A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

[Freodin]

If God had decided to deliver some scientific treatise (although how he would do that while using man as the means of recording it is another question) that actually gave some explanation, even if we had enough time to read it, we wouldn't be able to evaluate it or even understand it. It would just create some other reason for doubt.

I'd say that this is a very counterproductive argument.

No one will deny that a lot of people, especially in ancient times, did not have the sum of understanding that lead to our current cosmological models. They used what they had, and build their models on that.

This works quite well when you assume that all those ancient texts - including the Bible - were written by ancient people, based on their own understanding.

But if you start to make the claim that this is "God telling people something", this argument doesn't work. It even refutes that basic Jewish/Christian position, which is based on divine revelation instead of human understanding.

If you have God - or even need to have God - cater to the limits of human knowledge, because they "wouldn't be able to understand", and present them with false images based on their faulty understanding, then nothing in the Bible can be taken as correct.

We even often hear those claims: that the Bible is shown to be God's Word, because it contains concepts that no human mind could come up with. But if it does contain such "truths" that go beyond human understanding... then why resort to false concepts on a topic that is so basic and understandable with simple methods that other ancient people had no problems understanding it?

 

[Tom 1]

I'd say that this is a very counterproductive argument.

No one will deny that a lot of people, especially in ancient times, did not have the sum of understanding that lead to our current cosmological models. They used what they had, and build their models on that.

This works quite well when you assume that all those ancient texts - including the Bible - were written by ancient people, based on their own understanding.

But if you start to make the claim that this is "God telling people something", this argument doesn't work. It even refutes that basic Jewish/Christian position, which is based on divine revelation instead of human understanding.

If you have God - or even need to have God - cater to the limits of human knowledge, because they "wouldn't be able to understand", and present them with false images based on their faulty understanding, then nothing in the Bible can be taken as correct.

We even often hear those claims: that the Bible is shown to be God's Word, because it contains concepts that no human mind could come up with. But if it does contain such "truths" that go beyond human understanding... then why resort to false concepts on a topic that is so basic and understandable with simple methods that other ancient people had no problems understanding it?

You seem to be responding to a lot of things there that aren't in my post, might be better for the sake of discussion to break it down a bit. What do you see as being my argument?

To start understanding the bible, you first have to understand the intellectual culture of the times it was written in. Fortunately, due to the survival of a great deal of ancient literature on cuneiform tablets, and increasingly sophisticated translations of these, we can have an insight into that world. Ideas like that behind what you are saying are based in the notion that the ancients, like us, were trying to figure out how the world works, however this isn't the case; whereas in the modern world our general outlook towards the universe is something like 'what is all this stuff, how did id get here and how does it work', the ancient mind was more concerned with questions such as 'who is in charge, who brings order, what is our role in it all' and so on. There's a lot to summarise about that in a few posts so if you are interested in it I'd suggest starting with John H Walton's 'The Lost World of Geneisis One', or you can go straight to the source and read more literal translations of the bible in conjunction with surviving literature from Sumeria and Bablyon.

The second issue is in understanding the nature of what the bible is - and what it is not, and what does it mean that it was 'inspired' by God (not 'written' by God), which is a claim about itself. There's not much point in getting into those discussion unless you are interested enough to do a fair bit of reading.

 

[SeventyOne]

If you have God - or even need to have God - cater to the limits of human knowledge, because they "wouldn't be able to understand", and present them with false images based on their faulty understanding, then nothing in the Bible can be taken as correct.

We even often hear those claims: that the Bible is shown to be God's Word, because it contains concepts that no human mind could come up with. But if it does contain such "truths" that go beyond human understanding... then why resort to false concepts on a topic that is so basic and understandable with simple methods that other ancient people had no problems understanding it?

Kudos to you. You get it.

 

[Freodin]

You seem to be responding to a lot of things there that aren't in my post, might be better for the sake of discussion to break it down a bit. What do you see as being my argument?

To start understanding the bible, you first have to understand the intellectual culture of the times it was written in. Fortunately, due to the survival of a great deal of ancient literature on cuneiform tablets, and increasingly sophisticated translations of these, we can have an insight into that world. Ideas like that behind what you are saying are based in the notion that the ancients, like us, were trying to figure out how the world works, however this isn't the case; whereas in the modern world our general outlook towards the universe is something like 'what is all this stuff, how did id get here and how does it work', the ancient mind was more concerned with questions such as 'who is in charge, who brings order, what is our role in it all' and so on. There's a lot to summarise about that in a few posts so if you are interested in it I'd suggest starting with John H Walton's 'The Lost World of Geneisis One', or you can go straight to the source and read more literal translations of the bible in conjunction with surviving literature from Sumeria and Bablyon.

