Biblical Flat Enclosed Earth and Firmament

[patrick jane]

@daqq - I know I sad Christianity and the 66 books of the Bible only but this rendering is Babylonian or even hindu. You can go ahead and post Enoch etc. anyway because you know what's relevant, I was overwhelmed that day. This excerpt came from got.questions:

Is the idea of seven heavens / the seventh heaven biblical? - Got ...

Historians aren’t sure when the Jews first learned of Babylon’s seven heavens; Abraham might have been exposed to such a belief before he left Ur, or Hebrew scholars may have learned of it while exiled to Babylon. Either way, rabbis adapted the myth, integrating it into the Talmud—their extra-scriptural writings. The Jewish “heavens,” associated with the same celestial bodies, contain a mix of people, angels, demons, Nephilim, and natural phenomenon, the specifics changing with the teacher. As the astronomical and meteorological sciences have advanced, Jews have rejected a literal seven heavens and now see them as metaphorical—there’s no way hail could come to earth from Jupiter, after all.

 

[daqq]

@daqq - I know I sad Christianity and the 66 books of the Bible only but this rendering is Babylonian or even hindu. You can go ahead and post Enoch etc. anyway because you know what's relevant, I was overwhelmed that day. This excerpt came from got.questions:

Is the idea of seven heavens / the seventh heaven biblical? - Got ...

Historians aren’t sure when the Jews first learned of Babylon’s seven heavens; Abraham might have been exposed to such a belief before he left Ur, or Hebrew scholars may have learned of it while exiled to Babylon. Either way, rabbis adapted the myth, integrating it into the Talmud—their extra-scriptural writings. The Jewish “heavens,” associated with the same celestial bodies, contain a mix of people, angels, demons, Nephilim, and natural phenomenon, the specifics changing with the teacher. As the astronomical and meteorological sciences have advanced, Jews have rejected a literal seven heavens and now see them as metaphorical—there’s no way hail could come to earth from Jupiter, after all.

Hi Patrick, my point was not to promote 1Enoch but to simply say that whoever wrote the Book of the Luminaries section was not reading Gen1 the way most seem to read it today in the literal-physical sense. That cannot be the case or he would never have placed Uriel over all the luminaries, both day and night. Moreover the Book of the Luminaries section is never found at Qumran within the Book of 1Enoch but always found as a separate work, that is, at Qumran. That means the whole 364-day calendar was not even part of the Book of Enoch as concerning Qumran. It was later incorporated into Enoch in the Ethiopian version. In other words there is no 364-day calendar of Enoch as many seem to believe, (those who use it to promote such variations of that calendar). Enoch really has gotten a bad reputation because of the additions inserted into it somewhere along the way, (not even the Book of Parables or "The Parables of Enoch" are found at Qumran, see here, https://www.worldslastchance.com/lu...es-wlc-not-accept-book-of-enoch-calendar.html, and I think this is even a flat-earth site, lol, just for you). Additionally you said something to me elsewhere about going ahead and posting from the Book of Jasher if I wanted to: that is not what I said. What I said was that the "Book of Jasher" or Yasher, (the "Sefer of the Upright", Jos10:13), is not a separate book from the scripture but rather, indeed, IT IS THE TORAH. Moreover what I also said was that the companion passage for the "long day" of Joshua is written specifically for Joshua in the Torah, which is the Book of the Upright, and that companion passage is Exo17:8-16 where Ahron and Hur stayed up the hands of Moses until the going down of the sun, (Exo17:12).

The long yom of Joshua points to Golgotha: the sun is at his right hand setting in the shades of the west. The moon is at his left hand rising in the east. The "Book of the Upright" is not some other book called Jasher or Yasher, no, it is the Torah. The companion passage is written specifically for Joshua: Moses was not able to hold up his hands until the going down of the sun, and thus, Ahron and Hur stayed his hands until the going down of the sun, (and Moses held up the rod of Elohim, which was probably five cubits, and made in the sign of the waw or vav, a stake). Joshua was the only one who, by the Hand of Elohim, ever held up his hands in the sign of the waw until the children of Israel defeated their enemies at the going down of the sun, that is, until Golgotha. But Joshua only held up his hands in the sign of the stake for about the space of one yom: Messiah held up his hands in the sign of the waw, the stake, for the full six yamim of the new creation, (Gen1).

