My reply seems to have been a bit late…
I appreciate being able to share my thoughts here, although in some threads my views have been in the distinct minority. I’ve been treated with respect by all, even Diogenes.
My intent however, in talking about bible based issues, is to get people thinking enough to pick up the bible and consider the accounts for themselves. It’s clear that this thread is unprofitable for me as it relates to my relationship with Diogenes. We are hardened in our positions and that apparently will not change. I get little satisfaction from jousting for the sake of jousting. I’ve continued in threads like this one because the occasional lurker steps in and leaves me with the impression that some of them may pick up the bible to see what the “truth” is.
With sincere respect, (bordering on admiration at times) I believe that Diogenes regularly misrepresents the bible, albeit unintentionally. I’m sure that Diogenes feels the same about me, and it is clear that he has supporters who would agree.
In the end, I believe that there is a God, and that the best way to get to know him (in conjunction with prayerful consideration) and his “truth” is to read the bible regularly. To that end, take everything you read here with the grain of salt it deserves, and look for your self to see what the truth is.
But because this is unprofitable, and I’m perhaps spending time here that I should be spending elsewhere, I’m going to take a couple weeks off and get some things done. (I may do a little lurking…)
Diogenes the Cynic said:
Only when someone says it a triangle.
[some emphasis mine] As has been your practice, you have imputed intent and understanding not explicitly shared with us by the author. This is neither unambiguous or explicit. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It is logical that the bible authors would have been relatively ignorant about the world around them. (vis a vis today) They may, or may not have, been influenced by other cultures. While we can infer that, logically, the author doesn’t indicate it expicitly. The crime in my view though, is that you make all these assumptions, and impute understanding to the author that he doesn’t share with us, and then hold it up as an example of the bible’s flaws. That’s an error at best, disingenuous at worst.
snips some general sniping, that both Diogenes and I have engaged in that offer little in the way of value or substance to the dialogue, and to which I offer an apology
I have no time this evening (or for the next week or so…) to address the cite that Diogenes has offered us at Gen 1:6-10. I’m familiar with the texts, the language and the context. I assume that Diogenes wouldn’t come with anything but his best effort, and so I would assume that this represents the most explicit, unambiguous cite to support that the bible author held flat earth views, and more importantly, that this represents a good example as to how the bible is riddled with errors.
I remain somewhat incredulous at assertions like this frankly. No where in the text cited does the author say this.
(…It’s now 11:00 p.m., and maybe I can get to this at another time. I am interested in knowing if there are any lurkers in this thread, who might weigh in, either if there is some interest, or if you feel that the text cited says what Diogenes says it does. It is a source of curiousity. Till later…)
The cite that I mentioned addresses that issue, Diogenes. The word “duwr” can mean sphere, but its meaning is no less ambiguous. As the Tektonics site says,
So using the word “duwr” would not have helped clarify the matter at all, since it does not unambiguously define a sphere either.
Doc, here’s my question again:
raindog rather benignly asked:
I had no agenda. It’s a thought I hadn’t considered before and it was interesteing. I had no idea if the answer supported my views or not. Is there something sinister or disingenuous in my question?
Should I start screaming again? 
I’m looking more at the etymology of those two words, thanks DtC.
It does seem that “duwr” is in the Hewbrew text meaning both “ball” and “round about” and “burn”… so it certainly existed at the time of the compilation of the Bible (If I recall correctly, that part was written c. 500-250 BC?).
The word “chuwg” seems to come from more of “building a mound out of the ground”, but one can see how that becomes circle (or hemispherical). I don’t see it being totally ruled out.
But let us not forget the context:
“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”
From a pure literary point of view, that use of the imagery certainly points to the flat disc shape, rather than a ball. Based on that, I’d have to agree with the “secular” opinion that they meant just that - a circle surrounded by the “curtains” of the heavens (making a nice little tent).
