Does that mean the Earth is flat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBreak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBreak

Guest
English is not my first language, so I’m sorry for any misspellings.

In the book of Job chapter 38: 13 it says " That it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

That what God said to Job, and it looks like when someone take the rug from the edges and shake it.

So does God mean it like that? Did that mean that according to the bible understanding, that the earth is flat?

May God bless you all.
 
I’d say no, although interestingly enough these types of verses have promoted that belief among the faithful. I’d say that verse isn’t to be taken literally but rather is used figuratively.
 
English is not my first language, so I’m sorry for any misspellings.

In the book of Job chapter 38: 13 it says " That it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

That what God said to Job, and it looks like when someone take the rug from the edges and shake it.

So does God mean it like that? Did that mean that according to the bible understanding, that the earth is flat?

May God bless you all.
Yes, it does. The Israelites thought the world was flat. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed it was round/spherical, and had evidence for this view. The educated Christians in the Roman Empire, e.g. many of the Church fathers, realized that the writers of the Bible had many false beliefs of this sort.
 
Okay, thank you for the answer guys.

Let me clear here as we talk about not taking the bible “literally”. I come from Muslim background, and in Islam, the Koran is holy and literal. there is no such thing as not taking the Koran literally. So that background affects my way of understanding the Bible. So. sometimes when people tell me to not take the Bible literally at some points, I feel that is kind of lack of belief. I wonder, if that part is not literal, than might be all the bible like that. But also, when I take it literally like the Evangelists do, I face so many problems such as the one that I talked about it above. also, then I say to myself, That was not the case few centuries ago, there was no such thing as not taking the bible literally. why that changed? Is it way of church to keep itself modern? Why just this age the creation story became “not literal”

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that the creation story is true as it is in the bible. But I have problem in how to take the bible and understand it?
 
and has traces of horsemeat

sorry guys if you not seen the Brits news this week 😃
 
Trust me, it’s as flat as an orange.

To the ancient Jews, creation was seen as an altar, and all actions are offerings to the Lord. (This is why there is no such thing as an unimportant sin, by the way.)

The altar of creation, like a literal, stone altar, has four sides. Four is a number associated with this world and this life. Hence the expression, ‘the four winds’. Of course there are more than four directions the wind can take, but to refer to the four winds is to imply all directions. Four sides implies all sides. And the image implies edges. But it means that the Lord took a good strong hold of the world (creation) to shake it.

Even the Babylonians knew the world to be sphere-like. Charlemagne was depicted holding an orb to represent the earth. Columbus knew the world to be round. The Bible is not an atlas, nor is it a history or science textbook.
 
Okay, thank you for the answer guys.

Let me clear here as we talk about not taking the bible “literally”. I come from Muslim background, and in Islam, the Koran is holy and literal. there is no such thing as not taking the Koran literally. So that background affects my way of understanding the Bible. So. sometimes when people tell me to not take the Bible literally at some points, I feel that is kind of lack of belief. I wonder, if that part is not literal, than might be all the bible like that. But also, when I take it literally like the Evangelists do, I face so many problems such as the one that I talked about it above. also, then I say to myself, That was not the case few centuries ago, there was no such thing as not taking the bible literally. why that changed? Is it way of church to keep itself modern? Why just this age the creation story became “not literal”

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that the creation story is true as it is in the bible. But I have problem in how to take the bible and understand it?
First: God be praised for bringing you to the truth of His Son Jesus Christ!
Second: The Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism:
159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
Therefore if something is proven to be true or false by the scientific process (that is to say, it can be without a doubt shown to be established in all cases under all possible circumstances, not merely supported by some studies and contradicted by others) we may say that anything in Scripture that contradicts these proven facts must be taken in a non-literal way so as not to contradict reality, for to contradict reality would be for God to contradict Himself and in so doing challenge His perfect divine nature, wisdom, knowledge, and power. Now of course it is very difficult for anything to be proven so strongly, even the Theory of Evolution would not meet this criteria in my opinion- although many Catholics and other Christians favor a view that attempts to harmonize evolutionary theory with creationism which results in a non-literal understanding of the creation story. I would, however, suggest that the shape of the planet is proven beyond all doubt, and therefore any and all verses of the Bible that speak of the Earth being flat must be understood as being metaphorical and/or reflecting the human author’s understanding, depending upon the context.
 
