An interesting question.
I saved this post from years ago:
The Earth is NOT a globe
Posted by Bronsky on Saturday, 22 August 1998, at 10:35 p.m.
REMOTE_HOST: sodom-4.wermlands.lu.se; REMOTE_ADDR: 194.47.212.54
Isaiah 40:22
The JW claims that this verse proves that the bible is inspired by God, since they think that the Hebrew "chugh" means "sphere" or "globe". And this "proves" that God informed Isaiah on the correct form of the earth.
A pure lie.
Check out "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament" or "Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros". The word means "circle" and nothing else.
Strange enough, they have a double doctrine here. In NW the word is rendered "circle", since the translation is mostly based on LVTL (mentioned above). In the Aid-book, then, there is a strange discussion on the topic that differs a lot compared to the standard "popular" JW-view in the "Creation"-book. Check out the "Earth"-article there, and compare to the "Creation"-book in the chapter on the bible's credibillity.
Hence: JW-exegesis is pure shit. It is astonishing that anyone can buy the crap!
JOIN THE EARTH FLAT SOCIETY -- NOW ! (part 1)
Posted by Osarsif <mailto:[email protected]> on Sunday, 23 August 1998, at 1:01 a.m., in response to ~The Earth is NOT a globe <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5811>, posted by Bronsky on Saturday, 22 August 1998, at 10:35 p.m.
REMOTE_HOST: que4-p14.telepac.pt; REMOTE_ADDR: 194.65.228.222
> The Earth is NOT a globe
It is, it is! If the Bible says, that’s because it is — we have to believe it. BTW, do you want to become a member of the Flat Earth Society? Join us! J
Now seriously,
The scripture Isaiah 40:22 is often cited as evidence that the Bible
is correct when it touches on scientific matters. The scripture says:
There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth,
the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out
the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which
to dwell.
Awake! of September 22, 1981, page 25, says concerning this
scripture:
In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah wrote of Jehovah “dwelling
above the circle of the earth.” The Hebrew “hhug,” translated “circle”
can also mean “sphere,” as Davidson’s “Concordance” and Wilson’s “Old Testament
Word Studies” show. Hence, Moffatt’s translation of Isaiah 40:22
reads: “He sits over the round earth.”
The November 1, 1977 Watchtower said on page 646:
A scientist, or an individual interested in science, may be
quite surprised to learn, that some 2,200 years before men in general accepted
the fact that the earth is round, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote [the
words of Isaiah 40:22].
The most extensive discussion I’ve been able to find on the Bible’s use
of “circle of the earth” is in the December 22, 1977 Awake! which
said on page 17, after quoting Isaiah 40:22:
The Hebrew word here rendered “circle” also may be translated
“sphere.” (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson)
Interestingly, regarding “circle” in this verse, the Scofield Reference
Bible says in a marginal note: “A remarkable reference to the sphericity
of the earth.” 5 Moffatt’s
translation reads: “He sits over the round earth,” and the Catholic Douay
Version says here: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth.”
Of course, the inspired Word of earth’s Creator would properly indicate
that the earth was round, though the ancients in general thought it was
flat.
The ancients in general may have thought the earth was flat, but that doesn’t
mean much. Even with all the knowledge available today, the majority
of Americans believe that astrology is a valid science. The point
is what the real scholars believe — that will tell the state of scientific
knowledge.
The above Awake! article acknowledges the fact that the earth
was known to be spherical by some ancient scholars:
When did men first suspect that the earth was round, not flat?
In the days of Christopher Columbus? No. Earlier than that!
Irving Robbin wrote: “To believe that one could sail to the East by sailing
west, one must also believe that the earth is a sphere. A Genoese
sea captain name Christopher Columbus believed this, but he was not alone.
He was not alone by many centuries, for as far back as 500 B.C., a Greek
scholar, Pythagoras, asserted that the earth was round. A Norwegian
textbook written in 1250 not only said the same thing, but also gave the
reasons for the varying climates of the earth, the angle of the sun at
different times of the year and the prevailing winds. Not all ancient knowledge
had been lost — it was just out of favor for a while.”
Pythagoras lived about 540 to 500 B.C.E. Much earlier,
however, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah, of the eighth century B.C.E., indicated
that the earth was spherical.
