The real face of relativism

[Elioenai26]

You do not have to, but it will be seen as a retraction of your claim.

Honestly, and I do type this with nothing but good will in mind, I do not really care what you see to be a retraction because thus far you have proven very thoroughly to not have that great of perception regarding the matters which you attempt to interact in.

No, "we" do not. Watch the news recently?

What has the news to do with you and I?

I am here to learn,

This might be the most humorous thing I have ever had the privilege of reading from you!

Seeing that you have abandoned those threads that you started, what brings you back here?

So says the master of goalpost relocation.

 

[Elioenai26]

We're talking about moral absolutes are we Elioenai?

Elioenai: Is torture wrong?

Surely you will use the worn out argument that most atheists pull out of the hat ad nauseum...

The argument which goes something like:

Q. Is torture wrong.
A. Yes.
Q. Then why does (insert deity) torture people for (insert misconstrual of sacred text)....

I know this is what you are going to say because we have had this discussion before, remember?

It fails to satisfy, and actually is an argument for the existence of God, the very one whom, by using the argument, you wish to prove does not exist!

 

[Skavau]

Surely you will use the worn out argument that most atheists pull out of the hat ad nauseum...

The argument which goes something like:

Q. Is torture wrong.
A. Yes.
Q. Then why does (insert deity) torture people for (insert misconstrual of sacred text)....

Yeah, pretty much.

You can't shy away from it. You are on record for outright endorsing torture so long as God does it. Is torture wrong?

Then we can have a real discussion about just how "objective" you really are.

I know this is what you are going to say because we have had this discussion before, remember?

Of course I remember, that's why I bought it up.

It fails to satisfy, and actually is an argument for the existence of God, the very one whom, by using the argument, you wish to prove does not exist!

The concept of devil's advocate (presuming a hypothetical to be true for the sake of argument) appears to elude you. It is a way of demonstrating that when it comes down to it, you're at least as relativistic and subjective as you accuse others of being.

For the most monstrous things as well. Torture, of all things!

 

[essentialsaltes]

What OT references? I am not aware of any that are consistent with a flat earth cosmology.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

A circle is not a sphere; it is flat. You cannot erect a tent over a sphere, but you can over a flat substrate.

From the source you quoted: "The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below."

That would appear to be sufficient support for my statement that the Hebrew Bible is consistent with the flat earth ubiquitous in Ancient Near East cosmology.

Christian topography of the 6th century???

No, more like "Cosmas Indicopleustes' Christian Topography of the 6th century," which is what I wrote. The apostrophe denotes possession. Cosmas could not possibly have owned all of Christian topography -- that doesn't make any sense. The capital T of topography suggests that we are speaking of a title: Χριστιανικὴ Τοπογραφία in the original Greek, or Christian Topography in English. The 6th century denotes the date of publication.

Why would you even insinuate that Cosmas Idicopleustes' works were representative of Christianity?

I did no such thing. I noted it as no doubt a minority view at that time. But it was nevertheless held by at least one scholar of that era.

 

[quatona]

Yes you do.

Instead of making unsubstantiated claims about me you may want to give at least an example, for starters.

 

[quatona]

Sure he can pass judgement. You do it all the time here.

What you can't furnish us with is any justification as to why we should entertain your judgement over the next man's opinion. They are all just opinions.

Yes. Yet, that´s not supporting your assertion that a relativist can´t pass judgement (and/or act accordingly) without thereby affirming that moral absolutes exist.

And as long as you can´t furnish us with any proof that what you claim to be objective is actually objective, your subjective opinion remains a subjective opinion, for all purposes and intents - and we have no reason to entertain your judgement over the next man´s opinion, either.
So we are in the same boat - relativism is merely the acknowledgement of this problem.

 

[bricklayer]

If we are what we eat, how much more what we reason?

 

[Elioenai26]

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

A circle is not a sphere; it is flat. You cannot erect a tent over a sphere, but you can over a flat substrate.

Several things to note here:

1. the word in question is "circle" which is the English translation of the Hebrew (חוּג, chug). The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג(chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle.

2. The horizon of the earth, is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area such as a mountain top or an open plain respectively, as an encompassing circle or rather, a line which faintly curves down on either side left and right of one's center line of sight the higher one's elevation is above the surface of the earth. If one is high enough and turns and takes in a 360 degree panaorama, the surface of the earth would appear to be a huge circle.

