The Firmament

[Job 33:6]

"Water molecules exist in the Orion Nebula and are still forming today. The nebula is composed mostly of hydrogen gas; other molecules are comparatively rare.

Even so, the nebula is so vast that it creates enough water every day to fill Earth’s oceans 60 times over. "

Ocean Worlds: Water in the Solar System and Beyond - NASA Science

The story of oceans is the story of life. Life as we know it requires three ingredients: energy, organic molecules, and liquid water.

science.nasa.gov

I think 900 million million million ....... is possible.... if not likely. A few decades ago or so it was published publicly, but now is difficult to find accurately, obscured by fake news.

It's ok for the Bible to contain ancient views of a solid sky retaining a sky ocean. That's what ancient Egyptians and Babylonians talked about as well. But ancient Egyptians didn't have advanced future scientific knowledge.

 

[CoreyD]

In ancient times, before people had things like satellites and space shuttles, the sky was thought to have a watery nature or it was at least commonly described as such. That is what was thought to give it its blue color. Same with things like the solid sky. It was a common view in the Greco-Roman world that the sky consisted of crystalline spheres. The Old Testament is much older than the time of Copernicus and Ptolemy. But in the ancient world, perspectives of a solid sky were quite common. The Biblical authors, though inspired by God, still held to normal or common views of their day concerning cosmology.

1942PA.....50..133M Page 133

This does not mean that the Bible is "fantasy", it just means that the Bible isn't exactly a science textbook. It's a book of theology, it's not about astronomy. It's about God. It's not about physics.

Thanks for providing short vireos... at least the first, since I would not have watched, if they were longer.
I stated the first video, and stopped it in the first 15 seconds, because the person said, "Proper interpretation of the Bible, requires an understanding of the original context in which it was written."
I understand that to be saying that 1) we interpret the Bible, and 2) we do so based on what we assume regarding our understanding.
Correct me please if I am wrong about that.

First, I find the Bible contains the interpretations, and do not require us to interpret it. Just to understand those explanations correctly.
Second, when we assume we understand the context based on our look (perspective) of history, culture, or any connection to such, we are really giving our own ideas or beliefs, and basing everything on this, because we hold it to be true.
That is one opinion over another, or others, and opinions are just that... opinions. Not facts.

Thus the whole conclusion, rather than being a "proper interpretation", is really just an opinion "which I think is better than any other".

To give an example, as to why his view is flawed...
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology." Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

What about the Bible?
Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The assumption is :
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the concept of a circular earth or heavens was common. The Hebrews, like their neighbors, understood the world in terms of a flat disc with a dome-like sky above. The use of "chug" in the Hebrew Bible reflects this understanding, while also highlighting the sovereignty and creative power of God, who establishes the boundaries of the earth and the heavens.

The Old Testament teaches the view that was current at the time and place of its writing: that the earth is a disk, with stars on a firmament above it, and beyond the stars is the cosmic sea.

However, what reasons are they to assume that the writer of Isaiah referred to a flat disk, rather than a sphere, which is circular, when viewed from the heavens?

...and the Greek word chug also means compass, or encompass - to form a circle or ring around; encircle (circumference).
So, Isaiah can here be describing a spherical earth, rather than flat, even if that was the view held be some ancient people, for which there is no evidence.
At least I have not seen any.

The Sphere of the World

By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case.​

​

In the 5th century B.C., Empedocles and Anaxagoras offered arguments for the spherical nature of the Earth. During a lunar eclipse, when the Earth is between the sun and the moon, they identified the shadow of the Earth on the moon. As the shadow moves across the moon it is clearly round. This would suggest that the Earth is a sphere.​

How did ancient civilizations make sense of the cosmos, and what did they get right?

Although their vision of the universe was based on mythological beliefs, the Babylonians' astronomical observations and predictions were astoundingly accurate. They were the first-known people to predict eclipses. They could track and predict the relative movements of the sun, the moon, Mercury and Venus. And - like the ancient Egyptians - they successfully calculated the length of a year.​

It was not common knowledge that the earth was not supported on anything. So, understandably, this may have been the view held by some ancients, as well.

Yet, the writer of the book of Job did not support that view at Job 26:7, even though living long before Isaiah's day.
This is strong evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired, as opposed to being influenced by common mythological beliefs.

There really is no evidence the Bible writers believed in a flat earth.
What we have, are people's interpretations of the Bible, and their opinions, and beliefs.

