POLL: Did the ancient Hebrews believe that the earth was flat?

[miamited]

Hi rakovsky,

Now, let's get to the real issue as possibly seen in God's eyes. You are expending effort to show that the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't understand the heavens and the universe properly. Therefore, a) you must be one who believes that the Scriptures were just the writings and musings of man and not, as Paul claimed, God breathed, or b) for whatever reason, if you believe that the Scriptures are God breathed, working to show that God was wrong.

I'd like you to ask yourself two simple questions, and I'd encourage you to pray about it first. Does God see the work that I am doing as furthering the knowledge of Him and His work? Is there any possibility that I am leaning on my own understanding concerning these things?

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[rakovsky]

Does God see the work that I am doing as furthering the knowledge of Him and His work?

Hello, Miami!

Well, God created the world and cosmos. For a long time people read the Bible and thought that it was flat based on what they understood it to mean. For example, John Calvin a leading Protestant scholar taught that the moon was a firey "light" based on Genesis 1, he taught that the earth had "pillars", and he rejected that the earth was round.

However, God did not actually create a flat earth with pillars or a firey moon, but the opposite. Thus, it is important to have an approach or mentality that will better know God's work than one that teaches those mistaken concepts.

Now the next question is: If the earth is round, pillarless, and the moon is not itself a light, how do we address the Bible and what approach should we use when we read expressions that have suggested to many like Calvin the opposite?

And that leads to the answer to your next question:

Is there any possibility that I am leaning on my own understanding concerning these things?

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

In this thread I am not dictating an answer to you on that question. Rather, I am better looking to find out and prove the answer.
For example, do we say that the Bible nowhere taught what Calvin thought it did on those questions? Was that a total misreading of the authors' beliefs about the cosmos by Calvin, and why did he make that mistaken interpretation?

Or did they believe these things and we look to the Bible's verses about this only for spiritual truth? If so, how do we prove that they believed these things?

If they did not believe that the earth is flat and meant this only as a metaphor, how do we show that?

So in asking the poll question, I am leaving open the answers.

 

[miamited]

Hi rakovsky,

You replied:

Well, God created the world and cosmos. For a long time people read the Bible and thought that it was flat based on what they understood it to mean. For example, John Calvin a leading Protestant scholar taught that the moon was a firey "light" based on Genesis 1, he taught that the earth had "pillars", and he rejected that the earth was round.

However, God did not actually create a flat earth with pillars or a firey moon, but the opposite. Thus, it is important to have an approach or mentality that will better know God's work than one that teaches those mistaken concepts.

Yes, maybe Calvin didn't have a clear concept of God's creation, however, saying that something has pillars doesn't necessarily mean that there are actual pillar forms that exist. The 'pillar' of our society and law is the constitution. Does that mean that by my writing that statement with the word 'pillar' that I believe the constitution is some round spherical marble or stone or some other hard supporting object on which our society and law exist? Do you know for a fact and can offer proof that 'pillar' being used as an idiom to reflect strong and fairly unshakeable support for some idea or concept, or in this case a heavenly body, would not have been understood as just that to the people to whom the Scriptures were given? Where is your proof that a) Calvin had a clue what he was writing about any more than you seem to? b) that ancient civilizations didn't use some of the same idioms that are still in use today and understood them as such? Where is your proof beyond just claiming that 'many consider' things to be as you believe them to be?

John Calvin was a man just like you and I. He may have been right, but he may not have been either. I don't know. Throwing out some understanding by which we are supposed to believe that something is the reality of truth just because one man said so, isn't particularly convincing to me. You also have no real proof of your claim that for a long time people understood the earth to be flat. You offer up two dimensional depictions, but you never offer up any written evidence whereby someone in Israel or some writer of the Scriptures makes the claim that the earth is flat. As I have already pointed out, two dimensional pictures can only show two dimensions, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the truth that what the picture represents was believed to be two dimensional. It was just the only way that people were able to convey their understanding, in a picture, of what the form of the earth was like. To know that you know this claim of yours to be the truth, you would have to ask the one who drew the picture.

You see, I know that the earth is a sphere. We have satellites circling the earth every second of every day and their trajectories are based on the 'fact' that the earth is a sphere. If this were not so, then we would now see in videos the edge of the earth as the satellite traversed across the edge. The earth would seem to move closer and further away as the satellite, in it's circular orbit, traversed the flat side of the earth. As the satellite rounded the edge the earth would appear close. However, as the satellite continued towards the apex of its trajectory arch across the flat side of the earth, it would continually diminish in size and then once it crossed the apex of the trajectory arch it would begin to loom closer in view until it reached the other edge.

