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 do admit that with underground nuclear testing, fracking, and oil drilling, the dome might not be as solid as it is supposed to be, but it is there, I am sitting in my house, which is sitting on a foundation of concrete poured on the crust of a spherical Earth, spherical being the proper term used to describe Earth.
Unfortunately, you disproved nothing. You disputed what you think is a solid dome theory, but you didn't refute it.
Did you stop to umm, like, think for a minute that if the world were flat, astronauts in space would have noticed? Also, satellites would have taken pictures of a flat earth, maybe, possibly, probably, perhaps?
I'm not sure who you are addressing here but this debate is not about modern arguments of science. My challenge dealt solely with what the Bible teaches on the shape of the earth. I supplied the most reputable sources here whereas my opponents merely cited from what so-and-so said (hearsay) without providing any ancient witnesses, nor did where they successful in providing any form of higher authority in the form of lexicons or commentaries written by top scholars. I supplied all these things here and all you have to do is read over my posts and see this for yourself.
Ploughboy you are right I am not talking to just any bum on a keyboard. Someone with a museum quality bookcase and ascribes atheism as that which disagrees with him. I think ignore is the best place for you.
I'm not sure who you are addressing here but this debate is not about modern arguments of science. My challenge dealt solely with what the Bible teaches on the shape of the earth. I supplied the most reputable sources here whereas my opponents merely cited from what so-and-so said (hearsay) without providing any ancient witnesses, nor did where they successful in providing any form of higher authority in the form of lexicons or commentaries written by top scholars. I supplied all these things here and all you have to do is read over my posts and see this for yourself.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to dishonesty in order to falsely claim a victory in a debate. You claim that no top scholars or ancient witnesses were provided. That is highly disingenuous.
1.) In post #6 I presented a lecture by Michael Heiser who is a top Hebrew scholar and expert in a number of ancient Semitic languages. He's also a Christian. Here's his bio.
Mike earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before going to the UW-Madison, Mike earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields were Ancient Israel and Egyptology), and another M.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Hebrew Studies). He also attended Dallas Theological Seminary. Mike’s undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University, but he also attended Bible college for three years.
2.) In post #24 I provided a portion of the entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Cosmogony. It was originally published between 1901-1906.
With the Babylonians, the Hebrews believed that in the beginning, before earth and heaven had been separated ("created," ), there were primeval ocean ("tehom," always without the article) and darkness (). From this the "word of God" (compare such passages as, God "roars" [], Ps. xviii. 16; civ. 7) called forth light. He divided the waters: the upper waters he shut up in heaven, and on the lower He established the earth. In older descriptions the combat against the tehom is related with more details. Tehom (also Rahab) has helpers, the and the Leviathan, Behemot, the "Naḥash Bariaḥ." The following is the order of Creation as given in Gen. 1.: (1) the heaven; (2) the earth; (3) the plants; (4) the celestial bodies; (5) the animals; (6) man. The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse. [Bolding mine]
The bolded speaks of a flat earth covered by a solid dome to which the stars are attached.
3.) In post #19 I posted a statement in the ancient Jewish writing 3 Baruch which had to do with men wanting to find out if the sky was made of clay, brass, or iron. This is evidence of a believe that the sky was a solid dome. I also posted the paper by Scholar Paul H. Seely in which he demonstrates that pretty much all ancient people thought the sky was solid.
''Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of 8 brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest.'' [Bolding mine]
And by the way, Paul H. Seely supports his statements that the ancient peoples, and not just the people of the Ancient Near East, believed that the sky was a solid dome. But one needs to actually read what he says, instead of dismissing what he said when you don't even know what he said.
4.) In post #18 I posted the Wiki entry with the scholarly references. It includes the ancient Babylonian map of the world which is presented as a flat circular earth surrounded by a cosmic ocean.
While I didn't post the commentary by theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870), I'll do so now. This is from his commentary of Isaiah 40:22 concerning the 'circle of the earth.'
