The Bible's Flat Earth

This topic seems a bit off-topicI'll just say something about the ''immovable'' part in the psalmsIt should be noted the same expression is used in psalms 16 if I'm not mistaken, but the author applies it to himself (I shall not be moved ... or something like that)I doubt anyone would think that the author meant that he was litteraly rooted to one spot.

I would think the answer is in the middle: maybe the bible simply does not talk about geocentricism or heliocentricism ...Reading this thread, I have the impression that there is a false dilemna being proposed: if he didn't believe in geocentricism, then he believed heliocentricism. I would maybe guess that David did not consider cosmology when writing the psalms, and I would certainly doubt that God would go up to him and tell him that the solar system is heliocentric.All in all, these arguments are the same than Galileo's in his time: the bible makes no clear statement about cosmology. You have to remember that even back then, christians had the tendency to compromise to the 'scientific facts' of the time, which was the geocentric view inherited by the Greeks, and so they searched for verses in the Bible that would support this. So the church defended geocentricism not because it was a biblical truth, but because it was the science of the time that they had fitted into the biblical truth. (analog to christians today who adapt genesis to accomodate evolution into it)

And David (I'll refer to david as the psalms author, even if you seem to not agree) said he was 'immovable', yet I think no sane person would make the case that he was fixed at one spot. This is the problem when using the psalms to define the cosmology described in the Bible or believed by the author. At the very least, the psalms are completely neutral and a none-issue since we cannot determine if the author meant the verses in question to be literal or juste metaphors. (Unless you have some way to determine it) Of course I have, and I was even replying to a statement you made one page earlier. It was a response to my post where I said that the psalms did not support a geocentric view. You reiterated your position that it did, plus you said:

quote:

---

If the Bible authors actually had a reasonably accurate heliocentric view of their cosmos, they were way ahead of their time, yet strangely, they did not see fit to mention this anywhere.

---

Thus creating the false dilemna, since I was saying that geocentricism was not supported in the psalms, and you were saying thus that I was proposing David had a heliocentric view, as if it was the only other option. But it wasn't, since my position is that he wasn't aware of cosmology, or at least that he didn't express it in the bible (in a way we are 100% sure he was meaning it to be literal). I believe this because I do not know of a way they could have 'scientifically' known that the earth was rotating around the sun, and I highly doubt God came over to him one night saying: 'Let me tell you the truth about the solar system ...' You'll have to enlighten me on which verses you are speaking of, because although you can 'read cosmology' in the Genesis account, you will have to do so through Eisegesis, because I highly doubt someone with no knowledge of cosmology will get a clue of a hypothetical cosmological model solely by reading the book of genesis.On a final note, I will reiterate my position: neither geocentricism nor heliocentricism is supported by the Bible. You have to take into account that even today, people say all the time that 'the sun rises to the east and sets down to the west', and yet I doubt anyone saying this is giving a clue of what he believes the solar system looks like. From a relativistic point of view as seen from the earth, the sun is going around the earth. The moon is going around the earth also, but again from a relativistic point of view as seen from the moon, the earth is turning around the moon.The reality is that they are spining around their centre of mass of course, but even if we know this, it doesn't stop us from using expressions implying that the sun is going from east to west. the same would apply back in those days.EDIT: On a side not, I would think of one verse that would seem to suggest that the earth is not flat. in psalms 103:12

quote:

---

as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us

---

Knowing the psalmists trend to exagerate things, especially when speaking about the 'powers' and awesomeness of God. I would suggest that this verse did not mean that our transgressions are at a finite distance from us (as would be on a flat earth east-west), but rather that our transgressions are at an infinite distance from us, as is the case between the east and west on a spherical earth. It would make more sense I believe i nthe context that this are psalms with exagerations and extreme hyperbols everywhere.This would maybe be the only place where I would think that David at least knew the earth was spherical.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : grammar

