Jump to content
IGNORED

Globe Earth Bible


FEZZILLA

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   7
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/30/2019
  • Status:  Offline

This topic is not about any arguments from the perspective of modern science. This topic deals solely with how we understand Scripture. 

I'm not sure how many flat earthers are on this forum, but this topic is for you. But heads up,  I am a master in globe earth Biblical studies. You have been fairly warned. So you are walking into a debate with a Samurai...a jedi. What do you do? 

I'll start with the well known classic globe earth verse -- Isaiah 40:22.  What do I see in this verse? How do I interpret the verse? I see nothing but a spherical earth that moves in that verse. Yes, Isa.40:22 is just as much about a moving earth as it is a spherical earth. There are 32 other globe earth verses from Canonical Scripture and 2 interesting ones from the Apocrypha.  Flat earthers claim circle means 2D flat. This is not true. Whenever circle is applied to the earth it becomes a synonym for globe. That is a fact and all facts can be proven and re-proven. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   7
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/30/2019
  • Status:  Offline

No flat earth replies? But don't flat earthers love debate? I guess that is true only when they are debating children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/29/2019 at 9:48 PM, FEZZILLA said:

This topic is not about any arguments from the perspective of modern science. This topic deals solely with how we understand Scripture. 

I'm not sure how many flat earthers are on this forum, but this topic is for you. But heads up,  I am a master in globe earth Biblical studies. You have been fairly warned. So you are walking into a debate with a Samurai...a jedi. What do you do? 

I'll start with the well known classic globe earth verse -- Isaiah 40:22.  What do I see in this verse? How do I interpret the verse? I see nothing but a spherical earth that moves in that verse. Yes, Isa.40:22 is just as much about a moving earth as it is a spherical earth. There are 32 other globe earth verses from Canonical Scripture and 2 interesting ones from the Apocrypha.  Flat earthers claim circle means 2D flat. This is not true. Whenever circle is applied to the earth it becomes a synonym for globe. That is a fact and all facts can be proven and re-proven. 

 

On 5/31/2019 at 11:02 AM, FEZZILLA said:

No flat earth replies? But don't flat earthers love debate? I guess that is true only when they are debating children. 

I skimmed through a number of your posts on a different forum in a few different threads.  As near as I can tell, here are the points which will likely eventually arise in the course of further interaction in this thread and others on this topic.   This is my understanding of what was being said in those posts.  Please correct me if I have taken anything out of context or misunderstood things.  I am trying to clarify what the eventual discussion here will really become about.  

1. Many posts explicitly stated that the definitive English version is the Matthew's Bible and the only acceptable ones are those derived from it.  Any Bible version not consistent with that one are "flat earth" Bibles which should not be used.  I understood many posts to say that there is no good English version and there is a need for a new English translation in the tradition of the Tyndale translation.  In one post, it was implied that most modern versions (including such commonly used ones as the NIV or ESV) should be considered in the same class as the Book or Mormon or the New World Translation.

2. One post explicitly stated that there are only two good protestant denominations, Lutherans and Anglicans.  All others are heresies of some form or another.  In particular, a few posts seemed to explicitly say that any denominations derived from the Puritans who used the Geneva Bible are particularly bad and are indeed heresies.

3. I have the impression from some posts that it is not enough for Christians to believe that the earth is a globe moving through space.  Christians must believe that the Bible explicitly taught this millennia ago and any English version which does not explicitly translate each and every OT verse dealing with the shape of the earth in unambiguous fashion should be rejected as a flat earth Bible.

In summary, what I understand the posts to be teaching is this (and please clarify what I have misunderstood in these posts):

1. Some form of preservationism in which God has chosen only one (or a few) particular manuscripts, translations, or texts to contain His Perfect Word.  A consequence of this is that to the degree any other texts, manuscripts, or translations disagree with the perfect one, they are in error.

2. Any Christians which do not use the correctly preserved texts end up in heresy and spiritual error.  Any denominations not using the perfect texts end up in heresy or spiritual error.  As near as I can tell, the Matthew's Bible is being held up as being the perfect text that all Christians should use (or to learn Greek and read the Septuagint or Latin and read the Vulgate).   Also, the Anglican church is being held up as the denomination all Christians should join.

My initial impression from reading the posts on the other forum is that this challenge about debating the shape of the earth is misleading and that this is really a challenge about what English version of the Bible to use.  If I have misunderstood the tone and content of those posts, I sincerely apologize ahead of time.    My intent is not to misrepresent but to understand what the main ideas are and to focus on those.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   7
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/30/2019
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 

I skimmed through a number of your posts on a different forum in a few different threads.  As near as I can tell, here are the points which will likely eventually arise in the course of further interaction in this thread and others on this topic.   This is my understanding of what was being said in those posts.  Please correct me if I have taken anything out of context or misunderstood things.  I am trying to clarify what the eventual discussion here will really become about.  

1. Many posts explicitly stated that the definitive English version is the Matthew's Bible and the only acceptable ones are those derived from it.  Any Bible version not consistent with that one are "flat earth" Bibles which should not be used.  I understood many posts to say that there is no good English version and there is a need for a new English translation in the tradition of the Tyndale translation.  In one post, it was implied that most modern versions (including such commonly used ones as the NIV or ESV) should be considered in the same class as the Book or Mormon or the New World Translation.

2. One post explicitly stated that there are only two good protestant denominations, Lutherans and Anglicans.  All others are heresies of some form or another.  In particular, a few posts seemed to explicitly say that any denominations derived from the Puritans who used the Geneva Bible are particularly bad and are indeed heresies.

3. I have the impression from some posts that it is not enough for Christians to believe that the earth is a globe moving through space.  Christians must believe that the Bible explicitly taught this millennia ago and any English version which does not explicitly translate each and every OT verse dealing with the shape of the earth in unambiguous fashion should be rejected as a flat earth Bible.