 

[2003cobra]

So you're saying Genesis is not chronological about which days things were created by God? What day were the sun and moon created and what are the two great lights?

It's an account of creation, as in Job and other places. What day were the two great lights made, despite what Paul or Enoch says. If I'm walking after the natural man and not walking according to the testimony of the spirit (and I suppose YOU are), then I guess I will pay the price for doing that.

If the first creation story (Genesis 1.1-2.4a) is chronological, then the second (starting in Genesis 2.4b) cannot be. The two creation stories have different orders of events.

 

[2003cobra]

I know. More than evident with equal disdain. I know your actual capability despite what you'd feign. It ain't that great.

I know, for a fact, you don't know your bible as well as I do. Fact. lain:

Remedy? Read it. Go ahead and feel slighted and ignorantly indignant, though. Especially when the answer is as easy as 'read the bible more than Lon.' lain:

P.S. You are off topic again.

Someone wedded to presuppositions garnered from flannelgraphs in the preschool class would so conclude.

It is a great shame that you wasted your seminary training. To whom much is given, much is required. And when accounts are tabulated, your tally will be lacking.

May God forgive you for you lack of value.

 

[Lon]

Someone wedded to presuppositions garnered from flannelgraphs in the preschool class would so conclude,

:chuckle: Nice one, Chuck. Any point? :think:

lain:

P.S. You are off topic again.

 

[Lon]

Job 38:13,14 Isaiah 40:22

Spoiler

Neither says flat. Job says 'like a tent' but a canopy over us would be consistent with such, flat or globe. Isaiah also would fit both models, as far as I understand these scriptures.
I was thinking a list rather than picture would make these scriptures a bit easier to address under their categories.
Some of these, to me, don't hold to a flat earth, but work for either model.
Example: Flat paths? I've been on some VERY cury up&down mountain trails so I don't think any of these scriptures work. Maybe I'm just not understanding the author's intent? :idunnno:
Waters are straight. Not true. Get a crayon wax paper. The puddle will be odd and elevated and curved.
Earthquakes shake the earth and do no move.
As with a good number of these, I've no idea what he means nor how it would support a flat earth vs a globe.
The Earth is fixed an immovable. Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21:1
:think: Psalm 93:1
Be Still and know that I am God. I suppose the author is thinking this means the earth? :idunno:
The Earth has Pillars (like a table) and hangs on nothing.
:think: What do the pillars stand on? 1 Samuel 2:8 Somehow, the earth IS kept in place. Newton and Einstein said mass draws other mass, thus simplified, the earth is tied to the sun's gravity (like a tether ball without the rope, so it doesn't ever get closer). How? I keep going to Colossians 1:17, myself. I know He holds all things and in Him all things hold together. My science knowledge only goes so far (not that I've stopped studying and learning, just these days at a slower pace).
I might go at the rest of these a bit later. I'm just trying to honor the OP by reading and thinking about what the scriptures say. So far? Not seeing anything that makes me think 'flat earth' You can even attach legs (pillars) to a globe so I don't think this author proved anything, but rather is describing what can apply to either, even if none of us think the earth stands on table legs. :e4e: -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

:chuckle: Nice one, Chuck. Any point? :think:

One more and I'll report him for removal from this particular thread. I'll give him a minute though.

 

[patrick jane]

Neither says flat. Job says 'like a tent' but a canopy over us would be consistent with such, flat or globe. Isaiah also would fit both models, as far as I understand these scriptures.
I was thinking a list rather than picture would make these scriptures a bit easier to address under their categories.
Some of these, to me, don't hold to a flat earth, but work for either model.
Example: Flat paths? I've been on some VERY cury up&down mountain trails so I don't think any of these scriptures work. Maybe I'm just not understanding the author's intent? :idunnno:
Waters are straight. Not true. Get a crayon wax paper. The puddle will be odd and elevated and curved.
Earthquakes shake the earth and do no move.
As with a good number of these, I've no idea what he means nor how it would support a flat earth vs a globe.
The Earth is fixed an immovable. Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21:1
:think: Psalm 93:1
Be Still and know that I am God. I suppose the author is thinking this means the earth? :idunno:
The Earth has Pillars (like a table) and hangs on nothing.
:think: What do the pillars stand on? 1 Samuel 2:8 Somehow, the earth IS kept in place. Newton and Einstein said mass draws other mass, thus simplified, the earth is tied to the sun's gravity (like a tether ball without the rope, so it doesn't ever get closer). How? I keep going to Colossians 1:17, myself. I know He holds all things and in Him all things hold together. My science knowledge only goes so far (not that I've stopped studying and learning, just these days at a slower pace).
I might go at the rest of these a bit later. I'm just trying to honor the OP by reading and thinking about what the scriptures say. So far? Not seeing anything that makes me think 'flat earth' You can even attach legs (pillars) to a globe so I don't think this author proved anything, but rather is describing what can apply to either, even if none of us think the earth stands on table legs. :e4e: -Lon

