Flat Earth Revisited

[Arikay]

This was taken from another thread (recent flood thread) by Josh1, his thoughts in blue,

"Arikay has been so bent on trying to prove that the Bible says the earth is flat, that he has not given a thought to anything else."

What did I not give thought to?


"Notice that he is using a modern dictionary."

Careful not to paint yourself into a bad corner. AIG also uses the same dictionary to prove that Yom in Genesis means a 24 hour period. So if my dictionary is not correct, I wonder how many other things creationists claim that are not true because they use the same dictionary?

So, by using this thought to falsify the idea the bible teaches a flat earth, it may also falsify creationist claims. Im ok with that.


"While the definition may be that way now, we know that the hebrews back then had no word for sphere, so they wrote it like a circle."

But they did have Better ways to explain Sphere than circle. Unless of course they really ment circle.

Our friend cosmas here, did not think they ment sphere,

"Book four, as its subtitle indicates, is Cosmas' description of the figure of the world, and his refutation of the Pagan (hoi ekso) doctrine of the sphere."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html​

"Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...

Again,there was no word for this in hebrew so they used the same word that they had used for circle."

It appears you missed the commentary that said,

Proverb 8:27
“27. when he set .*.*. depth--marked out the circle, according to the popular idea of the earth, as circular, surrounded by depths on which the visible concave heavens rested.”
-Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Pro/Pro008.html​

"No way, it don't imply a flat earth or a monstrous mountain that could oversee the whole earth.

J.P. Holding explains: I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a cheap psychological ploy by Satan, and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen! Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -"

But that is a non literal interpretation. We are Only dealing with literal interpretations, thus this is Not valid.

We are only discussing the literal interpretation because that is the one most creationist organizations cling to.


"He tries to fall back on Matt. 4:8,which we have already revealed his faulty logic there."

But since its non literal, its invalid for this discussion.


"Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape."

And there are many other words that have multiple meanings for the same word. The fact that the word is used to describe "ball" means that it could have been possible to give a better description of the shape of the earth than "circle"


Part of the main point of what I wrote was that there is more literal verse evidence for a flat earth than for a 6000 year old earth.

 

[troodon]

Another hint that the Hebrews accepted a flat earth comes from the non-canon Book of Enoch.

A discussion about the parts in question can be seen in this old thread.

 

[Michali]

Oh man. The book of Enoch is really weird. It talks about store houses of weather phenomena, machines that operate the circling sun, and the much disputed "angeology" in Spirituality.

 

[troodon]

Oh man. The book of Enoch is really weird. It talks about store houses of weather phenomena, machines that operate the circling sun, and the much disputed "angeology" in Spirituality.

I know, such a great read

 

[Josh1]

"Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...

Again,there was no word for this in hebrew so they used the same word that they had used for circle."

Arikay: It appears you missed the commentary that said,

I take from the Bible not the commentaries. Only the Bible is inspired.

Arikay:But that is a non literal interpretation. We are Only dealing with literal interpretations, thus this is Not valid.

We are only discussing the literal interpretation because that is the one most creationist organizations cling to.

Your hermeneutic is all wrong here. The passage should be taken literal unless something in the passage shows otherwise. I showed why it shouldn't be taken as literal.

arikay:And there are many other words that have multiple meanings for the same word. The fact that the word is used to describe "ball" means that it could have been possible to give a better description of the shape of the earth than "circle"

The fact is, that there were no words for sphere at that time. The other word does not mean sphere no more than the word that they used.
Arikay: What did I not give thought to?

Another theory. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

"I take from the Bible not the commentaries. Only the Bible is inspired."

But you seem to because...

"Your hermeneutic is all wrong here. The passage should be taken literal unless something in the passage shows otherwise. I showed why it shouldn't be taken as literal."

...your only evidence it should not be taken literally is a commentary.

So,
•Passages should be taken literal only until they can be shown that they shouldn't be taken literal.
•The only reason mat 4:8 should not be taken literally is a commentary.
•You do not accept commentaries.

Thus, we should take Mat 4:8 literally.



"The fact is, that there were no words for sphere at that time. The other word does not mean sphere no more than the word that they used."

So, given the choice between a word that means Circle (a flat object) and a word that has been used to describe a ball (a Round object) you would choose... ?

"Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...

Again,there was no word for this in hebrew so they used the same word that they had used for circle."

Arikay: It appears you missed the commentary that said,

I take from the Bible not the commentaries. Only the Bible is inspired.

Arikay:But that is a non literal interpretation. We are Only dealing with literal interpretations, thus this is Not valid.

