# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 55
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1081 "2010-09-16T06:30:50Z")
“the only images used in the bible are those that employ the word for a two-dimensional (flat) circle.” Wrong. Again. Job 26:10 states “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” (NASB). This expression refers to the curvature we see on the distant horizon. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1082 "2010-09-16T06:33:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > “the only images used in the bible are those that employ the word for a two-dimensional (flat) circle.” > > Wrong. Again. > > Job 26:10 states “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” (NASB). > > This expression refers to the curvature we see on the distant horizon. Only in your vivid imagination, and the imagination of the person you learned this claptrap from. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1083 "2010-09-16T06:36:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > A cat is an animal. > A dog is an animal. > Therefore a cat is a dog. > > A circle is round. > A sphere is round. > Therefore a circle is a sphere. There is no hebrew word for ‘sphere’. The writers had the choice of ‘chuwg’, meaning circle, or ‘duwr’ meaning ball. They chose to use the same expression for common usage we use today to describe the shape of the earth. Of course you could go around writing to all those websites… ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1084 "2010-09-16T06:38:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > “the only images used in the bible are those that employ the word for a two-dimensional (flat) circle.” > > > > Wrong. Again. > > > > Job 26:10 states “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” (NASB). > > > > This expression refers to the curvature we see on the distant horizon. > > Only in your vivid imagination, and the imagination of the person you learned this claptrap from. This verse is very clear. A circle on the waters where the light and darkness meet. Look out your window at a distant view of the horizon. Does it look flat to you? No. Your imagination is being stretched to come up with more irrational opposition. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1085 "2010-09-16T06:47:52Z")
You’re going to love these…from definitions of ‘sphere’… “Like a _ **circle** _ in two dimensions, a perfect sphere is completely symmetrical around its center, with all points on the surface lying the same distance r from the center point.” > **[Sphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere)** > > A sphere (from Ancient Greek σφαῖρα (sphaîra) 'globe, ball') is a geometrical object that is a three-dimensional analogue to a two-dimensional circle. Formally, a sphere is the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point in three-dimensional space. That given point is the centre of the sphere, and r is the sphere's radius. The earliest known mentions of spheres appear in the work of the ancient Greek mathematicians. > The sphere is a fundamental object in many fields of... “A sphere can also be defined as the surface formed by rotating a _ **circle** _ about its diameter.” [http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sphere](http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sphere) ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1086 "2010-09-16T07:20:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > A cat is an animal. > > A dog is an animal. > > Therefore a cat is a dog. > > > > A circle is round. > > A sphere is round. > > Therefore a circle is a sphere. > > There is no hebrew word for ‘sphere’. The writers had the choice of ‘chuwg’, meaning circle, or ‘duwr’ meaning ball. They chose to use the same expression for common usage we use today to describe the shape of the earth. > > Of course you could go around writing to all those websites… I must humbly apologise. The word ‘duwr’ is translated ball in some texts, but the actual hebrew meaning represented wrapping in a circular motion. IN a numbe rof cases where duwr is used, it is translated ‘around’ or ‘round about’. So there is no hebrew word that directly translates ‘ball’ either. Which is why they used ‘chuwg’. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1087 "2010-09-16T11:35:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > You claimed that the bible had asserted a “round” earth when “scientists” were claiming it was flat. You have cited no “scientist” who claimed it was flat, so that assertion appears to be wrong, and a circle–the only shape asserted in the bible–is flat. You are dodging around playing word games with the English word “round,” but you are simply wrong. > > > > You have still failed to even provide the citation for the bible saying the world is “round.” Isaiah talks about it being a circle and uses the same word that is used to describe drawing a circle in Job and in Proverbs. Isaiah also uses a form of the same word to talk about the compass used to draw a circle. Mistranslating any of those passages to mean the English word “round” is bad translation and bad scriptural analysis. > > > > Job 38:14 talks about the way in which a seal is impressed into soft clay; it makes no mention of a potter’s wheel in the context of the earth spinning. It immediately follows verse 38:13 in which the image is of the earth being shaken like a blanket–a flat, two-dimensional surface. Now, I recognize that the “shaken blanket” image is a metaphor for shaking out evil-doers as getting crumbs off a blanket and would not claim that it was intended as a physical image of the earth, but your claim that there is any image of a spinning earth in 38:14 is simply nonsense. (The KJV translators used the word “turned” in the sense of rocking a seal into soft clay, but one will note that the phrase is “turned to the seal,” and not “turned on the wheel.” Other translators avoided that confusion by using verbs different than “turned” and no translation indicates a pottery wheel. The image is one of pressing a seal into soft clay, not spinning a pot.) > > > > The Hebrew word that was used to describe the earth, “_chuwg_” is more accurately translated “circle” and your attempt to confuse the issue by using “round” is simply hand-waving to avoid admitting your error. > > And a circle is round. A coin can be said to be a circle, but it is also flat! So circle doesn’t mean orb! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1088 "2010-09-16T11:50:00Z")