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!

The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.
Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

3. One interpretation is that "circle" refers to the vault like sky over the earth. Along with the next view where "circle" refers to the horizon. When one takes these two views and sees them not individually, but combined so that "circle" refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth, it is easier to understand what the author is trying to convey via the usage of said words. From the top of this atmospheric "dome" as we would be justified in calling it, it is said that God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the "b" portion of the same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are likened unto a curtain and a tent. There seems here to be literary parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse. Obviously this is not at all to be taken as a scientific description of the earth, for we all know that the author was well aware that humans were not grasshoppers.

.."The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology,...

The use of words like "poetic" let us know that these were not scientific observations worthy of scientific technical language, scrutiny, or application, but rather literary tools with which the authors painted their picture of the world from their perspective. These literary devices were indeed "consistent" with other ancient Middle Eastern trains of thought. However, to say that this means the Hebrew authors wrote in exact conformity to a flat earth cosmology is simply intentionally misleading and incorrect. Consistency does not necessarily connotate uniformity or identicality with what it is being compared with.

such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below."

The Enuma Elish is not the Old Testament.

That would appear to be sufficient support for my statement that the Hebrew Bible is consistent with the flat earth ubiquitous in Ancient Near East cosmology.

The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

No, more like "Cosmas Indicopleustes' Christian Topography of the 6th century," which is what I wrote.

The above is still misleading, whether it was intentional or not. It is written to convey the idea that his topography was "Christian" which it was not. Thank you for clearing any confusion up.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Morality promotes nothing. Morality is not a person, but a concept that exists in the minds of persons.

ok agreed morality is a tool used to promote. I dont want to get into semantic nit picking at the expense of the debate.

People promote the "good life", whatever you may mean by that, it is quite ambiguous at best.

i think that it is an ambiguous concept because we are not fitted to be copies conforming to one single mould. As sam harris argues there can be many peaks on the moral landscape. Many ways of flourishing. Being "well". Although that does not mean there are no rules or standards whatsoever.

Since you seem to be balking at my assertions and position that there are moral absolutes, then tell me, the Sandy Hook massacre.... what was it?

it is immoral when considering the interests of the victims. And the perpetrator if we rightly consider him psychologically disturbed and in want of a clearer view. he got illusory or cheap satisfaction from it, miracalatlated under strain perhaps. however i am philosophically open to the suggestion that somehow it was the best possible action for him if his nature was incurably animal*, but i doubt that sincerely. there is hope for us yet. but outside of the set of humans, if we ignore human interests for a minute and look at sheep, then sheep interests are unaffected. so relative to sheep it was not immoral. As far as i know sheep experience value states like humans and have interests as conscious beings. Which are evolved like our own. if we choose to involve them in the behavioural equation (we have no get out clause with our own personal lives, but sheep we can apparently take or leave at will) we can say the massacre was sheep neutral. sorry if this sounds unsympathetic. logic s unsympathetic. I of course want to condemn massacres as that is a good algorithm for generalised morality, as opposed to the Particular actions and procedures unique to my interests like typing "this" now. Condemnation serves human interests but that does not make it independent of the subject class under consideration (human being). And so morality is qed relative to subject.
*even he it were in his personal interests that does not imply i would call his actions good. what i call good - approve of and want to promote and see replicated - are hopefully more progressive ways. He could use the term freely but i would not want to share in the practice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will wait for you to explain to me how I made a case for the assertion that:

"the biblical authors made statements of a scientific nature and import regarding the physical structure and shape of the earth which were later shown to be false."

from my post which you quoted.

And I too shall have a rebuttal for this also. I do not think it will be necessary however, because the post I wrote which you quoted has no bearing whatsoever with the statement I made about the writings of biblical authors regarding the structure of the earth.

I will be waiting.