I propose c) they didn't know or we can't know. Now don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Jews had a geocentric view. But it isn't reflected in the Bible without 'reading threw the lines' or doing some type of eisegesis. This is why I support the view that they didn't have a knowledge of cosmology. Could they have had one ? sure, but I'm not 'adventurous' enough to advance that I'm sure they did. I would suggest maybe that the Jews can't read as much Cosmology in Genesis then modern creationist do hehe I can be pretty much sure that the author of the psalms wasn't rooted in one place when he said 'I shall not be moved'. I usually try not to 'read between the lines' to confirm or descredit the innerracy of the Bible based on such type of assumptions. Now if you want to prove that it is possible the hebrews shared this view, I have no problem and I would tend to think the same thing, although we can't be sure. This doesn't go against the claim by christians that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Of course, but we don't believe it. In a similar way, the Jews could have had similar inherrited similar idioms from their pre-jewish ancestors (less likely) or from cultural influence from their surroundings, which in both cases doesn't mean they supported the geocentric view behind these idioms, just as we do.This is all hypothetical of course. But it is another alternative. Which is why I advanced it more as my opinion on the verse rather than basing any argumentation on it. I still find it interesting. I don't think we can know about heliocentricism, But I tend to think the Jews viewed the earth as spherical (without certainty). My first reason is that it is a much easier knowledge to optain via observations, as the Greeks did. And my second reason is because of the previous verse, which I do not view as a good enough basis to have any certainty about this issue (because it is in the psalms). What the saying in english ? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I think ? (I may be wrong, I speak french)Him not mentioning it is a non-issue, since he equally doesn't say anything about the 'fact' that the earth is flat. I remember when I was young my older brother explaining me that if you headed North, eventually you would reach the top and start going down to the south. But if you headed west, you would forever go west without ever start going east. Thus why the distance between East and west being infinite. Or at least that's how I viewed it when I was like 8 yo lol. I don,t have a lot of knowledge about ancient history, but is the notion of infinity that hard to optain ? I thought of it as a given as it is not an overly difficult concept. Now I do believe this: The psalmist viewed God as overly powerful and omnipotent, etc. etc. Would the same psalmist say the same God would have removed are transgression away from us, but at a finite distance ? My personnal opinion is that he was trying to show the contrary: that are transgressions are at an infinite distance from us. Thus why he uses East and West, and not North and South, which has a difference as shown by my childhood story.

To make things very short, this is where we disagree: That the Jewish people believed in the spaghetti Monster during their history doesn't change the inerrancy of the Bible. I mean, they worshipped false Gods from other peoples for parts of their history, it does not change anything in regards to the Bible and claims to inerrancy, etc.If you wanted to discuss if the jewish people believed in flat-earth, you should have entitled this thread: the Jewish's flat earth ...In regards to if they had any knowledge of cosmology of some sort, and which one. I'll check this a bit more and revise my position if I find substantial evidence pointing in one direction or another. I'll start with Enoch (which I never read) and start from there I guess. Any link to useful sites on this would be nice.

BTW about the east-west thing, I'll look into that also, but I would guess that the solution resides in the fact that east and west are not imaginary points, but directions.

I sent an email about the east-west thing to CMI, so hopefully in the next two weeks you will get the opportunity to demolish the response I'll get by Jonathan Sarfati BTW, I'm still checking on your various claims, but creation.com pretty much adresses most of the points.

It wasn't an argumentative reply, it was an informative reply to keep tell you 'I'm still looking into this, I didn't forget this topic'In any case, how is your agressive response (with equally no substance ) even allowed on this forum ?

Ok, I'll try to adress the specific verses in the Bible, one-by-one. I may miss some, if they are still relevant after what I will have said in this post, please post them. I'll start with an easy one, to get me started

quote:

---

These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

​

Daniel 4:10-11

---

This is an easily rebuted one. As someone else said at the start of this thread, this verse describes a vision seen in a dream. This by itself disqualifies it as an argument in favor of the Bible supporting a flat-earth view. However, there is one more interesting aspect of this vision: it was dreamed by a pagan king. (Nebuchadnezzar). And so even if this dream would represent an aspect of reality believed by the dreamer, it would only support the idea that Babylonians had a flat-earth view of the world.

quote:

---

Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

​

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

​

Job 38-12-13

---

This argument is usually presented showing only the verse 13. I chose to add the verse 14 for one specific reason: that we know that it is the Dawn who 'takes the earth by the edges'. This is very important, because taken alone we might think that is is God who dose this. Had it been God, then a literal interpretation of this verse would have been possible. But the fact that it is the dawn makes this verse much more poetic than literal. A phenomenological explanation could be applied to this verse as well, since it could mean no more than the visible horizon that the Dawn 'grasps' as the sun rises. Phenomenological language is used throughout the psalms, proverbs, etc. and so this option cannot be discarded unless their is valid reason to do so.

quote:

---

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.

​

Job 38:13

---

This verse is always half-quoted, the second part of it is never mentioned. Yet it is in the second part of the verse gives us an essential hint: the focus of this verse is the earth's 'features'. This is revealed also by the choice of the analogy: there are many ways to make a pancake, but if you want to focus on the features on it, then a seal is probably the best analogy to take. Thus, if the focus really is on the features, then it is not a stretch to think that the earth has the features (mountains, valleys, etc.) that God wanted it to have.Finally, I will address the book of Enoch. The real issue here is not if the Bible is the innerant word of God (after all, it is not part of the Bible) but if the author of Enoch had a flat-earth view. After reading it, I cannot rebute this second option. But two things have to be also considered: 1- The oldest manuscripts of it was found amongst the Dead sea Scrolls (incomplete), and although they are old, they are far away from Enoch, who is the great-grandfather of Noah. 2- There is no evidence whatsoever that it was taken as history by the Jews. Even Josephus, who viewed the six-day of creation as history, did not include it in his writings. As of such, it could very well be the oldest case of historical fiction. In regards to the quoting by Jude, there seems to be quite some controversy on the subject, as Enoch is thought to have been reworked over time by both christians and jews. Enoch and Jude could be quoting some other work now lost. Or Enoch could even be quoting Jude for all as we know. There is still some active debate on this. I'll start with the weakest ones. In my opinion:

quote:

---

as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us

​

Psalms 103:12

---

The weakest one as long as I don't get more insight on this. On a spehrical earth, If you keep going North you will start at one point to head back South, without changing direction. But if you head out west, you will never ever head back East, in fact you'll be heading West infinitely. Knowing that the author of the psalms does massive exaggerations to describe God's power, it would seem logical that this same God would remove our transgressions at an infinite distance from us. If he had meant a finite distance, he could as well have used North-South instead. (Although I acknowledge that it is a one chance in two)

quote:

---

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.

​

Isaiah 40:22

---

The hebrew word for circle here is Chwug, which can be used to talk about sphericity as well a round and flat. The most common objections to this is why doesn't he use the word 'ball' (Dr) he uses in Isaiah 22:18 ? The answer is quite easy: Dr no more means sphericity then Chwug. In fact, Dr is also used in a context that would be illogical from a spherical perspective:

quote:

---

I will encamp against you all around;
I will encircle you with towers
and set up my siege works against you

​

Isaiah 29:3

---

Unless you are an incredible tactician, I doubt you could camp in the shape of a sphere around city.

quote:

---

The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

​

Ecclesiaste 1:6

---

This verse is as obvious as I have ever found concerning the sphericity of the earth in the Bible, and yet it is not well-known. On a flat=earth, it makes no sense. How could it head to the south, and turn to the north, round and round ? It makes a lot of sense on a sphere though.There, I'm pretty tired right now. So I'll address geocentricism and a domed sky as soon as I can. I have no doubt you will have objections to all this, and I will listen to them carefully. But I doubt I will respond unless it is very compelling, since in my opinion, it will turn out to be a debate between two different interpretations, with no real conclusive evidence.PS I agree that the predominent view of the time is a flat-earth, but we have to remember that the authors of the different books of the OT are for the very most part totally not influenced by pagan mythics and beliefs, about Gods etc. And I find no evidence that it would have been different for the flat-earth view.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Yeah well, in retrospect it sounds kinda overblown. But if you read the OT, it becomes pretty clear that the multiple authors are very much in a Us vs Them mentality. (Its probably the most visible in the books of the prophets, where they pretty much curse everyone who get influenced by pagan mythology and gods). I mean, even today, Jews are very self-centered and don't mix with other groups. Probably a combination of multiple things, but theres probably a couple of religious laws into all this. I can't imagine a guy like Isaiah, after killing 500 priests of Baal, would be dichotomic enough to go believe what they believed ...I was also thinking about the very stubborn nature of Jews, and so that that I doubt any of the prophets would have been influenced by pagan cultures. I mean, they were the only people who did not practise the cult of the emperor during the reign of the romans.I'm not advancing that the Jewish nation as a whole were not influenced at times in their history by other cultures, even to the point of believing in a flat-earth. But the authors of the books in the OT are so straight in the line of religion, God's will and 'don't breed with the enemy!' (If I can invent that expression) that they would not have been influenced by pagan myths.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I agree it gets a little muddy in the first few books. I mean, it is not even clear who wrote them, etc. (or at least it isn't clear for me, it may be for historians, I dunno.)

I agree, but who is the dreamer is the whole issue Of course, I agree the dream doesn't originate from the Pharaoh, and it has no correlation with the Exodus. It originates from a Babylonian King by the name of Nebuchadnezzar. (I'm surprised by this reply, since I indicated this in my original post). The jewish deportation to Babylon has many evidence for it, and so I don't think we can apply this vision to the flight of fancy of a jewish author. I think this is where I will have to disagree. It is highly relevant if it is poetry or not. Would it be legitimate for people in the future to take are poetries and determined what we thought to be true ? Of course it would not, and there is no way we ca nallow ourselves to do the same, especially when we are studying a text which could very well have a phenomenological interpretation.As I've said when engaging in this discussion, proof beyond doubt will never be obtained on this issue. I understand you may very well still view this passage as evidence of a flat-earth, but viewing it as poetry , and as of such not seeing it as evidence for what the author actually believed, is just as legitimate. New International version. I must've got lucky, I just took the first english version on this site (Job 38; NIV - The LORD Speaks - Then the LORD spoke - Bible Gateway If the focus is on the features, and not on the overall shape of the earth, than the analogy is as good as it can get. Because I also have a hard time trying to find an analogy of that time who would describe the way the surface of a sphere would be printed ... Of course, which was my point. If a highly imaginative person wrote it, then it reinforces the idea that it may well be historical fiction. Today, historical fiction is much more done in the movie industry, but it is still a genre of litterature. If it was written in the time of the deportation to Babylon or after, I have no difficulty imagining the author being influenced by the Babylonian flat-earth view. There is a simply reason why no one presented an example for the word Chuwg being used in anexplicitly spherical context in the Bible. It is because there is none ...But the thing is, the Bible is from being the only jewish manuscripts available. If translators of ancient jewish define the word 'Chuwg' as appliable in both a spherical and circle meaning, it is most highly probable that it is used in such a context in another manuscript don't you agree ? (asking for such an example will prove difficult, but if you do demand one I'll do my best to find one.) No sorry, speaking french+writing in english lat at night is bound to have thos kind of mistakes. I must admit I'm surprised there aren't more in my text. This would explain only the 'round and round' part, but not the heading North, than heading South. Can you go underneath the disc in your flat earth cosmology ?? DOesn't the water simply rush off at the edges as a waterfall ? This explains the heading North than south, but not the round and round part. I cannot view a topic where both options can be believed legitimately at the end as a debate. I view this as much more of a discussion, and my intention in getting involved was to show that the other view was just as legitimate.

I want to note that I will be attending a wedding this weekend, so I probably won't be able to reply until next wednesday. I will proba bly edit this post.