So, I ask my questions of you again. Do you believe the Scriptures to be of man or of God? If you believe they are of God, do you then believe that because of these words you have quoted from the Scriptures, that God got it all wrong?

You say you have answered my questions but your answer to number two is:

In this thread I am not dictating an answer to you on that question. Rather, I am better looking to find out and prove the answer.
For example, do we say that the Bible nowhere taught what Calvin thought it did on those questions? Was that a total misreading of the authors' beliefs about the cosmos by Calvin, and why did he make that mistaken interpretation?

Or did they believe these things and we look to the Bible's verses about this only for spiritual truth? If so, how do we prove that they believed these things?

If they did not believe that the earth is flat and meant this only as a metaphor, how do we show that

My answer for question number 1 is that if Calvin believed what you say his writings were meant to convey to us, then yes, Calvin was wrong. There isn't any question about that. Why he might have made that mistaken interpretation I haven't any idea. You'd have to ask him. Just because one gives of their life to study the Scriptures doesn't ipso facto mean that they understand the Scriptures. I think the many discussions and rebukes of Jesus towards the scribes and Pharisees of his day would provide ample proof of that fact. They were the Scripture scholars of their day. The people, just as you seem to have put Calvin on your pedestal of knowledge (and no I don't mean that you actually have a pedestal in your living room with the dead remains of John Calvin laid out on it) set the scribes and Pharisees up as their 'knowers' of the things of God. I think it quite clear that these men who had likely given even more of their time and effort to know and understand the Scriptures than John Calving likely ever did, didn't understand the things they were reading.

That's one possibility. John Calvin was wrong. The other is that you're wrong about what you believe John Calvin was trying to pass on to others in his writings. As, quite frankly to me, you also seem to be about the Scriptures. Peter spoke of those who would distort the Scriptures. Those who would try to know the Scriptures but would find them difficult to understand. What he then wrote about such people wasn't very hopeful for them. I'd be very, very careful that you aren't found in that lot.

As I encouraged you. Go to God in prayer. James tells us that it is the thing to do if we lack understanding. Now, since you know the earth is a sphere, but believe that there are places within the Scriptures that don't seem to allow for this reality, and also believe the Scriptures to be God-breathed, the only possibility is that you are lacking in your understanding. I say that with love and compassion for you. You don't want to be found out as one of those that Peter warned the believers about. Trust me on that!

Go to God. He delights in giving wisdom and understanding in its fullest measure for those who diligently seek for wisdom and understanding.

How do we prove that they believed these things? In reality we can't prove what they believed. We can only know that for many, they believed the lie. For those few who were faithful in love and adoration for their Creator, they knew the truth and any evidence we might throw out that would intend to show that they didn't, is our own lie.

Just as you have made claim that 'ends of the earth' is a modern idiom. You don't know that for a fact. It's what you believe, but you can't in any way prove that it is the factual truth of past realities of a man's thoughts and understanding. All we are asked to do is trust God, not man. I firmly and faithfully believe that the Scriptures are of God and not man. Therefore, I know that all they tell me are the truth of reality. If there are things that I don't understand, then I'm going to go to God and plead with Him that through His Spirit He give me understanding and wisdom. I am not going to go researching a bunch of writings of men and trust that what they have written or what they believed is the truth, especially when such things go directly against what I know the reality of what is, is.

Friend, be very, very careful in this work of yours. Do not set out stumbling blocks that may cause others to stumble. Be a faithful and true servant of the God that you proclaim to love and honor and believe knows all things. That's what I'm going to do. Now, some may call that blind and ignorant faith. That's ok with me. It isn't them that I seek to please or to be in agreement with.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rakovsky]

Hi rakovsky,

You replied:



Yes, maybe Calvin didn't have a clear concept of God's creation, however, saying that something has pillars doesn't necessarily mean that there are actual pillar forms that exist. The 'pillar' of our society and law is the constitution. Does that mean that by my writing that statement with the word 'pillar' that I believe the constitution is some round spherical marble or stone or some other hard supporting object on which our society and law exist? Do you know for a fact and can offer proof that 'pillar' being used as an idiom to reflect strong and fairly unshakeable support for some idea or concept, or in this case a heavenly body, would not have been understood as just that to the people to whom the Scriptures were given? Where is your proof that a) Calvin had a clue what he was writing about any more than you seem to? b) that ancient civilizations didn't use some of the same idioms that are still in use today and understood them as such? Where is your proof beyond just claiming that 'many consider' things to be as you believe them to be?