I haven't done it yet in writing but I'm making mental lists of the scriptures I find descriptive enough and looking up kjv dictionary definitions. That's what leads to error in my opinion. Taking it literal when maybe it's not. after a couple weeks now looking at the various images, I see some that say 80 verses, 67 verses and that whopper with 200. There's nowhere near 200 or even 80. I have to stick with Genesis, Isaiah, Job, Revelation and any other accounts dealing with creation, earth, sun, moon, stars/planets and firmament. I might have to finally read the WHOLE Bible. :chuckle:

Edit: I think Isaiah 40:22 KJV - is one of the good verses for flat earth.

 

[daqq]

I haven't done it yet in writing but I'm making mental lists of the scriptures I find descriptive enough and looking up kjv dictionary definitions. That's what leads to error in my opinion. Taking it literal when maybe it's not. after a couple weeks now looking at the various images, I see some that say 80 verses, 67 verses and that whopper with 200. There's nowhere near 200 or even 80. I have to stick with Genesis, Isaiah, Job, Revelation and any other accounts dealing with creation, earth, sun, moon, stars/planets and firmament. I might have to finally read the WHOLE Bible. :chuckle:

If you truly wish to understand Hebrew thinking, and I know this may sound strange but it is true, the furthest back you can really go is the Greek Septuagint: for although it is in Greek it was rendered from a much older Hebrew text than the current Masoretic Hebrew text, and it was rendered by those who cherished those Hebrew texts beginning some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah. They certainly did not read the hebrew text in the same way it is read by scholarship today: for the Hebrew text which they had did not have vowel pointing, or cantillation marks, and was not even separated as it is today in the Masoretic, (the old text was written in continuous line like the ancient Greek Uncial texts, which they call scriptura continua, (or more properly scriptio continua), having no separation between the words, (the waw or vav doubled as word separator throughout)). Anyway, besides all that, here is an example of what I mean from the Apostolic Polyglot which has a fairly literal word-for-word rendering of the Septuagint text from Job26:10.

Job 26:10 OG (Old Greek) LXX
26:10 προσταγμα εγυρωσεν επι προσωπον υδατος μεχρι συντελειας φωτος μετα σκοτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/18_026.htm

Job 26:10 Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot
10 πρόσταγμα ^{By order} εγύρωσεν ^{he made the curvature} επί ^upon πρόσωπον ^{the face} ύδατος ^{of the water} μέχρι ^till συντελείας ^{the completion} φωτός ^{of light} μετά ^with σκότους ^darkness.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/job/26.htm

Now, if you compare this with what is written in the Hebrew text, you can see how they were rendering the passage into Greek, and how they understood certain words and phrases, and you can even pick up a little about their understanding of the so-called cosmology: and this is at the least about a hundred and fifty years before the advent of Messiah, (maybe earlier but we simply cannot know when Job was rendered; for the whole work commenced about 280BCE, with the Torah portions, but it was more likely many years before the whole Old Testament was translated into Greek).

Moreover you can plainly see that they perceived the passage to be describing a curvature upon the face of the waters: and when compared to the Hebrew text, this appears to be speaking of the place where light and darkness sort of collide, or meet, and that therefore is the light from the sky and the darkness which is clearly below the waters of the sea. This passage therefore, according to those who rendered the Hebrew into Greek, is speaking of a curvature upon the face of the waters when looking out over the horizon, at the sea, where the sky meets the sea, at the horizon, and it is describing a curvature according to those who rendered it as may plainly be seen in the Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot quoted above.

My own Job 26:10 Paraphrase taken from the ABP:
"By decree He described the curvature upon the face of the waters where the light ends with/at the darkness (the darkness beneath the waters)."

