A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

[cvanwey]

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.

(Rhetorical) I know right? It's not like when Alexander the Great was born from Zeus, I questioned how he was then conceived... (Rhetorical)

The bigger question remains...

1. Why is the verse from the Bible true, as opposed to an ancient claim, where the author maybe actually thought he was receiving communication from a higher power, but actually did not? How might one go about actually evaluating the said claim?

And yes, one can argue practically any position or viewpoint. That's the beauty of language. It's the very same reason we have 100/1,000's of ethnocentric Christian sects. So here's another question.

2. If language is proven confusing, even among believers, does it appear prudent or wise for the almighty to use such a vessel or mechanism to convey 'truth'?

 

[Halbhh]

(Rhetorical) I know right? It's not like when Alexander the Great was born from Zeus, I questioned how he was then conceived... (Rhetorical)

The bigger question remains...

1. Why is the verse from the Bible true, as opposed to an ancient claim, where the author maybe actually thought he was receiving communication from a higher power, but actually did not? How might one go about actually evaluating the said claim?

And yes, one can argue practically any position or viewpoint. That's the beauty of language. It's the very same reason we have 100/1,000's of ethnocentric Christian sects. So here's another question.

2. If language is proven confusing, even among believers, does it appear prudent or wise for the almighty to use such a vessel or mechanism to convey 'truth'?

Fun questions. Lemme answer in reverse order. One of the amazing and wonderful things you find if you read through books in the Bible (full reading from beginning of a book to the end) in a good translation like the ESV or NIV, is that the wording is almost everywhere sublime and potent, like poetry at its best. Including both in ways that are obviously so, but additionally in ways that are subtly so, and not obvious right at first. Poetry is able to say things that ordinary exposition can fail at. If you get a...pause...and a sense of recognizing a something as you read Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening (Robert Frost), that's the kind of thing I mean. That said, and it's important, it's additionally true that the most crucial things we need to know from scripture are quite clearly stated in a way hardly anyone ever could fail to comprehend in an effective way -- such as, "Love your neighbor as yourself". That works. Another person doesn't have to love their neighbor the way I do, but instead they should love the way they do, as they want to be loved. It's universally clear if one wants to hear it. So, the text has these 2 impressive qualities.

About #1, that's close to asking: how can I know God exists? For me that began as I finally began to realize that "Love your neighbor as yourself" along with "Love your enemy" (and the text has additional detail on that one) are not just nice stuff, or a way to a more relaxed life that is less stressful, but instead are the only way to lasting peace, for human beings.

I actually tested these, first hand, with strangers, and an actually antagonist of many years (a 'enemy'). The results were truly surprising.

That made me curious to hear more of what Jesus said. Because of the accuracy of His prescriptions, so far as I knew them. I wanted more of what He said, just like you'd want more of what Emerson said if you read certain things he said, or more of what Lao Tzu said if you read #38 of The Tao, for instance. Lemme tell you, reading more is a great enjoyment, even for a nonbeliever.

(Here's a nice site for reading, and here's Matthew in the NIV; the genealogy of the first 17 verses are meant for Jewish listeners
Matthew 1 NIV).

 

[cvanwey]

Fun questions. Lemme answer in reverse order. One of the amazing and wonderful things you find if you read through books in the Bible (full reading from beginning of a book to the end) in a good translation like the ESV or NIV, is that the wording is almost everywhere sublime and potent, like poetry at its best. Including both in ways that are obviously so, but additionally in ways that are subtly so, and not obvious right at first. Poetry is able to say things that ordinary exposition can fail at. If you get a...pause...and a sense of recognizing a something as you read Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening (Robert Frost), that's the kind of thing I mean. That said, and it's important, it's additionally true that the most crucial things we need to know from scripture are quite clearly stated in a way hardly anyone ever could fail to comprehend in an effective way -- such as, "Love your neighbor as yourself". That works. Another person doesn't have to love their neighbor the way I do, but instead they should love the way they do, as they want to be loved. It's universally clear if one wants to hear it. So, the text has these 2 impressive qualities.

I think we may be crossing paths a bit. In regards to the verses specified, how might one go about evaluating the 'truthiness' of such an asserted claim? The answer, for me anyways, is to investigate the available evidence. And in my estimation, it would appear, including your response(s), that it may require quite a bit of 'hoop jumping' or 'gymnastics' or 'rationalization' to make the data/claim fit. It more-so seems to demonstrate the likes of an ancient book making an assertion, and many subsequent believers in the main premises to Christianity, appear to be attempting to assure that their book is true, by finding explanations to make all subsequent claims fit, verses, simply following the evidence to each and every claim and seeing which conclusion actually surmises. And if many of the said claims are false, to also question the book of complete claimed truth entirely.