So scholarly Greeks as far back as the sixth century B.C. believed that
the earth was a sphere. Other Greeks besides Pythagoras had something
to say about the shape of the earth. Aristotle, in the fourth century
B.C., offered three proofs that the earth is a globe: (1) ships leaving
port disappear over the horizon; (2) as one travels to the south, stars
that are not visible in Greece appear above the southern horizon; and (3)
during an eclipse, the earth’s shadow on the moon is visibly curved. 6
In the fourth century B.C., the Greek Aristarchus, in his On the Size
and Distances of the Sun and Moon, used geometric arguments to try to establish
those values. While the values were wrong due to limitations in making
the necessary measurements (Proposition 15 derived the ratio of the diameters
of the Sun and Earth as between 19:3 and 43:6; he derived a distance to
the Sun of 18-20 times the distance to the Moon), the basic ideas were
sound.
In the third century B.C., the Greek Eratosthenes actually measured
the diameter of the earth. Hearing that the sun shone directly down
a well at Syene (now Aswan) at noon on the summer solstice (the longest
day of the year), he measured the angle between the sun’s rays and a plumb
bob he lowered down a well in Alexandria, some six hundred miles north
of Aswan, precisely at noon. Using simple trigonometry, he calculated
the diameter of the earth to be about 8,900 miles, remarkably close to the
true value of 7,964 miles.
The Greek astronomer Hipparchus had worked out by about 150 B.C. the
distance to the Moon by trigonometric methods, and found it was sixty times
the earth’s radius.7 The earth’s
radius is about 3,964 miles, and sixty times that is 237,840 miles.
The true figure is about 238,900 miles, a remarkable agreement.
Ptolemy, in the second century A.D., invented a conical map projection
to compensate for the roundness of the earth: “When the Earth is delineated
on a sphere, it has a shape like its own....”. Propositions 19-21
in Book V of the Almagest contain a geometrical argument yielding a distance
from the earth to the sun of 1,210 terrestrial radii (4,800,000 miles).
While this is small by a factor of 20, it gives a solar parallax of less
than 3 minutes, below the limit of observational accuracy at the time.
In the fifth century B.C. Anaxagoras, according to Plutarch and other
ancient writers, taught the correct explanation of Moon’s phases.
The Greeks knew many things that apparently other ancient peoples didn’t,
but recent research shows, remarkably enough, that they got much of their
knowledge from even more ancient peoples. An interesting example
of this was the discovery reported in the New York Times of January 8,
1950 that the ancient Sumerians were familiar with what later became known
as the Pythagorean Theorem:
Baghdad, Iraq. The discovery here two months ago that
school boys of the little Sumerian county seat of Shadippur about 2000
B.C. had a “textbook” with the solution of Euclid’s classic triangle problem
seventeen centuries before Euclid has resulted in a summons from the Iraqi
Directorate of Antiquities to United States archaeologists.
There is evidence that clay “textbooks” of the schoolboys of
Shadippur contain an encyclopedic outline of the scientific knowledge of
their time, which will necessitate a sharp revision of the history of the
development of science, and, accordingly, of the story of the development
of the human mind....
Even now, the famous clay tablet on which the basic geometrical
problem was presented about 4000 years ago is so clear that it takes a
layman back to the days when he puzzled over his own geometry test.
Not a line of the drawing is faded in the baked clay nor is a word of the
text, which only cuneiform specialists can understand. The chief
cuneiform expert.... says that the presentation of the famous solution
of the problem is tinged with algebraic concepts that appeared even later
than Euclid in the development of Western mathematical science.
Besides this tablet, there is another, presenting a catalogue
of mathematical problems. According to experts now studying the material,
it suggests that mathematics reached a state of development about 2000
B.C. that archeologists and historians had never imagined possible....
Recent discoveries of cuneiform writing seem to indicate the Sumerians
knew the earth was spherical. Any people associated with the Sumerians
or the civilizations derived from them would likewise have some of their
knowledge. This obviously applies to the Israelites, as well as the
Greeks. When the book of Isaiah was written is controversial among Bible
scholars, and is unprovable. Therefore one cannot use the purported
date Isaiah was written to prove anything. One can only use it as part
of a body of evidence.
The real question here is, Did Isaiah really say the earth is spherical?
This hinges mainly on what the original Hebrew word translated as “circle”
in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures meant. The above
citations from Awake! indicate that the original word “hhug” could
mean either “circular” (a plane round figure) or “spherical” (a 3-dimensional
round figure). If the original word could mean either a flat circle
or a sphere, then both the original general usage, and the specific context
of the scripture, must be used to determine the real meaning. Of
course, if the real meaning cannot be determined conclusively, then the
scripture cannot be used to prove that the writer of Isaiah had divine
knowledge. By going to several Hebrew concordances we can find out
the primary meaning.
