The Firmament

[Job 33:6]

While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.

Are we reading the same article?
Where is your quote?

Yes, I agree with your statement here. What's the issue?

 

[Job 33:6]

How is that possible.
If the events of the Bible predate Egyptian cosmology... which it does, then it does not contain ancient near east cosmology.
What a contains may be far from ancient near east cosmology, but then, as has happened, people familiar with myths, can, and have said, well look, the Bible is describing ancient near east cosmology.... only because they interpret the text based on their belief that it is ancient near east cosmology.

Your question here is like asking, if the events of the Bible predate the Hebrew language, which they do, then how is it possible that the Bible might be written in Hebrew?

I don't see how your logic works here.

The ancient near east cosmology is part of the context of the Hebrew speaking authors and audience of the old testament.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. That does not worry me. That is exactly what I said.
What some people claim however, is that the Egyptian cosmology predates the history.
In fact, I know a certain individual who was arguing that moments ago. Has that changed?

I never said that.

What I'm saying is that, the ancient cosmology predates the written record, the Bible. Not necessarily all events of the Bible. Ancient cosmology wouldn't necessarily predate the existence of Adam for example. But that's not the same as saying that ancient near east cosmology does in fact, predate the writing of the Bible.

There is no difference.
One says that the farthest event in history didn't predate the Egyptians, but events after did predate the Egyptians.
That is the same thing as saying, The most historic event did not happen until after the Egyptians, and hence, no event after that happened prior to the Egyptians.

Nope. There is indeed a difference.

Events, such as Adam eating of the apple, can indeed predate the existence of the Egyptians. While the writing of Genesis can come after the Egyptians. And if the author of Genesis, the Hebrew speaking person who wrote it down on paper, holds to an ancient near east cosmology, they can indeed write that down on paper, after being delivered out of Egypt (Moses).

Moses doesn't have to live before Adam in order to write about him. And likewise, Moses can indeed still be a part of the cultural context of his day.

It's a case of one wanting their cake, and eating it too.

Nope. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this.

Moses can exist after Adam. But that doesn't mean that Moses cannot also have a cultural context.

Moses can write about Adam in hebrew. In fact, Adam, humanity, is a Hebrew word. So Moses can in fact, live after Adam, but can still write things into scripture based on his current ancient near east culture, language, and cosmology.

If one claims that Genesis copied from Mesopotamian or Egyptian creation texts, then yes, it is to claim that Adam is a myth, borrowed from earlier texts.

Nope. These other texts do not have Adam even in them. But they can share cultural concepts with one another, such as language. Right, Egyptians could write in Hebrew if they wanted to. And so could Moses. They can share ideas and cultural context.

If one dismisses the history of Israel, and their "cultural ideas", and ignores the fact that the people that left true worship, from which Egypt was born, had ideas based on false worship, that one is not treating the Bible as relevant to the topic, and that evidence is not important enough to affect that one's beliefs.

I'm not ignoring this. But the Bible shares this ancient cosmology with Egyptian texts. So we know that it's not false. [I should clarify here, ancient cosmology is not scientifically accurate. What I mean to say is that the Bible is not a science textbook, and the Bible doesn't intend to reveal scientific revelation, and thus, the Bible is not falsified by referencing ancient cosmology. Just like of Satan were to tell a lie in the Bible, the Bible may reference that event but it doesn't teach it as truth, and thus the Bible is not falsified by containing a lie. Reference is not revelation.]

I understand why you do not see.
You are making so many posts, one after the other, I can hardly keep up, and then you go back, and address what I said, and I lost track on which post is which. It should be clear, I think.

Take for example, your next post.
Consider how it starts.

Ok.

Isn't is as if you ignored what is being repeated... which is key - vital to the truth?
Did the Bible not give us the reason for some similarities, and did I not take the time to repeat this, very slowly, and in baby steps... and what did Job 33:6 do?

I believe if one admits that the Egyptians were born from a people that deviated from true worship, to worship false gods, one has no choice but to admit the the Egyptian cosmology is false, and contrary to the original, even though some elements remain.
I think one would also have to admit that it is evidence against the interpretations that would make the Bible's account agree with the false beliefs.

That doesn't make sense.

Egyptians worshipped pagan deities, or demons as you've described them. I agree. But what you're conflating is theology, false gods, with cosmology, cultural context.

When God said not to worship idols and not to...worship false gods, He wasn't talking about cosmology. The Catholic Church for centuries thought that the sun revolved around the earth. But that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church was worshipping Egyptian gods. These are two different topics. Cosmology is not theology.

So, I complete agree that Egyptians worshipped false gods. But that has nothing to do with cosmology.

Thank you for agreeing to that.


If Paul wrote based on culture, we would not be encouraged to live according to God's high moral standards.
Paul wrote under direction of holy spirit, and did not let culture dictate what he wrote.

Paul wrote, theologically, in accordance with the holy Spirit. But he simultaneously absolutely did write in accordance with his culture and age. He wrote in Greek for example. He would have worn Greek clothes. He spoke of things like ah, I'll give an example...

Women wearing headveils. Do women wear headveils in your church today? If you're in America, and assuming you're Protestant, probably not. Why is that? It's because most churches don't view that as theology, rather it's Paul referencing his culture.

Um, what's another example.

Oh I know. Roman house codes in Ephesians chapter 5.

"As far back as the fourth century BC, philosophers considered the household to be a microcosm, designed to reflect the hierarchal structure of the society, the gods, and ultimately the universe. Aristotle wrote that “the smallest and primary parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children.” First-century philosophers Philo and Josephus included the household codes in their writings as well, arguing that a man’s authority over his household was critical to the success of a society. Many Roman officials believed the household codes to be such an important part of Pax Romana that they passed laws ensuring its protection. "

Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco-Roman Household Codes

This is the third post in our series, One In Christ: A Week of Mutuality , dedicated to discussing an egalitarian view of gender—including relevant biblical texts and practical applications. The goal is to show how scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all support a postur

rachelheldevans.com

Another example, ah, oh here is a simple one,

Slavery in the new testament. Paul reflects on topics of his age and time, his place in history. He breaks some of the chains of slavery in the book of Philemon, but he is still in this context where he talks about things of his culture.

We don't really have slaves today so sometimes we have trouble relating to Philemon.

I could give plenty of examples of the cultural context of Paul's writings.

I don't get what you are saying here.
However, if the Bible did described the Earth as flat, would we all not see it?

Only if you assume that the Bible is trying to teach you something about the shape of the earth. But if you understand that the Bible can say things, without those things necessarily being scientific, then you don't need to hold that assumption.

Many Christians acknowledge ancient cosmology in the old testament. That includes a flat earth. But that doesn't change what Christ did for us on the cross. It's just a side detail, remnant from the ancient authors and audiences of the old testament. It's not really a part of the gospel or anything.

Would you have a problem with it, if you could see it was a matter of how persons interpreted the text, based on their beliefs?

 

[Job 33:6]

Would you have a problem with it, if you could see it was a matter of how persons interpreted the text, based on their beliefs?

Everyone interprets the text based on their beliefs.

Personally, I take the Bible literally.

Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word.

I don't actually believe that the sky is hard. But I am aware that this is just a common concept of ancient near east cosmology. This doesn't make the Bible false. Nor does it change what Christ did for us on the cross. It's just that, the old testament really is old. It is older than I think most people realize. And with that, it contains some very very ancient perspectives on the cosmos. And that's ok. It's just a reminder that God can use anyone at any time, to share His message. Even if they aren't advanced scientists like Stephen Hawking.

Some people are like "grrr, how dare God use ancient people to write the Bible when they didn't know about heliocentrism!!!"

The Catholic Church messed this one up big time and the punished Galileo over it. They couldn't fathom the possibility that the Bible wasn't a science textbook.

Well, too bad, so sad. The fault was on them, not on God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

One of my favorite sites:

Which Planets Can You See Tonight?

Choose tonight or another date and see which planets are shining in the sky above you or anywhere else.

www.timeanddate.com

 

[CoreyD]

Floods and waves are water, are they not?

Not when used in metaphorical speech, no.
Similar to ropes, for example.
2 Samuel 22:5, 6;

5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;​

6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.​

Job 36:8 - "If they're bound in chains, caught in ropes of affliction,

Psalm 18:4, 5

4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.​

5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.​

Psalm 119:61 - The ropes of the wicked bind me, but I won't forget your Law.

Proverbs 5:22 - His own wrongdoings will trap the wicked, And he will be held by the ropes of his sin.

No one who is reasonably, and sincerely using the scriptures, will reason that Sheol is ropes, would they? Would you do that?
Then why do so, with waves and floods?

You can see that the use of these terms is metaphorical, can't you?
They are the same.

2 Samuel 22:5, 6;
5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;
6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

Psalm 18:4, 5
4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.
5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

There are two word that begin with the letter R - Reasonable, and ridiculous.
It is preferred that the latter be something we avoid. Is it not?
The waves of death, and the ropes of death, are not used to describe literal or material aspects, but metaphorical or figurative aspects. That is reasonable.

The underworld is among the waters of the deep.

That iis your opinion, which leads to interpreting the scriptures, based on your beliefs.
This is a good demonstration of that.

I just want to point out too that, there is more to this. It actually makes a lot of sense if you spend time in reading or in study of ancient near east literature.

Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.
A lot of arguments for a flat earth, do not make sense, when looking at the facts.

Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.

For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.

Now you are claiming that the scriptures refer to Sheol as waters, when it does not.
So, each individual, in seeking to find support in the scriptures, for their flat earth theory, just tend to run the theory into a lake, as they come up short.

The theory has many problems, that do not address the facts.
Do meteorites actually crash on earth, and how is this possible, if the firmament is a solid sky dome?
Why has no one actually sailed every direction from the continents, and seen a solid barrier that keeps the oceans impounded... and if they got so close, why are the stars not any bigger there?
It would be expected that the closer one gets to this solid firmament, the closer to the stars, sun, and moon, they would get.

Do you have answers to these questions?

The sea is death. The sea is destruction. It is chaos. It is, tohu wa bohu. It is the...it's like, the absolute opposite of God. It is death. And you will often see this kind of interplay between the underworld and the deep waters, throughout the old testament.

So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?
The see actually helped my vision, and was a great health benefit.
How can the sea be death?

Death is an enemy, according to the scriptures. Not a friend. 1 Corinthians 15:26
Furthermore, death is a state.

One of the most popular examples of this is when Jonah is thrown into the deep, tehom, and he sinks and sinks and, the ropes wrap around him and the bars close over him.

He cries out to God.

He didn't merely drown or go for a swim. Jonah went the furthest away from God, imaginable. To the extent that he went to sheol. He died the fullest death imaginable. And in 3 days, he was delivered.

Jonah 2:2 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Jonah 2:3, 5-6 ESV
[3] For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

You'll also notice that the term "the pit" is used in this passage. The pit is also a common term for sheol in the old testament.

Isaiah 14:15 ESV
[15] But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.

@CoreyD

But this cannot clearly be seen, until someone dives into the ancient culture.

A lot of people read Jonah, and they think of the giant fish and Jonah going for a swim. But, if you know the background context, it is a far deeper story, theologically. Not just in terms of how Jesus reflects on this story. But in its own ancient cultural context. But you have to see things like ancient cosmology, to help illuminate that meaning.

And that's why you'll find these passages about sheol and the waters below, used in various ways. The deep. Or here is another one:

Job 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.

The departed spirits, the shades, or the spirits of the dead, they are "down there". Trembling under the waters. The rephaim.

And this is the same reason that Samuel talks about waves and torrents and floods of death. It's a play on words that is correlating the underworld with the waters of the deep. And no, I'm not kidding about any of this. If anything, I would hope you are kidding by responding with some sort of disbelief. Instead of fighting me on these things, you should let me show you the way.

