Flat Earth and Earth-centric solar system according to the Bible

[Archie the Preacher]

As the link I provided puts it...

"There are several biblical references to the sun rising, the world not moving, plus Joshua's command for the sun to stop, but no passages that tell us whether during the course of a year it is the earth that goes around the sun or vice versa. I don't have space here to deal with the hermeneutical assumptions of geocentrists, except to note that they reject the very reasonable suggestion that all these passages are looking at matters from the perspective of one standing on the surface of the earth rather than of one looking down from space. God does condescend to speak to us in human language."

That is actually very astute. There are certain passages - the two dealing with the Sun's movement and resultant shadow movement (in connection with King Hezekiah) which are simply the observations noted by the writer(s) and NOT anything dictated by God as revelatory information.

Anyone care to disagree?

 

[Papias]

There are certain passages - the two dealing with the Sun's movement and resultant shadow movement (in connection with King Hezekiah) which are simply the observations noted by the writer(s) and NOT anything dictated by God as revelatory information.

Anyone care to disagree?

Well, maybe not disagree, but some thoughts at least.

First of all, most of the scripture can be said to be "observations noted by the writers", and NOT anything dictated by God as revelatory information. Very few passages start out "thus saith the lord". If you are going to stop seeing those that could be "observations by the writer" as divine revelation, then you need to be consistent and apply that to nearly all of the scripture. For instance, you can start off by taking all of Paul's letters (which are explicitly things written in letter form by Paul, with many being known forgeries), and so on, for nearly all of the New Testament except for the book of Revelation. The same goes for the Gospels. After all, Jesus never wrote anything on paper that we know of, and everything we have about Jesus is "simply the observations noted by the writer(s) and NOT anything dictated by God as revelatory information", including nearly all of Jesus' resurrection. I mean, that's ok, but at least be consistent and don't just apply that to the verses you want to apply it to, while refusing to do so with others. Your Bible will read very, very differently than traditionally read - and certainly not like many literalists read it.

Secondly, even if we did do that, there are still many passages that show that God is telling us the world is flat, and none that say otherwise. Look at the list below, and you'll see that many include direct revelation (like the stuff in Daniel or the direct word of god in Job, and more), and others still don't make sense unless the observer was hallucinating (the star of Bethlehem, which would incinerate the world, the battle of Gibeon, the stars falling to earth, etc.).

Here's the verses from earlier:

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well, maybe not disagree, but some thoughts at least.

First of all, most of the scripture can be said to be "observations noted by the writers", and NOT anything dictated by God as revelatory information. Very few passages start out "thus saith the lord". If you are going to stop seeing those that could be "observations by the writer" as divine revelation, then you need to be consistent and apply that to nearly all of the scripture.
Papias

There is a vast difference between 'dictated' and 'inspired', Papias. You are correct in much of the Bible does not carry the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord" and are not directly transcribed from the 'voice' of the Lord. However, "All scripture is inspired..." which as Christians - generally - we take to mean influenced and directed in content and meaning while not dictated verbatim.

So your concerns (expressed here) about the Gospels, and letters of various and sundry persons in the New Testament are groundless. Unless you have evidence to change minds about the veracity of those documents.

Any other disagreement or modifications to the thought some scripture is based on the observations of the writer and conclusions of 'cause' are not specifically implied?

What about the Earth being a circle upon which the Lord rests His feet?

 

[Uber Genius]

Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version) 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:

This verse is extracted from a larger portion - more or less the whole fortieth chapter of Isaiah discussing the Lord God and His comparison to idols. It is, however, the first clause of verse 22 which is plucked out and presented as proof the world is flat. A circle is a two dimensional object and therefore the Earth is flat.

For those who wish to further study the belief, do a web search for ‘Biblical proof of flat Earth’ and dig right in. There are far too many sites and references for me to list here.

It is still believed; look at the videos on the subject.

Isaiah 38:8 (King James Version) Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

This is part of the account of King Hezekiah’s sickness and impending death, which was postponed by the Lord. It is also found in Second Kings 20 and reports the same incidents.