 

[CoreyD]

It's ok for the Bible to contain ancient views of a solid sky retaining a sky ocean. That's what ancient Egyptians and Babylonians talked about as well. But ancient Egyptians didn't have advanced future scientific knowledge.

This was not an ancient view, but rather, an interpretation of those who were around during the later centuries of the Christian era.
It is even admitted here:
Firmament
"From the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation" "of the Hebrew raki'a. This word means simply "expansion." It" denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but "popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and" also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It "was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is" "spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa." 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

This is a perfect example of what I expressed in my previous post.
They believe something, and present as fact, what they conclude... interpreting the scriptures based on their own ideas.
This is not right. 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[Lost Witness]

It's ok for the Bible to contain ancient views of a solid sky retaining a sky ocean. That's what ancient Egyptians and Babylonians talked about as well. But ancient Egyptians didn't have advanced future scientific knowledge.

the Bible is authored by the holy Spirit..
It's more than likely exactly as it's written.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for providing short vireos... at least the first, since I would not have watched, if they were longer.
I stated the first video, and stopped it in the first 15 seconds, because the person said, "Proper interpretation of the Bible, requires an understanding of the original context in which it was written."
I understand that to be saying that 1) we interpret the Bible, and 2) we do so based on what we assume regarding our understanding.
Correct me please if I am wrong about that.

Our understanding may be correct. I'm not sure what the meaning of your response is.

First, I find the Bible contains the interpretations, and do not require us to interpret it. Just to understand those explanations correctly.
Second, when we assume we understand the context based on our look (perspective) of history, culture, or any connection to such, we are really giving our own ideas or beliefs, and basing everything on this, because we hold it to be true.

The only way to interpret the Bible is to do so with use of supporting evidence and information about it's context. Our interpretations always are a product of our beliefs.

That is one opinion over another, or others, and opinions are just that... opinions. Not facts.

The facts are in supporting evidence for the opinion.

Thus the whole conclusion, rather than being a "proper interpretation", is really just an opinion "which I think is better than any other".

I don't think so.

If two people had opinions. One person said that the sun was hot, and the other said that the sun was cold, you could differentiate between opinion and fact based on supporting evidence.

To give an example, as to why his view is flawed...
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology." Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

What about the Bible?
Isaiah 40:22


The assumption is :
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the concept of a circular earth or heavens was common. The Hebrews, like their neighbors, understood the world in terms of a flat disc with a dome-like sky above. The use of "chug" in the Hebrew Bible reflects this understanding, while also highlighting the sovereignty and creative power of God, who establishes the boundaries of the earth and the heavens.

The Old Testament teaches the view that was current at the time and place of its writing: that the earth is a disk, with stars on a firmament above it, and beyond the stars is the cosmic sea.

These are reasonable statements that id agree with.

However, what reasons are they to assume that the writer of Isaiah referred to a flat disk, rather than a sphere, which is circular, when viewed from the heavens?

Because the old testament describes ANE cosmology. Which includes a flat disk, as depicted in things like the Babylonian map of the world, or the unfinished kuduru stone.

...and the Greek word chug also means compass, or encompass - to form a circle or ring around; encircle (circumference).
So, Isaiah can here be describing a spherical earth, rather than flat, even if that was the view held be some ancient people, for which there is no evidence.
At least I have not seen any.

The old testament in its original language was not written in Greek. And compasses are used for drawing circles.

In fact, the old testament even says that the hug was drawn upon the face of the waters. Which of course is a flat face.

Job 26:10 NRSV
[10] He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.

The Sphere of the World

By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case.​

The old testament is far older than 5th century BC

​

In the 5th century B.C., Empedocles and Anaxagoras offered arguments for the spherical nature of the Earth. During a lunar eclipse, when the Earth is between the sun and the moon, they identified the shadow of the Earth on the moon. As the shadow moves across the moon it is clearly round. This would suggest that the Earth is a sphere.​

The old testament is far older than 5th century BC

How did ancient civilizations make sense of the cosmos, and what did they get right?

Although their vision of the universe was based on mythological beliefs, the Babylonians' astronomical observations and predictions were astoundingly accurate. They were the first-known people to predict eclipses. They could track and predict the relative movements of the sun, the moon, Mercury and Venus. And - like the ancient Egyptians - they successfully calculated the length of a year.​

The Babylonian map of the world is flat. There is no evidence that they held to a spherical cosmology.

