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

[DamianWarS]

Isaiah 40:22 uses the word chuwg. It means (1) Circle (2) Compass (3) Circuit

A circle is round. The compass here is not the instrument as flat earthers think it is. The compass in this word is the circumference. Then there is the word circuit which means to move in a circle. This is rotation. In Greek the word is gyros and rotation is a major part of that word definition. You need to study Hebrew and Greek before you can become a master in theology. Simply reading in English and from bad translations does not quite provide the reader a very defining read. When you read Psalm 90:2 in Hebrew you read about a globe earth that rotates. That is what the Hebrew tells us.

the parent root of this word is Strongs 2282 (Chag) or simply CG (2 characters). it means "a festival gathering, feast, pilgrim feast" so how can the word "circle" come from the word for feast?

the characters used are Het and Gam and in pictograph form, they depict a wall (tent wall) and a foot. the wall can represent a concept of "outside" and the foot represents a concept of walking or gathering. Combined this means "outside gathering". an outside gathering such as a festival is usually in a circle form with a focal point and everyone gathered around it or encircling it. The word chuwg (CWG) adds the character "waw". and it's a pictograph of a tent peg and can mean something secured, hooked or held in place. A compass tool in simple form can be a stick (or tent peg) with a rope tied to it and using that fixed-length you can draw a circle around the tent peg. This is the root of the word "circle" in hebrew. (the actual compass instrument is strongs 4230 but it's child root is chuwg)

so when scripture speaks of a "circle of the earth" or in Job "circle of heaven" these are the concepts that are invoked. This is not a concept of a sphere or something rotating. The KJV has used compass and since this word is so interconnected to the Hebrew meaning it's a close match but even better perhaps is "encompass" and as a noun "encompassment". encompassment is a fairly abstract word over circle which is a concrete word. certainly there can be an argument that the innate concreteness of the text should be preserved so we should keep circle but encompass or a word like encircle shows this concept of gathering around something forming a loose circular shape. This is the circle of the earth or the circle of heaven, a gathering of land or sky around a focal point.

Greek may introduce other ideas but we are not talking about Greek so I'm not sure why you're leaning upon the Greek words. Each layer of translation will introduce new ideas which I'm sure you can agree with. Hebrew is a very concrete language whereas Greek is an abstract language and English is far more abstract than Greek. We can't allow ourselves to be governed by these abstract concepts unfamiliar to the time this text was written in because we like the words better or they fit our point better.

An extremely abstract thinker of the day may be able to visualize a compass set where he stands and a circle drawn around it to form the boundaries of the earth but then understand that as you move those boundaries increase ever still. then visualize how all of that get's put together and perhaps visualize how a sphere would fit this model but I'm afraid the Hebrews were not those people (and such an idea would probably get him stoned). saying the hebrew word for "circle" invokes Hebrew concepts, not abstract Greek and English concepts that you're superimposing over the text. I fully agree the Greek/English has more abstract meanings that perhaps better fit a sphere or a model of the earth rotating but the text is not Greek or English is it? So why are we using foreign words and concepts to explain Hebrew? Why not just use Hebrew?

 

[Ragdoll]

the parent root of this word is Strongs 2282 (Chag) or simply CG (2 characters). it means "a festival gathering, feast, pilgrim feast" so how can the word "circle" come from the word for feast?

the characters used are Het and Gam and in pictograph form, they depict a wall (tent wall) and a foot. the wall can represent a concept of "outside" and the foot represents a concept of walking or gathering. Combined this means "outside gathering". an outside gathering such as a festival is usually in a circle form with a focal point and everyone gathered around it or encircling it. The word chuwg (CWG) adds the character "waw". and it's a pictograph of a tent peg and can mean something secured, hooked or held in place. A compass tool in simple form can be a stick (or tent peg) with a rope tied to it and using that fixed-length you can draw a circle around the tent peg. This is the root of the word "circle" in hebrew. (the actual compass instrument is strongs 4230 but it's child root is chuwg)

so when scripture speaks of a "circle of the earth" or in Job "circle of heaven" these are the concepts that are invoked. This is not a concept of a sphere or something rotating. The KJV has used compass and since this word is so interconnected to the Hebrew meaning it's a close match but even better perhaps is "encompass" and as a noun "encompassment". encompassment is a fairly abstract word over circle which is a concrete word. certainly there can be an argument that the innate concreteness of the text should be preserved so we should keep circle but encompass or a word like encircle shows this concept of gathering around something forming a loose circular shape. This is the circle of the earth or the circle of heaven, a gathering of land or sky around a focal point.

Greek may introduce other ideas but we are not talking about Greek so I'm not sure why you're leaning upon the Greek words. Each layer of translation will introduce new ideas which I'm sure you can agree with. Hebrew is a very concrete language whereas Greek is an abstract language and English is far more abstract than Greek. We can't allow ourselves to be governed by these abstract concepts unfamiliar to the time this text was written in because we like the words better or they fit our point better.