John Calvin was a man just like you and I. He may have been right, but he may not have been either. I don't know. Throwing out some understanding by which we are supposed to believe that something is the reality of truth just because one man said so, isn't particularly convincing to me. You also have no real proof of your claim that for a long time people understood the earth to be flat. You offer up two dimensional depictions, but you never offer up any written evidence whereby someone in Israel or some writer of the Scriptures makes the claim that the earth is flat. As I have already pointed out, two dimensional pictures can only show two dimensions, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the truth that what the picture represents was believed to be two dimensional. It was just the only way that people were able to convey their understanding, in a picture, of what the form of the earth was like. To know that you know this claim of yours to be the truth, you would have to ask the one who drew the picture.

You see, I know that the earth is a sphere. We have satellites circling the earth every second of every day and their trajectories are based on the 'fact' that the earth is a sphere. If this were not so, then we would now see in videos the edge of the earth as the satellite traversed across the edge. The earth would seem to move closer and further away as the satellite, in it's circular orbit, traversed the flat side of the earth. As the satellite rounded the edge the earth would appear close. However, as the satellite continued towards the apex of its trajectory arch across the flat side of the earth, it would continually diminish in size and then once it crossed the apex of the trajectory arch it would begin to loom closer in view until it reached the other edge.

So, I ask my questions of you again. Do you believe the Scriptures to be of man or of God? If you believe they are of God, do you then believe that because of these words you have quoted from the Scriptures, that God got it all wrong?

You say you have answered my questions but your answer to number two is:



My answer for question number 1 is that if Calvin believed what you say his writings were meant to convey to us, then yes, Calvin was wrong. There isn't any question about that. Why he might have made that mistaken interpretation I haven't any idea. You'd have to ask him. Just because one gives of their life to study the Scriptures doesn't ipso facto mean that they understand the Scriptures. I think the many discussions and rebukes of Jesus towards the scribes and Pharisees of his day would provide ample proof of that fact. They were the Scripture scholars of their day. The people, just as you seem to have put Calvin on your pedestal of knowledge (and no I don't mean that you actually have a pedestal in your living room with the dead remains of John Calvin laid out on it) set the scribes and Pharisees up as their 'knowers' of the things of God. I think it quite clear that these men who had likely given even more of their time and effort to know and understand the Scriptures than John Calving likely ever did, didn't understand the things they were reading.

That's one possibility. John Calvin was wrong. The other is that you're wrong about what you believe John Calvin was trying to pass on to others in his writings. As, quite frankly to me, you also seem to be about the Scriptures. Peter spoke of those who would distort the Scriptures. Those who would try to know the Scriptures but would find them difficult to understand. What he then wrote about such people wasn't very hopeful for them. I'd be very, very careful that you aren't found in that lot.

As I encouraged you. Go to God in prayer. James tells us that it is the thing to do if we lack understanding. Now, since you know the earth is a sphere, but believe that there are places within the Scriptures that don't seem to allow for this reality, and also believe the Scriptures to be God-breathed, the only possibility is that you are lacking in your understanding. I say that with love and compassion for you. You don't want to be found out as one of those that Peter warned the believers about. Trust me on that!

Go to God. He delights in giving wisdom and understanding in its fullest measure for those who diligently seek for wisdom and understanding.

How do we prove that they believed these things? In reality we can't prove what they believed. We can only know that for many, they believed the lie. For those few who were faithful in love and adoration for their Creator, they knew the truth and any evidence we might throw out that would intend to show that they didn't, is our own lie.

Just as you have made claim that 'ends of the earth' is a modern idiom. You don't know that for a fact. It's what you believe, but you can't in any way prove that it is the factual truth of past realities of a man's thoughts and understanding. All we are asked to do is trust God, not man. I firmly and faithfully believe that the Scriptures are of God and not man. Therefore, I know that all they tell me are the truth of reality. If there are things that I don't understand, then I'm going to go to God and plead with Him that through His Spirit He give me understanding and wisdom. I am not going to go researching a bunch of writings of men and trust that what they have written or what they believed is the truth, especially when such things go directly against what I know the reality of what is, is.

Friend, be very, very careful in this work of yours. Do not set out stumbling blocks that may cause others to stumble. Be a faithful and true servant of the God that you proclaim to love and honor and believe knows all things. That's what I'm going to do. Now, some may call that blind and ignorant faith. That's ok with me. It isn't them that I seek to please or to be in agreement with.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hello, Ted.
There are three common views among Christians on this kind of topic:
(A) Everything that is described in the Bible about the design of Creation like the story in Genesis 1 is factually correct

(B) The Bible is factually correct whenever the authors intended to describe things factually, but when it comes to the design of the Cosmos, the writers intended things allegorically or metaphorically.

