A second look at the "earth" of scripture

[Calminian]

I've been looking at a bunch of links about how the Bible teaches a flat earth and realized this is actually a nomenclature issue. Most on both sides of the debate don't seem to realize that "earth" in the Bible (erets in the hebrew) is always a reference to dry land.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

After this point in the creation, earth is always distinct from the sea. Ex. 20:11, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Hag. 2:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1.

The problem is, in our modern understanding of the term, earth is a planet comprised of land and sea. But the ancient Bible writers never defined erets this way. In fact there is no term for an earth/sea unit.

So does the Bible teach a flat earth? Not really. The earth has many mountains and valleys. Does the earth have edges? You bet! They're called beaches!

A correct understanding of the term erets, completely demolishes all assertions of a flat earth by skeptics.

Does the Bible teach the earth is a sphere? Again, no. And if it did we'd have a problem because there are no continents in the shape of spheres. Our planet is a sphere, but the Bible never touches on the shape of the entire land/ocean unit. Yes I know some apologists like to cite Isa. 40:22, but it is simply misapplied. Earth in scripture only refers to dry land.

So is it just me, or is this an area where both skeptic and apologist are missing the same boat?

 

[juvenissun]

Hey, thank for the digging. I appreciate your view very much. Now I know how to argue against the "flat earth" accusation better.

I always think the word EARTH in the Bible can be "interpreted" in several ways. In my idea about the "pillars of the earth", I did use an interpretation the same as what you said. But I never know the restrictive use of the original word.

Thanks for the good work. May be one more question for you: Did the meaning of this word expand in the New Testament time? My guess is not. I think the word EARTH in the Bible is never intended to mean the earth globe, but only means "the land". But, if so, since when was the word translated to EARTH, instead of LAND? Would it be a more faithful translation by substituting all "earth" in the Bible with "land"?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes I know some apologists like to cite Isa. 40:22, but it is simply misapplied.

No no. It is not misapplied. It is where the science is hidden in the Bible.

Jews must thought it was an error but dared not (or care not) to change it. Thanks to the faithfulness of Jewish scholars. (May be I am wrong here. Did Jews value the Books of Prophets the same as the Torah? Were Books of Prophets copied and recopied?)

 

[Assyrian]

I've been looking at a bunch of links about how the Bible teaches a flat earth and realized this is actually a nomenclature issue. Most on both sides of the debate don't seem to realize that "earth" in the Bible (erets in the hebrew) is always a reference to dry land.

However YECs get the idea of a global flood from the belief 'the whole earth' really does mean the planet.

Consider these few quotes of the many: ‘the face of the earth (i.e. planet)’ (6:1); ‘end of all flesh… the earth is filled with violence … I will destroy them with the earth’ (6:13); ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die’ (6:17). If God had intended to describe a global world-destroying flood, He couldn’t have said it any more clearly.

So what is it? Trade you one flat earth for a global flood?

Sounds like a good deal, but you leave out the passages where the entire creation is summed up as 'the heavens and the earth'. Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Psalm 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps.

 

[theFijian]

No no. It is not misapplied. It is where the science is hidden in the Bible.

Yes yes. It is misapplied. There is no science 'hidden' in the bible. It seems this neo-gnosticism isn't just for Oprah fans.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes yes. It is misapplied. There is no science 'hidden' in the bible. It seems this neo-gnosticism isn't just for Oprah fans.

Hidden means just that, hidden. So, if one focused on the theology, the science is simply not there. But if one tried to dig the science out of it, then it IS there. I don't think this structure(?) of writing has anything wrong. Why do you want to deny it?

 

[gluadys]

The problem is, in our modern understanding of the term, earth is a planet comprised of land and sea.

And furthermore, the use of the term "planet" to refer to a body like the earth dates only from 19th century. "Planets" in ancient times referred to stars and that most certainly did not include the Earth. It did include Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc. but they were thought to be stars. The original meaning of "planet" is "wanderer" for these were "wandering stars" not stars fixed in a constellation.