All you need to do to understand this is to think of a picture of the horizon looking out over the ocean: where does the light of the sky end? It ends at the horizon where it meets the waters of the sea which contain the darkness of below. This passage appears to be suggesting that the horizon has a slight curvature to it and even then was not considered to be flat. Whether that is truly what the Hebrew says or not? You tell me: but this is how the Israelites understood it when the cream of the crop rendered the Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint, even well before the advent of Messiah in the first century.

 

[glorydaz]

I haven't done it yet in writing but I'm making mental lists of the scriptures I find descriptive enough and looking up kjv dictionary definitions. That's what leads to error in my opinion. Taking it literal when maybe it's not. after a couple weeks now looking at the various images, I see some that say 80 verses, 67 verses and that whopper with 200. There's nowhere near 200 or even 80. I have to stick with Genesis, Isaiah, Job, Revelation and any other accounts dealing with creation, earth, sun, moon, stars/planets and firmament. I might have to finally read the WHOLE Bible. :chuckle:

Edit: I think Isaiah 40:22 KJV - is one of the good verses for flat earth.

That scripture in Isaiah says the opposite to me.....because, God is everywhere, and wherever He is, He looks down upon the circle of the earth. And, I have a question for you, PJ. I'm sorry I haven't read these threads, but I was wondering if you think the other planets are orbs or flat. :think:

 

[patrick jane]

Job 26:10 OG (Old Greek) LXX
26:10 προσταγμα εγυρωσεν επι προσωπον υδατος μεχρι συντελειας φωτος μετα σκοτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/18_026.htm

Job 26:10 Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot
10 πρόσταγμα ^{By order} εγύρωσεν ^{he made the curvature} επί ^upon πρόσωπον ^{the face} ύδατος ^{of the water} μέχρι ^till συντελείας ^{the completion} φωτός ^{of light} μετά ^with σκότους ^darkness.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/job/26.htm

Now, if you compare this with what is written in the Hebrew text, you can see how they were rendering the passage into Greek, and how they understood certain words and phrases, and you can even pick up a little about their understanding of the so-called cosmology: and this is at the least about a hundred and fifty years before the advent of Messiah, (maybe earlier but we simply cannot know when Job was rendered; for the whole work commenced about 280BCE, with the Torah portions, but it was more likely many years before the whole Old Testament was translated into Greek).

Moreover you can plainly see that they perceived the passage to be describing a curvature upon the face of the waters: and when compared to the Hebrew text, this appears to be speaking of the place where light and darkness sort of collide, or meet, and that therefore is the light from the sky and the darkness which is clearly below the waters of the sea. This passage therefore, according to those who rendered the Hebrew into Greek, is speaking of a curvature upon the face of the waters when looking out over the horizon, at the sea, where the sky meets the sea, at the horizon, and it is describing a curvature according to those who rendered it as may plainly be seen in the Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot quoted above.

My own Job 26:10 Paraphrase taken from the ABP:
"By decree He described the curvature upon the face of the waters where the light ends with/at the darkness (the darkness beneath the waters)."

All you need to do to understand this is to think of a picture of the horizon looking out over the ocean: where does the light of the sky end? It ends at the horizon where it meets the waters of the sea which contain the darkness of below. This passage appears to be suggesting that the horizon has a slight curvature to it and even then was not considered to be flat. Whether that is truly what the Hebrew says or not? You tell me: but this is how the Israelites understood it when the cream of the crop rendered the Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint, even well before the advent of Messiah in the first century.

I read your whole post but this part caught my eye. To me, even if you do use the word curvature it doesn't make me think of a ball shape earth. A horizon will appear on flattish or curved with land or sea and light. The horizon is always straight, as the word horizontal. We can't see a curvature from on the ground. If I never thought of a flat earth possibility I would undoubtedly picture a globe in my mind. Even the mention of light and darkness doesn't dissuade me from the verse being in an enclosed flat earth and firmament. I'll stop arguing for this eventually but it will always linger with me. CONSPIRACY :chuckle: I just stumbled on Isaiah 24 by chance and the earth IS moved. What I was looking for were the words "in the earth" and "inhabit" instead of "on the earth."

