A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

[Tom 1]

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 falsifiable, 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?

I’m sorry but what you are saying doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t apply even if your underlying assumptions are taken to be true. You can test this by putting your ideas into a broader context.

 

[JohnClay]

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

If authors in the the OT were getting some prophecies about Jesus from God, why couldn't their talk about the earth also come from God? Also about the topic of the heart vs the head, why was Jesus wrong about it? Isn't he omniscient (except for about the day and hour of the second coming)?

What do you mean by primitive?

A primitive knowledge of astronomy.

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?

In many other books it talks about messages that come directly from God.

 

[JohnClay]

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.

What about this possibility: (note there is no need to even mention the word "brain")
Jesus: "...understand with their heads..."
Person: "I thought we understand with our hearts"
Jesus: "No that's a lie, we use our head to think. Your heart just pumps blood and that's it"
Person: "But Aristotle teaches that our head is just used to cool our blood"
Jesus: "He is wrong. Hippocrates is correct with his understanding that we use our head"
Person: "NO!!!! WE USE OUR HEARTS!!!"

If you thought that was "utterly confusing", what about this:
Jesus: "I can forgive sins"
Person: "Only God can forgive sins"
Jesus: "I am God"
Person: "That's ridiculous. You are a blasphemer!"

 

[cvanwey]

I’m sorry but what you are saying doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t apply even if your underlying assumptions are taken to be true. You can test this by putting your ideas into a broader context.

I feel I've been clear, but let me try again.

The Bible stated scripture is God provided, God inspired, etc...

One would assume that the author is a mere ghost writer, acting as dictation for God's direct messages.

It seems clumsy, knowing that future generations are going to also read scripture, to find passages which appear to demonstrate the notion that the world is not spherical. We can test repeatedly, the claims of a spherical planet. So again, when I provided Matthew 4:8, we cannot 'test' if Jesus and Satan went to a mountain top, as this was a one time event in ancient past. However, the verse also indicated that they needed to go on top of a mountain to see all nations. This appears bazaar. No mountain is tall enough to see the nations on the opposite side of a sphere.

Why would God allow such obviously flawed texts? Texts which would make a future critical thinker think, 'hey, this writer obviously had no clue about the shape of the earth.' Couple this with other observations, in which we can later test, because such claims in physical nature are testable/repeatable.

In conclusion, if some of the claims we can test, turn up false, does it appear consistent to believe the stuff we cannot test, purely based upon trust and faith; knowing that the book claims total truth?.?.?.?

 

[Tom 1]

In many other books it talks about messages that come directly from God.

Yes.

A primitive knowledge of astronomy.

Out contemporary knowledge of the cosmos is still primitive in any objective sense. Why doesn’t God just tell us how it all works?

If authors in the the OT were getting some prophecies about Jesus from God, why couldn't their talk about the earth also come from God? Also about the topic of the heart vs the head, why was Jesus wrong about it? Isn't he omniscient (except for about the day and hour of the second coming)?

Where would you stop, and where would you start? What would be the benefit of introducing completely alien ideas that had no bearing whatsoever on the message being conveyed? Why doesn’t God reveal to us now things that will be understood about the physical universe 3,000 years from now? What details do you think God should have revealed 3,000 years ago to make it fit in with how we happen to think about it all on 2nd December 2018? What details would you have left out?

 

[Tom 1]

I feel I've been clear, but let me try again.

The Bible stated scripture is God provided, God inspired, etc...

One would assume that the author is a mere ghost writer, acting as dictation for God's direct messages.

It seems clumsy, knowing that future generations are going to also read scripture, to find passages which appear to demonstrate the notion that the world is not spherical. We can test repeatedly, the claims of a spherical planet. So again, when I provided Matthew 4:8, we cannot 'test' if Jesus and Satan went to a mountain top, as this was a one time event in ancient past. However, the verse also indicated that they needed to go on top of a mountain to see all nations. This appears bazaar for 2 reasons.

1. No mountain is tall enough to see the nations on the opposite side of a sphere.
2. Since the world is a sphere, going up higher still does not yield seeing nations on the opposite end of the sphere.