According to Isaiah 38:8, the Sun ‘..returned ten degrees…” This is a clear statement the Sun moves around the Earth, not the Earth around the Sun. It says so in the Bible!

Other Bible quotes demonstrating the same truth:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

I’m probably missing some, but again, feel free to check on your own. It’s too voluminous for me to detail.

This is the proof supporting the Ptolemaic Model of the solar system - the stars didn’t count - and the official Christian version of the solar system (at the time). Departing from this accepted and Bible proofed version was what put Galileo under house arrest and kept Nicolas Copernicus from publishing his findings during his life.

No nonsense about “But that was the Roman Catholic Church!” The proof was the infallible and unquestionable word of the Holy Bible!

Both of these ideas are found in the text of the Bible.

So here are the discussion questions:

One. Do you believe the Earth is flat and stationary? (Yes or no.)

Two. Upon what grounds do you base your opinion, decision, choice? To be transparent, I am specifically interested in why do you not accept the simple and straightforward wording of Holy Writ.

God communicates in the Bible through men. It is referred to as a divine/human book.

Richard Simon, an early French biblical critic, describes the Biblical authors' role this way:

"God has guided their pen in such a way that they do not fall into error. It is men who write; and the Spirit who directs them has not robbed them of their reason or their memory in order to inspire in them facts which they know perfectly well. But He has in general determined them to write instead of certain facts rather than others which they know equally well.

Simon thus denies that "the Evangelists were sheer instruments of the Holy Spirit, who dictated to them word for word what they wrote."

He goes on to say, ""it is not at all necessary to extend it to the words or to the style of each sacred author; it is enough that the substance be inspired."

In order for you point to go through two illicit premises must hold:

P1 - God dictates scripture to men who have no freedom to represent spiritual truths inside the context of their own pre-scientific,and pre medical, understanding of the world.

P2 - God is interested in giving men the correct understanding of our physical world.

Note: what this would look like is that God gives Moses, not just a discussion of his nature, his goal for mankind, and lifestyle dictates, but all knowledge so instead of a perspective of the Sun revolving around the earth we would get a quantum gravity model description (grand unified theory).

Although many have thought that God dictated the Bible (for the last 350+ years this is decidedly not the case). And in Protestantism it will scarcely be found.

So surprise, surprise, surprise, when we take away the two illicit premises above and establish them as false, we find that men are free to represent their spiritual experiences and supernatural and natural insights using their own words, their own prescientific cosmology, inside cultures that thought slavery was okay and women were less valuable then men because everyone thought that.

So to answer your questions is to except your illicit premises, which don't comport to the data but rather create a straw man.

 

[Uber Genius]

There is a vast difference between 'dictated' and 'inspired', Papias. You are correct in much of the Bible does not carry the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord" and are not directly transcribed from the 'voice' of the Lord. However, "All scripture is inspired..." which as Christians - generally - we take to mean influenced and directed in content and meaning while not dictated verbatim.

So your concerns (expressed here) about the Gospels, and letters of various and sundry persons in the New Testament are groundless. Unless you have evidence to change minds about the veracity of those documents.

Any other disagreement or modifications to the thought some scripture is based on the observations of the writer and conclusions of 'cause' are not specifically implied?

What about the Earth being a circle upon which the Lord rests His feet?

Archie, are you implying that we must take figurative language literally?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Archie, are you implying that we must take figurative language literally?

Actually, I was waiting for someone else to bring it up. Thanks.

There are also another idea inherent I want people to see: One is that while a passage can be as true as the writer described - like the Sun not moving - it doesn't necessarily mean the initial (and erroneous) conclusion; the Sun revolves around the Earth. Even if that's what the writer, in his astronomical naïveté, assumed.

Does that sound reasonable to anyone? Unreasonable?

 

[Uber Genius]

Actually, I was waiting for someone else to bring it up. Thanks.

There are also another idea inherent I want people to see: One is that while a passage can be as true as the writer described - like the Sun not moving - it doesn't necessarily mean the initial (and erroneous) conclusion; the Sun revolves around the Earth. Even if that's what the writer, in his astronomical naïveté, assumed.