 

[patrick jane]

That scripture in Isaiah says the opposite to me.....because, God is everywhere, and wherever He is, He looks down upon the circle of the earth. And, I have a question for you, PJ. I'm sorry I haven't read these threads, but I was wondering if you think the other planets are orbs or flat. :think:

Well, I first entered this as a conspiracy search and STP mentioned Antarctica a week before Tam posted a video by Rob Skiba. I was by then aware of the flat earth which I thought was nuts 3 weeks ago. After the Biblical interpretations I was hearing from him and many other Christians it was making sense. When I heard these scripture before , I always thought of a globe and globe planets like you and everybody but FE's. I still think planets are globes but their size and distance is what I question as also the stars' sizes and distances. Earth is also God's footstool and I can't get past the waters above the firmament. I don't think it's clouds and rain because they're in the sky, not the firmament imo. Glory, if you get the time, see if you can watch one 11 minute video that came out of nowhere today and he says in 11 minutes what would take me 2 or 3 pages to write. He said almost exactly what I was thinking and feeling this morning. He's not a preacher but a Christian and a fairly good speaker and the images are good. It's in the Conspiracy thread and it has Andy Kaufmann on the video picture, @glorydaz

Ephesians 6:12-13 KJV -

 

[daqq]

I read your whole post but this part caught my eye. To me, even if you do use the word curvature it doesn't make me think of a ball shape earth. A horizon will appear on flattish or curved with land or sea and light. The horizon is always straight, as the word horizontal. We can't see a curvature from on the ground. If I never thought of a flat earth possibility I would undoubtedly picture a globe in my mind. Even the mention of light and darkness doesn't dissuade me from the verse being in an enclosed flat earth and firmament. I'll stop arguing for this eventually but it will always linger with me. CONSPIRACY :chuckle: I just stumbled on Isaiah 24 by chance and the earth IS moved. What I was looking for were the words "in the earth" and "inhabit" instead of "on the earth."

We know from the Book of Job that he was a wealthy man: but at the end of the Septuagint version we also read that Job was in fact Jobab, one of the rulers or kings of Edom. This paragraph is not in the Hebrew text, (at least not anymore), and we have no way of knowing whether it was added to the Septuagint Greek or deleted from the Masoretic Hebrew: but the point is that there is no reason to doubt what is said herein, for it does not change anything about our doctrine:

Job 42:17 LXX (Brenton English Translation)
17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. (42:17D) And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. (42:17E) And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovof the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

If therefore Job was a wealthy man, and moreover a ruler or king of Edom, he no doubt had access to the Red Sea, and therefore the Indian Ocean. The point is thus: either the author of Job or Job himself had experience with some fashion of sea-going vessels or ships on the ocean. The curvature described herein is therefore no different from the video which @User Name has already posted previously in this thread, (explaining how the city of Chicago disappears below the horizon). For a mariner this would have been common knowledge even in the days of Job; for even then, a mariner and his galley of mariners would never leave the land without looking glasses, (which have become modern day telescopes), to spy out shorelines from great distances. Thus, whether departing from the land at a great distance, or whether approaching a land mass from a great distance: the curvature upon the surface of the waters may be seen by the fact that the mountains and high hills of the land mass either slowly disappear from view or slowly appear into view. In short, either the author of Job or Job himself knew about the following information way back when:

Answered here:

Because either Job or the author of Job had maritime experience.

 

[glorydaz]

Well, I first entered this as a conspiracy search and STP mentioned Antarctica a week before Tam posted a video by Rob Skiba. I was by then aware of the flat earth which I thought was nuts 3 weeks ago. After the Biblical interpretations I was hearing from him and many other Christians it was making sense. When I heard these scripture before , I always thought of a globe and globe planets like you and everybody but FE's. I still think planets are globes but their size and distance is what I question as also the stars' sizes and distances. Earth is also God's footstool and I can't get past the waters above the firmament. I don't think it's clouds and rain because they're in the sky, not the firmament imo. Glory, if you get the time, see if you can watch one 11 minute video that came out of nowhere today and he says in 11 minutes what would take me 2 or 3 pages to write. He said almost exactly what I was thinking and feeling this morning. He's not a preacher but a Christian and a fairly good speaker and the images are good. It's in the Conspiracy thread and it has Andy Kaufmann on the video picture, @glorydaz

Ephesians 6:12-13 KJV -

Thanks PJ. I'll watch it.


