Earth not flat

[razeontherock]

So are you saying when it says circle it doesnt mean circle? So instead of saying yeah it does, your going to its hebrew meaning it has multiple meanings. Oh ok couldnt you do that with anything. Isnt it just pretty simple it says circle a 2d flat shape. And if the original hebrew has different meaning why is translated to circle then. But ok i understand your point. Ive got the answer cheers.

"Couldn't you do that with anything" = understanding what is actually meant, instead of just making it up.

Yeah, that would usually be a good idea. I heartily recommend it.

Having done so, no the Bible does NOT advance the idea of ancient near east cosmology. G-d simply doesn't inform us otherwise, and even points out how little they did know, "blasting" them over the point.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter. (Proverbs 25:2)

He also calls us Kings and Priests

 

[razeontherock]

I think that is massive claim which you must see is false. Just look at jesus' family tree. Mathew 1. Luke 3:23 they are completely different. The bible is not flawless.

This is intentional, and not at all error. We can link to a vid that explains it well, very simply. Anyway, you miss the whole point that the genealogy tells us ...

 

[Harry3142]

The flat-earth theory didn't originate with the church. It originated with Washington Irving. In a play that he wrote concerning Christopher Columbus, he himself inserted the idea that the church was arguing for a flat earth. But that was purely artistic license on his part.

Over 2,000 years ago greek mathematicians had already measured the dimensions of the earth using shadows cast by two different sticks at the same time of day implanted in the ground. Because of this measurement they knew the planet's circumference to be circa 25,000 miles.

But Christopher Columbus argued that instead of its being 25,000 miles in circumference, it was only 8,000 miles. This would enable him to get to the Orient in the limited length of time that was available to his ships due to their small storage facilities. They did not have the capacity to store enough provisions to feed a crew for the length of time that a trip of 25,000 miles would have taken, but they just barely had enough room for provisions in order to feed a crew that was only traveling 8,000 miles maximum.

So Christopher Columbus discovered the new world not because he was a thinker ahead of his time. Instead, he discovered the new world because of his own mathematical errors.

 

[Believer69]

This is intentional, and not at all error. We can link to a vid that explains it well, very simply. Anyway, you miss the whole point that the genealogy tells us ...

Im intrigued with this point that the different genealogy tells us. As so far i havnt had an answer from christians i have asked.

 

[ChristianT]

Im intrigued with this point that the different genealogy tells us. As so far i havnt had an answer from christians i have asked.

Here's one:

Appearently you have not "looked at the genology you have pointed to very well.
Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth.

n-e questions?

 

[razeontherock]

Im intrigued with this point that the different genealogy tells us. As so far i havnt had an answer from christians i have asked.

I'm part of a small Church, and I asked this question before Christmas. Nobody could come up with an answer, but here it is via 2 dear friends:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632047/

 

[lucaspa]

I hear many times from Christians that the bible says that the earth is not flat. I was just wondering which verse from the bible they get his from?

The Bible does say the earth is flat. Several times. Christians got the idea the earth is round from God's other book: Creation. They then re-interpreted scripture. Fundamentalists who hold that the Bible is "inerrant" try to dodge this truth by fudging verses (such as Isaiah) to say something they don't.

 

[lucaspa]

Im intrigued with this point that the different genealogy tells us. As so far i havnt had an answer from christians i have asked.

Both geneologies are designed to get Jesus into the House of David. This is because the OT prophesizes that the Messiah will be from the House of David. So, the reasoning is: Jesus is the Messiah, the OT says the Messiah will be a descendant of David, Jesus must therefore be a descendant of David, so the geneologies will make Jesus a descendant of David.

Altho Luke and Matthew had some sources in common, it is apparent that they independently devised their geneologies.

It is sometimes claimed that one genealogy traces thru Joseph and the other traces thru Mary, but this is untrue. BOTH trace thru Joseph.

 

[Jonathan95]

The Bible does say the earth is flat. Several times. Christians got the idea the earth is round from God's other book: Creation. They then re-interpreted scripture. Fundamentalists who hold that the Bible is "inerrant" try to dodge this truth by fudging verses (such as Isaiah) to say something they don't.

The bible is flawless, here's several verses that proves that!:

2 Timothy 3:16
Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

I like that it says "EVERY...".


Psalm 12:6
The words and promises of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times over.
Psalm 12:5-7 (in Context)

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is tried and purified; He is a shield to those who trust and take refuge in Him.

If the bible WOULD say that the earth is flat. Then so it would be flat, no matter what scientists believe or say, or think, and so on. What the bible (Word of God) has to says on the subject settles it.
Read this:


Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

It is also interesting to note that there are 16 scriptures which refer to God stretching out the heavens. These are remarkable confirmations that the Bible is true, as we know today that the heavens are rapidly expanding. [TH]



In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”

Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

 

[lucaspa]

So are you saying when it says circle it doesnt mean circle?

Yes, it does mean a flat circle. Hebrew has a different word for "ball" and it is used elsewhere in Isaiah to describe a ball . If Isaiah had meant to say the earth was a 3 D sphere, then the word for "ball" would have been the word to use. Instead, Isaiah used "circle" which is a flat, 2D object.

The entire OT is set in the best "science" of the time: Babylonian cosmology. In that cosmology, the earth is flat and has a transparent crystal dome above it. Above the dome are reservoirs of liquid water for rain. Below the earth are caverns, some of which also house water. Thus, in Genesis 6-8, God can cause a flood by opening up both sets of storage and releasing enough water to cover the earth.

This is what the people of the time knew about God's Creation.