In summary, what I understand the posts to be teaching is this (and please clarify what I have misunderstood in these posts):

1. Some form of preservationism in which God has chosen only one (or a few) particular manuscripts, translations, or texts to contain His Perfect Word.  A consequence of this is that to the degree any other texts, manuscripts, or translations disagree with the perfect one, they are in error.

2. Any Christians which do not use the correctly preserved texts end up in heresy and spiritual error.  Any denominations not using the perfect texts end up in heresy or spiritual error.  As near as I can tell, the Matthew's Bible is being held up as being the perfect text that all Christians should use (or to learn Greek and read the Septuagint or Latin and read the Vulgate).   Also, the Anglican church is being held up as the denomination all Christians should join.

My initial impression from reading the posts on the other forum is that this challenge about debating the shape of the earth is misleading and that this is really a challenge about what English version of the Bible to use.  If I have misunderstood the tone and content of those posts, I sincerely apologize ahead of time.    My intent is not to misrepresent but to understand what the main ideas are and to focus on those.

 

Not sure how to multi-quote on this forum but bear with me while I respond one point at a time.
 

Quote

1. Many posts explicitly stated that the definitive English version is the Matthew's Bible and the only acceptable ones are those derived from it.  Any Bible version not consistent with that one are "flat earth" Bibles which should not be used.  

You read with tunnel vision. Here has been my position on all forums. The Tyndale Bibles, most notably the 1537 Matthew's Bible, are the most accurate English translations of the Bible. Everyone who does this research agrees. I've seen many priests amazed at the accuracy of the Tyndale Bibles over all others. But I never said all other versions are flat earth books. There are about 14 flat earth books out there and these are the most well know ones:

1. NAB
2. NABRE
3. NRSV
4.NIV'11

I never said the KJV is a flat earth book. The KJV just uses bad English and in most cases the English of the Matthew's Bible survives the test of time over the KJV. But replacing "round-world" with "world" is a serious grammatical offense to today's English. 


 

Quote

I understood many posts to say that there is no good English version and there is a need for a new English translation in the tradition of the Tyndale translation.  

If you study the Hebrew, Greek and Latin you will see how badly we are being robbed in English. The Tyndale translations are our best. That's the truth.

 

Quote

In one post, it was implied that most modern versions (including such commonly used ones as the NIV or ESV) should be considered in the same class as the Book or Mormon or the New World Translation.

I never said that. 
 

Quote

2. One post explicitly stated that there are only two good protestant denominations, Lutherans and Anglicans.  


That is a fact. But this requires many years of research to arrive to this conclusion. Anything beyond Tyndale is heresy which has led to the 33,000 denominations we have today. These 33,ooo denomination are all falling into apostasy due to trusting a bad translation with radical anti-Catholic notes.

 

Quote

All others are heresies of some form or another.  In particular, a few posts seemed to explicitly say that any denominations derived from the Puritans who used the Geneva Bible are particularly bad and are indeed heresies.

Yes. Their intentions were good but the outcome led to planet progressive. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. 

 

Quote

3. I have the impression from some posts that it is not enough for Christians to believe that the earth is a globe moving through space.  Christians must believe that the Bible explicitly taught this millennia ago and any English version which does not explicitly translate each and every OT verse dealing with the shape of the earth in unambiguous fashion should be rejected as a flat earth Bible.

You are only party correct. My concern is how none of the translated words are defined well enough for English readers to get a full understanding. The word tebel, for example, should always be translated as "round-world,  round compass, the habitable globe."  In Hebrew, Greek and Latin these words are much better defined. You get no confusion when reading Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I think its time we translate the first accurate English translation of the Holy Bible. None of our translations compare to Hebrew, Greek or Latin.  

 

Quote

 

In summary, what I understand the posts to be teaching is this (and please clarify what I have misunderstood in these posts):

1. Some form of preservationism in which God has chosen only one (or a few) particular manuscripts, translations, or texts to contain His Perfect Word.  A consequence of this is that to the degree any other texts, manuscripts, or translations disagree with the perfect one, they are in error.

 

I don't think we have an English translation that is more accurate than the Greek or Hebrew texts or the Latin Vulgate for all that. I think a new translation is mandatory and it should be considered the first time the Holy Bible is ever accurately translated into the English languages. These translating methods of today are stupid. 

 

Quote

2. Any Christians which do not use the correctly preserved texts end up in heresy and spiritual error.  Any denominations not using the perfect texts end up in heresy or spiritual error.  As near as I can tell, the Matthew's Bible is being held up as being the perfect text that all Christians should use (or to learn Greek and read the Septuagint or Latin and read the Vulgate).   Also, the Anglican church is being held up as the denomination all Christians should join.

I have spoken very well of the following English translations. I'll list them in the order from the best to the lessor of the best.

1 - 1537 Matthew's Bible
2 - 1539 Great Bible
3 - 1568 Bishop's Bible
4 - 1769 King James Bible
5 - 1611 King James Bible
6 - NKJV
7 - MEV
8 - YLT
9 - 1876 Julia Smith Bible
10 - RSV

Other acceptable translations for experienced readers are:

11 - ESV
12 - HCSB
13 - NLT

I still debate the ESv's ranking. That Bible and the 1535 Coverdale Bible are hard to place. The 1560 Geneva Bible is better than many modern translation but still lacks too much to be taken real seriously. Lets keep as an historical treasure and move on..

I spent many years studying early Christianity and arrived to the conclusion that if one is serious about finding the best Christian church which holds to the best overall traditions and doctrines than one should become a Continuing Anglican (ACC). Studying translations also confirms that. Already the vast majority of Christians agree that Anglican translated Bibles are the best. 


 

Quote

My initial impression from reading the posts on the other forum is that this challenge about debating the shape of the earth is misleading and that this is really a challenge about what English version of the Bible to use.  If I have misunderstood the tone and content of those posts, I sincerely apologize ahead of time.    My intent is not to misrepresent but to understand what the main ideas are and to focus on those.