Tomorrow...... :wave:

 

[patrick jane]

We know from the Book of Job that he was a wealthy man: but at the end of the Septuagint version we also read that Job was in fact Jobab, one of the rulers or kings of Edom. This paragraph is not in the Hebrew text, (at least not anymore), and we have no way of knowing whether it was added to the Septuagint Greek or deleted from the Masoretic Hebrew: but the point is that there is no reason to doubt what is said herein, for it does not change anything about our doctrine:

Job 42:17 LXX (Brenton English Translation)
17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. (42:17D) And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. (42:17E) And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovof the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

If therefore Job was a wealthy man, and moreover a ruler or king of Edom, he no doubt had access to the Red Sea, and therefore the Indian Ocean. The point is thus: either the author of Job or Job himself had experience with some fashion of sea-going vessels or ships on the ocean. The curvature described herein is therefore no different from the video which @User Name has already posted previously in this thread, (explaining how the city of Chicago disappears below the horizon). For a mariner this would have been common knowledge even in the days of Job; for even then, a mariner and his galley of mariners would never leave the land without looking glasses, (which have become modern day telescopes), to spy out shorelines from great distances. Thus, whether departing from the land at a great distance, or whether approaching a land mass from a great distance: the curvature upon the surface of the waters may be seen by the fact that the mountains and high hills of the land mass either slowly disappear from view or slowly appear into view. In short, either the author of Job or Job himself knew about the following information way back when:



Because either Job or the author of Job had maritime experience.

Great post. I havn't seen that video but I will this morning. I have seen 3 where they can see Chicago from over 60 miles and I've seen a lot further with no curvature. Also some surveyors say no curvature and there are as many video proofs for one side as there is the other. I'll check out some globe proof videos. It does make you wonder though, why do globers :chuckle: go to so much trouble to prove the earthers wrong? :noid:

 

[daqq]

Interesting thread.

It places a spotlight on how far from the truth people can drive when they insist on a literal reading of scriptures and insist on infallibility of scriptures.

The scriptures were never meant to teach cosmology and science. Their purpose is to bring people to God and instruct people towards righteousness and love for one another.

These messages were given and written by people with incomplete or wrong notions about science and the heavens and the earth — and those misconceptions were not what was important to change or influence.

I am going to try not to be overly inflammatory because I see that Patrick has already warned that he will report you for off-topic posts, (just as he also kind of warned me too), and my purpose is not to try to get you an infraction or a temporary ban. However I just wanted to say that there are some who speculate and believe that Moses wrote the Book of Job, myself being one of those people, but the reason they suggest that Job was not placed within the Torah is because of the many statements made by his three friends, many of which statements are false, and thus, for that reason the Book of Job was not placed within the Torah, (and this is why I feel compelled to even mention this at this point, that is, because of my previous two posts herein). This would likely have been the case, imo, because even as we see today, people sometimes mistakenly quote from one of Job's three friends believing that what they are quoting is actually what the scripture teaches, when in fact it does not, but is only quoting one of the three friends of Job, (whom the LORD rebukes in the end of the book). Anyway, if Moses wrote the Book of Job, then you see from my two previous posts above what that means in the overall scheme of things: and your error remains the same as in all previous threads, that is, your pride and boasting yourself against the scripture, imagining that it was essentially written by neanderthals while you yourself know better than the authors of holy writ. It is you who has the misconceptions, and those misconceptions are in understanding what they are actually talking about: and that is because you read their words according to the natural minded man.

PS ~ Bummer, I see that this post ended up at the top of a new page, I did not intend to start off a new page on this note, (sorry Patrick).

 

[daqq]

Spoiler

If you truly wish to understand Hebrew thinking, and I know this may sound strange but it is true, the furthest back you can really go is the Greek Septuagint: for although it is in Greek it was rendered from a much older Hebrew text than the current Masoretic Hebrew text, and it was rendered by those who cherished those Hebrew texts beginning some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah. They certainly did not read the hebrew text in the same way it is read by scholarship today: for the Hebrew text which they had did not have vowel pointing, or cantillation marks, and was not even separated as it is today in the Masoretic, (the old text was written in continuous line like the ancient Greek Uncial texts, which they call scriptura continua, (or more properly scriptio continua), having no separation between the words, (the waw or vav doubled as word separator throughout)). Anyway, besides all that, here is an example of what I mean from the Apostolic Polyglot which has a fairly literal word-for-word rendering of the Septuagint text from Job26:10.