What some people want to do is take the Bible out of its historical context and make it "correct" in what we know now about God's Creation. But doing so makes the Bible say things it doesn't.

 

[lucaspa]

The bible is flawless, here's several verses that proves that!:

So you are defending the Bible. I care about God. Why do you care about the Bible instead of God?

2 Timothy 3:16

Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),
I like that it says "EVERY...".

But look what it is talking about with "every". Not "flawless" as in correct in ALL things, but only "profitable for" (or "useful" in most translations) for some very specific tasks: training in spiritual righteousness, instruction for reproof of sin, correction of theological error.

What is "scripture" in Paul's time? It's not the NT, because that hasn't been written yet! Paul never considered his own letters as scripture. So Paul has to be referring to the OT. Much of what we call the OT was not considered as scripture yet. Basically only the Torah and the works up to the Psalms were considered scripture. However, Paul has a problem. He is preaching to Gentiles -- non Jews. Why should they read the OT, particularly the Torah? After all, the Torah does not mention Jesus at all. In fact, none of the books considered scripture then did. Much of the Torah are laws. Laws Paul says are no longer to be obeyed. So why should these gentiles read the Torah? This is Paul's answer. Even tho it does not mention Jesus, even though most of it is to be ignored, still it is "useful".

Now, you said scripture is flawless. However, Jesus disagrees with you. In Mark 10 and Matthew 14 we find Jesus finding a flaw in scripture. The scripture in question is Deut 24:1: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. " When the Pharisees question Jesus about divorce, Jesus throws the "infallibility" of the Bible under the bus. First, he says that Moses wrote this scripture. Then he says Moses got it wrong. He gives an excuse that Moses got it wrong "the hardness of your hearts", but it is still saying that scripture here is wrong.

Now, as to your quotes from the OT. You are using the wrong defintion of "word". You are using it as text. But in all the cases, those verses refers to "words" as promises. It is used in the sense "give your word", as in make a promise. You can see it explicitly in the first verse you use:

"Psalm 12:6
The words and promises of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times over.
Psalm 12:5-7 "

How did the Hebrews of the OT know God existed? Because God promised His followers their own nation and fulfilled the promise. IOW, God's "word" was true or good.

If

the bible WOULD say that the earth is flat. Then so it would be flat, no matter what scientists believe or say, or think, and so on.

So you are saying that scripture trumps God's Creation? Wow. You would throw God under the bus for the Bible. You are violating the First Commandment: you have put the "god" of a inerrant Bible over God.

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle.

"When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep" But that is still a flat thing. Yes, the horizon is a circle if we see if from a ship in the ocean, but it is still flat.

This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10.

ASV: "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, Unto the confines of light and darkness."

But in reality the waters do not have a "boundary" do they? Such a boundary is necessary only if the earth is flat and you need something around the periphery to keep the water from falling off the edge.

The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth.

Not that I have read. Please document this claim.

Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.

Not really. It does work on a spherical globe, but God doesn't need to establish it; it is just a consequence of a turning globe. However, on a flat earth with the sun above, there would be light over all the earth at the same time and not a line of sunrise marching across the hills. Only on a flat earth do you need God to "confine" light and dark.

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers.

But this isn't coming from the Bible, is it? No, it's coming from God's Creation -- science. Up above you said that if the Bible contradicted this, then the earth is flat no matter how ships disappear or the shadow cast on the moon during lunar eclipses. You are doing what I said happened: allowing evidence from God's Creation to alter the way we interpret scripture.

As it happens, the New Testament writers do not talk about the shape of the earth. Except once indirectly in Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; "

Now, this would only be possible on a flat earth. On a spherical earth, there is no mountain high enough to see "all the kingdoms" of even the known world, much less the entire world. So it's not clear whether the Greek discoveries were taken into account by the author of Matthew.

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.

Those verses say: "In that day, he that shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away: and let him that is in the field likewise not return back. ... I say unto you, In that night there shall be two men on one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. "

If you are thinking that this is referring to people on the opposite sides of the globe, that is not stated anywhere. Instead, it looks to me like Jesus is simply obfuscating what time of day the end will come. The whole point of verses 26-36 is that the coming of the Son of Man will be totally unexpected. So this is not confirmation that the NT changed the flat earth concepts of the OT.

It is also interesting to note that there are 16 scriptures which refer to God stretching out the heavens. These are remarkable confirmations that the Bible is true, as we know today that the heavens are rapidly expanding.

Again, concerned more about the Bible than God. In all those verses, it is not expansion like we see expanding spacetime. Instead, it is stretching forth the covering of the dome in which the stars are embedded. A finite dome of heaven over a flat earth. You are trying to read what you want into the text instead of listening to what the text says.

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

"He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing. " What reference to a spherical sun and moon.

If you are going to place so much emphasis on Job being accurate, what do you do with the following verses:
38:8 "Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, When it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb; "
38:22 "Hast thou entered the treasuries of the snow, Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,"

So, where are the doors that shut up the sea? Where are those storehouses of hail? Neither of these are correct. But you want us to think the other verses refer to a round earth so you can maintain an "infallible" Bible. Right here the Bible isn't infallible, is it?

A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.” Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

Not according the the concordance: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Isaiah 22:18 does use the Hebrew for ball: "He will surely wind thee round and round, [and toss thee] like a ball into a large country; there shalt thou die, and there shall be the chariots of thy glory, thou shame of thy lord's house. "

The concordance has the word be "duwr". This word can mean "circle" or "ball": Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

So if Isaiah had meant to say in chapter 40 that the earth was a ball, he would have used "duwr" instead of "chuwg".