NRSV), but some others render chûgh as "vault" (JPSV, NAB), "vaulted roof" (REB) or "dome" (J. McKenzie34), interpreting the word to refer to the "vaulted dome of the heaven" (suggesting the raqí'a of Gen. 1:6-7), upon which God "sits" or "dwells" or "sits enthroned."35 Seybold, however, rejects this interpretation and points to Isa. 40:22b in support of "circle." The image of God sitting above the vaulted dome rather than the horizon circle would not change the divine perspective in any significant way, but I agree with Seybold that these renderings depart from the contextual meaning of chûgh.36

The prophet who uttered the words of 40:22 is the same prophet who proclaimed that Yahweh is the Creator who "spread out the earth" (42:5; 44:24). The Hebrew verb in both passages is raqa', which means "to stretch out, spread out or abroad, cover over" and, according to Theodore Gaster, "to flatten out."37 Among his people in the exile community in Babylon,38 looking out over the enormous desert expanse that reached from horizon to horizon, it is not surprising that this prophet would describe God as "flattening out" the land. These other expressions also militate against the notion that the prophet was implying a spherical earth in 40:22a, and they act as a check against focusing upon one verse and reading it outside the larger context of this prophet's other inspired oracles of creation and salvation.

If creationists had sought any support among biblical philologists, they might have found a nod given to them in the article on chûgh by Edwin Yamauchi in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. "Some have held," he states, "that Isa 40:22 implies the sphericity of the earth. It may, but it may refer only to the Lord enthroned above the earth with its obviously circular horizon."39 Yamauchi offers no supporting evidence for this concession to opinion, and in fact there is none that he or anyone else could give: a circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry. The preponderance of philological evidence and the translations of ancient scholars and modern experts alike provide overwhelming testimony that Isa 40:22a does not refer to a spherical earth. There is simply no warrant for Eastman, Sarfati, and Morris to declare, contrary to its plain sense and in violation of its semantic domain, that chûgh literally means sphericity. They have read the earth's sphericity into the text, not out of it. And this is the conclusion to which I would lead my students."

Dr. Robert J. Schneider

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
I've already refuted this argument here.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
A scholar. So what peer reviewed work has he had published?
Look. I have many well known scholars in my FB. Some of them specialize in the study of Islam. These scholars are no amateurs. There is only one group on FB where it is possible to hold debate with muslims without chaos. This group contains all the best scholars who specialize in that area of debate. The Greek scholar I am talking about is one of those scholars. All of them are trained in Greek. But when there is something they aren't sure about in Greek, they go to the scholar from Greece. Makes sense. So I'd rather trust a Greek scholar from Greece over some American atheist. Richard Carrier would make many Greeks laugh over his foolish allegation that gyros means flat earth. From gyros comes the gyroscope which is used for proving the earth is round...a globe.

So gyro, gyron, gyros, gyre are the same word. The word gyron isn't used anymore and the proper form is gyros. This is the same scenario with the Latin gyrum and gyrus. All these words are used to describe an earth that is a rotating sphere.
 
Upvote 0

T. Taylor

Seeking the Truth
Feb 20, 2019
43
24
Transylvania
✟11,532.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 40:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]"

Dr. Dennis Bratcher

The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Look. I have many well known scholars in my FB. Some of them specialize in the study of Islam. These scholars are no amateurs. There is only one group on FB where it is possible to hold debate with muslims without chaos. This group contains all the best scholars who specialize in that area of debate. The Greek scholar I am talking about is one of those scholars. All of them are trained in Greek. But when there is something they aren't sure about in Greek, they go to the scholar from Greece. Makes sense. So I'd rather trust a Greek scholar from Greece over some American atheist. Richard Carrier would make many Greeks laugh over his foolish allegation that gyros means flat earth. From gyros comes the gyroscope which is used for proving the earth is round...a globe.

