Look, I really don't want to defend the biblical flat earth view. But you should be aware that the texts are at best ambiguous and do allow both interpretations... even tending towards the "flat" version.
Jesus didn't talk about a flat earth.
Jesus did't talk about a flat earth. Jesus didn't talk about a globe either. So?
The Psalms talk about a globe, sphere.
Isaiah 40:22 God sits above the circle of the earth.
The word rendered '
circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a
circle, sphere, or arch".
Not sure what Psalm you are talking about... Isaiah isn't in the Psalms.
But don't you think it is a little preposterous to claim that "verse X talks about a globe", when you then detail that the "word rendered circle" denotes "a circle"?
The problem with the Isaiah verse is exactly that it can be used for both ideas, and without the option of asking the author which shape he meant, it is not possible to decide in either way.
The corners of Isaiah 11 refer to the four cardinal directions.
That is indeed the most likely interpretation... but doesn't offer any distinction between globe or flat. On a flat plane, there
are four cardinal directions, aren't there?
But, if "the corners of the earth" were intended to be literal, then the earth is cubicle. But other scriptures contradict that literal reading.
No. If you wanted to apply this verse literally to a three dimensional shape, the earth would be a tetrahedron, because the verse clearly mentiones the
four corners of the earth. A cube would have eight corners. Just saying.
Genesis 1:14 "let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens that separate the day from the night. And for seasons, days, and years."
The separation of day and night cannot be illustrated by the flat earth model. Set up a flat representation and put it on a table in a dark room. Then have a source of light shining on it. And see that the flat surface is fully lit.
But it can be illustrated by a spherical object in a dark room hanging from a wire.. then a source of light shining at it. The light shines on one side. Then just walk around to the other still dark side.
Flat Earthers have presented various, more or less valid, propositions for a spread of light over a flat earth. The rationality of these ideas is debatable... but then in turn you also have to consider that the Genesis story has "day and night" existing
before the creation of the "lights".
.
So my point is just that: you cannot derive a concise cosmological model of the earth or the solar system from the bible alone. You can find expressions in it that may be used to support both flat and globe views.
But none of these expressions are meant to explain, teach or support either model. At best, they might give us a hint at the way the authors saw the world. And in that case, the option that they did indeed hold to a planar, geocentric view is more likely than a globular, heliocentric.
That's nothing bad. It only becomes a problem when you assume that the Bible must, always and in every case, be "true".
