A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

[Tom 1]

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?

What you seem to be asking is something like 'Is Jesus/the bible wrong because he didn't refer to what we can now demonstrate are scientifically definable realities' - ? If that what you are asking, then where would you draw the line? If the bible were to contain an explanation of the whole process of the universe coming to be what it now is and how it all works - well, how much data that would mean and how we would ever understand it - we as in mankind now, 3,000 years ago, 50 years ago, 3,000 years into the future, is beyond imagining. The whole question arises out of the idea that the bible 'explains' the operations of the physical universe, which was a popular idea up until a few hundred years ago. The development of empirical methods for scientific methods has, similarly, diffused out into a wider worldview that takes the methods necessary for scientific inquiry as a reasonable standard for understanding everything (oversimplifying of course but as a general idea for the sake of discussion I think that is broadly true), and, as we and most people on this forum have a Western education, that is a way of thinking that affects how we interpret everything we come into contact with in ways we are barely aware of, if at all. Trying to make the bible fit into that way of thinking is a genuine waste of time and energy, it is a total misconception of what the bible is for. If Jesus chose to explain himself for the sake of a 21stC (or any later) audience every time he mentioned anything vaguely relating to science the whole thing would be a total farce.

 

[Radagast]

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?

As Galileo pointed out, the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven; its purpose is not to tell us how the heavens go.

And if you really believe in heliocentrism, you are, of course, wrong.

We've known for a long time that the Universe has no centre. We can, with equal correctness, pick any place in the Universe and call it the centre for calculation purposes. For simplistic, approximate analyses of orbital motion near the Earth, it's convenient to use the Earth as a centre. For simplistic, approximate analyses of orbital motion across the solar system, it's convenient to use a point near to the Sun as a centre. For simplistic, approximate analyses of orbital motion across the galaxy, it's convenient to use the galactic centre as a centre.

 

[Radagast]

If Jesus chose to explain himself for the sake of a 21stC (or any later) audience every time he mentioned anything vaguely relating to science the whole thing would be a total farce.

And, of course, people in the 31th century will laugh scornfully at 21st century ideas -- even more so at the 19th century and 20th century ideas espoused in this thread.

 

[JohnClay]

As Galileo pointed out, the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven; its purpose is not to tell us how the heavens go.

Flat earthers and geocentrists use the Bible as evidence. Why didn't God just not mention those things in the Bible then? It also says many times that we use our heart to think/feel and never says our head is involved, even in the New Testament. Why couldn't God communicate the truth about how people think to the authors? If he is incapable of that, how can he be trusted about other things? I mean maybe Jesus didn't actually drive out demons, etc. (I mean according to modern psychiatry/psychology demons don't exist)

And if you really believe in heliocentrism, you are, of course, wrong.

I mean the idea that the earth orbits around the sun.

 

[JohnClay]

....If Jesus chose to explain himself for the sake of a 21stC (or any later) audience every time he mentioned anything vaguely relating to science the whole thing would be a total farce.

???? I don't see the problem with Jesus replacing the word "heart" when refering to the source of thoughts/feelings with he word "head". How is that a total farce?

 

[JohnClay]

Even though no-one has mentioned any verses that could support the idea of a spherical earth I have another one:

Luke 17:34-35
"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."

Some people say those verses are talking about part of the globe being in the night and another part in the day. But modern flat earthers believe in time zones too so that doesn't disprove the flat earth theory.

 

[Radagast]

I mean the idea that the earth orbits around the sun.

For simplistic, approximate analyses of orbital motion across the solar system, it's convenient to use a point near to the Sun as a centre, not the Sun itself.

The Sun and the Earth orbit each other, although the Sun is of course much heavier.

 

[JohnClay]

For simplistic, approximate analyses of orbital motion across the solar system, it's convenient to use a point near to the Sun as a centre, not the Sun itself.

The Sun and the Earth orbit each other, although the Sun is of course much heavier.

I don't think that has anything to do with the Bible.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think that has anything to do with the Bible.

You were complaining that the Bible failed to include your naive 19th century understanding of astronomy.

I am glad that you now realise that the Bible's purpose is not to teach astronomy.

 

[JohnClay]

You were complaining that the Bible failed to include your naive 19th century understanding of astronomy.

My understanding of astronomy is that the earth orbits the sun (in an elliptical orbit where the sun isn't in the complete centre). Is that incorrect? Even though that idea is old, it doesn't mean it is incorrect.

I am glad that you now realise that the Bible's purpose is not to teach astronomy.

Why does the Bible always talk about the earth and sun in ways that are compatible with a flat earth and geocentrism with seemingly no exceptions? Maybe the text came solely from primitive people rather than being a revelation from an omniscient God. It also teaches that astronomical objects like the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4.

 

[Tom 1]

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

There is no ‘need’ for poetic language to be comparable to anything. You could I suppose look at it that way if you think it is an attempt to describe the universe, but there is nothing in the text to lead you to that conclusion. A more informative approach to it is to figure out what the meaning is, what does it mean that God can so effortlessly ‘spread out’ creation, that he reigns over it and has provided order and established firm and unshakable dominion?

