The Circle of the Earth

 

Flat-earth proponents tell us the Hebrew word chug (חוּג, pronounced "khoog") means a "flat, circular disk," that Isaiah 40:22 shows God enthroned above that disk, and that Isaiah would have used a different word if he had meant a ball. It sounds technical and plausible, as if based on the work of someone who has actually read Hebrew, but sounding "technical and plausible" doesn't make the claim true.

Chug is only used 4 times in the Bible, so we probably shouldn't be dogmatic about the limits of its meaning. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that it refers to something circular. Whether that can be a ball or a disk or only a hollow circle is debatable. However, we can learn a lot from the context of those 4 verses.

The Verses

Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault [chug] of heaven.
Job 22:14 ESV

In this verse, Eliphaz is accusing Job of thinking God is too far away to notice human behavior. God is behind the clouds, so he can't see what we do, and he walks on the chug of heaven (chug shamayim).

Several things follow from the context. The chug belongs to heaven, above or among the clouds, because the clouds are what hide God from our view and us from his. It is also something a person can imagine God walking on, which would imply a solid surface if we didn't already know that God can walk on water.

The verse doesn't tell us whether the chug is solid, how thick it is, or how it is shaped beyond being a circuit or arch above our heads. This is Eliphaz's caricature of Job's supposed view of God, and not meant to be a reliable description of anything. For all we know, Job held to a completely errant cosmology or Eliphaz misunderstood Job's views (more likely, since he claimed Job doesn't believe God can see what humans do). Eliphaz doesn't give any other details about this circle. He doesn't mention a firmament or God's throne room, and doesn't imply anything at all about the shape of either the heavens or the earth beyond their relative directions.

Whatever the word means here, it doesn't refer to the earth. It is a circle or arch or pathway of heaven, which might even be intended as a metaphorical description, not a literal description of a physical place.

He has inscribed [choq] a circle [chug] on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
Job 26:10 ESV

Job is replying to Bildad who seems to have applied a Calvinist-like view of Total Depravity to the entire world. In Job's view--not necessarily God's--the circle (chug) is something God draws on the surface of the waters, presumably the sea since the boundary between light and dark isn't likely to be seen on a river or lake.

Speaking from his own perspective, Job describes a line that divides light from darkness or at least marks the boundary between the two. I think Job could be describing one of three things:

1. The solar terminator where sunlight is blocked by the curvature of the earth. This is a perpetual circle around the entire earth dividing the dark side from the light. It moves across the surface as the earth rotates, creating the day/night cycle.

2. The edge of a disk-shaped earth that is ringed by oceans. This would seem to preclude the ice wall that most flat-earthers claim rings the earth to hold in the seas. I'm sure that Job understood that ice is frozen water, but he uses a different word for ice in 6:16. Elihu uses that same word for ice in 37:10, and God himself does in 38:29. Job didn't describe a circle on "the face of the ice wall" in 26:10, but on the face of the waters.

3. The visible horizon where the daylit sky seems to touch the dark surface of the sea. Since the depths of the seas and darkness are thematically linked throughout Scripture, and Job was perfectly capable of observing the horizon over the seas, I think this is the most likely meaning. 

The verse says nothing about the shape of the earth itself, only that God made a circle or arc on the surface of the water to divide light from dark.

When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep...
Proverbs 8:27 ESV

This passage is a personified Wisdom establishing her authority as a companion and helper of God from before the creation of the physical world and instructing the reader to value and seek out wisdom for himself.

The Hebrew uses a verb (chaqaq) with the same root as used for "inscribed" in Job 26:10 (choq) and the same phrase "on the face of" with a body of water. In Job it is the face of the waters, and here it is the face of the deep, but I think they are meant to convey the same meaning of the deep darkness of the seas.

Although she and Job both describe real actions by God, their language is clearly poetic and meant to convey information about God and Wisdom, not necessarily about the structure of the universe. I think the same three possible meanings of chug from Job 26:10 apply here, and the verse says nothing about the shape of the earth itself, only that God made a circle or arc on the surface of the sea.

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.
Isaiah 40:22 ESV

This is the only one of these four verses where the chug belongs to the earth (chug ha'aretz), as opposed to the heavens or the sea. The context is God looking down on his creation. God sits above the chug, and from there he stretches out the heavens and the inhabitants look like grasshoppers. The text isn't trying to describe the structure of the universe--let alone the earth--but to describe God's supremacy over his creation. The question is whether or not the verse uses a literal description of the earth to make its actual point.

