Debunking Flat Earth

[Freodin]

I had no time to look up relevant passages, it was morning over her when I posted -day and night cycle thanks to a spinning earth. So you are arguing for a flat earth? Because I'm confused, I've never met a flat earth atheist before. I disagree with that article that the verse doesn't say sphere, but let's say for argument sake that it is only saying a circle, a circle is still round, round can be applied to a sphere.
A flat earth would have all kind of troubles with a day night cycle, seasons and other issues. It's also been seen from space to be a sphere, or don't you believe in space travel either?
If this isn't what you mean then I don't know what you are after.

No, I am not arguing for a flat earth. In this regard here, the shape of the earth is not the question at all.
The only relevant point is what the bible says about the shape of the earth. That's all. Not what shape it really is... just what a certain source says it is.

There are biblical flat earthers who base their position mainly on the claim "The Bible says it is flat!"
There are biblical globe earthers who base their position also mainly on the claim "The Bible says it is a sphere!"

Now regardless of who has the correct view on the real shape... both sides base their ideas on a false premise. The Bible does not make any definitive statements about the shape of the earth.

In the case of this specific Isaiah verse: it doesn't say either "sphere" nor "circle" - meaning the geometric forms. Very broadly, it talks about "the surrounding".

There are reasons to understand the the "surrounding" earth can be perceived as "flat". We common humans don't see the globe. We are too close, and it is much to big. And people from 2,500 years ago would have even less an option of seeing the whole planet.

We see the sky "above" us. We see our world limited by a circle... the horizon. We see the sun cross the sky. We don't see or feel any movement. We have a very clear perception of "up" and "down" and "sideways".

For our basic perception, our world is flat. It is understandable that people think in these lines... it doesn't even matter for most of our daily lifes. We don't need mathematical precision for everything.
Consider: (Taken from the wiki page on American football rules, my emphasis)
"Game play in American football consists of a series of downs, individual plays of short duration, outside of which the ball is dead or not in play."
It talks about "the ball". So the wiki page definitively declares that American football is played with a spherical object. Right?
Kidding... we both know that the "ball" in American football is not a sphere.
But we both also know that this term is not mean to portrait a mathematical reality.

It's just that.
When an American talks about "the ball" in a football game, they don't talk about the geometrical shape. And neither do the authors of the bible talk about the geometrical form of the earth.

There are hints that the authors of various verses held to the view of a flat earth.
A circle to divide light from darkness on the "face" of the earth. Pillars to keep up the earth, which is unmovable. The heavens drawn like a tent over the ground. The sun moving from a starting position in the morning to an end position in the evening. (Psalm 19:5 if you want to look that up.)

But so what? They just talked about the world in the terms and images that everyone around them knew and understood. They weren't trying to teach geometry. They talked about the relationship between God and his creation.

It is only when people try to insert "truths" into the text that were never intended that it gets complicated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are right. People, er... even strong Christians who are well educated in the scriptures and theology argue and debate the translations of them.

However, they will all agree on the basic child-simple message that it contains in regards to the gospel.

They may agree on the basic child-simple message, but they differ sufficiently on its details to invalidate that message in their behaviour, to the extent of rejection, hatred, and even the killing of believers with different interpretations and understandings.

The point remains - either God intended scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or he didn't - both options are disturbing.

 

[Freodin]

Misunderstood in relation to what? In relation to a 21st C understanding of the universe? In what way is that relevant to the text?

Misunderstood in relation to the intended meaning.
If you don't consider the text to have an intended meaning, the whole concept of Christianity - of all communication - falls flat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please use your vast knowledge of the book of Genesis, beliefs at the time it was written, and ancient literature in general to explain your notion that ‘God wrote it’ and why you think the idea you have all expressed is valid. Given that you’ve all stated this so confidently, I’m sure you can do better than ‘just because’.

If you were addressing this to each of us, I was concisely suggesting to those here who believe that the bible is the word of God, that that belief has disturbing implications. The intent is to encourage critical thinking.

I wasn't expecting much response; the point has been made before, less succinctly, to little effect. That you have spent so much time on it suggests that eyecatching aphorisms have more impact than wordy explications.

 

[Tom 1]

Misunderstood in relation to the intended meaning.
If you don't consider the text to have an intended meaning, the whole concept of Christianity - of all communication - falls flat.

Sure, you can misunderstand why the writer said circle, or just take it to mean whatever you happen to think. Or you can look at what ideas informed what the choice of words ‘enthroned’ ‘circle’ etc meant in their original context.