It was not common knowledge that the earth was not supported on anything. So, understandably, this may have been the view held by some ancients, as well.

Yet, the writer of the book of Job did not support that view at Job 26:7, even though living long before Isaiah's day.
This is strong evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired, as opposed to being influenced by common mythological beliefs.

Tohu is not "nothing" nor is beliymah.

There really is no evidence the Bible writers believed in a flat earth.
What we have, are people's interpretations of the Bible, and their opinions, and beliefs.

I have shown you the door. It's up to you if you wish to enter it or not.

 

[Job 33:6]

This was not an ancient view, but rather, an interpretation of those who were around during the later centuries of the Christian era.
It is even admitted here:
Firmament
"From the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation" "of the Hebrew raki'a. This word means simply "expansion." It" denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but "popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and" also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It "was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is" "spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa." 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

This is a perfect example of what I expressed in my previous post.
They believe something, and present as fact, what they conclude... interpreting the scriptures based on their own ideas.
This is not right. 2 Peter 3:16.

Nope. Ancient near east cosmology is the original ancient view in question.

You're not going far enough back in history. You've brought up ancient Greece. That's a good start. You've brought up the Latin Vulgate. That's also an awesome observation.

But youre missing the most important piece of the puzzle. That is, the ancient near east. We're taking about 1,000BC - 1,500BC, you have to go back at least this far. Talking about 500BC and the KJV and latin Vulgate, these things are much too young. But you're on the right track.

The Vulgate wasn't written until something like the 4th century AD, which is, perhaps around, 1,500 years after the time of Moses. It's just not particularly useful for this discussion. It's a good observation, but it's not going to get you the answers that you're seeking.

Believe it or not, the King James Version got this one right, as ridiculous as it sounds. And I am not a KJV only person. But they did it right. And the Latin Vulgate got it right too. But the key is to identify the origins of this idea, further back in time.

Also, it is a fact that ancient Greece held a conception of solid crystalline sky spheres. So, it's not as though the Greeks actually got their cosmology right either.

But regardless of the Greeks, the old testament is older and originated out of the ancient near east, and that's where you have to go for your answers. To the actual original ideas of ancient Egypt where the Israelites and Moses came out of. Because remember who Moses was and where he came from. That's where you have to go.

Also, I didn't didn't come here to debate I only came to answer your questions. Either you're ready to hear the answers or you're not. But that's up to you.

 

[Job 33:6]

the Bible is authored by the holy Spirit..
It's more than likely exactly as it's written.

Nope. The old testament, believe it or not, has a cultural context. Or, more correctly, depending on which book you're in, you'll find multiple cultural contextual backgrounds. Sometimes the background is Egyptian, sometimes it's Babylonian. Sometimes akkadian. It depends on what book you're in.

 

[CoreyD]

Our understanding may be correct. I'm not sure what the meaning of your response is.

To assume it is correct, and then base everything on that, does not suggest "may be", but if you are opened to "may not be", that's okay.

The only way to interpret the Bible is to do so with use of supporting evidence and information about it's context. Our interpretations always are a product of our beliefs.

That's exactly what I am saying.
I'm glad you agree.
Therefore, is there any basis for going any further, since your belief is what produced your interpretation, and that's not how it should be?

The facts are in supporting evidence for the opinion.

Not when the "facts" are determined by beliefs.

I don't think so.

If two people had opinions. One person said that the sun was hot, and the other said that the sun was cold, you could differentiate between opinion and fact based on supporting evidence.

Provided the evidence is not interpreted based on belief.

These are reasonable statements that id agree with.

Because the old testament describes ANE cosmology. Which includes a flat disk, as depicted in things like the Babylonian map of the world, or the unfinished kuduru stone.

Remember. That conclusion is based on an interpretation that is a product of your beliefs.

The old testament in its original language was not written in Greek.

I apologize. I'm always writing the word Greek, when I meant Hebrew. Must have Greek stuck in my brain.

And compasses are used for drawing circles.

A compass is also an enclosing line or boundary; a circumference: synonym: circumference.
In both cases, they can be seen on spheres.

In fact, the old testament even says that the hug was drawn upon the face of the waters. Which of course is a flat face.

Job 26:10 NRSV
[10] He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.

Interesting. Where did you see circle in that text?
Is this an interpretation produced by a belief?

The Hebrew word used there, is choq: Statute, decree, ordinance, law, regulation.
If someone interpreted that to mean a circular barrier to hold the ocean, they made a grave mistake... especially since their beliefs directed their "interpretation".
In this case, I would not call that an interpretation.
It's more like altering the text.
Would you agree?