Why would God allow such obviously flawed texts? Texts which would make a future critical thinker think, 'hey, this writer obviously had no clue about the shape of the earth.' Couple this with other observations, in which we can later test, because such claims in physical nature are testable/repeatable.

In conclusion, if some of the claims we can test, turn up false, does it appear consistent to believe the stuff we cannot test, purely based upon trust and faith; knowing that the book claims total truth?.?.?.?

I’m out of time, got some things to do. I’m sure you can figure it out yourself.

 

[cvanwey]

I’m out of time, got some things to do. I’m sure you can figure it out yourself.

Typical response Good day

 

[JohnClay]

....Out contemporary knowledge of the cosmos is still primitive in any objective sense.

When I say their knowledge was primitive I mean their belief in a flat earth is incorrect. Do you think our current belief that the earth is roughly spherical will be eventually seen as incorrect?

Why doesn’t God just tell us how it all works?

There is no need for the Bible to explain every little detail of everything but what it says about the world should be roughly accurate. e.g. if it says the flood went above every mountain then that suggests there was a global flood.

Where would you stop, and where would you start? What would be the benefit of introducing completely alien ideas that had no bearing whatsoever on the message being conveyed? Why doesn’t God reveal to us now things that will be understood about the physical universe 3,000 years from now? What details do you think God should have revealed 3,000 years ago to make it fit in with how we happen to think about it all on 2nd December 2018? What details would you have left out?

Like I said, it doesn't need to include every detail about everything.

 

[Tom 1]

When I say their knowledge was primitive I mean their belief in a flat earth is incorrect. Do you think our current belief that the earth is roughly spherical will be eventually seen as incorrect?


There is no need for the Bible to explain every little detail of everything but what it says about the world should be roughly accurate. e.g. if it says the flood went above every mountain then that suggests there was a global flood.


Like I said, it doesn't need to include every detail about everything.

No

Why? Some detail would be more confusing that none at all. Why do you think the shape of the earth is the only important issue? If something scientifically verifiable is not explained to the very last detail, sooner or later it will be shown to be incomplete, and anything incomplete can be made to seem false simply by adding a different perspective.

 

[JohnClay]

"...it doesn't need to include every detail about everything..."

No

Why? Some detail would be more confusing that none at all. Why do you think the shape of the earth is the only important issue?

The shape of the earth along with the movement of the earth and the source of thoughts is the focus of this thread.

If something scientifically verifiable is not explained to the very last detail, sooner or later it will be shown to be incomplete, and anything incomplete can be made to seem false simply by adding a different perspective.

So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth.

 

[Tom 1]

The shape of the earth along with the movement of the earth and the source of thoughts is the focus of this thread.

Fair enough.

So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth.

I still don't get why you think that. The notion of 'dropping in' or somehow hiding in the text nuggets of 'scientific' info in a book that has no relation whatsoever to scientific inquiry is just plain strange. I don't understand why people would think God would go about things in such an unusual way. What gives you the idea that the biblical writers were aiming for any degree of 'scientific accuracy', or that they even had any sense that that idea was an issue to be considered? You can only get to that conclusion from a modern mindset, which is not just irrelevant but a hindrance, if not rigorously accounted for, when it comes to understanding the intent of the original writers.

 

[JohnClay]

"So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth."

...I still don't get why you think that. The notion of 'dropping in' or somehow hiding in the text nuggets of 'scientific' info in a book that has no relation whatsoever to scientific inquiry is just plain strange. I don't understand why people would think God would go about things in such an unusual way. What gives you the idea that the biblical writers were aiming for any degree of 'scientific accuracy', or that they even had any sense that that idea was an issue to be considered? You can only get to that conclusion from a modern mindset, which is not just irrelevant but a hindrance, if not rigorously accounted for, when it comes to understanding the intent of the original writers.

It is about facts about our world, not "scientific inquiry" or theories e.g. the actual shape of the earth. The actual shape of the earth can be verified with science. When it is talking about God or Satan or Heaven it is also about facts though these can't be checked using science. If those things that can be checked turn out to be false it implies other things like information about Heaven may also be false rather than just assuming that some things are poetic and the others are still factual.

 

[dysert]

I've read all the replies in this thread, and I must say I have become increasingly frustrated. Let me just quote from a couple of replies and offer my own opinions...