You claimed that there were educated men and women who believed the earth to be flat and that, while sincere, these men and women were wrong. When asked about which men and women held to this belief you pointed to the authors of the Bible. Ergo, the authors of the Bible were wrong. You have on occasion maintained the Bible is a historically accurate text. Given your admission that the authors were indeed wrong about the shape of the Earth, I am simply asking whether you are willing to accept that they may have also been wrong on other matters.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The use of words like "poetic" let us know that these were not scientific observations worthy of scientific technical language, scrutiny, or application, but rather literary tools with which the authors painted their picture of the world from their perspective. These literary devices were indeed "consistent" with other ancient Middle Eastern trains of thought. However, to say that this means the Hebrew authors wrote in exact conformity to a flat earth cosmology is simply intentionally misleading and incorrect. Consistency does not necessarily connotate uniformity or identicality with what it is being compared with.

The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

Are you accusing yourself of being intentionally misleading?

Recall that, when asked which men and women believed that the Earth was flat, you pointed to the authors of the Bible as an example. An example of how people can at times be sincere in their beliefs, but factually inaccurate none-the-less. Now you are suggesting that flat Earth cosmology was nothing more than a literary device that they used for poetic purposes? If you believed that, then why did you use them as an example for how people can hold "sincerely wrong" beliefs in the first place?

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you accusing yourself of being intentionally misleading?

Recall that, when asked which men and women believed that the Earth was flat, you pointed to the authors of the Bible as an example.

LOL!

Is that so? Hmm.... let's see, there must be two gents here by the name of Elioenai. One doing what you have stated, and myself doing what I have been doing.

 

[Elioenai26]

You claimed that there were educated men and women who believed the earth to be flat and that, while sincere, these men and women were wrong. When asked about which men and women held to this belief you pointed to the authors of the Bible. Ergo, the authors of the Bible were wrong. You have on occasion maintained the Bible is a historically accurate text. Given your admission that the authors were indeed wrong about the shape of the Earth, I am simply asking whether you are willing to accept that they may have also been wrong on other matters.

Are you having trouble comprehending what I have been writing?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LOL!

Is that so? Hmm.... let's see, there must be two gents here by the name of Elioenai. One doing what you have stated, and myself doing what I have been doing.

I asked you which educated men and women had believed that the Earth was flat. After stalling for a while, you finally replied with:

If you are going to summarize my position, then quote me properly.

This is what I said:

"Before the advances in human knowledge made it possible for us to know the true nature of the world on which we live and move, many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries. These people were educated for their time, had access to the latest information and technology and sincerely felt that their view that the earth was flat was true."

This is a true statement for several reasons:

1. The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies...

...

The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below,[13][14] as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth" in the following examples:

• "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."[15]
• "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world."[16]
• "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."[17]

• 
  
  When asked who was "sincerely wrong" about the flat Earth, you introduced the Bible's authors as an example. See above, you listed them under the "Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth..." Why would you do that if you believed, as you now claim to, that they were merely alluding to a flat Earth for literary purposes?

 

[Elioenai26]

I asked you which educated men and women had believed that the Earth was flat. After stalling for a while, you finally replied with:

​

When asked who was "sincerely wrong" about the flat Earth, you introduced the Bible's authors as an example. See above, you listed them under the "Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth..." Why would you do that if you believed, as you now claim to, that they were merely alluding to a flat Earth for literary purposes?

Several things to note here:

1. the word in question is "circle" which is the English translation of the Hebrew (חוּג, chug). The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג(chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle.

2. The horizon of the earth, is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area such as a mountain top or an open plain respectively, as an encompassing circle or rather, a line which faintly curves down on either side left and right of one's center line of sight the higher one's elevation is above the surface of the earth. If one is high enough and turns and takes in a 360 degree panorama, the surface of the earth would appear to be a huge circle.

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!

The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.
Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

3. One interpretation is that "circle" refers to the vault like sky over the earth. Along with the next view where "circle" refers to the horizon. When one takes these two views and sees them not individually, but combined so that "circle" refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth, it is easier to understand what the author is trying to convey via the usage of said words. From the top of this atmospheric "dome" as we would be justified in calling it, it is said that God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the "b" portion of the same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are likened unto a curtain and a tent. There seems here to be literary parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse. Obviously this is not at all to be taken as a scientific description of the earth, for we all know that the author was well aware that humans were not grasshoppers.

