The Languages of The Table of Nations

Genesis 10 says the Nations were divided according to their Languages, not bloodlines or DNA Haplogroups or geopolitical alliances, and then Genesis 11 explains how and why that happened.. If you study what the word "Ethnos" meant to the Ancient Greeks the same implication exists, language more then anything else decided what an "Ethnos" was, hence Barbarian originally meaning "non Greek speakers".  There is also Biblical Support for what god you worship being equally a factor, but that's where Liturgical Languages come in.

On the subject of Japheth, almost every Liturgical Language of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Indo-European, the only exception is the Georgian Language interestingly, Georgia's ancient demographic relationships to the lands around it are uniquely complicated.   

The big issue for trying to define Languages Biblically however is that the language of the ancient Canaanites is in the same Language Family as Hebrew, and very closely related in fact.  Thus modern Linguistic Scholars classify it as a Semitic Language.

When Abraham and his nephew Lot left Mesopotamia for Canaan and then lived there a few generations before the captivity in Egypt, I think it's highly probable they dropped the language of their homeland and adopted the language of the Canaanites, or became Bilingual.  And Isaiah 19 does in fact call the Language the Israelites and other YHWH worshipers were speaking the "Language of Canaan", so the Hebrew Bible itself defined this Language as belonging to Canaan not Heber.  It's not till the New Testament during Greco-Roman times we start seeing that language called Hebrew.

Basically I think Abraham's family did the same thing Diaspora Jews of the Christian Era have repeatedly done, developed a modified form of the language of the people they sojourned among.

The same thing happened with the Philistines, they did not originate as descendants of Canaan but wound up speaking a Canaanite language after settling in the Gaza strip. 

So the Language Family called Semitic today I think is Biblically Canaanite.  But scholars also use Canaanite for a specific subgroup of that family (the one that includes Hebrew), that sub group I shall call Sidonian since that Tribe had the most influence over that immediate area.

Looking at that break down of the Semitic Language Family I got from Wikipedia, it's clear that the Abrahamic Tribes came to dominate some entire Branches.  Nabatean and Aramaic both descend from Ishmael, Nabatean from Naboth, Kedar, Tema and Dumah, and than Aramaic from Hadad who was the name of the Patron deity of the earliest Aramaic speaking pagans.  And then Arabic originated among the sons of Abraham by Keturah, perhaps chiefly Dedan son of Jokshan..

How can Genesis 10 Aram not be the father of the Aramaic Language?  Well we know from Deuteronomy 26:5 that Abraham was sometimes called Aramean even though his direct Patralineal descent was from Arphaxad, I think some Ishmaelite Tribes may have had a similar idea.  

One detail of that Map is out of date and that's implying Aramaic first emerged in Mesopotamia, linguistic scholars now agree it first emerged in the general area of Damascus.  The city of Damascus proper wasn't truly founded till after 2000 BC and thus well after when I place even the latest events of Genesis.  So I think it was Ishmaelites who founded that city and named it after the Damascus of Genesis 14-15 possibly because it was in the same area.  Damascus is included in what I interpret to be the inheritance given to Ishmael, which is all of the Trans-Jordan part of what was Promised to Abraham.  Zobah is probably where these Ishmaelites of Hadad lived first however, and then 1 Kings 11 explains how an offshoot of their civilization became a King of Damascus.

We know from 1 Chronicles 5 that the Jetur and Naphish tribes of Ishmael also resided in South West Syria, the region known as Iturea in New Testament times.

Ugarit I suspect was the original city of the Girgashites, and then the Amorites are who you'd assume they are, The Torah does hint a few times that the Amorite Language is distinct from the Sidonian Canaanites.  Eteocyptriot if it's Semitic (there is dispute about it) may just come from Ugarites who colonized Cyrpus.  [Update: my perspective on the Girgashites has changed, and my view on Ugarit now is them being an Amorite colony.]

Ebla and the Hamathite are the same in my current theory.  Ironically the name Akkad itself is not Semitic, that city was originally Sumerian.  It was Sargon's Empire that imposed this Semitic Language on all of Mesopotamia, and that makes me suspect Azupiranu was the actual Akkadian name of Akkad.  Actually I think I should just identify the Hamathites as the ancestor of the entire Eastern branch.

