Are There Errors in the Bible?

[UTEOTW]

"Can you tell me the ancient Hebrew word for sphere and where it is used in the OT?"

I don't know Hebrew, but a quick search of String's gives me "duwr" used in Isaiah 22:18 as such "He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house. "

Besides, the context fits the image of what the ancient Jews thought of the shape of the earth.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The Bible does not describe the earth as either a circle or a ball. The word “ball” in Isa. 18:22 is NOT speaking of the earth.

-- King James
Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

-- New King James
Isaiah 22:18 He will surely turn violently and toss you like a ball into a large country; there you shall die, and there your glorious chariots shall be the shame of your master's house.

-- American Standard
Isaiah 22:18 He will surely wind thee round and round, and toss thee like a ball into a large country; there shalt thou die, and there shall be the chariots of thy glory, thou shame of thy lord's house.

-- Revised Standard
Isaiah 22:18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master's house.

-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
Isaiah 22:18 Tsaanowp yitsnaapkaa, tsneepaah kaduwr, 'el- 'eretsrachbat. Yaadaayim shaamaah taamuwt. Wshaamaah markbowtkbowdekaa -- qlown beeyt 'doneykaa!

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
Isaiah 22:18 Tsanowp yitsnapka, tsnepah kaduwr, 'el- 'eretsrachbat. Yadayim shamah tamuwt. Wshamah markbowtkbowdeka -- qlown beyt 'doneyka!

-- New American Standard
Isaiah 22:18 {And} roll you tightly like a ball, {To be} {cast} into a vast country; There you will die And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master's house.'

-- New Jerusalem
Isaiah 22:18 will screw you up into a ball,
a ball thrown into a vast space.
There you will die, with your splendid chariots,
disgrace to your master's palace!

-- New American
Isaiah 22:18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball
into an open land
To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in,
you disgrace to your master's house!

-- New Revised Standard
Isaiah 22:18 whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there your splendid chariots shall lie, O you disgrace to your master's house!

-- Young's Bible
Isaiah 22:18 And thy coverer covering, wrapping round, Wrappeth thee round, O babbler, On a land broad of sides - there thou diest, And there the chariots of thine honour [Are] the shame of the house of thy lord.

-- Darby's Bible
Isaiah 22:18 Rolling thee up completely, he will roll thee as a ball into a wide country: there shalt thou die, and there shall be the chariots of thy glory, O shame of thy lord's house!

-- Webster's Bible
Isaiah 22:18 With violence he will surely turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a wide country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.

-- New Living Translation
Isaiah 22:18 He will crumple you up into a ball and toss you away into a distant, barren land. There you will die, and there your glorious chariots will remain, broken and useless. You are a disgrace to your master.

 

[Marcia]

The NET Bible translates the first part of Is 40:22 this way:

He is the one who sits on the earth's horizon; its inhabitants are like grassphoppers before him.

This is much like the "the circle of the earth" which certainly implies the earth is round (or a sphere). It does not sound like it's talking about the dome, but rather the earth. Nothing you've posted shows that the Bible teaches or suggests that the earth is flat.

I am not saying that this verse positively is saying the earth is a sphere, but it certainly is not saying the earth is flat.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
The Bible describes the Earth as a circle far before science proved it.

Actually, the Bible referred to the earth as being a flat, circular disc. The oft-quoted verse referrs to the "circle of the earth". The Hebrew word here is a disc shape. This is because they Hebrews of the day believed the earth was flat. However, the shape of the earth (flat, spherical, whatever) was not the purpose of the verse's writing, and has nothing to do with it's context. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) to find that most don't even know what the context of the verse is. But it was NOT intended to testify to the shape of the earth.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
The Bible describes the Earth as a circle far before science proved it.

Actually, the Bible referred to the earth as being a flat, circular disc. The oft-quoted verse referrs to the "circle of the earth". The Hebrew word here is a disc shape. </font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word here, translated as "circle of the earth" means:

chug (295b); from 02328 ; vault,
horizon :-- circle(1), vault(m)(2).

So there is reason for the NET Bible to translate that as the "earth's horizon." Some also translate it as saying the vault above the earth, but it is not implying the earth is flat in any way.

It comes from a root word meaning

to draw
around, make a circle :-- inscribed a circle(1).

I think the evidence is coming down on the side of this verse implying the earth is spherical more than it implies the earth is flat.

(JohnV, we know that this is not the point of this verse, but it came up because of the topic of the thread and someone saying the Bible teaches the earth is flat).

 

[Jason Gastrich]

For what it's worth, the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid. Nonetheless, I agree with Marcia when she says this verse does NOT mention or imply a flat Earth, but how the Earth would appear from above; using the closest Hebrew vernacular for oblate spheroid that they could use. They didn't have a word for sphere and they surely didn't have a word for oblate spheroid.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[danrusdad]

Point 1: God does sit upon the circle of the earth! Since He is omnipresent, He sees the earth from every angle. And guess what shape it looks like from every angle: A CIRCLE!!!