An extremely abstract thinker of the day may be able to visualize a compass set where he stands and a circle drawn around it to form the boundaries of the earth but then understand that as you move those boundaries increase ever still. then visualize how all of that get's put together and perhaps visualize how a sphere would fit this model but I'm afraid the Hebrews were not those people (and such an idea would probably get him stoned). saying the hebrew word for "circle" invokes Hebrew concepts, not abstract Greek and English concepts that you're superimposing over the text. I fully agree the Greek/English has more abstract meanings that perhaps better fit a sphere or a model of the earth rotating but the text is not Greek or English is it? So why are we using foreign words and concepts to explain Hebrew? Why not just use Hebrew?

Why not just use Hebrew? Well its not really a matter of which to use. Hebrew is the original language of the OT. But the oldest and most widely used OT is the Greek Septuagint which was the OT that Jesus and His Apostles read. The LXX also better reflects on what the much older Hebrew manuscripts actually said. Sure, there is a word or two that would not find a happy equivalent. But chuwg was not one of those words!

Fortunately, root words only go so far. A root word does not define a Hebrew word. Chuwg means chuwg and nothing else. It's H2328 and H2329 and no other word. It means globe and that's also how the ancients understood it. So here's the issue here: I have ancient witnesses and modern scholar who agree with my position here. You only have modern liberal scholars who agree with you. Now think about that and let it soak in.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Here again you are not answering my question with a real answer. Let me try again: What exactly was the light source that God created in Genesis 1:3? That light God created was not Himself. The light God created was a finite light made for the earth. What was that light?

I already answered your question.
Genesis 1:3 light source was His Word, spoken.
Genesis 1:3 light is named Day.

The sun was made on day 4 to govern that light by Day.
The Light called into being by His Word spoken on day 1 of creation week makes a complete circle of the globe/earth once each day, following the Darkness/Night.
The Sun made on day 4 of creation week governs that Light.

 

[DamianWarS]

But the oldest and most widely used OT is the Greek Septuagint which was the OT that Jesus and His Apostles read

Older than Hebrew?

The LXX also better reflects on what the much older Hebrew manuscripts actually said

better than the original itself?

...that's also how the ancients understood it.

source?

 

[Arctangent]

There were ancient people and peoples who deduced through observation that the Earth is a sphere, a calculated its dimensions fairly accurately.

Nonetheless, "sphericalness" is not part of our day-to-day human experience, even now. We speak of a spherical Earth because we learn about it and hear about it often, but we don't go outside and experience sphericalness. Our *experience* is the land stretches out in all directions as far as we can see.

As Fr Stephen De Young is fond of saying, Scripture does not make scientific and historical *claims*. Rather, Scripture is telling the story of a people, and telling it through the lens of that people's perspective. Scripture speaks of a flat Earth with four corners, because in telling the story of a people, that people experienced the world that way, and we experience it the same way.

 

[Arctangent]

Older than Hebrew?



better than the original itself?

"Original" doesn't mean much, as we have no originals. The Hebrew that forms the basis of most translations (Masoretic) is 1000 years old at the oldest. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are 2000+ years old, tend to agree more often with the Greek translation than with existing Hebrew Masoretic texts (although it sometimes favors the Masoretic).

 

[DamianWarS]

"Original" doesn't mean much, as we have no originals. The Hebrew that forms the basis of most translations (Masoretic) is 1000 years old at the oldest. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are 2000+ years old, tend to agree more often with the Greek translation than with existing Hebrew Masoretic texts (although it sometimes favors the Masoretic).

of course, there are no originals with Greek or Hebrew but it's no secret Orthodox favor the Greek reading of the OT and I'm certainly not going to change that perspective but I respect the position given the history.

In this case, Greek is being used to push a specific point about a text the Hebrew doesn't support and feels agenda-driven and exploitive which I do not respect.

I'm curious what an Orthodox's position is on Job 38:14? Does it speak of a spherical earth rotating around the sun?

 

[Ragdoll]

Older than Hebrew?



better than the original itself?


source?

No, that's not what I said. The LXX best reflects what the much older Hebrew intended. All the oldest manuscripts agree more often with the LXX than the much later Masoretic Text. Among these ancient manuscripts is the Dead Sea Scrolls which agree more often with the LXX than they do the Masoretic Text. The LXX was translated from much older Hebrew manuscripts before the Sanhedrin decided to alter the text to prevent more Jews from coming to Christ.

This video is a fine example of the accuracy of the LXX over the MT

 

[Ragdoll]

I already answered your question.
Genesis 1:3 light source was His Word, spoken.
Genesis 1:3 light is named Day.

