Does the Bible Declare the Earth is Flat?

[Diogenes]

Those who consider the Bible inerrant and literally true focus their arguments on the claim the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and against evolution.
I suggest the focus would be more apt on the Biblical claim the Earth is flat. While the argument about evolution rages in these circles, there appears to be a reluctance in fundamentalist circles to accept the idea the Bible assumes the Earth is flat.

Questions for debate, "Does the Bible claim or assume the Earth is flat?"
... and
Why do fundamentalists focus on the creationism/young Earth debate, and ignore the issue of whether the Bible posits a flat Earth?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The article says the Erath is not a perfect sphere, well can you define what a perfect sphere is so that we know what it means to say the earth is not one?

Remember you're writing for an audience some 4,000 years BC, you cannot glibly assume they share any of the many many things you take for granted.

And God can't find just the right words to explain it? There's no combination of ancient Hebrew words that can describe a radius? The part that you're oddly taking for granted is that your omniscient and omnipotent deity can't somehow describe reality in a way that ancient, but anatomically modern humans would be able to grasp. Even if they weren't culturally modern, we have every reason to believe that they possessed the same intellectual faculties that we do. God told Noah how to build a wooden boat that survived for a year on a globe-spanning sea. A language sufficient to explain that level of engineering detail can't express "perfect sphere?"

I think he found just the right words, that you don't reflects your perceptions, your views. If you think it can be improved then suggest an improved text that I can pick apart and ridicule showing you how much you misunderstand the subject.

"The world is a giant ball but it looks flat to you" - I mean, they would have stared blankly at you if you said that to them. A ball (if there even was one) is something that rolls on the ground, how can you say the ground is a ball?

So, even though God is omnipotent, he couldn't produce something like a basketball for illustration?

No, your are of the opinion he didn't do something, I'm not, you have expectations that are unmet and that's because the expectations are inappropriate. I have different expectations so see no problem with the descriptions.

they'd laugh you out of the tent!

And then they'd write the Bible the way they did, making stuff up and claiming God said it. Of course, that's also what they'd do if there were no gods and nobody tried to explain it in the first place. It's kind of hard to tell the difference.

You are the one making stuff up ! when you assert boldly "making stuff up and claiming God said..." admit it, you just made that up didn't you?

Lets indeed cut to the chase - you are unable to communicate in writing what you understand, you want the Bible to have written something in a way that is thorough, accurate, meaningful to 21st century readers but people six thousand years ago did not see things as you do, few of the concepts and ideas you routinely take for granted, were even part of their vocabulary.

The fact that introductory textbooks exist in fields rife with jargon shows that even humans can overcome the situation that you're claiming God faced when inspiring the Bible.

Yes there are books that "explain" the globe today and to understand them you need a vast amount of knowledge, knowledge that simply did not exist among humans 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. You obviously sincerely believe a text can be written that conveys to a mind 5,000 years ago, the same thing it conveys to a child today, you keep saying this is possible yet dare not even attempt to do it!

I was hoping this would teach you something but all it seems to achieve is anger and hostility from people.

Perhaps not what you imagined it would, but it does teach us things.

I doubt that very much.

[Difflugia]

If you think it can be improved then suggest an improved text that I can pick apart and ridicule showing you how much you misunderstand the subject.

[...]

Yes there are books that "explain" the globe today and to understand them you need a vast amount of knowledge, knowledge that simply did not exist among humans 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. You obviously sincerely believe a text can be written that conveys to a mind 5,000 years ago, the same thing it conveys to a child today, you keep saying this is possible yet dare not even attempt to do it!

What's wrong with the paragraph I gave you? I asked you then if any parts would be impossible to convey in biblical Hebrew. Or does it have to be something that I compose myself before you'll engage with it? I even quoted it for you rather than making you look it up yourself (a courtesy you have yet to show any of us engaging with you). What concepts from that paragraph are you claiming that a "vast amount of knowledge" has prepared a modern child for, but that an adult from 5,000 years ago couldn't comprehend?