The old testament is far older than 5th century BC

Did you read the whole comment, especially what I underlined?
By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case.

It was widely accepted by the 5th century B.C., which means that before, quite a few people were aware that the earth was spherical, and it was only around the 5th century C.E that the idea that ancient people thought the earth was flat, was promoted.

The old testament is far older than 5th century BC

The Babylonian map of the world is flat. There is no evidence that they held to a spherical cosmology.

I thought all maps were flat.
The only maps that aren't flat, would be 3d models.

Ever since its discovery there has been controversy on its general interpretation and specific features.
Delnero, Paul. "A Land with No Borders: A New Interpretation of the Babylonian “Map of the World”." Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4.1-2 (2017): 19-37

No doubt you have your interpretation as well.

Tohu is not "nothing" nor is beliymah.

belimah: Nothing, without, emptiness
I did not look at the video, because whoever that man is, he needs to contact Strong's and let them know they made a mistake, and unless he is God, I'm on Strong's side.

Usage: The Hebrew word "belimah" is used to convey the concept of "nothingness" or "emptiness." It often appears in contexts that emphasize the absence of something or the idea of being without. In the biblical text, it is used to describe a state of lacking or void, often in a metaphorical sense.

Word Origin
from beli and mah

I have shown you the door. It's up to you if you wish to enter it or not.

John 10:7-15

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.​

​

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.​

Thanks for the offer, but I prefer the true door.
All other doors lead to a pit, and the ones who open them... as Jesus said.

Nope. The old testament, believe it or not, has a cultural context. Or, more correctly, depending on which book you're in, you'll find multiple cultural contextual backgrounds. Sometimes the background is Egyptian, sometimes it's Babylonian. Sometimes akkadian. It depends on what book you're in.

? Sorry. You lost me.
However, thanks for answering the question.

 

[CoreyD]

Nope. The old testament, believe it or not, has a cultural context. Or, more correctly, depending on which book you're in, you'll find multiple cultural contextual backgrounds. Sometimes the background is Egyptian, sometimes it's Babylonian. Sometimes akkadian. It depends on what book you're in.

You disagree with the apostle Peter? 2 Peter 1:20, 21

 

[Job 33:6]

You disagree with the apostle Peter? 2 Peter 1:20, 21

What do you mean? An interpretation is only private if it's not being shared with you. And here I am, sharing it with you. What I am sharing with you is not private at all. It's publically available information.

 

[Job 33:6]

To assume it is correct, and then base everything on that, does not suggest "may be", but if you are opened to "may not be", that's okay.

I just follow the evidence.

That's exactly what I am saying.
I'm glad you agree.
Therefore, is there any basis for going any further, since your belief is what produced your interpretation, and that's not how it should be?

My interpretation of scripture is rooted in historical fact that there was indeed, an ancient view, held universally by people of the ancient near east, as is described in the Bible, in which the earth was indeed, for practical purposes, flat with a solid sky.

I've been sharing sources with you, you don't seem to be interested in them.

Not when the "facts" are determined by beliefs.


Provided the evidence is not interpreted based on belief.

Remember. That conclusion is based on an interpretation that is a product of your beliefs.

Sure.

I apologize. I'm always writing the word Greek, when I meant Hebrew. Must have Greek stuck in my brain.

Hug, as described in the Bible, is plainly stated as having been drawn on the face of the waters. It is indeed a "circle" as all English translations state that it is.

A compass is also an enclosing line or boundary; a circumference: synonym: circumference.
In both cases, they can be seen on spheres.

A circumference is also not a sphere. It is a circle.

You don't draw spheres on the surface of water. You draw circles.

Interesting. Where did you see circle in that text?
Is this an interpretation produced by a belief?

It's the same Hebrew term. The hug is on the face of the waters. The face of the waters is flat.

The Hebrew word used there, is choq: Statute, decree, ordinance, law, regulation.
If someone interpreted that to mean a circular barrier to hold the ocean, they made a grave mistake... especially since their beliefs directed their "interpretation".
In this case, I would not call that an interpretation.
It's more like altering the text.
Would you agree?

Check the next word of the verse, It is chug:

Strong's Hebrew: 2328. חוּג (chug) -- inscribed a circlezzz

Did you read the whole comment, especially what I underlined?
By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case.

Again, 5th century BC is much too late. You're not going back far enough in time.

If I tell you that you're not going far enough back in time, it's just not a legitimate response to just repeat yourself about the 5th century BC.

You need to actually look at sources that are earlier. And I've given you some and you don't seem to be interested in looking at them. So that's on you.

You need sources such as those going back to 1,000BC to 4,000BC. In this range. Particularly in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

And it's not just the written Bible, but the oral traditions that make up the Bible. Many texts of the Bible, the actual writings date to 1st through the 6th centuries BC. But the traditions, the ideas and contextual background, go back much further. Archaic biblical hebrew goes back to something like the 10th century BC.

Telling me that the Greeks in 500BC figured out that the earth was a sphere is a nice bit of information. Good for them, but you're several centuries off.

The old testament is a lot lot lot older than 500BC. Genesis and Job in particular.

We know that ancient cultures going back further in time, did not yet know that the earth was a sphere. Yes, the ancient Greeks discovered the Earth's spherical shape, as you've pointed out, sometime around the 4th or 5th century BC. But again, I can't repeat this enough, the Bible is a lot older.

And if you're not willing to do more research on this, and if you're not willing to review my sources, then that would have to be the end of our conversation if you're not capable of understanding this basic fact of history.

People in 1,000BC did not yet know that the earth was a sphere. That's when the Bible originated.

And I'm not going to repeat this again. Just think about it and let it sink in.

It was widely accepted by the 5th century B.C., which means that before, quite a few people were aware that the earth was spherical, and it was only around the 5th century C.E that the idea that ancient people thought the earth was flat, was promoted.

Again, 5th century CE is much too late in history. You're just repeating something that is incorrect.

I thought all maps were flat.
The only maps that aren't flat, would be 3d models.

Ever since its discovery there has been controversy on its general interpretation and specific features.
Delnero, Paul. "A Land with No Borders: A New Interpretation of the Babylonian “Map of the World”." Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4.1-2 (2017): 19-37

No doubt you have your interpretation as well.

Well, in the Babylonian map of the world, the world is flat. It cannot be interpreted as a sphere because the end of the earth terminates in Babylon.

belimah: Nothing, without, emptiness
I did not look at the video, because whoever that man is, he needs to contact Strong's and let them know they made a mistake, and unless he is God, I'm on Strong's side.

Well, go back and watch it, instead of disregarding it without even asking who the person is. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. But you're incorrect here. Tohu and beliymah, are not what you are saying they are.

Strongs is not wrong. Nor is my sources video wrong, as both my source and strongs say the same thing. It's you and your misunderstanding of what strongs says and your disregard for my source, that is wrong. Because "nothing" is not empty space.

Usage: The Hebrew word "belimah" is used to convey the concept of "nothingness" or "emptiness." It often appears in contexts that emphasize the absence of something or the idea of being without. In the biblical text, it is used to describe a state of lacking or void, often in a metaphorical sense.

Word Origin
from beli and mah

Same as above.

 

[Job 33:6]

.

On the topic of tohu. You believe it is "nothing" right?

But what if I pointed out that in Genesis 1:2, the earth, itself, was tohu.

How can the earth exist, formless and empty, but also simultaneously be "nothing" as though it were empty space?

The answer is that, these terms are not actually referring to "nothing" as modern English readers understand empty space to be.

Rather, these terms are actually referring to tohu. It's more like a meaningless empty, purposeless, wasteland. "Nothing".

Learning Hebrew is more than learning a translation. You have to learn the meaning of the concept behind the translation. Or you'll miss it.

You can't just say "well strongs says it's nothing, so that's that".

You have to go further and you have to understand what "nothing" is. Because "nothing" can be many things.

There is nothing in my stomach.

Really?

There was nothing on TV.

Really? Nothing at all?

I was in a desert and there was nothing there.

Not even sand? Or how about oxygen?

You see. "Nothing" can be used in many ways, and it doesn't necessarily mean "empty space" like NASA science or something like that.

And that's what I mean when I say that Tohu does not mean "nothing".

Isaiah 40:17 NRSV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him; they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

Here tohu is also used. But you see, it is not saying that nations are empty space like something out of a NASA TV show. Rather, the term is more aligned with the concept of worthless or meaningless nothing. That which is without purpose.

And so when in Job is says that the earth hangs on "nothing" it's not actually correct to suggest that this is talking about gravity or space time bending or anything like that.

 

[Job 33:6]

? Sorry. You lost me.
However, thanks for answering the question.

The answer is provided in the video shared. The Bible has context. If you don't know what that means then listen to what I am saying.

Some books of the Bible have an Egyptian context. Like Genesis 1. Some books have a Babylonian context, like Daniel. The cultural context backgrounding scripture changes depending on what book you're reading.

And if people don't recognize this, then they won't have a clue what the Bible is saying.

And this is not "private" information. But it does require that someone sits down and patiently studies the Bible to understand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Did you read the whole comment, especially what I underlined?
By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere. This is a critical point, as there is a widespread misconception that ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat. This was simply not the case.

It was widely accepted by the 5th century B.C., which means that before, quite a few people were aware that the earth was spherical, and it was only around the 5th century C.E that the idea that ancient people thought the earth was flat, was promoted.

Id like to give a more specific response to this. Yes, I see the underlined portion of your text. However, what you're citing appears to be written in a context of ancient peoples of the 5th century BC. I'm sure many people are confused about whether or not ancient Greeks believed that earth was flat.

But what I'm saying is that, it's actually not a misconception at all, if the discussion is on ancient peoples of the ancient near east that predate ancient Greece.

You have to understand that I'm pushing us back further in time. We are going deeper.

Anaxamander or aresthothenes, I'm sure I'm misspelling their names, some figures of ancient Greece used things like shadows to discover and to make a case for why the earth was a sphere. And people, they had to discover the spherical shape of the earth.

Nobody just wakes up in the morning and realizes that earth is a sphere. This is a discovery of history and there is a time, if you go back far enough, that you go into a period before the earths shape was discovered. And there is a point in time in which people discovered its shale. And that time was roughly that 5th century timeframe or so with ancient Greece.

But what I'm saying is, we are going back further in time. Before this discovery was made.

People oftentimes don't really think about, or know about just how old the old testament actually is. And it's pretty old. The cosmological perspectives of Genesis date back, at least to 1,000 BC (the Memphite Theology). But really, concepts of Genesis can be found in Egyptian texts going back much further. We're talking 2,000BC, 3,000BC, 4,000BC (pyramid and coffin texts) etc.

And so, we are going back in time, before even ancient Greece. Before Ptolemy or aresthothenes, or anaxamander or...insert X Greece scholar of ancient times.

We are going back, even before them. And that's where we find this "flat" cosmology. It's not flat-earth as is thought of today. It's more like, it's so ancient that people just didn't know and didn't talk about earth the way we do today. They didn't even know what earth was back then. There was no "earth" there was only "land" eretz.

Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Some archaic biblical hebrew for example, not including earlier oral traditions that background the writing of scripture, date back to something like the 10th century BC.

And your citation or quotation doesn't seem to take this into account.

Whereas my sources, do take this into account. My sources reference ancient literature deeper in time. Back to the time in which the Old Testament originated. Which is centuries earlier than 5th century ancient Greece. Centuries earlier than even Anaximander or Aresthothenes.

 

[Apple Sky]

IMO the firmament is like a bubble that surrounds the earth which inside it is set with the stars, moon & the sun & there are waters above it & around. it So there can be no such thing as space.The firmament is made of a sorta of Silica.

@CoreyD

King James Bible
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: Ezekiel 1:26
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw2OU1hsPJOyWJyMS6FqboaP&opi=89978449

 

[CoreyD]

Id like to give a more specific response to this. Yes, I see the underlined portion of your text. However, what you're citing appears to be written in a context of ancient peoples of the 5th century BC. I'm sure many people are confused about whether or not ancient Greeks believed that earth was flat.

But what I'm saying is that, it's actually not a misconception at all, if the discussion is on ancient peoples of the ancient near east that predate ancient Greece.

You have to understand that I'm pushing us back further in time. We are going deeper.

Anaxamander or aresthothenes, I'm sure I'm misspelling their names, some figures of ancient Greece used things like shadows to discover and to make a case for why the earth was a sphere. And people, they had to discover the spherical shape of the earth.

Nobody just wakes up in the morning and realizes that earth is a sphere. This is a discovery of history and there is a time, if you go back far enough, that you go into a period before the earths shape was discovered. And there is a point in time in which people discovered its shale. And that time was roughly that 5th century timeframe or so with ancient Greece.

But what I'm saying is, we are going back further in time. Before this discovery was made.

People oftentimes don't really think about, or know about just how old the old testament actually is. And it's pretty old. The cosmological perspectives of Genesis date back, at least to 1,000 BC (the Memphite Theology). But really, concepts of Genesis can be found in Egyptian texts going back much further. We're talking 2,000BC, 3,000BC, 4,000BC (pyramid and coffin texts) etc.

And so, we are going back in time, before even ancient Greece. Before Ptolemy or aresthothenes, or anaxamander or...insert X Greece scholar of ancient times.

We are going back, even before them. And that's where we find this "flat" cosmology. It's not flat-earth as is thought of today. It's more like, it's so ancient that people just didn't know and didn't talk about earth the way we do today. They didn't even know what earth was back then. There was no "earth" there was only "land" eretz.

Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Some archaic biblical hebrew for example, not including earlier oral traditions that background the writing of scripture, date back to something like the 10th century BC.

And your citation or quotation doesn't seem to take this into account.

Whereas my sources, do take this into account. My sources reference ancient literature deeper in time. Back to the time in which the Old Testament originated. Which is centuries earlier than 5th century ancient Greece. Centuries earlier than even Anaximander or Aresthothenes.

Okay. Let's go back to the earliest time we know.
I hope you aren't going to tell me about cave men, and ape men.

How far back do you know? Genesis?
That's as far back as I go, when it comes to human knowledge, and as far as the Biblical record goes, men were inspired by God, and wrote things that no man could possibly know.

For example, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
They gave the details of the order of creation, and how things came about... including woman.
Do you accept this?

If you do, then the knowledge of the shape of the earth, and it's state in the heavens, is not guesswork on their part.
It was divinely given for them to record facts - facts that even science today cannot answer... such as, "where do we come from, and where are we going?" "What happens when we die?" "Does life have a purpose... What is it?" ...and many other questions.

All these were given for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope (Romans 15:4), and also for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been fully equipped toward every good work (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

This is why we are equipped to give an answer to men with PhDs, when they asks us the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

It's only later, when persons who deviated from God, began worshipping gods - demons, that they started getting ideas that were crazy, leading to mythical beliefs such as these:

This is why nobody can provide one single piece of evidence that the ancients, as far back as we can go, believed that the earth was flat... because there is none.
We just have the interpretations of those, centuries after Christ, that believed in a flat earth.

 

[CoreyD]

@CoreyD

King James Bible
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: Ezekiel 1:26
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjCupmW66uKAxVuUEEAHRixCwQQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/1-26.htm&usg=AOvVaw2OU1hsPJOyWJyMS6FqboaP&opi=89978449

Above the expanse, and this expanse was not heaven, in the vision of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:1-28

 

[Apple Sky]

Above the expanse, and this expanse was not heaven, in the vision of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:1-28

What was it then ? Where is God's throne ?

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. Let's go back to the earliest time we know.
I hope you aren't going to tell me about cave men, and ape men.

Yea we don't have to go back that far.

The old testament is written in Hebrew. That's its original language in which it was written. And Hebrew has not always existed. So we can start there by looking at when Hebrew was used as a language and when the ancient Israelites escaped from Egypt. As a question of history.

And from what I've read, this usually puts people at a date ranging from about 1,500BC to 1,000BC, and somewhere in this window of time. We could go back further if we wanted to, but this is sufficient for the discussion.

How far back do you know? Genesis?
That's as far back as I go, when it comes to human knowledge, and as far as the Biblical record goes, men were inspired by God, and wrote things that no man could possibly know.

For example, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
They gave the details of the order of creation, and how things came about... including woman.
Do you accept this?

This is where it gets complicated. Because, some might say that, well, that same creation order is in Egyptian texts like the Memphite Theology. You say that scripture describes things that no man can know, but what happens when Egyptians described the waters above and the wind over the face of the deep and he primordial mound and light on the first day etc. just as Genesis does? Only Egyptian texts turned out to be thousands of years older than the Bible?

And usually this is when people get uncomfortable or agitated. And they start asking if that means that the old testament was borrowed from pagan texts and...Noah was copied from the Mesopotamian story with utnapishni and all that stuff.

But there is a key difference between Christians that support an ancient near eastern context of scripture and believe that it originated from a common cultural context and historical context of other narratives, such as Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation narratives,

Versus people who attack the Bible and claim that the Bible was just copied off of other narratives.

And there is also the position of viewing parts of scripture as theological polemic as well, or basically a theological correction and rebuke of pagan narratives of that time in history.

And I'd be happy to give more specific examples of these.

