Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have supplied the most reputable sources starting from the 1st century A.D., and moving on up to the 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century, 16th century and the 20th century. And all in between these centuries agree. Paul H. Seely and the small handful of 21st century liberal scholars are so bias their work is not considered reputable. Yet, I have sourced four lexicons here which are conservative, liberal and one from a German rationalist, and they all agree with the side I've presented here on this topic. I have supplied commentaries from the reputable Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Bible Commentary as well as Matthew Henry's Commentary. All these sources defend the position I have brought here on this forum. Centuries of round/globe/sphere earth readings from the Bible can't go wrong. Actually its 2000+ years of globe earth I presented on this forum. These radical liberal anarchist scholars are a far cry from being considered anything other than junk food for atheists. And if atheists are content with this junk food they consume with their minds then they are only lying to themselves. The results of this discussion are absolutely conclusive.
But there is one more objection you could bring up. This would be the objection which says the Greeks influenced the Hebrews which is why they read globe earth in their Scriptures. But the Septuagint was translated by Jews who knew what they were doing. The words carried over from Hebrew to Greek only manage to strength this side of the debate. This does even go into how other languages translate these Hebrew words like chuwg as Globe, Sphere and Orb. If anything, the Septuagint had a most profound impact on Greek philosophy.
The earliest Greek thought about the spherical shape of the earth came in 500 B.C. The Book of Job is 2000 B.C., king David is 1000 B.C., and Isaiah is 700 B.C. So who borrowed from who? The Bible records the earliest round/globe/sphere earth. The Babylonians and other pagan nations thought the earth was flat. So not all religions are identical and hole the same beliefs.
So unless you can come up with better sources than what I supplied here then this debate on the shape of the earth is over. Now we can go on to other related skepticism that flat earthers push.
No, the Bible does not record the earliest round/globe/sphere earth. You're reading into the text things which simply are not there.
And your claim that Paul H. Seely, and what you claim is a small handful of 21st century liberal scholars who according to you are so bias that their work is not considered reputable, is dismissive bull crap. Today's modern scholarship has access to material that wasn't available to people such as Matthew Henry or Jamieson, Fausset & Brown. Good grief. You're using outdated information to support your argument.
06-11-2018, 10:46 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
Hebrew Lexicons:
The New Strong's Exhaustive Expanded Concordance of the Bible. H8398
"8398. têbêl, tay-bale'; from H2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a particular land, as Babylonia, Palestine:—world [35x] habitable part, [1x].
The word signified, first, the solid material on which man dwells, and that was formed, founded, established, and disposed by God; and secondly, the inhabitants thereof. See TWOT 835h; BDB--385c, 1061d."
We were not talking about tebel - you just switch it up to make it look like you know what you are talking about when you don't. The word tebel does not mean globe or spherical. When he says 'by extension the globe' he is making reference to what it REFERS TO not it's meaning as a geometric shape.
Quote:
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
TWOT 835h תֵּבֵל têbêl, tay-bale'; world.
"This noun is used in three basic situations. First, the noun is employed to represent the global mass called earth, including the atmosphere or heavens (cf. Ps.89:12; II Sam 22:16; et al.). têbêl is often in parallelism or apposition with 'eres (I Sam 2:8; Isa.26:9; 34:1; et al.) when 'eres is used in its broadest sense of "the world." The "world" was created by God, not false gods (Jer.10:12; Ps.93:1) and it belongs solely to him (Ps.24:1). God's eternality is illustrated by his existence before the creation of "world" (Ps.90:2) and his wisdom (perhaps a personification of Christ) was present prior to the world's creation (Prov. 8:26, 31). Creation itself gives a "worldwide" witness to God's glory (Ps.19:4 [H 5]) which should result in Yahweh's praise (Ps.98:2). Yahweh will judge this "world," making it empty (Isa.24:4), though in the millennium God will cause Israel to blossom and fill the whole world with her fruit (Isa.27:6).
Second, têbêl is sometime limited to "countries" or "the inhabitable world." This meaning is more closely related to the root meaning. It refers to the world where crops are raised. This is observed in the judgment message against the king of Babylon (not Satan) for violently shaking the "world" or "inhabitable world" (Isa.13:11; 14:17). Lightning is said to enlighten the "world"---undoubtedly referring to a limited land area (Ps.77:18 [H 19]; 97:4).
Third, têbêl may also refer to the inhabitants living upon the whole earth. This is demonstrated by the parallelism of têbêl with I' umim (Ps.9:8 [H 9]) and 'ammim (Ps.96:13; 98:9). The context of these references is Yahweh's judgment upon the world's inhabitants---a judgment both executed in righteousness and instructive of Yahweh's righteousness (Isa.26:9; 34:1).
In several passages the sense of têbêl as the globular earth in combination with its inhabitants is clearly observed. Everything belongs to Yahweh as his creation (Ps.50:12). Yahweh alone controls this world (Job 34:13; Nah 1:5) and his power is over all the earth which always responds to his presence (Job 37:12; Ps.97:4)".