Look, I will debate this in all languages.  I'm reading round earth even in the more barbaric and loose tongued English Bibles. The problem is that most English readers do not know the definitions of the English words they read. But I'll debate in any language and win in any language. 

Edited by FEZZILLA
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  137
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   52
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/27/1943

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.  

 

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

 

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds. 

 

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

 

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

 

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

 

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV) 

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV) 

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

 

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)


Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

 

Job 38:22  "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

 

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical  cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights. 

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   7
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/30/2019
  • Status:  Offline

It sucks to know that all denominations that started from 1560 on up are all heretical and can lead to flat earth addictions. Serious believers will search far and wide for the best church. But this requires a great deal of research and experience. If everyone trusted what I say here the misery of our 33,000 denominations would end and all that would be left would be orthodox Anglicans and Lutherans. From here the RCC could be pressured into the much needed doctrinal changes etc. Get the RCC back on track and then combine Protestants and RCC together. After that work on our relationship with Eastern Orthodox and back to one church again. 

For the first 1000 years there was only one church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  137
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   52
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/27/1943

5 minutes ago, FEZZILLA said:

For the first 1000 years there was only one church. 

This falls into the category of wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  137
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   52
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/27/1943

53 minutes ago, FEZZILLA said:

The Tyndale Bibles, most notably the 1537 Matthew's Bible, are the most accurate English translations of the Bible.

The King James Version of the New Testament along with earlier versions like  the Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1582 - 1610

were based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.  It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts.  The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.  We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Thank you for the clarifications.

 

24 minutes ago, FEZZILLA said:

I don't think we have an English translation that is more accurate than the Greek or Hebrew texts or the Latin Vulgate for all that. I think a new translation is mandatory and it should be considered the first time the Holy Bible is ever accurately translated into the English languages. These translating methods of today are stupid. 

As someone who reads the Bible in Greek (several times through the gospels and Acts, a handful of times through the epistles, and on my 3rd time through the LXX) and currently learning Hebrew (and able to somewhat read the first few chapters of Genesis at this point), I don't find the relative evaluations of various translations particularly compelling.  I can read things for myself and I've found most modern English translations to be reasonable.  I have my pet peeves at certain points, but in general, they are reasonable.  I always recommend two things to people with regard to translations.  For study, read several translations in parallel to see what different translators did.  For devotional reading, pick a version that you are comfortable reading that is generally well regarded by a range of Christians.

I wouldn't dismiss modern translation methods as stupid.  To do so would require the assumption that God has allowed His people to fail miserably for the past few centuries at translating the Bible into languages which have had  no Bible.  This implies that hundreds of New Testaments, individual books, and entire Bibles first translated into a new language are likely deeply flawed.  I personally know people who are NT scholars and people who work for Wycliffe translators.  They take this quite seriously and have looked at the works of the translators who've gone before them to learn from them and then improve on what they did.  I've seen some of their work first hand, have the linguistic background to understand at least some of what they discuss, and find it credible.

 

18 minutes ago, FEZZILLA said:

I spent many years studying early Christianity and arrived to the conclusion that if one is serious about finding the best Christian church which holds to the best overall traditions and doctrines than one should become a Continuing Anglican (ACC). Studying translations also confirms that. Already the vast majority of Christians agree that Anglican translated Bibles are the best. 

 

10 minutes ago, FEZZILLA said:

It sucks to know that all denominations that started from 1560 on up are all heretical and can lead to flat earth addictions. Serious believers will search far and wide for the best church. But this requires a great deal of research and experience. If everyone trusted what I say here the misery of our 33,000 denominations would end and all that would be left would be orthodox Anglicans and Lutherans. From here the RCC could be pressured into the much needed doctrinal changes etc. Get the RCC back on track and then combine Protestants and RCC together. After that work on our relationship with Eastern Orthodox and back to one church again. 

I want to clarify this.  To what extent are Christians on this site who are members of one of the 33000 denominations heretical and not being a serious believer if they are not actively searching for a better church?

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   7
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/30/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Takoda said:

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.  

 


Here are just two quotes older than 500 years. This is just my warm up pitch. 

4th century St.Ambrose quotes Isaiah 40:22,

"Scripture points out what is impossible for men, for God declares: 'Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and weighed the heavens with his palm and the bulk of the earth in his hand? Who hath weighed the mountains in scales and the rocks and the groves in a balance?' And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)

Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous:

“And when the seasons, in their circling course, 
Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each
Should come, according to well-ordered plan;
Out of a confused heap who didst create
This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass
Of matter didst the universe adorn;--
Grant to me life, and be that life well spent,
Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak
In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).

And the Holy Scriptures taught Clement about the sphere of the earth and the circular course (rotation) of the 4 seasons.


 

Quote

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. 

Having a large library of Sumerian and Babylonian works I'd like to see if you are capable of quoting and referencing your claims. I can reference all mine. 

 

Quote

The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds. 

I think you misinterpret a great deal...and probably deliberately.

 

Quote

 

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

 

 

 


Your theory is not supported by the Christian church. If you are gonna say the church taught flat earth before Columbus than you need to scientifically prove it and your proof must come from true Christian sources. If you don't know what true Christian sources are than that is not my problem. 

 

Quote

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

You sure like to drag out your blah-blah. 

 

Quote

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

You must definitely be an atheist. I guess you are one in a long line of many who has lined up to gut your butt kicked in this debate. I know of some atheists who would warn you not to get into this debate with someone like me who's mastered. You won't win. All you will do is try and twist and manipulate and I'll take that as your confession that you lack historical and religious knowledge. 

 

Quote

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

 

Revelation 7:1 -- "four corners of the earth."

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

Flat earthers read this verse absolutely literally. The Book of Revelation is a Book of prophecy which contains lots of symbolism and figurative expressions for the purpose of explaining much deeper spiritual events which will take place in the last days. Hence, Revelation is not meant to be understood so literally as flat earthers read it.