The circle of the earth - Or rather, "above" (על ‛al) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch"; and is applied to the arch or vault of the heavens, in Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14. The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet. [Bolding mine]
I suppose you'll call Albert Barnes an atheist because he said that Isaiah 40:22 was not denoting a sphere or a globe, and that the globular form of the earth was then unknown. Which it was least to the Ancient Near East (ANE), including the Hebrew writers of the Hebrew Bible.
I'm also fairly certain that you'll just bark nuh-uh as usual, and then once again claim that you won a debate. Nevertheless, your claim that you weren't given in any credible sources is shown to be false.
I think from here on you can just be ignored as not having any credibility.
Hey everybody, stop posting. I think we've been bamboozled. Start checking out profiles.
Something was off about this thread. I think i know what.
06-13-2018, 01:54 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
A Challenge to Isaiah 40:22
This has already been met bit I'll go over it more thoroughly.
Is. 40:22 - Chug is used 3 times and it is never a globe or sphere. It means horizon/edge/circle/arch/vault/dome shaped.
Proverbs 8:27 - When he established the heavens, I was there; when he marked out the horizon/edge/circle/arch/vault/dome over the face of the deep, …
Notice he marked it, cut it, or engraved it.
See Is.44:13a - A carpenter takes measurements; he marks out an outline of its form; he scrapes it with chisels, and marks it with a compass. The word for ‘compass’ comes from Chug – it is mechughah - an instrument for marking a circle/edge/horizon/arch.
Job 22:14 - Thick clouds are a veil for him, so he does not see us, as he goes back and forth in the vault of heaven.’
The word vault is chug and here it is the dome that covers the earth, beyond which God sits enthroned. A. B. Davidson (Job, 165) suggests “on the arch of heaven” that covers the earth.
Isaiah 40:22 - He is the one who sits on the earth’s horizon; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers before him. He is the one who stretches out the sky like a thin curtain, and spreads it out like a pitched tent.
Now in all of these how do you inscribe a globe or sphere on the face of something. How is that like pitching a tent on a globe or sphere? This only makes sense on a flat surface.
When others ask why didn’t’ Isaiah use ‘dur’ – ball - in Is.40:22 Ploughboy says:
Quote:
A Challenge to Isaiah 40:22
Quote:
There are some online articles which ask the question as to why Isaiah didn’t use the Hebrew word “dur” which carries the meaning of “ball.” This question, however, is irrelevant because we cannot go back in time and ask Isaiah this question.
And:
Quote:
Hebrew words carried meanings that don’t always go along with the meaning of word translated into English.
Yes, that is what we have been saying when you ask us these dumb questions:
Quote:
But I have a question for flat earthers: Why didn’t Isaiah use the Hebrew word ‘machabath’?
Quote:
And also, for the word tachath which was used to describe the walls of Jericho that the wall fell down flat in Joshua 6:20).
So why wasn’t another Hebrew word which means flat used in Isaiah 40:22? Why couldn’t the verse just literally translate “the flatness of the earth”? Why couldn't we read "...the plate of the earth"?
1) Can anybody see the double standard here: He tries to dismiss our question with saying it is irrelevant because we cannot go back in time and ask Isaiah why he did not use a certain word and that Hebrew words don’t always go along with the meaning of the English translations. Yet turns right around and asks us the same types of questions.
2) This questioned was answered by me and just ignored and then asked again, as if it still had not been answered, in his post 142. And I will answer the Challenge again:
1) Because the Earth is not a cooking pan. The word ‘machabath’ is not focusing on the geometry of something but on the function of something - the thing that cooks food – a pan for baking bread, or a griddle. Why would Isaiah say that the Lord sits on a pan? That’s stupid. And the word chug is not representative of being flat – it is a circle/arch/dome shape/vault/ inscribe by an instrument that makes such a shape.