So does the Bible teach a flat earth? Not really. The earth has many mountains and valleys. Does the earth have edges? You bet! They're called beaches!

A correct understanding of the term erets, completely demolishes all assertions of a flat earth by skeptics.

Not really. For one thing you have the scripturally-based objections by some early Christians to accepting the Greek concept of the earth/cosmos as a sphere. And you have the ancient Jewish texts that represent the earth as an extended disk-like land area (yes with mountains) on a watery abyss and beneath a dome-like firmament.

The biblical references are very consistent with that model and don't really fit any other.

So is it just me, or is this an area where both skeptic and apologist are missing the same boat?

Certainly anyone, skeptic or apologist.who thinks the biblical reference to the earth refers to a sphere, globe or planet is missing the boat.

Did the meaning of this word expand in the New Testament time? My guess is not.

Right. Although the Greeks had figured out that the earth is a sphere a few centuries earlier, there is no hint of that knowledge in the New Testament. We can't simply assume that it was unknown in Jewish circles, for many educated Jews were aware of Greek learning. But the NT writers basically stuck with the traditional Jewish concepts.

So what is it? Trade you one flat earth for a global flood?

Good question. One has to assume the earth is a globe to assert a global flood, and Calminian has shown the bible does not make that assumption.

Hidden means just that, hidden. So, if one focused on the theology, the science is simply not there. But if one tried to dig the science out of it, then it IS there. I don't think this structure(?) of writing has anything wrong. Why do you want to deny it?

As the Fijian said, this is a gnostic approach that assumes the scriptures are not written for all, but for the select few who can crack the code, possibly through a special secret revelation.

What is especially objectionable about it is the assumption that even the biblical authors were not privy to the code.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is especially objectionable about it is the assumption that even the biblical authors were not privy to the code.

Except maybe Daniel.


8: And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
9: And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Daniel 12)

owg

 

[Calminian]

Hey, thank for the digging. I appreciate your view very much. Now I know how to argue against the "flat earth" accusation better.

Good! You may have noticed (I certainly have) that nomenclature is usually at the root of most skeptical objections in the Bible.

I always think the word EARTH in the Bible can be "interpreted" in several ways. In my idea about the "pillars of the earth", I did use an interpretation the same as what you said. But I never know the restrictive use of the original word.

Me too. Our modern term can also mean dry land, but it normally is a reference to the entire planet, oceans and all. But the Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't have a word for the land & sea as a unit. Thus, all of these skeptical drawings I've seen that depict the Biblical earth as a flat ocean disc with a continent in the middle are contradicting the biblical definition of the earth.

Thanks for the good work. May be one more question for you: Did the meaning of this word expand in the New Testament time? My guess is not. I think the word EARTH in the Bible is never intended to mean the earth globe, but only means "the land". But, if so, since when was the word translated to EARTH, instead of LAND? Would it be a more faithful translation by substituting all "earth" in the Bible with "land"?

To my knowledge, there is no new testament word to reference a land and sea unit. Even in the new testament, the earth and sea are distinct. Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15.

 

[Calminian]

No no. It is not misapplied. It is where the science is hidden in the Bible.

Jews must thought it was an error but dared not (or care not) to change it. Thanks to the faithfulness of Jewish scholars. (May be I am wrong here. Did Jews value the Books of Prophets the same as the Torah? Were Books of Prophets copied and recopied?)

I don't think you can have it both ways, juv. There is nothing in scripture to indicate earth means a sea/land unit. I don't think the Bible writers had any intention of describing the structure of the earth and sea as a unit. I do believe the word for circle is likely carrying the meaning of sphere, but it is in regard to the sphere above the earth upon which God metaphorically sits.

 

[Calminian]

However YECs get the idea of a global flood from the belief 'the whole earth' really does mean the planet.