The "four corners of the earth" is an expression which means "the extremities of the earth" in all cardinal directions (north, east, south, west -- the four points of a compass). Revelation 7:1 also alludes to the four spirits of heaven as mentioned in Zechariah 6:5,

"And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth."

Believer's Bible Commentary -- Rev.7:1-4,

"7:1-4 The vision of the four angels standing at the four corners of the earth and holding back the four winds means that a great storm is about to burst on the world. However, the angels are told to delay this terrible destruction until the servants of God have been sealed on their foreheads. Twelve thousand persons from each of the twelve tribes of Israel are sealed."

The passage is figurative because capturing deep spiritual revelation is hard to put down in any common language. Thus the four winds are the winds of change which will bring about a terrible destruction upon the earth and in all four quarters of the earth. But God delays this coming storm of disaster by holding back the winds of change -- which are also not to be understood as literal winds. 

And again we see "the four corners of the earth" in Isaiah 11:12,

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

The word "corners" is Strong's H3671 כָּנָף kânâph, which is also used in Isaiah 24:16,

"From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously."

In this verse the expression is defined as "the extremities of the earth" according to the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. But kânâph is not just used in context of the entire globe. It is also used to express a regional area as further expressed in Ezekiel 7:2,

"Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land."

It is very clear by reading the verse that kânâph is used as an expression for all four directions and not a reference to the shape of the earth itself. The Bible uses many expressions which are meant to be understood from a deeper spiritual perspective and not from a literal or scientific expression.

The Greek word used in Rev.7:1 is Strong's G1137 γωνία gōnía. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as "the four extreme limits of the earth, Revelation 7:1; Revelation 20:8."

Rev.20:8 says,

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."

Once again γωνία (gōnía) is used to express the far reaches of the earth in all four quarters (i.e., directions). It is not saying the earth is flat.


?Common Sense

From the 1st century on up to the present now, Christian leaders have always taught globe earth. But why would the early church fathers teach globe earth from the Bible if Scripture says its flat? The Bible does not teach flat earth and if it did you better believe the early church fathers would have left for us a flat earth tradition. But they didn't. They didn't because Scripture teaches globe earth. Rev.7:1 is an expression which was never intended to describe the literal shape of the earth. The early church fathers were not Godless men, but had a very strong knowledge of Scripture which is why they were chosen by the Apostles to teach the Gospel after they were gone. So they knew about verses such as Isaiah 40:22 -- "the circle of the earth." So why would the Apostle John contradict Isaiah? He wouldn't and he didn't.

Verses like Isaiah 40:22 are about the shape of the earth. Rev.7:1 is not about the shape of the earth. Whenever the Bible speaks about the shape of the earth its in context with God's creation and dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. Rev.7:1 simply expresses the extremities of the earth.



 

Quote

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)


Goes back to the last argument above. It means the extremities of the earth. 

 

Quote

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

All verses like this all mean the extremities of the earth. Moving on..

 

Quote

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 & Luke 4:5

 :emot-poke: "Again, the devil takes him into a very high mount, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory" (Matt.4:8 - 1876 Julia Smith Bible). 

 :emot-poke: "And the devil, bringing him into a high mountain, shewed him all the kingdoms of the habitable globe in an instant of time" (Luke 4:5 - 1876 Julia Smith Bible). 

The only difference in these two verses is that Matthew applied the word G2889 κόσμος kósmos whereas Luke used G3625 οἰκουμένη oikouménē. Both verses tell us the same account. So is this a case of hyperbole? I don't think so...not in this account. Luke 4:5 is a very clear globe earth verse. I think Matt.4:8 is using kósmos in the same manner Luke used oikouménē. For the battle of souls was then and is now a global battle. 


 

Quote

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

 Psalm 93:1,

"The Lorde is kyng, and hath put on glorious apparell, the Lorde hath put on his apparell, & gyrded him selfe with strengthe: he hath made the rounde world so sure, that it can not be moued" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Latin Vulgate: :emot-poke: "laus cantici David in die ante sabbatum quando inhabitata est terra Dominus regnavit decore indutus est indutus est Dominus fortitudine et praecinxit se etenim firmavit orbem terrae qui non commovebitur"

Word: Orbem, from H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl

Latin Definition orbis terrae
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-df4a05b8dca4722d33d699f9eb4d26f6a50b87dc.html?fbclid=IwAR36hRSjEy9t-5_2xzy6jz6KuXczUNcjDGZyisFuTPiiOJDsWiL2Hk_6oQc

Latin Definition of Orbis terrarum
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-9b92a191d7c9676387beb1ef9051b619e16b7650.html?fbclid=IwAR19LLBBsQQh7mq07xCvNntw-4nEK9jiZH1GTYudaxH1_4tPPweqOgemKzs

How to say "world globe" in Latin
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-dceb55eeed07f166ecd8db67fe274be446d4c2ee.html?fbclid=IwAR1BJFTyld0owLFUL-mB2JUKzUNFu25NPbQOtlV1WtSY1uBRu3Kiu35qi64

Does the Bible Teach a Stationary Earth That Never Moves?


One of the more favorite arguments from flat earthers are verses which say how the earth shall not be moved. This expression in modern English carries the opposite meaning that it originally meant in Hebrew. So in order to understand this ancient expression it is necessary to seek out an ancient scholar to define what it means.