So my follow up question would be...

Say you never heard of the Bible, yet have information and 'facts' you have now (only absent the Bible claims). And say someone came up to you and made such a claim from the Bible. Would such a claim even register as plausible on your 'truthiness' scale? Or, is it instead because it's in the Bible, you are instead forced to reconcile that it 'must be true'?

About #1, that's close to asking: how can I know God exists? For me that began as I finally began to realize that "Love your neighbor as yourself" along with "Love your enemy" (and the text has additional detail on that one) are not just nice stuff, or a way to a more relaxed life that is less stressful, but instead are the only way to lasting peace, for human beings.

I actually tested these, first hand, with strangers, and an actually antagonist of many years (a 'enemy'). The results were truly surprising.

That made me curious to hear more of what Jesus said. Because of the accuracy of His prescriptions, so far as I knew them. I wanted more of what He said, just like you'd want more of what Emerson said if you read certain things he said, or more of what Lao Tzu said if you read #38 of The Tao, for instance. Lemme tell you, reading more is a great enjoyment, even for a nonbeliever.

(Here's a nice site for reading, and here's Matthew in the NIV; the genealogy of the first 17 verses are meant for Jewish listeners
Matthew 1 NIV).

I think we continue to cross paths here. My observation is that even among believers, we see massive infighting, asserted and conflicting truths (which are ethnocentric in nature), and we also see many conflicting denominations - which all claim 'there way or the highway.' So my follow up question here is:

Is dying and changing languages the best method to convey truth?

 

[Norbert L]

So it looks like the Bible is giving them the impression that the earth is flat.


But in reality it is the earth that is moving, not the sun.


They all are compatible to some degree with a flat earth and not at all with a spherical earth.

What the biblical text is compatible with is the limit of knowledge that ancient civilization was able to observe and make sense of.

Look at it this way. Einstein with his ground breaking theory of relativity. In no way could he have ever discovered E = mc2 without knowing how E, M and C were defined. Historically speaking other people discovered those values beforehand in order for him to put it all together. His theory changed how we view this world.

It's like that for biblical texts, those ancient people were restrained by a lack of knowledge when they spoke/wrote about this world. Basically our modern awareness does not totally apply to those texts. So when we read the Bible today and inject our modern understanding into it, such a thing produces wrong conclusions about what the Bible is communicating.

 

[JohnClay]

I think that verse says east and west for a reason. If it had said "as far as the north is from the south", that would be an actual distance. But the point is obviously to say that the sins are completely removed. Just like when the bible talks about sins being cast into the sea, it's obviously not talking about literally throwing sins into a literal sea.

"as far as the north is from the south" would make sense if the earth is a globe - it is the maximum distance between two points on a globe.

 

[JohnClay]

Yes - but it isn't. In ancient times people were not aware that the brain was involved in thinking,

History of neuroscience - Wikipedia
Actually: "In the 4th century BC Hippocrates, believed the brain to be the seat of intelligence"

something that seems obvious to us now. Either way you look at it, it is metaphorical, whether the author believed that or not.

If they believed people thought using their heart, how can it be metaphorical? Metaphors are non-literal!
edit: from the point of the view of the author it wouldn't be a metaphor but today people would usually think that it was intended to be a metaphor.

 

[JohnClay]

....It's like that for biblical texts, those ancient people were restrained by a lack of knowledge when they spoke/wrote about this world. Basically our modern awareness does not totally apply to those texts. So when we read the Bible today and inject our modern understanding into it, such a thing produces wrong conclusions about what the Bible is communicating.

About the Bible only saying thoughts/emotions coming from the heart rather than the head:
"In the 4th century BC Hippocrates, believed the brain to be the seat of intelligence"

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia
"The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy"

Heliocentrism - Wikipedia
"The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos"

It seems in all cases the authors of the Bible had the same or worse ideas about science of their time. God could have given them special knowledge. They could understand it - after all you could teach a child that the earth is a ball or that we think using our heads easily. BTW what about Revelation? Is it special knowledge from God or did the author just come up with it on his own?

 

[SeventyOne]

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.

You can actually watch the moon progress in real-time with your own eyes. It's obvious when it's moving over a span of a few minutes, let alone hours.

 

[JohnClay]

What the biblical text is compatible with is the limit of knowledge that ancient civilization was able to observe and make sense of....