**aigonz** , at this point, you are both denying your own posts when it is convenient and you are giving meanngs to words that they do not have. I am strongly beginning to suspect that you are a troll, (because the alternative is that you are really, really, not capable of thinking through your own statements). If you continue this behavior, I am going to have to ask the rest of the staff to review your posting privileges. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1089 "2010-09-16T12:35:36Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > The issue is not that the world may be described, (in English) as “round.” The issue is that you falsly claim that the bible says that the world is “round” when the only images used in the bible are those that employ the word for a two-dimensional (flat) circle. > > > > That you continue to harp on the English word “round” indicates that you are either truly lacking in knowledge or that you are trolling–and I am beginning to get the strong suspicion that is is the latter. > > > > [/Moderating] > > My last post demonstrates you were either in error or dishonest in representing my claims. I am getting the strong suspicion it is the latter. > > The earth is described in the Bible as a circle. A circle is round. > > In common language the earth is still described as round today. > > If you google ‘round earth’ there are 64,200,000 hits. > > Discussions that took place ove rthe earths shape involved discussion of the ‘flat earth/round earth’ differences. > > You are being disingenuous. Stick to moderating. You’ve been disingenuous from the start - but that’s beside the point. A circle may be round, but it is still flat. You have not demonstrated that the authors of the bible meant spheres. It’s quite clear that they didn’t - even with the biblical passages that _YOU_ quoted. You have _NOT_ supported the contention that the bible speaks of a sphere. All you’ve done is equivocating on the definition of ‘round’, using it to mean flat (as in circles) and spheres (as in the earth). You have _NOT_ shown that the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth was a sphere. PLEASE SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION with something other then ‘maybes’. Back it up or back it down. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1090 "2010-09-16T12:38:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > And no comments on this yet? > > > > Genesis 15:5 and Jeremiah 33:32 say the stars cannot be numbered by man. > > > > Hipparchus said in 150 B.C. there are exactly 1,026 stars. 150 years later Ptolemy said there are 1,056. Kepler counted 1,006. > > It’s pretty easy to look up at the night sky and see that even the visible stars are virtually uncountable. So what if a couple of people tried? Yes, I was underwhelmed as well. I would bring up the fact that the bible says that the moon makes it’s own light or that you can effect the genetics of your cattle by placing stripped sticks in a river while they mate, but I suspect that these points will be ignored or ‘reinterpreted’ into the most bizarre and convoluted meanings that one can imagine. ---
**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:** [September 16, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1091 "2010-09-16T13:10:24Z")
I don’t think he ever explained why the Bible says the sky is a solid dome either. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1092 "2010-09-16T13:26:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Wrong. The Bible does not speak of a ‘flat’ circle. It speaks of a ‘circle’. And circles are flat. You’re intentionally equivocating here by bringing in the English word “round” into the picture, but people on this board are not apologists and won’t fall for that. If the Bible had said “round” using a Hebrew word that was equivalent to the English word, you may have a hope of saying that they may have believed the Earth to be a sphere, but they used the word for “circle” and circles are flat. The writers of the Bible were mistaken about the shape of the Earth. > [@aigonz](#): > > Job 26:10 states “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” (NASB). > > This expression refers to the curvature we see on the distant horizon. We all notice the way you pick and choose translations which give you more wiggle room. What about all the others? The King James translates this as “He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” That demonstrates that they knew the Earth was a sphere? Do you really believe the crap you say, or like other apologists do you just grasp any straw that might confuse your audience into believing it? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s pretty easy to look up at the night sky and see that even the visible stars are virtually uncountable. So what if a couple of people tried? It’s more like this. Primitive people saw the number of stars and immediately gave up on counting them. As knowledge and communication progressed, somewhat more advanced people actually tried to count them. Much later, modern scientists have used better tools and found that there are a whole lot more stars out there than you could see with just the eye. _This doesn’t mean that the most primitive people were right._ ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1093 "2010-09-16T16:00:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Hipparchus said in 150 B.C. there are exactly 1,026 stars. I can’t find a reliable cite that Hipparchus said that that’s the number of all the stars in existence. > [@](#): > > The constellations which have been preserved to us by Ptolemy, contain 1026 stars, the relative positions of which had been determined by Hipparchus. > **[Popular Astronomy](https://books.google.com/books?id=VYgaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=&hl=en)** > [@](#): > > Hipparchus- a Greek mathematician, the founder of scientific astronomy, born at Nicaea in Bithynia, lived chiefly at Rhodes and Alexandria, and died about B.C. 125. He discovered the precession of the equinoxes, settled more accurately the length of the solar year, as also the revolution of the moon, and the magnitudes and distance of the heavenly bodies. He placed mathematical geography on a firmer basis, by teaching the latitude and longitude of the stars to marking the position of places of the surface of the Earth. Of his numerous writings we only posses his commentary on the Phoenomena of Exodus and Aratus and a catalogue of 1,026 fixed stars. > **[Google Search](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ydltZKAiXCkJ:www.ancientlibrary.com%2Fseyffert%2F0299.html)** What’s your source that Hipparchus said there are only 1,026 stars? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1094 "2010-09-16T17:23:39Z")