How Do We Properly Interpret verses that say how the earth shall not be moved? St.Ambrose, a prominent 4th century church father, explains what those passages mean:

“How the disposition of the earth therefore depends upon the power of God, you may learn also where it is written: ‘He looketh upon the earth and maketh it tremble,’ and elsewhere: ‘One again I move the earth.’ Therefore, the earth remains immovable not by its balances, but is moved frequently by the nod and free will of God, as Job, too, says: ‘The Lord shaketh it from its foundations, and the pillars thereof tremble.’ And elsewhere: ‘Hell is naked before him and there is no covering for death. He stretched out the north over the empty space and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his clouds. The pillars of heaven fled away and are in dread at his rebuke. By his power the seas are calmed, by his wisdom is struck down the sea-monster, and the gates of heaven fear him.’
By the will of God, therefore, the earth remains immovable. ‘The earth standeth for ever,’ according to Ecclesiastes, yet is moved and nods according to the will of God. It does not therefore continue to exist because based on its own foundation. It does not stay stable because based on its own props. The Lord established it by the support of His will, because ‘in his hand are all the ends of the earth.’ The simplicity of this faith is worth all the proffered proofs.
Let others hold approvingly that the earth never will fall, because it keeps its position in the midst of the world in accordance with nature. They maintain that it is from necessity that the earth remains in its place and is not inclined in another direction, as long as it does not move contrary to nature but in accordance with it. Let them take occasion to magnify the excellence of their divine Artist and eternal Craftsman. What artist is not indebted to Him? ‘Who gave to women the knowledge of weaving or the understanding of embroidery?’ However, I who am unable to comprehend the excellence of His majesty and His art do not entrust myself to theoretical weights and measures. Rather, I believe that all things depend on His will, which is the foundation of the universe and because of which the world endures up to the present” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, pp.22-23).

So the immovable earth is an expression that means how the earth, which is suspended in space over nothing, will not fall or drift away from the laws God ordained for it; that the earth maintains its position in the solar system without corruption, as the laws ordained are fixed laws and will not change.

Origen (185-254 A.D.)

Origen is a Ante-Nicene church father who wrote On First Principles, which is the very first book on Theology ever written by a Christian. The following quotation is taken from the John C. Cavadini edition.

“Certainly what some say of this world, that it is corruptible because it was made, and yet does not go to corruption because the will of God, who made it and preserves it from being mastered by corruption, is stronger and more powerful than corruption, may more rightly be believed of that world which we have above called a “fixed” sphere, because by the will of God it is in no way “subject to corruption” (cf.Rom 8:20, 21), for the reason that it has not admitted the causes of corruption."

Notice how Origen calls this earth a "fixed sphere" which means the laws ordained by God for this earth will not go into corruption. When God created this earth and all that there is therein, He called it "very good" which means God did not create this earth to fall down from its position in the solar system or float away into space etc. That is what the immovable earth verses mean.

"The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved" (Ps.99:1).


 

Quote

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

 

Psalm 96:10,

"Tell it out amonge the Heathen, that the Lorde is kynge: and that it is he, which hath made the rounde worlde so faste, that it can not be moued, and howe that he shall iudge the people righteously" (1537 Matthew's Bible).


 

Quote

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV) 

Now this verse says nothing about a flat earth. The Book of Ecclesiastes is the words of king Solomon. He lost half his kingdom due to having fallen into idolatry and that is where the story of Solomon ends. The Book contains wisdom from the king, and most of it is useful up to this very hour. But he dropped the ball on 1:5 by making that statement. He did have many worldly influences around him. Simply stated...its not prophecy or "Thus saith the LORD."

Next..

 

Quote

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Now this verse is prophetic text. If this verse says the earth is flat then that scientifically proves there is no God.  I have plenty of analysis for this verse but first I will just vaguely say that "circle," whenever applied to the earth, means "globe" in English. And if you want to challenge that than fine. 

Latin Vulgate: :emot-poke: "qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum."

Word: Gyrum (aka, Gyrus), from H2329 חוּג chûwg

Latin Definition of Gyrus
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-8dce02c00388566751dfd448c6814ee23d104cb1.html?fbclid=IwAR3WRJyC9-MliKrBtKklU6CeVzhxfq2L-WpNE21gme6jVp-lNYlL_ANwNPA

"round noun: globus, orbis, circulus, circlus, circes
circle noun: circulus, orbis, circus, circlus, circuitio
orbit noun: orbita, orbis, circulus, circlus, circus
course noun: cursus, iter, tractus, curriculum, ferculum
gyration noun: turbo, vertigo, vortigo
curve noun: concavitas, concavum, curvamen, curvatura, cubitus
ring noun: anulus, annulus, corona, orbis, circulus
coil noun: orbis, spira, volumen, amfractus, arquus
cycle noun: circuitus, circumitus"

Phrase: gyrus terrarum

Latin definition of Gyrus Terrarum
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/dynamic-translation/0d5c864c6dbaf08cb4645e30a1f5ca3470d5ab1c.html?fbclid=IwAR1xSVsRNwYN_IS3MX38JFXaG8vZvdigJEyr-BA06QAqrQAIu-EQoYtBsLU

"globe of the earth"

English Definitions


The English Definition of circle and all its synonyms
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle?fbclid=IwAR0w0OEU_uDOThHcRPZnwXw23GL0P4cfOl_moiKid6rhQgF9KTPko-KMsDQ

Right off the bat I found "orb, sphere, globe, horizon, round."

Going to the original Websters dictionary for the definition of circle.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Circle?fbclid=IwAR0zgemtX2QCHbq5rTJcwgf7FmEr_pZkTGMUTDBvPRKMcsTMka-3khIgH3s

If you have the actual facsimile of Webster's 1828 Dictionary there is more information than the online version--which appears to be the case with all online sources which lack in completeness. Noah Webster includes the following:

"2. In popular use, the line that comprehends the figure, the plane or surface comprehended, and the whole body or solid matter of a round substance, are denominated a circle; a ring; an orb; the earth.
He that sitteth on the circle of the earth. Is.xI."

An orb. Lets see what an orb is in English
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/orb?fbclid=IwAR2GDReYLmRz8BxBlEJOG2X2fkUhAgYkVBSHdvRJk-iAwjXcwHyQdutNlWg

So an orb describes a sphere or a globe.

The English definition of globe
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/globe?fbclid=IwAR2G1fkDuf0hom2PYQih1PRQTyWEuu8JwPSF1EtO7USqSOrK07zw3Qc8NwU

"GLOBE, verb transitive To gather round or into a circle."

