POLL: Did the ancient Hebrews believe that the earth was flat?

[DamianWarS]

The Strong's is the best. I have quoted from other lexicons posted by other members on this topic.

I'm aware of Strong's but I don't see where rotation is. Do you have a source for a lexicon that actually supports rotation?

 

[Ragdoll]

I'm aware of Strong's but I don't see where rotation is. Do you have a source for a lexicon that actually supports rotation?

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

 

[Ragdoll]

As to the "Light", it is NOT the sun.
The sun is the "Governor" of the light by day.
Do you know where the governed light which the sun refracts out from itself when it receives it, comes from, and how it receives it?

What it is?

 

[Ragdoll]

The online Strong's definition is incomplete. The actual book provides more information. But Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon does provide full definition and it says,

"(2) to turn, i.e. to change oneself, to be turned, Job 38:14."

That's rotation and consistent with other words and verses in Scripture that speak of earth's rotation. There are no verses in the Bible that say the earth don't rotate.
H2015 - hāp̄aḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) (blueletterbible.org)

 

[yeshuasavedme]

What it is?

I think you mean "What is it?"
That light is named "Day", by God, and it precedes the sun around the circle of the earth. We call it "Dawn", at daybreak.
It for sure is "power".
How does the sun govern it?
Somehow, on it's way to be poured into the sun for refracting out, it is pulled into the stars of light and super magnified by the actions of those stars and sent out in super streams by the stars of light, to the sun, pouring into it the light like oil in a menorah, which sun IS called a menorah by the Creator.
I am not a physicist, nor do I have all the terms ready on my tongue/writing finger (in this case), but I have the books of scientists who do study the "hows", and they do 'splain how it works.
I'm just a Bible reading mother of 7, grandma of 20, and great grandma of at least 14, who delights in and loves the Word of God, and am simple enough to Believe what He says about it all, and love finding out how He sets it all in motion, keeps it all going, and opens our eyes to HIS being the One in whom we live and move and have our being.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFnGumjANo

 

[DamianWarS]

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

hmm... I'm not seeing it there either. it is important if you say a lexicon supports "rotation" that the actual word is used in the lexicon.

 

[DamianWarS]

The online Strong's definition is incomplete. The actual book provides more information. But Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon does provide full definition and it says,

"(2) to turn, i.e. to change oneself, to be turned, Job 38:14."

That's rotation and consistent with other words and verses in Scripture that speak of earth's rotation. There are no verses in the Bible that say the earth don't rotate.
H2015 - hāp̄aḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) (blueletterbible.org)

yet no lexicon I read mentions the word rotation nor does any translation I can find use the word rotation. The definition by strongs as you quoted says "to change oneself, to be turned" you interpret this to mean rotation but that is inserting too much into the text/definition to come to this conclusion. To rotate is to turn around on an axis so it's clear why the word rotation is important to you but how do we get "to change oneself, to be turned" to mean "turning around on an axis"? something that is flipped is also turned but there is no need for an organized axis and in fact, this is the concrete meaning of the word.

haphak (to turn, overturn) is rooted in the word pak which means a flask or vial. In Hebrew there are no vowels and in the Masoretic text (MT) there are no vowel markings, vowel markings have been added at a later time to pronounce the word easier. Using English letters to correspond to the Hebrew "haphak" is just HPK and "pak" is PK. it is easier to see where the connection is by looking at the hebrew. All hebrew words have a child root and a parent root. The child root is 3 characters and the parent root is 2 characters. HPK is a child root, PK is the parent root and HPK's meaning is formed by its parent root. The parent root means a flask so the meaning of the word is somehow in relation to a flask. if a flask is overturned its contents are split out. the word can abstractly mean change or something that is overthrown but also more concretely means to physicaly turn something. if you spill out the contents of a flask you can return it back to it's original state, either it remains empty or something new is poured into it so it undergoes a change of some sort. if you also overturn a flask so its contents spill out that flask has been defeated as it no longer is holding its contents which is its purpose. it is not poured out it is overturned and split out which overpowers the flask. but at the same time if the flask it put in an upside-down position so that its contents are spilt out it needs to be physically turned to accomplish this so the meaning "turn" can be derived from this as well.

