Is there something wrong with teaching children the Earth is flat?

[busterdog]

I'll like to address this, but I still need an answer to my original question?

Is their something wrong with teaching children that there is a large conspiracy by the scientific community and unbelievers to undermine the Word, and that the earth is really flat?

Is there something wrong, in raising my children with such ideas?

I think you do believe there is something, wrong with this position, and I am trying to understand what it is, you find wrong with this, then we can continue to other points.

Since geocentrism is wrong (or flat earth) it would be wrong to teach kids.

Since evolution is wrong, that is the worst thing you can teach a kid.

What do you want me to say?

Am I supposed to recant and confess on the witness stand under withering cross-examination, or has someone been watching too much Matlock?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm wary of taking the flat earth as an argument against creationism. There are certainly passages in the Bible which make marginally more sense from a flat earth perspective than from a modern scientific perspective. No creationist can deny that. However, they only make marginally more sense. And this is reflected in the hermeneutic traditions of the Church as the interpretive community of the Bible in the world: if I am not mistaken, at no time has flat-earth ever been a majority position in the church's theology of creation.

Does this tell us that the flat earth interpretation was weak, or that the hermeneutic tradition of the church valued science? That is certainly the impression I get from Augustine's dangerous and disgraceful quote.

If we reject science as 'man's wisdom' and claim that extra biblical information has no place telling us how to interpret the bible, I don't see any reason not to conclude the bible describes a flat earth. Without pagan cosmology Cosmas Indicopleustes is the logical conclusion.

 

[PaladinValer]

This reminds me when we did have that Flat Earther here...anyone know what happened to him?

Oh, and I'd like my popcorn with movie theater-style butter!

 

[HypnoToad]

So, are you agreeing that if scripture teaches the earth is flat, this is what we should teach our children, in spite of all the evidence (including pictures taken from space) that says the opposite?

It really is a matter of what scripture says, no matter what creation says?

Hardly. All I did was ask for him to support his claims. Don't start throwing out silly assumptions now.

 

[shernren]

Does this tell us that the flat earth interpretation was weak, or that the hermeneutic tradition of the church valued science? That is certainly the impression I get from Augustine's dangerous and disgraceful quote.

I don't know. (Your link is broken.) For me at least the third option is: this tells us that the documentation I'm most familiar with is the voluminous debate surrounding geocentrism, and since my feet stand that much firmer on ground I know that much better, I'll pick my spot from which to fight, thank you very much.

The two represent very different interfaces, I suppose. A flat earth was proposed by some theologians in the face of overwhelming evidence since the 6th century BC that the earth was round. Geocentrism was defended in the face of heliocentrism being a newcomer theory. To me, exploring geocentrism is a far more useful way of dealing with creationists because it respects that their attitude towards evolution is not unlike the attitude that some geocentrists had towards heliocentrism: "Evolution isn't really that well proven yet, anyway, so I shouldn't bother to think about it as I interpret Scripture." As for the theoretical question of whether flat earth's overwhelming rejection by the Christian community was due to biblical links actually being weaker, or simply science being stronger, I don't know. Chrysostom and Athanasius refer in their works to the earth floating on water, and treat this as proof of God's miraculous sustenance of nature. Does that equate with Bellarmine's treatment of specific passages to arrive at the conclusion that geocentrism was heretical?

 

[HypnoToad]

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

Clay under a seal is not round it's flat.

Job is poetry. Give support for your interpretation of this.

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)"

"The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, even if it was only a dream, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth, unless the earth was flat.

This is a vision. Do you take John's Revelation literally also?

Revelations 7:1 states the Earth has four corners,

Ridiculous. We use the expression "four corners of the earth" today, and we do not imply a flat earth when we use it. There's no reason to think they imply it either.

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges.

Job. Poetry.

For those interested in literal interpretation, these few verse alone give you enough room to say the "earth" is flat, the only way around it, I see, is by assuming the verses are "allegorical" interpretations of the earth.

Apparently, you are another person who doesn't understand what a "literal interpretation" of Scripture as a whole means.

 

[shernren]

Job. Poetry.