Strong’s Concordance 8
gives several meanings for the Hebrew word chuwg (apparently the transliteration
from Hebrew to English varies), translated as “circle” at Isaiah 40:22.
Here are the applicable entries, minus the Hebrew letters:
2329. chuwg; from 2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, compass.
2328. chuwg; a prim. root [comp. 2287]; to describe a circle:
- compass.
2287. chagag; a prim. root [comp. 2283, 2328]; prop. to move
in a circle, i.e., (spec.) to march in a sacred procession, to observe
a festival; by impl. to be giddy: - celebrate, dance, (keep, hold) a (solemn)
feast (holiday), reel to and fro.
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament 9
gives similar renderings:
chuwg; noun; vault, horizon; of the heavens, sea and earth.
chuwg; verb; draw round, make a circle.
A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language 10
gives:
chuwg; noun; circle, circuit, horizon.
chuwg; verb; to make a circle, to move in a circle.
Note that in the above references the English words for chuwg all refer
to plane figures. Paraphrasing Webster’s dictionary, a circle is
a flat ring. A circuit is a line, often circular, encompassing a boundary;
the space within such a boundary; or a route traveled around a boundary.
A compass is a boundary or circumference, a circumscribed space, or a curved
or roundabout course. Again, the English words all refer specifically
to plane figures. They are not synonyms for “round,” which can refer
to either 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional objects. The words from
the related chagag also refer to things that are intelligible only in the
sense of a plane figure, such as moving in a circle. As the publications
quoted earlier say, the original Hebrew word may also mean “sphere,” according
to two other concordances, so the English renditions are apparently not
exact. But the fact that the majority of concordances refer to “circle,”
and have no references to “sphere,” shows that “circle” is the primary
meaning, and “sphere” is secondary. The best that can be said is
that “sphere” cannot be ruled out.
In any case, “circle” is probably the best translation. Otherwise, why
would most translators not use a different word, a prime example being
the New World Bible Translation Committee? This committee said in
the foreword to the New World Translation, that they “feel toward [God]
a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately
as possible.” If the New World Translation has been translated correctly,
then “sphere” is an incorrect rendering.
What about other references to the shape of the earth in the Bible?
Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state the shape of the earth, so let’s
see what a few scriptures say, to get the general flavor.
In the New World Translation Daniel 4:10-11 relates Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream:
“ ‘Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding,
and, look! a tree in the midst of the earth, the height of which was immense.
The tree grew up and became strong, and its very height finally reached
the heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole earth.’ ”
The word “midst” means “middle” or “center.” Therefore, other Bible versions
say “a tree in the middle (or center) of the earth.” This verse says the
tree was visible to the extremity of the whole earth, and therefore paints
a picture of a flat, circular earth. The tree stood in its center
and had its top in the heavens so as to be visible from all over the earth.
This would be impossible on a spherical earth.
Daniel 4:10-11 describes a vision given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, and
the Society says it is a major prophecy of the Bible. Why would God
give a prophecy of such importance by giving Daniel an incorrect picture
of the shape of the earth? If Daniel had a mental picture of the
earth as a sphere, and the vision pictured the earth as a sphere, what
part of the earth could be called the center? How could a tree of
any height be visible to its extremities? If Daniel had a mental
picture of the earth as a sphere, and the vision pictured the earth as
a flat circle with the tree in its center, would not Daniel and his readers
have been confused? The logical conclusion is that Daniel’s mental
picture and the vision were consistent, and therefore the scripture suggests
the picture the Bible writers had of the shape of the earth. It suggests
a flat, circular area large enough to hold all the kingdoms known to the
Bible writers, with the heavens a hemispherical vault nestled down over
the earth, not unlike the picture of Greek mythology. If you say
this scripture is just using picturesque language, then the same can be
said of Isaiah 40:22. The Interpreter’s Bible argues similarly: 11
.... the ancient Oriental conception of the world tree....
was commonly conceived of as being on the navel of the earth, and so in
the midst of the earth. In those days the earth was thought of as
a disk, with the heavens as an upturned bowl above it; thus the tree is
pictured as growing in the center of the land mass of this disk and extending
upwards until its top touched the vault of heaven, in which case, of course,
it would be visible from any point along the edge of the land mass.