The English Definition of sphere
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sphere?fbclid=IwAR1wPiUqw9YDIIvL2BlN5TS2zuWBBnv9pAxf6VdwzOQI_nuOrLZ1wuZE-Fw

"3. An orbicular body, or a circular figure representing the earth or apparent heavens."

"4. Circuit of motion; revolution; orbit; as the diurnal sphere."

Strong's H2329, "circle" and "circuit" 

The English definition of round
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/round?fbclid=IwAR3Pe-wTvH0NSG7A6dRFWYX-nGqy988fnXi_goCmzAr20DiDuaeC8VC8FBw

"1. Cylindrical; circular; spherical or globular. round is applicable to a cylinder as well as to a globe or sphere. We say, the barrel of a musket is round; a ball is round; a circle is round."

The English definition of circular
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Circular?fbclid=IwAR0NFRD2VYKanj-h87JskKwXzpD07b_GZqL9QzUeimP70I3Vd4w2QEnQYvI

"1. In the form of a circle; round; circumscribed by a circle; spherical; as, the sun appears to be circular."

The definition of circuit
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Circuit?fbclid=IwAR20pFTSfcr1PuHOkEoZkKS74HDteIkiHOAmyYPeSlBYPe_RXa0WVQFtlBs

"1. The act of moving or passing round; as the periodical circuit of the earth round the sun, or of the moon round the earth."

So the Hebrew word chuwg means the earth is circular as a sphere is circular. The word circuit means the earth moves!

English definition of compass
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/compass?fbclid=IwAR2MEHg1SkLBPMWPfl2q0HfKEsxM-irj5oK1oIQbudBMvE7Fk6hD5B49FKY

"COMPASS, verb transitive

1. To stretch round; to extend so as to embrace the whole; hence, to inclose, encircle, grasp or seize; as, to compass with the arms."

Now lets look at synonyms for sphere
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sphere?fbclid=IwAR2vfsn4piAFldUi7nPUticbG1TioY2GkpV_m1seCJUUjuJtOFW4juRDxfo

Circle is a synonym for sphere.

Synonyms for orb
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/orb?fbclid=IwAR3U25PYntcS49431sGUciWa1GapsagfqKh-b041d1E5Cu9E0ST5h5Vo944

It says "orb, sphere, ball, circle, round."

Hebrew lexicons for H2329 חוּג chûwg


The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,

H2328. חוּג Chuwg, kloog; a prim. root [comp.2287]; to describe a circle:--compass [1x]."

H2329. חוּג Chuwg, khoog; from 2328; a circle:--circle [1x], circuit [1x], compass [1x].".

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, H2329: "חוּג m. a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky, Pro.8:27; Job 22:14; of the world, Isa.40:22."

Examining the 4 English Words Used to Describe Chuwg,


So both Hebrew lexicons use 4 English words to describe the Hebrew word chûwg.

1. circle.

In old English the word circle, whenever applied to the earth, means globe. This is because the English word circle derived from the Latin circulus which also meant globe whenever applied to the earth, as circle even today is a synonym for globe. And since our English Bibles all came from old English translations, it is only wise we should consider the old English usage of the word and how it was applied in the Bible.

2. Compass.

This word is used to describe a circle that surrounds, environs, encompasses from all sides. Here is your latitude and longitude, where horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Job 26:10.

3. circuit.

While the word circuit shares much in common with a circle, it does not mean circle. It means the earth moves in a circle. This accounts for both the rotation of the earth and its circuit around the sun. Many times in the OT the word H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl is used to describe "the habitable globe." In Latin this word translates to orbis and an orb moves and orbits.

Webster's Dictionary 1828 Definition of Circuit
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Circuit?fbclid=IwAR0wrsKjakjPCVSLJtUavLJO1OisC3MGb5WT3DWNjLQkoeK2D0zISb9j8S0

That which applies to Isa.40:22

"CIRCUIT, noun

1. The act of moving or passing round; as the periodical circuit of the earth round the sun, or of the moon round the earth.

2. The space inclosed in a circle, or within certain limits.

3. Any space or extent measured by traveling round.

4. That which encircles; a ring; a diadem.

CIRCUIT, verb intransitive To move in a circle; to go round.

CIRCUIT, verb transitive To move or go round."

4. Sphere

If you understand the first three words you now see how the 4th carries the meaning sphere.

When all four English words that are used to define chuwg are examined, we understand that chuwg, when applied to Isaiah 40:22, means an earth that is an encompassing circle that circuits in space (suspended in space, Job 26:7).

Isaiah chose chuwg because it best captured how the word of the Lord described the earth to Isaiah in his own Hebrew language. It means the circle, compass, circuit, sphere of the earth -- the chuwg of the earth.

Where do we see flat earth?

Isaiah 40:22 -- γῦρον (Gyron), Septuagint (LXX).


Some militant atheists have made themselves irrelevant over the years by entertaining bad arguments that come back to bite them in the ass. The Greek word Gyron used in Isaiah 40:22 is one of those words which militant atheists like Richard Carrier claim mean 2D flat earth. So here we will examine the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 40:22.

?Greek: :emot-poke: "ὁ κατέχων τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς, καὶ οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ὡς ἀκρίδες, ὁ στήσας ὡς καμάραν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ διατείνας ὡς σκηνὴν κατοικεῖν."

Word: γῦρον (gyron)

Christos Terzis, a Greek scholar friend of mine from Greece, was able to break down the meaning of gyron. He said: "Gyron, Gyros, Γύρος, means "round" not circle. And it can well mean the shape of a sphere, not necessarily a circle."

He went further on to say:

"Concerning Gyros...it is actually the same word used to say "circumnavigate the earth". It can mean to go around in circles too. For instance, the Hebrews went GYRO of Jericho 7 times and then it fell. 
Ιt's because words in Greek change according to the use they are in. For instance: O gyros Tou gyrou - of the gyros (possessive) Ton Gyron - third person O gyre - calling out to gyros like saying Hey Mark! Come over here. It's the same word. The verse says "the one who possesses the circumference of the earth". I.e. "The whole earth".
The first O in O gyros is O (omicron). The last one in O gyre is Ω omega. The last one shows exclamation. O! gyre!
Gyros is also (and this is useful for our purposes here) rotation. You can find this meaning on this page in Greek, in the first sentence.