The creationists who talk about Behemoth being a dinosaur need to be reminded of what you just said.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, there is something wrong with teaching your children the earth is flat. It is very wrong. All scientists today agree that the earth is round. Why on earth would you want your child to grow up to be totally ignorant of this fact?

 

[theIdi0t]

The creationists who talk about Behemoth being a dinosaur need to be reminded of what you just said.

I think you nailed it Shernen, my OP was not intended to argue against creationism, but as I stated teaching children.

I see no difference in telling a child, the earth is flat from verses in Job, and telling children Behemoth was a dinosaur from a verse in Job!

If the first is wrong, why is the second not wrong?

But more importantly what are the implications of teaching children as such.

It is very wrong. All scientists today agree that the earth is round. Why on earth would you want your child to grow up to be totally ignorant of this fact?

All scientists agree that man and dinosaur did not walk together at the same time. Is teaching children otherwise, raising them to be totally ignorant of this fact?

 

[theIdi0t]

Gary Parker is a well known Creationist, he was interviewed by Alan M. Feuerbacher from talkorigins:

"Someone else asked him if he really believed that scientists were engaged in some sort of conspiracy to conceal the truth from people about geology, etc., and he most emphatically said that was the case."

What is the difference between telling children this, and telling children that NASA, and all the world governments are part of a round earth conspiracy?

 

[Assyrian]

The link is fixed.

I agree we should concentrate on the geocentrist passages, the flat earth are useful though because it show this is an issue that has come up throughout the history of the church.

Cosmas Indicopleustes makes fascinating reading because the style of argument sounds so familiar today.

 

[theIdi0t]

The link is fixed.

I agree we should concentrate on the geocentrist passages, the flat earth are useful though because it show this is an issue that has come up throughout the history of the church.

Cosmas Indicopleustes makes fascinating reading because the style of argument sounds so familiar today.

I think the problem here, is that when we think of creationism we think of the opposition to evolution, but creationism is much more than this opposition. I think what happens is that YECs get so carried away by arguing against evolution, that they do not realize what they are truly saying.

The majority of the YECs here seems quite reasonable, and I can even understand their opposition to evolution, because evolution is counter intuitive, but so much time is spent arguing evolution, without thinking of what is really being said about the position one is truly defending.

It's one thing to tell a child that you don't think the theory of evolution is sound as it is made out to be, and you raise your objection to various parts of the theory.

But it is another to have you children singing "Behemoth is a dinosaur" during sunday school, and teaching him that scientist are part of a large conspiracy.

I think the majority of the YECs here can see how this, is no different than teaching children the earth is flat, and NASA, and the world governments are part of a large conspiracy.

This explains the silence of the YEC community in this thread, they feel just as uncomfortable with the latter, as they do with the former, but they have a hard time saying so, because the former is a part of their position.

They even see that from a literal perspective passages such as those in Job and Daniel, speak of a flat-earth, they have even been bold enough to say that these passages are "poetic" and not to be taken as literal.

But isn't that the position of the TE on Genesis, that it is poetic, and not literal? Isn't the position of a flat earther, and geocentric believers that the passage the YEC find to be poetic, are the passages they find to be literal?

One of my favorite passage in the old testament comes from 2 Samuel 12, were Nathan tells David of a rich man who stole, and killed a poor man's beloved ewe, after the Nathan had told this to David, David knew the rich man was wrong.

It was then Nathan told him: "You are the man".

 

[HypnoToad]

but they have a hard time saying so, because the former is a part of their position.

Not true. Some YEC's may say behemoth is a dinosaur, but it is not in any way a "universal" YEC postition.

They even see that from a literal perspective passages such as those in Job and Daniel, speak of a flat-earth, they have even been bold enough to say that these passages are "poetic" and not to be taken as literal.

But isn't that the position of the TE on Genesis, that it is poetic, and not literal? Isn't the position of a flat earther, and geocentric believers that the passage the YEC find to be poetic, are the passages they find to be literal?

The problem, though is that Job is WRITTEN AS poetry, Genesis is not. The Hebrew syntax of Genesis is that found in prose, not Hebrew poetry.

 

[theIdi0t]

Not true. Some YEC's may say behemoth is a dinosaur, but it is not in any way a "universal" YEC postition.