Again, it does not mean globe or spherical. 'Global' is not the same as 'globe' - global is referent to its scope - total, encompassing, cosmic as seen below, etc.
Quote:
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Volume 4:
"9315. têbêl תֵּבֵל Nom. fem., world (#9315).
OT Found 36x exclusively in poetic texts, the word conveys the cosmic or global sense in which 'eres is also sometimes used; i.e., the whole earth or world considered as a single entity. It sometimes occurs in parallelism with 'eres (Jer.10:12; Lam.4:12). Twice it is used together with 'eres, either to express "the whole earth" (Job 37:12), or perhaps in the sense of the inhabited earth (Prov.8:31). It is used frequently in contexts that associate it with Yahweh's creative act and that, as a result, express the stability or durability of the earth (1 Sam.2:8; Ps.89:11 [12]; 93:1; 96:10). It is used when the whole population of the world is referred to (Ps.24:1; 33:8; 98:7; Isa. 18:3; 26:9; Nah.1:5). Isaiah uses têbêl more than any other prophet, mostly in the context of universal judgment (Isaiah 13:11; 24:4; 34:1; cf. Ps.96:13; 98:9).
Land, earth: --> damd (ground, piece of land, soil, realm of the earth, #141); --> 'eres (earth, land, #824); --> têbêl (world, #9315)."
Quote:
Adam Clarke Commentary (on Psalm 89:11).
The heavens are thine - Thou art the Governor of all things, and the Disposer of all events.
The world - The terraqueous globe.
And the fullness - All the generations of men. Thou hast founded them - thou hast made them, and dost sustain them.
After this verse, the Editio Princeps of the Hebrew Bible, printed at Soncini, 1488, adds: -
vashamesh maor hachinotha attah To thee is the day; also to thee is the night:
Thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
But these same words are found in Psalm 74:16.
Same thing here!
You are just throwing this BS out on this thread and hoping something sticks aren't you. Trying to fool people with all your verbiage that is irrelevant to the word in question.
No, the Bible does not record the earliest round/globe/sphere earth. You're reading into the text things which simply are not there.
And your claim that Paul H. Seely, and what you claim is a small handful of 21st century liberal scholars who according to you are so bias that their work is not considered reputable, is dismissive bull crap. Today's modern scholarship has access to material that wasn't available to people such as Matthew Henry or Jamieson, Fausset & Brown. Good grief. You're using outdated information to support your argument.
That is also an assumption. First century Bishop's had way more than we have today. Their manuscripts were up to date and the knowledge of those manuscripts well attested to. When it comes to ancient languages, the older understanding the better. I think you know this but also realize that atheists do not have any ancient witnesses to support their flat earth interpretations of the Bible. And that's what atheist are doing---interpreting. The Ante-Nicene fathers did not need to interpret anything. Jewish historian Josephus didn't need to interpret anything. Its fair to say that Josephus knew Hebrew very well and had access to old manuscripts that are gone today. Fortunately all manuscripts would be preserved by Scribes so there is nothing lost.
Lastly, nothing here changes with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I provided modern scholarship which came after their discovery. The verdict does not change. The Bible teaches globe earth. No atheist scholar has authority in the church or knowledge above the early Christian movement. To even think modern day atheists have more knowledge than early centuries of Christ is just pure desperate arrogance. So stop being all uptight about this and just accept the truth. You were unable to provide sufficient sources to secure your position. Therefore the winning side of this debate goes in my favor.
If you want to study Islam then go to Islamic sources. If you want to study Hinduism then go to Hindu sources. And if you want to study Christianity then go to Christian sources. Atheists have no authority in the Christian church. You are free to hold your bias opinion but it doesn't make your opinion right.
We were not talking about tebel - you just switch it up to make it look like you know what you are talking about when you don't. The word tebel does not mean globe or spherical. When he says 'by extension the globe' he is making reference to what it REFERS TO not it's meaning as a geometric shape.
Again, it does not mean globe or spherical. 'Global' is not the same as 'globe' - global is referent to its scope - total, encompassing, cosmic as seen below, etc.
Same thing here!
You are just throwing this BS out on this thread and hoping something sticks aren't you. Trying to fool people with all your verbiage that is irrelevant to the word in question.
Wow. Talk about sore losers here. Sorry to burst your bubble but the lexicons all say it mean globe when applied to the whole earth of God's creation.
So whether we are talking chuwg or tebel you are at a loss of supporting scholars. You are being a sore loser. Did you actually think you were going to win this debate? Word of advice: Never jump into debate with invested emotions when you do not know the other side of the issue. I know both sides well and already knew the outcome of this debate before it started. You atheists are just too angry to accept the facts. But the facts aren't going away. I issue this challenge all over the world and not one atheist has been able to find a reputable Christian source to prove the contrary. The flat earther movement started out with this masquerade of Christianity preaching the gospel of the flat earth. This did not fool me not even a little. Now their true colors are revealed and the scam on the Bible exposed and refuted.