Isaiah doesn't say "above the circular earth" or "above the global earth", but "above the circle of the earth". He only talks about a circle, which could be either a disk, a sphere, or a single line. It's even possible that "circle of the earth" doesn't refer to the outlines of the earth at all, but to some smaller part of the earth (remember that erets also means land), in which case the earth could be any shape at all and still have a circle which God could see from above.

The Bottom Line

Math, experimentation, and direct observation by an objective person all prove that the earth is a globe, but there is nothing in any of these verses that requires any particular shape of the earth. A cube earth fits just as well as a globe or a disk. None of these passages mentions an edge, an ice wall, an underside, or corners. One might object that the contexts of Proverbs 8 and Isaiah 40 strengthen the disk-earth interpretation when they mention "foundations", but that also works with any shape. Globe-earth proponents can speak of the foundations of the earth just as well as disk-earth proponents and everyone knows exactly what they mean. The disk and the globe both have to be inserted into these passages by the reader because it is missing from the text.

Chug denotes a circle, an arc, or a circuit of the heavens, on the sea, and of the earth. By itself, it asserts nothing about the shape of the earth. Reading it as "flat disk" imports a model into the verse, and neither the Hebrew nor the context requires it. If you want a flat earth, you'll have to bring it with you. The Hebrew didn't pack one.

Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth

I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Light can exist without a sun, star, or moon. Energy passing through a gas can cause the gas to emit light. This is how neon and other gas-discharge lighting works. God could simply declare the existence of photons moving through the universe. Or he could be the source of the light himself. See Revelation 22:5. Additionally, the absence or presence of a nearby light-emiting body has no bearing at all on the potential shape of the earth. I can't even imagine how someone comes to that conclusion.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape. The order of creation is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

Does Joshua's Long Day Disprove the Heliocentric Model of the Solar System?

At that time Joshua spoke to YHWH in the day when YHWH gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when YHWH heeded the voice of a man, for YHWH fought for Israel.
Joshua 10:12-14

A few years ago, I recorded this video addressing the idea that NASA or a computer could prove the historicity of Joshua's long day through mathematics and astronomical observations.

It's a short video, but if you really don't have time, let me summarize: No. That's ridiculous. 

Someone (we'll call him Perry) commented on the video today, letting me know that Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's solar reverse disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system. How could the sun stand still or--even more amazing--go backwards if the earth revolves around the sun!?

I didn't reply to his comment. In fact, I removed it. I have no problem being friends with flat-earthers in the real world, as long as they're not evangelistic about it, but I have very little patience for it from strangers on the Internet.

I can see how someone who doesn't know anything at all about astronomy might believe that someone could calculate the exact date of an unusual event, like the earth pausing in its rotation, by observing the current positions, vectors, and velocities of hundreds of astronomical bodies and...doing some computer and math magic. It's a complicated problem. Since very few people have anything like a working knowledge of orbital mechanics, it's reasonable for most people to just shrug and say, "Sure, sounds like it could happen."

Perry, on the other hand, has made a pretty basic logical error, and you don't need any knowledge of astronomy, physics, or math to prove him wrong.

According to the flat earth model, the sun is somehow fastened to or suspended from the inner surface of a dome. It moves in a continuous circle at some relatively small distance above the earth. How would the sun stand still or move backwards in that case? Easy: God makes it happen.

According to the geocentric model, the sun and all the rest of the universe revolve around the earth (instead of the earth revolving around the sun) in a complicated system of cycles and epicycles. How would the sun stand still or move backwards in that case? Easy: God makes it happen.

According to the heliocentric model, the earth and the other planets in the solar system revolve around the sun. How would the sun stand still or move backwards in that case? Easy: God makes it happen.

Here's the thing about miracles: None of the usual rules apply. Although God usually works through the natural processes of the universe, a miracle is, by definition, an exception to the natural processes.

How did God separate light from darkness? By commanding it.

How did Yeshua raise Lazarus from the dead? By commanding it.

How did God make the sun stand still? By commanding it.

How did God make the sun move backwards? By commanding it.

In each case, trillions of trillions of separate events had to occur in concert and contrary to the natural order of things for the miracle to happen. That's God for you. He knows every star in the sky, every hair on your head, and every subatomic particle in the universe by name and commands them all to do his bidding whenever it suits his purposes. Gravity, entropy, inertia...all obey the word of YHWH.

Joshua 10 shows God's power over his own creation. It does not support flatearth notions in any way.