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Γύρος_(αποσαφήνιση)?fbclid=IwAR0CAIOcYNTi2yoyQOjLTav352Jc5TZGxNBzhzU0K4uxhGMs5eV8Vk7ydEs
So when the earth rotates.....it is the same word in a noun γυρίζει/gyrizi
I think the guy on the page shot himself in the leg using gyros to make his case..."

The guy he is referring to is Richard Carrier who shot himself in the leg for using gyros to mean flat earth. 

He said gyron and gyros are the same word. 

Here are more examples of what the word means and its variants.

γύρου (gyron)
https://www.wordsense.eu/γύρου/?fbclid=IwAR27ryTamw64eaacH0QH3DvMBqywkdG-GM78_fOm81YAeekIGMZj_iylo00#Ancient_Greek

"1. Form of γύρος (genitive singular)"

γύρος (gyros)
https://www.wordsense.eu/γύρος/?fbclid=IwAR3__8g0z2qt9Qbc8uoYCDTd8CEU9OcvMNPJ1ygx8UO3MA3IGMbTqLR3dao

"γύρος (Greek)
Origin & history
From Ancient Greek γῦρος‎.

Noun
γύρος (γύροι) (masc.)
bout, round, perimeter, rim
brim (of a hat)
gyro, doner kebab
lap, round, tour (sport)
tour, turn (work)."

Interestingly the word gyro is applied in Proverbs 8:27 in the Latin Vulgate, while gyrum is applied to Isaiah 40:22. These two Latin words carry the same meaning as the Greek. Lets take a look.

Proverbs 8:27, 

?Latin Vulgate: :emot-poke:  "quando praeparabat caelos aderam quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos."

Word: gyro, from H2329 חוּג chûwg

Meaning
https://www.wordsense.eu/gyro/?fbclid=IwAR2d9gS57Ki24ACaLeVhHi5F5PZ8UEvnNf3JUoAoa5Tr78iGuHgccLL4rnQ#Latin

"gyro (Latin)
Origin & history
From gȳrus‎ ("circle"), from Ancient Greek γῦρος‎
Pronunciation
(Classical) IPA: /ˈɡʏː.roː/
Verb
1. I turn in a circle, wheel around, rotate.
2. I circle, revolve around."

More Latin Definitions
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-2832ea3f707b19f38694737b9f1e4ee9a2ad7acc.html?fbclid=IwAR212OTLoEiOh1erDIAisVQc-7qgMm0dNZfyI14rxdAyYG3spCpFRj1kAds

It means "round"

But other definitions are given

"go around verb 
campso

circumvehor verb: travel, sail round, ride round, circumnavigate, describe.
circumvenio verb: circumvenid, surround, circumvent, come around, come round.
circumago verb: rotate, wrap, bring round, turn round, revolve.
curvo verb: curve, turn down, bend, crook, arch."

Gyre is also a variant of Latin gyrus and Greek gyros.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gyre?fbclid=IwAR3ihCJkNv-an7Vj7E8tWkKf5jq4e8bgA8SeqyDaDkDYtyk6XeUk2amonj4#English

Another site for gyre
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gyre?fbclid=IwAR2IfuMIG1ZjEJ30_aAbEbKZn69WTmKURXlKCofOxK90jiLAoVeDm_G39V0

More information on gyre
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gyre?fbclid=IwAR23G5YatqXi8xj1O7KEpbXn9yhogrxU4CLPVYhQzb4iKgRjXmc2TgH8d74

"noun
1. a ring or circle.
2. a circular course or motion.
3. Oceanography . a ringlike system of ocean currents rotating clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere."

There are plenty of posts on this page that cover Isaiah 40:22 and the Latin word gyrum (aka, gyrus) used. It verse says "the globe of the earth" in English.

But going back to the Septuagint's Isaiah 40:22. It is best rendered in English as:

 :emot-poke: "the one who possesses the circumference of the earth". I.e. "The whole earth".

Now lets compare the Hebrew chuwg


Now keep in mind that none of the Greek and Latin words discussed here change in meaning. Only in application do they differ, as in the difference between the word "move" and "moves." They both mean move. So in this section we will see how well the Greek and Latin harmonize using English words.

Hebrew Lexicons for H2329 חוּג Chuwg,

The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,

H2329. חוּג Chuwg, khoog; from 2328; a circle:--circle [1x], circuit [1x], compass [1x].".

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, H2329: "חוּג m. a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky, Pro.8:27; Job 22:14; of the world, Isa.40:22."

Now remember that the word used in Hebrew is chuwg and the English words are there to help us understand what a chuwg is. 

?Chuwg = gyron

1a. Chuwg = circle
1b. Gyron = round, gyro, 

2a. Chuwg = compass
2b. Gyron = circumnavigate, circumference

3a. Chuwg = circuit
3b. Gyron = lap, turn, movement on a circle 
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/γύρος?fbclid=IwAR3V7rjUiiFe9gqgsR5upmXkAtansf13aK0702p3iBL_y_syEpJ-zrtMzU4#Greek

The earth is round with a 24,901 circumference which people have sailed around (or circumnavigated). The earth turns while it makes its lap around the sun. 

Lets look at Proverbs 8:27 this time. 

?Chuwg = gyro

1a. Chuwg = circle
1b. Gyro = round, circle

2a. Chuwg = compass
2b. Gyro = sail round, surround, circumnavigate, come around, curve, bend, arch

3a. Chuwg = circuit
3b. Gyro = rotate, revolve around, turn in a circle, travel, ride round, bring round, turn round.

?Chuwg = gyre

1a. Chuwg = circle
1b. Gyre = circle, round, ring

2a. Chuwg = compass
2b. Gyre = rounded, Oceanography . a ringlike system of ocean currents rotating clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

3a. Chuwg = circuit
3b. Gyre = a circular course or motion, go in a circle, turn round.