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you think it can be improved then suggest an improved text that I can pick apart and ridicule showing you how much you misunderstand the subject.

[...]

Yes there are books that "explain" the globe today and to understand them you need a vast amount of knowledge, knowledge that simply did not exist among humans 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. You obviously sincerely believe a text can be written that conveys to a mind 5,000 years ago, the same thing it conveys to a child today, you keep saying this is possible yet dare not even attempt to do it!

What's wrong with the paragraph I gave you? I asked you then if any parts would be impossible to convey in biblical Hebrew. Or does it have to be something that I compose myself before you'll engage with it? I even quoted it for you rather than making you look it up yourself (a courtesy you have yet to show any of us engaging with you). What concepts from that paragraph are you claiming that a "vast amount of knowledge" has prepared a modern child for, but that an adult from 5,000 years ago couldn't comprehend?

See:

Could we view the earth in its entirety from some extraterrestrial vantage point, we would recognize it as an oblate spheroid, that is, a body approaching that of a sphere, but with its polar diameter flattened and its equatorial belt somewhat inflated. By measurement the polar diameter of the earth is found to be 7899.7 miles, while the equatorial diameter is 7926.5 miles. If the observer in extraterrestrial space is sufficiently removed from the earth's surface, that surface would appear essentially smooth, as does the surface of the moon to our unaided eyes; the irregularities which the dweller on the earth recognizes as mountains and valleys would become of insignificant proportions. Were we to represent the earth by an accurately scaled model 10 feet in polar diameter, the equatorial diameter would exceed the polar by only a trifle over 4/10 of an inch, while the highest mountains on the earth's surface would form elevations on the model less than 3/32 inch in height. Thus viewed, the prominences which appear to us formidable are after all of minor significance, and bearing this in mind, we can understand that relatively slight bulgings or crumplings of the earth's surface may produce what to us appear as great elevation.

Everything in bold, at the very least is incomprehensible without knowledge that was not known 5,000 years ago. Many of the terms, themselves, assume the reader is aware that the earth is a huge sphere but since that's the very thing we want to convey how can we convey that in terms that require they already understand that?

[Difflugia]

Could we view the earth in its entirety from some extraterrestrial vantage point, we would recognize it as an oblate spheroid, that is, a body approaching that of a sphere, but with its polar diameter flattened and its equatorial belt somewhat inflated. By measurement the polar diameter of the earth is found to be 7899.7 miles, while the equatorial diameter is 7926.5 miles. If the observer in extraterrestrial space is sufficiently removed from the earth's surface, that surface would appear essentially smooth, as does the surface of the moon to our unaided eyes; the irregularities which the dweller on the earth recognizes as mountains and valleys would become of insignificant proportions. Were we to represent the earth by an accurately scaled model 10 feet in polar diameter, the equatorial diameter would exceed the polar by only a trifle over 4/10 of an inch, while the highest mountains on the earth's surface would form elevations on the model less than 3/32 inch in height. Thus viewed, the prominences which appear to us formidable are after all of minor significance, and bearing this in mind, we can understand that relatively slight bulgings or crumplings of the earth's surface may produce what to us appear as great elevation.

Everything in bold, at the very least is incomprehensible without knowledge that was not known 5,000 years ago. Many of the terms, themselves, assume the reader is aware that the earth is a huge sphere but since that's the very thing we want to convey how can we convey that in terms that require they already understand that?

You're working awfully hard at presenting ancient Israel as some sort of shut-in Boo Radley of a culture that is incapable of presenting or understanding new ideas out of familiar concepts. The only evidence that you've offered is an asserted lack of imagination that you've projected onto not only us, but onto God as well.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're actually trying to argue here. That Hebrew as a language is incapable of expressing these things? That Hebrew people are incapable of understanding spatial relationships? God presumably has an omniscient understanding of both the universe and the Hebrew language. What unbridgeable gulf do you think exists between that understanding and God's literary audience?

