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]

But the Bible was written by men who clearly believed in a geo centric universe with an immovable flat Earth, covered by a celestial dome.

Just a few of many verses make the case:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

It is clear these passages are symbolic and poetic, not literal. For example, looking at 1 Chron 16 in context...

1Chr 16:30-33 (KJV)
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let [men] say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
32 Let the sea roar, and the fullness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that [is] therein.
33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.

Is anyone arguing that heavens can be glad or the earth can literally rejoice? Can trees sing?

But, even if the authors believed the earth was at the center of the universe, it does not affect anything except perhaps for those who believe in inerrancy.

You are comparing songs, poetry to the creation story and passages clearly meant to be factually descriptive.

Pick some verses from scripture that pertain to the earth or its geometry and then rewrite these in a way that you think would be the absolutely truthful form.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #8]

I think its important to point out that how people see the world has varied over the centuries, every culture "sees" things in its own way and that we see things differently to how others saw them thousands of years ago doesn't matter.

How we see them, how each successive culture sees them is not reality, every description of reality we develop is artificial, lacking, inadequate.

Yes, but the point HERE is that the cosmology of Genesis is the product of the way MEN saw the universe, rather than how an omniscient 'god' described it.

How could God possibly describe it other than in terms that people of the time could comprehend?

Today we can't describe even with lots of abstruse mathematics, if God were to describe it what language would he use? English? Mathematics? perhaps something completely alien to us?

This is an old and sad stratagem of the apologist. Stated another way it claims 'god' has to lie and misrepresent the truth because his creatures are too lame to understand the truth. "Truth" is THE primary assertion made by the Bible in both old and new testaments. Under this pathetic excuse men are so pathetic god has to construct an elaborate lie because they are incapable of comprehending the naked truth.

Well I find this very interesting.

You use the phrase "misrepresent the truth" which implies there are actually ways to perfectly represent the truth, perhaps you can give an example of a scientific explanation that perfectly represents truth?

Easily. The Earth is a sphere that moves. It is not a perfect sphere, but technically an oblate spheroid.
https://gisgeography.com/ellipsoid-obla ... oid-earth/

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #8]

I think its important to point out that how people see the world has varied over the centuries, every culture "sees" things in its own way and that we see things differently to how others saw them thousands of years ago doesn't matter.

How we see them, how each successive culture sees them is not reality, every description of reality we develop is artificial, lacking, inadequate.

Yes, but the point HERE is that the cosmology of Genesis is the product of the way MEN saw the universe, rather than how an omniscient 'god' described it.

How could God possibly describe it other than in terms that people of the time could comprehend?

Today we can't describe even with lots of abstruse mathematics, if God were to describe it what language would he use? English? Mathematics? perhaps something completely alien to us?

This is an old and sad stratagem of the apologist. Stated another way it claims 'god' has to lie and misrepresent the truth because his creatures are too lame to understand the truth. "Truth" is THE primary assertion made by the Bible in both old and new testaments. Under this pathetic excuse men are so pathetic god has to construct an elaborate lie because they are incapable of comprehending the naked truth.

Well I find this very interesting.

You use the phrase "misrepresent the truth" which implies there are actually ways to perfectly represent the truth, perhaps you can give an example of a scientific explanation that perfectly represents truth?

Easily. The Earth is a sphere that moves. It is not a perfect sphere, but technically an oblate spheroid.
https://gisgeography.com/ellipsoid-obla ... oid-earth/

Well that rather brief "truth" misses a great deal out. You make no mention of atmosphere which would include you mentioning gases, convection and so on. Nor have you even mentioned magnetism, which requires you describe that which itself requires you describe electricity, which requires you describe electric charge and inverse square law for static electricity.

Speaking of inverse square laws you make no mention of gravitation which is in fact not described by an inverse square law at all but by ten partial differential equations in four dimension (or could it be ten...) which is as much an aspect of the earth as its shape or centripetal forces which cause us to weigh about 0.5% less at the equator than the poles, and then you forgot superstrings...

See where this is going? my additions add more truth but there's always more to add...the Bible would need to be a pretty thick book if God did as you are suggesting!

[brunumb]

Well that rather brief "truth" misses a great deal out. You make no mention of atmosphere which would include you mentioning gases, convection and so on. Nor have you even mentioned magnetism, which requires you describe that which itself requires you describe electricity, which requires you describe electric charge and inverse square law for static electricity.

While all the extra detail may be valid, they do nothing to distinguish between the fundamental notion that Earth is a spherical object rather than a flat one. Not too hard for the omnipotent one to make clear as has been pointed out.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well that rather brief "truth" misses a great deal out. You make no mention of atmosphere which would include you mentioning gases, convection and so on. Nor have you even mentioned magnetism, which requires you describe that which itself requires you describe electricity, which requires you describe electric charge and inverse square law for static electricity.

While all the extra detail may be valid, they do nothing to distinguish between the fundamental notion that Earth is a spherical object rather than a flat one. Not too hard for the omnipotent one to make clear as has been pointed out.

