Earth is Flat

[Non-profit Prophet]

That is not quite correct.
Both the hebrew "chug" as well as the greek "gyro" have the base meaning of "something that goes around". From that, it can have the meanings that you mentioned, but these are not exclusive, and both these terms can have the meaning of "circle".

More likely it was used in the basic meaning, or the general figurative derivation of that: "the surrounding". That either of these terms was used for their geometrical meaning is rather unlikely.
And it was in the same way that the english term was used... in a figurative sense, not a geometrical one. In the early 17th century, the spherical form of the earth was not in question, and still the translators chose to use this specific term.
I dare say they did so because they understood it was the best english representation for the original terms... and yet did not imply a problematic geometrical claim.

So Isaiah 40:22 isn't real a good indicator for the old hebrew cosmology. In fact, few bible verses are... the geometrical form of the earth is a topic that is never directly addressed in the bible.
There are indicators that the Hebrews adopted (and adapted) the babylonian cosmology - the most precise of its time, but never expanded on it, because it simply wasn't a question of interest for the authors of the texts.

There are three different forms of that word: as a verb-“to draw a circle,” in the feminine form- “an instrument to draw a circle, and in the masculine- “sphere.” “Circle” is a general term that could mean any of those three, but only one was written.

The intent may not have been to describe the shape of the earth, but the use of the masculine form assumes an understanding that the earth is a sphere.

As with the Greek; they may not have intentionally wanted to describe the earth as spinning, but chose a word that best fit the thing they were describing.

Even Bill Nye, in refuting flat earth, stated that the earth is “a circle.” He meant sphere, but he didn’t account for individual interpretation when he made that statement. In context, he actually stated the earth is a sphere.

Because the definition of the basic term “circle” can be interpreted in many ways, there is no grammatical or contextual reason to assume it means “flat disc,” or that someone meant that. But when a circle is described using the form of that word that literally means “sphere,” there’s no question what the writer meant.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

The true meaning of "gyro":

Yes, and my wife ordered one after I mentioned that to her.

 

[Freodin]

There are three different forms of that word: as a verb-“to draw a circle,” in the feminine form- “an instrument to draw a circle, and in the masculine- “sphere.” “Circle” is a general term that could mean any of those three, but only one was written.

The intent may not have been to describe the shape of the earth, but the use of the masculine form assumes an understanding that the earth is a sphere.

As with the Greek; they may not have intentionally wanted to describe the earth as spinning, but chose a word that best fit the thing they were describing.

Even Bill Nye, in refuting flat earth, stated that the earth is “a circle.” He meant sphere, but he didn’t account for individual interpretation when he made that statement. In context, he actually stated the earth is a sphere.

Because the definition of the basic term “circle” can be interpreted in many ways, there is no grammatical or contextual reason to assume it means “flat disc,” or that someone meant that. But when a circle is described using the form of that word that literally means “sphere,” there’s no question what the writer meant.

Forgive my ignorance, I readily admit that my knowledge of Hebrew is quite lacking... almost non-existant.

So, could you please explain the difference between the feminine and masculine forms and how to identify them? Also, a source for the various usages in the texts would be appreciated.

 

[Freodin]

There are three different forms of that word: as a verb-“to draw a circle,” in the feminine form- “an instrument to draw a circle, and in the masculine- “sphere.” “Circle” is a general term that could mean any of those three, but only one was written.

The intent may not have been to describe the shape of the earth, but the use of the masculine form assumes an understanding that the earth is a sphere.

As with the Greek; they may not have intentionally wanted to describe the earth as spinning, but chose a word that best fit the thing they were describing.

Even Bill Nye, in refuting flat earth, stated that the earth is “a circle.” He meant sphere, but he didn’t account for individual interpretation when he made that statement. In context, he actually stated the earth is a sphere.

Because the definition of the basic term “circle” can be interpreted in many ways, there is no grammatical or contextual reason to assume it means “flat disc,” or that someone meant that. But when a circle is described using the form of that word that literally means “sphere,” there’s no question what the writer meant.

Just to make it clear: my last post was a serious question. It wasn't meant as an attack on your claims, it wasn't mean to make some kind of "gotcha" point.

Yes, I doubt your explanation... but this doubt is based on my - very limited - understanding of Hebrew.
So, if you could point me to some sources that would back up your point, it would really be very much appreciated.

 

[Radagast]

So, could you please explain the difference between the feminine and masculine forms and how to identify them?

The noun chuwg (meaning circle, sphere, or vault of the sky - H2329) is in fact masculine, and is used in:

Job 22:14: Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven (ESV).

Proverbs 8:27: When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep (ESV).

Isaiah 40:22: It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in (ESV).

To talk about "circle" vs "sphere" seems to me to imply a precision that I don't think ancient Hebrew had. As has already been pointed out, the LXX renders the Proverbs passage somewhat differently, but uses the noun gyros (γῦρος) in the other two verses. This can mean "circle," although as an adjective it just means "round" or "curved."

I think that the feminine noun referred to by the other poster is the rather different mĕchuwgah (H4230), used in:

Isaiah 44:13: The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. (ESV)

 

[Freodin]

The noun chuwg (meaning circle, sphere, or vault of the sky - H2329) is in fact masculine, and is used in:

Job 22:14: Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven (ESV).

Proverbs 8:27: When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep (ESV).

Isaiah 40:22: It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in (ESV).

To talk about "circle" vs "sphere" seems to me to imply a precision that I don't think ancient Hebrew had. As has already been pointed out, the LXX renders the Proverbs passage somewhat differently, but uses the noun gyros (γῦρος) in the other two verses. This can mean "circle," although as an adjective it just means "round" or "curved."

I think that the feminine noun referred to by the other poster is the rather different mĕchuwgah (H4230), used in:

Isaiah 44:13: The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. (ESV)

Thank you for that explanation. It fits very well with my own view on that topic, and shows that my understanding of Hebrew - limited as it may be - isn't so far off from correct.

I had noticed the other verses and wondered how the explicit meaning of "sphere" would fit here... but I wasn't sure if this would be, for whatever reason, a different form of that noun. It seems it isn't.

I don't think either of these verses can be used to definitively declare that the Bible prefers one cosmological model over the other. Nor could the text be used to say that the Bible "teaches" either model.
The point can be made that some verses indicate that the authors held to a certain form of "Flat Earth", but it is never explicitly explained or supported.

I consider the approach that some Christians have: "The Bible is always right - the Earth is a sphere - therefore the Bible teaches a spherical Earth" is just as wrong as the opposite position... but, hey, I'm an atheist, and thus not required to hold to the "literal word of God" position.

I'd rather support those Christians who came to a conclusion about the shape of the earth because of what the observable evidence told them. Regardless of what the Bible seems to say.
There are enough topics in the Bible where most Christians admit a social and historical bias for certain points, without claiming divine infallibility. I'm not quite sure why this seems to be so difficult for some in this regard.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think either of these verses can be used to definitively declare that the Bible prefers one cosmological model over the other. Nor could the text be used to say that the Bible "teaches" either model.

I do not think so either.

I'd rather support those Christians who came to a conclusion about the shape of the earth because of what the observable evidence told them.

Christians have accepted a spherical earth from the very beginning, with one or two exceptions.

A more interesting episode was Galileo, where heliocentrism forced a rethink of scriptural interpretation -- but on closer examination, the Bible did not teach geocentrism either.

Another interesting episode was the adoption of Aristotle in Europe. He was all the rage from Aquinas onwards, but he taught that the universe was infinitely old. That really does conflict with the Bible, and the Church dug her heels in and rejected that aspect of Aristotle (which had no supporting evidence, anyway).

 

[Freodin]

Christians have accepted a spherical earth from the very beginning, with one or two exceptions.