The South Semites descended from various groups who traveled South and their history may be the subject of their own post in the future.  But it is worth noting that Josephus said Abraham's children by Keturah were given Arabia Felix. I think the entire South Semite region of that map is what the Egyptians called the Land of Punt.  Still I do think there may have been Canaanites who traveled there first.  Actually I have decided to identity the Sinite with the South Semitic branch because of the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12.

Qahtan is traditionally identified with Joktan, James A. Montgomery however has pointed out that the etymology of that doesn't work.  My theory that it refers to descent form Keturah isn't perfect either, but it at least begins with the right letter.  So the Sheba of Yeman I do now unlike in the past identify with the Keturite Sheba.  I also believe the Mineans of ancient Yemen were the descendants of Teman son of Eliphaz son of Esau.

Spiritual/Religious descent from the Canaanites is dead, any modern Neo-Pagan groups using Canaanite names for their gods have no actual continuity with them.  So the Churches who's Liturgical Rites are East Syraic/Aramaic I view as the Eschatological Assyria of Isaiah 11 and 19 alongside the Coptic Churches as Mizraim.

If the Semitic Language Family is Canaan then that fits it's larger Afroasiatic Family being Ham, with Mizraim as Egyptian, Cush the Cushitic Languages and the Berber Languages as Phut. 

"What about the Afroasiatic Families that don't fit into one of those four categories?" You may ask?  Maybe Ham did have more offspring then the four the Table of Nations specified, after all he does have the least mentioned.  Or maybe they can be explained by named Grandsons of Ham via Mizraim and Cush?   I also agree with those linguistic scholars who argue for adding the Nilo-Saharan languages to the Afro-Asiatic family.  Some linguists do think Chadic languages are closely related to Berber, which can make them also Phut.  And some think Omotic can be classified as Cushitic.

The Abyssinians (modern Ethiopia and Eritrea in Africa) are people speaking South Semitic Languages closely related to those of Ancient Yemen, but they were in antiquity surrounded by Cushetic speaking peoples on all sides.  I think they were the "Arabians that were near the Cushites" of 1 Chronicles 21:16 and that those captive wives and children of Jehoram (who I don't believe included any by Athaliah) may have became the actual ancestors of the Solomonic dynasty of Axum.

Another Biblical reference to this region may be the land "Beyond the rivers of Cush" in Isaiah 18, the rivers of Cush here I think are the rivers that flow into The Nile, what we call the White Nile, Blue Nile and the Atbarah also known as the Black Nile.

Some Canaanites may have came here first, certain Tribes in the region are traditionally believed to be Canaanite with three specific sons of Canaan cited.  However these are mostly tribes who spoke non Semitic Languages making me suspect the Abrahamites of the region often just called the local Heathens Canaanites, but it's still possible clans from those three sons were the first Semitic speakers in the region and their relationship to later groups was complicated.

The first Abrahamites of the region may have been Keturite Arabs, some scholars have speculated reasons to associate Epheh and Epher of Midian with Africa.  But I think some Edomite tribes may have came here too, cousins of Teman/Mineans.

What languages do I think descend from the non Abrahamic sons of Shem?  Well first of all Sumerian the language of Ur would probably be the language of the family of Arphaxad and perhaps others of Shem who lived in Mesopotamia (Abraham is also called an Aramean), and thus Sumer might have been named after Shem.  

And maybe the special language the Chaldean Magicians were using was actually Sumerian?  It could be the only reason the language we call Aramaic is called that is because of the assumption that the language being referred to in Daniel 2:4 is the same Language that the book is written in from that point till the end of chapter 7.

Elamite is the Language of Elam, yes that's right Elamite is not a Semitic Language but rather one seemingly unrelated to any other known languages.  Last year I made a post where I used that fact to justify making that Elam not Biblical Elam but I've now changed my mind on that.  Elamite may also be related to Dravidian according to some theories, and thus to Y Chromosome Haplogroup H, and thus maybe the modern Elamite Diaspora foretold by Jeremiah 49 are the Romani and related groups?