As an exercise, describe a ball for me, can you do that? describe in words that the earth is a sphere, bear in mind there we're no basketballs or billiard balls five thousand years ago, just mountains, rivers, goats, rain... so off you go, we're all waiting with bated breath, I can't wait to see this unfold, ball's in your court!

[brunumb]

Well that rather brief "truth" misses a great deal out. You make no mention of atmosphere which would include you mentioning gases, convection and so on. Nor have you even mentioned magnetism, which requires you describe that which itself requires you describe electricity, which requires you describe electric charge and inverse square law for static electricity.

While all the extra detail may be valid, they do nothing to distinguish between the fundamental notion that Earth is a spherical object rather than a flat one. Not too hard for the omnipotent one to make clear as has been pointed out.

As an exercise, describe a ball for me, can you do that? describe in words that the earth is a sphere, bear in mind there we're no basketballs or billiard balls five thousand years ago, just mountains, rivers, goats, rain... so off you go, we're all waiting with bated breath, I can't wait to see this unfold, ball's in your court!

I'm not the omnipotent one in case you haven't noticed. But your suggestion that there was nothing spherical back in the day is truly laughable. Numerous fruits and vegetables are close enough to being spherical just for starters. The earliest documented mention of the spherical earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers. Apparently the goat herders who formulated the OT were too ignorant or not adequately inspired by God to somehow put that notion into their writing. Too funny.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well that rather brief "truth" misses a great deal out. You make no mention of atmosphere which would include you mentioning gases, convection and so on. Nor have you even mentioned magnetism, which requires you describe that which itself requires you describe electricity, which requires you describe electric charge and inverse square law for static electricity.

While all the extra detail may be valid, they do nothing to distinguish between the fundamental notion that Earth is a spherical object rather than a flat one. Not too hard for the omnipotent one to make clear as has been pointed out.

As an exercise, describe a ball for me, can you do that? describe in words that the earth is a sphere, bear in mind there we're no basketballs or billiard balls five thousand years ago, just mountains, rivers, goats, rain... so off you go, we're all waiting with bated breath, I can't wait to see this unfold, ball's in your court!

I'm not the omnipotent one in case you haven't noticed. But your suggestion that there was nothing spherical back in the day is truly laughable. Numerous fruits and vegetables are close enough to being spherical just for starters. The earliest documented mention of the spherical earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers. Apparently the goat herders who formulated the OT were too ignorant or not adequately inspired by God to somehow put that notion into their writing. Too funny.

Yes, yes, yes, but can you describe the earth, as being a sphere, ball, fruit, whatever, you can't can you? go on do it, describe in words to a person in a culture 5,000 years in the past, who lives in a flat village near a river with a mountain nearby, that the earth is a ball, you cannot!

Just watch, nobody can and nobody will; atheism is foolishness, I mean really, could it be any simpler? what do you think the Bible should have said?

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #27]

The earth is a giant [ball] hanging on nothing.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #27]

The earth is a giant [ball] hanging on nothing.

What is "the earth"? what is "giant"? what is "ball"? what is "nothing"? You are assuming a huge amount of knowledge.

Also by todays standards NOBODY with a science education would describe the earth as "hanging" because it isn't, according to our modern abstractions. I respect the fact that you made an honest attempt, really I don't think I could do this personally.

The Bible does refer to the earth having "foundations" quickly seized upon by the naive as scientifically ridiculous, yet here you are, a science literate person, searching for a way to describe it and comfortably using "hanging" just as scientifically ridiculous!

I'm not trying to embarrass you, what I'm trying to do is impress upon the reader the ease with which we can misjudge scripture.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #27]

The earth is a giant [ball] hanging on nothing.

What is "the earth"? what is "giant"? what is "ball"? what is "nothing"? You are assuming a huge amount of knowledge.

Also by todays standard NOBODY with a science education would describe the earth as "hanging" because it isn't, according to our modern abstractions.

The Bible does refer to the earth having "foundations" quickly seized upon by the naive as scientifically ridiculous, yet here you are, a science literate person, searching for a way to describe it and comfortably using "hanging" just as scientifically ridiculous!

I'm not trying to embarrass you, what I'm trying to do is impress upon the reader the ease with which we can misjudge scripture.

You should read your Bible a bit more. If the authors could write stuff about the earth that we regard as ridiculous today, then they could still do it in a way that reflected a spherical body rather than a flat one. It is patently obvious that they were ignorant of that reality and also that there was no God in the picture helping them out.

"Also by todays standard NOBODY with a science education would describe the earth as "hanging" because it isn't, according to our modern abstractions."

But the Bible wasn't written today. One also needs to remember that most people were illiterate back then and relied on someone to expand on and explain what was written. I'm sure the issue of explaining that the earth was a ball rather than a pancake would not have been a problem. The ancient Greeks obviously had no problem with just formulating the notion.