This picture in Daniel is further strengthened by the account of the Devil’s
tempting Jesus. Matthew 4:8 says:
Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain,
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
Again the picture is that all the kingdoms of the world could be viewed
from a sufficiently high mountain, which is not possible on a spherical
earth. If this was not the intended picture, then why was it used?
The Devil could have showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from anywhere
at all.
With this picture of a flat, circular earth in mind, note how Isaiah
40:22 makes complete sense:
There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth,
the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out
the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which
to dwell.
This scripture and the picture of a flat, circular earth with a roof over
it also make sense as rendered in other Bible translations. This
is typical:
God sits throned on the vaulted roof of the earth. ( The New
English Bible)
There is nothing in Isaiah 40:22 to conflict with the picture of a flat,
circular earth. Other scriptures give a similar picture. Job
22:14 says of God:
.... on the vault of heaven he walks about. (New World Translation)
.... he walketh in the circuit of heaven. (King James)
.... he prowls on the rim of the heavens. (The Jerusalem Bible)
Job 37:18 says the heavens are hard like a metal mirror:
With him can you beat out the skies Hard like a molten mirror?
(New World Translation)
Can you beat out the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as
a mirror of cast metal? (The New English Bible)
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and
as a heavy metal mirror? (King James)
Will you.... Be with him to consolidate heavens strong as a
metal mirror? (The Bible in Living English)
Can you help him to spread the vault of heaven, Or temper that
mirror of cast metal? (The Jerusalem Bible)
As to viewing the vault of heaven as a thin metal sheet, Isaiah 34:4 mentions:
And the heavens must be rolled up, just like a book scroll.
(New World Translation)
.... and the skies will curl back like a roll of paper.
(The Bible in Living English)
The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 5, says concerning Isaiah 40:22: 12
The earth is conceived as a dome. In Prov. 8:27 the circle
(hugh) is the “vault over the face of the abyss” (tehom); in Job 22:14
Yahweh walks upon the vault of the heavens.
Of course, the sky is immaterial. What we perceive as a solid dome
over our heads is simply the scattering of blue light from white sunlight.
Many other scriptures refer to the earth in connection with a circle, and
various translations render the verses in such a way that a picture of
a circle, not a sphere, emerges. Many of these scriptures might be
viewed as using allegory or poetic license to make a point, not as a literal
statement of the shape of the earth or the composition of the heavenly
roof. But this is precisely the point about Isaiah 40:22. The book
of Job obviously uses both figurative and literal language; any conclusions
showing which it is using in any particular case are open to a great deal
of argument and will be biased by the prejudices of whoever is making the
arguments.
In light of all the scriptures that talk of a circular earth, heavens
like a beaten metal mirror that can be rolled up, and the lack of definitive
context for Isaiah 40:22 that shows it refers to a sphere, one cannot claim
the scripture says the earth is spherical. Therefore Isaiah 40:22
cannot be used to prove that Bible writers were divinely inspired.
The question as to what Isaiah 40:22 actually means illustrates the
point that there can be more than one interpretation of what a Bible writer
is really saying. Describing wisdom, Proverbs 8:27 in the New World Translation
says:
when he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a
circle upon the face of the watery deep.
The Interpreter’s Bible 13
comments:
Vss. 27-31 describe wisdom at the creation of the world.
She saw God spread out the firmament like a vault over the earth.
She saw the mighty waters of the deep hemmed in at God’s command by the
great land masses. She was by God’s side as he created the universe
and the various forms of life that were to inhabit it. Compass or
circle: The term probably refers to the “vault” or solid expanse
of the sky which, like a dome, rested on the deep....
The Society often refers to Job 26:7, where God is described as “hanging
the earth upon nothing.” Taking this scripture along with Isaiah 40:22,
it can be argued that the Bible writers viewed the earth as a sphere hanging
in empty space. But this argument, based on just these two scriptures,
ignores the evidence I’ve considered above.
First, note that in Job 26:7, Job himself is speaking. Later God himself
speaks, and in Job 38:6 we get a somewhat different picture, when he says
about the earth:
Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who
laid its cornerstone?
This doesn’t sound much like the Bible writer had in mind an earth hanging
in the emptiness of space, or he would have phrased the question differently.
If you argue that the Bible writer is speaking figuratively or poetically,
as does the Watchtower, 14
then you have negated your ability to show that the scriptures are talking
about the literal configuration of the earth. And that is precisely
the point about Isaiah 40:22.