The Gutians have been theorized to descend from Aram's son Gether before. And I think the Lullubi could be of Aram's son Hul.  I also have a hunch the Hattic Language is Aram's son Mash. The Hurro-Uratian Language family including the Kassites could be the original language of the Assyrians and/or some Arameans before they adopted the Akkadian language.  Or maybe Lullubi is better positioned to be Asshur.

The Kartvelian language family including Georgian I think is Lud, since Y Haplogroup G ties the Georgians to Lydia implying they may descend from the original pre-Indo-Europeans of Lydia.  Or Lud could be another candidate for the Hattic Language.  Or Lud could be the other West Caucasian Language family.

Actually the above statement on Sumerian assumes the popular belief that Ur Kassidim was the Sumerian Ur.  I've increasingly come to favor a North of Harran location for Ur Kassidim.  Sumerian maybe simply was the Pre-Babel Language and the few people who kept the original language after the confusion were the ones who stayed in the general area.

The common theory on the Etymology of Eve/Havvah being the same as the Hurrian Goddess Hepat I find interesting.  It could be all or most other early Genesis figures had their names translated to an equivalent Semitic meaning but hers lacked an easy direct analogue so it was transliterated.  A Hurrian origin for Abraham would fit Urkesh being Ur Kassidim (but it could fit Ur being Urfa/Urshu later called Edessa as well).  That would make the Hurro-Uratian language family the one that comes from Peleg.  The Book of Jubilees says Arphaxad was allotted the region of Ararat itself, which is often identified with Urartu, the name of Aram/Arame is also associated with Urartu but I think that's the Aram of Genesis 22:21 not Genesis 10.  I also support the theory that the Kassadim/Chaldeans are the same people as the Kassites who's original language is theorized by some to have been of the Hurro-Urartian family, and I think they can be connected to the Chesed of Genesis 22:22.

Joktan's thirteen sons are a subject I need to completely rethink now.  I had made a post criticizing those who would place Joktan in the East rather then Yemen, but now I'm more open to that, maybe the Mormons are right about two Joktanite sons contributing to early Native American populations and giving his name to the Yucatan.  However the Mormon route would still be wrong, they would have to also contribute to Eat Asia.  Or maybe some did pass through Yemen then crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb and became ancestral to the non Afroasiatic Languages of Arica.

As a Young-Earth Creationist who still favors a Global Flood I would of course like to make Shem ancestral to all of the Languages that are neither Indo-European or Afroasiatic.  And even in the context of considering something similar to InspiringPhilosophy's view of the Flood but still more Literalist then him on other issues, we're really only allowed one Non-Noahtic Language, the Pre-Babel Language.

Some Hebrew Roots types may be hostile to the thesis of this post.  They are invested in Extra-Biblical traditions about Hebrew being the Pre-Flood language and becoming named after Heber when he didn't go along with Babel and/or Nimrod.  

And they could see the agenda behind arguing Abraham abandoned an earlier language for Hebrew as justifying Mainstream Gentile Christian Churches abandoning Semitic Languages for Indo-European ones.  And yes one of the lessons I think we should learn from this conclusion is that the true worship of YHWH is not tied to any single language.  But that's not what motived me to come to it.  I simply feel this is the most logical explanation of the evidence.

A possibly new view on The Flood

I am a 6 Day Young Earth Creationist, I tend to favor Creation dates older then Ussher's, but I still view about 7 Thousand years ago as the maximum.

Most importantly I believe everyone not just is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but every line of ancestry you have goes back to children Eve bore to Adam after the events of Genesis 3.  And by everyone I mean everyone modern science classifies as Homo-Sapien, and humans modern science doesn't want to classify as the same "species" as us like the Neanderthals and Homo Floresiensis and even Homo Erectus.

I did say fairly recently that I am more open to being convinced of a local Flood model then I am an Old Earth model.

What I have been considering is something between a traditional Global Flood model and a purely Local Flood model.  A Catastrophe that was Global in scale, but still no single moment at which the entire surface was covered in water.  Such a model could still allow the Ark to land on a completely different part of the planet then where it was first built.

And therefore allowing the possibly that there were some Flood survivors outside of Noah's family on The Ark.  But those survivors would still be descendants of Eve.  And it still definitely massively bottle necked the Earth's population.

