Re: Hyers' Article - Cods Wallop

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 23:19:30 EST

It was only a couple of weeks ago when I stood at the Hotel del
Coronado (just visiting!) and looked as small boats partially
disappeared over the horizon. In light of that, it's a little hard to
believe that at least some of the folks familiar with the seas (even the
big inland ones) might not have some sense of curvature. Curvature of
the heavens above would be an easier conjecture, but I'll bet that a
curved earth was not a hard sell to some mariners and other sea-savvy
folks. It might be a harder leap to a spherical Earth. I don't think it
is a slam dunk that a flat earth was the universal holding. Admittedly
just a speculation, though. But, have you been to the seashore lately? JimA

Dick Fischer wrote:

> Paul wrote (to Peter):
>> In your article and response to me you give two reasons for saying
>> that raqia' is not something solid. One is that the cognate verb is
>> used to speak of something that is thin and spread out. You cite Isa
>> 42:5 which says the earth and its products (perhaps vegetation) is
>> spread out (raqa'). But, the earth and its vegetation are both SOLID.
>> So this is evidence against your view, not supporting it. There is
>> some evidence that some Jews thought of the raqia' as thin but also
>> as solid. There is no evidence that they thought of it as not solid.
> Hope you two (apostles) don't mind my interjecting a thought. The
> Bible writers also thought the earth was flat. When they spoke of
> earth or land, to them it was flat. Today, we know it is a sphere.
> So when they spoke of "earth," were they wrong because they didn't
> understand its shape? I don't think so. The word "earth" is still
> valid as a description of what lies under our feet, round or flat.
> And if we know the "raqia'" is gaseous where they might have thought
> it was solid, what difference does that make? I'm not as interested
> in what the Bible writers understood as I am about what the Holy
> Spirit chose to communicate through them. The writers were selected
> to write the Scriptures. They had no special knowledge. We can't get
> hung up on their lack of scientific expertise.
> But let's be practical for a minute. What could they have thought was
> solid? The sun and moon would have to be between the earth and this
> "solid barrier." The planets move about with freedom. Nothing solid
> between us and the planets. Can't see stars if they are behind
> something solid. So if any solid barrier had been thought to be in
> existence it would have to be located beyond the sun, moon, planets
> and stars. Is that what they thought?
> I know they were uneducated men compared to the knowledge base we have
> today. But I don't believe they were stupid.
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> <>
Received on Tue Feb 24 23:20:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 23:20:06 EST