Job 26:10 OG (Old Greek) LXX
26:10 προσταγμα εγυρωσεν επι προσωπον υδατος μεχρι συντελειας φωτος μετα σκοτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/18_026.htm

Job 26:10 Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot
10 πρόσταγμα ^{By order} εγύρωσεν ^{he made the curvature} επί ^upon πρόσωπον ^{the face} ύδατος ^{of the water} μέχρι ^till συντελείας ^{the completion} φωτός ^{of light} μετά ^with σκότους ^darkness.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/job/26.htm

Now, if you compare this with what is written in the Hebrew text, you can see how they were rendering the passage into Greek, and how they understood certain words and phrases, and you can even pick up a little about their understanding of the so-called cosmology: and this is at the least about a hundred and fifty years before the advent of Messiah, (maybe earlier but we simply cannot know when Job was rendered; for the whole work commenced about 280BCE, with the Torah portions, but it was more likely many years before the whole Old Testament was translated into Greek).

Moreover you can plainly see that they perceived the passage to be describing a curvature upon the face of the waters: and when compared to the Hebrew text, this appears to be speaking of the place where light and darkness sort of collide, or meet, and that therefore is the light from the sky and the darkness which is clearly below the waters of the sea. This passage therefore, according to those who rendered the Hebrew into Greek, is speaking of a curvature upon the face of the waters when looking out over the horizon, at the sea, where the sky meets the sea, at the horizon, and it is describing a curvature according to those who rendered it as may plainly be seen in the Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot quoted above.

My own Job 26:10 Paraphrase taken from the ABP:
"By decree He described the curvature upon the face of the waters where the light ends with/at the darkness (the darkness beneath the waters)."

All you need to do to understand this is to think of a picture of the horizon looking out over the ocean: where does the light of the sky end? It ends at the horizon where it meets the waters of the sea which contain the darkness of below. This passage appears to be suggesting that the horizon has a slight curvature to it and even then was not considered to be flat. Whether that is truly what the Hebrew says or not? You tell me: but this is how the Israelites understood it when the cream of the crop rendered the Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint, even well before the advent of Messiah in the first century.

We know from the Book of Job that he was a wealthy man: but at the end of the Septuagint version we also read that Job was in fact Jobab, one of the rulers or kings of Edom. This paragraph is not in the Hebrew text, (at least not anymore), and we have no way of knowing whether it was added to the Septuagint Greek or deleted from the Masoretic Hebrew: but the point is that there is no reason to doubt what is said herein, for it does not change anything about our doctrine:

Job 42:17 LXX (Brenton English Translation)
17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. (42:17D) And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. (42:17E) And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovof the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

If therefore Job was a wealthy man, and moreover a ruler or king of Edom, he no doubt had access to the Red Sea, and therefore the Indian Ocean. The point is thus: either the author of Job or Job himself had experience with some fashion of sea-going vessels or ships on the ocean. The curvature described herein is therefore no different from the video which @User Name has already posted previously in this thread, (explaining how the city of Chicago disappears below the horizon). For a mariner this would have been common knowledge even in the days of Job; for even then, a mariner and his galley of mariners would never leave the land without looking glasses, (which have become modern day telescopes), to spy out shorelines from great distances. Thus, whether departing from the land at a great distance, or whether approaching a land mass from a great distance: the curvature upon the surface of the waters may be seen by the fact that the mountains and high hills of the land mass either slowly disappear from view or slowly appear into view. In short, either the author of Job or Job himself knew about the following information way back when:



Because either Job or the author of Job had maritime experience.

I am going to try not to be overly inflammatory because I see that Patrick has already warned that he will report you for off-topic posts, (just as he also kind of warned me too), and my purpose is not to try to get you an infraction or a temporary ban. However I just wanted to say that there are some who speculate and believe that Moses wrote the Book of Job, myself being one of those people, but the reason they suggest that Job was not placed within the Torah is because of the many statements made by his three friends, many of which statements are false, and thus, for that reason the Book of Job was not placed within the Torah, (and this is why I feel compelled to even mention this at this point, that is, because of my previous two posts herein). This would likely have been the case, imo, because even as we see today, people sometimes mistakenly quote from one of Job's three friends believing that what they are quoting is actually what the scripture teaches, when in fact it does not, but is only quoting one of the three friends of Job, (whom the LORD rebukes in the end of the book). Anyway, if Moses wrote the Book of Job, then you see from my two previous posts above what that means in the overall scheme of things: and your error remains the same as in all previous threads, that is, your pride and boasting yourself against the scripture, imagining that it was essentially written by neanderthals while you yourself know better than the authors of holy writ. It is you who has the misconceptions, and those misconceptions are in understanding what they are actually talking about: and that is because you read their words according to the natural minded man.