Michael Hesiser's local Flood arguments are perhaps the most sensible, but still reflect his "Ancient Near Easter perspective" bias.  There have also been different theories about the Flood being a result of a Comet or Asteroid striking the Earth, theories which go back to Newton it seems.

This is perhaps a good time to bring up my ideas that have come from studying Y Chromosomal Haplogroups.  Here is a Tree I obtained from a completely secular source.

I think Y Chromosomal Adam is probably a Genesis 5 name more recent then Adam since this tree doesn't account for those so called Non-Human Humans I mentioned above, maybe Enos.

I think C is Japheth and DE is Ham, with E specifically being Mizraim. Because of the Mixed Multitude we should not be surprised to find people descended from Mizraim among Ashkenazim and other Jewish Populations.

F then is Shem.  My hunch is that G is Lud, H is Elam and J is Aram.  J also existed among Jewish populations which again shouldn't be surprising given the Biblical history.

K is Arphaxad, L and T are the descendants of Joktan,  It is both R and Q I view as being definitely descendants of Jacob and perhaps even more specific then that.  The people this theory makes Paterlineal descendants of Peleg are very plausibly more then half the Earth's total population.

I've also considered models that would switch Shem and Ham, both models give Semitic descent to Ashkenazim Jews as well as Mizraimite descent, and maybe can both be made compatible with connecting Japan to the Ancient Israelites as well.

Update: So InspiringPhilosophy has argued something like this.  But I still think it happened more recently then he does.  Currently favoring a Flood date of 3337 BC thanks to my considering the Samaritan Text correct on Genesis 11.  And I don't agree with his view on where Eden was, I've considered a few models but his is the least likely to be correct.
https://youtu.be/lLSyiJ9KUCo

Update December 2020: I'm now switching Aram and Arphaxad, Arphaxad is J and Aram is K.  And I support identifying Y Haplogroup I with Asshur.

The Flood did not Destroy The Earth, it Saved The Earth.

The Last verse of the First Chapter of Genesis.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The Hebrew word for "good" there also gets translated words like bountiful, prosperity and welfare.  I've seen one scholar say that the Hebrew of this verse can be translated as saying the Earth was Good for Man to live in, that it was habitable.

In the blog post where I explained why I now support a Sethite view of Genesis 6, the last part of it is me emphasizing how Genesis 6 interprets itself and explains the reason for the Flood was the Earth being filled with Violence.  Among other things I mentioned Tubal-Cain briefly which I want to elaborate on.

Genesis 4:22.

And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

The word translated "instructor" is no where else translated something implying a type of teacher, elsewhere the KJV translated the word sharp, sharpen, sharpeneth and whet in Psalm 7:12 "If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready."  In this context it would be actuate to translate it sharpener.

The word for artificer here is very similar to the Hebrew word usually translated artificer but different, it appears only in this verse.  And it has me wondering if this word doesn't refer to persons but to objects and perhaps should be "artifice".

The word for Brass is again similar to other words for Brass but distinct mainly in that it ends with a t/th.  The word Iron is the standard Hebrew word for Iron (Daniel uses the Aramaic word in chapters 2 and 7 however).  But it's notable that in a few places it's clearly used directly of some type of weapon being translated in the KJV as "ax head".

Genesis 6 verses 11-12 use in the KJV "Corrupt" twice and "Corrupted" once, all three are the same Hebrew word.  A Hebrew word that is also translated waste/waster, spoiler, perish, spill and destroy/destroyer/destruction.   That means the text is arguably saying The Earth was already destroyed before God even sent The Flood.

Genesis 6:12 is a parallel to what's said at the end of Genesis 1.  Except now instead of being "very good" the earth is "Corrupt".  I used to read "corrupted his way upon the earth" as referring to God's way, including when I made that Sethite view post last December.  But I now realize it's man's way on the earth that has been spoiled or destroyed.  The Earth has become Uninhabitable.

Verse 13 uses "destroy" in the KJV but it's in the Hebrew the same word used for Corrupt/Corrupted in verses 11-12.  God is saying what Man has done to the Earth, He will do to Man using the Earth.