As it happens English is very similar in this respect as something that is "turned into..." is changed, something that is "over turned" is overpowered or overthrown and something that is put upside down is also turned to that position. All the same words to represent different concepts. Perhaps HPK can be used to describe a rotating movement but there needs to be more context to make those conclusions and Job 38:14 is not enough. I have gone over every biblical use of HPK and cannot find a single passage that would support rotation so this is quite a claim you're making.

Simply stating an example where the word is used and declaring it means rotation doesn't mean anything at all even if you have a pretty picture with it. Translations favour the word "change" in this context, no one favours the word rotation so there is a point you must ask yourself why am I the only one? Either everyone is wrong but you or you're perhaps trying too hard to make this work. The word means change, it makes sense in the context, it makes sense in Hebrew and there's no need to try and force something else. The text is not made less because it doesn't declare the earth is rotating around the sun so another question is why try so hard to force this? it just means change and that's it and there's no need to heap on all sorts of concepts the text cannot support.

 

[Ragdoll]

yet no lexicon I read mentions the word rotation nor does any translation I can find use the word rotation. The definition by strongs as you quoted says "to change oneself, to be turned" you interpret this to mean rotation but that is inserting too much into the text/definition to come to this conclusion. To rotate is to turn around on an axis so it's clear why the word rotation is important to you but how do we get "to change oneself, to be turned" to mean "turning around on an axis"? something that is flipped is also turned but there is no need for an organized axis and in fact, this is the concrete meaning of the word.

haphak (to turn, overturn) is rooted in the word pak which means a flask or vial. In Hebrew there are no vowels and in the Masoretic text (MT) there are no vowel markings, vowel markings have been added at a later time to pronounce the word easier. Using English letters to correspond to the Hebrew "haphak" is just HPK and "pak" is PK. it is easier to see where the connection is by looking at the hebrew. All hebrew words have a child root and a parent root. The child root is 3 characters and the parent root is 2 characters. HPK is a child root, PK is the parent root and HPK's meaning is formed by its parent root. The parent root means a flask so the meaning of the word is somehow in relation to a flask. if a flask is overturned its contents are split out. the word can abstractly mean change or something that is overthrown but also more concretely means to physicaly turn something. if you spill out the contents of a flask you can return it back to it's original state, either it remains empty or something new is poured into it so it undergoes a change of some sort. if you also overturn a flask so its contents spill out that flask has been defeated as it no longer is holding its contents which is its purpose. it is not poured out it is overturned and split out which overpowers the flask. but at the same time if the flask it put in an upside-down position so that its contents are spilt out it needs to be physically turned to accomplish this so the meaning "turn" can be derived from this as well.

As it happens English is very similar in this respect as something that is "turned into..." is changed, something that is "over turned" is overpowered or overthrown and something that is put upside down is also turned to that position. All the same words to represent different concepts. Perhaps HPK can be used to describe a rotating movement but there needs to be more context to make those conclusions and Job 38:14 is not enough. I have gone over every biblical use of HPK and cannot find a single passage that would support rotation so this is quite a claim you're making.

Simply stating an example where the word is used and declaring it means rotation doesn't mean anything at all even if you have a pretty picture with it. Translations favour the word "change" in this context, no one favours the word rotation so there is a point you must ask yourself why am I the only one? Either everyone is wrong but you or you're perhaps trying too hard to make this work. The word means change, it makes sense in the context, it makes sense in Hebrew and there's no need to try and force something else. The text is not made less because it doesn't declare the earth is rotating around the sun so another question is why try so hard to force this? it just means change and that's it and there's no need to heap on all sorts of concepts the text cannot support.