PS ~ Bummer, I see that this post ended up at the top of a new page, I did not intend to start off a new page on this note, (sorry Patrick).

Moreover, Moses, having been brought up in the house of Pharaoh, would have had direct access to both the Mediterranean Sea and the most advanced sea-going vessels of the time, (and the calendar systems, star maps, etc., etc., of the priests of On, (Heliopolis)). :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

www.kgov.com/pot

 

[Tambora]

Spoiler

If you truly wish to understand Hebrew thinking, and I know this may sound strange but it is true, the furthest back you can really go is the Greek Septuagint: for although it is in Greek it was rendered from a much older Hebrew text than the current Masoretic Hebrew text, and it was rendered by those who cherished those Hebrew texts beginning some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah. They certainly did not read the hebrew text in the same way it is read by scholarship today: for the Hebrew text which they had did not have vowel pointing, or cantillation marks, and was not even separated as it is today in the Masoretic, (the old text was written in continuous line like the ancient Greek Uncial texts, which they call scriptura continua, (or more properly scriptio continua), having no separation between the words, (the waw or vav doubled as word separator throughout)). Anyway, besides all that, here is an example of what I mean from the Apostolic Polyglot which has a fairly literal word-for-word rendering of the Septuagint text from Job26:10.

Job 26:10 OG (Old Greek) LXX
26:10 προσταγμα εγυρωσεν επι προσωπον υδατος μεχρι συντελειας φωτος μετα σκοτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/18_026.htm

Job 26:10 Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot
10 πρόσταγμα ^{By order} εγύρωσεν ^{he made the curvature} επί ^upon πρόσωπον ^{the face} ύδατος ^{of the water} μέχρι ^till συντελείας ^{the completion} φωτός ^{of light} μετά ^with σκότους ^darkness.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/job/26.htm

Now, if you compare this with what is written in the Hebrew text, you can see how they were rendering the passage into Greek, and how they understood certain words and phrases, and you can even pick up a little about their understanding of the so-called cosmology: and this is at the least about a hundred and fifty years before the advent of Messiah, (maybe earlier but we simply cannot know when Job was rendered; for the whole work commenced about 280BCE, with the Torah portions, but it was more likely many years before the whole Old Testament was translated into Greek).

Moreover you can plainly see that they perceived the passage to be describing a curvature upon the face of the waters: and when compared to the Hebrew text, this appears to be speaking of the place where light and darkness sort of collide, or meet, and that therefore is the light from the sky and the darkness which is clearly below the waters of the sea. This passage therefore, according to those who rendered the Hebrew into Greek, is speaking of a curvature upon the face of the waters when looking out over the horizon, at the sea, where the sky meets the sea, at the horizon, and it is describing a curvature according to those who rendered it as may plainly be seen in the Apostolic Bible Greek Polyglot quoted above.

My own Job 26:10 Paraphrase taken from the ABP:
"By decree He described the curvature upon the face of the waters where the light ends with/at the darkness (the darkness beneath the waters)."

All you need to do to understand this is to think of a picture of the horizon looking out over the ocean: where does the light of the sky end? It ends at the horizon where it meets the waters of the sea which contain the darkness of below. This passage appears to be suggesting that the horizon has a slight curvature to it and even then was not considered to be flat. Whether that is truly what the Hebrew says or not? You tell me: but this is how the Israelites understood it when the cream of the crop rendered the Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint, even well before the advent of Messiah in the first century.

Why can't the "curvature" be speaking of the dome over the flat earth that was established to divide the waters from the waters.
After all, just a couple of verses before that, we have ....

Job 26:7 KJV
(7) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The "north" on the flat earth would be the center where Polaris (North Star) is, and that is the point that is stretched out to make the dome.

 

[Tambora]

www.kgov.com/pot

Loved this shirt in the article.