A few more than one or two, but a small minority for sure.

It's shouldn't be a surprise though. It's very rare for a religion to come up with a new and factually correct worldview. Rather they tend to take over the accepted views of the time and enviroment they arose.

A more interesting episode was Galileo, where heliocentrism forced a rethink of scriptural interpretation -- but on closer examination, the Bible did not teach geocentrism either.

Correct... but as with the Flat Earth, it should be noted that it doesn't "teach" heliocentrism either.
As you said above: Christians have accepted a spherical earth from the very beginning of their faith (or at least from the point where we know someone addressed this question). As did almost every other group.
But in the same way, Christians have accepted the central and stationary earth from the very beginning of their faith... just like anyone else. And it took them one-and-a-half millennia to even start to think about a different system.
The Bible did not "teach" geocentrism... but it was perfectly fine with it.

Another interesting episode was the adoption of Aristotle in Europe. He was all the rage from Aquinas onwards, but he taught that the universe was infinitely old. That really does conflict with the Bible, and the Church dug her heels in and rejected that aspect of Aristotle (which had no supporting evidence, anyway).

Well... neither had the Church. Aristotle's view was based on philosophical concepts. The Church's view was based on the same. And both are vague enough to be adapted to almost any new observation.
I'm quite sure... if it turned out that the universe really is infinitely old, the Church was huff and puff for a while and then find out "on closer examination" that it is perfectly compatible with scripture.

 

[Radagast]

A few more than one or two, but a small minority for sure.

Really not very many. Augustine, for example, is sometimes accused of denying a spherical earth, but he didn't; he questioned where the Southern Hemisphere was inhabited.

Correct... but as with the Flat Earth, it should be noted that it doesn't "teach" heliocentrism either.

Yes, that was my point.

The Bible did not "teach" geocentrism... but it was perfectly fine with it.

Post Einstein, of course, we don't believe that the universe has a centre at all.

I'm quite sure... if it turned out that the universe really is infinitely old, the Church was huff and puff for a while and then find out "on closer examination" that it is perfectly compatible with scripture.

Well, no. The Bible really does teach that the universe was created at a point in time.

 

[Freodin]

Well, no. The Bible really does teach that the universe was created at a point in time.

The Bible also "teaches" that the sun was "created" three days after the earth. And while there are still a lot of Young Earth Creationists - much more than there ever were Christian Flat Earthers - the majority of Christians today accept that teaching as "metaphorical".

The YECs still deny that, and in the same way, there would be Christians who would deny an eternal universe, if that would happen. But I dare say the majority would be able to find some way to accept that and still keep believing that, in some form, "God did it and that's what the Bible says and it doesn't teach an absolute 'beginning'. It's metaphorical."

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Just to make it clear: my last post was a serious question. It wasn't meant as an attack on your claims, it wasn't mean to make some kind of "gotcha" point.

Yes, I doubt your explanation... but this doubt is based on my - very limited - understanding of Hebrew.
So, if you could point me to some sources that would back up your point, it would really be very much appreciated.

Please accept my apology for the delayed response, I was recently hospitalized with an eye injury and my eyes have been a bit sensitive to light.

It seems another poster has kindly responded on my behalf; but as far as a source of information, I can reference “The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon” for a brief and sufficient comparison of the word in question. I use it occasionally to assist in some of the tougher meanings and forms of words, as admittedly, Hebrew is not my first language.

I support the other comments that follow the idea that the Bible doesn’t intentionally teach that the earth is any specific shape. However, by inference of the original Hebrew text with the LXX translation, one can fairly conclude that even though they weren’t teaching the earth is a sphere that spins, they certainly must have pictured it that way.

Another way of considering their word choice would be if I stated that a “satellite orbits the earth.” I am not teaching that the earth is a sphere, but if one were to consider my word choice, they would see that I believe it’s a sphere without stating it as fact. If I were to say, “Satellites circle above the earth,” one could possibly argue that I don’t view satellites orbiting a sphere, but traversing a flat surface.