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?

God *can* communicate whatever He wants. He *chose* to communicate what's in the Bible for reasons that He alone really knows. Your statement, "If God can't...", reminds me of some other well-known statements, e.g., "Has God indeed said..." (Gen. 3:1). Questioning God like this typically does not end well.

You might as well ask why God hasn't personally come to every individual and explained all the mysteries of the world to them in the way they'll understand it. Or maybe you could ask why God doesn't have a permanent banner in the sky proclaiming "Planet earth is an oblate spheroid" so that everyone from all time doesn't misunderstand. Of course, if He did that for all facts, I imagine the sky would be nothing but banners. Or maybe you should ask why the Bible doesn't explicitly teach that there are no such things as pink unicorns. There are an unlimited number of things you could question God about. The fact is, He's the one who inspired the Bible, and He's the one who decided its content. It is futile to ask why.

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.

Assuming you've been around people for a while, you surely realize that they (we) come to faulty conclusions about lots of stuff all the time. It isn't God's fault. It's ours.

1. We know the earth is not flat.
2. We know that the earth revolves around the sun.
3. I know that people will sometimes grab onto an idea and won't let go, regardless of what the truth is.
4. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself, and He was under no obligation to have it say what we think it should say.

 

[Tom 1]

"So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth."


It is about facts about our world, not "scientific inquiry" or theories e.g. the actual shape of the earth. The actual shape of the earth can be verified with science. When it is talking about God or Satan or Heaven it is also about facts though these can't be checked using science. If those things that can be checked turn out to be false it implies other things like information about Heaven may also be false rather than just assuming that some things are poetic and the others are still factual.

But...why are you making that assumption? Why are you using those categories? Each book of the bible can be taken on it's own merits. There's nothing particularly esoteric or even difficult about it, there are so many resources in English that all it takes is a bit of reading around to get some perspective. Without that however you are left with the option of either believing what someone else tells you, or just reading the bible and taking it to mean whatever you happen to think. It might help you to take a step back and look at what you are saying as if someone else wrote it - if you are saying that a thing can be checked you have already assumed that it fits into a certain category, in this case an assertion about the actual, real, demonstrable shape of the earth. That would have meant nothing to anyone at the time the Genesis narrative was put into writing. If you want to get some 2nd millennium BC perspective on this I'd recommend John H Walton's 'The Lost World of Genesis One' as a starting point.

 

[A_Thinker]

So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth.

It is better than 0%.

The bible says that the earth is circular (in some sense) ... and that it hangs on (or is supported by) nothing. For writings of that time which do not primarily focus upon the nature of the earth, ... those are pretty good insights.

Also, it is disingenuous to ignore the vast amount of metaphoric language used in the bible (as we use it even today), ... and try to force the text to be 100% literal.

As a previous Natural Language student, I don't know think that we commonly realize just how much of our communication is metaphorical. We use metaphorical language all of the time.

Genuine attempts to understand the text of the Bible writers will take into account the idioms of language in use at the time.

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

I think that one can accurately say that the writers of the Bible were not well-versed in today's cosmology, ... but one should note that it was not their intention to convey any information about the physical nature of the earth.

I don't think that the writers of the Bible had any assumptions about the physical nature of the earth. None of them were scientists ... and common knowledge did not even extend to knowledge of the entirety of the world's human habitations. What the Israelites/Jews knew of the world was that little corner of the Middle East ... and a bit beyond (i.e. European lands to the west, Asian lands to the east, ... and African lands to the south).

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."

The Bible is a highly supernatural book (i.e. above or beyond the natural underatanding). It is clear that the supernatural is involved in the passage you cite. It is not reasonable to subject such a passage to natural considerations ...

 

[A_Thinker]

So it might not be possible for the Bible to be 100.000000% accurate but it should be better than 0% when talking about the shape of the earth and the movement of the earth.

It is better than 0%.

The bible says that the earth is circular (in some sense) ... and that it hangs on (or is supported by) nothing. For writings of that time which do not primarily focus upon the nature of the earth, ... those are pretty good insights.

Also, it is disingenuous to ignore the vast amount of metaphoric language used in the bible (as we use it even today), ... and try to force the text to be 100% literal.