You haven't answered the question, about do you feel uncomfortable about teaching children Behemoth is a dinosaur, do you think it is wrong?

and is it a universal YEC position that dinosaurs and man walked together at the same time? and do you feel comfortable teaching children this?

 

[mont974x4]

To answer the OP, I would say that it would be ok to teach it as one theory that many people hold and leave it at that. To teach it as fact, when there is none unless you start beleiving some conspiracy theory, would IMO be wrong.

I don't beleive the the flat earth round earth debate includes creationism vs evolution debate. However, I intend to teach my kids that some people do beleive in evolution and show them why evolution is wrong because the Bible tells us God is the creator and not mere chance.


But, that's just me.

 

[HypnoToad]

You haven't answered the question, about do you feel uncomfortable about teaching children Behemoth is a dinosaur, do you think it is wrong?

and is it a universal YEC position that dinosaurs and man walked together at the same time? and do you feel comfortable teaching children this?

You seem to be mixing a position with evidence used to support a position.

I think it's fine to suggest behemoth MAY have been a dinosaur. But to say it DEFINITELY is, I would not agree with.

It is a universal position (at least the vast majority) of YEC that dinosaurs and man existed together, and I have no problem teaching children this.

I also would say that the comment that "ALL" scientists say dino's and man didn't walk together is flat out wrong.

 

[theIdi0t]

You seem to be mixing a position with evidence used to support a position.

I think it's fine to suggest behemoth MAY have been a dinosaur. But to say it DEFINITELY is, I would not agree with.

It is a universal position (at least the vast majority) of YEC that dinosaurs and man existed together, and I have no problem teaching children this.

I also would say that the comment that "ALL" scientists say dino's and man didn't walk together is flat out wrong.

Ah, yes a few YEC scientist who make up quite a small percentage of the whole, believe that dinosaurs and man walked together, a few flat earth scientist believe that the earth is flat, a few geocentric scientist believe the earth is the center of the universe, so yes my comment that "All" scientists say dino's and man didn't walk together is flat out wrong. Instead of "All" we'll just refer to them as the overwhelming majority.

But let's ask the other question:

Do you agree with creationist Gary Parker that scientists are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to conceal the truth from people about geology, etc?

If not, why do you believe the overwhelming majority of scientist (over 95%) agree that that the earth is more than a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time? Are they just too muttonheaded, to not see what the evidence says? Are the only ones who can see the evidence objectively enough, those Kent Hovind brand of scientist?

 

[shernren]

I think it's fine to suggest behemoth MAY have been a dinosaur. But to say it DEFINITELY is, I would not agree with.

Well, every single time a creationist mentions Behemoth on this forum, it is to suggest that dinosaurs literally walked with man.

But every single time a creationist is asked about "the foundations of the earth", s/he immediately says that Job was poetry.

Isn't that a double standard? If "the foundations of the earth" are poetry and not talking about geocentrism in any way whatsoever, then Behemoth should also be poetry and not talking about dinosaurs in any way whatsoever. And face it, if you take Behemoth and Leviathan out of the picture, there really is absolutely no evidence, Biblical or paleontological, that man actually did walk with dinosaurs.

 

[gluadys]

Hardly. All I did was ask for him to support his claims. Don't start throwing out silly assumptions now.

But why did you ask him to support his claims?

The implication is that if you were convinced that the bible teaches a flat earth you would have no objection to teaching the same to your children---no matter how much evidence shows the earth is spherical. You might even demand that public schools teach it.

If the evidence shows the earth is spherical why do you need to check out what the bible says about it?

 

[theIdi0t]

However, I intend to teach my kids that some people do beleive in evolution and show them why evolution is wrong because the Bible tells us God is the creator and not mere chance.

But, that's just me.

But do you tell the child to take Genesis as literal, no matter how strong the evidence is otherwise, for the age of earth, for dinosaurs and man walking together, etc...

Should you tell your children they should hold on to a literal interpretation, no matter if the evidence says otherwise.

Or would you tell them, it is okay to believe in an allegorical Genesis account, if evidence tells you otherwise?