Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[Subduction Zone]

A ‘flat earth belief’ as a description of what people thought at the time is a misnomer, texts translated from contemporary civilisations show little interest in the physical make up of the earth beyond the qualities of certain materials used in manufacture. When it came to the earth, the sun, the stars etc the primary preoccupation was with meaning - not ‘what shape are these things’ but what does it mean, who is in charge, what delineates chaos from order, who has what role and why, and so on. Texts like the Genesis narrative reflect this paradigm, believers and non-believers alike tend to try and reinterpret it using a completely different paradigm, which doesn’t work very well, for obvious reasons.

Actually a flat Earth belief was fairly widespread over the history of the Earth. The last "civilized" country to drop such a belief on a large scale was ironically China. Though credited with many firsts they were one of the last to accept that our Earth is roughly spherical. And even various early Christian argued for a flat Earth.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

The Greeks may have been the first to believe in a spherical Earth, but they did not end the Flat Earth belief.

The question is why do some Christians take offense at the early beliefs of Hebrews and even some Christians?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect.

You can keep repeating that error but it only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Bible. But go ahead. Find a spherical Earth verse that does not take massive reinterpretation.

 

[Radagast]

And even various early Christian argued for a flat Earth.

One or two, perhaps. Not nearly as many as you think. What several early Christians argued against was inhabited antipodes, but that's quite a different issue.

You can keep repeating that error but it only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Bible.

This is something on which I've had multiple discussions with biblical scholars who can actually read the original texts.

 

[Tom 1]

Actually a flat Earth belief was fairly widespread over the history of the Earth. The last "civilized" country to drop such a belief on a large scale was ironically China. Though credited with many firsts they were one of the last to accept that our Earth is roughly spherical. And even various early Christian argued for a flat Earth.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

The Greeks may have been the first to believe in a spherical Earth, but they did not end the Flat Earth belief.

The question is why do some Christians take offense at the early beliefs of Hebrews and even some Christians?

In this case ‘contemporary’ means Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian writings, and broadly, or not so directly connected, Egyptian. A preoccupation with what things do/how they work in the cosmos in a way that might be thought of as scientific came much later. Who is taking offence at early beliefs?

 

[Tom 1]

I am sorry, but the Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. That is only reasonable. At the time that much of it was written a flat Earth belief was common. One has to reinterpret verses to try to excuse this and those arguments always fall flat.

Which ‘at the time’ are you referring to? The development of Jewish and Christian texts covers quite a lot of time. If you can quote the passages from the bible that you think describe the earth as flat that would be a start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this case ‘contemporary’ means Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian writings, and broadly, or not so directly connected, Egyptian. A preoccupation with what things do/how they work in the cosmos in a way that might be thought of as scientific came much later. Who is taking offence at early beliefs?

Not me. Some Christians take offense about what the Bible says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which ‘at the time’ are you referring to? The development of Jewish and Christian texts covers quite a lot of time. If you can quote the passages from the bible that you think describe the earth as flat that would be a start.

It is mainly the Old Testament that I am talking about, but there are even Flat Earth verses in the New Testament. For example when Satan took Jesus to a high place and showed him the entire world. That only works on a Flat Earth and does not make sense as a "vision" since height has nothing to do with seeing the entire Earth.

 

[Lost4words]

Moon gives off its own light, flat earth, 6k earth. All things that have people believing in because of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Holy Scripture.

 

[Kylie]

A 21st century Internet forum might not be the best guide on how Christianity worked centuries ago..

True, but Human nature has remained much the same.

 

[Kylie]

There have been several going around (a few have been shut down). But not sure if you are aware, i am a biblical flat earther, being that 95 to 99% of my reason is Bible based. Along with what i have been able to personally see, like the moon sun and stars are moving over the earth, etc.. But if you start one post the link and i will look in and see.

Well, I was thinking that no matter what you reasons for believing a flat earth, you'd have to have some way to explain away the evidence for a spherical earth.

 

[Radagast]

True, but Human nature has remained much the same.

True, but for most of the past 2,000 years, uneducated Christians have been reasonably happy to take the clergy's word for things of a theoretical nature. Any theoretical debates were between clergy.

 

[Tom 1]

It is mainly the Old Testament that I am talking about, but there are even Flat Earth verses in the New Testament. For example when Satan took Jesus to a high place and showed him the entire world. That only works on a Flat Earth and does not make sense as a "vision" since height has nothing to do with seeing the entire Earth.

If you want to understand any of it you need to go back to the drawing board. The most difficult/time consuming part is absorbing what can be known about contemporary world-views over the many centuries covering the material in the Bible and learning about the common literary styles and techniques used. An ideal place to start is Auerbach’s Mimesis but if you want a bit of a shortcut you could start with John H Walton. Which OT passages did you mean?

 

[Radagast]

It is mainly the Old Testament that I am talking about, but there are even Flat Earth verses in the New Testament. For example when Satan took Jesus to a high place and showed him the entire world.

Matthew 4:8: πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν (Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain), καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείαςτοῦ (and showed him all the kingdoms) κόσμου (of the world) καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν (and their glory).

That doesn't actually say "entire world," nor is it primarily geographical. It also pretty clearly describes either a supernatural event, or a vision, or both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew 4:8: πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν (Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain), καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείαςτοῦ (and showed him all the kingdoms) κόσμου (of the world) καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν (and their glory).

That doesn't actually say "entire world," nor is it primarily geographical. It also pretty clearly describes either a supernatural event, or a vision, or both.

And a "vision" is no excuse since it would still make sense only on a flat Earth. A literal interpretation of the Bible is what leads to a Flat Earth belief. Just as Flat Earthers are wrong to interpret the Bible too literally so are creationists. There really is no difference between the two.

 

[Tom 1]

It is mainly the Old Testament that I am talking about, but there are even Flat Earth verses in the New Testament. For example when Satan took Jesus to a high place and showed him the entire world. That only works on a Flat Earth and does not make sense as a "vision" since height has nothing to do with seeing the entire Earth.

Do you think that illustration is meant literally, i.e that some physical Devil literally took Jesus and ‘showed’ him all of the world’s kingdoms, as if he had not previously been aware of hierarchies of power, wealth, influence etc? If so, why? What idea do you think is conveyed by the story?

 

[Tom 1]

And a "vision" is no excuse since it would still make sense only on a flat Earth.

Even if you take the passage literally that’s some pretty narrow thinking. In what way would showing Jesus the ‘kingdoms of the earth’ imply a flat earth? Bear in mind that the concept of what ‘the world’ meant was very different at the time, and the writers weren’t so ignorant as to believe you could see all of the world’s kingdoms from a mountain. A literal interpretation would imply writers so incapable of abstract thought that they wouldn’t have been able to construct the narrative and its context in the first place.

 

[Radagast]

And a "vision" is no excuse since it would still make sense only on a flat Earth.

Incorrect.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is what leads to a Flat Earth belief.

Not true. Flat-eartherism goes back to Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). People had interpreted the Bible literally for 18 centuries before him without becoming flat-earthers.

 

[Kate30]

Matthew 4:8: πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν (Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain), καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείαςτοῦ (and showed him all the kingdoms) κόσμου (of the world) καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν (and their glory).

That doesn't actually say "entire world," nor is it primarily geographical. It also pretty clearly describes either a supernatural event, or a vision, or both.

A Literal interpretation has never been a problem with Matthew 4:8 ( Again, the devil taketh him up unto a exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them) One must remember that kingdoms were very well established around the world at the time. Be that in India , China, or with the Roman Empire to name a few. We also know that it was within Satan’s power to offer all those kingdoms of the world when offering his temptation unto the Lord. For we had lost dominion and ownership of this world with the fall, and Satan was now the god of this world. It was a definitely a geographical event and also a supernatural event too. As to the verse being a reference to the earth being flat there is no mention I can see of that. If we are to say simply because they were able observe the entire planet from on high so it must be flat. That was something that us mere mortals could not observe at the time to be able to say either way. It was only by supernatural means that all the kingdoms of the world were observed.

 

[Radagast]

It was a definitely a geographical event and also a supernatural event too.

When I said "not geographical," I meant that the focus is not on "all the continents of the world," but on "all the kingdoms of the world."

Also that the text is not making any kind of geographical statement, nor is it suggesting that "all the kingdoms of the world" are visible to ordinary human vision from any specific mountain.

 

[Lost4words]

The problem is in taking scripture too literally. There is more to God's written word than just black and white.