If they do, they are wrong. It's completely unnecessary, anyway. I could translate every instance of erets as land and the effect would be the same.

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the LAND forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the LAND. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the LAND, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the LAND, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

This passage says that all of the hills of the dry land were covered under the whole heavens. This can only mean that ALL lands were covered.

Sounds like a good deal, but you leave out the passages where the entire creation is summed up as 'the heavens and the earth'. Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

This passage says nothing about the earth and sea not being distinct. Just because a passage mentions the land without mentioning the sea, does not prove they are not distinct. You need to find a passage that sums them up together into one term.

Psalm 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps.

Read this carefully. Deeps is simply a reference to the oceans.

Psa. 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths, (NIV)

 

[gluadys]

Except maybe Daniel.


8: And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
9: And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Daniel 12)

owg

And of course the "time of the end" was the time of its writing. According to the custom of apocalyptic writing the book was attributed by the writer to a distinguished teacher of the past. The writer knew what was meant for the time for "unsealing" the words had already come.

To his audience, living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, it was also quite clear.

 

[shernren]

Quite simply: are "the heavens and the earth" all of creation?

If no, then you are in theological trouble from the first verse of the Bible.

If yes, are the oceans part of the heavens, or part of the earth?

QED.

 

[juvenissun]

If they do, they are wrong. It's completely unnecessary, anyway. I could translate every instance of erets as land and the effect would be the same.

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the LAND forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the LAND. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the LAND, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the LAND, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

This passage says that all of the hills of the dry land were covered under the whole heavens. This can only mean that ALL lands were covered.

But, effectively, it is almost equivalent to a global flood. If the whole Middle East were covered with water, How much land would still above the water? In fact, it only takes a flood over ONE "mountain" to signify a global scale flood. (remind you how serious it would be if the sealevel rose 3 ft)

So, I think the "interpretation" of a "global" flood does make sense, even to the Hebrew, the earth only means a piece of dry land.

 

[juvenissun]

Quite simply: are "the heavens and the earth" all of creation?

.....

If yes, are the oceans part of the heavens, or part of the earth?

QED.

Not at the beginning.

This is extremely interesting. The very early earth did not have oceans.

 

[lemmings]

Not at the beginning.

This is extremely interesting. The very early earth did not have oceans.

That isn't the Creationist point of view though. The reason why evolutionists believe that the early Earth didn't have oceans is because liquid water can't exist above 100C. Creationists however don't believe that the Earth was once a molten sphere so this belief does not apply to them.

 

[shernren]

And don't forget what good old Asimov had to say about the flat earth:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

 

[Calminian]

But, effectively, it is almost equivalent to a global flood. If the whole Middle East were covered with water, How much land would still above the water? In fact, it only takes a flood over ONE "mountain" to signify a global scale flood. (remind you how serious it would be if the sealevel rose 3 ft)

So, I think the "interpretation" of a "global" flood does make sense, even to the Hebrew, the earth only means a piece of dry land.

Yep, I agree. Erets means dry land and it can be partial or entire depending on the context. But when we say that every hill was covered under the whole heavens, this is certainly speaking of all dry land everywhere. There's no other way, but to interpret this as a global flood.

 

[Calminian]

Not at the beginning.

This is extremely interesting. The very early earth did not have oceans.

Nor will there be a sea when the new heavens and earth are created.

Rev. 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

But yes, in the beginning, the earth was formless, empty, watery and deep, but these waters were not called the sea and likely not waters of the same nature. Here again this is where nomenclature can be confusing. We think of water as H2O, but even the ocean is not pure H2O. The early earth waters were likely of a nature we don't understand, but they must have behaved as waters do.

 

[Assyrian]

If they do, they are wrong.

Glad you think so

It's completely unnecessary, anyway. I could translate every instance of erets as land and the effect would be the same.