The sun was made on day 4 to govern that light by Day.
The Light called into being by His Word spoken on day 1 of creation week makes a complete circle of the globe/earth once each day, following the Darkness/Night.
The Sun made on day 4 of creation week governs that Light.

Well your answer does not harmonize with Gen.1:4-5. The light was something God created. That light made verses 4-5 possible. God created the physical world in Genesis 1. There is nothing figurative about the chapter.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Well your answer does not harmonize with Gen.1:4-5. The light was something God created. That light made verses 4-5 possible. God created the physical world in Genesis 1. There is nothing figurative about the chapter.

Your post makes no sense.
God spoke, called, the light called Day into being, out of darkness, on day 1.
That light did not exist before He called it "to be".

 

[Ragdoll]

Your post makes no sense.
God spoke, called, the light called Day into being, out of darkness, on day 1.
That light did not exist before He called it "to be".

I don't know how to break this down easier. The ancient church - the early church - understood Genesis 1:4-5 as the earth's first full rotation, marking the beginning of the day-night cycle. Genesis 1:3 must be understood as the cause of verses 4-5. In Genesis 1:2, the earth has no shape. In Genesis 1:4-5, the earth goes from shapeless to the rotating sphere. This is how the ancient church understood Genesis 1:4-5 and I'm going with the ancient church on this one. So verse 3 must make verses 4-5 possible.

Now, the day-night cycle is not finished on Day 1. On Day 4 the work on the day-night cycle finally sees fruition.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Why not just use Hebrew? Well its not really a matter of which to use. Hebrew is the original language of the OT. But the oldest and most widely used OT is the Greek Septuagint which was the OT that Jesus and His Apostles read. The LXX also better reflects on what the much older Hebrew manuscripts actually said. Sure, there is a word or two that would not find a happy equivalent. But chuwg was not one of those words!

Fortunately, root words only go so far. A root word does not define a Hebrew word. Chuwg means chuwg and nothing else. It's H2328 and H2329 and no other word. It means globe and that's also how the ancients understood it. So here's the issue here: I have ancient witnesses and modern scholar who agree with my position here. You only have modern liberal scholars who agree with you. Now think about that and let it soak in.

Not true.
Jesus' synagoue used the Hebrew Torah Scroll, as all of them did.
The copies of Hebrew Scriptures went with the Hebrews in their exiles. The Hebrews who went to Cush -Ethiopia, in exile long before there was even a Greek translation took their copies of the sacred writings with them, among which were the Books written by the prophet, Enoch, the 7th from Adam.
Enoch wrote the exact paths down which were shown him by the angiel Uriel, of the sun, moon and stars (constellations).

 

[Arctangent]

Not true.
Jesus' synagoue used the Hebrew Torah Scroll, as all of them did.
The copies of Hebrew Scriptures went with the Hebrews in their exiles. The Hebrews who went to Cush -Ethiopia, in exile long before there was even a Greek translation took their copies of the sacred writings with them, among which were the Books written by the prophet, Enoch, the 7th from Adam.
Enoch wrote the exact paths down which were shown him by the angiel Uriel, of the sun, moon and stars (constellations).

By the time of Christ and the Apostles, Greek was widely used in the synagogues, especially those outside of Judea. The story of Christ reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Galilee at the start of His ministry (Luke 4:14-30) indicates a Greek reading.

 

[Ragdoll]

Not true.
Jesus' synagoue used the Hebrew Torah Scroll, as all of them did.
The copies of Hebrew Scriptures went with the Hebrews in their exiles. The Hebrews who went to Cush -Ethiopia, in exile long before there was even a Greek translation took their copies of the sacred writings with them, among which were the Books written by the prophet, Enoch, the 7th from Adam.
Enoch wrote the exact paths down which were shown him by the angiel Uriel, of the sun, moon and stars (constellations).

The book of Enoch is classified as pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed writings). It was composed after the close of the Old Testament. It's not Scripture. Its not even Apocrypha. Its a fake. An ancient fake.

The Greek Septuagint is real good. It was translated from much older Hebrew manuscripts. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint more often than He did the (then) Hebrew. The Apostles quoted more often from the Septuagint than they did the (then) Hebrew manuscripts. Jewish historian Josephus quoted from the Septuagint more often than he did the (then) Hebrew manuscripts. The reason why they all quoted more from the Spetuagint than the Hebrrew is because the Septuagint best reflected on what the much older Hebrew intended. Also, Greek was common among Jews after the Greek conquered them. So 72 Jewish priests translated the Hebrew into Greek.

The New Testament is written in Greek because during the time of Jesus, Greek was common language. I've seen others on this forum also address this very issue but people just willingly ignore those posts.

 

[Arctangent]

The book of Enoch is classified as pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed writings). It was composed after the close of the Old Testament. It's not Scripture. Its not even Apocrypha. Its a fake. An ancient fake.