What God says to Noah is that the End of All flesh is already come, it's already inevitable, Man's Violence has rendered the Earth no longer habitable for organic life.  Mankind was already dying off.

The Flood didn't destroy The Earth, it was The Earth's Baptism, it cleansed and purified The Earth of it's corruption. Towards the end of 1st Peter 3 the Flood of Noah seems to be compared to Baptism.

This pretty plain reading of Genesis is not a common interpretation of Genesis.  Because in the ancient world men could use violence to destroy each other and other flesh, but not The Earth itself.  But we have no clue what the Antediluvian world was like.  And today it is possible, the potential to render the Earth uninhabitable totally exists, just watch the historical fiction animated movie Barefoot Gen.

Jesus said in Matthew 24, "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be".  But before that He had said "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.".

Paniym Eretz, The Face of The Earth.

Paniym Eretz is a Hebrew phrase translated in the KJV as either "The Face of The Earth", "The Face of The Whole Earth", or "The Face of all The Earth".  Greek translations of the phrase are used in Luke 21:35 and Acts 17:26.

I've read some material on a website I don't want to link to that argued Noah's Flood was just local.  And insists they are taking The Bible perfectly literally in doing so.

Now I agree entirely that the word Eretz is also translated land and is often used of more specific locations, a fact I like to point out when addressing Flat Earthers.  It's used of the Land of Israel, and the Land of Mizraim and so on.

However Genesis 1 definitely uses it of all dry land when saying God separated the land from the waters.

The Flood is described as covering the Face of The Earth in Genesis 6:7 and 7:3-4 and 8:9.  It is this expression I feel must mean the entire surface of the Earth.  And I feel I can back that up from passages I will cite later.

But this Website says the Face of The Earth must mean something more specific since Genesis 4:14 says Cain was banished from the Face of the Earth, and yet is also a fugitive and a vagabond in the Earth.  However this website contradicts it's own logic by saying the Flood can be considered "Universal" because it covered all the lands that descendants of Adam (of Genesis 2) lived in up to that time.  They specifically apply it to Mesopotamia.

Paul used it in Greece in a context where he clearly meant it to be understood that where he was counted as part of it.

Isaiah 23:17 says "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that Yahuah will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.".

Other Prophets say Israel was scattered across the Face of the Earth.

Genesis 41:56 and numerous uses of the phrase in Exodus through Deuteronomy clearly use it in a way that includes Mizraim (where ever that was) and the lands Israel wondered in for 40 years.

Genesis 11:4-8&9 utterly contradicts limiting it to Mesopotamia.

I'm kind of starting to wonder if maybe Paniym Eretz is a Hebrew equivalent of phrases like Midgard in Norse Mythology from which comes the term Middle Earth (Tolkien didn't invent it), and Ashihara no Nakatsukuni (The middle country of reed beds) in Japanese Mythology.  A term that can be viewed as technically more specific then the entirety of what "Earth" means, and yet still effectively the entire world as we know it.

This could be an expression where the context is key to the point being made.  Cain was banished from the world he knew up to that time.  But that doesn't change that the obvious intent of the Flood narrative is still that the Flood covered everything.

However there is one possible idea I can't help but flirt with.  And that is that maybe Cain was banished from the Face of our Earth, but the Land of Nod ("Land" in that phrase is also Eretz) is another planet?  It's described as "east" of Eden, but is a specific fairly rare form of the word for east, qidmah.  Remember the Sun, Moon and Stars rise in the East and set in the West.  And the Hebrew words for East are also sometimes translated things like before and ancient.

That's a bit of a stretch I admit.  But I've already argued for other cases of The Bible possibly alluding to humans traveling to outer Space.

The Bible isn't clear on the Earth's shape.

My main Flat Earth Post became, as I edited it multiple times, a bit hard to follow.  So I'm making this to replace it.

To restate my position.  I am not like most Creationists who will try to argue The Hebrew Bible clearly depicted a Round Earth long before Aristotle.  My position is that The Hebrew Bible never clearly spells out the size or shape of the Earth or the Universe.  I believe it is relatively compatible either way.  Though I may point to some interesting circumstantial evidence that may make the Globe fit better.