Which part of the text? One of the main differences between Genesis (the whole book that is) and contemporary texts is that it doesn’t attempt to express an absolute view of the world, and of relationships between people in particular, beyond certain basic concepts of role and purpose. The style is such that ‘space’ is deliberately left in the text, a reflection of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of human interactions, and God’s not being defined by our understanding of him. This is a realistic view of the world, in contrast to the attempts to provide a wholecloth explanation for all eventualities. The bible is intended to be used interactively, so that through ‘constant use’ it’s underlying meanings can be appreciated and experienced.

Your response still doesn’t answer the original questions - why do you think God intended the bible to be misunderstood OR why not and why this is a bad thing.

 

[coffee4u]

No, I am not arguing for a flat earth. In this regard here, the shape of the earth is not the question at all.
The only relevant point is what the bible says about the shape of the earth. That's all. Not what shape it really is... just what a certain source says it is.

There are biblical flat earthers who base their position mainly on the claim "The Bible says it is flat!"

You realize the flat earthers are a tiny fringe group and seriously not worth all this time. Nobody takes any notice of them. I put them in the same basket as those who don't believe that Australia and Finland exist. Google that mob if you haven't heard of them, there are some very entertaining YouTube videos about.

The Bible mentions the shape of the earth in passing, mostly poetically because it wasn't really that important of a fact to get across. God is more interested in peoples hearts and spiritual lives not informing them of the exact shape of the earth.

 

[Tom 1]

If you were addressing this to each of us, I was concisely suggesting to those here who believe that the bible is the word of God, that that belief has disturbing implications. The intent is to encourage critical thinking.

I wasn't expecting much response; the point has been made before, less succinctly, to little effect. That you have spent so much time on it suggests that eyecatching aphorisms have more impact than wordy explications.

Sure, have at it. Why do you think that God intended for the bible to be misunderstood, or he didn’t, and that is bad. Or both.

 

[Ophiolite]

All of your post concerns itself with addressing me personally rather than the topic of the thread.

I don't know you personally, so I am not equipped to comment on you personally. (And have no interest in doing so.)

I can, however, comment upon the content of your posts. Your earlier post contained an important statement that was wholly incorrect. This raises questions concerning your knowledge of the subject. Now you may think that is personal. Nonsense. If you pontificate on a subject the reader has a right to expect that the writer is reasonably well grounded. An egregious error calls that into question.

If you don't like being corrected for errors, don't make them.

 

[Freodin]

Sure, you can misunderstand why the writer said circle, or just take it to mean whatever you happen to think. Or you can look at what ideas informed what the choice of words ‘enthroned’ ‘circle’ etc meant in their original context.

Which part of the text? One of the main differences between Genesis (the whole book that is) and contemporary texts is that it doesn’t attempt to express an absolute view of the world, and of relationships between people in particular, beyond certain basic concepts of role and purpose. The style is such that ‘space’ is deliberately left in the text, a reflection of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of human interactions, and God’s not being defined by our understanding of him. This is a realistic view of the world, in contrast to the attempts to provide a wholecloth explanation for all eventualities. The bible is intended to be used interactively, so that through ‘constant use’ it’s underlying meanings can be appreciated and experienced.

Your response still doesn’t answer the original questions - why do you think God intended the bible to be misunderstood OR why not and why this is a bad thing.

"...you can misunderstand why the writer said circle..."
So, this is something that happens. Well, yes, obviously it is something that happens!
"...just take it to mean whatever you happen to think..."
Is that within the intend of the author? That everyone who reads it can have it mean whatever they want?
"The bible is intended to be used interactively, so that through ‘constant use’ it’s underlying meanings can be appreciated and experienced."
Ah, so there is an intended meaning, and it is intended to be "appreciated and experienced"... which I would assume to include that you have to understand that meaning.

So here's the problem: people obviously fail to do so. Even well-meaning and sincere Christians happen to fail to do so. They get things wrong. The history of Christianity is full of examples of people disagreeing of what the "underlying meaning" is, how it is best appreciated and experienced, and how to best kill the heretic who disagrees with you.

This is something that happens. Obviously, undeniably.

So, did the author/s (and a lot of Christians say that is God himself, in whatever form) intend that to happen, or not?

If I interprete your position correctly, you'd say that: no, they (he) didn't intend their words to be misunderstood. The authors wanted to make their points clear - to be appreciated and experienced. Whatever these points might have been.

But, obviously, undeniably, they didn't (completely) succeed with that intention.
Well... humans are limited and fallible. It is understandable if they don't succeed in perfectly conveying their intended message.
We only have to look at this very thread. Some misunderstandings might be the result of people not listening correctly... but much of it is also caused by me failing to convey them in a way that my opposite would instantly understand.

But if we are to assume some kind of divine influence in that message... it doesn't cast a very good light on the deity in question if he isn't able to get his message understood correctly.