2) Because that word tahteha is way to flexible and does not emphasize what Isaiah is pointing out - it's circular nature not is flatness. Furthermore, the idea of the wall falling was to its side that is what is being conveyed or as the Hebrew more literally says - 'fell to its place.' The word does not really convey flatness or the wall falling over on its side but collapsing in place. Its basic definition is - underneath, below, instead of. Here you could say collapsed or fell underneath itself. The exact same form as in Joshua is used 14 other times. Let’s look at some:
Josh.7:21 - I saw among the goods we seized a nice robe from Babylon, two hundred silver pieces, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels. I wanted them, so I took them. They are hidden in the ground right in the middle of my tent with the silver underneath. How is that flat?
Job 28:15 - Fine gold cannot be given in exchange for it, nor can its price be weighed out in silver. Huh! How is that flat.
Jonah 4:5 - Jonah left the city and sat down east of it. He made a shelter for himself there and dwelt under it in the shade to see what would happen to the city. Flat! I don’t think so.
06-13-2018, 04:05 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
Best modern English rendering of Job 26:7 comes from the New American Bible--which, by the way, is typically a very bad translation, but years ago when I studied the Hebrew on this verse and compared other translations as was my custom back then, I realized that even the NKJV lost a point to the NAB which is very rare to see. Today the only competition the NKJV has is the MEV for best modern English translations. So I'm still surprised that such a lousy translations like the NAB nailed the Hebrew down just perfectly! I mean it nails it! So to present here is the best modern English rendering of Job 26:7,
"He stretched out the North over empty space,
and suspends the earth over nothing at all."
I don't think any other translation finished this verse with "at all." That is mandatory to add that since the Hebrew demands it. To hang the earth means to suspend it, so the modern use is a little easier to understand than the old English usage.
The verse is very clear and well understood by the ancient Jews and Christians. It means there is no physical object holding up the earth, that the earth hangs (is suspended) in space. This was known by Job back in 2000 B.C.! This could not have been known apart from Divine inspiration!
Oh boy! Job is not 2,000 BCE.
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space he suspends the earth on nothing.
The Hebrew literally reads - He stretches out the north above (al) emptiness (tohu) hangs the earth above (al) nothing (beli) at all.
Tohu is the same word in Genesis 1:2 meaning waste, formless, emptiness, etc. This is telling of God's creative act when he stretched out the heavens over the formless earth - tohu - before he made the earth appear from the waters and then filled it with his creations. The north is simple the northern skies over which they often looked towards God dwelling place in Mount Zion.
God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. God called the dry ground “earth”
After the earth is brought forth out of the waters (Geneis 1:9-10) it is now hung over or above nothing or the chaotic waters or the vast ocean from which it emerged - it is suspended above it now. In Job, and elsewhere, the chaotic waters were the place of monsters that God quelled or conquered when he created all things thus bringing them to nothing. Its powers now conquered.
Job 26:12 - By his power he stills the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab the great sea monster to pieces by his breath the skies became fair his pierced the fleeing serpent.
Ps.74 - "You it was who smashed Sea with your might, who battered the heads of the monsters in the waters; You it was who crushed the heads of Leviathan, who left them for food for the denizens of the desert..."
Also, notice the context of Job 26:7 with the two prior verses:
“The dead tremble – those beneath the waters and all that live in them. Sheol is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered.
This should prove that the earth is suspended over/upon the oceans and below that is Sheol the place of the dead. All of this is as nothing to the great power of God.
Notes from Wiki and the NET Bible below:
In this world-view the seas are primordial forces of disorder, and the work of creation is preceded by a divine combat.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan. The imagery of vv. 13-14 originates in West Semitic mythology. The description of Leviathan should be compared with the following excerpts from Ugaritic mythological texts: (1) “Was not the dragon [Ugaritic tnn, cognate with Hebrew תַּנִין (tanin), translated “sea monster” in v. 13] vanquished and captured? I did destroy the wriggling [Ugaritic ’qltn, cognate to Hebrew עֲקַלָּתוֹן (’aqallaton), translated “squirming” in Isa 27:1] serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (note the use of the plural “heads” here and in v. 13). (See CTA 3.iii.38-39 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 50.) (2) “For all that you smote Leviathan the slippery [Ugariticbrh, cognate to Hebrew בָּרִחַ (bariakh), translated “fast moving” in Isa 27:1] serpent, [and] made an end of the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (See CTA 5.i.1-3 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68.) In the myths Leviathan is a sea creature that symbolizes the destructive water of the sea and, in turn, the forces of chaos that threaten the established order.