The Greek Septuagint is real good. It was translated from much older Hebrew manuscripts. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint more often than He did the (then) Hebrew. The Apostles quoted more often from the Septuagint than they did the (then) Hebrew manuscripts. Jewish historian Josephus quoted from the Septuagint more often than he did the (then) Hebrew manuscripts. The reason why they all quoted more from the Spetuagint than the Hebrrew is because the Septuagint best reflected on what the much older Hebrew intended. Also, Greek was common among Jews after the Greek conquered them. So 72 Jewish priests translated the Hebrew into Greek.

The New Testament is written in Greek because during the time of Jesus, Greek was common language. I've seen others on this forum also address this very issue but people just willingly ignore those posts.

The LXX was also highly respected and was seen as equal to the Hebrew texts. It was viewed *as Scripture*, not simply a translation of Scripture.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

By the time of Christ and the Apostles, Greek was widely used in the synagogues, especially those outside of Judea. The story of Christ reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Galilee at the start of His ministry (Luke 4:14-30) indicates a Greek reading.

Josephus wrote from the time just after the destruction of the temple, and he said something to the effect of "it was an abomination to read other than Hebrew Torah in the Hebrew synagogues".
Jesus spoke Hebrew in Jerusalem and all Israel, as Israel did.
That is fact.
Jesus spoke Hebrew to Paul on the Damascus road. Paul spoke Hebrew.
Pilate had Jesus' "crime" (according to the Hebrews) written over Jesus hanging on the cross, in 3 languages: HEBREW, Latin, and
greek, it read: "Jesus of Nazereth, King of the Jews.
The first letters of it in Hebrew spell YHVH!
that really made the priests mad!
THE INSCRIPTION AT THE CROSS

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The book of Enoch is classified as pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed writings). It was composed after the close of the Old Testament. It's not Scripture.

Jesus called it Scripture (as in sacred), and used the foundations laid in Enoch for his Gospel.
Moses used those foundations laid once.
All the prophets did, because once laid, there is no second laying.

 

[Ragdoll]

Jesus called it Scripture (as in sacred), and used the foundations laid in Enoch for his Gospel.
Moses used those foundations laid once.
All the prophets did, because once laid, there is no second laying.

Jesus never called Enoch Gospel. The Epistle of Jude quotes from the first chapter of Enoch and that quotation is also found in another Book of the Old Testament, worded a little different but same concept. Enoch is not found in the Septuagint and any Book not found in the Septuagint is not Scripture. For the Septuagint was translated from much older Hebrew manuscripts no longer existent today. Those older Hebrew manuscripts used to translate the Septuagint did not have Enoch.

And whatever the book of Enoch was back in the 1st century, is no longer that today. Its not Canonical.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Jesus never called Enoch Gospel...

You made a claim that I did not make.
Ascribing to me what you said is really very bad.
Jesus called Enoch "Scripture".
Mat 22:29

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures…
Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
In the beginning of the book of Enoch, Enoch went to heaven to intercede for the fallen watchers, who had taken an oath to curse themselves and never again enter into their first estate in heaven, but to remain on earth and marry daughters of Adam and get offspring.
They were sorry, later, and asked Enoch to intercede…God, the GREAT Glory, in heaven, told Enoch to tell the watchers ….”they were never to marry in heaven (they knew that) and everything for their happiness was provided in heaven” (my paraphrase), AND HE gave Enoch their irreversible damnation.
Then, towards the end of Enoch, God the Great Glory told Enoch several prophecies, and one was that in heaven, the righteous would be companions of, and like the angels, forever.

 

[Ragdoll]

You made a claim that I did not make.
Ascribing to me what you said is really very bad.
Jesus called Enoch "Scripture".
Mat 22:29

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures…
Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
In the beginning of the book of Enoch, Enoch went to heaven to intercede for the fallen watchers, who had taken an oath to curse themselves and never again enter into their first estate in heaven, but to remain on earth and marry daughters of Adam and get offspring.
They were sorry, later, and asked Enoch to intercede…God, the GREAT Glory, in heaven, told Enoch to tell the watchers ….”they were never to marry in heaven (they knew that) and everything for their happiness was provided in heaven” (my paraphrase), AND HE gave Enoch their irreversible damnation.
Then, towards the end of Enoch, God the Great Glory told Enoch several prophecies, and one was that in heaven, the righteous would be companions of, and like the angels, forever.

There is nothing in Mat 22:29 where Jesus says the book of Enoch is Scripture. Anyways, I reject the book of Enoch as Scripture. I reject the book of Enoch as Apocrypha. Enoch is classified as pseudepigrapha. The book of Enoch was never in the Greek Septuagint. If the book was Canonical then it would have been included in the LXX for sure.