See my previous post:
"In the 4th century BC Hippocrates, believed the brain to be the seat of intelligence"
"The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy"
"The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos"

If the authors didn't receive any special knowledge about the nature of the world (e.g. that the earth moves around the sun or that the earth is not flat) and instead assumed false things like a flat earth, etc, then how can you be sure that their other writings are true? Maybe their entire writings had no literal God involved.

 

[Radagast]

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

Not true. There's more to the Galileo story.

 

[JohnClay]

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

Not true. There's more to the Galileo story.

There are many verses in the Bible that support geocentrism (e.g. the sun being created on day 4, etc) but are there ANY verses that support heliocentrism?

 

[Tom 1]

History of neuroscience - Wikipedia
Actually: "In the 4th century BC Hippocrates, believed the brain to be the seat of intelligence"

Yes, as you are aware we’re talking about the period in which the OT was written, centuries before Hippocrates.

 

[Tom 1]

If they believed people thought using their heart, how can it be metaphorical? Metaphors are non-literal!
edit: from the point of the view of the author it wouldn't be a metaphor but today people would usually think that it was intended to be a metaphor.

It’s a metaphor as it is using the heart as a substitute for the brain, replacing in language the actual organ for thinking - that makes it a metaphor, intentional or not. Metaphor describes the use of language, not whether that use was intentional, it’s not a description of the author’s knowledge or intent.

 

[Tayla]

This is more than a case of many verses supporting the flat earth theory and geocentrism. It is what seems to be a complete absence of support for a spherical earth and heliocentrism.

Yes, this is true. Yet science confirms that the earth is not flat.

 

[devolved]

There are a lot of verses that seem to say that the earth is flat and that it doesn't move and the sun moves around the earth.

e.g.
Over 200 Bible scriptures say the earth is FLAT! #FlatEarthDoctrine

Can Christians name ANY verses that imply the earth is NOT flat or is a ball or that the earth travels around the sun?

Most of the Bible was written by priestly (tribal government) class which didn't really care whether the Earth was flat or not, nor such knowledge would be of any use to them. During that stage of humanity the more pertinent problems were about having coherent set of moral principles that would allow humanity to collectively solve certain problems like food crises, and tribal warfare.

A correct view of cosmology would have no use, so it couldn't really be "applied science" in any way, shape, or form at that time. There's good evidence from contemporary cultures in that region that Astronomy/Astrology was fairly well-developed and used in some agricultural settings. But applications revolved around pragmatic agricultural concepts, like standardizing planting harvest cycles, etc.

So, you have some description of what appears to be "flat-Earth like", but it's more nominal in a sense that they described what they saw instead of painting models of how it all works.

 

[JohnClay]

Yes, as you are aware we’re talking about the period in which the OT was written, centuries before Hippocrates.

"Heart" is mentioned 149 times in the NT e.g. Matthew 13:15 "...understand with their hearts...". There is no mention of people using their head to think/feel.

 

[JohnClay]

....A correct view of cosmology would have no use, so it couldn't really be "applied science" in any way, shape, or form at that time...

If God can't communicate a correct view of cosmology to people (not even in one verse) how can you be sure what he says about Heaven or hell, etc is accurate?
Also it could be argued that it doesn't really matter if a child believes the earth is flat or spherical though many would prefer the child know the truth.

 

[Tom 1]

"Heart" is mentioned 149 times in the NT e.g. Matthew 13:15 "...understand with their hearts...". There is no mention of people using their head to think/feel.

Do you mean why wasn't the idea more widespread? I would say part of the answer to that lies in how ancient Greek and Jewish cultures were different to ours. The educated classes were relatively small elite groups, and they were operating within a very different framework of thought, e.g. no peer reviewed, widely disseminated articles. Whether the Greek influences on Jewish culture around the time of the NT had more specific influences on the thinking of 'the core' of Jewish religious culture is another question, i.e. how much does the NT strictly adhere to fundamentally Jewish notions and to what extent was it influenced by Greek thought. That said, I don't think Hippocrates idea was widely accepted, or even widely known about, at the time.

 

[Tom 1]

If God can't communicate a correct view of cosmology to people (not even in one verse)

What gives you the idea that he was trying to?

 

[JohnClay]

Do you mean why wasn't the idea more widespread? I would say part of the answer to that lies in how ancient Greek and Jewish cultures were different to ours....

It seemed Jesus believed that people thought with their hearts and not their heads. If he is wrong about that how can you be sure he is correct about the kingdom of Heaven, etc?