Does that sound reasonable to anyone? Unreasonable?

Are trying to tell me that you think it is reasonable to play "Devil's advocate" as a Christian? Next you will be cleansing a temple or some such monstrosity.

 

[JackRT]

Are trying to tell me that you think it is reasonable to play "Devil's advocate" as a Christian? Next you will be cleansing a temple or some such monstrosity.

When you so casually refer to someone else's place of worship as "some such monstrosity" then we don't have look very much further to understand why so many people dislike Christians so much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version) 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:

This verse is extracted from a larger portion - more or less the whole fortieth chapter of Isaiah discussing the Lord God and His comparison to idols. It is, however, the first clause of verse 22 which is plucked out and presented as proof the world is flat. A circle is a two dimensional object and therefore the Earth is flat.

Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?

If "circle of the earth" means the earth is flat, does "Bermuda Triangle" mean the earth is triangular?

According to Isaiah 38:8, the Sun ‘..returned ten degrees…” This is a clear statement the Sun moves around the Earth, not the Earth around the Sun. It says so in the Bible!

I take it you reject the presence of general relativity, even in older writings?

Don't we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" today?

Does that mean we too believe the solar system is geocentric?

Isn't it much easier, when writing, to say the sun moved backwards, than to wax sciency and say the earth reversed its rotation?

Other Bible quotes demonstrating the same truth:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

No, 1 Chronicles 16:30 doesn't say that.

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

One. Do you believe the Earth is flat and stationary? (Yes or no.)

No.

Two. Upon what grounds do you base your opinion, decision, choice?

General relativity.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

When you so casually refer to someone else's place of worship as "some such monstrosity" then we don't have look very much further to understand why so many people dislike Christians so much.

Jack, I believe he meant "...some such monstrosity..." as the act of cleaning (throwing out the con-men) the Temple, not referring to the Temple itself.

When Jesus committed such an act - cleaning the Temple - many of the politically correct party were horrified at such a 'monstrous' act.

Please note, I am not claiming to be a Messianic figure. I'm not even Jewish or a carpenter.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

AV1611VET, please take a moment and read most of page four on this thread. I think you will be surprised - happily I hope - at the misapprehension my earlier posts present you.

Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?

Yes. I have also heard of a 'circle of influence', 'circular references', and I even have a 'circle of friends'. (Perhaps 'circle of friend'. One died.) They are all 'figures of speech', which I believe to be your point.

If "circle of the earth" means the earth is flat, does "Bermuda Triangle" mean the earth is triangular?

About as much as the Bering Strait or the Malacca Strait indicate the earth is straight. (Yes, I know I cheated on that.)

I take it you reject the presence of general relativity, even in older writings?

Not at all. IF General Relativity is actually part of the laws of the Universe - and I see no reason to doubt it - then GR has been around for the duration.

In fact, I find some facets of GR helpful in considering the juxtaposition of God and time.

Don't we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" today?
Does that mean we too believe the solar system is geocentric?
Isn't it much easier, when writing, to say the sun moved backwards, than to wax sciency and say the earth reversed its rotation?

Yes, No, and Yes. I will also add to the last question: I find the idea of the rotation of the Earth - as we currently observe it - possibly unknown to the writer at the time of the writing. He described and recorded what he saw in the words and terms he understood.

In answer to Do you believe the Earth is flat and stationary?

No.

In answer to Upon what grounds do you base your opinion, decision, choice?

General relativity.

So, in your own words - because I tend to fill in the blanks for people - why do you feel justified in not accepting the 'literal' wording of the Bible in the passages under discussion?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, in your own words - because I tend to fill in the blanks for people - why do you feel justified in not accepting the 'literal' wording of the Bible in the passages under discussion?

Because I always seek the sense that makes the most sense, without having to resort to thinking any of the [mundane] authors of the Scriptures injected ignorance into their writings.

And as far as they not knowing the earth was round or circled the sun, didn't God walk and talk with Adam in the Garden on a daily basis?

What do you think they talked about? the weather?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In response to "So, in your own words - because I tend to fill in the blanks for people - why do you feel justified in not accepting the 'literal' wording of the Bible in the passages under discussion?"

