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.
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.
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.” (Both are described in the site I linked to)
Thank you. I understand where you are coming from even if I don’t share your point of view
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.
The Bible is riddles with errors/contradictions etc. It is by no means a perfect work.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Yes.
Plenty.
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.
There it is, dude.
I have no idea what you mean by “maintaining the intellectual integrity” opf the Bible. I have certainly not misrepresented anything in the text.
Now you have the text. I referred to them indirectly and assumed you wouyld know what I was tlking about. Sorry about that.
This is just getting childish, not to mention off topic.
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.
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.
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.
Correct on both counts, and also irrelaevant.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
If you wish to do so, start another GD thread on the subject- including links to all those threads.
AFAIK, Diogenes is an atheist.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Well, this web page provides a fairly balanced view on the matter. As part of its discussion, it says,
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.
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)
As a matter of fact, I do. The Hebrew word in the relevant quote is chuwg, which means “circle,” “cicuit” or “compass.” It does not mean “sphere” or “ball,” the Hebrew word for which would be duwr.
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.
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.
