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.
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. But wait, Strong’s H1754 does define dur as a circle, ball or pile (or to move in a circle, surround, TWOT). The verse often cited by atheists is Isa.22:18 in which they ask why Isaiah didn’t use the word dur? More interesting is TWOT’s explanation of the word #418. The word was used to mean “to heap up” or “to pile something.” It can be used to mean “go in a circle.” But the word is more closely associated to dor (#1887, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vo.1) which is used to mean “lap in a race, cycle of time, lifetime.” Nothing I had read would lead me to the conclusion that it would be used to describe the shape of the earth. Hebrew words carried meanings that don’t always go along with the meaning of word translated into English.
But I have a question for flat earthers: Why didn’t Isaiah use the Hebrew word “machabath” (Strong’s H4227)?
The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,
"4227. machabath, makh-ab-ath'; from the same as 2281; a pan for baking in:--pan [5x]. See TWOT -- 600b; BDB -- 292b, 561d”
Since flat earthers like to cite from TWOT, why can’t they find the right word which better describes their flat plate like model of the earth they designed for the Biblical view of the earth? Surely this word would have been better than chuwg? It could have been translated “...the pan of the earth” or “the griddle of the earth.” But there is another word which means flat.
Strong’s H8478 is found in Joshua 6:5, 20; which is the Hebrew word tachath which was used to describe the walls of Jericho “that the wall fell down flat “ (Joshua 6:20). The word translated flat is tachath.
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”? Surely if the earth was flat and plate shaped Isaiah would have used the right word to communicate that message. The word translated circle does not mean flat as the earth is circular in shape. The definition of round carries a broad meaning in English.
On the one hand you dismiss modern scholarship, but then you turn around and appeal to modern scholarship. You can't have it both ways. The same author who used the word 'chug' in Isaiah 40:22 to describe the flat circle of the earth chose to use the word 'dur' in Isaiah Isaiah 22:18 to describe a ball.
Furthermore, the word 'chug' is used in Proverbs 8:27 to describe God inscribing a circle on the face of the deep.
Plenty of places to google that say this flat earth mentality only exist in the mind of the person trying to insult the other, I don't believe anyone ever saw the Earth as flat, it is just to insult.
The it makes me wonder about the people claiming that other people said the Earth was flat. It is a NONE issue, ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
I have in fact shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and from the book of 3 Baruch, as well as from the Bible itself, that the ancient Hebrews had basically the same cosmogony as their ANE neighbors.
If you choose to ignore the facts because it challenges your beliefs, that's up to you.
In other words, I don't like what scholars have to say and can't refute it so I'll just bad mouth them and try to marginalize them and hope no one notices!
Yet the noun form of the same word is used in Genesis 1:6, Dan.12:3, and Ezek.1:22 showing that this dome/firmament/sky was like a shinny metal mirror. Thus still relevant!
No, the narrator in that verse is reflecting the Bible's and the ANE cosmology.
The Hebrew word meaning strong is חָזָק châzâq, and it is not the word which translates "expanse" used in Genesis. Again, here is the correct word used in Genesis.
"H7549. רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.
(1) Raqiya means that which is fixed and steadfast, rather than that which is solid. (1a) The application to the heavenly bodies is simple and beautful: (b) they are not fickle and uncertain in their movements, but are regulated by a law that they cannot pass over. (2) It comes from raqa (7554) which means spread out. The firmament, then is that which is spread or stretched out--hence an expanse. Thus it is extended and fixed, or fixed space. (3) The interplanetary spaces are measured out by God, and though the stars are ever moving, they generally preserve fixed relative positions; their movements are not erratic, not in straight lines, but in orbits, and thus, though ever changing, they are always the same."
As you can plainly read the word "raqiya" does not mean solid dome. Flat earthers reject the reliability of Strong's and just go by what memes and youtube says. In other words, they oppose the entire body of Christ from the beginning up to the present now. With this kind of rejection towards authority the movement cannot be considered Christian. There is no solid dome in the Bible.
Thus châzâq is not used in Genesis anywhere. The reference to solid sky in Job is completely irrelevant. Elihu was the narrator and if you had read the Book of Job you would know his narration is irrelevant.
I have in fact shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and from the book of 3 Baruch, as well as from the Bible itself, that the ancient Hebrews had basically the same cosmogony as their ANE neighbors.
If you choose to ignore the facts because it challenges your beliefs, that's up to you.
3 Baruch, isn't even listed in the Apocrypha! This makes the Book Pseudopigrapha. In other words: the pseudopigrapha writings are irrelevant and not even listed in old English Bibles where the entire Apocrypha was included. I'm just surprised you didn't reference Enoch. Most flat earthers try that and then find out their Pseudepigrapaha favorite teaches round earth and other things that strongly disagree with flat earth assumptions. Nice try but a book which has little value is useless as a Source Document. You want to try harder to find more credible course---that's how you really get me!