Because I always seek the sense that makes the most sense, without having to resort to thinking any of the [mundane] authors of the Scriptures injected ignorance into their writings.

That sounds reasonable in itself. Indeed I think most people presume they "...seek the sense that makes the most sense..." (As if someone would say, "I don't think about anything. I just say the first thing pops into my head!") However, do you not see a bit of subjectivity in your answer? One that could power a rebuttal on that ground?

For instance, you endorse General Relativity? What is a concrete reason you do so? (Something NOT originating in your own thoughts. Perhaps involving telescopes, cameras and solar eclipses...)

And as far as they not knowing the earth was round or circled the sun, didn't God walk and talk with Adam in the Garden on a daily basis?

What do you think they talked about? the weather?

Truthfully, I'm not sure.

However, I am pretty sure about this: No matter what the Lord told Adam - and presumably Eve - much of it was lost prior to the age of the Greek philosophers and certainly by the age of the Roman Church over Europe. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think the Egyptians (during the halcyon days) didn't know (didn't remember?) those bits of science and technology the Lord (possibly) gave Adam in the garden.

 

[AV1611VET]

Archie, as regards your posts:

GEOCENTRISM:

The Bible, like any other writing geared toward the common man, uses the language of geocentrism when describing the motions of the heavens. It speaks of sunrise, sunset, the sun & moon standing still, the sun rising and then going across the sky and setting (see Psalm 19), and any other type metaphor that a commoner would understand; using the point of the observer as the reference point. Only a Bible literalist (of which I am), whose aim is to use the scientific method to discredit the Bible (of which I do not), would try and use these metaphors as a tool to cast doubt on the veracity of God's word.

FLAT EARTH:

This is just wrong on so many levels. Anyone traveling from Bethlehem to Galilee, for example, would realize the earth is not flat. They would have "disappeared over the horizon" several times during their trip, and would have "tempted fate" an equal number of times in their trek by running the risk of falling off the globe. Those who think "flat earth" only look in two directions: east and west; and don't consider looking north and south ... why is that?

Don't be like Bible-hating scientists, who can't stand to see the Ten Commandments in their field of view while driving; let alone hearing that the Bible is being used in our public schools. If you fall for their propaganda, you'll run the risk of ending up an atheist.

As Paul warned ...

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Falling for Linnaeus' devilish classification system and calling yourself a "Homo sapiens" (wise man) can (and does) lead to atheism.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

AV, part of what I've been relating is the past practices of "Bible literalists" who have - wrongly - used some passages to demonstrate the ideas of a flat and or Geocentric Earth are "...in the Bible". Whereas the words are - more so in the KJV than in actual translations - the ideas are NOT.

What I want to clarify is by what standard can we recognize the shape and position of the Earth determined by observation, and simultaneously regard the Bible as trustworthy and reliable? How do we assign a status of 'not physically correct' but still 'inspired by God', all at once?

How does this apply to the Bible in general? Since we agree the words of Isaiah 38:8 do not imply or directly state the Sun revolves around the Earth, should we extend this to deny Jesus is "...the way, the truth and the life"?

Just so you know, I believe we can. I think we can deem some passages as metaphor or mistakenly interpreted, while deeming other passages as being valid and correct. For instance, the passages about the Sun standing still or moving backwards are correctly reported, but the early interpretations (Geocentricity) are incorrect.

However, there needs be a protocol for doing such. Otherwise, most anyone can claim "This part is obviously wrong, therefore all the bits about Jesus is similarly wrong". And have.

There are those who would suggest we ignore those doing so and condemn them to Hell. I don't think that approach is consistent with God's desire in the matter. I would at least like to have an 'argument' to present, other than 'gotta have faith (in the sense of not having a clue but accepting anyway)'.

Or can we?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are those who would suggest we ignore those doing so and condemn them to Hell.

I won't go that far, and I'm sure you don't either.

But where's the cut-off point, Archie?

Should we jump through hoops every time time some unbeliever suddenly becomes a superliteralist long enough to put a passage in the Bible under a microscope?

Do you think they're really interested in learning anything?