Theory of Evolution by Natural Stupidity

Poisonous giant rat makes for hairy predator

"What is quite clear in this animal is that it is hardwired to find the poison, it is hardwired to chew it and it is hardwired to apply it to the small area of hairs," Kingdon said. The animals apply the poisonous spit only to the specialized hairs on a small strip along its back. When threatened, the rat arches its back and uses specially adapted muscles to slick back its hair and expose the strip of poison.

"Hardwired," he said. A distant ancestor of these rats happened to evolve an immunity to this tree's poison. Then one of its descendants happened to evolve a compulsion to eat the bark of the arrow-poison plant. Then a later descendant happened to evolve special hairs on its back that can store the poison.

"There is no other hair that is known to science that is remotely structured like these hairs," Kingdon said.

Well, that explains the "Evolutionary marvel" section heading. Evolution is bound to produce all kinds of fully formed, functional, and completely novel features with nothing remotely similar in other closely-related species. Isn't evolution clever!? What is quite clear in this story is that evolution by random mutation and natural selection (and genetic drift, gene flow, and whatever other supposedly purposeless processes one might choose to add) is the least likely mechanism for the development of remarkable features like this one. Listen, kids. X-Men is fantasy. It is not even science fiction, let alone science. Even if a mutation might rarely allow an organism to survive longer than its peers in very specific and abnormal circumstances, mutations are almost always immediately debilitating and always make an organism generally less fit. Accumulated mutations kill. The symbiotic relationship between the African crested rat and the arrow-poison plant was designed. Engineered. Hardwired. It exists because someone wanted it to exist, and not because it just "happened."

Poisonous giant rat makes for hairy predator

Nature and Nature's God

Humans Are an Essential Part of the Ecosystem

Researchers are just figuring out what has been obvious to everyone who takes the Biblical account of creation seriously, whether literally or metaphorically: humans are an essential part of the global ecosystem.

Transhumance Helps Vulture Conservation

ScienceDaily (2009-09-23) -- Researchers in Spain have shown for the first time the close space-time relationship between the presence of the griffon vulture and transhumant sheep farming in mountain passes. Transhumance -- the seasonal movement of people with their livestock -- has fallen in some parts of Spain by up to 80 percent over the past four years. The scientists say that traditional livestock farming practices are crucial for the preservation of mountain ecosystems.

Gods of Nature

Large geological structures have a way of profoundly inculcating themselves into one's imagination. Mighty rivers, high mountains, harsh deserts, wide seas. They become the dominant reference point for navigation, rivalry, and recreation. If you have lived near such a creature for an extended period, you probably know just what I mean. I grew up within a few miles of the Mississippi River, and although I moved away twenty years ago, it's still there in the back of my mind. It influences the analogies I employ, the color scheme I chose for my house, and even my dreams. I have lived at the foot of the Rocky Mountains for almost twelve years now, and I always know which way is west. If I can see the mountains, then I can find my way. They have a mystical kind of presence. It's easy to see how people come to ascribe divine attributes to such things.

The Death & Resurrection of All Mankind

God said Adam would die "in the day" that he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but we know that he actually lived more than 900 years longer. Did God lie to him?

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he came under the Law's power to condemn. He sentenced himself, and all mankind, to death in that moment. By one man's sin, we are condemned. Fortunately, by another Man's righteousness, we are absolved. "Go," therefore, "and sin no more."

See also: "One Day Is As a Thousand Years"

Platypus, Darwin Bane

In an AFP article by Marlowe Hood [the original article no longer exists, but this article at Reuters contains most of the same quotes: Australian platypus genome a link to evolution.] Darwinists once again demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking skills:

According to a study released Wednesday, the [platypus] is a genetic potpourri — part bird, part reptile and part lactating mammal.

And we all know how common it is in nature for vastly different species to interbreed. How else do you think we could have the werewolf, the unicorn, and the Tree-man?

“The platypus genome is extremely important, because it is the missing link in our understanding of how we and other mammals first evolved,” explained Oxford University’s Chris Ponting, one of the study’s architects. “This is our ticket back in time to when all mammals laid eggs while suckling their young on milk.”

The fossil record is just chock full of evidence for egg-laying mammals.

“It is much more of a melange than anyone expected,” commented Ewan Birney, who led the genome analysis at the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge….

Anyone that is, except those people who have ever seen a platypus (or a picture of one) and generally accept that living things reproduce after their own kind. I guess the really devout Darwinists must have thought the bill, the webbed feet, the egg-laying, and the poisonous spike were not the results of genetic coding. But then, if they understood the nature of codes–especially object oriented codes like DNA and C++–they wouldn’t be Darwinists.