In the OT, the battle with the sea motif is applied to Yahweh’s victories over the forces of chaos at creation and in history (see Pss 74:13-14; 77:16-20; 89:9-10; Isa 51:9-10). Yahweh’s subjugation of the waters of chaos is related to his kingship (see Pss 29:3, 10; 93:3-4). Isa 27:1 applies imagery from Canaanite mythology to Yahweh’s eschatological victory over his enemies. Apocalyptic literature employs the imagery as well. The beasts of Dan 7 emerge from the sea, while Rev 13 speaks of a seven-headed beast coming from the sea. Here in Ps 74:13-14 the primary referent is unclear. The psalmist may be describing God’s creation of the world (note vv. 16-17 and see Ps 89:9-12), when he brought order out of a watery mass, or the exodus (see Isa 51:9-10), when he created Israel by destroying the Egyptians in the waters of the sea.
Heb “Rahab.” The name “Rahab” means “proud one.” Since it is sometimes used of Egypt (see Ps 87:4; Isa 30:7), the passage may allude to the exodus. However, the name is also used of the sea (or the mythological sea creature) which symbolizes the disruptive forces of the world that seek to replace order with chaos (see Job 9:13; 26:12). Isa 51:9 appears to combine the mythological and historical referents. The association of Rahab with the sea in Ps 89 (see v. 9) suggests that the name carries symbolic force in this context. In this case the passage may allude to creation (see vv. 11-12), when God overcame the great deep and brought order out of chaos.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to dishonesty in order to falsely claim a victory in a debate. You claim that no top scholars or ancient witnesses were provided. That is highly disingenuous.
1.) In post #6 I presented a lecture by Michael Heiser who is a top Hebrew scholar and expert in a number of ancient Semitic languages. He's also a Christian. Here's his bio.
Mike earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before going to the UW-Madison, Mike earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields were Ancient Israel and Egyptology), and another M.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Hebrew Studies). He also attended Dallas Theological Seminary. Mike’s undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University, but he also attended Bible college for three years.
Very good for him. He went to a very liberal University and learned nothing. You say he has more weight than Clement of Rome which is outright laughable! He doesn't even have weight in this discussion against Josephus, and he was a Jew. I do think an ancient Jew would know something about the history of Judaism. The entire object of being a scholar today is to learn what the ancients knew about their own beliefs and practices. If any scholar today says the Jews followed after the Babylonians and believed in flat earth then such a scholar is a complete fraud and did not do their research well at all. I provided authentic Source Documents from ancient times and you want to hold this topic down to what some modern scholar says? Like sure
I don't need to read commentary from anyone. Why even post commentary when you should be posting Source Documents? Where are your Source Documents? Modern commentary means nothing unless it is backed and well supported by Source Documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
2.) In post #24 I provided a portion of the entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Cosmogony. It was originally published between 1901-1906.[indent]With the Babylonians, the Hebrews believed that in the beginning, before earth and heaven had been separated ("created," ), there were primeval ocean ("tehom," always without the article) and darkness (). From this the "word of God" (compare such passages as, God "roars" [], Ps. xviii. 16; civ. 7) called forth light. He divided the waters: the upper waters he shut up in heaven, and on the lower He established the earth. In older descriptions the combat against the tehom is related with more details. Tehom (also Rahab) has helpers, the and the Leviathan, Behemot, the "Naḥash Bariaḥ." The following is the order of Creation as given in Gen. 1.: (1) the heaven; (2) the earth; (3) the plants; (4) the celestial bodies; (5) the animals; (6) man. The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse. [Bolding mine]
Nothing is holding up the earth (Job 26:7) <---and that is what the most ancient of Jews believed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The bolded speaks of a flat earth covered by a solid dome to which the stars are attached.