That is only partially correct. In order to answer questions such as "who is in charge, who brings order, what is our role in in all"... you need to understand what it means to be "in charge", what this "order" is, and how this "all" works that you play a role in. That is why ancient cosmologies exists, even if their focus isn't necessary on a "scientific" worldview.

The ancient writings do indeed offer us a view into world of the ancients... and even if they didn't mean to, it also offers us an insight into how they though the world works.

The second issue is in understanding the nature of what the bible is - and what it is not, and what does it mean that it was 'inspired' by God (not 'written' by God), which is a claim about itself. There's not much point in getting into those discussion unless you are interested enough to do a fair bit of reading.

Well, the "inspired does not mean written or dictated" position is one that is not shared among all Christians, but you cannot deny that a lot - I of course would say all - of the Bible is "inspired" by very mundane and secular sources.

 

[SkyWriting]

If the Bible supported heliocentrism then Galileo wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the church.

Becasue religious groups know everything? I don't think so either.

 

[SkyWriting]

From whose perspective? The Genesis narrative is written from an ancient world perspective. We reinterpret it from a 21st C perspective. 100s, 1000s of years from now it will be viewed with an entirely different perspective. Which of those audiences should it be written for?
The bible makes no attempt whatsoever to address issues that we would consider to within the domain of the physical sciences. Why would it? - that is as far from it's purpose as flat earthery is from logic. If God had decided to deliver some scientific treatise (although how he would do that while using man as the means of recording it is another question) that actually gave some explanation, even if we had enough time to read it, we wouldn't be able to evaluate it or even understand it. It would just create some other reason for doubt.

Scripture is written from the perspective of man standing on the earth.
It does cover a number of aspects in the physical sciences based on
observation and common experience, which is the basis of science.
None of this will ever change.

Billions of people experience a flat earth and there is no other
perspective needed. It is over 99.9% flat.

 

[Tom 1]

Scripture is written from the perspective of man standing on the earth.
It does cover a number of aspects in the physical sciences based on
observation and common experience, which is the basis of science.
None of this will ever change.

Billions of people experience a flat earth and there is no other
perspective needed. It is over 99.9% flat.

Depends what you mean, if you are just talking about whether or not people thought the earth was flat at the time, probably yes, no other perspective is needed, but you can’t decipher the rest of the creation story without some understanding of how the people who wrote it thought about the world around them, what their fundamental preoccupations were, as they were very different from ours. Without that perspective, it is inevitable that we end up trying to make it all fit into the perspective of a modern person, because we are modern people, with a modern mindset, made up of layers of very different influences and assumptions when compared with that of a person living several thousand years ago in the ANE.

 

[Tom 1]

In order to answer questions such as "who is in charge, who brings order, what is our role in in all"... you need to understand what it means to be "in charge", what this "order" is, and how this "all" works that you play a role in. That is why ancient cosmologies exists, even if their focus isn't necessary on a "scientific" worldview.

Not really, that would involve beginning with assumptions that are integral to a modern mindset. To begin to understand how the writers of Genesis thought about it all, you first need to ditch the modern mindset, as it only exists in the minds of modern people, and then start putting together the pieces of what can be gathered about ancient cosmogony, perspectives to be gained from ancient literature on the value placed on order and civilisation - and what represented or symbolised those things - over their lack, in wildness or pre-existing chaos, all within a framework that included the idea that all things capable of motion had life in them, and that the known world was surrounded by things unknown, brought into order by the same God whom Abraham came to worship (in the case of the OT writers that is). What it meant to be in charge was to give order, and to preside over that order, much as some early rulers in Sumer ,after the priestly stage, began to set themselves up as deities, as they ‘brought order’ by establishing irrigation, city walls, defeating enemies etc.