There are other completely different interpretations of Job 26:7.
The Interpreter’s Bible 15
gives one:
he stretcheth out the north over the void.... and hangeth the
earth upon nothing (cf. the parallelism between void and nothingness in
Isa. 40:17, 23). This amounts to a poetic description of creatio
ex nihilo. The northern regions of the earth are connected in a special
way with the sojourn of the gods.... Possibly the north designates here
the Stella Polaris on which the constellations appear to circumambulate.
Although the poet’s cosmogony is geocentric, he fully understands that
the earth rests upon nothing and receives its stability only from the will
of the almighty Creator.
The author of Job is not the only ancient writer to speak of the earth
hanging upon nothing. The Greek philosopher Anaximander thought that
the earth was hung upon nothing. He conceived of the earth as a cylinder,
suspended on nothing at the center of the sky, which was a hollow sphere
surrounding the earth.16
So the Bible’s reference to the earth hanging on nothing is not unique.
The Society argues in the Insight book, under the subject “expanse,”
that the Bible’s use of this word (Hebrew, “raqia”) to refer to the heavens
is consistent with the Hebrew picture of the earth as a sphere:
Some endeavor to show that the ancient Hebrew concept of the
universe included the idea of a solid vault arched over the earth, with
sluice holes through which rain could enter and with the stars fixed within
this solid vault, diagrams of such concept appearing in Bible dictionaries
and some Bible translations. Commenting on this attitude, The International
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality
based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than
upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T [estament].”
As usual, it’s not quite that simple. The previous paragraph in the
Insight book just got finished saying that the
Greek Septuagint used the word stereoma (meaning “a firm and
solid structure”) to translate the Hebrew raqia, and the Latin Vulgate
used the Latin term firmamentum, which also conveys the idea of something
solid and firm. The King James Version, the Revised Standard Version,
and many others follow suit in translating raqia by the word “firmament.”
The Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars around 280 B.C.
It seems reasonable that they, being Hebrews, knew what the Hebrew concept
of the universe was, knew how to translate their own language into Greek,
and would not have translated “raqia” improperly.
The Insight book gives what it thinks is the proper rendering:
However, in its marginal reading the King James Version gives
the alternate reading “expansion,” and the American Standard Version gives
”expanse” in its footnote. Other translations support such rendering.
After having looked up for myself the meaning of “expanse” and “raqia”
I don’t see how Insight can argue as it does. According to Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary, “expanse” means
something spread out typically over a wide area: as (a) FIRMAMENT
(b) an extensive stretch of land or sea.
The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance gives the translation of “firmament,”
“raqia” and related words in several entries on page 363:
firmament 7549
7549. raqia’; from 7554; prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament
or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.
7554. raqa’; a prim. root; to pound the earth (as a sign of
passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by impl. to overlay (with
thin sheets of metal): - beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over,
out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
7555. riqqua’; from 7554; beaten out, i.e. a (metallic) plate
: - broad.
A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language by Ernest
Klein renders raqia:
flattened : 1. metal beaten out thin 2. flattening.
The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon gives its definitions
on page 956:
noun. extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out;
cf. Jb 37:18);.... 1. (flat) expanse (as if of ice,... as base, support....
Hence (Ez 1:22) 2. the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews
as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it, Gen 1:6,7,8...
Ezekiel 1:22 reads, in the New World Translation:
And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness
of an expanse like the sparkle of awesome ice, stretched out over their
heads up above.
The Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh renders the verse:
Above the heads of the creatures was a form: an expanse, with
an awe-inspiring gleam as of crystal, was spread out above their heads.
Under the subject “Awe,” Insight, Vol. 1, page 222, describes this verse:
Visionary representations of Jehovah’s glory had an awe-inspiring
impact. The platform of the celestial chariot, above which the prophet
Ezekiel saw the glory of Jehovah, sparkled like awesome ice. High
above the heads of the living creatures, which were representations of
cherubs, this platform was like a translucent expanse, awesome in size
and appearance. Through the translucent platform, the representation of
what appeared to be a throne of sapphire stone was visible.
See also the picture on page 44 of The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah
— How? The “platform” is clearly illustrated.
