The Bible!

The Scripture is found at Isaiah 40:22.  You can see below some what is says and some other bible translations of the scripture.


And where did the Bible stand on this issue? In the eighth century B.C.E., when the prevailing view was that the earth was flat, centuries before Greek philosophers theorized that the earth likely was spherical, and thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated "circle," may also be rendered "sphere."3 Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."—Moffatt.

Also Job 26:7 speaks about the earth being hung upon nothing (Gravety/Space).

 7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it proper to use Isaiah 40:22 to prove that the Bible teaches that the earth is round, Isaiah’s words being written at a time when men thought the earth was flat? Some have expressed the thought that the word "circle" could refer to something circular but flat.—J. L., Denmark.

Isaiah 40:22 reads: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." When this text says that God sits above the circle of the earth, this harmonizes with the fact that the earth is circular, viewed from all directions, but that also makes it globular in form. The Hebrew word hhug here is defined in A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson as "circle, sphere."

This same Hebrew word for circle is found in Job 22:14, where the New World Translation says of God: "On the vault of heaven he walks about." Now, we know that the vault of heaven as seen from the earth is hemispherical, or like a half globe. The other half of the hemispherical vault of heaven extends below the earth upon which we stand and hence cannot be seen directly by us. In harmony with this fact, when Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth, then the word "circle" here is in the same Hebrew sense as that found in Job 22:14.

Thus it follows that the word "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 must mean something that is rotund, just as the appearance of the sky viewed from the earth is rotund and like a vault.





rotund
One entry found for rotund.
 

Main Entry: ro·tund
Pronunciation: rO-'t&nd, 'rO-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin rotundus, probably alteration of (assumed) Old Latin retundus; akin to Latin rota wheel -- more at ROLL
1 : marked by roundness : ROUNDED
2 : marked by fullness of sound or cadence : OROTUND, SONOROUS <a master of rotund phrase>
3 : notably plump : CHUBBY
- ro·tun·di·ty  /rO-'t&n-d&-tE/ noun
- ro·tund·ly  /-'t&nd-lE, 'rO-"/ adverb
- ro·tund·ness  /rO-'t&n(d)-n&s, 'rO-"/ noun

:?:

Because the bible was wrtten decades after when Jesus supposedly lived, by people of their time whose thoughts were guided by the theories of the time. The bible is no more reliable as a science tract than Herodotus' sea monster claims.

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated "circle," may also be rendered "sphere."3 Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."—Moffatt.

 7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing"

You really expect us to take seriously a book that talks about a God living around in space, and Heaven as a place floating around above the earth.  

If that was the case, does heaven completely enclose the earth, or just the parts above His chosen ones?  

At best heaven and the dwelling of God use above as a metaphor for an existance beyond the reach of physical man.  Or does God move every time we extend the reach of our space program.

So by stating that you do nto believe in god, you are admitting in millions of years, we will all die because of A) continental plates faalling off the earth, or B) the sun exploding

so then what is the purpose of life might i ask

I'm an atheist and proud of it. I am also a nilhilist, so my opinion is that there is no purpoise to life. No magical afterlife, there's just the brief life you lead, then you die.

That's my view.

So by stating that you do nto believe in god, you are admitting in millions of years, we will all die because of A) continental plates faalling off the earth, or B) the sun exploding

so then what is the purpose of life might i ask

To dance the best dance you can.

To live and learn and experience.

If you believe in the RE, then why wouldn't we find a way off this earth, and build our home out there someplce in the millions of years left to us.

If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?  They would all have to go south, if they go east or west then they just go around in a circle (much like on the round earth.  If they drift south they might hit the ice wall, making the conspiracy really hard put to hide it.

So by stating that you do nto believe in god, you are admitting in millions of years, we will all die because of A) continental plates faalling off the earth, or B) the sun exploding

so then what is the purpose of life might i ask

And before your posting, no one said they didn't believe in god, just not in the Bible.

I for one believe in a plethera of them, but no book can do them justice, nor is my faith bound to any single tome.

And before your posting, no one said they didn't believe in god, just not in the Bible.

I for one believe in a plethera of them, but no book can do them justice, nor is my faith bound to any single tome.