 

[Tom 1]

how this "all" works

How it all ‘worked’ to the ancients (or to the Hebrews specifically when it comes to strict monotheism) is that all things had life in them, but were variously held in check, dominated, given roles, and so on by God (as opposed to polytheistic societies in which the gods, or almost all gods, themselves inhabited or were in some sense those things). Mankind played their part within that but could succumb to disorder if they abandoned the way of civilisation, although that was sometimes looked on with nostalgia - in a rather nuanced and sophisticated fashion, e.g. Enkidu in the EoG. Obviously there is more that can be said but if you try to make it submit to modern notions about what’s what there isn’t even any point in discussing it.

 

[Tom 1]

Well, the "inspired does not mean written or dictated" position is one that is not shared among all Christians, but you cannot deny that a lot - I of course would say all - of the Bible is "inspired" by very mundane and secular sources.

You can’t really deal with the bible as a whole, if you want to have any understanding of it that is. What you have instead, if you take that route, are assumptions and vague impressions. To understand the bible you need to look at it first in parts, and understand what makes its parts different and what connects them, and a bunch of other stuff tbh. Really these discussions are only worthwhile if you actually want to do that, for whatever reason, but there isn’t much to be gained from talking about vague notions about this or that, in my view.

 

[Tom 1]

If you have God - or even need to have God - cater to the limits of human knowledge, because they "wouldn't be able to understand", and present them with false images based on their faulty understanding, then nothing in the Bible can be taken as correct.

That only holds true if you take the bible to be a scientific text, written for the purpose of establishing scientific realities, which in itself would only make sense if had been written within the last 500 years or so, during which the overall worldview shared by the Western World has been finding a new shape. Everything ever written by anyone about anything caters to the limits of human knowledge - and the bible never makes any claim to the contrary about itself, not when studied with any level of application as opposed to just taken to be read as the basis for random assumptions. See Mark 4:33 for example, or Isaiah 55:8, or the whole of the book of Job - an excellent read for anyone interested in the idea of God as being entirely ‘other’ than our limited conceptions of him. To understand what is meant by the bible being ‘inspired’ you’ll really have to study it, it isn’t a simple question by any means.

 

[Halbhh]

It doesn't make sense according to the Bible that the earth is in fact moving around the sun. Joshua 10:13 says "...The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

That's only logically correct if you assume God cannot do such a miracle.

(Of course here the issue would be not orbital motion, but rotational motion of the Earth; but even that isn't the issue, because of momentum; it's an outright miracle entirely...if a person believes God can do miracles that are supernatural (unnatural, not in accordance with the everyday laws of physics)).

So...the first step is to consider one's own assumptions, and check whether they cause one to only do a tautological circle of logic.

Either God can do supernatural miracles (impossible things by the normal laws of physics), or not.

In the Bible, God is able to do anything, including things that don't happen naturally in any manner ever. Things that could not happen in all of time naturally even once.

 

[SeventyOne]

That's only logically correct if you assume God cannot do such a miracle.

(Of course here the issue would be not orbital motion, but rotational motion of the Earth; but even that isn't the issue, because of momentum; it's an outright miracle entirely...if a person believes God can do miracles that are supernatural (unnatural, not in accordance with the everyday laws of physics)).

So...the first step is to consider one's own assumptions, and check whether they cause one to only do a tautological circle of logic.

Either God can do supernatural miracles (impossible things by the normal laws of physics), or not.

In the Bible, God is able to do anything, including things that don't happen naturally in any manner ever. Things that could not happen in all of time naturally even once.

It's the sun and the moon. It wouldn't be just the rotational motion of the earth, but of the moon as well.

In order to get this account to fit, an assumption has to be placed on the text that the result is observational, rather than actual. The easier way to read it is by what it actually says. Joshua commands the sun to stop in one specific location, and the moon to stop in another specific location, and it says they stopped, not they 'appeared' to stop. It even reiterates the stopping of the sun as it stopping in the midst of the heavens.

This is conforming scriptures to modern thought rather than letting them speak as the authority for themselves. It's not a matter of if God can do miracles or not, but rather if it says what it means or we feel we need to help it along.

 

[Halbhh]

It's the sun and the moon. It wouldn't be just the rotational motion of the earth, but of the moon as well.

In order to get this account to fit, an assumption has to be placed on the text that the result is observational, rather than actual. The easier way to read it is by what it actually says. Joshua commands the sun to stop in one specific location, and the moon to stop in another specific location, and it says they stopped, not they 'appeared' to stop. It even reiterates the stopping of the sun as it stopping in the midst of the heavens.

