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…
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.