The bible is gods word, if you dont belive in the bible you might aswell not believe in god.

as in regards to, "im egnostic, were all gonna die" or wutever you said, then the creation of the planet earth was flawed and there is no evidemce as to why, out of all these planets, earth was the only flat one is retarded. we see the other planets arent flat. the only explanation to the flat earth theory is that GOD created it that way. and if you dont beleive in god then there is no reason to beleive in a flat earth

The bible is gods word, if you dont belive in the bible you might aswell not believe in god.

Huh? I think I'm actually hearing this for the very first time. So you are saying that one can not believe in a god without believing in the Bible? So everyone but Christians are atheists? And if I prove to you that the Bible is self-contradictory or that it was written by humans, you will automatically stop believing in God?

Not bad.

as in regards to, "im egnostic, were all gonna die" or wutever you said, then the creation of the planet earth was flawed and there is no evidemce as to why, out of all these planets, earth was the only flat one is retarded.

How many non-flat planets have you actually seen yourself? I don't think anyone has claimed that Earth is the only flat planet.

the only explanation to the flat earth theory is that GOD created it that way.

Why? I don't see a reason why a flat Earth must have been created by god(s).

If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

The Scripture is found at Isaiah 40:22.  You can see below some what is says and some other bible translations of the scripture.

I wonder why no one will reply to my argument here?

Based on the example above, I propose the following addition to the FAQ:

Q: Why has nobody answered the question I posted 30 minutes ago???
A: Because the people who post here have a life outside this message board and are not full-time message board employees who get paid for being on-call 24 hours a day to answer your question within less than an hour.


After all, this seems to be the most frequently asked question here.

Quote from: "Doubter"

If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

Luke_smith64 : Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:27 am

The bible is gods word, if you dont belive in the bible you might aswell not believe in god.

Which Bible? Even the typical "Old Test"s don't agree, and vary greatly from the Torah, which they are supposed to be derived from.

How about the books that were not included?  Do you understand the history behind the Bible?  How it was composed and compiled?

And don't even get me started about the translations....

you admit that the wording is ambiguous.  It could mean circle or sphere.  you  decided which translation to accept, which "Expert" to listen to.  for thousands of years, that's how it has gone.  First the torah, then the bibles, people chose what words to accept, which writtings to include.

One can believe in Jehovah, without believing in "The Bible", One can believe in Christ, without accepting the Bible as the absolute truth, just ask any Moslem.

Any Many of us beleive in a Divinity that isn't limited to Jehovah.  Am I Godless because I believe in something different than you?

</soapbox>  

If the people who post on this site relied only on belief, there wouln't be much to talk about.  What is the differenc ebetween saying "I believe in God, and he made the world <Round/Flat/Trapiziod/whatever>" and "I believe the world is <...>"  it's not about belief, or truth, or reality,  can you support your beleif with supportable facts and will illustraited theories?

Huh? I think I'm actually hearing this for the very first time. So you are saying that one can not believe in a god without believing in the Bible? So everyone but Christians are atheists? And if I prove to you that the Bible is self-contradictory or that it was written by humans, you will automatically stop believing in God?

It WAS written by humans, inspired bu god

How many non-flat planets have you actually seen yourself? I don't think anyone has claimed that Earth is the only flat planet.

I have perosnally seen Mars through a high powered telescope in the Vancouver Space Museum, and i saw it was a circly in shape, and had the "man on the moon" effect with the shadows being cast by the light from the sun

Why? I don't see a reason why a flat Earth must have been created by god(s).

Objects that are created naturally in a vacum ar formed in a spherical shape, if you wanted your Flat earth to be created, it would have had to have been created by something

Q. Show me something created in space that is flat in shape.. and don't say UFO's

Doubter wrote:
If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

There is another forum I was diccussing this in where your FE was debating this with me, and the information you have given me here is totally refuting the "evidence" you had in the other post

I believe it was called "continental drift anyone?"

Quote

Doubter wrote:
If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

There is another forum I was diccussing this in where your FE was debating this with me, and the information you have given me here is totally refuting the "evidence" you had in the other post

I believe it was called "continental drift anyone?"