So gyro, gyron, gyros, gyre are the same word. The word gyron isn't used anymore and the proper form is gyros. This is the same scenario with the Latin gyrum and gyrus. All these words are used to describe an earth that is a rotating sphere.

Then link some of their peer reviewed work. Is that so difficult? Richard Carrier has the ability to do something that your friends do not appear to be able to do. That is to get his work peer reviewed and published. So please, find something in a well respected peer reviewed journal that supports your claims.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Atheists will either lie or lack knowledge.

You’re a fine one to talk. Off the top of my head, I distinctly remember you claiming that Charles Darwin wasn’t a scientist. Which was that - a lie, a display of ignorance? Because it was definitely one of the two.
 
Upvote 0

T. Taylor

Seeking the Truth
Feb 20, 2019
43
24
Transylvania
✟11,532.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've already refuted this argument here.

"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible."

Dr. Michael S. Heiser

Interpreting Genesis 1: Who's the Literalist Now? - Dr. Michael Heiser
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible."

Dr. Michael S. Heiser

Interpreting Genesis 1: Who's the Literalist Now? - Dr. Michael Heiser
Funny how you quote Dr. Michael S. Heiser who is rejected by nearly all Christians and well refuted by the early church fathers. Being a literalist does not mean taking everything literally, metaphors and all. It means literally believing that the Biblical view is absolutely true. Even the early church fathers knew there was figurative speech in Scripture. But the figurative speech us meant to capture a deeper spiritual meaning. As for the firmament, Josephus and Clement have already answered it -- both also allured to Job 26:7...the earth being held up by nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
So gyro, gyron, gyros, gyre are the same word. The word gyron isn't used anymore and the proper form is gyros. This is the same scenario with the Latin gyrum and gyrus.
Please, stop it. You had done so well... as much as you could... when you admitted to the little lesson in Greek that I tried to give you.

And now you start again with this UTTER NONSENSE that there is a "proper form" and "gyron isn't used anymore" and "its the same scenario with the Latin".

For sanities sake: learn how these language work before you make such statements.

There is no reason to take anything of what you say serious, if you keep demonstrating your ignorance of foreign language, and your unwillingness to learn.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Please, stop it. You had done so well... as much as you could... when you admitted to the little lesson in Greek that I tried to give you.

And now you start again with this UTTER NONSENSE that there is a "proper form" and "gyron isn't used anymore" and "its the same scenario with the Latin".

For sanities sake: learn how these language work before you make such statements.

There is no reason to take anything of what you say serious, if you keep demonstrating your ignorance of foreign language, and your unwillingness to learn.

Sorry, but I'm going by my friend's explanation who is a Greek scholar from Greece. He said the word used is gyron but gyros is the more proper form. If you want to challenge Greeks in the Greek language then prepare yourself to be embarrassed. This issue is nothing complicated to him.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, but I'm going by my friend's explanation who is a Greek scholar from Greece. He said the word used is gyron but gyros is the more proper form. If you want to challenge Greeks in the Greek language then prepare yourself to be embarrassed. This issue is nothing complicated to him.
If he is a scholar of ancient Greek you should be able to find some work of his. Otherwise he may be as much of a "scholar" as you are a master of translation.

He may be making the error of saying what is proper for modern Greek. Languages change with time. I sincerely doubt if you could understand the "English" of just a thousand years ago. I am pretty sure that I could not. Without formal training claims of mastery are usually baseless.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 40:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]"

Dr. Dennis Bratcher

The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22

This Dr. Dennis Bratcher is a complete fraud. Where do you find these pseudo-scholars? He's a complete impostor and charlatan. There is only one verse in the whole Bible that contains H4230 מְחוּגָה mᵉchûwgâh.

"The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house" ( H4230: מְחוּגָה mᵉchûwgâh, Isaiah 44:13 -- KJV).

So where is the mention of the shape of the earth? Where is the context of God's creation and dominion over the earth? Its not there! This is because once again we've run into the "there, their, they're" mistake except in this case Bratcher is using the wrong circle in his rather absurd rant. So if what he says is right, then Isaiah 40:22 describes an instrument compass as the shape of the earth.