This is conforming scriptures to modern thought rather than letting them speak as the authority for themselves. It's not a matter of if God can do miracles or not, but rather if it says what it means or we feel we need to help it along.

When you say "In order to get this account to fit, an assumption has to be placed on the text that the result is observational, rather than actual." -- here I have a different take: I believe God can alter the very laws of physics itself. He can make the truly impossible happen, something that isn't merely unusual or very rare, but truly impossible by physics entirely.

Example: He could make the moon suddenly appear twice as close, for instance, or make the waters of the Red Sea separate unnaturally in a manner that even was beyond simply unusual phenomena, but He could (if He chooses) even do it in a way utterly impossible by physics, if that's the way He chooses.

This comes up again about the 2nd coming when Christ will appear visible to all the world. It isn't like He be distantly only vaguely visible to some as if they were (real world) say a mile or two from a stadium, outside looking towards the stadium, and only notice some odd looking light way over there. Instead, something truly impossible in physics will happen, and He will be clearly visible to all the Earth everywhere at once as best I can tell from the plain wording.

 

[SeventyOne]

When you say "In order to get this account to fit, an assumption has to be placed on the text that the result is observational, rather than actual." -- here I have a different take: I believe God can alter the very laws of physics itself. He can make the truly impossible happen, something that isn't merely unusual or very rare, but truly impossible by physics entirely.

Example: He could make the moon suddenly appear twice as close, for instance, or make the waters of the Red Sea separate unnaturally in a manner that even was beyond simply unusual phenomena, but He could (if He chooses) even do it in a way utterly impossible by physics, if that's the way He chooses.

This comes up again about the 2nd coming when Christ will appear visible to all the world. It isn't like He be distantly only vaguely visible to some as if they were (real world) say a mile or two from a stadium, outside looking towards the stadium, and only notice some odd looking light way over there. Instead, something truly impossible in physics will happen, and He will be clearly visible to all the Earth everywhere at once as best I can tell from the plain wording.

And your change on the text is that it was the earth no longer moving, rather than the sun and moon, making their 'stopping' as observational from the point of Joshua, rather than actual. Although, in either case, it would be necessary for the moon to stop as well. That couldn't be an observational phenomena, because if the earth stopped, then the orbit of the moon would appear to be greatly altered, but not stopped.

So when one tries to impose heliocentrism on the text they end up saying when the scripture says the moon stopped, it actually stopped, but when it twice says the sun stopped, it didn't actually stop. Very selective confusion right there.

 

[Halbhh]

And your change on the text is that it was the earth no longer moving, rather than the sun and moon, making their 'stopping' as observational from the point of Joshua, rather than actual. Although, in either case, it would be necessary for the moon to stop as well. That couldn't be an observational phenomena, because if the earth stopped, then the orbit of the moon would appear to be greatly altered, but not stopped.

So when one tries to impose heliocentrism on the text they end up saying when the scripture says the moon stopped, it actually stopped, but when it twice says the sun stopped, it didn't actually stop. Very selective confusion right there.

While we are entirely speculating, so that one could speculate in a number of ways and put it onto the text, such as a flat-earth added assumption that the sun was moving and was suddenly put to zero velocity relative to the Earth's surface, etc, itself an added speculation (if one used it). My own speculation is not about any geometry actually (not about orbital motion, heliocentric orbits, etc., and not even about stopping Earth's rotation (that would be the correct way to guess at what I think happened if you assumed I'm just using only mainstream astronomy and presume it's all just mechanical; not even necessarily stopping the Earth's rotation, not even that, the only one that matches what I think is the geometry), but instead I'm guessing (speculating) God did a truly physically impossible thing not just mechanically, as it would be possible say in some fantastically advanced technology to just do all sorts of amazing physical outcomes, perhaps even to stop Earth's rotation, but instead of that my own guess, as distinct from the guesses you've mentioned, is that God altered physics. Who knows how? I don't. Like some bizarre thing. Like if you love speculation, perhaps He moved all the region there into an altered universe or altered time, but these are only more speculations, and I don't rely on them. I just know He did it.