• extraterrestrial vantage point, extraterrestrial space, removed from the earth's surface—Deuteronomy 11:21 includes the phrase "heavens above the Earth" within a metaphor for eternity. How do you think ancient Hebrews understood that phrase? Were the "heavens above the Earth" at the level of, say, an attic? A really tall tree? The top of a hill? A cloud? The top of a mountain? What's your best guess?
• oblate spheroid—Biblical Hebrew has a word for "sphere" (דור) that appears in Isaiah 22:18 in the sense of "ball" ("...and throw you like a ball into a large land..."). The words for "flat," "to be flat," and "to flatten" are all forms of the same word used for the firmament in Genesis 1:6. There is a verb that means "to be slight" (קלל) that is used in the sense of "slightly;" i.e. "a ball with a flatness that is slight."
• polar, equatorial—Hebrew has a plethora of words referring to turning, spinning, wheels, axles, spokes, and such. I find it beyond reason to think that God couldn't arrange those with the previous list item into a description of "polar" and "equatorial." Plus, Jewish people invented this high-tech device:
  
  
  

  Aliens? Time travel? Witchcraft? YOU DECIDE! (Photo credit)
  
  
• 7899.7 miles—Using a rough average of 50cm for a cubit, that's about 25 million cubits. 1 Chronicles 21:5 renders a million as "a thousand thousands" (אֶ֣לֶף אֲלָפִים).
• surface of the moon—The moon's just another ball like the Earth, but only 7 thousand thousands of cubits in diameter. In fact, the visible moon would be a perfect illustration of the concept of the Earth in space.
• unaided eyes—Oh, please. The only reason that we need to qualify eyes as unaided in the first place is because medieval leprechauns taught us how to make lenses and mirrors.
• would become—You got me. Hebrew has no subjunctive. I guess there's no way God could have constructed that sentence.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Could we view the earth in its entirety from some extraterrestrial vantage point, we would recognize it as an oblate spheroid, that is, a body approaching that of a sphere, but with its polar diameter flattened and its equatorial belt somewhat inflated. By measurement the polar diameter of the earth is found to be 7899.7 miles, while the equatorial diameter is 7926.5 miles. If the observer in extraterrestrial space is sufficiently removed from the earth's surface, that surface would appear essentially smooth, as does the surface of the moon to our unaided eyes; the irregularities which the dweller on the earth recognizes as mountains and valleys would become of insignificant proportions. Were we to represent the earth by an accurately scaled model 10 feet in polar diameter, the equatorial diameter would exceed the polar by only a trifle over 4/10 of an inch, while the highest mountains on the earth's surface would form elevations on the model less than 3/32 inch in height. Thus viewed, the prominences which appear to us formidable are after all of minor significance, and bearing this in mind, we can understand that relatively slight bulgings or crumplings of the earth's surface may produce what to us appear as great elevation.

Everything in bold, at the very least is incomprehensible without knowledge that was not known 5,000 years ago. Many of the terms, themselves, assume the reader is aware that the earth is a huge sphere but since that's the very thing we want to convey how can we convey that in terms that require they already understand that?

You're working awfully hard at presenting ancient Israel as some sort of shut-in Boo Radley of a culture that is incapable of presenting or understanding new ideas out of familiar concepts. The only evidence that you've offered is an asserted lack of imagination that you've projected onto not only us, but onto God as well.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're actually trying to argue here. That Hebrew as a language is incapable of expressing these things? That Hebrew people are incapable of understanding spatial relationships? God presumably has an omniscient understanding of both the universe and the Hebrew language. What unbridgeable gulf do you think exists between that understanding and God's literary audience?