(See part 2 for continuation) =>
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response ] [ ~Previous <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5828> | ~Previous in Thread <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5811> | ~Next in Thread <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5986> | ~Next <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5831> ]
JOIN THE EARTH FLAT SOCIETY -- NOW ! (part 2)
Posted by Osarsif <mailto:[email protected]> on Sunday, 23 August 1998, at 1:05 a.m., in response to ~The Earth is NOT a globe <http://www.nano.no/telemark/forums/webbbs/config3.cgi?read=5811>, posted by Bronsky on Saturday, 22 August 1998, at 10:35 p.m.
REMOTE_HOST: que4-p14.telepac.pt; REMOTE_ADDR: 194.65.228.222
=> (continued from part 1)
These descriptions show that not only the original Hebrew word, but
the Society’s translation of it into English and descriptions in various
of its publications, give the concept of something spread out over an area,
typically horizontally, something with a broad, 2-dimensional quality.
There is no hint either in the Hebrew or the English of something spread
out in three dimensions, as an “open space.” Also the words have only a
secondary reference to whether or not the thing spread out is solid — the
basic concept is a shape, not a material quality. The Insight book
seems to get confused about this, in focusing on the concept of solidity,
rather than the concept of being spread out:
While it is true that the root word (raqa) from which raqia
is drawn is regularly used in the sense of “beating out” something solid,
whether by hand, by foot, or by any instrument.... in some cases
it is not sound reasoning to rule out a figurative use of the word....
Thus at Job 37:18 Elihu asks concerning God: “With him can you beat out
[tarqia] the skies hard like a molten mirror?”.... it is clear that the
Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror
whose burnished face gives off a bright reflection.
Note that the scripture not only compares the skies to a metal mirror,
but alludes to God’s creation of the sky by beating it out like a metal
mirror.
So, too, with the “expanse” produced on the second creative
“day,” no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather
the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering
the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the
formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates
that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the
entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor.
Other uses of raqia in the Bible are obviously literal. 2 Samuel 22:43
says:
And I shall pound them fine like the dust of the earth;
Like the mire of the streets I shall pulverize them; I shall beat
them flat.
Exodus 39:3 says:
Then they beat plates of gold to thin sheets.
Ezekiel 6:11 says:
Clap your hands and stamp with your foot.
To argue that “in some cases it is not sound reasoning to rule out a figurative
use of the word” is not at all the same as showing conclusively that a
particular instance of use is figurative. Yet this is what the Insight
book does. It merely asserts: “So, too, with the ‘expanse’....”
There appears to be confusion in the Society’s references as to what,
and the manner in which, something has been spread out to form the expanse.
Is it vertically, with a 3-dimensional quality as the Society implies,
or horizontally, as the references I’ve quoted imply? Either concept
may be argued to be consistent with Genesis 1:6, 7:
‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a
dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded
to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should
be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.
Based on the previous references, the picture Genesis gives is of God making
a horizontal surface (the expanse, like a beaten out metal plate) in the
waters, then lifting up the surface along with the waters above it.
In lifting it up, he creates a division between the waters above and the
waters left below the surface he has just lifted up. The expanse and the
act of making it are one set of things, and the act of making the division
is something else. The division is the space between the horizontal
surface (the expanse) and the surface of the waters below.
This concept, that the expanse is a broad area, not a 3-dimensional
space, is further indicated by Genesis 1:20, which says, “.... let flying
creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”
The scripture presents a picture of a broad horizontal expanse of sky above
one’s head with birds flying across its face. That is exactly what you
see when you look up and see a formation of geese. It makes no sense
to think of the face of a vertical division between earth and sky.
Where would the face be?
It does not help to claim that the expanse is the atmosphere — there
is little justification for it other than the Society’s picture of what
it would like Genesis to say. The Bible itself rules out the interpretation
of the expanse as the atmosphere. Gen. 1:14, 17 says “God went on
to say: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens....’....
Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”
Did god put the luminaries in the atmosphere? Clearly not.
He made them visible in the face of the expanse, i.e., in the spread out
appearance of the sky. No other image fits.
As a side point, in talking about the expanse, the Creation book misquotes
Genesis 1:20, when it says 17
birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,”
as stated at Genesis 1:20.
Genesis says nothing about birds flying in the expanse; it speaks of birds
flying upon the face of the expanse. There is a critical difference, which
Creation notes and duly ignores.
The Bible writers may or may not have viewed the earth as a sphere hanging
in the emptiness of space. If they did, it is not significant, because
so did Greek scholars, who had contact with the same ancient peoples as
did the Hebrews. I don’t claim to prove anything from the above scriptures
other than that it is clear they are inconclusive in proving or disproving
divine inspiration of the Bible.
