# Bible Cosmology - Why does it appear to suggest a flat earth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542 "2004-07-04T21:42:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Coelacanth\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Coelacanth\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coelacanth_Soup)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/41 "2004-07-06T14:47:00Z")
I don’t have a stake in this race because I don’t really think it matters whether or not some of the authors of the OT may have accepted a flat-earth cosmology or not. However, I have to chime in support for **The Raindog** on this argument. **Diogenes** , you did in no way provide proof that the bible offers explicit proof of a flat earth model. You keep saying that you did but you didn’t. Both examples, without cite, that you offer are implicit examples, not explicit. Furthermore the bible doesn’t implicitly “describe the Sumerian cosmological modela.” Rather it implies a cosmological model that is comparatively similar to the Sumerian. I don’t know of any OT passage that describes Sumerian cosmology. There are of course passages that describe a cosmology similar to (and likely based upon in many ways) the Sumerian model, but that is a different thing than stating that the OT authors made a sort of calculated decision to use the Sumerian model in order to show that the Earth was flat, which is what is _implied_ by your statement. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/42 "2004-07-06T16:05:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Dude, you’re the one who came into this thread calling everyone ignorant and then spouting some completely misinformed opinions of your own. You are wrong. You are factually wrong. The Bible says the earth is flat. That is not a debateable point. To say otherwise is to simply flaunt your own ignorance. I think you are beginning to experience being hoist on your own petard. This is just your interpretation. It has no more validity than the interpretation of others that the Bible unambiguously condemns homosexuality. Or, no less. It is a little disingenous to dogmatically assert in the one case that the plain text of Scripture means exactly what it says, but in another, an equally plain statement can be interpreted any way at all. Pick your position, and stick to it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![quelquechose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6f9a4e/32.png) [@quelquechose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quelquechose)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/43 "2004-07-06T17:54:23Z")
I don’t think anyone has linked to [this](http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) site yet. It provides a very good explanation of Biblical cosmology. I am interested in hearing how those who believe the Bible does not imply a flat earth interpret things like Revelation 1:7 and the “firmament.” (Both are described in the site I linked to) ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/44 "2004-07-06T19:08:18Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > **BrianJ3** , my apologies. I didn’t mean to be snarky. Thank you. I understand where you are coming from even if I don’t share your point of view 🙂 > [@](#): > > Obviously, I don’t believe that a careful consideration of the bible’e texts indicate that the **bible** is asserting that the earth is flat. No, the Bible writers had no intention of the Bible being a science book. In all honesty we don’t really know what the writers intended. We can assume it was meant to be a holy book rather than a work of fiction. What I’m trying to say though is that if the writers intended it to be a serious work, they would write in phrases that their target audience (and they themselves) would relate to. Why would they write of ‘waters below’, ‘firmaments’ etc in a serious work if they didn’t believe those things existed? They didn’t write about domes, firmaments. foundations to amuse their audience or to teach their audience the sape of the world, they used those terms because they accepted without question that the world looks a certain way. I can give a cite to a description of Sumerian cosmology if you like. It will look very familiar. > [@](#): > > It is not a minor distinction that it is the **bible** that is said to be making that claim; a claim that is often used to show that the bible is riddled with errors. The Bible is riddles with errors/contradictions etc. It is by no means a perfect work. > [@](#): > > I have never seen a credible cite that says this, both expicitly and unambiguously. It is only reasonable that the higher standard be applied if one is to say with intellectual honesty that the bible unequivocally posits a flat earth view. The problem there is that each verse taken out of context alone is ambiguous. It’s only when you take all cosmological verses together that you begin to see the picture. If I was to write a fantasy story I could write about all sorts of silly things that would fit in context of the story but would have no relation to reality. However if I wrote a serious article for a magazine or newspaper I’d be expected to not make reference to our pink sky or the shape of Earths third moon. If I did, I would be mocked and would probably never be asked to write another article, even though calling the sky pink was incidental to the article. The cosmological references in the Bible are not important to the context of the Bible, however it’s these little things that make people wonder if it can be taken seriously in this day and age. ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/45 "2004-07-06T19:23:15Z")