• extraterrestrial vantage point, extraterrestrial space, removed from the earth's surface—Deuteronomy 11:21 includes the phrase "heavens above the Earth" within a metaphor for eternity. How do you think ancient Hebrews understood that phrase? Were the "heavens above the Earth" at the level of, say, an attic? A really tall tree? The top of a hill? A cloud? The top of a mountain? What's your best guess?
• oblate spheroid—Biblical Hebrew has a word for "sphere" (דור) that appears in Isaiah 22:18 in the sense of "ball" ("...and throw you like a ball into a large land..."). The words for "flat," "to be flat," and "to flatten" are all forms of the same word used for the firmament in Genesis 1:6. There is a verb that means "to be slight" (קלל) that is used in the sense of "slightly;" i.e. "a ball with a flatness that is slight."
• polar, equatorial—Hebrew has a plethora of words referring to turning, spinning, wheels, axles, spokes, and such. I find it beyond reason to think that God couldn't arrange those with the previous list item into a description of "polar" and "equatorial." Plus, Jewish people invented this high-tech device:
  
  
  

  Aliens? Time travel? Witchcraft? YOU DECIDE! (Photo credit)
  
  
• 7899.7 miles—Using a rough average of 50cm for a cubit, that's about 25 million cubits. 1 Chronicles 21:5 renders a million as "a thousand thousands" (אֶ֣לֶף אֲלָפִים).
• surface of the moon—The moon's just another ball like the Earth, but only 7 thousand thousands of cubits in diameter. In fact, the visible moon would be a perfect illustration of the concept of the Earth in space.
• unaided eyes—Oh, please. The only reason that we need to qualify eyes as unaided in the first place is because medieval leprechauns taught us how to make lenses and mirrors.
• would become—You got me. Hebrew has no subjunctive. I guess there's no way God could have constructed that sentence.

This is absurd, why do you think a book composed 5,000 years ago should be expressed with metaphors that you personally think are the most appropriate?

But as you wish, if this is how you want to see this then be my guest, if this is a means of you arguing that the Bible is not inspired because it does not use metaphors for things that you think it should and therefore it contains lies and therefore God does not exist, by all means take that view.

By the way telescopes, binoculars and spectacles were not around when Genesis was penned, also lets not lose track of the fact the Bible does not say the earth is flat, because if you want to argue then, then I'll argue as you do, do you really want to go down that road with me?

The Bible does not say that a straight line is the shortest distance between two point or the earth is a "plane" or is "flat" and that triangles drawn on the earth always have their interior angles sum to exactly 180 degrees irrespective of how large the triangle might be. It does not say that two parallel lines will never ever meet or that any line that is orthogonal to the surface is always parallel to any and every other line that is also orthogonal to the surface, all of these must be true to say the earth is flat, the Bible does not say any of these things therefore the Bible does not say the earth is flat.

[Difflugia]

This is absurd,

Of course it is, but I was worried that if I called you out on it, it would be considered a rule breach.

why do you think a book composed 5,000 years ago should be expressed with metaphors that you personally think are the most appropriate?

I don't. If you recall, I originally said that an omniscient and omnipotent god ought to be able to present descriptions that are scientifically accurate, but understandable to an ancient Israelite. You're the one that insisted that I do so myself. Now that I have, you've simply waved them away by declaring that the exercise you've defined is "absurd" in the first place.

One might think you're just making excuses to avoid engaging with my responses in good faith. That's not what you're doing, is it?

But as you wish, if this is how you want to see this then be my guest, if this is a means of you arguing that the Bible is not inspired because it does not use metaphors for things that you think it should and therefore it contains lies and therefore God does not exist, by all means take that view.

I wasn't insisting on any particular metaphors, only that they weren't based on premises that are obviously faulty.

By the way telescopes, binoculars and spectacles were not around when Genesis was penned, also lets not lose track of the fact the Bible does not say the earth is flat,

That's a non sequitur, both between the two clauses of your statement and the implied relationship with the conversation we're having.

because if you want to argue then, then I'll argue as you do, do you really want to go down that road with me?

If that means you'll finally engage with some sort of evidence, then by all means, please argue as I do.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is absurd,

Of course it is, but I was worried that if I called you out on it, it would be considered a rule breach.

why do you think a book composed 5,000 years ago should be expressed with metaphors that you personally think are the most appropriate?

I don't. If you recall, I originally said that an omniscient and omnipotent god ought to be able to present descriptions that are scientifically accurate, but understandable to an ancient Israelite.

