Is the ’erets (earth) flat?
Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response
to Paul H. Seely
by James Patrick Holding
Critic Paul H. Seely claims that the Bible teaches that the earth is a flat disc
consisting of a single continent floating on a circular sea. In so doing, he once
again makes the mistake of reading into equivocal biblical language definite statements
of cosmology.
In a previous article,1 I explored
and refuted the contentions of Paul H. Seely that the Bible taught that the רקיע (raqiya‘
= ‘firmament’ or ‘expanse’) was a solid dome over the earth.
In this study, we will address a subsequent article by Seely in which he argues
that the Bible teaches that the earth is a flat disc with a surrounding sea and
a continent that floats upon this sea. We find, not surprisingly, that Seely follows
much the same line of argument as he did in his previous articles:
‘When a biblical text is interpreted outside of its historical context, it
is often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the reader’s own culture, time
and beliefs. This has happened more than once to Genesis 1. To avoid distorting
Genesis 1 in this way, the serious exegete will insist upon placing this chapter
within its own historical context. When we do this, the meaning of “earth”
and “seas” in
Gen 1:10 is found to be quite different from the modern western notions.’2
Following this statement is an impressive and informative list proving that several
early ‘scientifically naïve’ societies thought either that the
earth was flat and/or was surrounded by water on all sides, upon which the land
floated. Seely determines from this data that:
‘Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the “earth”
in Gen 1 is most probably that of a single continent in the shape of a flat circular
disc. In addition the Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian
concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts. It is, therefore,
all the more historically probable that the writer and first readers of Gen 1 thought of the
earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc.’3
‘Being a scientifically naive people, it is probable that like other scientifically
naive tribal peoples the Hebrews thought of the earth as being surrounded by a circular
sea and floating upon that single surrounding sea.’4
Seely appears to be assuming that ‘scientific knowledge’, i.e. the conclusions
of modern science, is the only source of true knowledge. And, amazingly for an author
in a Reformed theological journal, Seely seems to be forgetting that Scripture is
propositional revelation from God and therefore is also a source of true knowledge—in
fact, it is the ultimate and final source of such knowledge!
Seely continues:
‘The writer and first readers of Gen 1 also inherited Mesopotamian concepts
about the natural world from the patriarchs and no doubt were influenced by Egyptian
concepts during their stay in Egypt. Moses, in fact, was “educated in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts
7:22;
Exod 2:10). It is highly probable, therefore, that the writer and first
readers of Gen 1 defined the sea in the same way that all people in the ancient
Near East did, namely, as a single circular body of water in the middle of which
the flat earth-disc floated and from which all wells, springs and rivers derived
their water.’4
This argument is very weak indeed. The patriarchs worshipped God and believed His
Word, not Mesopotamian myths. There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that
they held any such beliefs. Seely must demonstrate this, not simply assert it. Also,
it is highly unlikely that Moses and the Israelites were influenced by Egyptian
concepts. Although Moses was educated as an Egyptian, he was also the recipient
of divine revelation which stands in stark contrast to any Egyptian teaching. Furthermore,
the Israelites lived separately from the Egyptians (in the land of Goshen) and apparently
maintained their culture and customs and did not intermarry with the Egyptians.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they would have been educated alongside the
Egyptians — and even more so when they became the Egyptians’ slaves.
In my previous article, I demonstrated the illogic and the danger of this position
in terms of biblical inerrancy, and we need not detain ourselves by elaborating
on all of these points. Instead, we will proceed directly to the scriptural citations
at issue and show that, once again, Seely is either misinterpreting what he is reading
or else is taking advantage of equivocal terminology to read his own ideas into
the text.
Gone flat
The programmatic text for this section is
Genesis 1:10:
‘And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.’