That's some interpretation.
I'm only sorry that it is based on your belief.
If the Bible were the basis for your understanding, that would be truly wonderful.

Job 17:13, 14 reads...
13 “If I hope [ - qavah: To wait, to look for, to hope, to expect] for Sheol as my home, I make my bed in the darkness;
14 If I call to the grave, ‘You are my father’; To the maggot, ‘my mother and my sister’;

The early writers of the Hebrew scriptures, understood Sheol to be the grave.
While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.

Also, see Hebrew Bible.

Interpretation
Even within the realm of Jewish thought, the understanding of Sheol was often inconsistent. This would later manifest, in part, with the Sadducee–Pharisee ideological rift which, among other things, disagreed on whether relevancy should lie more prominently in the world of living or in the realm of an afterlife. The lack of a clear belief structure surrounding Sheol lends the idea to a number of interpretations: namely, one which imagines Sheol as a concrete state of afterlife, or one which envisions Sheol as a metaphor for death as a whole. To the latter's end, certain editions of the Bible translate the term Sheol as generic terms such as "grave" or "pit" (KJV, NIV, etc.), while others (NAB, NASB, etc.) preserve it as a proper noun. Distinguishing Sheol between a realm and a metaphor is the crux of several unanswered questions surrounding its nature.

Perhaps owing to the evolution of its interpretation, certain elements of Sheol as described in the Hebrew Bible appear contradictory.

The origins of the concept of Sheol are debated. The general characteristics of an afterlife such as Sheol were not unique to the ancient Israelites; the Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades. As such, it is assumed that the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, all united into one, collectively unified "grave", and that this is what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers to: the common grave of humans.

..and you want to show me the way... to Sheol?
Since there are maggots there, and we "shall go down to the bars of Sheol, When once there is rest in the dust." Job 17:16, I don't want you to lead me there, and certainly, I am not eager to die.
So, I don't want you to show me the way.

Seriously though, down in the dust with the maggots, is describing the grave - the pit, where all the dead go.
Even those dead in the sea, go to the dust. Even those cremated, go to the dust. Everything organic, goes to the dust.
As the Bible says, "From dust you are. To dust you will return." Genesis 3: We wall return to the dust. Psalm 146:4

Even Jesus went to Sheol - the grave, or pit.
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
See Acts 2:27
However, that is another topic.

Your question here is like asking, if the events of the Bible predate the Hebrew language, which they do, then how is it possible that the Bible might be written in Hebrew?

I don't see how your logic works here.

The ancient near east cosmology is part of the context of the Hebrew speaking authors and audience of the old testament.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.
Perhaps, try reading it this way:
If the events in history, predate ancient near east cosmology, then how can those events in history, contain ancient near east cosmology?

Since the events in history - the subject, were not written down until later, as you acknowledged, then those events do not contain ancient near east cosmology.
If you interpret what is later written down, as ancient near east cosmology, then it's your interpretation that assumes a record of ancient near east cosmology.

Is that any clearer.

Everyone interprets the text based on their beliefs.

You have made a claim, but can you prove it?
Can I ask you to prove what you claimed here?
If so, please do so. Otherwise, the claim is invalid. It's a mere assertion.

Personally, I take the Bible literally.

Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word.

I don't actually believe that the sky is hard. But I am aware that this is just a common concept of ancient near east cosmology. This doesn't make the Bible false. Nor does it change what Christ did for us on the cross. It's just that, the old testament really is old. It is older than I think most people realize. And with that, it contains some very very ancient perspectives on the cosmos. And that's ok. It's just a reminder that God can use anyone at any time, to share His message. Even if they aren't advanced scientists like Stephen Hawking.

How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?
You quoted a text that says "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?", and said "The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word. I don't actually believe that the sky is hard"

Is that not taking what you want as literal?
So, it's not hard, but...
Why then did you use the verse? What are you trying to say?

 

[Job 33:6]

Not when used in metaphorical speech, no.
Similar to ropes, for example.
2 Samuel 22:5, 6;

5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;​

6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.​

Yes, that's the whole point, it's metaphorical.

Just because something is metaphor, doesn't somehow remove the fact that it's using metaphors about water.

Now let's see how you respond to the rest of my examples.

Job 36:8 - "If they're bound in chains, caught in ropes of affliction,

Psalm 18:4, 5

4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.​

5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.​

Psalm 119:61 - The ropes of the wicked bind me, but I won't forget your Law.

Proverbs 5:22 - His own wrongdoings will trap the wicked, And he will be held by the ropes of his sin.

No one who is reasonably, and sincerely using the scriptures, will reason that Sheol is ropes, would they? Would you do that?
Then why do so, with waves and floods?

You can see that the use of these terms is metaphorical, can't you?
They are the same.

2 Samuel 22:5, 6;
5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;
6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

Psalm 18:4, 5
4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.
5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

There are two word that begin with the letter R - Reasonable, and ridiculous.
It is preferred that the latter be something we avoid. Is it not?
The waves of death, and the ropes of death, are not used to describe literal or material aspects, but metaphorical or figurative aspects. That is reasonable.


That iis your opinion, which leads to interpreting the scriptures, based on your beliefs.
This is a good demonstration of that.


Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.
A lot of arguments for a flat earth, do not make sense, when looking at the facts.

Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.

For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.

Now you are claiming that the scriptures refer to Sheol as waters, when it does not.
So, each individual, in seeking to find support in the scriptures, for their flat earth theory, just tend to run the theory into a lake, as they come up short.

The theory has many problems, that do not address the facts.
Do meteorites actually crash on earth, and how is this possible, if the firmament is a solid sky dome?
Why has no one actually sailed every direction from the continents, and seen a solid barrier that keeps the oceans impounded... and if they got so close, why are the stars not any bigger there?
It would be expected that the closer one gets to this solid firmament, the closer to the stars, sun, and moon, they would get.