I guess you need to learn how to read lexicons. The change is the turn. Changing, turning, turning itself, from night to day. Hebrew words are not English words. They do carry their own meanings. The application in Job 38:14 is an earth that turns itself facing the dayspring. That's heliocentrism.

Besides the Job verse which you don't seem to understand, there is also Psalm 90:2 and Isaiah 40:22. Both these verses (as well as others) tell us that the earth rotates. But here again you need to know how to read a lexicon.

 

[Ragdoll]

hmm... I'm not seeing it there either. it is important if you say a lexicon supports "rotation" that the actual word is used in the lexicon.

turn, to be turned. As the world turns.

 

[Ragdoll]

I think you mean "What is it?"
That light is named "Day", by God, and it precedes the sun around the circle of the earth. We call it "Dawn", at daybreak.
It for sure is "power".
How does the sun govern it?
Somehow, on it's way to be poured into the sun for refracting out, it is pulled into the stars of light and super magnified by the actions of those stars and sent out in super streams by the stars of light, to the sun, pouring into it the light like oil in a menorah, which sun IS called a menorah by the Creator.
I am not a physicist, nor do I have all the terms ready on my tongue/writing finger (in this case), but I have the books of scientists who do study the "hows", and they do 'splain how it works.
I'm just a Bible reading mother of 7, grandma of 20, and great grandma of at least 14, who delights in and loves the Word of God, and am simple enough to Believe what He says about it all, and love finding out how He sets it all in motion, keeps it all going, and opens our eyes to HIS being the One in whom we live and move and have our being.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFnGumjANo

So you really can't identify the source of light God created in Gen.1:3? Your answer is not really a straight answer and I only understand straight answers.

 

[DamianWarS]

I guess you need to learn how to read lexicons. The change is the turn. Changing, turning, turning itself, from night to day. Hebrew words are not English words. They do carry their own meanings. The application in Job 38:14 is an earth that turns itself facing the dayspring. That's heliocentrism.

Besides the Job verse which you don't seem to understand, there is also Psalm 90:2 and Isaiah 40:22. Both these verses (as well as others) tell us that the earth rotates. But here again you need to know how to read a lexicon.

I read lexicons by what they say not what they don't say. I have yet to find the word rotation in anything you have quoted. This means there is a measure of interpretation on your part so that rotation fits. Psalm 90:2 is quite distant from this concept yet you proclaim it speaks of the earth rotating, and not just that but around the sun. You might have an argument that the earth is spherical in Isaiah 40:22 but it's still missing the rotation part. We perhaps find it silly to think the earth is a sphere but does not rotate so surely rotation is implicit but that is a modern worldview we are superimposing over the text. An ancient one would not jump to these conclusions, they wouldn't see a sphere and they wouldn't assume it means the earth is rotating, and certainly not mean it's rotating around the sun.

You seem to be projecting your understanding of things over these text but we need to remove our bias and approach the text as it is written. The earth rotating is not an explicit concept in the Bible, and implict references which seems to be your only argument require a modern understanding of the earth to come to those conclusions where an ancient understanding would not have the capacity to think that abstractly.

The application in Job 38:14 is an earth that turns itself facing the dayspring. That's heliocentrism.

The passage (and I know you're referencing a few verses before 14 too) does not say the earth is facing the sun and it does not say the earth is rotating around the sun. This is how you're interpreting the account but the account lacks too much information to be able to support this. The earth rotates around the sun and it also rotates itself (both heliocentrism and geocentrism may derived perspectives) this is quite advanced to show the text is saying all of this and we should expect the text to be more detailed but it's not, it's actually quite lacking in details but is still consistent with an ancient worldview yet you jump to a modern world view.

 

[DamianWarS]

turn, to be turned. As the world turns.

So now you're superimposing modern English pop culture references over the text? As you said yourself "Hebrew words are not English words. They do carry their own meanings." If this reference was contextualized into the account it would be a video of a flask getting turned upside down and everything spilling out saying "as the flask turns" both expressions mean change and only are using their pop culture concepts to express this. (The latter of course being a hypothetical show)

 

[yeshuasavedme]

So you really can't identify the source of light God created in Gen.1:3? Your answer is not really a straight answer and I only understand straight answers.

