Isaiah suggests that the earth is spherical and not flat as many people believed long ago:
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth... Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched — not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written long before Aristotle even thought of the earth being spherical. This has been cited as a further example of Bible scientific foreknowledge.
54 comments
Not to mention that the compass wasn't invented until almost two thousand years after Isaiah was written. Even if compasses were spherical, which of course they're not, I seriously doubt that that was what he was referring to.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
First things first, I will have to disprove the most popular verse that creationists spew. Modern Creationists (especially the Jehovah's Witnesses) are quick to accuse all other religions of not only being wrong, but also incorrectly aserting that the world was flat, or square, or sitting on top off pilars, or turtles, or elephants. Their booklet, "The Watchtower" typically makes mentions of this verse above (Isaiah 40:22 ) as "proof" that the Judaic scriptures were the only religion to "get it right" on the earth shape question thousands of years ago. First let me tell you what the above verse means."It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;" well, at first glance this verse appears to be correct as long as you dont think about it too much. Yes the Earth is so big that humans can look like grasshopers high enough in the sky, and yes we have all seen the circular shadow of the earth on the moon. But a circle is only a two dimensional object, which is far from an accurate discription of our true 3 dimensional sphere of Earth, which happens to be slightly elongated at its equator. That discription is a very accurate discription, instead of the vague one that Isaiah offers. Lets go a bit further into the verse; "that (God) stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Now this is more in line with Isaiahs true cosmological beleifs. Throughout all of his writings, Isaiah considers the sky to be solid. Why else would he describe the sky as a tent, or something solid which needs to be spread. And besides, Isaiah must have been more coherent than usual when he wrote that verse, because Isaiah is a hard core flat / square Earther as is evidenced in this verse; Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the Four Corners of the earth." In this verse, his is supposedly predicting the rise of the demigod Jesus Christ in the same sentence where he directly, and specifically says that the Earth has four corners.
@BF:
"Chuwg" (sometimes spelled "khoog") usually means disc, not ball (which is "duwr"), this became gyros (not spheros) in the Greek, and gyrum (not globum/globos) in Latin.
I think the geographical meaning on your link is a modern one, probably derived from the age-old use of chuwg to refer to the Earth (believing it to be flat). It certainly never turned up in any of the Hebrew lexicons I once had to use.
The thing is, it's probably a metaphorical passage anyway. The whole of Isaiah 40 is full of God "measuring the waters in the hollow of his hand" and "gathering the lambs in his arms" and putting "the dust of the Earth in a basket". I don't think any of that is to meant to be taken literally , it's just a bit of "buttering up the boss".
"He sits above the circle/compass of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers" could mean anything. Perhaps it's describing how insignificant we are compared to him, perhaps the Earth is flat like a plate, perhaps round like a ball, perhaps the circle/compass isn't the Earth's shape at all, but that of its orbit around the Sun.
You can interpret the bible to agree with just about anything. And we know this because that is exactly what people do.
So how were the heavens spread out over the earth like a tent? What about the "pillars of heaven" in Job? Where are they? Where is the firmament? What about the "four corners of the earth" and the "ends of the earth"? Fundamentalists who insist on reading the Bible as if it were a science book explain away all of these things by reinterpreting Hebrew words, picking and choosing what to interpret as symbolic and inventing explanations out of thin air (e.g., "Jesus will be seen by everyone on earth when he returns because they'll see him on TV")
[from Luke]all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
You can only see all of the Earth if it is flat. The Bible says the Earth is flat.
No, I've been over this with a creationist before, and he tried to use this argument, upon which I promptly informed him that a circle is a flat, two-dimensional object. Isaiah also says that the Earth has "four corners" - which would both be wrong (as the Earth is spherical) and contradictory (because Isaiah also says it's a circle).
Oh, please. While, in isolation (i.e. disregarding all the countless other scientifically incorrect howlers riddling the bible), that means the particular passage isn't irrefutably wrong, it still leaves it horribly ambiguous, and so still entirely inadequate for classification as scientific knowledge. You can't conclude that they irrefutably meant "sphere", especially from a single word that's been copied by hand and translated multiple times across fucking millennia, and moreover in a text that describes countless other physically implausible situations.
The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg which means to mark out the boundaries you blithering idiot. That is, it doesn't indicate that the earth is round or square or a hexahedron or shaped like a burrito. This is a further example of fundies not being able to understand the simplest things, even in their own book of fairy tales.
"This has been cited as a further example of Bible scientific foreknowledge."
It may have been cited, but it's still wrong. It was pure speculation on the part of a supposed 8C BCE 'prophet'.
I made this just for him
image
Are you sure about that? I mean, a compass is pretty damn flat.
A circle also is not a sphere. A sphere is a sphere. You fail.
FAIL
Let's see?
Bible translation: Fail
Ancient History: Fail
Wow, that's a shit-load of fail in that thar' CreationWiki
Grigadil :
You're assuming that the moon is lit by reflected sunlight, and that a lunar eclipse is the Earth casting a shadow on the moon. Since the sun and moon are both only a few hundred miles over our heads and never actually pass "under" the Earth (they exist inside the Vault of Heaven, you know), both of these are clearly an impossibility.
No, the word used in Isaiah doesn't mean spherical, but circular. Like in a flat circle, such as the shape of a pizza. Fail.
Do explain the passage that claims Satan took Jesus up onto the highest mountain on the planet, and showed him "All the lands of the earth", despite that being impossible on a spherical planet, please.
There is plenty of evidence that the Indians first came up with the idea that the Earth was spherical, and that might have been around the time of Isaiah or even before. So who got the idea first?
Scientific knowledge? The circumference of the cauldron outside the temple was three times its diameter. Your Honor, I rest my case.
He suggests it's a circle, in the context circuit or compass suggest the boundaries of the circle. A circle is flat.
An anagram of CreationWiki is I wank I erotic.
Does it matter what an ancient document says about the shape of the Earth? Isn't it enough to know that it is a spheroid and accept that fact based on the overwhelming evidence? Do you really have to go back and say "Hey, this holy book says that too!" just so you can justify your recognition that the Earth is, in fact, round?
I pity such an overwhelming lack of faith.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