We are only discussing the literal interpretation because that is the one most creationist organizations cling to.

Your hermeneutic is all wrong here. The passage should be taken literal unless something in the passage shows otherwise. I showed why it shouldn't be taken as literal.

arikay:And there are many other words that have multiple meanings for the same word. The fact that the word is used to describe "ball" means that it could have been possible to give a better description of the shape of the earth than "circle"

The fact is, that there were no words for sphere at that time. The other word does not mean sphere no more than the word that they used.
Arikay: What did I not give thought to?

Another theory. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Arikay:your only evidence it should not be taken literally is a commentary.

I didn't say that commentaries were not usefull. I just said that there not foolproof. The only reason I took from the commentary is because I liked the way he said it. It does not change the way Bible puts it. There are certain things in the Bible that should be interpreted literal and some not. You were implying (at least the way I took it anyway) that I should take your interpretation as Bible. We were both disecting a verse and we came out with two different answers.

Arikay: •Passages should be taken literal only until they can be shown that they shouldn't be taken literal.
•The only reason mat 4:8 should not be taken literally is a commentary.
•You do not accept commentaries.

Thats not the only reason, thats not even a reason. The Bible is what I judge it by. I don't believe I said I don't accept them, just don't take them as dogmatic truth. Men wrote commentaries and men make mistakes.

Arikay:So, given the choice between a word that means Circle (a flat object) and a word that has been used to describe a ball (a Round object) you would choose... ?

Lets read this verse again. Is.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:

Notice the second part of the verse. "and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers;

Now are we grasshoppers? Do we take this literal? No, we notice that this is just a figure of speech. Just trying to make a point that is. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

So, it all boils down to what parts you *want* to take literal and what commentaries you *want* to believe.

The entire point I was trying to make.

 

[DayAge]

Arikay,
As Christians we are to take the Bible literally, not necessarily concretely. You must take into account parallel verses ,i.e. Luke 4:5. You must also take into account the context of the verse within the chapter and book, as well as the rest of the Bible. Literary genre must also be taken into account. Is the verse found in a book of history, wisdom, poetry, etc. This is taking the Bible literally.

As far as the shape of the earth;
Proverbs 8:27 says, "He drew a circle/horizon (chuwg) upon the face of the deep."
A good cross reference is Job 26:10. Here chuwg is used as a verb. "He drew a circular (chuwg) horizon/boundary (choq) on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."
Both are refering to the shape of the boundary between the water and sky. They are not talking about the shape of the planet as a whole.

The word for ball (duwr) does not have a clear cut definition either. It is used 3 times:
1) In Isaiah 22:18 it does speak most likely of a ball.

2) Is. 29:3 "I will encamp against you all around (duwr)..." you can not camp in the shape of a ball.

3) And in Ezekiel 24:5 it speaks of a low pile (duwr) of bones/wood used as fuel for a fire.

God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

Arikay,
The way you describe literal, above, would mean that when Jesus said "I am the door", we should think of oak, stone, etc. Or, when the Bible says that Jesus is the Jamb, it means that He is a woolly, 4 legged animal that says baaaa all day.
Just trying to make a point.

God Bless!

 

[Arikay]

1) I believe this has been gone over, Enoch can be used to show that there were many strange beliefs, including a flat earth. As far as Duwr, Yes it was used for other things, but this is not uncommon in the bible to have one word mean muliple things, thus the fact that it ment something else, does negate the fact it was used as ball.

2) No, my version of literal is that you take the things that aren't obvious as literal. Your version (of my version) would have use taking grashoppers as meaning people were grasshoppers. My version is taking things literal that we have no real biblical evidence not too.

The entire point im trying to make is not that you should join the Flat Earth society, but that in a literal bible there is more verse evidence for a flat earth than a 6000 year old earth. And that Many places like AIG fight for Yom to be taken as a literal 24 hours, but then they turn around and fight against Circle meaning circle.

 

[Arikay]

Addition: I realized that when I said what the point was, I forgot that you probably haven't followed the conversation from its original point.

Its originally about a thing that I wrote, that you can find here,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html

as I mention in what I wrote, the point is to contest the way groups like AIG use the "literal bible" since some of their "literal" things seem to have as much biblical proof or less than my flat earth.

 

[Josh1]

Arikay:I believe this has been gone over, Enoch can be used to show that there were many strange beliefs, including a flat earth.

What does this have to do with anything. This has no relevance at all. The book of enoch is not in the Bible. We all know that a bunch of people believed a bunch of weird things. My whole point was that the Bible didn't teach a flat earth.