Why do you say that? The light brought into being on day 1 is not the sun and that light is always preceeding the sun as it circles the earth.
Dayspring is what God calls it. He named that light "Day".
You want to know what it's source is?
It's source is God's spoken Word.
That is plain by the Scripture record.
He asks Job where it dwells.
Job did not know, neither do you, or I.
Light dwells with God, the Word says.
God is Light, the Word says, but the Dawn/Dayspring did not exist before God called it into being on Day 1.
Dawn is not God. The light called Day did not exist until God made the Day on day 1 of creation week. It circles the globe once a Day, with the heavens.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why do you say that? The light brought into being on day 1 is not the sun and that light is always preceeding the sun as it circles the earth.
Dayspring is what God calls it. He named that light "Day".
You want to know what it's source is?
It's source is God's spoken Word.
That is plain by the Scripture record.
He asks Job where it dwells.
Job did not know, neither do you, or I.
Light dwells with God, the Word says.
God is Light, the Word says, but the Dawn/Dayspring did not exist before God called it into being on Day 1.
Dawn is not God. The light called Day did not exist until God made the Day on day 1 of creation week. It circles the globe once a Day, with the heavens.

2 Cor 4:6 says "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ."

this passage references this light on the first day but abstractly as a metaphor to represent the new creation working in us and through us. I would suggest looking at the creation account through the lens of Christ is a more important focus as scripture itself shows. Notice how Paul in 2 Cor 4 doesn't mention anything to do with the literalness of the account? That's not his focus, his point is how this passage shows Christ working through us and that should be our focus as well.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

2 Cor 4:6 says "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ."

this passage references this light on the first day but abstractly as a metaphor to represent the new creation working in us and through us. I would suggest looking at the creation account through the lens of Christ is a more important focus as scripture itself shows. Notice how Paul in 2 Cor 4 doesn't mention anything to do with the literalness of the account? That's not his focus, his point is how this passage shows Christ working through us and that should be our focus as well.

Why should Paul mention anything to do with literalness in 2 Cor 4?
Paul knew the Torah better than the other apostles, at least, and Paul does not ever try to make a claim that the creation account is not literally what it is, but he expounds on the literal accounts of creation in Torah as all being the foundation for the Revealing of the LORD of glory.
Paul understood the writings of Enoch, as also the womb brothers of Jesus and Jesus, Himself, did.
Paul didn't have to teach the truths of the foundations laid, ALREADY, and now are understood this side of the coming in flesh of the LORD of Glory.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why should Paul mention anything to do with literalness in 2 Cor 4?
Paul knew the Torah better than the other apostles, at least, and Paul does not ever try to make a claim that the creation account is not literally what it is, but he expounds on the literal accounts of creation in Torah as all being the foundation for the Revealing of the LORD of glory.
Paul understood the writings of Enoch, as also the womb brothers of Jesus and Jesus, Himself, did.
Paul didn't have to teach the truths of the foundations laid, ALREADY, and now are understood this side of the coming in flesh of the LORD of Glory.

it's about the focus. I'm not rejecting the literal, I'm just deemphasizing the conversation because to me it's the most uninteresting part of the account. I'd rather focus on the more important parts. God sent light to a desolate void full of darkness and he did the same to you and me. He worked a process that when complete ended in rest. These are powerful salvation parallels and they are worth our attention where the literalness of the account simply lacks any real purpose. I accept the words as they are and just as Paul is doing I interpreted them through the lens of Christ. When all we can talk about is the literalness of the account we use a different lens.