Scientifically accurate as of 5,000 years ago, scientifically accurate as of 1,000 years ago? scientifically accurate as of the 19th century, 21st century, 25th century?

Can't you see? you want a "scientifically accurate" description, but how we see the world today might differ from how people five hundreds years from now might see it, and then they might balk at what you think is accurate and say "this is so inaccurate, I mean we know the earth is not a ball but behaves more like an oscillating fluid that obeys Henderson's law, where the instantaneous diameter varies as function of density vs mean orbital distance of the moon! We long ag stopped regarding the earth as a solid ball!".

This is what you're missing, completely missing, this is what Burke talks about in the episode of The Day the Universe Changed. Scientifically "accurate" is a relative thing not and absolute.

You're the one that insisted that I do so myself. Now that I have, you've simply waved them away by declaring that the exercise you've defined is "absurd" in the first place.

It's absurd for the reasons I gave.

One might think you're just making excuses to avoid engaging with my responses in good faith. That's not what you're doing, is it?

You are wrong Difflugia, the entire analysis is flawed, there's no way to be "scientifically accurate" unless we state at what point in history we are referring to as our reference for accurate science!

But as you wish, if this is how you want to see this then be my guest, if this is a means of you arguing that the Bible is not inspired because it does not use metaphors for things that you think it should and therefore it contains lies and therefore God does not exist, by all means take that view.

I wasn't insisting on any particular metaphors, only that they weren't based on premises that are obviously faulty.

Well you were wrong, your entire position is that "today's science" is the manner in which the Bible should have expressed things, why? why not 5,000 years ago's science? why not 5,000 years into the future's science? Can you really not see? no matter how it was expressed it would always be inaccurate, never quite matching reality and why? because science is not reality it is a model and these models change.

Look at how Newton modelled gravitation and space and time? absolutely wrong by today's science and it is likely Einstein's models will be found to be wrong so in 5,000 years time we'll perceive it as a simplified, old fashioned model.

By the way telescopes, binoculars and spectacles were not around when Genesis was penned, also lets not lose track of the fact the Bible does not say the earth is flat,

That's a non sequitur, both between the two clauses of your statement and the implied relationship with the conversation we're having.

because if you want to argue then, then I'll argue as you do, do you really want to go down that road with me?

If that means you'll finally engage with some sort of evidence, then by all means, please argue as I do.

You overlooked, this part of my previous post:

The Bible does not say that a straight line is the shortest distance between two point or the earth is a "plane" or is "flat" and that triangles drawn on the earth always have their interior angles sum to exactly 180 degrees irrespective of how large the triangle might be. It does not say that two parallel lines will never ever meet or that any line that is orthogonal to the surface is always parallel to any and every other line that is also orthogonal to the surface, all of these must be true to say the earth is flat, the Bible does not say any of these things therefore the Bible does not say the earth is flat.

Isn't it odd how you feel the Bible is inaccurate in describing the earth to be a ball etc, yet it is equally inaccurate if it were describing a flat earth, but you say nothing of that! It no more says the earth is flat than it says its a ball.

This is all very simple - you do not understand the Bible and you cannot ever understand it until God grants you that understanding.

[Diogenes]

He speaks of references to the earth being "immovable" the Hebrew seems to say that too "shall not be moved". Well seriously? "immovable" does not mean "stationary" does it?

Seriously? I don't know how you could be more wrong. "Immovable"DOES"... mean "stationary...." That precisely represents the quality of your entire 'argument.' 'Immovable' means and includes 'stationary.' It adds the concept of permanency.
"immovable: incapable of being moved; fixed; stationary.....