I haven't posted information there, All I did was state that if the world is coming to an end in a few million years and we can't get off of it by then, maybe we deserve to die out.

I have in several places posted about "Space" phenomina that are disk shaped, from Galaxies to planetary rings, even the solar system that RE's believe in in essentially a disk.  Nature only creates spheres when no other influence is added.

Take a molten globe, spin it slightly and it will start to flatten out, add tidal pull towards it's primary, and it should flatten more.  The faster the spin, and the stronger the tidal pull, the flatter it becomes.

thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace, if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace,

Held by what?  Skyhooks?

if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

I invite you to draw a picture of an object spinning in more than one direction in the absence of external forces.

Quote from: "Luke_smith64"

thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace,

Held by what?  Skyhooks?

Quote

if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

I invite you to draw a picture of an object spinning in more than one direction in the absence of external forces.

Do indulge me with your talk of Skyhooks Erasmus!

They do sound ever so delightful, and would perhapse make an excellent addition to the FAQ page!

As far as somthing rotaiting in more than one direction without an external force, I'd have to point out that the poster was perhapse speaking of a wavelike motion, somthing along the lines of spinning a coin on a table.

It is, of course, inherently impossible to spin in more than on direction at any given interval of time, and the only way to change course would indeed be by means of some external force.

Quote

Luke_smith64 wrote:
thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace,

Held by what? Skyhooks?

He was using an example of a globe, in the center of a globe there is a bar going through to hold it in place, and your answer skyhooks, only makes my point stronger. What is it held by? nothing...

Quote

Quote:
if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

I invite you to draw a picture of an object spinning in more than one direction in the absence of external forces.

if an object is spinning left to right, it may also be sping top to bottom, and i do believe it would be hard drawing an image spinning, since i do not have a .GIF program

also, the "absense or external forces" would mean you dont believe in the big bang theory. with the forces created by the thrust of the "big bang" that would have been more then enough energy to sufficiently create a spherical earth

if an object is spinning left to right, it may also be sping top to bottom, and i do believe it would be hard drawing an image spinning, since i do not have a .GIF program

Certainly it may happen; however, this means that the objects angular momentum is changing with time, which means that some torque is being applied to the object.  An object with no forces applied to it will spin around an axis which does not change.

also, the "absense or external forces" would mean you dont believe in the big bang theory.

No it doesn't.

with the forces created by the thrust of the "big bang" that would have been more then enough energy to sufficiently create a spherical earth

What forces are those?  You are suggesting that the Big Bang is applying some force to the Earth (I won't bother asking you to explain that notion) but not to solar systems or to the galaxies?

Luke_smith64 wrote:
if an object is spinning left to right, it may also be sping top to bottom, and i do believe it would be hard drawing an image spinning, since i do not have a .GIF program


Certainly it may happen; however, this means that the objects angular momentum is changing with time, which means that some torque is being applied to the object. An object with no forces applied to it will spin around an axis which does not change.

the tourque being applied is from the big bang, now whether or not you beleieve the universe is still expanding from it or not, it goes to show that there was an initial force, that continued on in a frictionless enviroment

Quote:
also, the "absense of external forces" would mean you dont believe in the big bang theory.


No it doesn't.

yes, because the big bang was the ultimate "external force" that is believed to have created the earth and universe

Quote:
with the forces created by the thrust of the "big bang" that would have been more then enough energy to sufficiently create a spherical earth


What forces are those? You are suggesting that the Big Bang is applying some force to the Earth (I won't bother asking you to explain that notion) but not to solar systems or to the galaxies?

[/b]

of course the big bang supplied the earth with force, as it did with the rest of the universe. the big bang theory states that that was the force used to expand the universe, explaining why other planets have rotations aswell

the tourque being applied is from the big bang, now whether or not you beleieve the universe is still expanding from it or not, it goes to show that there was an initial force, that continued on in a frictionless enviroment

yes, because the big bang was the ultimate "external force" that is believed to have created the earth and universe

of course the big bang supplied the earth with force, as it did with the rest of the universe. the big bang theory states that that was the force used to expand the universe, explaining why other planets have rotations aswell

All these quotes merely serve to illustrate that you are unfamiliar with the notion of a force, or that the notion you have of force is totally incoherent.