“By comparing the platypus genome to other mammalian genomes, we’ll be able to study genes that have been conserved throughout evolution,” said senior author Richard Wilson, a researcher at Washington University.

Sure we will. Because dinosaurs (with one kind of sexual determination) evolved into birds (with a different kind of sexual determination) which evolved into mammals (with yet another kind of sexual determination), except for the platypus (with retro avian sexual determination) which apparently evolved directly from birds except for the parts that evolved from from reptiles or from mammals. All three branches of the evolutionary tree…er…bush exchange chromosomes all the time in nature.

Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Stem Cell Fight a Waste of Time

The long fight over stem cell research has been a complete waste of time, at least for the those arguing scientists should be able to use fetal stem cells derived from aborted babies. On that side, they argue that the potential life-saving benefits of the research far outweigh any moral considerations concerning the source of the cells. It appears to be a purely pragmatic argument, but it really isn't.

Scientists have known for years that adult stem cells are much easier to work with and produce more tangible and promising results in the lab. More generalized stem cells are also available from umbilical cords and uteran tissue. It's easy to understand why the pro-lifers argue against using fetal stem cells. If they really believe that a fetus is fully a human being with all the rights of any other child, then they are morally obligated to fight almost anything that would encourage more abortions. So why would stem cell research advocates spend so much time and effort fighting for the superfluous ability to use fetal tissue? It seems to me that they do it for the same reasons that Hwang Woo-Suk might have had for faking his stem cell research: ideology, pride, and money.¹

Ideology has always been a powerful force in the halls of science. In the seventeenth century, Galileo was persecuted by his fellow astronomers, because he didn't tow the party line. Perfectly valid research by some physicists, geologists, biologists, and others is often ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, because it tends to undermine the prevailing "wisdom" of the day. Much of the research that is lauded is overblown, misinterpreted, or out-right faked. This one particular avenue of stem cell research may attract so much attention, because it is right in the middle of an ideological war over the status of unborn babies. Are they individual people with inherent rights or are they organs, part of a mother's body? Scientists who take the latter view will tend to fight for their right to harvest stem cells from aborted babies long beyond the point of reasonable return on their effort, because they are true believers in the cause.

Anyone who has spent a great deal of time on something they consider to be important, especially when it has the potential for making them seem important in the eyes of others, will necessarily not want to give it up. If you show them how pointless their efforts are, they might actually work harder in an effort to prove their own worth. Their pride is a blinder to rationality.

However, the bottom line in almost every protracted struggle is money, and politicians are drawn like flies to you-know-what. The financial best interests of administrators, officials, lobbyists, congressmen, and every other stripe of bureaucrat lies in peddling fear and guilt. "Their going to kick you out on the street if the funding for this project is cut!" "If we don't pass this law, you could die! Your children might suffer!" "Don't you care that more people like Christopher Reeves will die if we don't act right now?" Horse hockey. It's your money they're after. They don't care about a better life for anyone but themselves. They will tell you anything they think will get you to give up your cash. They will threaten, cajole, deceive, and, ultimately, they will tell you it's ok to kill your own children, because it might, someday, somehow, if we're lucky, save someone else's life. "What? No, don't look behind you! Look at this terrible problem over here! You have to act now to save the children."

Which children would that be again?

¹ Of course, many people have been fooled into thinking that fetal stem cell research is vital to the future salvation of people with cerebral palsy, nervous system injuries, and every other ailment under the sun. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the scientists, the people who should know better.

Snopes on Styrofoam and Plastic in the Microwave

In researching rumors about plastic and styrofoam used in the microwave, I found conflicting information, and very little that anyone knew for certain:

Is there really something to the central claim of this e-mail, that heating plastic in microwaves releases a cancer-causing agent into the food? It’s within the realm of possibility, but it must be stressed the FDA does impose stringent regulations on plastics meant for microwaving. Also, if there are dioxins lurking in the plastic containers we heat food in and the process of warming those receptacles looses those nasties into our ingestibles, we’ve yet to locate the studies that prove this.

…the results of the experiment described tended to indicate that diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA) and xenoestrogens could migrate from plastic wraps into microwaved food (specifically olive oil, the "food" used in the experiment), but only with some brands of plastic wrap (primarily ones not sold as "microwave-safe") and only when the plastic wrap was in direct contact with the food being heated; moreover, no research has yet demonstrated that DEHA poses a significant cancer risk to humans at the levels noted here (even though they exceed FDA standards) or that xenoestrogens are a direct cause of breast cancer in women or reduced sperm counts in men.