 

[Radagast]

The Bible also "teaches" that the sun was "created" three days after the earth.

Christians are divided on whether the Bible teaches that. It depends on how you read the passage.

 

[Freodin]

Christians are divided on whether the Bible teaches that. It depends on how you read the passage.

No objection from me... that's why I used the quote marks.

But in the same way, the "the universe is not infinite" is a "teaching" that depends on "how you read the passage".

 

[Radagast]

But in the same way, the "the universe is not infinite" is a "teaching" that depends on "how you read the passage".

For us Christians, it makes no difference whether the world is spatially infinite or not.

However, the Bible is pretty clear that the universe was created at a point in time (be that 6,000 or 14,000,000,000 years ago). Denying that is not an option for Christians.

 

[Freodin]

For us Christians, it makes no difference whether the world is spatially infinite or not.

However, the Bible is pretty clear that the universe was created at a point in time (be that 6,000 or 14,000,000,000 years ago). Denying that is not an option for Christians.

And again: that depends on "how you read the passage".
The Bible says, quite clearly, in several places, that the earth is fixed and does not move.
That was the theological justification for the geocentric position, a position that was held and fiercely defended by Christians. "Denying that [was] not an option for Christians."

After the scientific evidence made that position difficult to hold, the majority of Christians of all kinds has changed to the "it is still true, you just have to read the passage in a different way from what the people earlier did" position.

And I am 100% certain, if there would come up equally valid evidence that the universe was not created at a point in time, the majority of Christians would adapt their "reading" of that passage.

That's not empty speculation. I am just following an established trend.

 

[Radagast]

And again: that depends on "how you read the passage".

No. Trust me on this. There are certain core truths in Christianity that can't be "re-interpreted." Check out our CF Statement of Faith.

The Bible says, quite clearly, in several places, that the earth is fixed and does not move.
That was the theological justification for the geocentric position, a position that was held and fiercely defended by Christians.

If you are referring to Psalm 104:5, from my reading of the documents of the time, I don't think that played a big part in the Galileo affair (which was, after all, an internal matter within the Catholic Church, and had large numbers of people on both sides).

Edit: that verse of the Psalms (103:5 in the Vulgate) reads "Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam: non inclinabitur in sæculum sæculi." Monsignor Knox translates "The earth thou hast planted on its own firm base, undisturbed for all time." That doesn't seem terribly relevant to Galileo, which is probably why (as far as I can recall) it never came up.

If you are interested in Galileo, I suggest you read the documents of the time. They have mostly been translated.

 

[Freodin]

No. Trust me on this. There are certain core truths in Christianity that can't be "re-interpreted." Check out our CF Statement of Faith.

Which, if I may point that out, does nowhere state anything to the regard of "the universe was created at a specific point in time".

Look, I understand how you feel about that. But you have to admit that there were and are millions of Christians who felt and feel the same, and differ.

There is only ONE core "truths" in Christianity: "It's true." That's the only thing that they can never change. What this "truth" means... that can change. And has changed.

 

[Radagast]

Which, if I may point that out, does nowhere state anything to the regard of "the universe was created at a specific point in time".

The Bible talks about the Cosmos being created. That implies a point in time.

There is only ONE core "truths" in Christianity: "It's true." That's the only thing that they can never change.

Like I said, no. Check out our CF Statement of Faith.

 

[Freodin]

The Bible talks about the Cosmos being created. That implies a point in time.

It "implies" it.
And if it was in a compelling way shown to be wrong... this "implication" would be dropped and replaced with another interpretation.

Is that really the hill you want to die on? Aren't all the other hills with heaps of dead Christians enough?

Like I said, no. Check out our CF Statement of Faith.

Did you see the notes on that page alone?

 

[Radagast]

Is that really the hill you want to die on? Aren't all the other hills with heaps of dead Christians enough?

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, but it's offensive enough to put you on ignore.