By itself this verse tells us virtually nothing about the nature of the earth and
seas. It is so equivocal that one may read into the text either a flat earth or
a round one. It is worthwhile to remind the reader of one point made in our earlier
article, that it is just as much possible that the many pagan parallels cited by
Seely are just as easily read to be distortions of the original and correct information
about the nature of the earth. In other words, they could have misread the message
and forced an interpretation upon the data just as Seely has done! Nevertheless,
Genesis 1:10 certainly does not indicate in and of itself a flat earth.5
Seely next attempts to read out from the text the idea of a flat earth based on
the presumption that a solid firmament is also taught; this point we refuted in
our previous article. Finally, Seely deals with some Scriptures outside of Genesis
that concern the nature of the earth, beginning with
Isaiah 40:22:
‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and
the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ….’
Apologists dealing with this issue often cite
Isaiah 40:22 with the explanation that Hebrew, having no specific word for
sphere, may here indicate a spherical earth. Of course we may also read into the
text a flat circle, as Seely does. Interestingly, Seely attempts to confirm his
own interpretation by making an error exactly like that of a skeptic I once confronted
on this issue:
‘If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably
have used the word he used in
22:18 (dûr), meaning “ball”.’6
Dur, however, no-more indicates sphericity than the word used in
Isaiah 40:22, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thus (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.’
Obviously, unless they were professional gymnasts as well as tacticians, the soldiers
could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this, this word
appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than specifying
a given shape.7
Seely offers two citations in support of a ‘flat earth’ view that we
need not spend much time on:
Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and
Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king,
which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision,
and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s
dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis
41). And
Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states
that lightning occurs all over the earth. Even if it did teach a flat-earth reading,
it would prove only that Elihu believed such a thing — not everything
reported in the Bible is endorsed in the Bible.
As is standard to note in such cases, the statements of characters in the Bible
are not automatically granted inerrancy unless the speaker is either God or indicated
to be inspired of God. One statement that is made by God that deserves serious consideration
is found in
Job 38:13:
‘That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that
the wicked might be shaken out of it?’
Isolated from its context, this verse might be taken, as Seely supposes, to refer
to a pancake-like earth:
‘In a clearly cosmological context, not just local, this verse speaks of dawn
grasping the earth by its “extremity or hem” (kanap; cf. Num 15:38; 1 Sam 15:27)
and shaking the wicked out of it. The verse is comparing the earth to a blanket
or garment picked up at one end and shaken. A globe is not really comparable to
a blanket or garment in this way. You cannot pick up a globe at one end. It does
not even have an end.’8
However, the full context of this verse makes it clear that the meaning Seely finds
in it is not intended at all. How does the dawn ‘grasp’ anything? Is
Seely also suggesting some sort of primitive belief in an anthropomorphic sun god?
Are the wicked literally ‘shaken’ by the sunrise? Is the bringing of
dawn accompanied by the sight of nighttime burglars rolling through the dusty streets
of villages like tumbleweeds? Clearly this verse refers to no more than the visible
horizon that the dawn ‘grasps’ as the sun rises. It is phenomenological
and poetic in every sense of its expression.
Sea change
Seely’s next assertion concerns the biblical understanding of the relationship
between the land and the sea. In his words:
‘In every pre-scientific cosmology which I have seen that mentions the sea,
the earth is described as circular, floating in a circular sea … .’9
The Bible, Seely insists, preserves this inaccuracy. His first citation for proof
is explained thus:
‘As to the shape of this one collection of seas, various OT references show
that the Hebrews conceived of it as circular.
Prov 8:27b, speaking of creation, says that Wisdom was present “When
he (God) inscribed a circle on the face of the Deep”.
Job 26:10 similarly says, “He has inscribed a circle
on the face of the waters as a boundary of light and darkness”.’10
Our answer here is the same as it was previously: there is no specific Hebrew word
for sphere; hence these cites are equivocal. They could refer to either a pancake-like
shape or to a globe.
Seely continues:
‘The bronze hemispherical (or cylindrical) sea which was set up in the temple
courtyard in
1 Kgs 7:23 also seems to indicate by its shape that the earthly sea was
conceived of as circular. For although a circular water container would not be unusual,
this basin of water could easily have been called simply a basin or laver, as was
the case with the simpler original (Exod
30:18). Instead, it was called a sea (yam). This name “sea”
for the laver parallels the name of the laver which was set up in Babylonian temples
and called apsu, the word for the water surrounding and under the earth.’11
This is all very interesting, and goes far in proving that perhaps Solomon or his
priests had such conceptions of the world, but in terms of proving that this is
the teaching of the Bible itself, it accomplishes nothing. It has no more effect
than quoting the words of Nebuchadnezzar and Elihu.
