How do I know the Bible is True?

by SwedishChef 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Sangdigger wrote:

    : As far as the word CIRCLE in the Scripture at Isa.40:22, the hebrew word translated into english is ARCH, VAULT, COMPASS.

    "Arch" and "compass" are alright, but "vault" is not likely, as we will see. The expression "circle of the earth" probably refers simply to the horizon. When one is standing in the middle of a flat plain, it looks as if one is at the center of a large circle. This circle is by definition the horizon.

    : ARCH: A CURVED construction.

    Correct. But an arch is essentially circular, not spherical, so the word is of no help in trying to show that "sphere" is meant in Isaiah 40:22. Circles and arches have in common that the basic shape is a curve in one dimension.

    : VAULT: (n) An ARCHED construction in masonry forming a roof or supporting the true roof. (v) To cover with a vault or ARCHED roof...

    A vault is composed of a set of arches alright, but in such a way that the essential one-dimensional character is lost. A vault is basically a set of curves in two dimensions.

    : ..Compass:(verb)To move around, to surround, (noun)

    So far so good.

    : The instument,compass used for determining direction on earths surface, which points to a magnetic north....

    This definition is irrelevant to our topic. The meaning of the word "compass" that we are concerned with is something like "make a curved boundary". The drawing instrument called a "compass" is called that because you use it to draw circles.

    : 2 out of 3 enlish words used to describe this hebrew word used in Isa. denote a CURVE. While a flat circle is round, it is not ARCHED.

    Your logic falls flat here. All spheres are curved and contain circular shapes. But not all curved shapes are spheres and not all curved shapes containing circular shapes are spheres.

    Let's see what several good Hebrew references say about the word.

    The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon has an entry for the Hebrew word huwg, as a verb: "draw round, make a circle... circle, vault of heavens... Jb 26:10 (cf. Pr 8:27), hath drawn as a circle a bound, etc., of the horizon-line." As a noun, BDB has the entry: "vault;--only of vault of the heavens..." We will come back to this shortly.

    Strong's Concordance has for this word, under entries 2328 and 2329: "chuwg: to describe a circle:--compass; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass".

    The NIV Exhaustive Concordance has for entry 2553: "hug: circle, horizon, vaulted".

    Using the meaning "vault" in Isaiah 40:22 results in gibberish: "... one who is dwelling above the vault of the earth". The meaning "vault" is found in some bible translations in only one place -- Job 22:14:

    "He goes about in the vaulted heavens." NIV

    However, the King James Version reads:

    "He walketh in the circuit of heaven." KJV

    So which is a better translation -- "the vault of heaven" or "the circuit of heaven"? To find out about this, and to get a comprehensive general commentary, I consulted the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by Botterweck and Ringgren (Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1980, pp. 244-247). Here is what it says for the entry "chugh:

    I. Etymology. The root chugh is attested six times in the OT: Isa. 40:22; 44:13; Job 22:14; 26:10; Prov. 8:27; Sir. 43:12 (cf. Sir. 24:5; 1QM 10:13)... Structurally, chugh belongs with the words built on the basic syllable hg, [various derived words are given] ... Most of these appear to incorporate the semantic element of circular movement.

    The association with chaghagh/chagh or the hg formations in general, the fact that the word appears only in Hebrew and relatively late (exilic period, Deutero-Isaiah), and the highly specialized meaning "circle" or the like in specific contexts all suggest that chugh/mechughah are late secondary developments under the influence of Babylonian technology and cosmology, or are technical terms.

    II. Meaning.

    1. Witnin its Semantic Field. Within the semantic field of "circles and circular motion," the meaning of chugh exhibits a highly specific profile. In contrast to the usual expressions for "turn, circle, go around, surround," ... and chaghagh, which designates the festival dance and procession, the verb chugh in combination with choq means "describe a circle," i.e., "incise a circular line."

    Similarly, there are several words within the semantic field of the noun chugh. The word dor has a wide range of meanings: "ball," "cycle, lifetime, generation" (most frequent), and (as the Addadian loanword duru) "ring, city wall, dwelling," all within the semantic field "turning, enclosure, circumvallation, ball"; ...

    Within this semantic field, chugh is distinguished by its specifically geometrical meaning, which can be observed on the one hand from its association with spatial referents (earth, heavens, ocean) and its combination with choq, "(incised) line," and on the other from its connection with mechughah, "compasses." The word thus means "circle, as drawn with compasses."