You have to remember that unlike Muslims or many evangelical Protestants, Catholics recognize that Divine Revelation comes to us in three forms:
  1. Sacred Scripture (IE. the 73 books that comprise the Bible)
  2. Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the apostles entrusted to their successors the bishops and passed down from generation to generation)
  3. Magisterium (the living teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him as the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles)
Nothing in the Bible can be read in isolation - it must be read within the context of Sacred Tradition as articulated by the living Magisterium. We utterly reject as false the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura or Scripture Alone. The Sacred Books that comprise the Bible were carefully selected by the bishops of the Catholic Church and it was by their authority that the canon of Scripture was defined…the Church came first - she by her authority gave us the BIble. The Bible is the Church’s book and thus only the Church is competent to discern its true meaning.

You have to keep in mind that unlike Islam, the Incarnational principle is central to Christianity. God assumed our human nature in order to elevate humanity to share in the divine life of the Trinity. The Church is the body of Christ - the mystical extension of the Incarnation in this world - and thus everything that the Church does must be understood in light of this Incarnational principle. The Sacred Writers who composed the 73 books of the Bible were inspired by God, but they remained human writers…like the Church, and like Christ Himself, there is an incarnational or dual-nature to the composition of the Scriptures…the Divine element AND the human element. God does not wish to eradicate our humanity, but rather to raise it to share in His life. When reading Sacred Scripture, the Church does not ignore this human element which God chose to employ to convey His Wisdom. For this reason, we must take into account the intention of the writer, the *genre *in which he wrote - including his cultural context. Did the Holy Spirit, through the Sacred Writer, intend to teach us that the earth was flat? No, the Holy Spirit allowed the Sacred Writer to employ a very human metaphor to convey the point of the passage…the image the Writer gives us conveys the idea that God will rid the world of wickedness in the same way that a carpet, to use your analogy, is shaken to be rid of dust.

Keep in mind that the Church did not canonize Scripture with personal devotional reading in mind; after all, the vast majority of Christians could not read for most of Church history. The Scriptures were canonized to be proclaimed in the context of the Church’s divine worship - the liturgy. After the Scriptures are proclaimed at holy mass, the priest or deacon provides authoritative commentary on the Scriptures, drawing from Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to shed light on the passages we have heard.

I hope that helps.
 
Okay, thank you for the answer guys.

Let me clear here as we talk about not taking the bible “literally”. I come from Muslim background, and in Islam, the Koran is holy and literal. there is no such thing as not taking the Koran literally. So that background affects my way of understanding the Bible. So. sometimes when people tell me to not take the Bible literally at some points, I feel that is kind of lack of belief. I wonder, if that part is not literal, than might be all the bible like that. But also, when I take it literally like the Evangelists do, I face so many problems such as the one that I talked about it above. also, then I say to myself, That was not the case few centuries ago, there was no such thing as not taking the bible literally. why that changed? Is it way of church to keep itself modern? Why just this age the creation story became “not literal”

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that the creation story is true as it is in the bible. But I have problem in how to take the bible and understand it?
Some of the books of the bible are written in a poetic fashion, such as Job, but still contain truth in regards to salvation, even if it contains false inclinations in regard to scientific understanding. As someone stated before, people of the time did not have the scientific understanding that we do today, so there is likely to have been many that believed the earth was flat. But the purpose of the bible is salvation history, not necessarily scientific history. Though, through some of what is written, we can get an idea of scientific historical events that have happened, even if not having 100% of the facts.
 
Yes, it does. The Israelites thought the world was flat. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed it was round/spherical, and had evidence for this view. The educated Christians in the Roman Empire, e.g. many of the Church fathers, realized that the writers of the Bible had many false beliefs of this sort.
Indeed, not only is our world flat, but it has become very flat!* And, travel far enough in any one direction and you will surely fall off the edge of our world – you will fall into reality!
 
English is not my first language, so I’m sorry for any misspellings.

In the book of Job chapter 38: 13 it says " That it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

That what God said to Job, and it looks like when someone take the rug from the edges and shake it.

So does God mean it like that? Did that mean that according to the bible understanding, that the earth is flat?

May God bless you all.
i think you missed the point of the verses

what it says is true - about the nature of God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top