(C) Not everything in the Bible is factually correct that the authors intended as factual, and yet the Bible's passages contain spiritual Truth.

And so to get a better answer on this question, one of the topics I looked at is the issue of the flat earth. As I understand your answer, you consider (B) above to apply to the passages on the flat earth. If those passages are allegorical or metaphorical, then we should normally be able to understand and explain the metaphors. For example, you mentioned how in Law, there are "pillars", referring to principles, because they support or make up the basics of Law. This, what you said, is a good example of how metaphors work.

So let's turn to Psalm 104:5 "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
1. I suppose that the earth's "foundations" would be a metaphor for the hard material that is underneath the earth's crust.

2. What does the metaphor mean that the earth can never "shake"? After all, there are earthquakes that shake the earth locally. Since it's a round sphere floating unattached in space, the whole earth could shake or moved slightly off its current orbit if it gets hit with a large enough object like a comet.

Let's turn next to the verses about stretching out the earth. Flat objects are "stretched out", although spheres can be stretched out into becoming flat objects that are no longer spherical.

Psalm 136:6 says "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters"
1. What does the metaphorical expression of stretching out something mean other than making an object flat?

2. What does the metaphor about the earth being above the waters mean?

3. In what sense is the round earth metaphorically stretched out so that it is metaphorically above the waters?

 

[Papias]

Rakovsky-

Good poll. Both Biblical scholars and historians have recognized that the ancient Hebrews saw the Earth as flat for a long time. It's funny to see some literalists twist all over (and twist scripture too) in trying to deny that the Bibles describe a flat earth, while blithely accepting scholars and historians on all other matters (like whether the Roman Empire existed, etc.).

Anyway, here are the many scripture confirmations of a flat earth from the other thread, in case you or anyone else would like to look at them. I can find stuff from the experts confirming that the ancient Hebrews thought the earth was flat.

As I think you already know, Bible scholars have known for a long time that a literal reading of the Bibles supports items 1-5, yet so many Christians today pick and choose what they'll take literally, then turn around and deny evolution so as to be "literal".
Here's what I posted on the other, related, thread:
Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses.
(Ibid)
Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24,Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
Geocentrism-
The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JCqThIOc4QQ

That's what a literal reading says. The only consistent positions an honest person could take are to either reject heliocentrism, a spherical earth, evolution, the atmosphere, etc - or to accept them all.
In Christ - Papias​

​

***********************************************

You see, I know that the earth is a sphere. We have satellites circling the earth every second of every day and their trajectories are based on the 'fact' that the earth is a sphere. If this were not so, then we would now see in videos the edge of the earth as the satellite traversed across the edge. The earth would seem to move closer and further away as the satellite, in it's circular orbit, traversed the flat side of the earth. As the satellite rounded the edge the earth would appear close. However, as the satellite continued towards the apex of its trajectory arch across the flat side of the earth, it would continually diminish in size and then once it crossed the apex of the trajectory arch it would begin to loom closer in view until it reached the other edge.

'sounds like you have used your own opinion to reject the literal word of God.

So, I ask my questions of you. Do you believe the Scriptures to be of man or of God? .....

So, I ask my question of you. Do you believe the Scriptures to be of man or of God? If you believe they are of God, then why do you reject their literal reading, found in dozens of clear verses?

As I encouraged you. Go to God in prayer. James tells us that it is the thing to do if we lack understanding. I say that with love and compassion for you. You don't want to be found out as one of those that Peter warned the believers about. Trust me on that!

Go to God. He delights in giving wisdom and understanding in its fullest measure for those who diligently seek for wisdom and understanding.
........
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I did. He confirmed that our Holy scripture depicts the earth as flat. He also reminded me to not have the arrogance to ignore those many people He sends to help us understand all manner of His creation.

In Jesus' name-
Papias

 

[miamited]

Hi papias,

The short answer is that because the entire premise is resting upon some unknowable belief that they weren't meant as idioms or similes. We can't know that people in the days that the particular Scriptures in question were written didn't use the idiom 'the ends of the earth' to describe encompassing the whole earth. We can't know that when the particular Scriptures were written that the word 'pillar' could even then be used to describe something with an unshakeable foundation. We just don't know. In order to know the answer to that we would have to be able to ask the author whether they meant to infer that the earth actually rests on huge columns of granite or stone or was this meant to convey the surety of the earth's foundation? We can't know the answer to that without questioning the author.