Immovable Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com "

"Immovable
....
Immovable adjective – Incapable of moving or being moved.
Usage example: that boulder is immovable, even with a bulldozer
Stationary is a synonym for immovable in fixed topic. In some cases you can use "Stationary" instead an adjective "Immovable", when it comes to topics like immobile, move, motionless. popular alternative Nearby Words: immovability, immovably


Stationary
....
Stationary adjective – Fixed in a place or position.
Usage example: a stationary bicycle is good for exercise, but you won't enjoy the scenery very much
Immovable is a synonym for stationary in immobile topic. You can use "Immovable" instead an adjective "Stationary", if it concerns topics such as move, fixed."
https://thesaurus.plus/related/immovable/stationary

[Diogenes]

The Bible is not the only collection of books to describe the Earth as flat, covered by a dome or 'firmament.' The scriptures merely reflected the common thinking of their time.

History
Belief in flat Earth
West Asia
Further information: Egyptian mythology and Biblical cosmology
Imago Mundi Babylonian map, the oldest known world map, 6th century BC Babylonia

In early Egyptian[8] and Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account from the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[9]

The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts of ancient Egypt show a similar cosmography; Nun (the Ocean) encircled nbwt ("dry lands" or "Islands").[10][11][12][full citation needed]

The Israelites also imagined the Earth to be a disc floating on water with an arched firmament above it that separated the Earth from the heavens.[13] The sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars embedded in it.[14]
Greece
Poets

Both Homer[15] and Hesiod[16] described a disc cosmography on the Shield of Achilles.[17][18] This poetic tradition of an Earth-encircling (gaiaokhos) sea (Oceanus) and a disc also appears in Stasinus of Cyprus,[19] Mimnermus,[20] Aeschylus,[21] and Apollonius Rhodius.[22]

Homer's description of the disc cosmography on the shield of Achilles with the encircling ocean is repeated far later in Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica (4th century AD), which continues the narration of the Trojan War.[23]
Philosophers
Possible rendering of Anaximander's world map[24]

Several pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the world was flat: Thales (c. 550 BC) according to several sources,[25] and Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) according to Aristotle.[26][27][28]

Thales thought that the Earth floated in water like a log.[29] It has been argued, however, that Thales actually believed in a round Earth.[30][31] Anaximander (c. 550 BC) believed that the Earth was a short cylinder with a flat, circular top that remained stable because it was the same distance from all things.[32][33] Anaximenes of Miletus believed that "the Earth is flat and rides on air; in the same way the Sun and the Moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride the air because of their flatness".[34] Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC) thought that the Earth was flat, with its upper side touching the air, and the lower side extending without limit.[35]

Belief in a flat Earth continued into the 5th century BC. Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC) agreed that the Earth was flat,[36] and his pupil Archelaus believed that the flat Earth was depressed in the middle like a saucer, to allow for the fact that the Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

None of this should surprise. It is consistent with the FACT the Bible is a work of men trying to understand God and their world, not a divine and perfect 'word' authored by the creator of the universe.

Of course, there will always be people who will attempt impossible mental gymnastics to avoid this obvious conclusion. Some will even attempt to deny the meaning of plain English [and Hebrew] words.

[Sherlock Holmes]

He speaks of references to the earth being "immovable" the Hebrew seems to say that too "shall not be moved". Well seriously? "immovable" does not mean "stationary" does it?

Seriously? I don't know how you could be more wrong. "Immovable"DOES"... mean "stationary...." That precisely represents the quality of your entire 'argument.' 'Immovable' means and includes 'stationary.' It adds the concept of permanency.
"immovable: incapable of being moved; fixed; stationary.....

Immovable Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com "

"Immovable
....
Immovable adjective – Incapable of moving or being moved.
Usage example: that boulder is immovable, even with a bulldozer
Stationary is a synonym for immovable in fixed topic. In some cases you can use "Stationary" instead an adjective "Immovable", when it comes to topics like immobile, move, motionless. popular alternative Nearby Words: immovability, immovably


Stationary
....
Stationary adjective – Fixed in a place or position.
Usage example: a stationary bicycle is good for exercise, but you won't enjoy the scenery very much
Immovable is a synonym for stationary in immobile topic. You can use "Immovable" instead an adjective "Stationary", if it concerns topics such as move, fixed."
https://thesaurus.plus/related/immovable/stationary

Can you move the moon? No.
Is the moon therefore stationary? No.

Which of these two is false?