HOWEVER… I don’t know exactly how you would describe the situation of Terra as a globe with the “heavens” around it in ancient Hebew. They could very well mean a spherical object surrounded (on all sides) by curtains. But that doesn’t quite jibe with the “tent” analogy they throw in, so it is quite a stretch to believe.
And the word “duwr” is used in context of being a spherical, well, ball, at least once (according to DtC’s cited page). While equating the planet to a “ball” may not be the most poetic of imagery, it is certainly more accurate. However, the Bible is not an epic of accuracy, but one of imagery and poetry.
Sorry for making you all sit through my thinking process, but I wanted to present my unbiased approach to the situation. Sorry, Raindog et al, but I’m more convinced of the flat circle than the sphere.
You want people to read the Bible, as you feel it will lead them to G-d. So, you’re intent is to convert people to Christianity. I’d say that’s an agenda.
Yes, there is. Your posts in the thread on homosexuality demonstrated that when the translation seems to agree with your position, you won’t consider alternate translations or interpretations. In this thread, the translations and interpretations seem to disagree with your position. When another poster suggests that the translation is in error and a proper translation might agree with your position, you jump in with support.
Actually, this is not accurate.
DtC’s point is that there would be wiggle room for the “sphere” meaning if duwr had been used, since that word does allow for that translation. However, since the passage uses chuwg (which allows of no spherical intent), the possibility of an orb or sphere is eliminated from the passage.
I did some further research on that topic, tomndebb. According to Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,, the word “chuwg” can indeed mean “sphere,” contrary to what DtC claims. So you have two words which can mean either “circle” or “sphere,” so neither one would disambiguate this situation.
Does your lexicon give an example of the word being used to mean “sphere,” JT?
While I lean more towards DtC’s views on the Bible, I in no way meant to avocate that people stop believing in it. Sorry if that’s how I came across. I was merely pointing out the same ‘slippery slope’ that you just referred to. I have no interest in what others choose to believe as long as they are not forcing their beliefs on me. (Which is very rarely the case)
The comment that “The Bible is riddled*(heh)* with errors/contradictions etc” can be supported in many ways other than cosmology. I’m sure you have heard most of them before and have heard many I never have.
I’m not going to argue ambiguity with you. Note again the wording “seems to suggest” (or whatever) in my OP.
A little bit more on the Hebrew discussion at hand:
Khug might mean “sphere” (as in khug khevrati, “social sphere”) - but originally definitely meant “circle”, “spin” or “arc”. I find it unlikely to be used as meaning a sphere - but I can’t rule it out completely because some words have somewhat different interpertations in Biblical Hebrew than what they mean in Modern Hebrew.
Also, the word for “sphere” in Hebrew is not “Duwr” - and I have no idea why all these sites keep mentioning it - but rather kadur, from the root KDR. I think the mixup comes from someone having read kadur as ka-dur - like a “dur” - but this is plain flat-out wrong, at least as far as Modern Hebrew is concerned (again - I can’t completely vouch for the very earliest origins of words without some good reference books which I just don’t have the time right now to go looking for, on or off line). either way, there is no way that kadur could mean circle. It means sphere (or “ball” - same thing). Always!
And, in the end, I think the original quote that started this branch of the debate settles nothing - it could be the circle of the Earth (which is in itself ambiguous - Earth as a sphere or as DiscWorld?), or it could be the arc of the Earth - which is more suggestive of a spherical Earth, but can, in its turn, also be interperted as referring to the arc of the outer rim of DiscWorld.
Dani
All that remains is to ask the Letter Jump Counting crowd to see if the Torah spells out “Terry Pratchett is right”
I understand what you are saying and agree. Please understand I was just acknowledging the thought process, not advocating it.
I personally choose to dismiss it. I’m bringing the topic up for discussion. I’m not trying to convert others to my way of thinking. I don’t flatter myself with visions of having that kind of power. 
Fair enough. However I wasn’t trying to prove something, just discuss it and have different points of view expressed, Thanks for expressing yours. Excellent points.