Most plastic used in the kitchen melts at relatively low temperatures. You can see the evidence of that melting in the pitted sides or warped lid of any supposedly microwavable plastic container that has been used for a long time. (You might not be aware that microwaves are much more effective at heating oils than at heating water, so anything with a high fat content will get much hotter than other foods.( If you’ve eaten at a cafeteria or lunch counter that serves food on styrofoam plates, I’m sure you’ve seen your food melt right into them. The chemicals used in plastics are universally regarded as being unhealthy to ingest, so it is self evident that putting hot food (or microwaving food) in plastic or styrofoam containers is going to be bad for you. The only questions are how bad for you and in what ways.

The Snopes article is misleading in at least three ways:

1) As far as I can tell, the FDA does not impose "stringent regulations on plastics meant for microwaving." It made some regulations, but doesn’t enforce them. A manufacturer can stamp "microwave safe" on his plastic containers without actually having to prove the claim to anyone. The FDA is notorious for allowing these kinds of claims. If you have enough money, jump through the right paperwork hoops or if you know the right people, then you can get your products approved for just about anything. The FDA is probably responsible for as many lost lives through misplaced trust as it is for saved lives through safer products.
2) Cancer is the only malady addressed, with only a passing mention of one small aspect of fertility. Admittedly that’s what the original question was about, but they really should have mentioned the fact that the chemicals potentially released by hot plastic could cause many more problems than just cancer. Some things that ought to be looked into: impotence, infertility, birth defects, developmental disorders, immune system disorders, and probably a thousand other things.
3) Snopes uncritically accepts the word of plastic industry proponents over that of its detractors. The very serious findings of Miss Nelson’s two years of research are dismissed with a "no research has yet demonstrated…a significant cancer risk to humans…" BS. Use your brains.

I refer to Snopes to verify or refute a lot of the rumors that people send through email. They do a decent job with most things. They really did a sloppy job with this one, though. Considering the massive volume of plastic in every aspect of our lives, I think that avoiding ingesting them might be a good idea.

More info:

–Noble Nutrition (Soon to be a lot more info about what people should and should not be putting into their bodies!)
–The Straight Dope

Devolution: the mechanism of speciation and adaptation

Every time an insect, plant, or strain of bacteria appears to develop an immunity to a pesticide or pollutant, the Darwinists rejoice and claim it as another proof of evolution. The really bizarre thing is that these events are actually better evidence against evolution.

Worms in Foundry Cove were exposed to high concentrations of nickel and cadmium for more than twenty years. Some of those worms had a genetic defect, which hindered normal controls on the creation of a particular protein. Those worms' growth is stunted, and they are generally less fit. Interestingly, this protein binds with the excess cadmium, preventing most of the metal's harmful effects. The defective worms were able to survive and reproduce, while the healthy worms were poisoned and almost died out. The defective worms are not more fit. They are inefficient, sickly, and weak. They did not gain any useful genetic information. In fact, they only survived because they lost information. They survived only by the destruction of a properly functioning system. When most of the pollution was removed from the cove, the healthy worms returned, and the inferior worms nearly disappeared.¹

Some antibiotics work because they have a similar molecular structure to some naturally occurring molecule in the target bacteria. The bacteria mistakes the antibiotic molecule for one of its own, and the particular system that would make use of the genuine molecule malfunctions. If a mutation slightly changes the way that the molecule is recognized or used, then the antibiotic might lose its ability to fool the system. Bacteria with the mutation are resistant to the antibiotic, and so will survive and multiply as long as its competition is under attack. Once again, this isn't evolution. Such a mutation never enhances the effected system, but always reduces its native effectiveness, sometimes severely. When the antibiotic is withdrawn, any unmutated strains will begin to out-perform and out-number the mutated, resistant ones.²

Suppose there is a human disease which attacks through the cuticles on your fingers and toes. The disease is almost 100% fatal. Also suppose that there is an inheritable genetic defect which causes some people to be born without fingers and toes. They can't balance very well, and they can't hold onto anything very well, but they aren't affected by the cuticle disease, because they don't have cuticles. If the disease can be eliminated, then people with all of their fingers and toes will quickly begin to outnumber those who have none.

No evolution has occurred in these examples. No new genetic information was created, only lost. Those that survived did so only by the loss of functionality and fitness. New species and new resistances are not created by evolutionary processes. They are created by the breakdown of order and the destruction of information, devolution.

¹ David Catchpoole, "Worm evolution in pollution?," Creation 26(3) at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/pollution.asp.
² Kevin Anderson, PhD, "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4), 2005, at http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp.