mountainman

The Bible is a composite book with "Old" and "New" sections which are presumed to be authored during two separate historical epochs separated by many centuries. The "Old and the New" were first "bound together" (religere) in the 4th century.

By not being specific about which part of the "bible" you wish to discuss, threads such as this get tangentiated over a span of history exceeding one thousand years.

arnoldo

To be honest I don't know if Dr. Avi Rabinowitz is presenting that the earth is sitting still in relation to stars circling the earth faster than the speed of light. In relation to Einstein I know far less, but the following sources states,

archaeologist

Actually I am not. I am doing exactly the same thing that you all are doing. You have yet to present one shred of evidence that the Bible teaches the world is flat or that all the ancients thought the world was flat.

Quoting averse and saying 'see, it teaches the world is flat" onlyshows me that you do not grasp Biblical teaching and that you will not allow the Biblical writers the same literary license that you allow secular authors.

There is no point in presenting any mor evidence because of your abuse of the material you do have.

graymouser

You haven't pointed to anything that changes the fact that the Bible says that the sky is a massive dome. It's the plain reading of a number of OT texts that refer to a dome (or a "firmament" in the archaic but popular KJV translation). All you've said is that skeptics have it wrong, with no explanation or evidence. The text says that there's a dome in the sky, which originally separated water from water. What "literary license" could even be involved here? What "Biblical teaching" is involved in saying there was a dome?

Here's the thing. If there isn't a massive dome in the sky, and the sun, moon and stars don't move on it, which is what the literal words of the Hebrew Bible say, why on earth should one take the six-day creation or the Adam & Eve story or the Flood or the Exodus literally? You take all of those things literally, but not the dome of the heavens. There is not a clear demarcation line between these: creation, Adam and Eve, and the Flood are all in Genesis, and none is later clarified that it isn't really how things went. You are saying that there's a difference but not demonstrating why.

PapaverDeum

Hi Johnny...

I have to take issue with parts of this explanation (but agree with its conclusion). Specifically, the text says "The earth was created on the first day". In fact, the text does not say that. It says that "in the beginning god(s) ("elohim") created the heavens("shamayim") and the earth(erets)". But, if we read further down in the text,the heavens and the earth do not appear until the second day. In the second sentence, there is the statement that "the earth("erets") was without form, and void; and darkness on the face of the deep("tehom"). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters("mayim")." (Gen 1.2).

I try using the main hebrew nouns used in this story. I think that when we use the english words that too much baggage comes along with that. Notice the use of "the heavens". In the Shakesperian english of the KJV, "heavens" would in modern english be written as "sky" or "skies". The word "heavens" is not generally used in that way anymore. Just as "the earth" carries the "baggage" of being a sphere, which was probably not their understanding. In fact, even by Strongs Concordance (not the best around but...), "erets"
is said to have "come from a root word that means "firm", and is probably better translated as "land" in modern english. (thus "earth" is used as understood in Shakesperian english, a very different sense from our modern understanding.( see(1) below where I put the Strongs listing for erets). Notice that in Gen 4.2, erets gets translated as "land(erets) of Nod".


The use of "the Deep" is yet another poor translation for "Tehom" for a modern english speaker. In fact, the "Tehom" was a possibly infinite stretching body of water. From other ANE texts,"Tehom" is described as a "watery chaos" as the best translations read. Notice that the tehom is never referred to as having been created. In this story, it, like the elohim, seems to have already been there prior to this story taking place.

I have grappled for many years with the meaning of "the erets was without form and void". I think that this is best understood as something like that "the land was not yet formed".


But, to get back to the issue of Gen 1, this seems to be a title or introduction for the story that follows. We see this same thing again in the next few chapters. Take note of
Gen 2.4 "Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". But, on what day were these actually created ? This has to refer to the second day.


So, wih all that in mind, it would seem from the story that the elohim makes the sky and the land by putting a dome like structure(the "raqiyya", shakesperian english rendered as "firmament") into the waters of the tehom. So, there is water both above and below this structure. The upper inside of the dome is the sky, and at the bottom the elohim gathers the water into one pool and land appears. I think that from the story it is logical to conclude that this land is relatively flat. What is certainly not sensible from this context is that this land could be spherical (but notice that the surface of the raqiyya could very well look like a half-sphere.

Interestedly, we see the tehom once again in the flood story. To flood the earth, the god of that story(I forget if that is elohim or yhvh) "opens the fountains of the tehom".

And this is only a scratch on the surface of the legend behind this story.


James

ps : Apologies for any spelling errors. I wrote this with notepad and quickly, no spell check.





1 Strong entry for "erets"

a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)

2) earth (as opposed to heaven)

3) earth (inhabitants)

b) land

1) country, territory

2) district, region

3) tribal territory

4) piece of ground

5) land of Canaan, Israel

6) inhabitants of land

7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world


c) ground, surface of the earth

1) ground

2) soil

archaeologist

Please NOTE, all those who are using the Bible verses as evidence to prove that the Bible teaches the world is flat.

I was told by many of you that i could not use the Bible to prove the Bible true thus you cannot use the Bible to prove your false idea that the Bible teaches the world is flat.

That is a double standard. Please use what you demand of me: legitimate scientific evidence, archaeological evidence and so on to make your case and be ready to provide solid legitimate evidence that the ancient world thought that the world was flat.

Please practice what you preach.

Doug Shaver

You're missing an important distinction. You're talking about two kinds of questions for which different kinds of evidence are relevant to any attempt for formulate answers.

If the question is: What does the Bible say? then using the Bible's own words is best way to produce an answer.

If the question is: Is what the Bible says true? then quoting the Bible to defend an affirmative answer is just a circular argument.

archaeologist

No I am not. You are making a weak argument to justify your use of a double standard. Besides the Op is using the Bible to 'prove' something aout itself and it isn't working because he is misreading the passages and does not grasp what it teaches.

graymouser

You cannot use the Bible to prove the statement The Bible is true. You must use the Bible to prove the statement The Bible does not say the world is flat. No one here is arguing about the actual fact that the world is flat. It's an extremely well-established fact that the world is round and the controversy about it is something we laugh about. However, the Hebrew Bible has a number of statements that only make sense if it is talking about the earth as a flat surface with a hammered dome above it. This is found in the creation accounts, and referenced after that.

The problem for a Biblical literalist isn't in showing that the earth is flat, but in demonstrating why you can be a consistent literalist and believe in 6-day creation, a young earth, Adam and Eve, the serpent, the Garden, the Flood and all that, but not in the flat earth and dome sky that are clearly described in Genesis. There's no double standard - it's two entirely separate questions. Your discussion thus far about "literary license" makes no sense whatsoever, since that argument is indistinguishable from the argument of literary license used by liberal Christians who accept the scientific facts of an old earth, evolution and all that. So the problem isn't that you're being held to a double standard, but that you're holding the Bible to one.

semiopen

Thanks for your help Shesh, my messages aren't quoted much and Arch didn't include my handle.

I have mentioned this link several times:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...d-Religion.htm

This article suggests that it is conceivable that the sun revolves around the earth and that this view is supported by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

A guy named Zvi responds and refutes this:

This reply seems to be genius, I haven't seen this before but it appears to be correct. Zvi turns out to be Dr . Zvi Shkedi, himself a Haredi Jew and a retired nuclear physicist. Oddly once the subject strays from Nuclear Physics he seems to be quite mad; however his essays on Torah and Science are very interesting and can be found at:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shkedi01.htm

He provides an interesting algebraic proof that any number can equal any other.