 

[cvanwey]

There is no ‘need’ for poetic language to be comparable to anything. You could I suppose look at it that way if you think it is an attempt to describe the universe, but there is nothing in the text to lead you to that conclusion. A more informative approach to it is to figure out what the meaning is, what does it mean that God can so effortlessly ‘spread out’ creation, that he reigns over it and has provided order and established firm and unshakable dominion?

If I may interject...

I think his point is that, yes, the Bible's main objective is not to teach science, or anything scientific as fact(s). However, it appears fairly obvious, when reading verses in scripture, that the authors were under the assumption that the earth was not a sphere. One example would be Matthew 4:8

"8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

Kind of hard to reconcile anything other than the writer thinking the earth was NOT spherical. And if such writings were God inspired, and meant to transcend eternity, I doubt such a forward thinking agent would allow such clumsy writing.

 

[Tom 1]

If I may interject...

I think his point is that, yes, the Bible's main objective is not to teach science, or anything scientific as fact(s). However, it appears fairly obvious, when reading verses in scripture, that the authors were under the assumption that the earth was not a sphere. One example would be Matthew 4:8

"8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

Kind of hard to reconcile anything other than the writer thinking the earth was NOT spherical. And if such writings were God inspired, and meant to transcend eternity, I doubt such a forward thinking agent would allow such clumsy writing.

Yes, the writers also believed that the extent of the earth was somewhere around the limits of the Indus Valley to the East, Egypt to the South, the Med to the West, and somewhere above the Black Sea to the North. This conception may have grown a little by NT times (though not by much). What do you mean by forward thinking?
The fundamental issue with all arguments of this sort is that of trying to make the bible ‘fit’ into a contemporary way of thinking. It’s a waste of time, nothing is gained by it and it gets in the way of actually understanding the layers of meaning that actually are in the text.

 

[JohnClay]

There is no ‘need’ for poetic language to be comparable to anything....

It is possible to talk about a spherical earth poetically -
e.g.
"to the other side of the earth" (vs "to the ends of the earth")
"the sky surrounded he earth like a shell" (vs "the sky was like a tent")
"the earth is spinning and circling the sun" (vs "the earth can't be moved")

 

[JohnClay]

....The fundamental issue with all arguments of this sort is that of trying to make the bible ‘fit’ into a contemporary way of thinking. It’s a waste of time, nothing is gained by it and it gets in the way of actually understanding the layers of meaning that actually are in the text.

Well maybe people could come to the conclusion that the text came from the imaginations of primitive people rather than from a revelation of an omniscient God.

 

[Tom 1]

It is possible to talk about a spherical earth poetically -
e.g.
"to the other side of the earth" (vs "to the ends of the earth")
"the sky surrounded he earth like a shell" (vs "the sky was like a tent")
"the earth is spinning and circling the sun" (vs "the earth can't be moved")

Yes, why not? The OT writers, as far as can be determined, were not aware that the earth is not flat.

 

[Tom 1]

Well maybe people could come to the conclusion that the text came from the imaginations of primitive people rather than from a revelation of an omniscient God.

What do you mean by primitive?

 

[Tom 1]

Well maybe people could come to the conclusion that the text came from the imaginations of primitive people rather than from a revelation of an omniscient God.

How do you think the process of revelation, or inspiration of scripture, actually works? For example, in writing letters to the churches addressing various problem issues, e.g Galatians and the letters to the Corinthian church, what do you think it means that Paul was inspired?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, the writers also believed that the extent of the earth was somewhere around the limits of the Indus Valley to the East, Egypt to the South, the Med to the West, and somewhere above the Black Sea to the North. This conception may have grown a little by NT times (though not by much). What do you mean by forward thinking?
The fundamental issue with all arguments of this sort is that of trying to make the bible ‘fit’ into a contemporary way of thinking. It’s a waste of time, nothing is gained by it and it gets in the way of actually understanding the layers of meaning that actually are in the text.

If this is the book of truth, then provide truth. Not details which are later demonstrated false.

By forward thinking, I mean if God inspired messages, God would know later humans would read this, and may discard the entire book, based upon statements which are false, (from a book which claims total truth).

We can only verify physical claims. If the stuff, which is actually false, is later found falsifiable, and all believers are left to believe as truth are the not falsifiable claims, then one is presented with a possible dichotomy; where possible cognitive dissonance is required to retain belief.

So to recap, if scripture is God inspired, and we can test some of these assertions and claims, and some are not true, which are in fact testable, does it appear logical and rational to continue believing in the things in which we cannot test, for the hopes that the other unprovable stuff is true anyways?

 

[Tom 1]

???? I don't see the problem with Jesus replacing the word "heart" when refering to the source of thoughts/feelings with he word "head". How is that a total farce?

It would have been utterly confusing for his listeners. To exaggerate for the sake of making the point, and assuming the view that Jesus, as fully man and fully God, had in his human brain a knowledge of all things (maybe a topic for another post) a farcical scene might play out something like this: ‘what does he mean, head? I think with my heart; Jesus what do you mean in my head? Jesus - well, actually you think with your brain, which interprets the sensory data picked up and transmitted via your eardrums but if I can get back to the point I was making...’ And so on.