E
Elioenai26
Guest
For those who have been following this discussion, when Archaeopteryx states that "I brought them up" he is referring to the portion of a Wikipedia article given below:
"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]"
He makes this statement regarding my use of the article in response to his question of whether there were people who held to a flat earth cosmology. It is also a false dilemma.
But what does the article actually say? Let us take a closer examination of it. The portion is listed below in quotations and is taken from Wikipedia.
"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...
The above simply states that the Hebrew Bible, more specifically, the Old Testament authors used poetic language consistent with that of ancient Middle Eastern Cosmology. This is uncontestable. In no way from the preceding summation, however, are we justified in maintaining that the Old Testament authors recorded that the earth was a flat disk. The words "flat" and "disk" are conspicuously absent here. Even the insinuation is not here.
What Archaeopteryx fails to understand is that it is the Enuma Elish, not the Old Testament which is stated to have a description of the earth as "circular" with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below... Even in this, the concept of "flatness" cannot be gleaned conclusively unless one reads into the text that meaning. Circular denotes circularity, not necessarily two-dimensionality. Circular denotes the idea of "roundness", and Archaeopteryx has failed to present us with one reason why this word "circular" must exclusively be interpreted as a two-dimensional flat disk.
The Wikipedia excerpt then goes on to say:
"...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]
Again, this is uncontestable. The language is similar to various other ANE texts. No question about that here at all. But where does it say that the biblical authors wrote that the world was a flat disk? Even if Isaiah did say the earth was a flat disk, which he most obviously did not, that still does not mean that it is contradictory to what we know of the earth's physical structure. The whole passage is written in poetic, figurative language with metaphor, hyperbole, and simile used throughout. This is not a didactic, scientific passage on the shape of the earth. It is about God who is above all things.
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 and similarity does not necessarily connotate uniformity or identicality with what it is being compared with.
Archaeopteryx has failed to understand that even today, thousands of years after the texts in question were written, we still speak figuratively of the sun rising and setting. When doing so, are we expousing a geocentric cosmology??????
Of course not!
We know the earth revolves around the sun, yet still speak of the sun "rising" and "setting". We use figurative language everyday to express ideas which often appear counter to scientific observation.
That having been said, it is not even necessary for me to get into an exposition of Isaiah 40:22, the point remains the same. I chose not to omit the excerpt from the Wikipedia article because all it states is that the Old Testament authors used "... poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology..". This excerpt was a tiny portion of a large article on the various cosmological views of various ancient and not so ancient cultures.
Archaeopteryx wants you to believe that just because the Hebrew Bible was used by the compiler of a Wikipedia article on flat earth cosmology as an example of a text that had several portions in it that could be construed as being consistent with flat earth cosmology, that the biblical authors wrote that the earth was a flat disk!!! This is at best, a leap of the imagination and is completely unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and unsustainable. It is a deliberate, intentionally misleading, and deceptive assertion that has no basis in reality. Archaeopteryx wants so bad to discredit the bible and my work here. For what motive or reason, I will not attempt to speculate on.
He maintains he is a student of Hermeneutics, but has yet to answer my question regarding the genre categorization of the Isaiah 40 passage.
Not only this, but all one has to do is visit the same Wikipedia page on flat earth cosmology to see that it is in a constant state of flux. The entire excerpt in question has completely been re-worked and now contains two quotes from Paul Seely, whose views are at best questionable and contestable when it comes to whether or not the biblical authors thought the earth was flat.
I shall definently have to be more cautious when using Wikipedia, since I have first hand evidence that many of its articles are revised on a daily basis. Oftentimes to suit the reviser's own personal convictions.
In summation:
I chose not to omit the excerpt from the Wikipedia article because all it states is that the Old Testament authors used "... poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology..". This excerpt was a tiny portion of a large article on the various cosmological views of various ancient and not so ancient cultures with an emphasis on flat earth conceptualizations. To omit it would be a demonstration of an unwarranted bias on my behalf. If Archaeopteryx desires to use this as evidence that the biblical authors meant to supply us with a didactic passage on the geodetics of the earth, then he must do several things:
1. He must prove that the biblical author's chief intent was to write a scientific statement on the geodetics of the earth, specifically its physcial shape.
2. He must prove that the language used by the authors was meant to be taken only literally and not figuratively.
3. He must prove that the word "circular" has only one connotation within the respective texts.
4. He must prove the biblical authors used chiefly, the teachings of flat earth cosmology adherening nations existing at that time for their chief source of information.
5. He must ultimately prove that Isaiah and the various other prophets actually believed the earth was a "flat disk". For reasons already noted, even if he does come up with something akin to an argument, it is going to be at best, contestable.
Needless to say, the task is a daunting one.
The pertinent portion of the Anchor Bible quote is listed below:
Originally Posted by Freedman, D. N. (Ed). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. (New York: Doubleday, 1992)
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."
What does the above say? It says, on the whole, Israel....
Is our question really about what the millions of Israelites believed, or is it what the handful of inspired men wrote? Our question and discussion is about the latter, not the former. The Israelites could have believed the earth was a frisbee or a triangle or a donut or a saucer on a turtle's back. It simply is not germane to the discussion what the beliefs of the Israelites were as a nation. No doubt many of them (Israelites) possibly understood the world to be flat. The point is immaterial. Our concern is with what the biblical authors wrote.
Not only that, but even in the above, the significance depends on how one interprets only a handful of pertinent passages. It simply cannot be conclusively proven that the word circle must and only means "flat-disk". In fact, I have several scholarly articles on why this interpretation is incorrect, but the point is moot. Words like "perceived" and "compatible" are all words which are indicative of there being not one conclusive interpretation, but several which need to be thoroughly examined.
I would have you believe that every man who was charged with the awesome task of recording God's words was chiefly inspired by God and that God breathed into them His words. This is the doctrine of plenary inspiration and from that we understand the scripture to be inerrant and unbroken.
This does not answer my question.
Last edited:
Upvote
0