06-11-2018, 04:03 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
A Challenge to Isaiah 40:22
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. But wait, Strong’s H1754 does define dur as a circle, ball or pile (or to move in a circle, surround, TWOT). The verse often cited by atheists is Isa.22:18 in which they ask why Isaiah didn’t use the word dur? More interesting is TWOT’s explanation of the word #418. The word was used to mean “to heap up” or “to pile something.” It can be used to mean “go in a circle.” But the word is more closely associated to dor (#1887, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vo.1) which is used to mean “lap in a race, cycle of time, lifetime.” Nothing I had read would lead me to the conclusion that it would be used to describe the shape of the earth. Hebrew words carried meanings that don’t always go along with the meaning of word translated into English.
But I have a question for flat earthers: Why didn’t Isaiah use the Hebrew word “machabath” (Strong’s H4227)?
The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,
"4227. machabath, makh-ab-ath'; from the same as 2281; a pan for baking in:--pan [5x]. See TWOT -- 600b; BDB -- 292b, 561d”
Since flat earthers like to cite from TWOT, why can’t they find the right word which better describes their flat plate like model of the earth they designed for the Biblical view of the earth? Surely this word would have been better than chuwg? It could have been translated “...the pan of the earth” or “the griddle of the earth.” But there is another word which means flat.
Strong’s H8478 is found in Joshua 6:5, 20; which is the Hebrew word tachath which was used to describe the walls of Jericho “that the wall fell down flat “ (Joshua 6:20). The word translated flat is tachath.
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”? Surely if the earth was flat and plate shaped Isaiah would have used the right word to communicate that message. The word translated circle does not mean flat as the earth is circular in shape. The definition of round carries a broad meaning in English.
Easy:
1) Because the Earth is not cooking pan.
2) Because that word is way to flexible and does not emphasize what Is. 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.
The Hebrew word meaning strong is חָזָק châzâq, and it is not the word which translates "expanse" used in Genesis. Again, here is the correct word used in Genesis.
"H7549. רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.
(1) Raqiya means that which is fixed and steadfast, rather than that which is solid. (1a) The application to the heavenly bodies is simple and beautful: (b) they are not fickle and uncertain in their movements, but are regulated by a law that they cannot pass over. (2) It comes from raqa (7554) which means spread out. The firmament, then is that which is spread or stretched out--hence an expanse. Thus it is extended and fixed, or fixed space. (3) The interplanetary spaces are measured out by God, and though the stars are ever moving, they generally preserve fixed relative positions; their movements are not erratic, not in straight lines, but in orbits, and thus, though ever changing, they are always the same."
As you can plainly read the word "raqiya" does not mean solid dome. Flat earthers reject the reliability of Strong's and just go by what memes and youtube says. In other words, they oppose the entire body of Christ from the beginning up to the present now. With this kind of rejection towards authority the movement cannot be considered Christian. There is no solid dome in the Bible.
Thus châzâq is not used in Genesis anywhere. The reference to solid sky in Job is completely irrelevant. Elihu was the narrator and if you had read the Book of Job you would know his narration is irrelevant.
I suppose that you are going to ignore the fact that the book of 3 Baruch reflects the ancient belief that the sky was solid. Once again, here is the statement which I originally posted in post #19.
''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]
I suppose that you are going to ignore the fact that the book of 3 Baruch reflects the ancient belief that the sky was solid. Once again, here is the statement which I originally posted in post #19.
''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]
3 Baruch, isn't even listed in the Apocrypha! This makes the Book Pseudopigrapha. In other words: the pseudopigrapha writings are irrelevant and not even listed in old English Bibles where the entire Apocrypha was included. I'm just surprised you didn't reference Enoch. Most flat earthers try that and then find out their Pseudepigrapaha favorite teaches round earth and other things that strongly disagree with flat earth assumptions. Nice try but a book which has little value is useless as a Source Document. You want to try harder to find more credible course---that's how you really get me!
3 Baruch is pseudepigrapha, and is an ancient Jewish writing. I see that you are going to try to use any excuse, no matter how petty, to dismiss any ancient evidence which refutes the argument you are attempting to make.
Not only do you reject modern scholarship when it works against you, but you also reject ancient evidence when it works against you. And you are going to resort to sarcasm.
Since 3 Baruch is an ancient Jewish writing which contains a statement concerning the belief that the sky was solid, it is indeed ancient evidence of the existence of the belief among the ancient Hebrews.
I just quoted what Genesis says which is a Canonical Book. You resort to Pseudepigrapha thinking you got something but its irrelevant.
Since the New Testament writers quite often refer to 1 Enoch and draw from it, I am in good company. Oh, and the New Testament writers also quote from pagan sources as well.
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.