Point 2: So did Satan show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world or not? Even if they thought the world was flat, then, CONCIEVABLY, He might have been able to see them all, but even this would take some supernatural assistance. How far can you see clearly? But we all know the earth is round; therefore, He could not have literally seen all the kingdoms. Again a supernatural element is needed. Unless you want to assume thet the whole temptation thing is a lie. But then what's the point? Satan told Him He could see all of them, even though He couldn't and Jesus believed him? What kind of temptation is that?

 

[HankD]

Repeat:
The ability of Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world (and it does say "world" not earth) in that one moment of time does not depend upon the georaphical shape of the earth, round, square, trapezoidal, whateveroidal. Either He saw them all in a moment of time or the Scripture is not inerrant.

A no-brainer for me (I know, you're not surprised

).

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
For what it's worth, the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid.

Heheh!! In layman's terms, the earth is actually egg-shaped.

They didn't have a word for sphere

duwr, in Hebrew, referrs to a "ball" or "sphere" shape.

and they surely didn't have a word for oblate spheroid.

hallamuwth referrs to an "egg" shape.

As far as the Hebrew word chuwg (translated "circle" and "horizon" in regards to the earth), it referred to a circular disc-shape, such as the surface of a compass. The translation "horizon" in the context of the verse would be correct, though. The verse referrs to the inhabitants of the earth being spread out to the end of the horizon (or, in the directional sense, to the end of the compass disc), spread out like grasshoppers. Again, the verse was NOT intended to describe the shape of the earth or its surface. Those who reference this verse as "evidence" that the Bible describes a round earth are taking the verse out of context, and this adding to scripture, which is bad theology.

 

[BWSmith]

I agree with Johnv's understanding of "chuwg", and I would also like to add two truths on methodology that I've learned in arguing about Hebrew words:

1) When dealing with a dead language like Hebrew, in which the Biblical text itself is the primary source for the meaning of words, the certainty of the definition or meaning of any given word is only as valid as the frequency of the use of that word (in different contexts).

Example: If the text says:

a) "Elijah rode off on a "whatchamacallit"."
b) "God sent a "whatchamacallit" upon the Philistines."
c) "She was Jezabel, the "whatchamacallit"."

And suppose the traditional reading for "whatchamacallit" was "whirlwind", but the Phoenician root "whatchamacallitos" actually meant "wild donkey", it would be difficult to say how the term should be properly translated.

2) When the word in question is used in a poetic context (i.e. Psalms or writing prophets), the intended "meaning" of that word becomes even more muddled, because poetic writings often get their power from unusual uses of words.

That's the futility when dealing with words like "chuwg". There are no native speakers to ask about the nuances of that word. You can't write or reference an "objective" lexicon for the word, because the definition of "chuwg" is necessarily tied into the lexicon writer's own interpretation of the verses that use it.

Plus, the word appears in three poetic contexts (Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), so even if we had a baseline for a literal translation (circle), there is still wiggle-room in the genre to make the word fit whatever we want it to (sphere).

So does "chuwg" mean flat-earth circle or round-earth sphere? The verse draws upon the word and the word is defined by the verse, creating a circular logic that is ultimately based on what the reader brings to the table with regard to his own view of the shape of the earth and whether it was possible for the Biblical writer to be thinking otherwise.

Comments?

 

[Jason Gastrich]

I still think the Earth isn't flat . . .

Anyhow, since I created this thread for alleged Bible errors, I'd be happy to read and respond to anything else that you think may be in error in the Word of God.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

I think "Chug" (I forgot how to use the Hebrew font here!) probably denotes the idea of flat circle and less that a likely a sphere.

The word is not often used in the Bible and appears in the later parts of Isaiah and I think Job (thus not likely an authentic old Hebrew words but a borrowed Aramaic word) The closest parallels are found in Babylonian writings speaking of measuring things out with a compass.

This isn't saying that the Bible speaks of a flat earth - rather it doesn't really speak about the "shape" of the earth. This verse likely relates to the idea of heaven being a place where God abides, very distinct from earth.

I should add that my understanding of this passage draws heavily on the essay by K. Seybold in TDOT.

 

[Brett]

Not much to comment here, except to commend BWSmith for his excellent post.

 

[Marcia]

There have been changes in Hebrew vocabulary and in other aspects of the language, but Hebrew is not a "dead language."

 

[BWSmith]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
Anyhow, since I created this thread for alleged Bible errors, I'd be happy to read and respond to anything else that you think may be in error in the Word of God.

Welcome to this edition of "How to Win a Biblical Inerrancy Debate"!