    Next, TDOT comments on "vault":

    The often suggested translation "vault (of the heavens)" is therefore probably incorrect, as is the less frequent suggestion "disk (of the earth)." The notion of a "vault" derives from ancient Near Eastern cosmology with its bell-shaped heaven. For chugh this translation cannot really be supported by the parallelism in Job 22:14 ("thick clouds enwrap him"): clouds can also cover the "horizon of the heavens." Furthermore, where does the "walking" take place if not on the level ground (cf. Sir. 24:5)? Isa. 40:22b makes this meaning unlikely in v. 22a. At most, the idea of horizon circles may be attenuated in Job 26:10. In Sir. 43:12, chugh haqqiphah means "describe a proper circle" (said of the rainbow); only the LXX with its circumstantial rendering introduces the "heavens."

    2. In Translation. To render chugh, the LXX strangely uses the rare word gyros, "ring, circle," used especially for a circular trench around a tree, gyroo, "bend, make round, make a circular trench" (cf. gyrosis). The image conveyed by this word appears to express the classic Babylonian idea of the ring of water surrounding the earth's surface (cf. Sir. 24:5; 43:12 twice, used differently in Prov. 8:27).

    Finally, TDOT comments on specific usage:

    III. Usage. The use of chugh is characterized by: (1) a typical fixed context; (2) an association with cosmological ideas; and (3) hymnic style.

    1. Context. Twice chugh is found together with choq (Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27); the interchangeability of the two terms (choq chagh and bechuqo chugh) suggests a fixed idiom meaning "incise a circle," with the aid of the instrument used by the Babylonian carpenter in Isa. 44:13, together with line and seredh ("pencil"?), to sketch out his work. In each of its occurrences, chugh is determined by a genitive (ha'arets, Isa. 40:22; shamayim, Job 22:14) or by the expression "upon the face of the waters/deep" (Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27). In other words, its meaning is limited to the circle of the earth or heavens (the rainbow in Sir. 43:12), i.e., the horizon, in the double sense of the coastline on either side of the primeval river that circles the entire earth and separates it from the realm of the heavens (cf. chugh yammim, 1QM 10:13).

    2. Cosmology. This notion of two concentric circular coastlines, that of the earth disk and that of the heavenly mountain island, is directly evident in Babylonian cosmology, as reflected, for example, in the Sippar world map (6th/5th century, with earlier prototypes). According to the inscription, the two circles incised about the earth on the clay tablet designate the "bitter river," the ocean, in which the circular earth lies like an island and beyond which rise the "regions" of the heavenly mountains. In the OT passages, chugh refers to these cosmic circles. This usage presupposes the same cosmological borrowing of a geometrical model as is found in the Babylonian world map. There must be some kind of dependence, since the notion of two horizon circles -- especially in mountainous Palestine -- presumably does not derive from empirical observation.

    3. Creation Hymns. In the OT, the ideas associated with the horizon circles are integrated with the belief in creation. At least four of the five occurrences are in creation hymns (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:10; Sir. 43:12; cf. 1QM 10:13; Job 22:14 close to hymnic style). The process of creation is addressed in Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27; Sir. 43:12, the relationship between the Creator and his creation in Isa. 40:22 and Job 22:14 (cf. Sir. 24:5). The vivid technical and cosmological imagery suggested by chugh stands each of the passages in good stead. The hymnic fragment recorded in Isa. 40:22ff. extols him "who sits above the circle of the earth," which he himself laid out (with compasses), over which he stretched the heavens like curtains, like a tent; within this circle he set plants as in a bed (v. 24), i.e., the inhabitants of the earth, who appear to him, the Creator, like "grasshoppers" (kachaghabhim, v. 22). Job 22:14 criticizes the expression of resignation that God the Creator "walks on the circle of the heavens" (cf. Sir. 24:5), i.e., stays beyond the river, in the heavenly regions, seeing but not judging (vv. 13f.). Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27 recount the creation of the world. In Prov. 8:27, chugh appears in the context of "establishing the heavens" (vv. 27f.) and refers to the circular foundation of the heavenly horizon in contrast to tebhel 'erets (vv. 26,31; chuq in vv. 27,29). The verb chugh in Job 26:10 (cf. v. 11) probably refers to the same heavenly circle, which, as the boundary of the water, serves also as the boundary between light and darkness. Finally, Sir. 43:12 links chugh with the rainbow, as though drawn with compasses, and thus goes beyond the narrower limits of the other occurrences.