Even today, when news reporters or investigative reporters ask some columnist about something that they wrote they will ask, "Well, did you mean to say...?" And often times the columnist will come back and reply, "Oh no. Not at all. Here's what I meant by that statement." So, it seems fairly plain to me that there are people who misunderstand things that are written. However, as it applies to the understanding of the things that the Scriptures reveal, I believe that Peter warns us to be wary of such people among us. He then clearly explains to us and to them that the consequences of such will be quite dire.

However, the core of our difference is in our understanding of the authorship of the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rakovsky]

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Don 't miss my message to you too.

 

[miamited]

Hi rakovsky,

Yes, I get the message. However, my question to you was which type of believer are you in the things of the Scriptures? You wrote:

Psalm 136:6 says "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters"
1. What does the metaphorical expression of stretching out something mean other than making an object flat?

2. What does the metaphor about the earth being above the waters mean?

3. In what sense is the round earth metaphorically stretched out so that it is metaphorically above the waters?

If you were the metaphorical believer, then this post would seem to be saying that the metaphorical understanding of this passage is that the earth is flat.

But we know that isn't the truth. We know that in the reality of what is, that the earth is not flat. So, you must then believe that the Scriptures contain error in what they tell us about things. Your claim is that this passage metaphorically understood would be telling us that the earth is flat. But we know that it isn't.

So, there are only 2 options. 1) the Scriptures are not correct in what they tell us about things either understood as literal truth or understood metaphorically. 2) You don't understand what the Scriptures are telling us.

Maybe I've missed an option. If there is another option, please post it and then tell us which option fits your understanding of the Scriptures.

You wrote:

As I understand your answer, you consider (B) above to apply to the passages on the flat earth.

Well, that's if I were to agree that the passages in question do actually describe a flat earth. Personally, I can understand that a spherical earth can be referred to as having four corners. Being stretched out. Or as a circle.

As regards your quote of psalm 136:6 it's going to depend on what translation you read and really how the Hebrew word from which 'over', 'upon' or 'on' is translated from should be translated. However, in reality, all of the land mass of the earth is above the waters of the sea except for some very few places such as New Orleans, LA and some of the Dutch nations and the area of the dead sea. So, here to, we need to gain understanding of what the word translated as 'earth' means to convey. Does it reference the globe of the earth planet or does it represent the dirt surface of the planet which is also called earth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuasavedme]

To see whether this is the case, one of the first questions can be Did the Hebrews themselves think that the earth was flat like the other Mesopotamian civilizations of their era did? After all, nowadays few except a flat geocentricism system, but we still sometimes say figuratively that the sun rises.

To answer that, consider that many times the Bible, figuratively or not, speaks of a flat earth, but never says that the earth is a sphere.

The Word of God most certainly states the earth is a globe.
The Hebrew word "תֵּבֵל " is transliterated tebel, and the "BL" elements mean a swelling, and some words come to us in English out of the Hebrew elements are ball, bell, bulb, belly, belicose, balloon, globe, global, and so on. Hebrew root elements have a meaning that does not change with the confounding of the mother tongue at Babel. Edenics by Isaac Mozeson teach how to trace words back to the Hebrew/Edenic mother tongue.
In a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls English translation the word is translated "globe" several times by the translators.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Abraham never worshiped pagan deities and was only 58 when Noah died. Shem outlived Abraham and Abraham lived with Noah and Shem from age 10 to about 49, learning the ways and laws of the LORD from those who came through the flood.

Abraham did not come from a city which is called "UR/fire/s" in tradition, but was delivered out of the fire/s of the Kasdim, Abraham was a Syrian, says the Bible, whose father was a high army general in Nimrod's army and like a father to the young Nimrod [says the Word]. They dwelt in or near Damascus, which is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world.
After the tower of Babel was destroyed, Nimrod built four cities and named them after the happenings at the destruction of the tower. "Babylon" on the Euphrates was not one of the cities that Nimrod built, and Nimrod named one city Babel, but that was not Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. The city being built with the tower was never built anymore again. The Bible says they ceased building the city and the tower. It is somewhere two days walk east of Damascus -or a near to it city- and is on a plain. But as one third of the tower remained a ruin, and the city is a ruin, it probably is not recognizable today, although Josephus said it was visited in his day, still.
The third of the tower that remained after the bottom third was swallowed into the earth and the top was destroyed totally by fire from heaven, took three days to walk around the base of -75 miles around the base??