He's wrong again. A philosopher he may be, but a lexicographer he is not. The Strong's is the most reliable lexicon. It does not support his modern assumptions. His little model dates back no further than to the English-born Jewish Biblical scholar by the name of Nahum Sarna (1923-2005). Sarna is where he is getting his information. Sarna also is the one who drew up that picture of the flat earth with dome over it. So its a 20th century philosophy and completely false as well as liberal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
3.) In post #19 I posted a statement in the ancient Jewish writing 3 Baruch which had to do with men wanting to find out if the sky was made of clay, brass, or iron. This is evidence of a believe that the sky was a solid dome. I also posted the paper by Scholar Paul H. Seely in which he demonstrates that pretty much all ancient people thought the sky was solid.
3 Baruch is dated no earlier than the 2nd century but is more likely to be a 3rd century composition. The book is most likely a Gnostic work and has never been Canonized. That book could say there is no God and it doesn't matter. You treat these pseudepigrapha books as if it has theological value. It doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
[indent] ''Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of 8 brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest.'' [Bolding mine]
Funny thing is that the book is chapter and verse and no reference is given. I do have the book. You never ever trust a quotation unless you are able to see it and verify the quote and the context in which it is quoted. That is a rule of thumb. Though regardless what it says it is not good to reference a highly suspected Gnostic work and then hold the ancient Jews down to a 3rd century A.D. writing which most likely is Gnostic. That's trying to pull off a low blow which doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And by the way, Paul H. Seely supports his statements that the ancient peoples, and not just the people of the Ancient Near East, believed that the sky was a solid dome. But one needs to actually read what he says, instead of dismissing what he said when you don't even know what he said.
And in the process of doing so he completely dismisses the Bible which is much more important than his assumption that Israel patterned itself after Babylon. One would have to be Biblically illiterate to believe that. His assumption also draws from Wellhausen who's bastardization of Jewish history led directly to the Holocaust. To sum up Wellhausen's argument he believed that all ancient antiquity was authentic except for that written by a Jew. So his Documentary Hypothesis is based solely on Jew hatred and hated for the Bible in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
4.) In post #18 I posted the Wiki entry with the scholarly references. It includes the ancient Babylonian map of the world which is presented as a flat circular earth surrounded by a cosmic ocean.
Wiki is an atheist source too bias to take seriously. Every College Professor will fail students for using wiki for serious research. Now if you want to know how many times you favorite celebrity had sex with another celebrity wiki will keep up on that type of information well. Other than that wiki is the most rejected source of theological and historical information out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While I didn't post the commentary by theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870), I'll do so now. This is from his commentary of Isaiah 40:22 concerning the 'circle of the earth.'
[indent]The circle of the earth - Or rather, "above" (על ‛al) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch"; and is applied to the arch or vault of the heavens, in Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14. The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet. [Bolding mine]
Weak commentary. It started out good but got sloppy later on. Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose reading from Isaiah 40:22.
"And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).
Here is the English translation of the 4th century Latin Vulgate: "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Douay-Rheims Bible).
I'm also fairly certain that you'll just bark nuh-uh as usual, and then once again claim that you won a debate. Nevertheless, your claim that you weren't given in any credible sources is shown to be false.
I think from here on you can just be ignored as not having any credibility.
I'm sure that's what you want to believe. Though none of your sources are reputable. The sources I used are highly reputable. You would use those sources too if they went your way. But they don't. So you are stuck in the 21st century with extremely bias liberal and atheistic sources.
The lastest possible composition would be 1000 B.C. But the evidence presented by DR.Henry Morris of ICR gives a stronger case for the early date of about 2000 B.C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space he suspends the earth on nothing.