?Chuwg = Sphere
?Gyron/Gyros = Sphere
?Gyro = Sphere
?Gyre = Sphere
Gesenius' Lexicon: Circle = Sphere!

Ironically from the Greek words Gyron/Gyros, Gyro and Gyre, we get the word gyroscope which is an instrument used for proving the earth is round...spherical. Using gyros to prove a case for a flat earth Bible is probably not the best argument to make. What makes this an even harder challenge for atheists is that the Septuagint reflects the Paleo-Hebrew meanings even better than the Masoretic texts (no ill intended towards the Masoretic texts). The Septuagint was translated by 72 Jewish scholars in the 3rd century B.C. And while its not in Hebrew, it reads closer to what the original Hebrew intended. And again, Latin variants don't change Greek meanings. So all the oldest and most reliable manuscripts all say the earth is a moving sphere! I fail to see anything rational coming from these militant atheists and their flat earth side kicks.

 

 

Quote

 

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

 


Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

 

Job 26:11, 

“The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof” (KJV).

This verse and others like it are often manipulated by atheists to mean that the earth is held up by visible pillars. But this interpretation is not correct and for several reasons. While the word "pillars" is used in the Bible to describe literal pillars that hold up a building structure, it is also used many times to mean angels (as it pillars of heaven) or saints (as in the pillars of the earth. Job 26:7 is a verse that literally describes the earth being held up by nothing at all.

Ancient Christian Commentary, Vol.VI, Job

“THE MEANING OF PILLARS AND SEA. PHILIP THE PRIEST: “The pillars of heaven tremble and are frightened at his nod.” We interpret the word pillars as the stability that is permanent only in the nature of angels, because they are not only constantly persisting in holiness but also splendid in the glory of eternal blessedness. Indeed about the future immobility of humanity, the Son of God said, “Those who prove victorious I will make into pillars in the sanctuary of my God.” But the church, which is the congregation of all saints, is said to be the pillar and foundation of truth thanks to its eternal stability in the Lord.”

The verse is speaking about angels.

The word pillars carries a very broad meaning in the Bible and is an interchangeable word which goes alongside foundation/foundations. TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) describes "pillars" to mean a basic term for "stand", or "to take one's stand" to "stand firm, fast" or "to stand up, get up," or "to stand before Yahweh." It is used to even describe the church:

1 Tim.3:15: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

The next verse describes James, Peter and John as pillars:

Gal.2:9: “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

This verse means that James, Cephas (aka., Peter) and John were pillars of the Christian movement, which also means they seemed to Paul like leaders of authoritative strength. And indeed they were. Also notice how Paul’s fellowship was accepted by these three pillars of the church. Peter was called the Rock by Jesus but he didn’t literally mean Peter was an actual rock. Jesus knew Peter was a man and not a literal rock. Simply stated, the usage of the word pillars in the Bible never carries a meaning connected to an earth being held up by physical objects (Job 26:7). God is also described as being a pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night (Exo.13:21-22). This pillar was not described as a tornado like figure as seen in the classic movie The 10 Commandments. God’s essence and Spirit were manifested in a dense cloud which at night looked like fire. Some have suggested God is a UFO visiting earth. This is not the case but the idea does speak volumes as to the Alien Being who did make His appearance to the Israelites (if it is fair to call our Creator an Alien Being?). God did descend to the top of Mt.Sinai (not ascend as in the smoke of a volcano). This is not the action of a wooden or rock pillar in the literal sense. God came to earth to deliver His decrees to the Israelites so that mankind could eventually be redeemed from their sins once Christ finishes the work of the Father (John 4:34). His laws would be the pillars of modern civilization. 

Here is another verse often cited by flat earthers which means the exact opposite of a flat earth.

1 Samuel 2:8,

"He reyseth vp the poore out of the duste, and lyfteth vp the begger from the dong hill: to set them among princes, and to enheret them with the seate of glory. For the pyllers of the earth are the Lordes, and he hath set the rounde worlde vpon them" (1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible).

Here again the word pillars is being used figurative to mean "saints," or in this case, poor saints. For God does not abandon the poor and hears their cries for help. The wealthy who did not listen to them will be judged harshly. God will elevate the poor and make them more wise than princes. 

Lastly, the Hebrew word tebel is used here which means "the inhabitable globe." William Tyndale was the only translator to have correctly rendered it to read "round world."

 

Quote

Job 38:22  "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

This verse says nothing about the shape of the earth.

 

 

Quote

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The only translation that translates it this way--AND--it contradicts Genesis 1!! For Genesis 1 is properly translated in the NASB and it nails down the space called the "heavens"! 


"He buildeth his spheres in the heauen, and hath laide the foundation of his globe of elements in the earth: hee calleth the waters of the sea, and powreth them out vpon the open earth: the Lord is his Name" (1560 Geneva Bible).

"He buyldeth his spheres in the heauen, & hath layde the foundation of his globe of elementes on the earth: he calleth the waters of the sea, and poureth them out vpon the open earth, the Lorde is his name" (1568 Bishop's Bible). 

 

Quote

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC.


A.)   I have 1st century Jewish and Christian sources reading rotating globe earth suspended in space over nothing from Scripture. So claim #1 is debunked.
B.)  All the globe earth verses in the OT antedate the Greek knowledge of the spherical earth. 
C.) The Greek Septuagint was translated by 72 Jewish scholars. This translation was well accepted by the Jews and received as Holy. The Septuagint was the Bible that Jesus would quote from the most. The Apostles would do the same. We haven't even brushed the surface of all this. 



 

Quote

This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century.


That is a lie easy to debunk in the 1st century. 
 

Quote

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

Where is the flat earth tradition? Surely if your claims are true then you can prove there is a flat earth tradition. I don't think you can. I know you can't. I know you can't. 

Edited by FEZZILLA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...