God delivered Abraham/Abram from the fires of the Kasdim/Chaldees, when Nimrod had him thrown in the fire of the city [a big brick kiln [they probably made the bricks there that were taken to build the tower and city] Abraham and his brother, Haran, were thrown in the fire because Abraham destroyed his fathe's false gods -twelve of them [for the months]. That was after returning to live with his father in [probably] Damascus or a nearby city, after the tower was destroyed and the tongues divided -of the 70 tribes of that time.
Abram was well taught, and never believed such stuff as is listed in the opening post....Not even Nimrod/Amraphael believed all that....


http://www.speakingbible.com/jasher/index.htm
http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/real.htm

If you want to learn history about those times read the Real Book of Jasher [not a pseudo jasher, of which there are two or three], which is a history book that correlates with Scripture and tells the stories of the Patriarchs and their times.
One of the four kings Abraham chased with his home grown army and put to rout to get back all the kings had stolen from Sodom and the cities of the plain was Amraphael. Amraphael was Nimrod, who was called that after the people fell, because of him, at the tower, for "Am Rapha El" means "in him/el , they/the people/am fell/rapha.
Abraham chased them back up to west of Damascus, where Nimrod still dwelt. Abraham was 49 when the tower fell and was about 70 when he routed the kings.

 

[rakovsky]

The Word of God most certainly states the earth is a globe.
The Hebrew word "תֵּבֵל " is transliterated tebel, and the "BL" elements mean a swelling,

The Hebrew etymological studies I found for tebel say that the root word means mixing or flowing, referring to the moisture flowing on the earth.

See for example Strong's dictionary on tebel. See also:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/b/b-l-l.html#.Vz5wIJ_D_qA

בלל יבל

The two root-verbs בלל (bll) and יבל (ybl) both have to do with a flowing or a conveying. Officially they're not related but their forms are certainly adjacent, and they produce similar derivations:

....

• The masculine noun יובל (yobel) or יבל (yobel), literally meaning "a carrier" or "a producer". It may denote a trumpet, i.e. ram's horn (Exodus 19:13, Joshua 6:5), but it may also denote the principle of Jubilee (because no, the year of Jubilee was not the year of the ram's horn, a ram's horn was a producer; Leviticus 25:13, Numbers 36:4).

• The adjective יבל (yabbal), meaning running, in the sense of a running (suppurating) sore (Leviticus 22:22).

• The masculine noun אובל ('ubal), meaning stream or river (Daniel 8:2-6 only; in reference to the river Ulai).

• The feminine noun תבל (tebel), meaning world or land, probably primarily to be understood in the sense of its flows and currents; the economy, whether the natural or the financial one (Isaiah 24:4, Job 37:12, 2 Samuel 22:16). This word tebel is one of two regular words for world; the other is ארץ ('eres). In Isaiah 14:17 תבל (tebel) is used once as a masculine noun.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Tubal.html#.Vz50gOSAk60

None of them found that the fact that the earth flows with water means that the whole planet must be in the form of a sphere, anymore than a plot of land or sandbox with flowing water must be in the form of a sphere.

and some words come to us in English out of the Hebrew elements are ball, bell, bulb, belly, belicose, balloon, globe, global, and so on. Hebrew root elements have a meaning that does not change with the confounding of the mother tongue at Babel.

Hmmm this sounds like saying that English table and Hebrew tebel can be traced back to the same root, proposing that both have flat tops and are held up by pillars.

Meanwhile, a "belly", a "bell," and some models of the flat earth(tebel) "bulge" and "swell" updward, but none of the three bulges all the way around into a "ball".

Anyway, the root meaning of "tebel" is not "bulge" or "swell", but "flow" as the Hebrew language studies show.

If Mozeson's hypothesis is right, then "yabel" and "tebel" refer to flowing, I could see how this eventually became not just the basis for the word Earth in Hebrew with flowing water, but also for the Germanic base word "balig", meaning swelling, and that "belly" and "balloon" come from balig, swelling. Still, the hypothesis that Hebrew tebel (flowing, earth), Hebrew "ubal" (river) and belly in English and balloon come from the same base word (flowing) does not mean that they are all referring to spherical objects, as for example a stream (ubal) is not spherical.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The four corners of the earth are the four quarters, and the extremes of them. They are North, East, South, and West.

 

[SkyWriting]

A common view in ancient Mesopotamia was that the earth was flat.

People "commonly" imply the earth is flat today with the way they describe
the world. Sometimes I wonder, which direction is really east?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The Hebrew etymological studies I found for tebel say that the root word means mixing or flowing, referring to the moisture flowing on the earth.

....

