What does the Bible teach about the shape of the earth?

[McCulloch]

Critics of Bible believers have repeatedly made the assertion (for example Capella) that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.

Question for debate: Does the Bible really teach that the earth is flat?

Note: We are in the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma forum. The question is not, "Is the earth flat?"

[Cmass]

again, the author is simply reflecting his world view based on the knowledge he had available.

Scripture is based upon knowledge available at the time? So, the tribal societies of thousands of years ago who contributed to our Holy Bible did NOT know as much about the world as we do? How can this be?

[micatala]

Scripture is based upon knowledge available at the time? So, the tribal societies of thousands of years ago who contributed to our Holy Bible did NOT know as much about the world as we do? How can this be?

I would ask how it could not be. Why wouldn't the world-view of the authors have an effect on what is written? We, in fact, know or can surmise that it does in many respects (attitudes towards women, geographical knowledge noted, agricultural life style, etc.) so why not in respect to the structure of the known universe?

[Cmass]

OK.
But I am beginning to notice the ground getting slippery and tilting.
How do we determine which scripture is simply a reflection of their ignorance about the world at the time (due to lack of science education and good nutrition) and which scripture is the real stuff?

[micatala]

How do we determine which scripture is simply a reflection of their ignorance about the world at the time (due to lack of science education and good nutrition) and which scripture is the real stuff?

A good question.

I'm not sure I have a comprehensive answer, and I am not sure there is any easy answer.

Let's assume the scripture is at least partially a record of communications from God. It seems to me that, in general, it still would be at least 'filtered' through the world-view of those writing it down.

Consider any piece of literature. Say Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens. There are things Dickens is trying to say, themes that he explores, that are still relevant for us 160 years later. However, the story is embedded in the milieu of mid-19th century England. Some of the language we would find archaic. Some of the habits, practices, and mindsets of the characters we might have a hard time relating to and understanding. Is it really that hard to identify at least some of these as particular to the milieu and not relevant to the story? Who cares if they travel in hackney coaches instead of taxi cabs? Even though it is foreign to us today, can we not analyze how their 'class-consciousness' plays into the story (especially with a little help from the footnotes)?

[Cmass]

How do we determine which scripture is simply a reflection of their ignorance about the world at the time (due to lack of science education and good nutrition) and which scripture is the real stuff?

A good question.

I'm not sure I have a comprehensive answer, and I am not sure there is any easy answer.

Let's assume the scripture is at least partially a record of communications from God. It seems to me that, in general, it still would be at least 'filtered' through the world-view of those writing it down.

Consider any piece of literature. Say Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens. There are things Dickens is trying to say, themes that he explores, that are still relevant for us 160 years later. However, the story is embedded in the milieu of mid-19th century England. Some of the language we would find archaic. Some of the habits, practices, and mindsets of the characters we might have a hard time relating to and understanding. Is it really that hard to identify at least some of these as particular to the milieu and not relevant to the story? Who cares if they travel in hackney coaches instead of taxi cabs? Even though it is foreign to us today, can we not analyze how their 'class-consciousness' plays into the story (especially with a little help from the footnotes)?

You make my case perfectly.
You don't know which part of the bible is the word of God and which part is due to cultural and environmental conditions at the time. (Of course the difference with Dickens is that he does not claim to be writing the word of God giving you instruction on the path to eternal life. Big difference.)

So, if you can't tell which pieces of the bible are the "real" word of God and which are simply human story telling then you certainly cannot be a fundamentalist Christian - for which I applaud you. Thus, I would assume you would not call for so many of the repulsive things (including justifications for war, assassinations, hatred for gays etc..) that the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell call for in the name of God using references to scripture that they claim is the direct and unchallengable word of God.

[Noachian]

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ.........The Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth......" He the it states the earth is a circle (I know it doesnt say shereicle but) .make sure to read a KJR for this verse.

And also Job 26:7 "He strecheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing" this verse is more about gravity, where God has hung the earth on nothing (gravitational pull)

another Job 26: 10 "He hath compased (circulated) the waters with bounds until the day and the night come to an end" saying that day and night happen at the same time thus the earth must be global

And another "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" here it is implieing that you can go as far east but you will never come to the west type thing. because God's grace is endless.

[McCulloch]

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ.........The Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth......" He the it states the earth is a circle (I know it doesnt say shereicle but) .make sure to read a KJR for this verse.

By KJR do you mean KJV aka King James Version or the Authorized Version of 1611? Is there anything special about this particular English translation?

So the Bible states that the earth is a circle not a sphere. Check.

And also Job 26:7 "He strecheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing" this verse is more about gravity, where God has hung the earth on nothing (gravitational pull)

Now gravitational pull = nothing. I love Biblical physics!

another Job 26: 10 "He hath compased (circulated) the waters with bounds until the day and the night come to an end" saying that day and night happen at the same time thus the earth must be global

I'm not quite sure how "until the day and the night come to an end" means that day and night happen at the same time. Please explain.

And another "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" here it is implieing that you can go as far east but you will never come to the west type thing. because God's grace is endless.

No, it implies quite the opposite. On a globe, if you travel east, you will eventually end up west of where you started. Therefore, on a globe "as far as the east is from the west" could mean that your transgressions are not that far from you and that they might just circle around and hit you from the other side. In context, however, it appears as if the writer is implying that by continually going east you will always get further and further away from the west. In fact, if the writer knew about the spherical nature of the earth's shape, he would probably have chosen North and South rather than East and West for this metaphor.

[Easyrider]

If the earth were flat or had 4 corners the ancients would likely have commented on the shadow / sharp angles of such coming across the moon. I don't recall reading of such things in antiquity.

[Cmass]

If the earth were flat or had 4 corners the ancients would likely have commented on the shadow / sharp angles of such coming across the moon. I don't recall reading of such things in antiquity.

No, they wouldn't. They wouldn't have thought of it. I doubt they even knew the earth's shadow was responsible for the darkening of the moon each month.
It is strange that you are trying to convince everyone that the bible "ancients" thought the earth was round and yet somehow by the time of Columbus people thought the earth was flat!
These people did not know any more about the shape of the planet than they knew about the inner workings of the human body. By any modern standard they were profoundly ignorant. Why would you think these people were so incredibly knowledgeable about their physical world? I highly doubt you would think modern isolated tribes are particularly knowledgeable about these things & yet thousands of years ago they were MORE knowledgeable? This is preposterous! Why not just admit you are attempting to defend a portion of the Bible that is wrong and stick with the spiritual realm? It is much easier to defend ghosts and goblins and such by simply stating "there is no way you can prove they don't exist" than you can say "the ancients were as knowledgeable about the earth and knew it was round".

[micatala]

Cmass, Cmass, Cmass!! Tsk, Tsk. You should be more careful.

I doubt they even knew the earth's shadow was responsible for the darkening of the moon each month.

The Earth's shadow is not responsible for the darkening of the moon each month. Lunar eclipses happen rather more rarely than that. THe phases of the moon are caused by the relative angle created by the sun, moon, and earth (with the moon at the vertex of the angle).

Phases can exist in an earth-centered system, of course, whether the earth is flat or not.