Here is a picture of the shape of the earth according to how Dr. Dennis Bratcher reads Isaiah.
RARE-7-Antique-Divider-Compass-Drafting-Caliper-Vintage.jpg


Here we are talking about the difference between a compass and compass. Chuwg is that other compass.


"COMPASS, verb transitive

1. To stretch round; to extend so as to embrace the whole; hence, to inclose, encircle, grasp or seize; as, to compass with the arms.

2. To surround; to environ; to inclose on all sides; sometimes followed by around, round or about."
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Compass

Proverbs 8:31,

"As for the rounde compasse of this worlde I make it ioyfull: for my delite is to be among the chyldren of men" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

While this verse does not use chuwg, it does use that other word (tebel) which does not contradict chuwg. Proverbs 8:27 (chuwg) and Proverbs 8:31 (tebel) are only 4 verses apart. There is no way such a contradiction will be made here. But Dr. Dennis Bratcher does not understand the rule of contextual application in Hebrew. He's trying to con people using a "there, their, they're" argument.

Again:

Proverbs 8:27,

"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth" (KJV).

Proverbs 8:31,

"As for the rounde compasse of this worlde I make it ioyfull: for my delite is to be among the chyldren of men" (1568 Bishop's Bible).


Which compass is Pro.8:27?

"I was there when He established the heavens,
when He laid out the horizon on the surface of the ocean" (HCSB).

"In His preparing the heavens I [am] there, In His decreeing a circle on the face of the deep" (YLT).

"For when he made the heauens, I was present, when he compassed the deapthes about" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

"I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep" (NIV).

And remember who the Greek scholar translated Isaiah 40:22: "the one who possesses the circumference of the earth". I.e. "The whole earth".

Job 26:10 analysis,

"Day and night complete the revolution ordained by Him, and neither interferes in the least with the other" (Clement of Rome, 20: 2).

It seems clear enough to me that he is reading from the Book of Job chapter 26 verse 10...

"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end" (KJV)

"He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness" (NKJV).

...and Job 38:14,

"It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment" (KJV).

"It turneth itself as clay of a seal And they station themselves as clothed" (YLT).

Then we have that other grammar error atheist scholars claim would have been the word used by Isaiah if he was describing a globe. I'm referring to H1754 דּוּר dûwr.

Contextual Application: Process of elimination

Which words and verses do not fit the context of God's creation of earth, His dominion over the earth and its inhabitants, and the earth or it's shape?

1. "The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house" ( H4230: מְחוּגָה mᵉchûwgâh, Isaiah 44:13 -- KJV).

2. "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end" (Strong's H2328: חוּג chûwg; Job 26:10 -- KJV).

3. "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" (Strong's H2329 חוּג chûwg, Isaiah 40:22 -- KJV).

4. "Yea euen the Lorde of hoastes that with his power made the earth, with his wisdome prepared the round world, and with his discretion spread out the heauens" (Strong's H8398: תֵּבֵל têbêl Jeremiah 51:15 -- 1568 Bishop's Bible).

5. "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house" (Strong's H1754: דּוּר dûwr, Isaiah 22:14 -- KJV).

"And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee" (Strong's H1754: דּוּר dûwr, Isaiah 29:3 -- KJV).

"Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein" (Strong's H1754: דּוּר dûwr, Ezekiel 24:5 -- KJV).

The answer is #1 and #5.

Lastly, the hypocrisy of atheists is in overdrive on the issue of chûwg vs. dûwr, and which of the two Hebrew words better describe a globe. Atheists say dûwr is the better choice. But lets look at the definition of dûwr:

H1754 דּוּר dûwr: "דּוּר dûwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:—ball, turn, round about."
Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

:whitecheck:Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon
duwr.gif



Excuse me but do I not see the word "circle" in that definition? So atheists are fine with circle? Since when? I thought a circle was strictly a 2D flat object? But atheists say the circle of Isaiah 22:14; 29:3; Ezekiel 24:5 is the word that means sphere that Isaiah didn't use? This is how dûwr would translate if applied to Isaiah 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."