4. The use of words like "poetic" let us know that these were not scientific observations worthy of scientific technical language, scrutiny, or application, but rather literary tools with which the authors painted their picture of the world from their perspective. These literary devices were indeed "consistent" with other ancient Middle Eastern trains of thought. However, to say that this means the Hebrew authors wrote in exact conformity to a flat earth cosmology is simply intentionally misleading and incorrect. Consistency does not necessarily connotate uniformity or identicality with what it is being compared with.

5. The Enuma Elish is not the Old Testament.

6. The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

7. In conclusion, an article that lists the Hebrew Bible as being consistent with the sundry ancient near eastern texts in the various concepts relating broadly to flat earth cosmology in no way can be used as an argument to support the assertion that the biblical authors necessarily believed the earth was flat, leave alone that they intended to record such beliefs as a result of scientific inquiry and for scientific scrutiny and application.

8. In fin, not only is your comprehension of my posts at best, lacking, but you have also missed my intent in supplying them.

You seem to be unaware that this was merely one example of why relativism is not tenable. I have a plethora of others I can supply you with, that is, if you really need to be persuaded that it is indeed untenable.

In fact, I will indulge you. You are an atheist. I am a Christian. If you were a relativist, you would have no real basis for disagreeing with my belief other than it just isn't your "cup of tea", so to speak. You could say: " I am an atheist and you are a Christian. I prefer to be an atheist, you prefer to be a Christian. I prefer chocolate ice cream you prefer vanilla. Since there is no absolute truth, no absolute and objective reality or standard by which I can judge you and say you are wrong and I am right, then what works for you is Christianity and you should go with what works for you."

But alas..... considering your multiplied arguments and contradiction laden "refutations" of Christianity and your derisive statements about Christians and their views, along with your firm affirmation of the theory of evolution as the best explanation for life as we know it, as is evidenced by your name, it is clear that you are NOT a relativist.... that is, that you believe you are REALLY RIGHT and justified in your position and that I and every other Christian here is REALLY wrong.

See how easy that was?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Several things to note here:

1. the word in question is "circle" which is the English translation of the Hebrew (חוּג, chug). The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג(chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle.

2. The horizon of the earth, is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area such as a mountain top or an open plain respectively, as an encompassing circle or rather, a line which faintly curves down on either side left and right of one's center line of sight the higher one's elevation is above the surface of the earth. If one is high enough and turns and takes in a 360 degree panorama, the surface of the earth would appear to be a huge circle.

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!

The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.
Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

3. One interpretation is that "circle" refers to the vault like sky over the earth. Along with the next view where "circle" refers to the horizon. When one takes these two views and sees them not individually, but combined so that "circle" refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth, it is easier to understand what the author is trying to convey via the usage of said words. From the top of this atmospheric "dome" as we would be justified in calling it, it is said that God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the "b" portion of the same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are likened unto a curtain and a tent. There seems here to be literary parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse. Obviously this is not at all to be taken as a scientific description of the earth, for we all know that the author was well aware that humans were not grasshoppers.

4. The use of words like "poetic" let us know that these were not scientific observations worthy of scientific technical language, scrutiny, or application, but rather literary tools with which the authors painted their picture of the world from their perspective. These literary devices were indeed "consistent" with other ancient Middle Eastern trains of thought. However, to say that this means the Hebrew authors wrote in exact conformity to a flat earth cosmology is simply intentionally misleading and incorrect. Consistency does not necessarily connotate uniformity or identicality with what it is being compared with.

5. The Enuma Elish is not the Old Testament.

6. The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

7. In conclusion, an article that lists the Hebrew Bible as being consistent with the sundry ancient near eastern texts in the various concepts relating broadly to flat earth cosmology in no way can be used as an argument to support the assertion that the biblical authors necessarily believed the earth was flat, leave alone that they intended to record such beliefs as a result of scientific inquiry and for scientific scrutiny and application.

But you are one who introduced them as flat Earthers! In other words, you are disagreeing with yourself. If you believed that they did not adhere to a flat Earth cosmology, but that they were for some reason alluding to a flat Earth for literary purposes, then why did you bring them into the discussion when I asked which men and women believed that the Earth was flat? Either you did not understand the question or else, at the time, you were of the opinion that they shared the flat Earth cosmology of nearby ancient cultures.