This may be the most pathetic ongoing attempt at apologetics I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1095 "2010-09-16T21:13:00Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > And a circle is round. > > A coin can be said to be a circle, but it is also flat! So circle doesn’t mean orb! And the earth is described as a circle too. Today, not just thousands of years ago. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1096 "2010-09-16T21:14:01Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > My last post demonstrates you were either in error or dishonest in representing my claims. I am getting the strong suspicion it is the latter. > > > > The earth is described in the Bible as a circle. A circle is round. > > > > In common language the earth is still described as round today. > > > > If you google ‘round earth’ there are 64,200,000 hits. > > > > Discussions that took place ove rthe earths shape involved discussion of the ‘flat earth/round earth’ differences. > > > > You are being disingenuous. Stick to moderating. > > You’ve been disingenuous from the start - but that’s beside the point. A circle may be round, but it is still flat. > > You have not demonstrated that the authors of the bible meant spheres. It’s quite clear that they didn’t - even with the biblical passages that _YOU_ quoted. > > You have _NOT_ supported the contention that the bible speaks of a sphere. All you’ve done is equivocating on the definition of ‘round’, using it to mean flat (as in circles) and spheres (as in the earth). You have _NOT_ shown that the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth was a sphere. > > PLEASE SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION with something other then ‘maybes’. Back it up or back it down. I will type this slowly. The Old Testament was written in hebrew. There is no hebrew word for sphere. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1097 "2010-09-16T21:15:21Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Wrong. The Bible does not speak of a ‘flat’ circle. It speaks of a ‘circle’. > > And circles are flat. You’re intentionally equivocating here by bringing in the English word “round” into the picture, but people on this board are not apologists and won’t fall for that. If the Bible had said “round” using a Hebrew word that was equivalent to the English word, you may have a hope of saying that they may have believed the Earth to be a sphere, but they used the word for “circle” and circles are flat. The writers of the Bible were mistaken about the shape of the Earth. > > We all notice the way you pick and choose translations which give you more wiggle room. What about all the others? The King James translates this as “He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” That demonstrates that they knew the Earth was a sphere? Do you really believe the crap you say, or like other apologists do you just grasp any straw that might confuse your audience into believing it? > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > It’s pretty easy to look up at the night sky and see that even the visible stars are virtually uncountable. So what if a couple of people tried? > > It’s more like this. Primitive people saw the number of stars and immediately gave up on counting them. As knowledge and communication progressed, somewhat more advanced people actually tried to count them. Much later, modern scientists have used better tools and found that there are a whole lot more stars out there than you could see with just the eye. _This doesn’t mean that the most primitive people were right._ You conveniently miss this point. Amongst these primitive people, the Bible tells us that there are countless numbers of stars. ---
**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:** [September 16, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1098 "2010-09-16T21:15:49Z")
That was not a very difficult observation to make. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1099 "2010-09-16T21:26:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **aigonz** , at this point, you are both denying your own posts when it is convenient and you are giving meanngs to words that they do not have. > > I am strongly beginning to suspect that you are a troll, (because the alternative is that you are really, really, not capable of thinking through your own statements). > > If you continue this behavior, I am going to have to ask the rest of the staff to review your posting privileges. > > [/Moderating] I am making a case that you don’t agree with. Tough. Either rebutt the points, or butt out. You claimed the bible speaks of a flat circle. It doesn’t. Then you got the ‘a few malcontents’ quote wrong. You insisted I respond to a web site that is full of errors. I did, but you inisisted on no accoutnability from my opponents. You claim I am giving meaning to words they do not have, yet you have not once provided any rebuttal of the hebrew wording. You have ignored a significant number of condescending and downright insulting remarks directed at me, and all you can do is suggest I am a troll. The suggestion that I can’t think for myself doesn’t say much for your own abilities given that I have caught you out I suggested before you should participate or moderate. If you don’t like being shown up, park you blatant bias somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1100 "2010-09-16T21:29:49Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I will type this slowly. > > The Old Testament was written in hebrew. > > There is no hebrew word for sphere. And I will type this at normal speed(if you can’t keep up, it’s your problem). There is a Hebrew word for ball and it works for sphere, too. כדור Notice how different it is from the Hebrew word for circle -\> מעגל That is because it is a different word that means something different. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=54) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=56)