A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

[JohnClay]

It is better than 0%.

Ok. I should have given myself some wiggle room and said 5% or something.

The bible says that the earth is circular (in some sense) ...

I looked into this in the opening post...
Isaiah 40:22
1. He sits enthroned above
2. the circle of the earth,
3. and its people are like grasshoppers.
4. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy
5. and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The idea of the earth being spherical could be supported by (2) and possibly (4). That is only a fraction of a verse where the whole verse supports a flat earth interpretation.

and that it hangs on (or is supported by) nothing.

I said "when talking about the shape of the earth (flat vs spherical) and the movement of the earth". I think saying something is hanging could imply it is relatively still. It could have said "the earth moves above nothing".

For writings of that time which do not primarily focus upon the nature of the earth, ... those are pretty good insights.

Lots of cultures of the time would have a similar level of knowledge.

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.

I'm talking about whether even a tiny percentage of text about the shape or movement of the earth could be based on facts. The same is true about the head/brain vs the heart, bowels, liver and belly - see:
Did Jesus hold false beliefs? post 23

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.

Are you suggesting the authors thought the earth was spherical but ONLY talked about it in ways compatible with a flat earth because it was a metaphor?

 

[JohnClay]

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".

Aristotle literally believed that we thought using our heart and the brain was for cooling the blood. What evidence do you have that the authors of the Bible were more knowledgeable about the heart than Aristotle? There isn't a single verse in the Bible that implies the head is used for mental processes. See:
Did Jesus hold false beliefs? post 23
"So the KJV talks about mental processes being linked to the heart, bowels, liver and belly - which is incorrect in all cases."

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.

In post 23 in that link I gave many sayings that talk about the head - why does the Bible never use any like that and only talks about the heart, bowels, liver and belly in that way?

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

I think that is just referring to the idea of the head being above / more important than other parts. It is like how God created Eve from Adam's side to show they were initially equal (before the curse). I guess that's the only example you have and it doesn't clearly refer to mental processes. If it did it means Christ is like the brain of the church but it means he is the boss.

 

[Tom 1]

or the ancient people were too stupid to understand 'ball in space' who are saying God can lie if He wants under specific circumstances.

I can't make any sense of this. In what way would not being able to observe the earth or calculate it's shape as we now can mean that ancient people were 'stupid'?

Many of the terms we use now to describe the universe are provisional, later findings will change how we interpret the world around us. Does mean that God is lying to us? You don't seem to have thought this through. If the bible,or anyone in the bible, wrote for the furtherance of scientific inquiry (an idea which did not exist in any form we would recognise as such at the time the Genesis narrative was written, but anyway), then you might be able to argue that it would have been misleading. The problem is, you are insisting on re-interpreting the scriptures from your own, modern perspective, rather than finding out, as can quite easily be done, what the people at time were concerned with conveying.

 

[JohnClay]

SeventyOne said:
"or the ancient people were too stupid to understand 'ball in space' who are saying God can lie if He wants under specific circumstances."

....In what way would not being able to observe the earth or calculate it's shape as we now can mean that ancient people were 'stupid'?....

In post 100 you seemed to be saying that Jesus couldn't have talked about facts about how people understand things because it would have been "utterly confusing" to them. Instead he reused their incorrect term, "heart".

 

[Tom 1]

SeventyOne said:
"or the ancient people were too stupid to understand 'ball in space' who are saying God can lie if He wants under specific circumstances."

In post 100 you seemed to be saying that Jesus couldn't have talked about facts about how people understand things because it would have been "utterly confusing" to them. Instead he reused their incorrect term, "heart".

Yes, what's your point?

 

[JohnClay]

Yes, what's your point?

Then maybe you agree with what SeventyOne was saying that implying the earth is a ball in space would be "utterly confusing" to ancient people.

 

[Tom 1]

Then maybe you agree with what SeventyOne was saying that implying the earth is a ball in space would be "utterly confusing" to ancient people.

No, I was disagreeing with that meaning people at some other period in time were 'stupid'. If someone were to travel back from the year 5,000 and tell me about concepts of science commonly known at that time, I would be utterly confused by it. None of it would fit into my conception of the world, not just the details but the whole way of thinking about it. The differences in thinking between 2 epochs separated by millennia aren't just a few details or bits of information, the differences are in complete worldviews, made up of a whole range of different ideas and ways of conceptualizing the world, society, meaning, and so on. Those things that remain essentially the same are those that the bible addresses, namely interpersonal relationships.

 

[Lost4words]

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?

The only verses I can think of are Isaiah 40:22 ("circle of the earth" could be translated as "ball") and Job 26:7 ("he suspends the earth over nothing" - compare earth to balls like the moon and the sun).

Isaiah 40:22

There is nothing in that verse that conflicts with the flat earth interpretation. If the earth is a ball, the throne would only be "above" some of the earth - to some people the throne would be to the side, and to others it would be below them. If they were grasshoppers on a flat earth, God would be able to see them, but on a ball some would be hidden by the earth. A tent could exist above a flat earth, but not really around a ball.

Job 26:7

Flat earthers believe the earth floats over nothing - so this isn't opposed to the flat earth theory. It may imply the earth can be compared to other things that float like the moon and sun, but that is a very indirect way of saying the earth is a ball.

In the beginning (Genesis 1:1) God created the heavens (empty space?) and the earth. Psalm 104:5 says "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." The sun was created on day 4. 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." According to science what actually would have happened would have been that the earth stopped rotating on its axis.

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.

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

Interpretation.

 

[JohnClay]

Interpretation.

Are you saying that the authors knew the earth was spherical and it moved around the sun?

 

[A_Thinker]

Are you suggesting the authors thought the earth was spherical but ONLY talked about it in ways compatible with a flat earth because it was a metaphor?

I am saying that the writers of the scriptures DIDN"T CARE about the shape of the Earth. They NEVER focused upon it. The shape of the Earth is simply not the point of the writings in the Bible. If you could show me ONE PASSAGE where communicating the shape of the Earth is the INTENDED COMMUNICATION, ... your thesis would be more likely, but, having read through the scriptures twice now in a lifetime, I can verify that there is not such a passage.

The wise person reads and interprets with an UNDERSTANDING of the purpose and intent of the writer. To do otherwise is to do an injustice to the text, the writers, and oneself.

I say this to you, and also to those christians who are making the same error as you. You read the text to ascertain the INTENT of the text, ... NOT to major on any minor details which may be picked out of the text. Particularly if the text uses a lot of metaphorical language.

It's like searching for scientific proofs ... in a book of poetry ... or a State of the Union address. You are MISSING the MESSAGE of the text.

You can do better than that ...

 

[Norbert L]

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?

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.

You would need to show where in the original documents, the primary sources where Aristarchus of Samos makes the astronomical observations Copernicus is recorded as making during the sixteenth century. Where in the available works of Aristarchus, does he describe the exact shape of the land and sea mass people are living on? Wiki information isn't complete or exhaustive but it does give some relevant information.

As far as the wiki explains about the ancient world during Aristarchus time, "The reason for the large size of this model is that the Greeks were unable to observe stellar parallax with available techniques, which implies that any parallax is extremely subtle and so the stars must be placed at great distances from the Earth (assuming heliocentrism to be true)."

In other words he couldn't verify his data, no one in the wider world could let alone have access to his information en masse and then have others add to it further conclusions about our Earth. It's like he discovered the e in a closet without having the m or c. What was going within the minds of ancient people and their entire civilization, their worldview is unlike our worldview.


Now about Hippocrates and the medical profession at the time. Did you know there is evidence to support the idea that he believed that our human hair was a sexual organ? They believed human hair was hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid flowing into it and congealing. As a result some scholars believe many men in the greek/roman world would cut their hair short and women would grow their hair long in order to aid in conceiving children.

Without trying to figure out the different world views between ancient civilizations and our own, problems and wrong conclusions can be created by injecting our ideas into theirs. Basically what we think they meant may not be necessarily match what they were actually thinking.

 

[SeventyOne]

I can't make any sense of this. In what way would not being able to observe the earth or calculate it's shape as we now can mean that ancient people were 'stupid'?

Many of the terms we use now to describe the universe are provisional, later findings will change how we interpret the world around us. Does mean that God is lying to us? You don't seem to have thought this through. If the bible,or anyone in the bible, wrote for the furtherance of scientific inquiry (an idea which did not exist in any form we would recognise as such at the time the Genesis narrative was written, but anyway), then you might be able to argue that it would have been misleading. The problem is, you are insisting on re-interpreting the scriptures from your own, modern perspective, rather than finding out, as can quite easily be done, what the people at time were concerned with conveying.

There are numerous people on these threads who make the claim that God couldn't tell His people that the earth was a ball because they wouldn't understand, and instead had to tell them it was flat to better align with their understanding at the time. This is a claim that makes God out to be a liar but the accusation is justified by saying the people wouldn't have understood it any way. Or they say that scripture is just 'poetry' in all this places where flat earth is revealed, which also is an accusation making God out to be a liar. Probably even worse, some even go as far as to claim the scriptures aren't inspired of God, but originate from man.

Truth is, it is we who are the stupid ones. We traded the truth of a flat earth for the cleverly devised fairy tale of heliocentrism, which promotes evolution, atheism, aliens, trans-humanism, etc.

There's no doubt in my mind that the reason we are all trained to automatically equate a flat earth with stupidity is because it is a foundational pillar of a lie that will eventually lead billions into hell, and those who call themselves 'christian' and promote such an idea without investigation, while inferring God as a liar or scripture as common, are complicit.

 

[Tom 1]

There are numerous people on these threads who make the claim that God couldn't tell His people that the earth was a ball because they wouldn't understand, and instead had to tell them it was flat to better align with their understanding at the time. This is a claim that makes God out to be a liar but the accusation is justified by saying the people wouldn't have understood it any way. Or they say that scripture is just 'poetry' in all this places where flat earth is revealed, which also is an accusation making God out to be a liar. Probably even worse, some even go as far as to claim the scriptures aren't inspired of God, but originate from man.

Truth is, it is we who are the stupid ones. We traded the truth of a flat earth for the cleverly devised fairy tale of heliocentrism, which promotes evolution, atheism, aliens, trans-humanism, etc.

There's no doubt in my mind that the reason we are all trained to automatically equate a flat earth with stupidity is because it is a foundational pillar of a lie that will eventually lead billions into hell, and those who call themselves 'christian' and promote such an idea without investigation, while inferring God as a liar or scripture as common, are complicit.

Well, that's your interpretation of it, I would disagree. Why do you believe that God 'told' someone that the earth is flat, who did he tell and when?

 

[SeventyOne]

Well, that's your interpretation of it, I would disagree.

I expect disagreement, but it changes nothing. I can understand wanting to hang on to the lie, as it's much easier and comfortable to just assume we haven't allowed ourselves to be deceived all our lives, and that we already have the truth, than it is to look at both sides of an argument objectively and potentially come to the realization what we were wrong all along. What I'll never understand is one who claims to belong to God justifying an idea that God is deceptive or scripture uninspired all for the purposes of making it conform to their current way of thinking.

Why do you believe that God 'told' someone that the earth is flat, who did he tell and when?

It's the only description He gives of the nature of the earth, flat and enclosed. I know you haven't done any real study into the topic from a biblical perspective because you asked that question. Usually the 'study' done is a quick internet copy/paste which results in a response like, "circle and hangs on nothing, therefore, a ball".

It's funny. I contacted the OP when the thread began to give him a heads-up on the responses he'll get from those calling themselves 'christian' so he wasn't blindsided, and you all didn't disappoint at all.

 

[A_Thinker]

It's funny. I contacted the OP when the thread began to give him a heads-up on the responses he'll get from those calling themselves 'christian' so he wasn't blindsided, and you all didn't disappoint at all.

And ... you think that your response was unexpected ???

It's the only description He gives of the nature of the earth, flat and enclosed. I know you haven't done any real study into the topic from a biblical perspective because you asked that question. Usually the 'study' done is a quick internet copy/paste which results in a response like, "circle and hangs on nothing, therefore, a ball".

I read through the scriptures ... twice. There is no definitive description of the earth as uniformly flat ... or spheroid, ... because that's NOT the message of the Bible.

Where the Earth is referenced in the scriptures ... is as an allusion to its breadth, its stability, and/or its volatitlty, etc. ...

Psalms 46

1 God is our refuge and strength, ... a very present help in time of trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,

3 though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

Yet ... in all of the text of the scriptures, ... the Earth is never definitively described as flat. It is described as a circle ... hanging in nothingness, ... but never as flat.

Once again, we should all be willing to admit the truth that ... the physical nature of the Earth ... is simply NOT the message of the scriptures ... anywhere in its pages.

The purpose/intent of the writer(s) of scripture ... is spiritual reconciliation with God, ... and the writers stay true to that intent.

The writers of the scriptures DIDN"T CARE about the shape of the Earth. They NEVER focused upon it. The shape of the Earth is simply not the point of the writings in the Bible. If you could show me ONE PASSAGE where communicating the shape of the Earth is the INTENDED COMMUNICATION, ... your thesis would be more likely, but, having read through the scriptures twice now in a lifetime, I can verify that there is not such a passage.

The wise person reads and interprets with an UNDERSTANDING of the purpose and intent of the writer. To do otherwise is to do an injustice to the text, the writers, and oneself.

I say this to you, and also to those christians who are making the same error as you. You read the text to ascertain the INTENT of the text, ... NOT to major on any minor details which may be picked out of the text. Particularly if the text uses a lot of metaphorical language.

It's like searching for scientific proofs ... in a book of poetry ... or a State of the Union address. You are MISSING the MESSAGE of the text.

You can do better than that ...

 

[SeventyOne]

And ... you think that your response was unexpected ???

I would hope not, but he hadn't gone through the old 'God lied' roller coaster yet. I think the warning was justified.

I read through the scriptures ... twice. There is no definitive description of the earth as uniformly flat ... or spheroid, ... because that's NOT the message of the Bible.

Where the Earth is referenced in the scriptures ... is as an allusion to its breadth, its stability, and/or its volatitlty ...

Psalms 46

1 God is our refuge and strength, ... a very present help in time of trouble.
2 Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
3 though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

Twice? What a trooper. You have it all figured out then. My bad.

 

[A_Thinker]

Twice? What a trooper. You have it all figured out then. My bad.

How many times have you read THOUGH the scriptures ... ???

 

[SeventyOne]

How many times have you read THOUGH the scriptures ... ???

Completely? Probably near 30 times at this point in my life.

 

[Tom 1]

I know you haven't done any real study into the topic from a biblical perspective because you asked that question.

Ok, well I would think of that as meaning your perspective, the bible itself doesn't have a perspective as such, just what we read into it.

The question of inspiration is one worth considering, I think so anyway, as it is better in my opinion to find out how God actually acts, than to make assumptions. Take Paul as a NT example, and King David as an OT example; in 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul makes an interesting distinction. This and other passages make it clear that he communicated with Jesus, but that also, as someone who lived 'in step with the Spirit' and as someone called, among other reasons because of his deep knowledge of the scriptures, his zeal for God and his character, to service as an authority to speak on behalf of God. Do you think that God told him what to write in 1 Cor, and in his other letters, i.e that he actually dictated to Paul exactly what to write, or that he wrote as an inspired, or authoritative, messenger? To take David's writings - do you think that God 'told' him to write exactly what is in the psalms that he penned, or that he wrote them as 'inspired' by his faith and his love for God? What do you think?

To gain any understanding of the Bible it is of no use simply to assume it means whatever you happen to think. Each book, or at the least each 'section' of the bible needs to be approached differently. The gospels, for example, are summaries of a great many things that Jesus said and did over about 3 years, distilling the essential truths from many hundreds of hours of teaching, highlighting important actions, and so on. Do you think these were dictated directly by God? They give every indication of having been very carefully put together to convey Jesus' teachings and to have been edited to further solidify and clarify doctrines considered by the early church to be essential. For any mature Christian, these are issues that lead away from the 'milk' of basic teachings, to the 'meat' of understanding God, and the humbling way that he chooses to interact with us, both honouring our independence and freedom and expecting us to act responsibly within that freedom. He doesn't use people as pens, he works with people to ensure their ability to convey essential truths.

Our faith is in Jesus, not in the Bible. A lot of people make the basic error of not understanding the importance of that distinction.

 

[SeventyOne]

Ok, well I would think of that as meaning your perspective, the bible itself doesn't have a perspective as such, just what we read into it.

The question of inspiration is one worth considering, I think so anyway, as it is better in my opinion to find out how God actually acts, that to make assumptions. Take Paul as a NT example, and King David as an OT example; in 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul makes an interesting distinction. This and other passages make it clear that he communicated with Jesus, but that also, as someone who lived 'in step with the Spirit' and as someone called, among other reasons because of his deep knowledge of the scriptures, his zeal for God and his character, to service as an authority to speak on behalf of God. Do you think that God told him what to write in 1 Cor, and in his other letters, i.e that he actually dictated to Paul exactly what to write, or that he wrote as an inspired, or authoritative messenger? To take David's writings - do you think that God 'told' him to write exactly what is in the psalms that he penned, or that he wrote them as 'inspired' by his faith and his love for God? What do you think?

To gain any understanding of the Bible it is of no use simply to assume it means whatever you happen to think. Each book, or at the least each 'section' of the bible needs to be approached differently. The gospels, for example, are summaries of a great many things that Jesus said and did over about 3 years, distilling the essential truths from many hundreds of hours of teaching, highlighting important actions, and so on. Do you think these were dictated directly by God? They give every indication of having been very carefully put together to convey Jesus teachings and to have been edited to further solidify and clarify doctrines considered by the early church to be essential. For any mature Christian, these are issues that lead away from the 'milk' of basic teachings, to the 'meat' of understanding God, and the humbling way that he chooses to interact with us, both honouring our independence and freedom and expecting us to act responsibly within that freedom. He doesn't use people as pens, he works with people to ensure their ability to convey essential truths.

Our faith is in Jesus, not in the Bible. A lot of people make the basic error of not understanding the importance of that distinction.

Yes, I do believe the scriptures are God-breathed at every point, just as it states. Jesus even calls it the word of God in multiple places, such as Matthew 4:4 and 15:6. Jesus even told the Pharisees they didn't believe in Him because they didn't believe what Moses had written about Him. So, don't try to pass off this 'faith in Jesus, not the Bible' garbage with me. That won't fly. Both were sent by the Father.

BTW, thanks for this. It is a perfect example of the mental process used to excuse away the scriptures.