Also, you didn't answer my question as to why the torque applied by the Big Bang is sufficient to make the planets and stars spherical, but not solar systems or galaxies.

I would also point out that the Earth is not currently rotating on more than one axis.

Anyway I'm dropping this conversation because I'm pretty sure we're at the very least not using the same vocabulary.

thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace, if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

Bah, only if the various rotations were equal.

i was using the force/energy created by the big bang to explain this, and you know damn well wat i meant

Also, you didn't answer my question as to why the torque applied by the Big Bang is sufficient to make the planets and stars spherical, but not solar systems or galaxies.

first of all, even if the big bang wasnt sufficient enough in energy to make the galixies spherical, it could still not have enough energy to make the galixies spherical. another theory is that the universe is stll expanding, so who knows if maybe billions of years from now the galixies will be spherical? also, the mass of planet creating enough gravitation pull to keep it from ripping apart in a blast (maybe some did, who knows?) they would be formed in a spherical shape. now think about tying a miliong balls, varios sizes, each on a rope conected to eachother, with ropes about, i dont know, a few kilometres apart, then throwing them into space, (the ropes acting as gravitational pull) they wouldn all stay in a perfect spherical shape, they could bein whatever order that varios forces pushign/ pulling would put them in

i was using the force/energy created by the big bang to explain this, and you know damn well wat i meant

No, I damn well don't, and I damn well don't think I will considering your willingness to say things like "force/energy".

first of all, even if the big bang wasnt sufficient enough in energy to make the galixies spherical, it could still not have enough energy to make the galixies spherical.

You just said nothing.

another theory is that the universe is stll expanding, so who knows if maybe billions of years from now the galixies will be spherical?

Or banana-shaped.  Who knows!

also, the mass of planet creating enough gravitation pull to keep it from ripping apart in a blast (maybe some did, who knows?) they would be formed in a spherical shape. now think about tying a miliong balls, varios sizes, each on a rope conected to eachother, with ropes about, i dont know, a few kilometres apart, then throwing them into space, (the ropes acting as gravitational pull) they wouldn all stay in a perfect spherical shape, they could bein whatever order that varios forces pushign/ pulling would put them in

Your analogies and explanations never cease to be a tangled mess of ill-described mechanisms to which I can only respond, "Huh?"

I think it comes down to galaxies not being solid masses, but rather clusters of stars, planets, et cetera, which are spherical themselves. A galaxy is just a group of these objects suspended closely in space, which stay constant in their positioning due to some force at the center - Maybe a black hole, some super-powerful star, whatever.

The rings around a planet aren't solid rings. You couldn't walk along the rings of Saturn. All they are are particles of dust, meteors, and so on, caught in an orbit around a planet. They look flat due to the distance we view them and how they all move relative to each other, due to the orbit.

If someone took, say, a million marbles and launched them into the air and they didn't spread, from a certain distance it would look like a straight line. It would seem flat. Up close, you would see that it's a cluster of three dimensional objects travelling the same route, which gives the illusion. I'm not sure if this analogy was clear enough. If not, I'll think up another.

good anologie

I think it comes down to galaxies not being solid masses, but rather clusters of stars, planets, et cetera, which are spherical themselves.

True, but surely:

1)  At some point in a planet's development, it too was not a solid mass.
2)  Not all galaxies are flat.

It seems more plausible to me that a non-solid body would contract under its own gravity to form a sphere than that a solid body would.  Surely the internal repuslive forces of a solid would resist gravity much better than gasses and dust clouds, which are more easily compressed.

I could see how a galaxy, which isn't solid, seems like it should contract to a point of singularity. But, I think the orbits of the stars and planets within a galaxy, along with whatever other gravity, would be the key force that holds a galaxy steady in it's position without creating a vacuum-like effect.

During a planets formation, sure, it wasn't a solid. It took many elements over much time to compact into a sphere, which was molded by the hunk of elements orbiting a star.

Not all galaxies are flat, sure. But no galaxy is solid. If it was, it wouldn't be a galaxy.