No difference in English. But atheists prefer the circle of dûwr over the circle of chûwg? Do you not see how ridiculous this is now?

If Isaiah wanted to describe the earth as flat like a plate as flat earthers have often told me, there are Hebrew words that mean flat.

There's H8478 תַּחַת tachath -- “that the wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). But there is actually another choice Isaiah could have used which may have been a much better choice.

H4227 מַחֲבַת machăbath:

:whitecheck:The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,

"4227. machabath, makh-ab-ath'; from the same as 2281; a pan for baking in:--pan [5x]. See TWOT -- 600b; BDB -- 292b, 561d”

:whitecheck:Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,

TWOT 600b: “flat plate, pan, or griddle (e.g. Lev. 2:5; 6:14; Ezk 4:3)”.

Isaiah 40:22 could have easily been translated as “...the pan of the earth” or “the griddle of the earth" or "the plate of the earth" (H4227 מַחֲבַת machăbath) -- "the flat earth" (H8478 תַּחַת tachath). But it wasn't.

Seems like liberal scholars are unable to grasp the globular meaning of chuwg. They can't even find the right word that would mean flat earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Good.

I don't want it to mean "sphere."

I want it to mean "circle."

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

God sits "upon" it.

Not "in" it.

Not "inside" it.

Not "within" it.

Upon it.

The circle is perpendicular to the equator/meridian.

What we call the z-axis.
Geometry fail. Seriously AV, you keep advocating for a Flat Earth. What you are saying is that the Earth is on the x and y axis, in other words it is flat and God is above it on the z axis. Just admit that you do not understand geometry and I will explain what you should have said.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Sorry, but I'm going by my friend's explanation who is a Greek scholar from Greece. He said the word used is gyron but gyros is the more proper form. If you want to challenge Greeks in the Greek language then prepare yourself to be embarrassed. This issue is nothing complicated to him.
Well, if your friend wants to go after the authors of the Septuagint and critizise their usage of grammar in a language that they spoke, and he can only have learned as secondary... it's fine with me. I am not the one who is so set to defend every single letter of the text as divinely inspired.

But I think it is much more likely that you simply did not understand what your friend was trying to tell you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Lastly, the hypocrisy of atheists is in overdrive on the issue of chûwg vs. dûwr, and which of the two Hebrew words better describe a globe. Atheists say dûwr is the better choice. But lets look at the definition of dûwr:
I notice one person here who constantly is in overdrive to assert that "ball" is a better - no, the only possible! - choice than "circle" for all kinds of words he pulls from lexica.

You should look at the beam in your own eye before accusing others of hypocrisy.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: lasthero
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Well, if your friend wants to go after the authors of the Septuagint and critizise their usage of grammar in a language that they spoke, and he can only have learned as secondary... it's fine with me. I am not the one who is so set to defend every single letter of the text as divinely inspired.

But I think it is much more likely that you simply did not understand what your friend was trying to tell you.
I posted his words. Go back and read them.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I notice one person here who constantly is in overdrive to assert that "ball" is a better - no, the only possible! - choice than "circle" for all kinds of words he pulls from lexica.

You should look at the beam in your own eye before accusing others of hypocrisy.
Blah blah
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
I posted his words. Go back and read them.
You mean, the words that you claimed were his typo?

I don't know if you will continue to deny it... but the verse in the LXX version does say 'gyron' and nothing else.
So if your scholar friend claims that 'gyros' would be the proper form in this case, he is having a beef with the autors of the text.

Considering that you constantly quoted the verse and related sources, and misinterpreted them because of your inability to distinguish between greek letters, I find it much more probable that you misinterprete your friend here. It's kind of a habit of yours.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.