Arikay:As far as Duwr, Yes it was used for other things, but this is not uncommon in the bible to have one word mean muliple things, thus the fact that it ment something else, does negate the fact it was used as ball.

I went over this.

Arikay:No, my version of literal is that you take the things that aren't obvious as literal. Your version (of my version) would have use taking grashoppers as meaning people were grasshoppers. My version is taking things literal that we have no real biblical evidence not too.

You have to rightly divide scripture. In Rev.19, it says Christ comes back with a sword. Now to corrrectly read that scripture, you know that the sword is the Word of God even though there is nothing that indicates this in that passage.

arikay:The entire point im trying to make is not that you should join the Flat Earth society, but that in a literal bible there is more verse evidence for a flat earth than a 6000 year old earth.

I have enjoyed talking about this,even though we are on different sides of the spectrum. Most of the evidence in the Bible for a young earth you would have to add it up. I know that the Bible don't support a flat earth. We could probally go back and forth for 100 pages and still not persuade each other. So I would have to disagree with you on that. As far as the day I think Genesis is pretty clear in that aspect. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

And again, you seem to take only certain parts literally, based on what you want.

You add up verses and you believe they come out to a 6000 year old earth, so that must be true.

But when the bible specifically says "circle" we get into all sorts of logical twisting to try to get out of it.

The entire point im trying to make, creationism seems to pick and choose based on their own ideas and not based on a "literal bible"

 

[Josh1]

Arikay,it seems that you have your own interpretaion of a literal Bible. You want us to debate, but to debate we got to use an evolutionist interpretation. So really how do you know what is a literal Bible? Do you understand what it is to be saved? Do you understand what the Bible says about about prophecy? Do you even believe the Bible? If you don't understand other parts then you definately won't understand this one. I'm sorry if you don't see where i'm coming from. The truth is, if there is no God then people won't have no one to be a judge of character. There is no real consequence for doing something morally wrong. That is why evolutionist try so hard to disprove the Bible. So my "logical twisting" don't fit into your "literal Bible". Well it works just fine with mine. My hermenuetic is consistent with the way the Bible flows. If you have just studied to prove the Bible wrong then you are going to have a rough time developing an interpretation. You will pick on certain passages(Is.40:22) without studying scriptures around them. I have dealt with many like that in my time as a christian. Some at the time threw me,but after careful study I found that it was nothing to worry about,for God always has an answer. I am sure you are sincere in what you believe, but it is just a belief. It is not proven,not even close. I know this has been kinda long, so i'm going to shut it down. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

Just to point out, evolutionists dont try to disprove the bible. Evolution and many other things (like geology and astronomy) do disprove a certain interpretation of the bible.

Unfortunatly the point has been lost on you. You "know that the Bible don't support a flat earth" Yet there is a good chance you "know" the bible supports a 6000 year old earth. (If you are a YEC).

Yet all of your reasons for the bible not supporting a flat earth are either opinion, or guesses about what they really ment (since they obviously could not have ment a flat earth). However, scripture does spell out a flat earth more than a 6000 year old one. Yet some seem to ignore parts of scripture they dont like, and still claim they take all of it literally.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What does this have to do with anything. This has no relevance at all. The book of enoch is not in the Bible. We all know that a bunch of people believed a bunch of weird things. My whole point was that the Bible didn't teach a flat earth.

But of course men decided which books would be included in the Bible and which wouldn't. The book of Enoch is in some translations. It clearly shows what the ancient Hebrews believed.

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/enoch.htm

Literalist attempts to reinterpret the Bible in the light of modern knowledge fail. The universe is clearly defined as geocentric in many verses and of course you could only see a flat earth from a single tree no matter how tall it was. The people who believed weird things were the people who wrote the old testament. Consider Genesis 6.

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


So did God have a bunch of other sons before Jesus who went around mating with mortal women? Maybe Genesis is NOT really meant to be taken literally.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Also to add about Enoch, I believe Jesus talks about him at a couple points. So its not like what he wrote was devil created, it was just left out of this version of the bible.

Its also one of the few books that we have found a copy of, in the dead sea scrolls.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Also to add about Enoch, I believe Jesus talks about him at a couple points. So its not like what he wrote was devil created, it was just left out of this version of the bible.

Its also one of the few books that we have found a copy of, in the dead sea scrolls.

No I don't think Jesus mentions Enoch though Jude surely did and it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Ah, I may have not remembered that right. I do know that the book of Enoch did have influence on many of the books that were included in the canon.