Strong did very well, and is much help, labored for years -and I thank God for him, but he did not have some needed information which is available in these times and he missed several words that I know of -and there are many more, I'm sure.
He missed "Amraphael" which is the three Hebrew words used to describe the fall of the people at the tower by Nimrod's hand. He missed the root words for Miriam, which are myrh and people: Jochebed named her "bitter people" because they had begun to be oppressed after Joseph's death, and it had worsened to the point they were now not blessed in Egypt, but "bitter people".
There are others, which I don't want to think to remember ones Ive noticed, right now....too much work...

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello, Ted.
There are three common views among Christians on this kind of topic:
(A) Everything that is described in the Bible about the design of Creation like the story in Genesis 1 is factually correct

(B) The Bible is factually correct whenever the authors intended to describe things factually, but when it comes to the design of the Cosmos, the writers intended things allegorically or metaphorically.

(C) Not everything in the Bible is factually correct that the authors intended as factual, and yet the Bible's passages contain spiritual Truth.

And so to get a better answer on this question, one of the topics I looked at is the issue of the flat earth. As I understand your answer, you consider (B) above to apply to the passages on the flat earth. If those passages are allegorical or metaphorical, then we should normally be able to understand and explain the metaphors. For example, you mentioned how in Law, there are "pillars", referring to principles, because they support or make up the basics of Law. This, what you said, is a good example of how metaphors work.

So let's turn to Psalm 104:5 "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
1. I suppose that the earth's "foundations" would be a metaphor for the hard material that is underneath the earth's crust.

2. What does the metaphor mean that the earth can never "shake"? After all, there are earthquakes that shake the earth locally. Since it's a round sphere floating unattached in space, the whole earth could shake or moved slightly off its current orbit if it gets hit with a large enough object like a comet.

Let's turn next to the verses about stretching out the earth. Flat objects are "stretched out", although spheres can be stretched out into becoming flat objects that are no longer spherical.

Psalm 136:6 says "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters"
1. What does the metaphorical expression of stretching out something mean other than making an object flat?

2. What does the metaphor about the earth being above the waters mean?

3. In what sense is the round earth metaphorically stretched out so that it is metaphorically above the waters?

There is absolutely no indication that the ancient Hebrews were just using what we would call figures of speech here, and every reason to believe that they meant these statements to be taken literally.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The Hebrew etymological studies I found for tebel say that the root word means mixing or flowing, referring to the moisture flowing on the earth.

See for example Strong's dictionary on tebel. See also:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/b/b-l-l.html#.Vz5wIJ_D_qA


http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Tubal.html#.Vz50gOSAk60

None of them found that the fact that the earth flows with water means that the whole planet must be in the form of a sphere, anymore than a plot of land or sandbox with flowing water must be in the form of a sphere.
Hmmm this sounds like saying that English table and Hebrew tebel can be traced back to the same root, proposing that both have flat tops and are held up by pillars.

Meanwhile, a "belly", a "bell," and some models of the flat earth(tebel) "bulge" and "swell" updward, but none of the three bulges all the way around into a "ball".

Anyway, the root meaning of "tebel" is not "bulge" or "swell", but "flow" as the Hebrew language studies show.

If Mozeson's hypothesis is right, then "yabel" and "tebel" refer to flowing, I could see how this eventually became not just the basis for the word Earth in Hebrew with flowing water, but also for the Germanic base word "balig", meaning swelling, and that "belly" and "balloon" come from balig, swelling. Still, the hypothesis that Hebrew tebel (flowing, earth), Hebrew "ubal" (river) and belly in English and balloon come from the same base word (flowing) does not mean that they are all referring to spherical objects, as for example a stream (ubal) is not spherical.

From Mozeson I got the "BL" elements for the words which do describe the swelling....tebel is translated globe in DSS.
The word "earth" was the name God gave "the dry" which He commanded to appear when He commanded the waters to be gathered together in one place and the dry to appear.
He called the waters "seas/yam", and the dry He called "earth/Eretz".

 

[rakovsky]

Dear Ted,

Hi rakovsky,

Psalm 136:6 says "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters"
1. What does the metaphorical expression of stretching out something mean other than making an object flat?

2. What does the metaphor about the earth being above the waters mean?

3. In what sense is the round earth metaphorically stretched out so that it is metaphorically above the waters?

Personally, I can understand that a spherical earth can be referred to as having four corners. Being stretched out.