This argument by Seely has somewhat more strength:
‘The biblical picture of the earth surrounded by a sea seems to be reflected
in several different phrases used in Scripture. Rudhardt introduces us to one of
those phrases. After noting that in the cosmographies of many people waters “make
up a vast expanse, in the middle of which lies the earth, like an island”,
he goes on to say that these surrounding waters “may be divided into two oceans,
on either side of the world”. … The phrase which he thereby introduces
is “from sea to sea” as found in
Ps 72:8 and
Zech 9:10b, both of which describe the geographically universal rule
of the coming Messiah as being from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of
the earth”.
‘The context of these verses which are clearly speaking of the geographically
universal rule of the Messiah over all nations on earth (Ps.
72:9–11;
Zech 9:10b; cf.
Ps 2:8 and
Mic 5:4) implies that the phrase “from sea to sea”
is a reference to the “two oceans on either side of the world” which
enclose within their grasp the entire earth, the two oceans “in the middle
of which lies the earth like an island”. The phrase “from
sea to sea” refers to two specific bodies of water, but not to
these bodies of water just in themselves but as representative parts of the “two
oceans on either side of the world”. This understanding of the phrase is strengthened
by the fact that in Mesopotamia where a universal sea was understood to be surrounding
the world, the phrase “from the lower sea to the upper sea” [both understood
as parts of the sea surrounding the world] denotes the entire known world.’12
It fits such a conception; but it also fits a modern conception just as easily.
Once again, we encounter equivocal language in the Scripture: the size, location,
and nature of these ‘seas’ is not defined at all. Indeed, Seely can
find only one verse that comes close to making such a definition:
‘The biblical terms “eastern sea” and “western sea”,
especially as used in
Zech 14:8, where the context is one of apocalyptic universality, also seem
to refer to the eastern and western halves of the ocean that surround the earth.’13
The context is indeed ‘apocalyptic universality’, but unless these waters
also go north and south, they are hardly serving to supply the entire world—even
if it is conceived as a disc! The simple fact is that this passage in no way identifies
the nature, extent, or size of either sea; but they are easy to identify, and there
is no conception here at all that indisputably describes the circular ‘world-sea’
that Seely suggests.
In the only other places where the ‘western sea’ is referred to, it
clearly refers to the Mediterranean (Deuteronomy
11:24,
34:2;
Joel 2:20); this Seely would probably not dispute.
References to the ‘eastern sea’ are no more plentiful (Joel
2:20,
Ezek. 47:18–19), but the latter passage strongly suggests a body
of water that is nearby, namely the Dead Sea — or else, it suggests a very
strange sort of border!
‘And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, and from
Damascus, and from Gilead, and from the land of Israel by Jordan, from the border
unto the east sea. And this is the east side. And the south side southward, from
Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this
is the south side southward.’
The Dead Sea lies in a position that is right in line with the given locations.
If this ‘eastern sea’ is indeed the sort of ‘world-sea’
that Seely proposes, then these borders, as described, run in a perfectly sensible
line, except for a sudden and very, very narrow diversion to the east!
Float your boat
Seely’s final effort attempts to prove that the Bible teaches that the land
of the earth floats upon a sea of water. His verse of concern is
Psalm 136:6:
‘To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:
for his mercy endureth forever.’
We will agree with Seely, against Harris, that this passage does not refer to ‘land
masses above the shoreline’. Our agreement with Seely continues through
the following:
‘The exact relationship of the earth to the waters is expressed by the preposition
‘al. The preposition ‘al usually means “upon” …
Unfortunately, the only time the verb raqa is used with the preposition
‘al in the OT is in
Psalm 136:6. But raqa has a close synonym, namely radad,
which also apparently means ‘beat’ or ‘spread out’; and
this synonym is used with the preposition ‘al in
1 Kings 6:32 where it describes overlaying the cherubim with gold plating:
‘he spread out the gold [over or] upon (‘al) the cherubim’.