> [@quelquechose](#): > > I don’t think anyone has linked to [this](http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) site yet. It provides a very good explanation of Biblical cosmology. I am interested in hearing how those who believe the Bible does not imply a flat earth interpret things like Revelation 1:7 and the “firmament.” (Both are described in the site I linked to) Excellent site! Thanks for posting it. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/46 "2004-07-06T19:25:24Z")
**BrianJ3 said:** > [@](#): > > Thank you. I understand where you are coming from even if I don’t share your point of view 🙂 > > The Bible is riddles with errors/contradictions etc. It is by no means a perfect work. > > The cosmological references in the Bible are not important to the context of the Bible, however it’s these little things that make people wonder if it can be taken seriously in this day and age. And that I think is the heart of the matter, and where these threads are heading towards most of the time. As for as the OP is concerned, I don’t think you’ve made that case by any means. (with those cites anyway…)I’m glad to entertain the notion that the bible says unambiguously the world is flat. I just need to be shown this, especially if that will become the basis of comments like “The Bible is riddles with errors/contradictions etc” I’m sure you can see where I’m coming from. And I appreciate your POV, even though I too disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/47 "2004-07-06T20:09:39Z")
It is he that sitteth upon **the circle of the earth** , and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22) (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Coelacanth\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Coelacanth\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coelacanth_Soup)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/48 "2004-07-06T21:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **BrianJ3** > The cosmological references in the Bible are not important to the context of the Bible, however it’s these little things that make people wonder if it can be taken seriously in this day and age. I think that may be why threads like this seems to become such a big issue here. It is often the case that people use little arguements such as these as a tool to sweep away the entire document as falsehood and ignorance. That sort of tactic is bound to draw a sharp reaction from many people (who will be especially critical of any perceived attempt to use such an argument). Thus your assertion that the Bible presents a flat-earth cosmology may contain quite a bit of truth, but because it was presented the way it was you will be forced to present a very strong arugment in support. Those who hold the Bible as relevant will react strongly to any argument that may be perceived a tool for the simple dismissal of one of the most profound and complicated documents in history; and they will hold you to a very high standard in proving any assertions you make regarding it. As for taking the Bible seriously - I think that a flat-earth cosmology only proves that the Bible shouldn’t be taken seriously as an astronomy text, but that is the only thing one can take away from that. To dismiss all of the other profound insight into every realm of human existence that the Bible has to offer because the astronomy might be wrong would be a terrible waste. It would be like saying that Shakespeare had no insight into human emotion or psychology because he believed that people’s moods were effected by the four humors. We know better than to believe in the psychology of the humors today, but I dare you to find a contemporary writer who knows human emotion and motivation better than Shakespeare. And we know better than a flat-earth today, but many of the other things the Bible tells us about ourselves have not found much improvement over the last several thousand years IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/49 "2004-07-06T21:21:45Z")
I have a question… what is the original Hwbrew word for where it says “circle”? They could very well mean “sphere”, but lack the terminology. /wild ass idea, I have no idea if it has any value or not ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/50 "2004-07-06T21:46:34Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > [emphasis mine] It’s not a debateable point? Are we not in Great Debates? I guess you can debate how many sides are on a square if you want to, but really, the cosmology of Genesis is a question with a factual answer, no need to speculate or debate. > [@](#): > > Did I miss something in my reading of the bible that is so basic, fundamental and explicit that it’s beyond debate? Yes. > [@](#): > > And, how did so many others appear to miss it? Plenty. > [@](#): > > You’re not trying to obfuscate the truth on this are you? If for no other reason than to correct my ignorance, I would appraciate it if you would bring the [explicit] cites and explanations. Humor me please. Here are two quotes which rather unambiguously reflect the standard Mesoptamian cosmology (the _only_ cosmology which the authors of the Genesis myth would have ever been exposed to) which indicates the ancient near eastern view of a flat earth with a solid dome and water both under the earth and on top of the dome. > [@](#): > > ( **Gen. 1:6-10** ) > 6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. > 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. > [@](#): > > ( **Gen. 7:11** ) > In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. As far as I’m concerned, these descriptions, along with the fact that the Bible reflects Sumerian cosmology in every other way, makes it impossible to honestly infer anything other than a flat earth. > [@](#): > > For the sake of clarity I’ll accept the charge and plead no contest. I’ll accept that you don’t put words into the text. Just bring the text, ok? There it is, dude. > [@](#): > > I didn’t find the last encounter hard or easy. For the sake of those tuning in, it’s > [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255322) thread. I have no interest in “winning” any debate, (with you or anyone else) and in that thread, at your specific invitation, endeavored to articlulate the bible’s position on the subject at hand. A reader venturing through that thread must dertermine for themselves if I have a reason to be smarting. (that I’m apparently missing) It’s not about you and me Diogenes. It’s about God, and maintaining intellectual integrity in what’s written in the bible. I have no idea what you mean by “maintaining the intellectual integrity” opf the Bible. I have certainly not misrepresented anything in the text. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you have considered the texts. But this topic is new to you and I. But because you haven’t mentioned any text, not made any cites, I’m unable to comment on their objectivity. Now you have the text. I referred to them indirectly and assumed you wouyld know what I was tlking about. Sorry about that. > [@](#): > > _(This comment is in regards to Diogenes claim, " We’ve done sevearl threads about this very passage and I’ve analyzed the Greek as nauseum in those threads", and my assertion that he hasn’t.)_ This is just getting childish, not to mention off topic. > [@](#): > > Well, I based on my comment on my experience with you on [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930) thread. My opinion then and now, was that we hadn’t scratched the surface of that before the question of “why God couldn’t accept a homosexual relationship” was brought up (more than once) with the charge that I was avoiding the question. A separate thread was started to force my hand (…the one I’m smarting over…). It was not my intention to speak of what “God accepts.” I was just telling you what the _Bible_ says…and what it _doesn’t_ say. > [@](#): > > In the end, it was never exhaustively discussed and I found the explanations lacking. I will concede that perhaps you’ve discussed it with others besides me before I graced this board. But we haven’t gone over those accounts with any rigor whatsoever. I have indeed gone into my “arsenokoites” song and dance several times in multiple threads. I have not seen any scholarship which rebuts my case, from you or anyone else. > [@](#): > > In the past you have said that you based your arguments on your knowledge of Greek, but at other times have said that you had 2 years of college study, and that you weren’t fluent in the language. Maybe I haven’t been clear or maybe my memory is bad. I had **four** years of college, not two. I have a BA with a major in Religious Studies and a Minor in Classical Languages. My Language study included 3 years of Latin and two years of Greek. I’m not fluent in the language but fluency is not required simply to research the meaning of a single word. I have no idea why you’re so fixated on my education but I’ve never claimed to be an expert on anything. I do know more than the average bear, though and quite often I am able to provide factual information and informed opinions to threads about religion and the Bible. You seem to a have a problem with a non-theist discussing the Bible. I’m sorry for that but I have no intention of stopping. From my lurking, it would appear that you are more knowledgable about the bible than most here. Still, in the threads that I have particpated in with you (albeit limited) you have not in my estmation been able to substantiate your claims without imputing both words and intent to the author. [/quote] On occasion it is possible to know the motive or intent of a Biblical author. In other cases it is not. In the case of the former I do not simply fabricate motives from my own imagination but provide the consensus of objective scholarship. > [@](#): > > It’s also clear that you don’t believe in God, and are not a Christian. (you may correct me if I’m wrong) Correct on both counts, and also irrelaevant. > [@](#): > > Those facts are absolutely essential to someone wanting to understand this issue, or any other issue, as to the bible’s POV. This is complete nonsense. The Bible is a compilation of ancient literature like any other. No theistic belief is required to study it any more than one must believe in Zeus in order to study Homer. I believe the Bible was written by human beings and study it as such. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that. > [@](#): > > I won’t take the time to re-review the thread at the minute, but I don’t recall seeing the very first biblical cite to support your clain that the bible explicitly states the world is flat. It seems that “bible based disussion” must, by necessity include the bible as the primary source. Wouldn’t you agree? Passages are cited above, and no, the Bible alone is not the only evidence which needs to be considered. It’s also crucial to consider the historical and cultural context in which it was written as well as the Mesopotamian myths from which it was derived. You have also shown no possible alternative to the flat earth reading. A “circle” supports the disc cosmology and dovetails with the rest of the Sumerian stuff. > [@](#): > > I do in fact have a short attention span at times. And, I will reread the thread. But…I don’t remember a single biblical cite from you in this thread. (I may stand corrected after re-reading the thread.) And so, if you have toldme accept my apologies. If not, please accept my insistence that a bible based discussion requires you to use the bible. > > First things first. Cite please. (I’m sure that this text is explicit. And then if you are so kind we can focus on that individual text to see if in fact ot says this _unambiguously_ . From there I’m open to other texts that say this as conclusively. In any event, I would encourage any interested person to pick up their bible and see if in fact the bible says,\* unambiguously\* and _explicitly_ that the world is flat. Cited above. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/51 "2004-07-07T00:26:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Here are two quotes which rather unambiguously reflect the standard Mesoptamian cosmology (the _only_ cosmology which the authors of the Genesis myth would have ever been exposed to) which indicates the ancient near eastern view of a flat earth with a solid dome and water both under the earth and on top of the dome. > > As far as I’m concerned, these descriptions, along with the fact that the Bible reflects Sumerian cosmology in every other way, makes it impossible to honestly infer anything other than a flat earth. Umm, yes- that _INFERS_ a flat Earth cosmology. As in “to arrive by reasoning, conclude or judge from evidence” “lead to” “to guess, speculate, surmise” “to hint, imply”. Certainly. But if it “infers” it does NOT therefore 'state so clearly and unambiguously". And as to quelquechose’s post > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone has linked to this site yet. It provides a very good explanation of Biblical cosmology. I am interested in hearing how those who believe the Bible does not imply a flat earth interpret things like Revelation 1:7 and the “firmament.” Again, I think we all accept that the OT _implies_ a flat Earth cosmology. But it nowhere \*states \* so “clearly and unambiguously”. But like I said- nearly every major newpaper & respected science sites refer to “sunset & sunrise”. Those terms “infer” and/or “imply” a Earth-centric cosmology. But I doubt if they really think the Sun orbits the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/52 "2004-07-07T00:27:30Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > _(This comment is in regards to Diogenes claim, " We’ve done sevearl threads about this very passage and I’ve analyzed the Greek as nauseum in those threads", and my assertion that he hasn’t.)_ > > Well, I based on my comment on my experience with you on [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930) thread. My opinion then and now, was that we hadn’t scratched the surface of that before the question of “why God couldn’t accept a homosexual relationship” was brought up (more than once) with the charge that I was avoiding the question. A separate thread was started to force my hand (…the one I’m smarting over…). In the end, it was never exhaustively discussed and I found the explanations lacking. I will concede that perhaps you’ve discussed it with others besides me before I graced this board. He has indeed. This is why I was willing to accept him as knowledgable on the issue in that thread. He had previously demonstrated such knowledge in several threads. > [@](#): > > But we haven’t gone over those accounts with any rigor whatsoever. If you wish to do so, start another GD thread on the subject- including links to all those threads. > [@](#): > > It’s also clear that you don’t believe in God, and are not a Christian. (you may correct me if I’m wrong) AFAIK, **Diogenes** is an atheist. > [@](#): > > Those facts are absolutely essential to someone wanting to understand this issue, or any other issue, as to the bible’s POV. How? I maintain that certain knowledge of language, culture and history are essential to understanding the Bible. I fail to see how belief in G-d, is necessary to inderstand the Bible. As a Jew, I really, really can’t see how being a Christian is necessary to understand the Old Testament. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/53 "2004-07-07T01:06:06Z")