 

[Freodin]

You realize the flat earthers are a tiny fringe group and seriously not worth all this time. Nobody takes any notice of them. I put them in the same basket as those who don't believe that Australia and Finland exist. Google that mob if you haven't heard of them, there are some very entertaining YouTube videos about.

The Bible mentions the shape of the earth in passing, mostly poetically because it wasn't really that important of a fact to get across. God is more interested in peoples hearts and spiritual lives not informing them of the exact shape of the earth.

Well, literal 6 day creationists are also only a "fringe group", even if larger than the flat earthers.

And there are other parallels between these two groups. Like the habit of barging into a discussion, declaring their position to be divine truth and then calling the whole discussion unimportant after having their mistakes pointed out.

No worries, mate... I have enough experience with fundies to not take you serious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You appear to be saying there that there is no difference between ‘wrote’ and ‘inspired’.

My post was aimed at those who believe the bible is the word of God. But it doesn't matter; whether God inspired the scriptures or wrote them, it is still true that either He intended them to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or He did not.

Further, if God is omnipotent, it is within His power to ensure either outcome regardless of the accuracy of the means of communication.

Why exactly do you think that God intended the bible to be misunderstood (please use your knowledge of the bible to support your answer)

I don't, and what I think is irrelevant here. Also, if you check my profile, you'll see that I don't believe in God.

Why do you think he didn’t, and, if so, this is a bad thing

I don't. The reasoning should be obvious - if the bible/scripture is the word of God and God didn't intend it to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, then God is negligent and/or fallible because it is misinterpreted and misunderstood. Conversely, if God did intend it to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, then either the value of the bible/scripture, or the motives and virtues of God, is/are called into question.

Now, you could argue that it's possible that God doesn't care whether bible/scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood or not, but this should be equally disturbing in its implications for both the value of the bible and the motives and virtues of God.

I'm rather surprised I have to spell this out.

Why you believe that other options are simply not able to exist.

It's called 'bivalence'; statements or propositions can have only one truth value and it must be either true or false. So "God intended scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood" is either true or false (and the 'law of the excluded middle' says there's no middle ground or grey areas between truth values).

Why you think that inspiration for a writer is the same as a second person actually doing the writing.

I don't, and it's irrelevant. See above.

Interesting how this little logical aphorism seems to have had such an effect. Looks like it's 'hit a nerve'

 

[Tom 1]

If I interprete your position correctly, you'd say that: no, they (he) didn't intend their words to be misunderstood

No, but that the bible is framed in such a way as to acknowledge the complicated nature of people trying to live in relation to each other, to God, to ideas of what makes one thing good and another bad, in contrast with the attempts of other texts to provide a narrower and more clearly defined representation of these things. Some amount of trial and error is a fundamental necessity of life, the bible doesn’t attempt to deny that. That representation is punctuated by various accounts of humanity’s reluctance to either take responsibility for its own stewardship, when given too much leeway, or to obey fixed rules where these are provided, regardless of any benefit following these rules might bring.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm rather surprised I have to spell this out

It’s a rather feeble argument. Reality, even just the reality of human interactions, is complicated beyond our understanding. It can at best be more or less defined in discrete chunks. A book that reflects that reality is written. Because we approach it from a position of not being able to fully understand it - then what exactly? This says nothing at all about the intent or otherwise of the text in relation to understanding in the abstract way that your argument framed it.

 

[Freodin]

No, but that the bible is framed in such a way as to acknowledge the complicated nature of people trying to live in relation to each other, to God, to ideas of what makes one thing good and another bad, in contrast with the attempts of other texts to provide a narrower and more clearly defined representation of these things. Some amount of trial and error is a fundamental necessity of life, the bible doesn’t attempt to deny that. That representation is punctuated by various accounts of humanities reluctance to either take responsibility for its own stewardship, when given too much leeway, or to obey fixed rules where these are provided, regardless of any benefit following these rules might bring.

Again: so, the authors did not intent their words to be misunderstood. Whatever else they tried to do or achive - "acknowledging the complicated nature of people" - allowing for "trial and error"... they did not intent their words to be misunderstood.

That's option 2 in the either/or scenario. I don't understand why you still object to that.

 

[Tom 1]

Further, if God is omnipotent, it is within His power to ensure either outcome regardless of the accuracy of the means of communication

Ok either you are thinking that a logical argument ‘makes’ something real, or says something real about something else, or something like that. Probably that comes from a misunderstanding, in this case, of how the bible represents itself, or how meaning is represented in the bible. That links back to my point about opinions - what value does expressing random notions about something you know little about have over developing an understanding of those things?

 

[Ophiolite]

It's called 'bivalence'; statements or propositions can have only one truth value and it must be either true or false. So "God intended scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood" is either true or false (and the 'law of the excluded middle' says there's no middle ground or grey areas between truth values).