 

[SeventyOne]

While we are entirely speculating, so that one could speculate in a number of ways and put it onto the text, such as a flat-earth added assumption that the sun was moving and was suddenly put to zero velocity relative to the Earth's surface, etc, itself an added speculation (if one used it). My own speculation is not about any geometry actually (not about orbital motion, heliocentric orbits, etc., and not even about stopping Earth's rotation (which is how it would be just geometrically); not even that last one, the only one that matches what I think is the geometry; not even that!), but instead God did a truly physically impossible thing not just mechanically, as it would be possible say in some fantastically advanced technology to just do all sorts of amazing physical outcomes, perhaps even to stop Earth's rotation, but instead of that my own guess, as distinct from the guesses you've mentioned, is that God altered physics. Who knows how? I don't. Like some bizarre thing. Like if you love speculation, perhaps He moved all the region there into an altered universe or altered time, but these are only more speculations, and I don't rely on them. I just know He did it.

I don't know why there's so much abstract speculation though. The passage states Joshua ordered the sun and moon to stop in specific locations and the Lord heeded his words and stopped them in those locations.

It seems really clear. In a flat earth model, this would simply mean they stopped as the text states. Nothing else is required.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't know why there's so much abstract speculation though. The passage states Joshua ordered the sun and moon to stop in specific locations and the Lord heeded his words and stopped them in those locations.

It seems really clear. In a flat earth model, this would simply mean they stopped as the text states. Nothing else is required.

In the round Earth model, if one thinks very mechanically, as if miracles had to be only mechanical, then it would be the very simple geometry of the Earth's rotation being suspended, ceased, for a time. I don't rule that out. I don't rely on it either.

I think it's a miracle, and not explainable with ordinary ideas including the ordinary ideas of geometry like used in the flat Earth abstraction or the round Earth idea either. I don't claim to know. I specifically say I don't know how.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, dead for 4 days, I don't say I know the technique or biochemistry or way it was done, except by faith and God's unlimited ability to do impossible things.

 

[SeventyOne]

In the round Earth model, if one thinks very mechanically, as if miracles had to be only mechanical, then it would be the very simple geometry of the Earth's rotation being suspended, ceased, for a time. I don't rule that out. I don't rely on it either.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that this assumption of an earth ceasing to rotate for a time doesn't describe the passage.

It says the moon stopped as well. The only way for it to seem to stand still in the sky in that model is if both the earth stopped rotating and the moon stopped orbiting, or neither stopped and they synced up for a time, but the latter wouldn't feasible with the sun standing still as well.

In order to say the earth stopped, one has to also say the moon stopped. Scripture tells us the moon did stop, but it also tells us the sun (not the earth) stopped. So, it puts one in the situation where they are agreeing with the text that the moon stopped, but disagreeing with the stopping of the sun by substituting the stopping of the earth instead.

 

[Halbhh]

One of the points I'm trying to make is that this assumption of an earth ceasing to rotate for a time doesn't describe the passage.

It says the moon stopped as well. The only way for it to seem to stand still in the sky in that model is if both the earth stopped rotating and the moon stopped orbiting, or neither stopped and they synced up for a time, but the latter wouldn't feasible with the sun standing still as well.

In order to say the earth stopped, one has to also say the moon stopped. Scripture tells us the moon did stop, but it also tells us the sun (not the earth) stopped. So, it puts one in the situation where they are agreeing with the text that the moon stopped, but disagreeing with the stopping of the sun by substituting the stopping of the earth instead.

Well, it takes about 27 days for the Moon to orbit the Earth 1 time.

So, therefore, the math says that for example during 10 hours, the Moon would move about 1.5% of it's full orbit. That's pretty close to 'stopped' if you like, compared to the Moon's normal apparent motion across the sky, which is due almost entirely to Earth's rotation.

I don't think it's required to read this so literally as to think if a drop of water, like spray, hit the face of an Israelite as they crossed between the waters of the parted Red Sea that would be a false interpretation.

And, mechanically, if the Earth's rotation were stopped (and the huge problem of momentum also handled somehow), then what's to stop Someone Who is able to do that from also stopping the Moon in it's orbit? So it could in those mechanical versions of the miracle be either of 2 scenarios fitting a round Earth.

But supposing it was that the Earth's rotation were halted, even if the Moon was not halted, and moved 1.5% across the sky, that's...close enough to "stopped" for me. I'm not picky enough to rule that out. But as you know my own guess/speculation is it's even more miraculous than these possibilities. Still....I suppose actually I like the Earth's rotation stopping as a speculation just as much as any other speculation.