Here we get to the other problem in your translation of erets. The first problem is thinking it is never used to sum up all of creation outside heaven, the second is to think it has to mean all the dry ground on the planet. The word is regularly used to describe much smaller areas, countries, regions even fields.

A description of the whole earth kol-h'erets being flooded may simply describe the whole region Noah came from.

Exodus 10:15 They covered the face of the whole land, so that the land was darkened, and they ate all the plants in the land and all the fruit of the trees that the hail had left. Not a green thing remained, neither tree nor plant of the field, through all the land of Egypt.
The whole earth, kol-h'erets, that was covered with locusts was not the entire dry land surface of the planet, but the whole land of Egypt.

1Sam 30:15 And David said to him, "Will you take me down to this band?" And he said, "Swear to me by God that you will not kill me or deliver me into the hands of my master, and I will take you down to this band." 16 And when he had taken him down, behold, they were spread abroad over all the land, eating and drinking and dancing, because of all the great spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah.
If the Amalekites had really covered the whole earth, David would not have had so much trouble finding them.

2Sam 18:7 And the men of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David, and the loss there was great on that day, twenty thousand men. 8 The battle spread over the face of all the country, and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.
Hardly a world war. But 'the face of all the country' is the exact same Hebrew phrase as 'the face of the whole earth' in Genesis 8:9

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the LAND forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the LAND. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the LAND, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the LAND, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

This passage says that all of the hills of the dry land were covered under the whole heavens. This can only mean that ALL lands were covered.

Except the ancient writers had a very different idea of what 'under the whole heavens' meant than a 21st century reader approaching the text. The key is the word 'under'. It is not describing a spherical atmosphere surrounding the planet and space beyond in every direction. It is talking about the sky above their heads, the heavens they are 'under'. Under the whole heaven means everything from horizon to horizon. It does not refer to Australia and Brazil. They were completely unaware of these areas.

So the bible can talk of the Medes from around Iran as coming 'from the ends of the heavens'. Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land... 17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.
So did the Medes come from Persia to destroy Babylonia... or did they come from the far side of the universe to destroy kol-h'erets, the entire planet

God promised to put fear of the Isrealites on all the peoples who are under the whole heavens. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.

But if we look at who was terrified, under the whole heaven simply applied to people from horizon to horizon in the regions they travelled through.

Exodus 15:14-16 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased.

This is not scripture being wrong, this is understanding what the words and phrases meant when they were spoken and written down. Under the whole heaven did not means all lands.

This passage says nothing about the earth and sea not being distinct. Just because a passage mentions the land without mentioning the sea, does not prove they are not distinct. You need to find a passage that sums them up together into one term.

The passages sums up the entire creation in as earth and heaven. Given creation did include sea and sea creatures, and they are hardly listed as part of heaven, the word earth is being used to describe everything God created on earth, both land and sea.

Read this carefully. Deeps is simply a reference to the oceans.

Psa. 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths, (NIV)

Exactly and the ocean depths and great sea creatures are being told to praise God from the earth. Where are they? Earth. The Psalm starts of telling sun moon stars to praise the LORD from the heavens. It then gives a list of creatures commanded to praise the LORD from the earth, which starts off with sea creatures, hail and snow, beasts and livestock. Sea creatures and ocean depths are all seen as belonging on earth, at least in that use of the word earth.

I know life would be simpler and bible study much easier if words used had only one precise meaning. But language is not like that and God chose to communicate with us in human language. Word can have a wide range of meaning and we have to work them out from context, often it just isn't that clear. Here is what Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Dictionary gives as the range of means to erets

H776
ארץ
'erets
BDB Definition:
1) land, earth

1a) earth

1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
​

1b) land

1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
​

1c) ground, surface of the earth

1c1) ground
1c2) soil
​

1d) (in phrases)

1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
​

1e) (almost wholly late in usage)

1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan
​

Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from an unused root probably meaning to be firm
Same Word by TWOT Number: 167