What do you think I supplied with the commentaries and lexicons? That is modern scholarship. And modern scholarship on issues like this does not carry the weight that the early church does. The globe earth readings from the first four centuries of Christ provided on this forum carry profound weight. If flat earthers had this kind of information to use against Christians you better believe they'd be using it. But all atheists have is this small tiny handful of misfit scholars who are rejected by the entire Christian church. And once again, your atheist views carry zero weight there. We Christians have globe/sphere earth verses long before these modern conflicts in politics. Way back in the early Christian movement they had nothing to hide. There are no cover-ups here. Had they read flat earth from the Bible then they would have boldly made that stance in their writings. But they didn't.
By modern scholarship I'm referring to scholarship of the late 20th and 21st century which takes advantage of discoveries that people such as Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry had no knowledge of at all. And the early church is not the context of the writers of the Hebrew Bible. To understand the Bible you must know the context of the ancient Hebrew writers and the culture in which they lived.
And you are making false claims by referring to the scholars with whom you disagree as a tiny handful of misfit scholars who are rejected by the entire Christian church. That is deliberate misrepresentation.
And by the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm Christian.
By modern scholarship I'm referring to scholarship of the late 20th and 21st century which takes advantage of discoveries that people such as Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry had no knowledge of at all. And the early church is not the context of the writers of the Hebrew Bible. To understand the Bible you must know the context of the ancient Hebrew writers and the culture in which they lived.
And you are making false claims by referring to the scholars with whom you disagree as a tiny handful of misfit scholars who are rejected by the entire Christian church. That is deliberate misrepresentation.
And by the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm Christian.
It doesn't matter! Your sources are not accepted by the majority of scholars. You still don't seem to understand the importance of ancient witnesses either. I did not supply just any ancient Christians. I cited from the highest authorities of ancient Christianity. But you claim they had no knowledge of Hebrew, as if modern scholars live so much closer to the time
The ancient scholars are more valuable on this particular issue. Most modern scholars agree with the ancient scholars. There are only a tiny handful of liberal scholars and they speak vaguely without proving anything. Here I have detailed thing liberals scholars didn't want you to know about. Liberal scholars are also well known for their blatant dishonesty. Consider the source.
That is also an assumption. First century Bishop's had way more than we have today. Their manuscripts were up to date and the knowledge of those manuscripts well attested to. When it comes to ancient languages, the older understanding the better. I think you know this but also realize that atheists do not have any ancient witnesses to support their flat earth interpretations of the Bible. And that's what atheist are doing---interpreting. The Ante-Nicene fathers did not need to interpret anything. Jewish historian Josephus didn't need to interpret anything. Its fair to say that Josephus knew Hebrew very well and had access to old manuscripts that are gone today. Fortunately all manuscripts would be preserved by Scribes so there is nothing lost.
Lastly, nothing here changes with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I provided modern scholarship which came after their discovery. The verdict does not change. The Bible teaches globe earth. No atheist scholar has authority in the church or knowledge above the early Christian movement. To even think modern day atheists have more knowledge than early centuries of Christ is just pure desperate arrogance. So stop being all uptight about this and just accept the truth. You were unable to provide sufficient sources to secure your position. Therefore the winning side of this debate goes in my favor.
If you want to study Islam then go to Islamic sources. If you want to study Hinduism then go to Hindu sources. And if you want to study Christianity then go to Christian sources. Atheists have no authority in the Christian church. You are free to hold your bias opinion but it doesn't make your opinion right.
No, they did not. First century bishops had no knowledge of the Ugarit texts for instance. Modern scholars have far more information with which to work. And First century Bishop's weren't necessarily scholars who would have extensive knowledge of the ancient world.
And once again you are dismissing scholars with whom you disagree as atheists. Nor does 'authority in the Christian church' have anything to do with the issue of whether the ancient Hebrews believed in a flat earth. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find something you can throw out.
And no, the debate does not go to you. You have been shown a ton of evidence, both modern and ancient, which you refuse to accept but which completely refutes you.
It doesn't matter! Your sources are not accepted by the majority of scholars. You still don't seem to understand the importance of ancient witnesses either. I did not supply just any ancient Christians. I cited from the highest authorities of ancient Christianity. But you claim they had no knowledge of Hebrew, as if modern scholars live so much closer to the time
The ancient scholars are more valuable on this particular issue. Most modern scholars agree with the ancient scholars. There are only a tiny handful of liberal scholars and they speak vaguely without proving anything. Here I have detailed thing liberals scholars didn't want you to know about. Liberal scholars are also well known for their blatant dishonesty. Consider the source.
I've shown you ancient witnesses. You dismissed them. And the majority of scholars are not Hebrew scholars. New Testament scholars for instance may know little of the ANE.
Scholars such as Michael Heiser and the scholars he references do not speak vaguely without proving anything. You are accusing liberal scholars of being blatantly dishonest. You can't refute their arguments so you try to discredit them. That's low. And it is these scholars that are revealing things that people like you don't want to be known.
You're now throwing out all kinds of accusations and false statements trying to win a debate and proclaim a victory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When he says 'by extension the globe' he is making reference to what it REFERS TO not it's meaning as a geometric shape. 