Here's how the game works:

When shown one of the many Biblical assertions that might be considered erroneous, the most important thing to remember is DON'T PANIC!! As long as you never stipulate what constitutes an "error", you get to qualify the meaning in such a way that it never reflects negatively on the Lord. Those who suggest that the Bible contains errors are simply "mistaken" or "not aware of the harmonization" or "using a bad translation or manuscript".

Your opponent is powerless for three reasons:

1) They can't prove that secular historical facts are more reliable than Biblical historical facts. If it's "man's word against God's word", you know who wins.

2) They can't prove that the Bible ever clearly refers to a cosmology known to be false. Flat, immovable earth? Of course, the Bible doesn't say that! That would be an error! The Bible is just being "metaphorical from a human perspective".

3) They can't prove that one verse in the Bible contradicts another, because they can almost always be harmonized. If they can't be harmonized, then they are using an erroneous manuscript copy of a perfect original. If all the copies have the contradiction, then we are all the hapless victims of erroneous manuscripts (but God's got a good copy stashed away).

When presented with an apparent error, proceed down this chain of options:

Q) Why does Daniel say that Darius was a Mede, when he was a Persian?

A) "If Biblical history says one thing and non-Biblical history says another, Biblical history wins." Therefore, secular history has simply forgotten about the Biblically-attested "Darius the Mede".

Q) Why does the Bible say that Judas died by hanging in one place and bursting guts in another?

A) "If Biblical history appears to contradict Biblical history, combine them into a harmonized account." Therefore, Judas hung himself, and then his guts burst open.

Q) Who was Joseph's (Mary's husband's) father?

A) We have no idea, but we can be certain that the concept of "telescoping genealogies" ensures that you can't prove an error.

Q) Did Elhanan kill Goliath?

A) Sorry, you and I have a bad Bible manuscript. The originals never said that.

Q) I give up.

A) Aha! I have successfully affirmed the hypothetical perfection of scriptural autographs that we will never possess!!

What a great God we serve, that He grants us access to imperfect copies of perfect originals, so that we may know his truth within a very small margin of error...

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Careful there, BWSmith, you might get people started on checking out what God really did instead of telling everybody what He did theoretically

 

[Artimaeus]

WOW!!! 195 posts and STILL no errors in the Bible. Who'd a thunk it.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK Lets put up a little numberical paradox for us to chew on. In Ezra 2:5, it says the sons of Arah that made the initial return trip from Babylon to Jerusalem numbered 775. But in Nehemiah 7:10 it says they numbered 652. Both numbers cannot be correct, therefore our bible contains an error.

Or perhaps we will receive an explanation for the discrepancy from one of the brethren.

 

[Marcia]

I didn't think we were discussing copyists' errors. We all agree (I think) that there are errors in copying, particular numbers and names.

For this passage, it is most likely a copyist error. It is also possible that Ezra and Nehemiah had lists from different times -- one from those leaving with Zerubbabel, and one list of those who actually made it to Jerusalem, excluding any who died or turned back.

You should get When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. It addresses all these discrepancies, and alleged contradicitons and errors. Dr. Howe teaches Greek, Hebrew, OT, and Hermeneutics at my seminary. Geisler I am sure you have heard of.

Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficutlies also addresses this issue. In fact, he has 2 full pages on it. One thing he points out is that there is strong confirmation that this is a copyist error, though he also gives a similar explanation about the number being from different lists (those who left and those who made it).

I hope your sentence, "Or perhaps we will receive an explanation for the discrepancy from one of the brethren" isn't sarcastic (though I'm a 'sistern'). We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and will be in heaven together -- so we should love each other now.

(I'm going out of town tomorrow after church, so if I don't reply, it's not because I'm ignoring this thread.)

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Why do we assume there is a copyist error? Isn't that rescuing biblical inerrancy by making an assumption?

As for one being those who left and the other being those who made it, you have the difficulty that the end numbered totals are exactly the same. Moreover, there are many discrepancies between the different catagories, some upwards, some downwards one from the other, so that one cannot say one list is merely the result of the other after some period of attrition due to death or turning back.

So if we find a discrepancy, we can just say it was a copyist error and therefore there was no discrepancy? Is that the only way we can say the Bible is inerrant?

I take it by faith that the Bible is inerrant in matters of doctrine and belief. But I cannot tell how many sons of Arah made the initial migration trip back from Babylon to Jerusalem - the two sources from the Bible are contradictory as we have them.

There's something fishy about the doctrine of inerrancy as we commonly see it pushed for on this forum. Nobody has an inerrant text available today.

Why is God willing for that situation to exist?

Since God is perfect, and His plans never fail, that means He allowed for and approved this situation to exist for us today, doesn't it?

What would it mean if we accepted what God has apparantly actually done and accepted that the Bible can contain minor discrepancies of fact?

P.S. Of course we should all have Christian love one for another. Please don't confuse strong pushing of a rhetorical point for lack of love and concern - instead, take it as a compliment that i consider fellow posters to be of sturdy stuff that can take as well as give in debate.