As a previous Natural Language student, I don't know think that we commonly realize just how much of our communication is metaphorical. We use metaphorical language all of the time.

 

[SeventyOne]

I've read all the replies in this thread, and I must say I have become increasingly frustrated. Let me just quote from a couple of replies and offer my own opinions...

God *can* communicate whatever He wants. He *chose* to communicate what's in the Bible for reasons that He alone really knows. Your statement, "If God can't...", reminds me of some other well-known statements, e.g., "Has God indeed said..." (Gen. 3:1). Questioning God like this typically does not end well.

It's true, God can communicate anything He wants, as long as it is not a lie. Hebrews 6:18 and Numbers 23:19 tells us it is impossible for God to lie. So when He chooses to communicates a flat earth reality, it isn't a lie.

It's those who insist God communicated a flat earth either because it's 'poetry' or the ancient people were too stupid to understand 'ball in space' who are saying God can lie if He wants under specific circumstances.

 

[devolved]

"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.

I'm not really sure that you can make good case that heart that's talked about here is a blood pumping organ. In Biblical vernacular, "heart" is closer to the "core of human being" rather than an organ. So, you can think of it as the "heart of your head".

I hardly think that these people were confused about function of the head and function of the heart. If you think so, then you'd need to demonstrate that the heart that writers are talking about is in one's chest and not in one's head.

After all, there's a reason why Christ is a head of the church, just like a husband is a head of the family.

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.

Well, you can't be sure outside of one's trust that it's the case. That's the premise behind "knowledge by faith". It's a provisional knowledge that you can ether bet on, or withdraw.

But, either way, Christianity isn't about some extra-dimentional heaven or hell, as much as it is about the "kingdom of Heaven" concept that's here and now. Because you can have hell here and now, and you can have heaven here and now. The fact that there's some place in which people will be perpetually happy isn't the point as much that our collective progression to ideals make us collectively happier.

So, there's the duality of ideal that is heaven that's "elsewhere" or not (yet) here, on actual reality of here and now.

When one reifies Biblical idealsim, then of course you get the literal heaven and literal hell, and you have get an idea that you believe in these things and when you die...there's a reward for your belief or punishment for disbelief. I really think that the reification of these concepts is naive in the very least. It could be useful for certain stages of "human immaturity", yet a more mature approach would recognize that our collective approach to ideals can bring about "heaven", and our collective disregard of ideals bring about "hell". And some of these are real places of tornment and bliss that people are in today, and not some time after they die.

 

[cvanwey]

I think that one can accurately say that the writers of the Bible were not well-versed in today's cosmology, ... but one should note that it was not their intention to convey any information about the physical nature of the earth.

I don't think that the writers of the Bible had any assumptions about the physical nature of the earth. None of them were scientists ... and common knowledge did not even extend to knowledge of the entirety of the world's human habitations. What the Israelites/Jews knew of the world was that little corner of the Middle East ... and a bit beyond (i.e. European lands to the west, Asian lands to the east, ... and African lands to the south).

I think you missed one of my points. It does not matter who/whom wrote the Bible, the inspiring author was God, according to the Bible. The one and only proposed true author of the Bible is God. The humans were mere 'hand vessels', writings stuff to paper, infused by God. It would not matter if the author was writing 5,000 years ago, or 5,000 years from now. It would not matter what profession the author obtained. The author is taking mere dictation for God. So I reiterate.... It appears clumsy for an all knowing God to speak of details, which are later knowingly false. It would drive many to discount or discredit the verses, for having incorrect physical descriptions. And in such a verse, it would seem more sensible to just state that Jesus and Satan communicated, etc... The fact that there is a deliberate mentioning of 'high mountain' seems to indicate the human author is writing upon their 'own' accord, which is what one might expect from any ancient writings (Bible or not). And since we can now only validate or verify such events, by testable/repeatable claims, and such claims appear false, what is one to do?

The Bible is a highly supernatural book (i.e. above or beyond the natural underatanding). It is clear that the supernatural is involved in the passage you cite. It is not reasonable to subject such a passage to natural considerations ...

Except for when many attempt to use the Bible, the very same book, to prove physical events are real