It seems very probable, therefore, that the synonymous phraseology in
Psalm 136:6 (especially in the light of
Isaiah 40:19 which uses raqa in the sense of ‘overlay’)
means that the earth is spread out over or upon the sea. As gold overlays the cherubim
in
1 Kings 6:32, so the earth overlays the sea in
Psalm 136:6.
‘The verb, “found” (yasad), which is used in Ps 24:2 means to
lay down a foundational base for a building or wall (1
KGs 5:17,
6:37,
7:10,
16:34;
Ezra 3:10–12) or to set something upon a foundational
base (Cant [Song of Solomon]
5:15;
Ps 104:5). With either meaning the most natural meaning of ‘al
would be its primary meaning, “upon”. This is confirmed by the three
other times that ‘al is used in the OT with the verb “found”
(yasad): Cant 5:15;
Ps 104:5;
Amos 9:6. In all three cases, the meaning, “upon”, is demanded
by the context.
Ps 104:5 especially demands that ‘al be translated “upon”
in Ps 24:2 because just like
Ps 24:2 it is speaking of the founding of the earth.’14
Thus far, this is all quite acceptable within a creationist paradigm, as we will
demonstrate. Our disagreement begins with this assertion:
‘Ps 24:2 is saying, then, that God “founded”, that is, firmly
placed the earth upon the seas, the seas being a foundational base. The flat earth-continent
is resting on the seas. The word “seas” (yammim) reminds us
of Gen 1:10b where God called the gathered waters of the tehom “Seas”
(yammim); and this again tells us, as did
Ps 136:6 that
Gen 1:10 is saying that the flat earth-continent was founded “upon”
(or on top of) the sea, fixed in place but floating on the sea, in exact accord
with the historical meaning.’15
Once again, Seely has slipped in a premise without warrant. We may agree with the
idea of the land being set ‘upon’ the sea, but to say that it ‘floats’
upon that sea is not at all indicated in the text. The biblical description accords
with an accepted creationist paradigm that postulates the pre-diluvian existence
of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis
7:11) which produced most of the water of the Genesis Flood. It would be
perfectly proper to have described the land as having been ‘spread out’
over this vast subterranean water source. It would also be perfectly proper for
what was left of this water source to continue to be referred in the same terms
after the Flood when it would still be a source for underground springs (Genesis
49:25,
Deuteronomy 33:13).
Conclusion
As was the case with Seely’s previous article, we have found that there is
no warrant for reading an erroneous conception of the earth into the biblical text.
Equivocal language, and a proper understanding of what has been written, demonstrate
yet again that, unlike the arguments of the critics, ‘the
Scripture cannot be broken’ (John
10:35).
Related articles
References and Notes
- Holding, J.P.,
Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal
language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul
H. Seely, Journal of Creation 13(2):44–51, 1999.
Return to text.
- Seely, P.H., The geographical meaning of ‘Earth’ and
‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10, Westminster Theological Journal
59(2):231–256, 1997. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 236. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 246. Return to text.
- Whether it does accord with the conception of a single continent
is another matter, one not necessarily in conflict with a creationist paradigm.
See Wieland, C. and Batten, D., Interview
with plate tectonics expert Dr John Baumgardner,
Creation 19(3): 40–43, 1997;
Batten, D. (ed.), Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C.,
The Creation Answers Book,
Ch. 11, Creation Ministries International, Brisbane,
2006, Q&A: Plate Tectonics.
Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 238. Return to text.
- Based on other usages (Ps.
84:10,
Dan. 4) which correspond with the idea of ‘encampment’ or ‘dwelling’,
this word would seem to be used in reference to a ‘circle’ that is somehow
in motion. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 239. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 241. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 248. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, pp. 248–249. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 249. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, p. 250. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, pp. 250–251. Return to text.
- Seely, Ref. 2, pp. 251–252. Return to text.
| Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel.  | | |
|