The Hebrew literally reads - He stretches out the north above (al) emptiness (tohu) hangs the earth above (al) nothing (beli) at all.
Tohu is the same word in Genesis 1:2 meaning waste, formless, emptiness, etc. This is telling of God's creative act when he stretched out the heavens over the formless earth - tohu - before he made the earth appear from the waters and then filled it with his creations.
Not too bad...not too bad at all. I especially like the "at all" part that is missed in all translations except one and its funny how such a lousy translation like the NAB can contain the most accurately rendered verse of Job 26:7. Its the "at all" part that is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
The north is simple the northern skies over which they often looked towards God dwelling place in Mount Zion.
This is an interpretation and not a precise rendering. The interpretation is disputed. Just saying. Here is the Matthew's Bible on the verse. Amazingly, Tyndale doesn't add the "at all" at the end. But regardless of what is missed here the Matthew-Tyndale Bible is the overall best English translation ever. Come to think of it, and no ill towards the man intended, but it may have been either Myles Coverdale or John Rogers who translated Job. Tyndale was executed and did not finish translating the entire OT. I'm still not sure all he finished translating but I don't think he finished Job. I could be wrong here but that could explain why the "at all" was missed. Tyndale was not the kind of scholar to miss much of anything. I've been studying the Matthew's Bible for a little while now and have both the 1537 and 1549 editions of the Matthew's Bible. What I'm learning from all this is that the Geneva scholars messed things up which effected the KJV scholars as well. Though the KJV scholars were better at wording things in a more poetic form; Tyndale was the best scholar of all the great English scholars. Even Thomas Cranmer agreed with Tyndale which is why the Great Bible reads almost exactly like the Matthew's Bible. But here is Job 26:7 from the Matthew's Bible.
"He stretched oute the north ouer the emptie, & hangeth the earth vpon nothinge."
The 1568 Bishop's Bible shows only a slight variation which I find acceptable.
"He stretcheth out the noorth ouer the emptie place, and hangeth the earth vpon nothing"
Then we get to the 1611 KJV and not much changes,
"He stretcheth out the North ouer the emptie place, and hangeth the earth vpon nothing."
Very interesting lesson in the development of the English language. Back in the 16th century they did not have a set standard of English. There was no English Dictionary during those days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
After the earth is brought forth out of the waters (Geneis 1:9-10) it is now hung over or above nothing or the chaotic waters or the vast ocean from which it emerged - it is suspended above it now. In Job, and elsewhere, the chaotic waters were the place of monsters that God quelled or conquered when he created all things thus bringing them to nothing. Its powers now conquered.
Woe! You are waaaaay off the mark on this one! You are once again being duped into believing that the Bible is just an extension of the Babylonian Enuma Elish. Now I've read the Enuma Elish enough times to know that its not the same thing as the Biblical account. But atheists, yes...atheists....want people to believe that all religion evolved which goes back to the Wellhausen hypothesis which has been very well destroyed. You cannot combine both the Biblical and Babylonian creation accounts to make a new account for the ancient world. They are two very separate accounts. To say pantheism/polytheism is the same thing as monotheism begs the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Job 26:12 - By his power he stills the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab the great sea monster to pieces by his breath the skies became fair his pierced the fleeing serpent.
Ps.74 - "You it was who smashed Sea with your might, who battered the heads of the monsters in the waters; You it was who crushed the heads of Leviathan, who left them for food for the denizens of the desert..."
Also, notice the context of Job 26:7 with the two prior verses:
“The dead tremble – those beneath the waters and all that live in them. Sheol is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered.
This should prove that the earth is suspended over/upon the oceans and below that is Sheol the place of the dead. All of this is as nothing to the great power of God.