And again this is addressing Christians who believe the Earth is Flat, not merely addressing atheists accusing The Bible.

Let me explain what I mean when I say I can take the Pillars and Foundations just as literally as the Flat Earthers do.

I believe at the center of The Earth is the Abyss/Bottomless Pit/Great Deep.  Romans 10:7 tells us The Deep is where Jesus went while he was dead.  In John 2 Jesus clearly states as Jonah was in the belly of The Ketos so shall he be in the Heart of the Earth 3 days and 3 nights.  The word "heart" being used in that sense is an idiom of being inside something not beneath something.  The English word "core" comes from the old French and Latin words for heart.  The world of the Old Testament may have presumed a flat Earth but the Hellenistic Greek world of the New Testament equally presumed a round Earth.

Above that but still below us is Sheol/Hades/Hell.  I believe if you could walk around Sheol you would literally see foundations and pillars holding up what's above.

I'm glad that Flat Earthers understand how the Hebrew Bible does not use cosmological terms with our modern meanings.  That includes that "Earth" (Erets in Hebrew) is not the name of a Planet in the Hebrew Bible.  But also I should point out that Olam is not the Hebrew word for World or Universe but rather means Age/Eon.  Tebel is the word for world.

In Genesis 1 every time you see "Earth" and pretty much every time you see "land" in the Hebrew they are the same word.  (And amazingly I saw recently even KJV onliers that hate checking the Hebrew could tell The Bible uses those words as synonyms.)  That includes when in Genesis 1 it distinctly separates the land from the sea.

The Earth is the dry land in The Hebrew Bible.  Biblically you have left the Earth when you sail out into the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.  The ends of the Earth are the ends of the Dry Land.

The land mass of Europe-Asia-Africa has 4 corners, the strait of Gibraltar, the horn of Africa, Korea/Japan and the northernmost parts of Russia.  And I can prove using Scripture to interpret Scripture that those corners are what The Bible means by the 4 corners of The Earth, not this modern flat earth model with 4 corners outside the dome of a snow-globe that has the North Pole at the center.

Revelation 7:1 clearly tells us the 4 corners are linked to the 4 winds of heaven.  Daniel 11 tells us Alexander's Empire was divided to the 4 winds of heaven.  Ptolmey to the South, Seleucus to the North, Parthia in the East and Antipater, Antigonos and Lysimchus in the West.

Revelation 20 also tells us the Gog and Magog invasion comes from the 4 corners of the Earth.  Ezekiel 38-39 which gives us the details of that invasion makes clear that Libya is the West, Ethiopia the South, Persia the East and Gog of the land of Magog, the Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal from the North.

The proper translation of Psalm 104:5 is merely saying that the Earth cannot be removed.  Even the KJV adds words that are not in The Hebrew and the translations preferred by Flat Earthers use even more additional words.

When Psalm 96:10 and other verses say the Earth is fixed and won't move.  The Hebrew word there is the same one used in Psalm 62:6 where the Psalmist says he shall not be moved.  So yes the interpretation that that can mean a set fixed course is perfectly validated using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Rob Skiba loves to complain about all the italics in the KJV when it suits him.  But after he started this Flat Earth fixation he has conveniently forgotten the "May reach unto" in Genesis 11 isn't in the Hebrew text.  The Tower of Babel was about idolatry not transportation.  It is describing exactly what all scholars know the ancient Zigurats were, not a skyscraper or a star-gate or anything else.  What the so called book of Jasher says about it is simply wrong.

And I still stand by my unique approach to Isaiah 40.

When Atheists are trying as hard as they can to make The Bible contradict science they will sometimes just use the fact that The Bible says the Sun moves.  The Sun is moving in the currently accepted cosmology.

I also think there could very well be a literal solid enclosure at the edge of the Universe.  But that Dome isn't the Firmament.

Ecclesiastes is Solomon describing the World as it seems to be, to then say at the end that that is all wrong.  Christians do believe there was something new under The Sun, the New Testament.  When you build doctrine on statements from Ecclesiastes or Job's friends you will get people arguing there is no after life.  Job's friends being wrong is also part of the point of that book.

Everything else Flat Earthers use is just as valid to interpret poetically as the references to the Sun and Moon rising and setting.  Which the modern Flat Earth movement takes literally no more then Globe believers do.

Which also discredits all their appeal to ancient Pagan cosmologies.  Those cosmologies had the Sun literally rise and set, they had myths about the places where it set to and rose from.  The Koran says Alexander The Great traveled there and literally saw it.

Rob Skiba when speculating on the motives for the "Illuminati" to create a round Earth model.  Besides just disagreeing with the Bible for the sake of it (I don't see that as the sole motive even for Evolution which was also about providing a scientific basis for Eugenics and Racism).  Suggests it's about making humans feel insignificant.

My understanding of Psalm 8 tells me God created the entire Universe for Adam's benefit, regardless of it's size and shape and whether or not we're at the literal geographic center of it.

In which context it's this enclosed dome model that makes God's Creation seem less magnificent.  It makes Him more like a Gnostic or Platonic demiurge, an inferior creator of an inferior world.

Which leads me to all the stuff they point to that they see as "the Illuminati" secretly "admitting" the world is flat.  Well indeed I've long noticed that the cosmology presented in Masonic Lore presumed a Flat Earth.  Which brings me back to what I said on the other blog, what the Pagans believe we should be viewing as wrong.  When discussing the Capital in Washington DC, Rob knows full well how important the Dome shape is to the Pagans.

Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth", Round Earth or Flat

This verse is often brought up discussing whether The Bible implies a Flat Earth or Round Earth model.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

 Here is the thing, I'll agree that the way some Christians cite this verse as completely proving a Round Earth and ignoring the possibility of a Flat Circle is wrong.

But the Bible critics are equally absolutist, insisting the verse can only mean a Flat Circle, and would have used "Sphere" if what we now know the actual shape of the Earth to be was what this Author (who I view as Isaiah, but to skeptics it's "Second Isaiah") intended to describe.

That of course ignores that we are dealing with a translation of an ancient language that didn't have as technically precise a vocabulary as modern English.

The word "Sphere" is never used by KJV translators for any Hebrew word. The argument can be made that a Sphere is basically a type of circle.

I've seen people argue Isaiah would have used the word translated elsewhere as ball.  Ball is not a synonym for Sphere, all balls are spheres but not all spheres are balls.  I would not describe the shape of The Earth or the Moon or any other astronomical body as being a ball.  You could say they are shaped like a ball but you could not actually describe them as balls.  The earlier Isaiah reference to a ball says it is tossed, that tells me it means something you can toss like a ball you play games with.

You can carve into a Sphere shaped object by the way.  And you could carve something else into a Sphere shaped object.

The word translated "circle" in this verse is used in total only 3 times. Isaiah 40 is the only case where it is translated "circle". Job 22:14

"Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven."

 And Proverbs 8:27

"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"

 Looking at these usages of the word, I've actually considered a 3rd option, maybe it doesn't mean either a flat circle or a sphere, maybe it's not describing the Earth's shape at all? Maybe it's referring to the Earth's Orbit (Circuit) around the Sun.

The grand point to me is, it doesn't mater what the Human Author thought he was describing. The Holy Spirit made sure it was not worded in a way that was incompatible with Scientific Fact.

2 Peter 3, the real Biblical relevence of 2012, the boy who cried wolf

Verses 3-7

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Many things are foretold here. Including the Uniformitarian scientific heresy, which is the root of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory and all of that stuff. A denial of the both The Creation and The Flood.

But also hinted at is the notion that people will stop taking predictions of the End Coming seriously because people have always been saying the end is about to come. This is one of the reasons the signs of the end are compared to a Woman in Labor, because false alarms happen.

This attitude was emerging already even before the Y2K panic. Skeptics pointing out how Christians have always thought their Generation was going to be the last. The overlooked problem is during most of Church history it was impossible to do that taking the Prophecies literally at face value, with Israel not being a Nation. Now the only factor lacking is The Temple, and once the Rabbis accept that the traditional view of The Temple's location is wrong it can be rebuild immediately.

Before the end of 2011, there was one random Church predicting the Rapture would happen in May. Then when it didn't people starting wearing T-Shirts mocking the whole thing saying "I Survived The Rapture".

So I think 2012 may have been the last straw, the way the hype around that surpassed all the others, and sadly even many Christians jumped into it in-spite of it being based on a Pagan concept. They should have viewed Chris White's 2012 debunking videos on Youtube.

Perhaps the Blood Moon theory is one minor remaining hyped up date setting that has to pass first.  I also recommend Chris White's debunkings of that.

Problems I have with the Extended Day Theory and the Gap Theory

This is supplemental to my Fall of Lucifer post.

The Hebrew phrase translated in Genesis 1:2 "without form, and void" simply means it was unformed and unfinished. In Genesis 1:1 God Created all Matter as well as both Time and Space, but in verses 3 on He refined and perfected the details.

Chuck Missler likes to say the Gap Theory comes from Isaiah 45:18 "he created it not in vain" saying the "in Vain" part is one of key words in Hebrew of "without form and void". This is merely referring to when the 6 days are over however. When " God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good". To me that assessment would be absurd if Satan had already fallen and there had already been death.

Chuck also likes to claim that phrase is an expression of Judgment, but that's only based on later usages in different contexts.

Jeremiah 4:23-26 is however the real linchpin of the Gap Theory view of that phrase.

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.  I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.  I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.  I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

The word for 'man" used here is "Adam" so they take it as meaning Pre-Adamic, so there was a Pre-Adamic civilization. But all "there was no man" means here is these cities are now uninhabited because they've been judged and their populations are dead or gone.

Those who want to see this as being about some Ancient Pre-Adamic cataclysm are ignoring the rest of the Prophecy, which mentions, Jerusalem and Judah and Ephraim and Dan. This is an End Times prophecy about the future Judgment upon our Age. All the destructive imagery here is parallel to things said in Revelation.

Another issue is the use of the term "refill and replenish". We today are used to the prefix "re" meaning doing it again or doing it over, but it didn't always mean that in 1611. But more importantly that's not what the Hebrew says, the Hebrew phrase simply means to "fill and populate", no Hebrew equivalents to the "re" prefix are used.

My objection to both the Gap Theory and the Extended Day Theory and any Old Earth model is not simply about anything in Genesis, it's primarily New Testament.

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
I Corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

Meaning as I said when discussing Satan's fall, nothing bad ever happened before Genesis 3.

On the subject of the Extended Day theory, there are also those who like to suggest using all kinds of technical facts about the relativity of Time, (like that time has been slowing down) to claim that all the supposed Old Earth evidence from Secular Science is in fact completely compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

There may indeed be some good insights to learn from studying those issues. But what's important to keep in mind is two things.

1. The claim made by secular science about history is different in more then just how much time passes, even the order things were created is different. The Big Bang Theory claims the Sun must've existed before The Earth. Also the development of Life on this Planet is incompatible, life didn't start in the ocean Biblically.  And Genesis even says the Moon was created before the Sun.

I personally get really annoyed when people making Extended Day Theory arguments go all "how could it be a 24 Hour Day if the Sun and Moon weren't there the first few days?". But even more annoyed when people who aren't even Christians say that just to mock Young Earth Creationists, because it betrays their own principles.

The Sun, Moon and Stars are only part of how we measure a Day, what a Day actually is is the Earth's rotation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I believe right on Day One The Planet Earth existed, was already a sphere and was already spinning. If anything I might accept that days were shorter originally as the Earth's rotation has been slowing.

Some of you might want to argue this just means the Earth as in the element, and not specifically our planet. But Hebrew had different words for Earth (so did Greek and Latin actually), the Earth element is Adamah, which Adam was made from. Genesis 1:1 uses 'erets.  Erets can be used of Land as in land masses in addition to the planet.  But not of the element.

2. Really derives from 1, and I'd already talked about it anyway, but it's worth repeating. Any interpretation of how to fit Genesis with Science that has anything human or animal die before Adam's Sin is heretical. Meaning if your going to believe that Dinosaurs went extinct long before Man came into existence, your view is UnBibical.

To me all the supposed Evidence for Millions or Billions of years is all B.S. anyway, I honestly don't think I'd buy it even if I wasn't a believer. But addressing those things is for others more scientifically educated them myself.  I recommend Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, and also Creation Wiki.