Do you have answers to these questions?


So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?
The see actually helped my vision, and was a great health benefit.
How can the sea be death?

Death is an enemy, according to the scriptures. Not a friend. 1 Corinthians 15:26
Furthermore, death is a state.


That's some interpretation.
I'm only sorry that it is based on your belief.
If the Bible were the basis for your understanding, that would be truly wonderful.

Job 17:13, 14 reads...
13 “If I hope [ - qavah: To wait, to look for, to hope, to expect] for Sheol as my home, I make my bed in the darkness;
14 If I call to the grave, ‘You are my father’; To the maggot, ‘my mother and my sister’;

The early writers of the Hebrew scriptures, understood Sheol to be the grave.
While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.

Also, see Hebrew Bible.

Interpretation
Even within the realm of Jewish thought, the understanding of Sheol was often inconsistent. This would later manifest, in part, with the Sadducee–Pharisee ideological rift which, among other things, disagreed on whether relevancy should lie more prominently in the world of living or in the realm of an afterlife. The lack of a clear belief structure surrounding Sheol lends the idea to a number of interpretations: namely, one which imagines Sheol as a concrete state of afterlife, or one which envisions Sheol as a metaphor for death as a whole. To the latter's end, certain editions of the Bible translate the term Sheol as generic terms such as "grave" or "pit" (KJV, NIV, etc.), while others (NAB, NASB, etc.) preserve it as a proper noun. Distinguishing Sheol between a realm and a metaphor is the crux of several unanswered questions surrounding its nature.

Perhaps owing to the evolution of its interpretation, certain elements of Sheol as described in the Hebrew Bible appear contradictory.

The origins of the concept of Sheol are debated. The general characteristics of an afterlife such as Sheol were not unique to the ancient Israelites; the Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades. As such, it is assumed that the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, all united into one, collectively unified "grave", and that this is what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers to: the common grave of humans.

..and you want to show me the way... to Sheol?
Since there are maggots there, and we "shall go down to the bars of Sheol, When once there is rest in the dust." Job 17:16, I don't want you to lead me there, and certainly, I am not eager to die.
So, I don't want you to show me the way.

Seriously though, down in the dust with the maggots, is describing the grave - the pit, where all the dead go.
Even those dead in the sea, go to the dust. Even those cremated, go to the dust. Everything organic, goes to the dust.
As the Bible says, "From dust you are. To dust you will return." Genesis 3: We wall return to the dust. Psalm 146:4

Even Jesus went to Sheol - the grave, or pit.
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
See Acts 2:27
However, that is another topic.


I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.
Perhaps, try reading it this way:
If the events in history, predate ancient near east cosmology, then how can those events in history, contain ancient near east cosmology?

Since the events in history - the subject, were not written down until later, as you acknowledged, then those events do not contain ancient near east cosmology.
If you interpret what is later written down, as ancient near east cosmology, then it's your interpretation that assumes a record of ancient near east cosmology.

Is that any clearer.


You have made a claim, but can you prove it?
Can I ask you to prove what you claimed here?
If so, please do so. Otherwise, the claim is invalid. It's a mere assertion.


How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?
You quoted a text that says "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?", and said "The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word. I don't actually believe that the sky is hard"

Is that not taking what you want as literal?
So, it's not hard, but...
Why then did you use the verse? What are you trying to say?

Looks like you've ignored the rest of my post.


Job 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.

Did you ignore the part here about the dead trembling under the waters?

Yes.

And Jonah calling out from the belly of sheol, where he sank down to the pit where the bars, and waves, and floods enclosed over him forever.

It's not that hard to see. Sheol, the underworld, where the dead are, is oftentimes associated with waters of the deep because the underworld is in the midst of the deep, the waters beneath the earth. That's what makes up the underworld.

 

[Job 33:6]

@CoreyD
"No one who is reasonably, and sincerely using the scriptures, will reason that Sheol is ropes, would they? Would you do that?
Then why do so, with waves and floods?"

I didn't say that sheol "is" ropes. But it's pretty obvious that when you read these verses, you can see that the underworld is described with adjectives that include things like ropes and bars and waves and floods.

Psalm 18:4, 5
4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.
5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

Jonah 2:2 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Jonah 2:3, 5-6 ESV
[3] For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

2 Samuel 22:5, 6;
5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;
6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.


Job 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.

All you have to do is just read what these passages plainly state.

The dead tremble under the waters.

It speaks for itself. Sheol is oftentimes describes with watery language and is associated with the deep. That's where these places are in ancient cosmology. They are the underworld.

There is nothing to debate here. It's just what scripture says. And you can call it metaphorical if you want, that's fine. And I would agree. But that's part of the point here. That's how the old testament is. Ancient cosmology is phenomenological. It's figurative in nature. It's not scientific, which is the whole point.

And this is just what the Bible plainly states. And either someone can accept what the Bible says, or they can't. It's not up for debate.

 

[Job 33:6]

How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?
You quoted a text that says "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?", and said "The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word. I don't actually believe that the sky is hard"

Is that not taking what you want as literal?
So, it's not hard, but...
Why then did you use the verse? What are you trying to say?

Reading it literally does not mean to treat it like a science textbook. It means to read it in line with the perspectives of the original author.

Just as the Bible says that the earth opened up and people fell down into the underworld, that doesn't mean that we should all grab our shovels and should go out and start digging holes in an effort to find Satan hiding down there with the rephaim in the waters.

That's not what it means to read the Bible "literally".

Numbers 16:31-33 ESV
[31] And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart. [32] And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[Job 33:6]

Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.
A lot of arguments for a flat earth, do not make sense, when looking at the facts.

Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.

For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.

Fish don't swim beneath the earth. And nobody is arguing for a flat earth. I know that earth is a sphere. Rather the Bible is describing ancient cosmology, there is a difference.

Exodus 20:4-5 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Nobody is worshipping fish as idols. It's talking about false gods of the underworld.