Notes from Wiki and the NET Bible below:
In this world-view the seas are primordial forces of disorder, and the work of creation is preceded by a divine combat.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan. The imagery of vv. 13-14 originates in West Semitic mythology. The description of Leviathan should be compared with the following excerpts from Ugaritic mythological texts: (1) “Was not the dragon [Ugaritic tnn, cognate with Hebrew תַּנִין (tanin), translated “sea monster” in v. 13] vanquished and captured? I did destroy the wriggling [Ugaritic ’qltn, cognate to Hebrew עֲקַלָּתוֹן (’aqallaton), translated “squirming” in Isa 27:1] serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (note the use of the plural “heads” here and in v. 13). (See CTA 3.iii.38-39 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 50.) (2) “For all that you smote Leviathan the slippery [Ugariticbrh, cognate to Hebrew בָּרִחַ (bariakh), translated “fast moving” in Isa 27:1] serpent, [and] made an end of the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (See CTA 5.i.1-3 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68.) In the myths Leviathan is a sea creature that symbolizes the destructive water of the sea and, in turn, the forces of chaos that threaten the established order.
Consider the source. Wiki is an atheist run site that has a long standing reputation for an extreme bias and prejudice against all things Biblical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
In the OT, the battle with the sea motif is applied to Yahweh’s victories over the forces of chaos at creation and in history (see Pss 74:13-14; 77:16-20; 89:9-10; Isa 51:9-10). Yahweh’s subjugation of the waters of chaos is related to his kingship (see Pss 29:3, 10; 93:3-4). Isa 27:1 applies imagery from Canaanite mythology to Yahweh’s eschatological victory over his enemies. Apocalyptic literature employs the imagery as well. The beasts of Dan 7 emerge from the sea, while Rev 13 speaks of a seven-headed beast coming from the sea. Here in Ps 74:13-14 the primary referent is unclear. The psalmist may be describing God’s creation of the world (note vv. 16-17 and see Ps 89:9-12), when he brought order out of a watery mass, or the exodus (see Isa 51:9-10), when he created Israel by destroying the Egyptians in the waters of the sea.
Heb “Rahab.” The name “Rahab” means “proud one.” Since it is sometimes used of Egypt (see Ps 87:4; Isa 30:7), the passage may allude to the exodus. However, the name is also used of the sea (or the mythological sea creature) which symbolizes the disruptive forces of the world that seek to replace order with chaos (see Job 9:13; 26:12). Isa 51:9 appears to combine the mythological and historical referents. The association of Rahab with the sea in Ps 89 (see v. 9) suggests that the name carries symbolic force in this context. In this case the passage may allude to creation (see vv. 11-12), when God overcame the great deep and brought order out of chaos.
Here is picture conception of what is going on:
The Leviathan was a fierce sea dwelling dinosaur which in Scripture, in many places, is figuratively used in association to Satan. There is one or two passages which speaks about the Leviathan as a literal creature which many believe to now be extinct but who knows, right?
Now the reference to Psalm 89 goes to show you how little these liberal scholars knew Scripture. They would have never referenced Psalm 89 had they known how badly it would destroy their entire plot. Here's what I mean:
"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is" (Psalm 89:11, Matthew-Tyndale Bible).
Here we go with "tebel" again which is being used in the context of entire earth and all that therein is. When "tebel" is used in this context it is properly translated "round world" because it means the entire globe of the earth. I've listed 4 lexicons from 4 different disciplines and they all say it means globe. Now when I see 4 major lexicons of 4 different disciplines all agree on something like this it tells me that, since they are all in agreement, that the issue is settled. Yeah, and granted, the NIV lexicon I used was the most liberal and not the most trusted among lexicons. But it still agrees even being as liberal as it is! TWOT is somewhat liberal and not as reliable as the Strong's but TWOT strongly agrees with the Strong's. Other lexicons also agree.
Does anyone else get a faint whiff of 'Highwaystar888' here??
Same sort of 'I know everything and the rest of you are idiots' type of arrogance
Highwaystar banned 31st May 2018 Ploughboy joined 11th June 2018
I have no idea of what you are talking about. I am not this person you claim I am nor do I even know who this other person is? So I joined June 11th, would it have been better for me to start on June 12th?
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.
I "bought" it, hook, line and sinker