If you do, then the knowledge of the shape of the earth, and it's state in the heavens, is not guesswork on their part.
It was divinely given for them to record facts - facts that even science today cannot answer... such as, "where do we come from, and where are we going?" "What happens when we die?" "Does life have a purpose... What is it?" ...and many other questions.

All these were given for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope (Romans 15:4), and also for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been fully equipped toward every good work (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

This is why we are equipped to give an answer to men with PhDs, when they asks us the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

It's only later, when persons who deviated from God, began worshipping gods - demons, that they started getting ideas that were crazy, leading to mythical beliefs such as these:

This is why nobody can provide one single piece of evidence that the ancients, as far back as we can go, believed that the earth was flat... because there is none.
We just have the interpretations of those, centuries after Christ, that believed in a flat earth.

And yes we have plenty of evidences that ancient peoples were unaware of the spherical shape of the earth. I gave an example earlier of the Babylonian map of the world in which the world terminated at the edge of the bitter River, surrounded by cosmic mountains. There was no perception of sphericity of the earth back then. Another example would be things like the etchings of the cosmos in Egyptian sarcophagus' such as that of wershnepher in which the sun god ra would go into the underworld, or the dust each day. Or you have things like the unfinished kuduru stone which depicts 3-tiered cosmology with the underworld resting atop the deep.

This video provides a good example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. Let's go back to the earliest time we know.
I hope you aren't going to tell me about cave men, and ape men.

How far back do you know? Genesis?
That's as far back as I go, when it comes to human knowledge, and as far as the Biblical record goes, men were inspired by God, and wrote things that no man could possibly know.

For example, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
They gave the details of the order of creation, and how things came about... including woman.
Do you accept this?

If you do, then the knowledge of the shape of the earth, and it's state in the heavens, is not guesswork on their part.
It was divinely given for them to record facts - facts that even science today cannot answer... such as, "where do we come from, and where are we going?" "What happens when we die?" "Does life have a purpose... What is it?" ...and many other questions.

All these were given for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope (Romans 15:4), and also for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been fully equipped toward every good work (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

This is why we are equipped to give an answer to men with PhDs, when they asks us the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

It's only later, when persons who deviated from God, began worshipping gods - demons, that they started getting ideas that were crazy, leading to mythical beliefs such as these:

This is why nobody can provide one single piece of evidence that the ancients, as far back as we can go, believed that the earth was flat... because there is none.
We just have the interpretations of those, centuries after Christ, that believed in a flat earth.

Here is a good video that summarizes some perspectives on ancient cosmology, including a flat earth, in history.

There were lots of people who argued for ancient cosmology in history, including a flat earth.

The most ancient of artifacts we have, among them, they all depict an earth that is flat. Such as this:

Or the Egyptian sarcophagus of wershnepher. It just has a flat land with the circuit of the sun that goes up and then back down into the underworld.

The World According to (the Other) Homer

The semi-mythical Greek is not only the father of the epic poem, but also of geography

bigthink.com

The Physical World of Homer | Encyclopedia.com

The Physical World of HomerSources Source for information on The Physical World of Homer: World Eras dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

"Pillars of Herakles . Greeks in the eighth century (and perhaps even earlier) conceived the earth to be a flat disk, on which the landmass of Europe, Asia, and Africa was surrounded by a vast river called Ocean. Thus, the inhabited earth was thought to be an “island” encircled by water. In the eighth century b.c.e. Homer and Hesiod used this image to good effect in their poetry; early Greek maps also showed this characterization. Although the water encircling the inhabited world was described as a “river,” the ancient poets do not say what the boundary of Ocean was: early Ocean just stretches away into the measureless distance."

Anaximander | COSMOS

astronomy.swin.edu.au

"Anaximander described the Earth as rounded and circular with two plane surfaces (not necessarily a flat disk, more like a cylinder or ‘stone pillar’), which was suspended freely in space. It stays where it is because it is equidistant from everything else in the Universe. "

Thales of Miletus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Thales thought the Earth must be a flat disk or mound of land and dirt which is floating in an expanse of water.[70] Heraclitus Homericus states that Thales drew his conclusion from seeing moist substance turn into air, slime and earth. It seems likely that Thales viewed the land as coming from the water on which it floated and the oceans that surround it, perhaps inspired by observing silt deposits.[71]

He thought the stars were balls of dirt on fire.[72] He seemed to correctly gather that the moon reflects the Sun's light.[73] A crater on the Moon is named in his honor."