As it stands, it appears that they did indeed share the flat Earth beliefs of other cultures. That this belief may have been expressed poetically at times does not bear on the question of whether or not they actually believed the Earth to be flat. That is the crucial point.

On the whole, Israel shared the world view of the ancient Near East. The earth was perceived as a flat expanse, seen either in the image of a disk or circle upon the primeval waters (Isa 40.22; Job 26.10; Prov 8.27; cf. ‘circle of the heavens’. Job 22.14) or of an outstretched garment spanning the void (Job 26.7; 38.13). According to HH Schmidt (THAT 1.230-31), these two images, present also in Mesopotamia, derive from different but compatible conceptions of the cosmos which are intertwined without tension in the OT. References to the earth’s (four) corners/rims/hems (‘arba’ kanepot ha’ares; Isa 11.12; Job 37.3; 38.13; cf Isa 24.16_, its end(s), border(s), edges (qeselqesot; Job 28.24; Ps 135.7; Isa 5.26; 40.28; 41.5, 9; Jer 10.13; 51.16), combinations of these images (Jer 49.36; also Ps 48.11 – Eng 48.10; 65.6 – Eng 65.5), its ends (where it ceases: ‘apse [ha]’ares; Deut 33.17; 1 Sam 2.10, etc) its boundaries (Ps 74.17), or its remotest parts (Jer 6.22; 25.32; 31.8; 50.41) depict the vast expanse of the earth and its outer limits, rather than a firm conception of its shape. T Boman (1960: 157-59), has pointed out that naming the outer limits of any area includes the whole area, so that the above terms function almost as synonyms for ‘earth’, ‘world’.
The modern concept of an infinite or open-ended universe was not known in the OT; on the contrary, heaven and earth were though to be sealed together at the rim of the hoirzon to prevent the influx of the cosmic waters (Stadelmann 1970:43).

In contrast to this preoccupation with the earth’s outer limits, a center or navel of the earth (Heb tabbur) is mentioned only once (Ezek 38.12; cf Judg 9.37; Jub 8.19). L Stadelmann (1970:147-54) suggests that Jerusalem (cf Ezek 5.5), and possibly Bethel at an earlier time (cf Gen 28.10-12, 17-18), were considered in this light, in keeping with the views of many ANE and other peoples that their central sanctuary or capital city represented such a center. However this theme is not prominent in the Old Tetsament; that Jerusalem, as the center of worship of the universal God, held a position of central prominence (Isa 2.2-3 = Mic 4.1-2) is a theological rather than a cosmological observation. Over the earth and its surrounding sea(s) arches the firm vault (or firmament. Heb raqia’ (Gen 1.6)) of (the) heaven(s). Together, heaven and earth make up what we would call world, universe, cosmos (Gen 1.1; 2.1, 4; Exod 31.17; Ps 102.26 – Eng 102.25; Isa 48.13; 51.13, 16 and often). Occasionally, earth alone seems to enhance the whole cosmos (eg. Isa 6.3; 54.5; Zeph 1.2-3, 18(?)). The vault of heaven rests on the earth (Amos 9.6; cf. 2 Sam 22.8: ‘the foundations of the heavens’ = the earth) which in turn is firmly set on pillars (1 Sam 2.8) or foundations (Isa 24.18; 40.21; Jer 31.37; Mic 6.2, etc). The foundations are associated with the ‘heavens’ (2 Sam 22.8) or the ‘world’ (Heb tebel; 2 Sam 22.16 – Ps 18.16 – Eng 18.7). The verb yasad ‘to found’ is used with reference to God’s founding of the earth (Job 38.4; Ps 24.2; 102.26 – Eng 102.25, etc).

Somewhat ambivalent is the structure in the place of the sea(s) or water(s), the deep, and the underworld. The seas can be spoken of as a familiar reality, in which the fish and other water creatures swarm (Gen 1.20, 22, 26, etc) and on which humans move in ships (Ps 104.25-26; 107.23; Prov 30.19; Ezek 27.9). As such, the sea forms part of the earth, i.e., the flat surface below juxtaposed to the heavens above. A transitional position between earth and the surrounding sea is occupied by the islands or coastlands (Heb ‘iyyim; Isa 24.14-16; 41.5; 42.4, 10). Elsewhere in the OT the sea(s) or water(s) take on the character of a third cosmic realm in addition to heaven earth, the extension of the cosmic chaos waters surrounding everything… The underworld is often spoken of as part of the earth, a lower cavern, grave, pit (called in Heb Sheol) where the dead lead a shadowy existence; it can even be referred to simply as ‘earth’ (1 Sam 28.13; Ps 71.20; 106.17; Isa 29.4). In other texts, Sheol is treated as a separate cosmic realm besides heaven and earth (Job 26.5; Ps 139.8; Amos 9.2).