 

[Ragdoll]

Why do you say that? The light brought into being on day 1 is not the sun and that light is always preceeding the sun as it circles the earth.
Dayspring is what God calls it. He named that light "Day".
You want to know what it's source is?
It's source is God's spoken Word.
That is plain by the Scripture record.
He asks Job where it dwells.
Job did not know, neither do you, or I.
Light dwells with God, the Word says.
God is Light, the Word says, but the Dawn/Dayspring did not exist before God called it into being on Day 1.
Dawn is not God. The light called Day did not exist until God made the Day on day 1 of creation week. It circles the globe once a Day, with the heavens.

Here again you are not answering my question with a real answer. Let me try again: What exactly was the light source that God created in Genesis 1:3? That light God created was not Himself. The light God created was a finite light made for the earth. What was that light?

 

[Ragdoll]

2 Cor 4:6 says "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ."

this passage references this light on the first day but abstractly as a metaphor to represent the new creation working in us and through us. I would suggest looking at the creation account through the lens of Christ is a more important focus as scripture itself shows. Notice how Paul in 2 Cor 4 doesn't mention anything to do with the literalness of the account? That's not his focus, his point is how this passage shows Christ working through us and that should be our focus as well.

Nothing in Genesis chapter 1 is a metaphor. The chapter is about God's creation of the natural order. Everything in that chapter literally tells us what God created. There are no metaphors in the chapter. You are misreading the 2.Cor verse. The verse does not say that Gen.1:3 is a metaphor at all.

 

[Ragdoll]

I read lexicons by what they say not what they don't say. I have yet to find the word rotation in anything you have quoted. This means there is a measure of interpretation on your part so that rotation fits. Psalm 90:2 is quite distant from this concept yet you proclaim it speaks of the earth rotating, and not just that but around the sun. You might have an argument that the earth is spherical in Isaiah 40:22 but it's still missing the rotation part. We perhaps find it silly to think the earth is a sphere but does not rotate so surely rotation is implicit but that is a modern worldview we are superimposing over the text. An ancient one would not jump to these conclusions, they wouldn't see a sphere and they wouldn't assume it means the earth is rotating, and certainly not mean it's rotating around the sun.

You seem to be projecting your understanding of things over these text but we need to remove our bias and approach the text as it is written. The earth rotating is not an explicit concept in the Bible, and implict references which seems to be your only argument require a modern understanding of the earth to come to those conclusions where an ancient understanding would not have the capacity to think that abstractly.



The passage (and I know you're referencing a few verses before 14 too) does not say the earth is facing the sun and it does not say the earth is rotating around the sun. This is how you're interpreting the account but the account lacks too much information to be able to support this. The earth rotates around the sun and it also rotates itself (both heliocentrism and geocentrism may derived perspectives) this is quite advanced to show the text is saying all of this and we should expect the text to be more detailed but it's not, it's actually quite lacking in details but is still consistent with an ancient worldview yet you jump to a modern world view.

Isaiah 40:22 uses the word chuwg. It means (1) Circle (2) Compass (3) Circuit

A circle is round. The compass here is not the instrument as flat earthers think it is. The compass in this word is the circumference. Then there is the word circuit which means to move in a circle. This is rotation. In Greek the word is gyros and rotation is a major part of that word definition. You need to study Hebrew and Greek before you can become a master in theology. Simply reading in English and from bad translations does not quite provide the reader a very defining read. When you read Psalm 90:2 in Hebrew you read about a globe earth that rotates. That is what the Hebrew tells us.

 

[DamianWarS]

Nothing in Genesis chapter 1 is a metaphor. The chapter is about God's creation of the natural order. Everything in that chapter literally tells us what God created. There are no metaphors in the chapter. You are misreading the 2.Cor verse. The verse does not say that Gen.1:3 is a metaphor at all.

Paul uses it metaphorically essentially making a parallel of the creation account to the new creation (this should show us it's by design to begin with). That's not me challenging the literalness of the account it's me saying I think the point Paul brings up is more important to talk about. Light and darkness are power symbols used throughout the bible, as well lots of other concepts in the creation account like separating, bearing fruit, multiplication, completion, rest, etc.... it would be irresponsible to say the creation account has no other meaning than the literal. I'm simply saying the literal conversation is the least important.