I'm a KJVO that would make even Peter S. Ruckman blush; but I don't go so far as to interpret figures of speech as literal.

There comes a time when one has to employ Matthew 7:6 to the situation and let it go.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I won't go that far, and I'm sure you don't either.

No I don't.

But where's the cut-off point, Archie?

Should we jump through hoops every time time some unbeliever suddenly becomes a superliteralist long enough to put a passage in the Bible under a microscope?

It's an art form, not a science. So far, the Lord has led me - nudged me? - when I should stand and argue and when I should pack up. Some of it is learned.

Do you think they're really interested in learning anything?

Some are and some aren't. I cannot predict in advance. There are some indicators when one engages in conversation, but it's an art form.

I'm a KJVO that would make even Peter S. Ruckman blush...

That surprises me a bit. [Aside]Usually the KJVOnly party tends to be very 'literal', meaning their concept of what those words mean in English. Usually, the KJVOnly types tend to tell me I'm going to Hell for even having another translation in my home. You seem a bit more relaxed. Are you KJVO or prefer KJV? By the way, I prefer the NET and New English Bible but I'm not 'anti' KJV, really. I think new Christians and non-Christians would be better off with a more modern translation and I react badly to the KJV (You're going to Hell with anything else) Only types; but it is a valid and useful translation, IF one understands the differences between the English of 1611 and modern English.[/aside]

...but I don't go so far as to interpret figures of speech as literal.

Another plus.

There comes a time when one has to employ Matthew 7:6 to the situation and let it go.

I agree. But I don't know until I get there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Usually, the KJVOnly types tend to tell me I'm going to Hell for even having another translation in my home.

Oh, my!

I'm not nearly of that persuasion; and frankly, I don't know of anyone who is.

Although I'll admit, I don't hang around the KJVO threads.

My pastor says he can take the NWT and lead someone to Christ with it; and although I think that's stretching it a bit, if anyone can do it, he can!

Are you KJVO or prefer KJV?

I'm KJVO.

And while I do have a copy of the 1560 Geneva Bible with me, I'm KJVO.

In fact, I'm of the persuasion that "the books" mentioned here ...

Revelation 20:12a And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened:

... are the sixty-six books of the King James Bible, written in Heaven before they were written on Earth.

And taking this a step further, I also believe they spoke Jacobean English prior to the Tower of Babel.

Just a pet theory of mine.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm KJVO. And while I do have a copy of the 1560 Geneva Bible with me, I'm KJVO.

That you have another Bible and admit it in public tends to mitigate your position. Please understand I am being respectful of your belief and understanding, but from my perspective you are a 'primary KJV' type rather than 'KJVO'. When I think of "O", they're the ones who regard the later 'updates' as un-needed, who believe the KJV text is really God's inspired message - they always use 'Word' - not the Hebrew or Greek autographs. And also, praying - even by one's self - doesn't count unless it is done in Shakespearean English.

Do you read Shakespeare, by the way? Do you know the difference between 'thee' and 'thou'?

In fact, I'm of the persuasion that "the books" mentioned here ...

Revelation 20:12a And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened:

... are the sixty-six books of the King James Bible, written in Heaven before they were written on Earth.

:rimshot!:

And taking this a step further, I also believe they spoke Jacobean English prior to the Tower of Babel. Just a pet theory of mine.

I read somewhere - long ago in my mis-spent youth - of an old(er) belief by Christian scholars/philosophers/religious types of the medieval period: A child, reared without language training of any kind, would naturally speak ancient Hebrew; since that was the language of God. (I kid you not.) I think that theory is no longer actively pushed.

But enough of this distraction! (He said sternly with a wry smile and suppressing a giggle.)

How does one differentiate metaphorical or illustrative text from that which cannot be so considered? (I'm reading the book of Revelation right now, by the way.)

 

[JackRT]

Many years ago I was walking with a friend through a town in an Amish district. Three young Amish men were walking ahead of us and talking excitedly in German. She burst out laughing and pulled me aside. She understood German and told me that the young men were convinced that the Bible was written originally in German and that God spoke in German with Adam and Eve.