Just to be clear; you are not asserting that if that statement is false that the consequence is that the statement "God intended scripture to be correctly interpreted and understood" must be true? That would clearly be falsified by the third alternative "God had no intentions in regard to the interpretation or understanding of scripture."

 

[Freodin]

Just to be clear; you are not asserting that if that statement is false that the consequence is that the statement "God intended scripture to be correctly interpreted and understood" must be true? That would clearly be falsified by the third alternative "God had no intentions in regard to the interpretation or understanding of scripture."

As I see it, that would be correct. The "not x" in that case is just that: the negation of the first position. It doesn't make definitive statements about the alternatives.

 

[Astrophile]

Strange that I can recall interviews with members of the UK Flat Earth Society back in the 1960s.

Patrick Moore's book Guide to the Planets, which was published in 1957, includes a footnote to the first page of Chapter 3, 'There is still a flourishing Flat Earth Society in London.' According to Christine Garwood's book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea (p. 225), the inaugural meeting of the International Flat Earth Society was held in Finsbury Park in November 1956, and Patrick Moore attended it.

 

[JacksBratt]

They may agree on the basic child-simple message, but they differ sufficiently on its details to invalidate that message in their behaviour, to the extent of rejection, hatred, and even the killing of believers with different interpretations and understandings.

The point remains - either God intended scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or he didn't - both options are disturbing.

There have been so many "wrongs" done by people who believed or used the bible as their support for their actions.... still wrong.

What you have to understand is that ALL religions are man made. All forms of Christianity are some man or men's view or opinion on what we should do or how we should behave...

The fact that all of mankind are not perfect and everyone is capable of mistakes... thus these interpretations have errors.

Christ did not promote "religion". He said "believe in Me" .. That's it.

So, if He is real and He did do what the bible says... and there is a heaven and a hell.... then... why would a loving God make you go where you don't want to go.

If you don't believe.. and, for whatever reason, disagree with God's ways, words, and steps for salvation... Then.. why would He go against your free will and put you in a place that you don't want to be?

If you love Him, believe in Him and follow His teaching... and ask to be with Him forever.. then He will grant your wish.

If you don't believe in Him... what's the issue.. It's all talk of things as real as the "spaghetti monster".

If you do believe in Him but disagree with Him and His ways... He will grant your wish for eternity without Him.

 

[Tom 1]

Again: so, the authors did not intent their words to be misunderstood. Whatever else they tried to do or achive - "acknowledging the complicated nature of people" - allowing for "trial and error"... they did not intent their words to be misunderstood.

That's option 2 in the either/or scenario. I don't understand why you still object to that.

No, is in intended to be understood as a realistic model for developing a best possible scenario of community living, and a beginner’s guide to getting to know God. That, however, is necessarily indefinite to a large degree. No definite model for church organisation, for example, is offered. This principle applies throughout the bible - at times God allows himself to be persuaded, at times he lays down the law. It’s the recording of an process that has some open ends and some boundaries, the space in between is about living. As far as Christianity goes, you can observe it in action, understand basic principles, try it out and see what happens. As Jesus said, that process leads to understanding. The notion of intent in reflecting things as they are - in terms of what the bible is essentially about - is irrelevant, the only real misunderstanding through intent is a refusal to engage in that reality, and that intent is on the part of the reader. You can disagree with it - you can disagree that doing x leads to conclusion y, but that has no bearing on the intent of the writer. The understanding of why comes through the practice of it. If I tell someone how to ride a bike, and they fall over or crash into a wall, that has nothing to do with my intent. If they ask me for help in putting what they think I meant into action, then that is their engagement.

The bible provides various interesting philosophical positions on 'big ideas', such as Job - why do actions believed to be right not always lead to favourable outcomes (to put it simply) - juxtaposed with everyday situations and examples of where making this or that choice does lead to the expected outcome of that choice. It provides few certainties in the specific, and a lot of clarity in the general. When Jesus is asked 'who is my neighbour?' he provides an example of cultural/ethnic enemies as neighbours. Of course this could be taken to mean 'oh, so my neighbour is only a person of a different ethnicity or with different beliefs who I find lying on the road outside of Jerusalem', or some version of the same, but this would be an error of what the bible refers to as sound judgement, something that the bible explains as a way of thinking developed by the practice of living in relation to reality and attempting to maximise the benefit of the community through constant use of scripture and walking 'in step with the spirit'. If you think that human relationships have an 'intent' to them that should be understood for those relationships to function, then that is something like the sense of intent the bible has; it is something that is going to be misunderstood in the process of trying to make it work. That has nothing to do with intent, it just is what it is.