It doesn't say, don't worship fish in the sea. It's saying, don't worship idols, under the earth. Literally under the earth. The underworld.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fish don't swim beneath the earth.

Exodus 20:4-5 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Nobody is worshipping fish as idols. It's talking about false gods of the underworld.

It doesn't say, don't worship fish in the sea. It's saying, don't worship idols, under the earth. Literally under the earth.

When Exodus 20:4-5 says "under the earth" that is literally what it means. It means, below your feet.

Not, out in the ocean among the fish. @CoreyD

And yes, Jonah did sink down to sheol. That's literally what the Hebrew says. But if you read chapter 2, he explicitly describes sinking to the roots of the mountains to the land where the bars closed over him. The underworld.

Again described in watery terms. As is common in the old testament.

You're not accepting what the Bible plainly says. When it says that the waters are beneath the earth, or when it describes idols beneath the earth, that's what it actually means. It's not talking about distant oceans or something like that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Heaven is above our heads. The earth is beneath our feet, and the waters beneath the earth, are just as the verse says that they are (in ancient cosmology). It's a subterranean ocean where leviathan is, swimming around.

And this is plainly drawn on ancient artifacts of the ancient near east. Just look at it.

@CoreyD
It doesn't say "waters besides the earth", it doesnt say "waters within the earth".

It says, "waters beneath/under the earth"

Exodus 20:4 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Similar to Philippians 2:10
Philippians 2:10 ESV
[10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

And revelation:
Revelation 5:3 ESV
[3] And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,

When Exodus says "under the earth", that's what it means. Not some random ocean somewhere where people are worshipping fish.

Philippians 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth

bible.com

Beneath Egypt | Hebrew Word Study | Skip Moen

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Exodus 20:4 NASB Earth – The Hebrew word mitahat combines the preposition min with the adverb tahat. This combination produces the pictograph...

skipmoen.com

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.
Perhaps, try reading it this way:
If the events in history, predate ancient near east cosmology, then how can those events in history, contain ancient near east cosmology?

Because the aspects of ancient cosmology in the text, are not historical. The references to cosmology are not events of history. It's just part of cultural reference.

For example, in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, you'll read about flood gates opening and closing to release the waters above.

That's not historical. Nobody actually believes that the sky has windows or doors or gateways in it that open and close to release and restrain water. That's just part of the reference to historical cosmology.

The actual event, is a heavy rainstorm. It's not the cosmological details backgrounding or contextualizing that event.

Here is the NASB, it's a very conservative word for word translation. Read it closely:
Genesis 8:2 NASB1995
[2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

It's not a historical event to say that there were gates in the sky that closed and restrained rain.

That's not the historical event. That's reference to cosmology. The historical event was something like a heavy rain. But that historical event is written through and within the ancient cultural context.

It's like how the event is described in Hebrew. The Hebrew language in and of itself is not an event. It is the cultural context and filter that the event is described through. The event (rain falling or rain stopping) is real, but it is described through the world and culture and perspective of the Hebrew speaking author (gates opening and closing in the sky).

And you don't want to confuse the cultural context and cultural reference, with the actual historical event being described. Just like when the Psalmist says that his kidneys guided him, you don't want to confuse this with biology. Thats not what its about.

Psalm 16:7-8
My kidney also instructs me in the night seasons.

Nobody says "oh well, how did the historical event of the psalmist being instructed by his kidneys occur before the context in which kidneys were thought of in ways akin to the heart, today?"

Well, there is no "historical event" that involved the psalmist receiving instruction from his kidneys. The kidneys don't have anything to do with what the psalmist is actually talking about. It's just a cultural reference points.

Just like if I said "I loved her with all of my heart". There is no actual historical event involving my heart. It's just an organ that pumps blood. But I'm not trying to give you a lesson in anatomy when I say that. The actual event (falling in love with someone) doesn't actually have anything to do with my heart at all. But it's a way for me to help you understand what I am saying.

And in Genesis, that's what Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 are. It's not saying that there are actual windows and gates opening and closing in the sky. There is no actual event that occurs that involves windows and gates in the sky.

It's just a way for the author to convey an idea to his audience (that it is raining hard).

And that's how you get ancient cosmology in the text though it does not actually describe historical events.

The author receives revelation about events, then he uses language common to his culture, and he conveys revelation through that culture.

And so just as Hebrew is found in the Bible, so too is Hebrew cosmology. Even though the events of the Bible predate both Hebrew and the cosmology of the Hebrew speaking audience.

Maybe I should repeat this. Read it a few times over.

Or like with Jonah, he says that he cries out from the belly of sheol. He's not saying that the fishes stomach is the underworld. That's not a historical event. That doesn't even make sense that a fishes stomach would be the underworld. It's figurative language. He sank down to the land who's doors and bars closed over him? That's not history, that's poetry. There is no underworld at the bottom of the ocean that you can swim down to.

Since the events in history - the subject, were not written down until later, as you acknowledged, then those events do not contain ancient near east cosmology.
If you interpret what is later written down, as ancient near east cosmology, then it's your interpretation that assumes a record of ancient near east cosmology.

Is that any clearer.

That's true that the events do not contain cosmology. But the Bible does. And that's the difference. Because the Bible is not a straight history or science textbook.

It's true that the event of Noah's flood didn't actually contain ancient cosmology of windows and doors opening and closing in the sky.

But were talking about the context of the Bible and what it says. And it does in fact describe Windows opening and closing to release and restrain water.

And that's the part that is the cosmology of the ancient near east.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because the aspects of ancient cosmology in the text, are not historical. The references to cosmology are not events of history. It's just part of cultural reference.

For example, in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, you'll read about flood gates opening and closing to release the waters above.

That's not historical. Nobody actually believes that the sky has windows or doors or gateways in it that open and close to release and restrain water. That's just part of the reference to historical cosmology.

The actual event, is a heavy rainstorm. It's not the cosmological details backgrounding or contextualizing that event.

Here is the NASB, it's a very conservative word for word translation. Read it closely:
Genesis 8:2 NASB1995
[2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

It's not a historical event to say that there were gates in the sky that closed and restrained rain.

That's not the historical event. That's reference to cosmology. The historical event was something like a heavy rain. But that historical event is written through and within the ancient cultural context.

It's like how the event is described in Hebrew. The Hebrew language in and of itself is not an event. It is the cultural context and filter that the event is described through. The event is real, but it is described through the world and culture and perspective of the Hebrew speaking author.

And so just as Hebrew is found in the Bible, so too is Hebrew cosmology. Even though the events of the Bible predate both Hebrew and the cosmology of the Hebrew speaking audience.

Maybe I should repeat this. Read it a few times over.

Or like with Jonah, he says that he cries out from the belly of sheol. He's not saying that the fishes stomach is the underworld. That's not a historical event. That doesn't even make sense that a fishes stomach would be the underworld. It's figurative language. He sank down to the land who's doors and bars closed over him? That's not history, that's poetry. There is no underworld at the bottom of the ocean that you can swim down to.


That's true that the events do not contain cosmology. But the Bible does. And that's the difference. Because the Bible is not a straight history or science textbook.

It's true that the event of Noah's flood didn't actually contain ancient cosmology of windows and doors opening and closing in the sky.

But were talking about the context of the Bible and what it says. And it does in fact describe Windows opening and closing to release and restrain water.

And that's the part that is the cosmology of the ancient near east.

I'll even correct myself here. It is not that the hebrew cosmology and hebrew language is found "in the Bible", rather the Bible in and of itself is in Hebrew, and likewise, the Old Testament is written in and through the context of that Hebrew-speaking author and audience.

It's like when you pick up the King James version and it is written in an old style english that nobody understands, and it references things like "harps" in Genesis. The original Hebrew Old Testament and the events described therein are described through a cultural lens. And that lens includes the cosmology of the people of that time.

The cosmology in and of itself is not historical. When the Bible says that the earth is resting on pillars, for example, that's not a historical event. It's a reference to a cosmological contextual background. We know that the Earth is a sphere floating in space. We know that the earth does not rest on pillars. But that is indeed what the Bible plainly states when read literally:

1 Samuel 2:8
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and on them, he has set the world.

And it is figurative. But that figurative language, when you read it literally, (when you read it according to the intent of the author, as he would have read it) and you read what the figurative language plainly states, we see that the figurative language is describing a flat world that rests on pillars. And that's the cosmology and context that is backgrounding the Old Testament.

It's not a historical event. It's a cultural context. It is the Biblical context. And it is not imposed on the Bible, rather the Bible is entwined with it, much like the Old Testament is entwined with hebrew. It is written in Hebrew. That's part of what makes it what it is.

When the Bible is translated, it's not just language that has to be translated, it is culture too. And that culture is in the text. You can't just translate Hebrew into English, dust off your hands and it's done. The Bible is not merely translated into English. Rather you have to leave behind your modern scientific culture of a spherical earth, and you have to step back into history, into the ancient Near East culture of phenomenological concepts, supernatural cosmic geography, and Israelite culture.
@CoreyD

Alright, ill move on to your other comments.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.

For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.

Now you are claiming that the scriptures refer to Sheol as waters, when it does not.
So, each individual, in seeking to find support in the scriptures, for their flat earth theory, just tend to run the theory into a lake, as they come up short.

The theory has many problems, that do not address the facts.
Do meteorites actually crash on earth, and how is this possible, if the firmament is a solid sky dome?
Why has no one actually sailed every direction from the continents, and seen a solid barrier that keeps the oceans impounded... and if they got so close, why are the stars not any bigger there?
It would be expected that the closer one gets to this solid firmament, the closer to the stars, sun, and moon, they would get.

Do you have answers to these questions?

Ok, we covered the first part. The waters under the earth are not talking about oceans. See referenced posts above.

Sheol is not water, it is described in watery terms.

Nobody here is seeking to use the Bible to describe a flat earth theory. I know full well that the earth is a sphere. Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about ancient near eastern cosmology. And there is a very big difference between Christians that observe the ancient cultural context of the original authors of the BIble, and modern day people who reject Nasa. We arent speaking the same language, and please don't strawman me by trying to associate me with a flat-earther.

And with that, I will disregard the rest of your questions there. I am not a flat earth theorist or something like that.

It cannot be stated enough times, the Bible is not a science textbook. I can acknowledge that the Bible describes things like the earth resting on pillars, while simultaneously understanding that this isn't a scientific claim. It's ancient cosmology.

Do you understand that early church Catholics argued for geocentrism based on the Bible? Its not that the early church was wrong in how it understood what the text was saying. Indeed, the Bible does describe passages that are geocentric in nature.

The difference here is that the early church Catholics didn't understand that the old testament describes ancient near east cosmology, not modern science. The Bible is not a science textbook.

So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?
The see actually helped my vision, and was a great health benefit.
How can the sea be death?

Death is an enemy, according to the scriptures. Not a friend. 1 Corinthians 15:26
Furthermore, death is a state.

The sea is tohu wa bohu. We can pick this back up later. You're not thinking in terms of chaos kampf. When I say that the sea is death or desruction, what I'm saying is that, these terms are used to describe these things. sheol is not just straight up water, but sheol is described in watery terms. Death and sheol are paralleled with one another, and with tehom, the deep, in several places in scripture as noted above.

The underworld consists of the waters beneath the earth, but it's also the place of the dead.

Its like saying, trees are life, they are beauty, they are prosperity.

Or, someone you love, they are butterflies and flowers, happiness.

Im not saying that your spouse is an actual insect butterfly with wings. What I'm saying is that, these concepts are associated with one another, and that's how the underworld is described in the old testament. The waters of the deep are destruction. Disorder. Chaos.