    So at the very least, given the above material, Isaiah 40:22 cannot be used to claim that the ancient Jews knew that the earth is a sphere. Indeed, the available evidence is strongly in favor of the view that they thought the earth was a flat, circular disk bounded by "the circle of the earth" and "the circle of the heavens", i.e., the horizon.

    : I remember hearing or reading somewhere that Columbus(?) or one of the great explorers, argued that the world was indeed round and not flat, and that he derived this belief from the bible. Maybe someone else could elaborate on this.

    Columbus certainly thought that the earth was a ball, but he did not get it from the Bible. The notion was common in the Europe of his day among educated people. It was known to some of the ancients as far back as the Sumerians. The Greeks certainly knew it, and one even measured the size of the earth to within about 10% of the true value. Columbus actually made a grievous but quite understandable error: Knowing that the earth was a sphere, and that sailors since time immemorial had been reaching the Orient by sailing east, it was a no-brainer that he could reach the Orient by sailing far enough west. His error was in not knowing that the American continents were in the middle, and in not knowing the huge size of the Pacific Ocean. He thought that the earth is about half of its true size. A good read on this is Inventing the Flat Earth by Jeffrey Burton Russell.

    AlanF

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    SwedishChef wrote:

    : Concerning the dream interpretation in Daniel 4, guess what, that was a dream!

    So? The point is that according to Daniel, God himself gave the king this dream. Why would God implant a false picture of the physical shape of the world into the king's head?

    Furthermore, Matthew describes, not a dream, but apparently a vision that the devil gave to Jesus himself, a vision that is 100% compatible with Daniel's dream image. Why would these two supernatural beings have to use a totally false image of our physical world in order to communicate, if they both knew what the shape of the earth is? And why did you fail to address this issue, when I posted it for comments?

    : The Hebrew word for "sphere" that you say Isaiah should have used, is also used in this instance:

    : Isaiah 29:3 "And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee."

    : Now, "dure" is interpreted "round about." Does this mean that the camp would be in the shape of a sphere?

    Words can have multiple meanings. Here is what my long reference in my previous post to Sangdigger said about this word:

    The word dor has a wide range of meanings: "ball," "cycle, lifetime, generation" (most frequent), and (as the Addadian loanword duru) "ring, city wall, dwelling," all within the semantic field "turning, enclosure, circumvallation, ball".

    How do we figure out the meanings of words in dead languages? We look at the context everywhere they are used. Then we compile all the usages and figure out the definitions.

    So "dure" or "dor" has multiple meanings as shown by actual usage. But "chuwg" (or however one wants to transliterate it) does not. As my long reference noted, actual usage derived from the OT itself shows that the word does not mean "sphere" -- period. It means "circle".

    : For more info, I suggest you go this site:
    http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html

    Now, SwedishChef, as rem pointed out, by your citation of Thomas Schaff you yourself vitually claimed that Isaiah 40:22 is a proof that the Bible writers were given supernatural knowledge about the shape of the earth. Yet this link admits flat out that the best one can say is that Isaiah 40:22 cannot be used to prove that Bible writers had a wrong view of cosmology. Are you now prepared to admit that? Or will you, along with many other Bible believers, persist in using such a flawed and disproved argument?

    AlanF

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    I just wanted to mention that, yes, back in the Bible times, people had wrong ideas about the shape of the Earth, but so what?

    It wasn't God's purpose to reveal the shape of the Earth, it was His purpose to reveal the Messiah.

    I love you all!

  • donkey
    donkey

    I just wanted to mention that, yes, back in the Bible times, people had wrong ideas about the shape of the Earth, but so what?

    It wasn't God's purpose to reveal the shape of the Earth, it was His purpose to reveal the Messiah.

    UDF,

    Well now we get down to it. The reason this debate is occurring is because of the fact that believers claim the Bible is "Scientifically Accurate" and the accuracy proves that it is inspired.

    I applaud you on being the first believer here to acknowledge that discrepancies exist.

    Interestingly, the bogus claims of scientific accuracy have been made by believers - the good question is why? I believe the answer is that believers are afraid of science and the answers it will render and has rendered. Therefore, they try to remain on both sides of the fence and say that science and the Bible are compatible.

    Jack

  • SwedishChef
    SwedishChef

    Despite my personal interpretations of this verse, I know myself Isiaha 40:22 will not stand up under the attack of its critics. This verse has basically been neutralized in debates and is not worth getting into an argument over.

    I think everyone would be in agreement that this has not proved or disproved a thing.

