Flat Earth And Christianity

[A_Thinker]

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

A circle is a plane figure. Isaiah used that word rather than globe or sphere or ball. Like the vast majority of people at the time he thought the earth was flat. There are quite a large number of passages that suggest it was as well.

You're speaking of poetic language. It's not a geometry text.

Circles/Spheres are easily interchangeable in poetry ...

 

[Halbhh]

Much of lay evangelical exegesis of the Bible is not very good. Verses are frequently read without any kind of relevant cultural context, or the reading is influenced by the reader's own cultural values.

A good example of this is Matthew 18:6. "Little ones" refers to the followers of Jesus who were not part of Jesus' inner circle, not to children, as evangelicals frequently cite this passage to terrorize anybody they see as defiling the perceived sanctity of childhood. This misreading happens by misapplication of modern standards of sentimentality towards children into the context of the 1st century.

By all means we should totally want to hear fully what Chrsit is saying here, meaning of course all of the words He said at that time.

Right?

(Imagine in contrast, if you did not have a bible available, and I was the preacher, and then I only allowed you to read one isolated verse, then you ought to wonder what else was being said! You ought to wonder why I'd only given a single verse. You ought to wonder if I had some agenda, to hide the other verses....)

Let's look, what is Christ saying about 'little ones'? Now, let's hear the full quote.

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! ..."
-----
Matthew 18 NIV

Is this all? Well, a person wanting to know all Christ is saying will of course keep reading.... and then they will find out there is more....

The rest:

...
(next chapter, quite soon)

10“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

[whoa!]

...
13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.

14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

---------

Ok, this should be enough to tell us it's not merely those new in faith, but another thing or 4 is happening. The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as ...children specifically, even those not even yet understanding much, or having been converted.... It's plainly there. So, it's time to think more on it, if one thought it was only about new believers alone. Of course one key lesson we should get from the above passages is that humility is very central to being His. One can confirm this accidentally just by generally reading in the Bible:

Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

Same lesson, in many different ways.

Ok, that's 1 thing.

What else? See? It's a process of listening.

 

[JackRT]

You're speaking of poetic language. It's not a geometry text.

Circles/Spheres are easily interchangeable in poetry ...

Yes, it is safe to regard it as poetic language now that we know better.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, it is safe to regard it as poetic language now that we know better.

It's also only just what you'd get from full reading. Even at a low reading level, people know that when they read or hear that "trees sing" or "columns cry" or (endless examples), they are hearing a wonderful meaning, but not that trees are actually singing with human voices or like birds, etc.

It's effortless even, to get the poetry meanings -- one isn't even bothered to think some odd question like: is this metaphor? -- they already know effortlessly, naturally -- that is effortless if and when a person is reading through. Fully. That is, reading the book (one of the 60 or 70 books, most really pretty short actually)

But if you have noticed, only some minority have read through. In the modern world instead we have preachers and other people giving isolated verses pretty often, and that's not at all even slightly like reading through.

 

[A_Thinker]

Yes, it is safe to regard it as poetic language now that we know better.

It's poetic language ... whether or not one is sophisticated enough to recognize it ... or not ...

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

 

[FireDragon76]

By all means we should totally want to hear fully what Chrsit is saying here, meaning of course all of the words He said at that time.

Right?

(Imagine in contrast, if you did not have a bible available, and I was the preacher, and then I only allowed you to read one isolated verse, then you ought to wonder what else was being said! You ought to wonder why I'd only given a single verse. You ought to wonder if I had some agenda, to hide the other verses....)

Let's look, what is Christ saying about 'little ones'? Now, let's hear the full quote.

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! ..."
-----
Matthew 18 NIV

Is this all? Well, a person wanting to know all Christ is saying will of course keep reading.... and then they will find out there is more....

The rest:

...
(next chapter, quite soon)

10“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

[whoa!]

...
13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.

14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

---------

Ok, this should be enough to tell us it's not merely those new in faith, but another thing or 4 is happening. The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as ...children specifically, even those not even yet understanding much, or having been converted.... It's plainly there. So, it's time to think more on it, if one though it was only about new believers alone. Of course one key lesson we should get from the above passages is that humility is very central to being His. One can confirm this accidentally just by generally reading in the Bible:

Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

Same lesson, in many different ways.

Ok, that's 1 thing.

What else? See? It's a process of listening.

I subscribe to higher criticism of the biblical texts, as do most mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars. Jesus' sayings were grouped together into narratives by redactors of oral traditions, but originally may have been quite disparate, and this passage is one such example.

 

[Halbhh]

It's poetic language ... whether or not one is sophisticated enough to recognize it ... or not ...

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

I think it's not even about literary ability or reading level. People just get it (as they encounter it while reading through the passage), even that don't read a lot (or 98% of people I mean). Without straining. Not requiring a high reading level.

But that's if they are hearing full passages or chapters that I'm talking of -- in contrast, an isolated verse with someone asserting the meaning ahead of time could fool a lot of people that haven't read through.

 

[Halbhh]

I subscribe to higher criticism of the biblical texts, as do most mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars. Jesus' sayings were grouped together into narratives by redactors of oral traditions, but originally may have been quite disparate, and this passage is one such example.

Ok, I know you have your own way. But I do want to ask you if you read all of the verses there I quoted just now (and/or the passages in full, just now, today, in the last few minutes)? Because if you read all of those verses, then it's quite obvious more than only 1 thing is said, and so the broader point about full reading of even just the passages/chapters is more primary, more basic, yet, more essential than any other aspect. In other words, let's not get off on some interesting side topic about Jewish family life or figures of speech (quite valuable though to know), before we even did that full reading just to get the real gist of the message, the main intended meanings and/or enough to get us a sense of what we want to research, if research is one's hobby interest. I like knowing things of those kinds, but I don't want to miss the forest for the trees.

 

[pitabread]

I have seen the sun (and moon ,stars) move over the countless time. So how many time have you seen the earth orbit around the sun.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I spent years engaged in amateur astronomy (and astrophotography) when I was younger. I've seen a lot of things that don't make any sense from the perspective of a flat Earth.

And when I press for answers from flerfers on those things, I usually get the same glib and/or nonsensical responses, that don't provide a reasonable explanation.

 

[Strathos]

I reject a flat earth for 4 primary reasons:

1. Physics.

Flat earth models require a complete negation of nearly every physical law and model we know. The same physics that are used to create all of our modern technology. I've studied these equations and experimentally confirmed that they work. The flat earthers, on the other hand, provide no competing model, they just say things like 'well, I don't know how X works on a flat earth, but it does'. Furthermore, they have no physical evidence at all. No flat earther has ever been able to show me the edge of the world, or the presence of a solid dome. In fact, they act offended when I ask for such evidence, like merely requesting it means that I am calling them names. Meanwhile, we have so much evidence of a round earth, which they all dismiss, which brings me to point 2:

2. Implausible Conspiracy

Flat earthers honestly expect me to believe that every nation and world leader stretching back over 2500 years have all been in on one giant conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth... and for what reason? It's well-known that a conspiracy becomes harder to hide the more people would have to be involved in it and the longer it would have to be covered up. This is pretty much the biggest and most elaborate conspiracy that could be imagined, so the probability that it could be successfully pulled off is about 0%.

3. Easy evidence against it

There are literally hundreds of experiments you can do on your own, which won't cost you more than a few hundred dollars, that can easily prove the earth is round. I've done several of them myself.

4. Poor quality arguments

I've debated with flat earthers for years on here, and their arguments simply aren't convincing. In addition to appealing to an impossible, omnipotent conspiracy, they never attempt to actually address the problems with their models (it would help if they actually had a single coherent model in the first place).

There was a thread here a while ago that posted several hundred things that flat earthers would have to explain, and they never attempted to address any of them. Whenever you ask them a simple question along the lines of 'How does X work on a flat earth', you're guaranteed to get one or more of the following responses:

- 'We can totally explain that! It's your own fault for not researching flat earth models' (and then, of course, they never proceed to actually explain it)
- 'Oh yeah? Well globe earth can't account for Y!' (ignoring the challenge and changing the subject, and when many posters inevitably respond with exactly how the globe earth model explains Y, they just ignore it and move on)
- 'We're not really sure yet, but that doesn't mean earth is a ball!'

Flat earthers often complain that people unfairly dismiss them and never give their arguments a chance. I did, and I found that they were absolute garbage.

 

[pitabread]

Flat earthers honestly expect me to believe that every nation and world leader stretching back over 2500 years have all been in on one giant conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth... and for what reason?

Whenever it comes to conspiratorial ideas, the it's pretty easy to perform a sanity check by asking a few simple questions:

1) What is the scope of the conspiracy?

2) What is the relative plausibility of that conspiracy given the scope defined by #1?

3) What is the motivation for the conspiracy?

Any time anyone presents a conspiratorial idea I simply run it through those questions. It's a pretty simple way to determine whether the conspiracy is plausible or if it's just the result of conspiracy nutters engaging in fanciful story-telling. My experience with flat Earthers is that definitely fall under the latter, especially since flat Earth conspiracies completely fail question #3.

 

[Strathos]

Whenever it comes to conspiratorial ideas, the it's pretty easy to perform a sanity check by asking a few simple questions:

1) What is the scope of the conspiracy?

2) What is the relative plausibility of that conspiracy given the scope defined by #1?

3) What is the motivation for the conspiracy?

Any time anyone presents a conspiratorial idea I simply run it through those questions. It's a pretty simple way to determine whether the conspiracy is plausible or if it's just the result of conspiracy nutters engaging in fanciful story-telling. My experience with flat Earthers is that definitely fall under the latter, especially since flat Earth conspiracies completely fail question #3.

The usual reason given is to try to discredit the Bible. Of course that ignores facts such as:

- The Bible never once says that the earth is flat
- There are billions of Christians who have no problem with a round earth, and it's been that way since the earliest days of Christianity.

 

[JackRT]

- There are billions of Christians who have no problem with a round earth, and it's been that way since the earliest days of Christianity.

Christianity lost its Jewish roots in the late first and early second centuries in favour of what were largely Greek understandings. By the mid second century the transition was largely complete and the Biblical flat earth model was abandoned in favour of the Greek spherical earth and the geocentric cosmology of the Greek/Egyptian astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. It was the cosmology which was challenged in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. The transition from Jewish to Greek understandings is crucial to understanding the early church.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The usual reason given is to try to discredit the Bible. Of course that ignores facts such as:

- The Bible never once says that the earth is flat
- There are billions of Christians who have no problem with a round earth, and it's been that way since the earliest days of Christianity.

You forget the most important fact - Christianity is not the religion of the overwhelming majority of people. Why would billions of people want to protect a book that means nothing to them?

 

[durangodawood]

I reject a flat earth for 4 primary reasons:

1. Physics.

Flat earth models require a complete negation of nearly every physical law and model we know. The same physics that are used to create all of our modern technology. I've studied these equations and experimentally confirmed that they work. The flat earthers, on the other hand, provide no competing model, they just say things like 'well, I don't know how X works on a flat earth, but it does'. Furthermore, they have no physical evidence at all. No flat earther has ever been able to show me the edge of the world, or the presence of a solid dome. In fact, they act offended when I ask for such evidence, like merely requesting it means that I am calling them names. Meanwhile, we have so much evidence of a round earth, which they all dismiss, which brings me to point 2:

2. Implausible Conspiracy

Flat earthers honestly expect me to believe that every nation and world leader stretching back over 2500 years have all been in on one giant conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth... and for what reason? It's well-known that a conspiracy becomes harder to hide the more people would have to be involved in it and the longer it would have to be covered up. This is pretty much the biggest and most elaborate conspiracy that could be imagined, so the probability that it could be successfully pulled off is about 0%.

3. Easy evidence against it

There are literally hundreds of experiments you can do on your own, which won't cost you more than a few hundred dollars, that can easily prove the earth is round. I've done several of them myself.

4. Poor quality arguments

I've debated with flat earthers for years on here, and their arguments simply aren't convincing. In addition to appealing to an impossible, omnipotent conspiracy, they never attempt to actually address the problems with their models (it would help if they actually had a single coherent model in the first place).

There was a thread here a while ago that posted several hundred things that flat earthers would have to explain, and they never attempted to address any of them. Whenever you ask them a simple question along the lines of 'How does X work on a flat earth', you're guaranteed to get one or more of the following responses:

- 'We can totally explain that! It's your own fault for not researching flat earth models' (and then, of course, they never proceed to actually explain it)
- 'Oh yeah? Well globe earth can't account for Y!' (ignoring the challenge and changing the subject, and when many posters inevitably respond with exactly how the globe earth model explains Y, they just ignore it and move on)
- 'We're not really sure yet, but that doesn't mean earth is a ball!'

Flat earthers often complain that people unfairly dismiss them and never give their arguments a chance. I did, and I found that they were absolute garbage.

These arguments are all lame. I can show the video if you dont believe me.

 

[JackRT]

Videos solve everything.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have seen the sun (and moon ,stars) move over the countless time. So how many time have you seen the earth orbit around the sun.

Given that a little thing like the motion of the sun can't be explained by the flat earth model.

Why days get short in the southern hemisphere in the winter, why something as bright and high as the sun disappears every night.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have seen the sun (and moon ,stars) move over the countless time. So how many time have you seen the earth orbit around the sun.

There's a good quote from Wittgenstein about this:

“Tell me," Wittgenstein asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?"

His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth."

Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.

I can only say the first video shows not just ignorance, but stupidity - unless it's deliberately mendacious or a spoof... The supposed 'chromakey screen' is not only too small to fit such a purpose, but consists of a strongly contrasting white grid on a dark blue background - useless as a chromakey; in addition, Tim Peake is dressed in a dark blue polo shirt with white lettering, the same as the supposed chromakey.

In fact, the white grid is a measurement reference for the National Space Academy 'Principia' Astro Academy educational programme on zero-G dynamics, as seen in the video below - note the numbering on the X & Y rows and columns of the grid:

For more such videos using the white grid measurement reference, see the 'Principia' link.

 

[d taylor]

There's a good quote from Wittgenstein about this:

“Tell me," Wittgenstein asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?"

His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth."

Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”​

Actually i see nothing good about the quote. Just another person that can not see Gods creation because, the effect of science blinding. He probably has a quote about the moon reflecting the suns light also.