The OT conception of the world, then, is basically bipartite (heaven and earth), variously extended to a tripartite cosmos (heaven-earth-sea, or heaven-earth-underworld). Although certain later books and sections (Job, Proverbs 8, several postexilic Psalms, Isaiah 24-27; 40-55) are more explicit in their cosmological descriptions than the earlier documents, the general view of the cosmos does not show any significant change or development throughout the OT period.” (245-246)

What you seem to be suggesting is that they were merely being poetic, and that they didn't actually believe the Earth was flat. By the same token then, perhaps all the other cultures you mentioned in that list were merely being poetic?

 

[Elioenai26]

But you are one who introduced them as flat Earthers! In other words, you are disagreeing with yourself. If you believed that they did not adhere to a flat Earth cosmology, but that they were for some reason alluding to a flat Earth for literary purposes, then why did you bring them into the discussion when I asked which men and women believed that the Earth was flat? Either you did not understand the question or else, at the time, you were of the opinion that they shared the flat Earth cosmology of nearby ancient cultures.

As it stands, it appears that they did indeed share the flat Earth beliefs of other cultures. That this belief may have been expressed poetically at times does not bear on the question of whether or not they actually believed the Earth to be flat. That is the crucial point.

​

What you seem to be suggesting is that they were merely being poetic, and that they didn't actually believe the Earth was flat. By the same token then, perhaps all the other cultures you mentioned in that list were merely being poetic?

Speculation is not my forte. I like dealing with facts.

6. The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

7. In conclusion, an article that lists the Hebrew Bible as being consistent with the sundry ancient near eastern texts in the various concepts relating broadly to flat earth cosmology in no way can be used as an argument to support the assertion that the biblical authors necessarily believed the earth was flat, leave alone that they intended to record such beliefs as a result of scientific inquiry and for scientific scrutiny and application.

8. In fin, not only is your comprehension of my posts at best, lacking, but you have also missed my intent in supplying them.

You seem to be unaware that this was merely one example of why relativism is not tenable. I have a plethora of others I can supply you with, that is, if you really need to be persuaded that it is indeed untenable.

In fact, I will indulge you. You are an atheist. I am a Christian. If you were a relativist, you would have no real basis for disagreeing with my belief other than it just isn't your "cup of tea", so to speak. You could say: " I am an atheist and you are a Christian. I prefer to be an atheist, you prefer to be a Christian. I prefer chocolate ice cream you prefer vanilla. Since there is no absolute truth, no absolute and objective reality or standard by which I can judge you and say you are wrong and I am right, then what works for you is Christianity and you should go with what works for you."

But alas..... considering your multiplied arguments and contradiction laden "refutations" of Christianity and your derisive statements about Christians and their views, along with your firm affirmation of the theory of evolution as the best explanation for life as we know it, as is evidenced by your name, it is clear that you are NOT a relativist.... that is, that you believe you are REALLY RIGHT and justified in your position and that I and every other Christian here is REALLY wrong.

See how easy that was?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Speculation is not my forte. I like dealing with facts.

6. The Old Testament shares many similarities with other ancient texts of the period. This is not contestable. What is contestable is the assertion that the biblical authors recorded that the earth was flat. If one desires to maintain this view, they must take the various applicable texts from the OT and lift them up out of their context without regard to it, and read into the text meaning that simply is not there. In the discipline of Hermeneutics this is what is referred to as eisegesis, or reading into the text a meaning that is not there and basing an interpretation off of this unwarranted addition.

7. In conclusion, an article that lists the Hebrew Bible as being consistent with the sundry ancient near eastern texts in the various concepts relating broadly to flat earth cosmology in no way can be used as an argument to support the assertion that the biblical authors necessarily believed the earth was flat, leave alone that they intended to record such beliefs as a result of scientific inquiry and for scientific scrutiny and application.