**Doc** , I call myself agnostic rather than atheist, for whatever that’s worth. I understand the argument that my passages are implicit rather than explicit but I just think they are so specific in the cosmology that they indicate that it is simply goes without saying that they presume a flat earth. It’s like if someone describes a car, you assume it has a steering wheel, even though the description may not say the word “steering wheel” but only make reference to “the circle of steering.” ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/54 "2004-07-07T02:19:20Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > I have a question… what is the original Hwbrew word for where it says “circle”? They could very well mean “sphere”, but lack the terminology. > > /wild ass idea, I have no idea if it has any value or not Excellent question… Anybody know the answer to this? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/55 "2004-07-07T02:35:15Z")
**The Raindog** I find it very interesting that when **Diogenes** , I, and others raised the issue of mistranslation in regards to prohibitions on homosexuality, you dismissed it. When **Zagadka** raises the issue in a case where a mistranslation would agree with the argument you’re making, you seem to support it. Where now, are the many Bibles you quoted then? ---
**Author:** ![quelquechose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6f9a4e/32.png) [@quelquechose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quelquechose)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/56 "2004-07-07T02:40:03Z")
I believe the Hebrew word translated as “circle” refers specifically to a circle, not a to a sphere. There is a different word for a ball or sphere. I’m not sure where I heard this, but I’ll try to find a link to confirm/deny it if I can. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/57 "2004-07-07T02:40:37Z")
Well, [this web page](http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html) provides a fairly balanced view on the matter. As part of its discussion, it says, > [@](#): > > And here is where we alert the reader to another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a “sphere” - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast!), but that they simply did not create a second word for it. I daresay that this page is fairly balanced because it avoids jumping to the conclusion that “circle” means “sphere,” while simultaneously pointing out that there was no specific Hebrew term for the latter. It likewise gives allowance for figures of speech, which abound in both Hebrew and English. As a result, it avoids the extremes of both hasty Bible critics and overzealous Christian exegetes. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/58 "2004-07-07T02:50:00Z")
Thanks, **JT**. My question seems to lead back around to nowhere, but it is at least a known variable now. I have a followup question - was that choice of language maybe for literary purposes (as in, fitting the flow of the language better)? It seems to me at least an acceptable theory that they may have used it, or it may have had a different translation, or mistranslation, somewhere in the history. On the other hand, it has to be weighed with the other evidence it presents… does the “circle meaning sphere” fit with the other literary language and imagery of the OT? (I haven’t studied it in YEARS, I really don’t know) (for the record, I have no vested interest in either interpretation, I’m a theist but not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, nor am I anti-Christian. If they knew globe, wonderful for them, if not, no big deal to me) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/59 "2004-07-07T02:54:32Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Excellent question… > > Anybody know the answer to this? As a matter of fact, I do. The Hebrew word in the relevant quote is [_chuwg_,](http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02329&version=kjv) which means “circle,” “cicuit” or “compass.” It does not mean “sphere” or “ball,” the Hebrew word for which would be [_duwr_](http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01754&version=kjv). You may notice that the definition for _duwr_ is listed as “circle” or “ball.” If the word in the disputed passage were _duwr_ then you might have an angle for a “sphere” interpretation, (albeit not a strong one given the story’s historical, cultural and mythological heritage) but since the word is _chuwg_, which cannot be translated as “sphere” or “ball,” you are stuck with “circle.” A circle as in a disc. A flat one. Just like you would expect in an ancient middle eastern creation myth. ---
**Author:** ![quelquechose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6f9a4e/32.png) [@quelquechose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quelquechose)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542/60 "2004-07-07T02:55:26Z")
After some quick Googling I’ve found that the word “circle” as it is used is ambiguous. It could refer to a flat circle or to a curved surface, so I guess it doesn’t add much to either side’s argument. Some sites say that there is a word for a sphere or sphere like shape, derived from the word for skull, other sites didn’t mention it or said there was no suitable word for sphere. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-cosmology-why-does-it-appear-to-suggest-a-flat-earth/253542.md?page=4)