    Rem, you seem to think that there is not a shred of evidence to back up the Bible. To think this is just plain ignorance. Like I've said before, there will always be people who say the Bible is wrong, and always be people who say the Bible is right. And both sides will have evidence to back what they believe.

    From a scientific view, there is no absolute proof to confirm that the Bible is right. And what I mean by this is, the only time there will be proof is when the last prophecy is fulfilled. And that prophecy is the return of Christ. Proof is what you can see. Believing in something you can't see is called faith.

    The Bible has never been proven wrong. There are no contradictions within these pages. This is the strongest evidence on the side of the Bible. Only in your mind have the prophecies concerning Jesus "fallen like a house of cards". You failed to see the truth in Psalms 22: "they have pierced my hands and my feet". You wrote it off as some kind of mistranslation, you twisted the meaning of the verse. You said something along the lines of, "like a lion, they scratch at my hands and feet". Only problem is, that is not what it says. The only reason I can see for denying this passage is, it would mean you would have to admit to yourself that there is something to it.

    And I am still trying to figure out what "real research" is according to you. Do you mean I should take a course in archeology, move to Israel, and start digging? Or search through all the archives of Roman and Greek literature to find evidence? Just like me you rely upon what others have found and also upon hearsay. I take it you are not a historian, Hebrew scholar, or archeologist.

    But of course, my sources are all dishonest and yours are truthful. Every source which upholds your viewpoint is a good one, and every one which does not is a ridiculous copout.





    http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

    There is also an interesting and scholarly article about the theory of evolution and its absurdities.
    http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

    "Cytologists now realize that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex machine in the Universe--a machine far more complex than the most complex Cray super computer."



    / (Main page)

    http://www.pb.org/science.html (Links to other Creationistic sites)

  • gumby
    gumby

    SC,

    After all the proof and contradictions that have shown to you and your lack of the same.....I have to wonder if you are not a Christian troll.....or the willingless to not "let go" of a belief has terrific power over you. Didn't mean to offend but you aren't jiving with things.

    Gumby

  • SwedishChef
    SwedishChef

    The Circle of The Earth
    Jerry D. McDonald
    "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers..." (Isaiah 40:22). This passage shows very plainly that this Bible writer knew that the earth was round instead of flat which was the general consensus of the time. And until recent times this is what the Godly have understood about this verse. However. in our age of doubt and skepticism, people wishing to destroy the credibility, of the Bible use this verse to show that the Bible writers were ignorant of science and that they thought the earth was flat. With this interpretation, men such as Farrell Till and Adrian Swindler contend that the Bible writers could not have been inspired by God because God would not have made such mistakes.
    Farrell Till, in the winter issue of The Skeptical Review (p.4) says
    "Even if they could successfully do this (prove that Isaiah's reference to circle was meant literally jam) they would then have to prove that Isaiah meant circle in the sense of a sphere...., the inerrancy advocates would have to prove that the passage referred to a spherical circle rather than a discoid circle. I seriously doubt that they can ever do that, but until they do, they have no argument."
    The funny thing about this statement is that it implies that no one has ever made an argument to prove that Isaiah meant a spherical circle. However, in the summer issue of this same publication, this writer, in responding to Adrian Swindler, made the following argument in favor of this contention.
    "The final passage was Isaiah 40:22: 'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...' The word for circle in this passage is the Hebrew word Khoog, which, when in its masculine form as it is here means 'a circle, a sphere,' (The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5)"
    Did Mr. Till overlook this argument? If he wanted an answer to it, why did he not go back one issue of his own publication and see what it said?
    What I would like to do is to give Mr. Till the opportunity to respond to this article and answer the argument made on the word Khoog. Let him show that it is not referring to a spherical circle.
    In Adrian Swindler's response to this argument, he cut down the King James Version. He quoted Lacantius to show that he believed that Isaiah 40:22 said the earth was flat. He quoted the NAB, the GNB, and Man and the Cosmos to show that this passage said the earth was flat. But he never did deal with the meaning of the word Khoog, which means, "a circle, a sphere" (The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249). Let us hope that Mr. Till can do a better job in responding to this than Mr. Swindler did. In any case, he now has the opportunity to respond.

    http://www.bible-infonet.org/challenge/Topics/miscellaneous/01_01_02.htm

  • Analysis
    Analysis

    SwedishChef said:

    "There are no contradictions within these pages. "

    I too used to think that was a true statement. That is until I had finished reading the Bible for the third time.