8. In fin, not only is your comprehension of my posts at best, lacking, but you have also missed my intent in supplying them.

You seem to be unaware that this was merely one example of why relativism is not tenable. I have a plethora of others I can supply you with, that is, if you really need to be persuaded that it is indeed untenable.

In fact, I will indulge you. You are an atheist. I am a Christian. If you were a relativist, you would have no real basis for disagreeing with my belief other than it just isn't your "cup of tea", so to speak. You could say: " I am an atheist and you are a Christian. I prefer to be an atheist, you prefer to be a Christian. I prefer chocolate ice cream you prefer vanilla. Since there is no absolute truth, no absolute and objective reality or standard by which I can judge you and say you are wrong and I am right, then what works for you is Christianity and you should go with what works for you."

But alas..... considering your multiplied arguments and contradiction laden "refutations" of Christianity and your derisive statements about Christians and their views, along with your firm affirmation of the theory of evolution as the best explanation for life as we know it, as is evidenced by your name, it is clear that you are NOT a relativist.... that is, that you believe you are REALLY RIGHT and justified in your position and that I and every other Christian here is REALLY wrong.

See how easy that was?

Argumentum ad nauseam?

Either the Bible's authors really did believe that the Earth was flat or they did not. At present, it appears that they really did share the flat Earth views of nearby cultures. You can try to explain this away by claiming that they were just being poetic, but it is difficult to reconcile them just being poetic with a context in which people of nearby cultures really did believe that the Earth was a flat disk. It is far more likely that their poetry gave expression to their beliefs about the world.

You commented earlier that those who believed in a flat Earth may have been sincere, but that they were none-the-less empirically wrong -- "sincerely wrong" were the words you used. Now you are scrambling for a way to deny that the authors of the Bible were sincerely wrong about the shape of the Earth just to avoid the possibility of having to admit that, at least on this count, they were wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

Argumentum ad nauseam?

Either the Bible's authors really did believe that the Earth was flat or they did not. At present, it appears that they really did share the flat Earth views of nearby cultures. You can try to explain this away by claiming that they were just being poetic, but it is difficult to reconcile them just being poetic with a context in which people of nearby cultures really did believe that they Earth was a flat disk. It is far more likely that their poetry gave expression to their beliefs about the world.

You commented earlier that those who believed in a flat Earth may have been sincere, but that they were none-the-less empirically wrong -- "sincerely wrong" were the words you used. Now you are scrabbling for a way to deny that the authors of the Bible were sincerely wrong about the shape of the Earth just to avoid the possibility of having to admit that, at least on this count, they were wrong.

The point is really moot and not germane at all to my assertion: "relativism is not tenable".

In fact, you don't even believe God exists, which is the exact one who these men were referencing when they spoke of the things which we are discussing.

It seems to me that you are spending a great deal of time arguing ultimately against someone you don't even believe exists!

This is the atheist's plight and the words of G.K Chesterton as found in my signature ring so true....

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The point is really moot and not germane at all to my assertion: "relativism is not tenable".

In fact, you don't even believe God exists, which is the exact one who these men were referencing when they spoke of the things which we are discussing.

It seems to me that you are spending a great deal of time arguing ultimately against someone you don't even believe exists!

This is the atheist's plight and the words of G.K Chesterton as found in my signature ring so true....

Why can't you just admit that the writers of the Old Testament believed the Earth was flat? I have no problem saying that. They were living in a specific culture in a specific time and their scientific and empirical beliefs about the physical universe at the time were limited.

They probably didn't believe in germs either. They didn't even know the Americas existed! They had no understanding of calculus, or quantum mechanics. They didn't even know how a car engine worked!

The writers of the Bible didn't understand or know LOTS of things. So what? How does that make them any less able to write about struggles of the human heart, moral questions, God, the human condition, or spiritual revelation? How does that de-legitimize the Bible in any way. I feel like its self-evident that they didn't know some things that we now know...the Earth's sphericity being one of them.

The struggles of the human heart haven't changed. Someone could write Ecclesiastes just as easily today as the writer wrote it thousands of years ago. It doesn't depend on empirical evidence.