As regards your quote of psalm 136:6 it's going to depend on what translation you read and really how the Hebrew word from which 'over', 'upon' or 'on' is translated from should be translated. However, in reality, all of the land mass of the earth is above the waters of the sea except for some very few places such as New Orleans, LA and some of the Dutch nations and the area of the dead sea. So, here to, we need to gain understanding of what the word translated as 'earth' means to convey. Does it reference the globe of the earth planet or does it represent the dirt surface of the planet which is also called earth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

1. Would you be able to please explain how use see a spherical earth being referred to literally or metaphorically as "being stretched out"?

2. It sounds like you are saying that the earth is above the waters in the sense that it is at a higher elevation and that earth means ground, or dirt surface. i understand, because even in English, earth can mean ground, as in "the drill dug into a thousand feet of earth (ground)".
If so, then how deep does the ground go? Since we know today that there is ground even at the bottom of the ocean, does this mean that the solid ground exposed to the air, say in Montana or China, goes deeper than the ocean?

As you can see, the earth's mantle goes quite deep before it reaches the liquid metal in the earth.
"The mantle lies between the core below and the crust above. The terrestrial planets (Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury), the Moon, two of Jupiter's moons (Io and Europa) and the asteroid Vesta each have a mantle made of silicate rock". (Wikipedia)

The earth's crust is also deeper than the oceans, and the portion below the oceans is called the "oceanic crust".

"Lithosphere,
Rigid, rocky outer layer of the Earth, consisting of the crust and the solid outermost layer of the upper mantle. It extends to a depth of about 60 mi (100 km). It is broken into about a dozen separate, rigid blocks, or plates (see plate tectonics)."
http://www.britannica.com/science/lithosphere

Please see also:

So this leads to 3. In what sense metaphorically or literally is the spherical earth or ground "stretched out" to make it either "above" or higher than the waters?


If you wish to propose that the waters do not refer to the above ground oceans but rather to subterranean oceans, I should tell you that such a theory of underground oceans is proposed by some advocates of a flat earth and a ball earth alike.

See eg. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...-ocean-deep-beneath-surface-180950090/?no-ist

Thus if you want to read the verse as teaching underground oceans, I don't see your reading as contradicted by the passage or at this point even necessarily by modern science. As such, feel free to move on to the other passage from the Bible I asked about earlier:

Psalm 104:5 "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
1. I suppose that the earth's "foundations" would be a metaphor for the hard material that is underneath the earth's crust?

2. What does the metaphor mean that the earth can never "shake"? After all, there are earthquakes that shake the earth locally. Since it's a round sphere floating unattached in space, the whole earth could shake or moved slightly off its current orbit if it gets hit with a large enough object like a comet.

 

[rakovsky]

From Mozeson I got the "BL" elements for the words which do describe the swelling....tebel is translated globe in DSS.

Swelling is the Germanic base meaning.
Flowing is the Hebrew base meaning as shown by many Hebrew grammar books and usages.

DSS cannot say globe, but only tebel, because DSS is in Hebrew. Only A TRANSLATION of the DSS could say otherwise. What translation of the DSS says GLOBE and why are our English translations of the Bible wrong when they do not say globe?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Noted.

Help me with this though. Does the bible mention the East, West, North, and South anywhere?

(Constrained from searching online right now)

Sent from my HTC D816w using Tapatalk

Yes.
Also, the Book of Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam, gave the cosmology of the heavens and you'll find that is the foundation book for references to those in the Bible.
Enoch is canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

The sun always rises in the east, from any point you are at upon the globe. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The sun begins the year rising in the east at Spring equinox at the center of/the navel of the earth:.God calls Israel the navel of the earth, so the beginning point of this earth is, as the Jewish sages wrote, Jerusalem, or that land that would be Jerusalem and Israel.
So the year has a beginning and the east means -or did mean, " first" The beginning of the religious year and the beginning point of the civil year is the spring and the fall equinox, measured from the "navel" of the earth.....that's His calculations and His calendar for earth, though men have gone astray from it.
- but the eastern point moves as the sun moves around the globe, traversing it's path in the circle of the revolving heavens.
So east and west never meet, BUT! God quarters it out from His "navel".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Swelling is the Germanic base meaning.
Flowing is the Hebrew base meaning as shown by many Hebrew grammar books and usages.

DSS cannot say globe, but only tebel, because DSS is in Hebrew. Only A TRANSLATION of the DSS could say otherwise. What translation of the DSS says GLOBE and why are our English translations of the Bible wrong when they do not say globe?

They could say "globe", for world, translated from tebel. Strong does give globe as one meaning of tebel.
Would have saved some confusion if they had.
Yes, in the final battle in the DSS, the war spans the globe.