And that's what is being said in that video that talks about the underworld and the waters beneath the earth. Its not saying that sheol is water. Its just saying that these concepts figuratively play on one another, they are intermingled and sheol is often described in watery terms. Like with Jonah. Its not saying that the fish is the underworld. Its poetry. The underworld encompasses sheol and the depths of tehom.

This is not science. No need to break out a book on oceanography. We're in the old testament here. We are talking about cosmology, not physics or history.

 

[Job 33:6]

@CoreyD
Alright, I'll give you a chance to read through now that I'm done. Apologies for the shortness in some of my responses.

But the key theme here is that it's not about science. It's not about history. I am not trying to present anything scientific here, nor am I trying to present anything historical. I'm talking about cultural context. When I talk about oceans "under the earth", please don't think that I am trying to convince you that there is an ocean underground, that if you had a shovel, you could dig down to and eventually find it if you dug down deep enough.

Thats not what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about is an ancient cultural context and ancient cosmological perspective. It's the way, phenomenologically and figuratively, or perhaps pre-scientifically, that the world was described. A long time ago. The sky isn't actually solid. But that's just how ancient people talked about the sky. It's just the way that it is. It's not scientific. It's not historical. It's just a common part of how ancient peoples in this historical culture, talked about the sky. Thats all.

Job 37:18 talks about God spreading out the sky, hard as cast metal. ESV. That is indeed what the passage is very plainly saying. But that doesn't mean that the sky today, or at any point in history, ever actually was scientifically "hard". Its just how ancient cosmology was described in the Hebrew world.

Sheol. The Bible says that the earth opened up and people fell down into it in Deuteronomy. There isn't scientifically a place that we can excavate down into the earth to find it. Its ancient cosmology. Many ancient texts talked about an underworld beneath our feet that people go down into where there are spirits walking around and things of this nature. But you cant confuse this with science.

 

[Job 33:6]

@CoreyD
I've added another statement to help explain my prior post, as follows:

It's like how the event is described in Hebrew. The Hebrew language in and of itself is not an event. It is the cultural context and filter that the event is described through. The event (rain falling or rain stopping) is real, but it is described through the world culture and perspective of the Hebrew-speaking author (gates opening and closing in the sky).

And you don't want to confuse the cultural context and cultural reference, with the actual historical event being described. Just like when the Psalmist says that his kidneys guided him, you don't want to confuse this with biology. That is not what it's about.

Psalm 16:7-8
My kidney also instructs me in the night seasons.

Nobody says, "Oh well, how did the historical event of the psalmist being instructed by his kidneys occur before the context in which kidneys were thought of in ways akin to the heart today?"

Well, there is no "historical event" that involved the psalmist receiving instruction from his kidneys. The kidneys don't have anything to do with what the psalmist is talking about. It's just a cultural reference.

Just like if I said, "I loved her with all of my heart." There is no actual historical event involving my heart. It's just an organ that pumps blood. I'm not trying to give you an anatomy lesson when I say that. The actual event (falling in love with someone) doesn't have anything to do with my heart at all. But it's a way for me to help you understand what I am saying.

If I said that I loved her with all of my kidneys, or that I loved her with all of my heart, the true event is that I loved her. But the language used to convey that idea can change with culture.

And that's how ancient cosmology is. It's specific to their culture, the culture of the original author and audience, the ancient Israelites. And it is in the text, and it is used to describe real events that occurred, but in and of itself is not a historical event. And it is added by the Hebrew speaking writers of the old testament, it is added to God's revelation and it is used almost as a vehicle to convey God's message. Gods revelation is passing through this doorway, it's on this vehicle, that is passing through the culture of the original audience, and that's how the original audience is able to understand the Bible.

Imagine if God didn't give his message in Hebrew. Nobody would be able to read it. It's the same thing with cultural context. Revelation has to pass through the people and their context, otherwise nobody would know what the Bible is talking about.

And that's how God chose to do it. He used human authors.

The actual event (me loving someone) is not to be confused with the language that I use to convey that idea (with my heart, an organ that pumps blood). The revelation from God is not to be confused with culture reference to ancient cosmology.

And in Genesis, that's what Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 are. It's not saying that actual windows and gates are opening and closing in the sky. There is no actual event that occurs that involves windows and gates in the sky.

It's just a way for the author to convey an idea to his audience (that it is raining hard).

And that's how you get ancient cosmology in the text though it in and of itself is not a historical event. It's just language used to describe historical events.

The author receives revelation about events, then uses language common to his culture, and conveys revelation through that culture.

And so just as Hebrew language is found in the Bible, so too is Hebrew cosmology. Even though the events of the Bible predate both Hebrew language and the cosmology of the Hebrew-speaking audience.

 

[Job 33:6]

"
Job 17:13, 14 reads...
13 “If I hope [ - qavah: To wait, to look for, to hope, to expect] for Sheol as my home, I make my bed in the darkness;
14 If I call to the grave, ‘You are my father’; To the maggot, ‘my mother and my sister’;

The early writers of the Hebrew scriptures, understood Sheol to be the grave.
While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.

Also, see Hebrew Bible.

Interpretation
Even within the realm of Jewish thought, the understanding of Sheol was often inconsistent. This would later manifest, in part, with the Sadducee–Pharisee ideological rift which, among other things, disagreed on whether relevancy should lie more prominently in the world of living or in the realm of an afterlife. The lack of a clear belief structure surrounding Sheol lends the idea to a number of interpretations: namely, one which imagines Sheol as a concrete state of afterlife, or one which envisions Sheol as a metaphor for death as a whole. To the latter's end, certain editions of the Bible translate the term Sheol as generic terms such as "grave" or "pit" (KJV, NIV, etc.), while others (NAB, NASB, etc.) preserve it as a proper noun. Distinguishing Sheol between a realm and a metaphor is the crux of several unanswered questions surrounding its nature.

Perhaps owing to the evolution of its interpretation, certain elements of Sheol as described in the Hebrew Bible appear contradictory.