    I also understand the people can explain away some minor understandings. Like did Jesus die on Passover or the day before? As you did with Josiah being buried in peace.

    But, I will ask about a couple that seem to cause me some great concern.

    When the Israelites left Egypt God gave them the Ten Commandments one of which is You Must Not Kill. Then he told them 40 Years later to wipe out the inhabitents of the Promised Land. Even the children.

    God wanted men and woman to not divorce, yet after the return from Babylon, Ezra made them divorce their foreign Wives.

    The Bible states that the dead are conscious of nothing. But, many can find scriptures that support the dead going to Heaven and Hell.

    The Bible clearly teaches that a man is responsible for the welfare of children, but God told Abraham to toss his First Born Son out of his camp with his mother to be on their own.

    God said that the sacrifice of Children never came into his mind as a way to Worship God. Yet he told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He allowed his own son to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.

    I understand that some will always go back to the end justifies the means and that God can resurrect all dead ones and make things better after the second coming of Jesus. But if you can not even acknowledge that there are some apparent contradictions in the Bible then I doubt that you have really read the Bible with an attempt to obtain a deep understanding of what is found in the pages of the Bible.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    SwedishChef wrote:

    : Despite my personal interpretations of this verse, I know myself Isiaha 40:22 will not stand up under the attack of its critics. This verse has basically been neutralized in debates and is not worth getting into an argument over.

    Finally I see a christian apologist admit this. I wonder if from now on you'll admit this among your buddies.

    : I think everyone would be in agreement that this has not proved or disproved a thing.

    I would say not. You said:

    : Here is another site which discusses the subject of "flat earth". I have found it to better reflect my views, and it has proved to be a more scholarly work that the one of the other site I posted.

    http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

    Well, note what this "more scholarly work" had to say:

    A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

    Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

    The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

    So, SwedishChef, are you in agreement with the bolded statements in the above quotation? Why or why not?

    Let me also point out that, like JW 'scholars' who use the same bad argumentation, the writer does not seem to know the difference between "round", "circular" and "spherical". Actually these writers do know the difference, but they are dishonest enough to hope that readers are too stupid to notice -- and they're generally right! Also, they forget that you cannot defend God by using dishonest aguments, for God will punish you (Job 13:7-12). The writer obviously has no clue about the easily available material that I presented from Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, which shows why the writer's arguments are invalid. Given such gross intellectual dishonesty, or at best intellectual ineptitude, why would anyone put their confidence in anything else these pretenders say?

    This last question is particularly pertinent with respect to the 2nd link you gave:

    : There is also an interesting and scholarly article about the theory of evolution and its absurdities.
    http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

    In just a couple of minutes of reading I found many examples of the usual gross dishonesty engaged in by many creationist writers. For example, the site deliberately confuses "evolution" with "Darwinism", but the two things are quite different. Darwinism is a theory about descent with modification, for which there is a great deal of fossil evidence. "Evolution" generally refers to the much wider question of the origins of everything, and Darwinism is just one part of it.

    I also found this totally misleading statement just a little ways into the webpage: "Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups." The deception here is simple: the writer used the word "undisputed". The question is, undisputed by who? In this case, there is unanimous agreement by many biologists about the status of many so-called links. What the writer fails to inform the reader is that the disputing comes from his fellow creationists, not from good scientists. So all he has really said is that creationists dispute the claims of biologists, but he has implied that it is the biologists themselves who are doing the disputing. This is simply dishonest, but quite in kind for creationists.

    A good example of this kind of dishonesty can be found at the following creationist website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A675858

    It discusses why the writer thinks that the well-established series of linking fossils from reptiles to mammals is not a valid series. Who does he quote from to establish this? Not any scientist, but one Philip Johnson, a Berkeley lawyer who knows next to nothing of biology but a great deal about how to argue from a lawyer's viewpoint. I myself, not a biologist, can find holes in Johnson's arguments with only a cursory reading. I'm sure that with a little research I could find a lot more.

    AlanF

  • gumby
    gumby

    How do I know the Bible is true?.....because there are no contradictions. Is this a contradiction or is it me?......

    The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father... (Ezek. 18:20)

    ...The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Ki. 14:6; also 2 Ch. 25:4)

    Compare the above to this

    Ex. 20:5,
    ...for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

    Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces... [NIV: Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices...] (Mal. 2:3)

    And it came to pass, when Pharoah would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt... (Ex. 13:15)

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)..

    See! There are no contradictions in the Bible

    Edited by - Gumby on 2 January 2003 18:4:32

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit