It is also possible that it is a combination of the above and a vision. He can see some kingdoms with his eyes, and shown the others through a vision.

The references to Job can also be seen as… Poetry. Is the book of Job not written in poetic style (one example that comes to immediate mind: look at Job 37:1. Is this not poetic, or is he truly saying that this literally happened?)?

People also point to Luke 17:31 as speaking of the Earth as round, for it sets two limits: 1 day and 1 instant (when taken in context with an earlier passage, Luke 17:24, which states, “For the Son of Man in his day[d] will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.”. Lightning strikes in an instant, and thus comparing this with the rest of the prophecy, it clearly sets the limit.). In that instant, it describes both night and day. This has easily been interpreted as being in line with what we know now: For if it is day on one “Side” of the Earth, it is surely night on the other, no? This implies not a 2D circle, but a 3D object, does it not?

I think the obvious answer is the correct one. The writer assumed that if the mountain was high enough one could see all of the kingdoms of the earth.

Why would the devil need to go to an exceedingly high mountain to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if he was going to use his arcane powers to do so?

Why mention the exceedingly high mountain at all… Why not just say.. ‘And the Devil took Jesus and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth and the glory of them?

also as you mention…. If this is God and Satan neither needs a geography lesson.

Could it be that he mentions the Pinnacle of the Temple because its a high place and if a person fell from such a height it could hurt or kill them? Why would angels need to intervene if Jesus through himself off of it?

It makes more sense and doesn’t need any spinning theological or otherwise if the writer is writing this from his own limited knowledge and experience.

In fact a lot of biblical authors did not understand what they were writing about for example Daniel;

“Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so that I said: ‘O my lord, what will be the final part of these things?’”Daniel 12:8

my point is that just because Isaiah had a limited knowledge, that doesn’t mean he cannot describe something that’s scientifically accurate

Isaiah 44:22 teaches something completely opposite from his time. The Babylonians(which was probably the most powerful nation at the time) taught that the universe was like a cube and that the earth was the floor,

now by the 6th century B.C.E the concept of spherical earth was formed, but Isaiah lived in 8th century B.C.E

I thank you for your kind words, but i am by no means either a biblical scholar or any sort of expert on Hebrew. All I’ve done is collected a few tools to use that help me better understand the scriptures. Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible has been invaluable in my studies and I should have credited that as the source of the translation I gave for Isa. 22-18. By no means am I able to translate Hebrew without a guide.

I also see that I was not clear in my first explanation of the “sphere” concept. I did not mean to imply that Isaiah did not know what a sphere was, or that the concept of spherical was not understood. The Hebrew language just does not contain a word that directly translates as “sphere”, at least that I can find. The word “chuwg” was often used to indicate a spherical OR circular object. Isaiah probably would have used “chuwg” to describe both a pomegranate and a coin. This missing word-concept is not in itself unusual and still happens today. For example, the French words “cheveux, poil, pelag” all translate into English as “hair” but have different meanings in French. Cheveux is only used for the hair on a human head. Body hair are called poils. Most mammals have a pelage, but individuals hairs are also called poil(s). We just use “hair” in English and allow the context of the sentence to determine the more precise meaning. This is why it is important to used proper hermeneutics when studying scripture.

Yes, we are in agreement that “chuwg” could be translated as either circle or sphere. The question then becomes how should it be interpreted. When I read these passages, I cannot help but think of God being above the earth at some great distance looking down so that “the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers”. When we look at a full moon we see a circle yet we know it is a sphere. This is the context that I think best fits the “circle of the earth” phrase — God looking down on the earth and seeing “the circle of the earth”.

I personally do not need the scriptures to reveal scientific secrets for me to believe they are the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.. Whenever I encounter scientific principles in the Bible they do not conflict with observable, testable and established modern scientific principles. I know there is a list of Bible “mistakes” out there somewhere, but I have yet to find one “mistake” that is not explained by poor hermeneutics or by removing the verse or verse fragment from the grammatical-historical context in which it was written.

Take for example Job 36:27-29

Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
Job 36:28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
Job 36:29 Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?

These verses clearly describe the hydrologic cycle. Secular history credits early Greek philosophers including Thales, Anaxagoras, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Plato, and Aristotle with the basic ideas of the process as early as 1000BC, but Job has been dated to 1800BC. It’s obvious that the author of Job was inspired to write an accurate description of something that the Greeks would need another 800 years to conceptualize. This is a better example of the Bible getting it right first.

As for “something like “[God took] hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it…”” (Job 38:13), that is a wonderful example of how you change the meaning of a verse by taking it out of context. The complete passage reads:

Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Job 38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

Once properly read in context, it becomes obvious the it wasn’t God who took hold of the hearth, but rather “the dayspring” or light from the sun. Again, in context, it’s obvious from a plain reading that the main point of this passage is the interaction of light upon the earth and in that context there ARE “ends of the earth” as far as light shining on a globe are concerned. The “ends of the earth” would be circle that defines the edges of whichever hemisphere was facing the sun at the time.

Very good points, I must say. You are clearly very knowledgeable on this topic, and I won’t pretend to know know more about ancient Hebrew than you do. I will also admit that it’s been a long time since I wrote that article, so I’m more rusty than ever right now on the whole subject.
However, one thing puzzles me. In the end, aren’t you and I arguing the same thing?
I am not the one claiming that “chuwg” means “sphere.” This is the claim/assumption made by some Christians when they claim that that particular passage by Isaiah suggests that the earth was round. My only real point in this article was to point out that “chuwg” does NOT NECESSARILY mean sphere, and we can’t assume that the passage is scientifically correct based on that. The initial Christian claim I addressed here was that the bible knows certain matters of science before anyone else does; I’m merely pointing out that the passage by Isaiah is not evidence that Christians knew the earth was round before scientists. Granted, I argued that the word “duwr” would have made more sense because it was more closely translated to “ball”–which, clearly, is incorrect on my part. But if you are correct that no word in Hebrew means “sphere” — and in fact, that they didn’t have the concept of the word yet–that would seem to prove my original point that the biblical writers couldn’t have known the earth was sperical–or at least, we can’t prove whether they did or not. However, if you feel that Isaiah 40:22 “could be translated” as referring to a spherical globe, I’d have to ask you why you think that is. How could it be translated that way, if ancient Hebrew writers had neither the word nor the word-concept of a sphere?
You claim the bible is God’s word and truth, but if that’s the case, why would be limited by the understanding of man at that time? In otherwords, if God wanted the biblical writers to say the earth was sperical, could he not have communicated that to them? Could he not have given them a word for it? And if God did not intend them to say the earth was spherical, aren’t we wrong to translate it that way?

I won’t argue with you on the other biblical references; I do not doubt that your translation of them is more accurate than anything I could present. However, again, the original purpose of this article was to call out those Christians who claim the bible is scientifically inerrent, and who claim this by loosely interpreting passages from it. I would still argue that IF Isaiah 40:22 could be translated as referring to a sperical earth, than, something like “[God took] hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it…” could just as easily refer to earth having ends, and therefore, not being spherical. Both might be stretches, but that was exactly my point from the beginning–if believers can interpret the bible in the way that suits their fancy, skeptics can do the same thing, and come up with different results. I am not trying to argue that the bible says the earth was flat–I’m simply suggesting that one loosely-interpreted passage isn’t proof of scientific accuracey, especially when we could loosely interpret several other passages to mean the exact opposite.
Sara