The origins of the concept of Sheol are debated. The general characteristics of an afterlife such as Sheol were not unique to the ancient Israelites; the Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades. As such, it is assumed that the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, all united into one, collectively unified "grave", and that this is what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers to: the common grave of humans."

@CoreyD

I agree with all of the above that you have shared. In fact, that's precisely what the video that I've shared with you has stated. But none of the above changes the fact that sheol is oftentimes described in watery terms, and that in ancient cosmology, it was viewed as an underworld in which dead spirits dwelled. And this is just a fact of scripture. It's very plainly stated, as noted above. If you would like more passages on Sheol, feel free to ask.

"The general characteristics of an afterlife such as Sheol were not unique to the ancient Israelites; the Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades. "

And regarding this statement, as I am sure you well know, Hades is the world of the dead. It is where spirits reside.
2 Peter 2:4 states, For God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hades and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement.

As an example. So this just isn't up for debate. Sheol is an underworld, and in the Bible it is described as a place where spirits dwell. It is also described in several places in watery terms.

Isaiah 14:9 ESV
Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations.

The rephaim are there, shades, people go down into it when they die, and sometimes people just fall into it when the earth opens up. Jonah sinks down to it. Samuel is down there, and then he is resurrected as a spirit and he comes up out of it. 1 Samuel 28.

It is an underworld. As your resource states.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, that's the whole point, it's metaphorical.

Just because something is metaphor, doesn't somehow remove the fact that it's using metaphors about water.

If you accept that water and ropes are used metaphorically, then it has nothing to do with water, or ropes, but rather, is describing the feeling one gets from as when washed away by a flood of water, or waves, and the feeling of being tied by ropes.

In other words, the description is not watery, as you are saying.
So to agree that the verse you used to argue for a watery place, is actually metaphorical, is to agree against your argument.

Do you understand that, and accept it?
If not, please explain what a metaphor is, and how it is used.

Here is a dictionary.
Metaphor :

noun​

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.
3. The transference of the relation between one set of objects to another set for the purpose of brief explanation; a compressed simile; e. g., the ship plows the sea.
4. The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it isn’t, invoking a direct similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described, but in the case of English without the words like or as, which would imply a simile.
5. The word or phrase used in this way. An implied comparison.
6. A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Now let's see how you respond to the rest of my examples.

Looks like you've ignored the rest of my post.

I did?
Can't you please point out what I ignored.

Job 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.

Did you ignore the part here about the dead trembling under the waters?

No. I actually covered that when I referred to Job 17:13, 14, and the fact that
the early writers of the Hebrew scriptures, understood Sheol to be the grave.
I cut and pasted portions from the Wikipedia article which I highlighted in red.
Did you miss that?

Yes.

And Jonah calling out from the belly of sheol, where he sank down to the pit where the bars, and waves, and floods enclosed over him forever.

It's not that hard to see. Sheol, the underworld, where the dead are, is oftentimes associated with waters of the deep because the underworld is in the midst of the deep, the waters beneath the earth. That's what makes up the underworld.

Are you reading the actual words of Jonah Chapter 2?
I'll quote the words here.
Jonah 2:1-
1 Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. 2 And he said: “I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, And He answered me. “Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And You heard my voice.
[ Where does the Bible say Jonah is? In the fish's belly. Jonah himself refers to this as Sheol - the grave. Why? It's obvious the man who is about to die, in the belly of a fish, will refer to that place as his grave, since he does not expect to get out. The point is, he is in the fishes belly.
Jesus agreed. Mathew 12:40 - For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ]
3 For You cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the floods surrounded me; All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.
[ Where was Jonah thrown? The Bible reads at Jonah 1:15 So they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging.
Is Jonah aware of where he is cast? No. He specifically tells us, in verse 3, and goes on to describe his experience. ]
4 Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight; Yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’
5 The waters surrounded me, even to my soul; The deep closed around me; Weeds were wrapped around my head.
6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains; The earth with its bars closed behind me forever; Yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God.
[ If we were to paint a picture of what Jonah describes, we could actually do so.

Well, the seaweeds aren't included here, and the mountains, which we know, are indeed at the bottom of the sea, but with the scriptures, we can paint a more accurate picture.

Jonah said "I went down to the moorings of the mountains".
Moorings :
noun

1. the act of a person or thing that moors. moor.
2. Usually moorings. the means by which a ship, boat, or aircraft is moored. moor.
3. moorings, a place where a ship, boat, or aircraft may be moored. moor.
4. Usually moorings. one's stability or security:
   After the death of his wife he lost his moorings.

Jonah was actually at the bottom of the ocean.]
7 “When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord; And my prayer went up to You, Into Your holy temple.
8 “Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy.
9 But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay what I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord.”
10 So the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.

The oceans are not the underworld.
That is not scripture.
The oceans are where we find what Jonah described - the moorings of mountains, seaweed, waters, the deep, and big fish.

You can read the extracts from the Wikipedia article on Sheol, and see that the various interpretations, are just that, and do not reflect what the Hebrew scriptures convey, even if persons don't think it is clear enough.
It was clear to Jesus and his apostles.
Matthew 12:40; Luke 24:46; Acts 2:23-32 Compared with Psalm 16:10

 

[CoreyD]

Fish don't swim beneath the earth. And nobody is arguing for a flat earth. I know that earth is a sphere. Rather the Bible is describing ancient cosmology, there is a difference.

Exodus 20:4-5 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Nobody is worshipping fish as idols. It's talking about false gods of the underworld.

It doesn't say, don't worship fish in the sea. It's saying, don't worship idols, under the earth. Literally under the earth. The underworld.

You believe that God is commanding the Israelites not to make thing that are in the underworld, and bow to them or worship them?
Why would you think that?
Why would God not refer to what the Israelites could physically see, such as fish, and so, but refer to what no one could physically see, or even know about?
Has someone returned from this so called underworld, and reported what they saw?