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?

[Diogenes]

It does and knowing the babylonian cosmos puts it all into place - a circular flat earth, ringed with mountains (the sluices of the deep inset) with waters above and below. I found that the 'circle of the earth' refers to a flat circle (chwug) as if inscribed by a compass (meshuggah, or some similar word) and if a sphere was means 'dur' (a ball) would have been used.

That said it was not since the 17th c a Church dogma that the earth was flat and Religion is not to be blamed for flat earthism. That came from a cult started by one single person. Rather likem scientology or, come to think of it, many other religions.
....

Yes. Samuel Birley Rowbotham got the disk rolling again in the 19th Century. This is well documented by Kathy Weill.
https://www.workman.com/products/off-the-edge/hardback

You can get a free sample at Amazon. She writes well and had me laughing so frequently I bought the Kindle version, a GREAT read.

Another great example of illogic and the intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking is available at https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm
There's a great quote at the end of the article, "One thing is certain; those who seek only anomalous lighthouses will never find light."

[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.

[brunumb]

It does and knowing the babylonian cosmos puts it all into place - a circular flat earth, ringed with mountains (the sluices of the deep inset) with waters above and below. I found that the 'circle of the earth' refers to a flat circle (chwug) as if inscribed by a compass (meshuggah, or some similar word) and if a sphere was means 'dur' (a ball) would have been used.

That said it was not since the 17th c a Church dogma that the earth was flat and Religion is not to be blamed for flat earthism. That came from a cult started by one single person. Rather likem scientology or, come to think of it, many other religions.
....

Yes. Samuel Birley Rowbotham got the disk rolling again in the 19th Century.

"After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount established the Universal Zetetic Society in 1893, whose objective was "the propagation of knowledge related to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based on practical scientific investigation". The society published a magazine, The Earth Not a Globe Review, which sold for twopence and remained active well into the early 20th century.[17] A flat Earth journal, Earth: a Monthly Magazine of Sense and Science, was published between 1901 and 1904, edited by Lady Blount.[18] She held that the Bible was the unquestionable authority on the natural world and argued that one could not be a Christian and believe the Earth is a globe."

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

[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?

[brunumb]

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

Well, there is always the Holy Spirit. Isn't that it's job? That aside, dumbing it down for the limited intelligence that God gave his beloved creations doesn't mean that he has to go so far as to make it utterly obscure or potentially wrong. It is far more probable that there is no God in the picture and that people were just trying to produce a scenario that they found plausible.

[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.

Such an argument is preposterous and goes directly against the ethics otherwise touted throughout scripture. A supreme and omniscient being surely could anticipate minds as great as Einstein's and the concept of the curvature of spacetime. Yet somehow this 'god' cannot conceive of the idea this same species could accept the idea of a spherical Earth? Greek philosophers understood and proved the reality of a spherical Earth at least 2500 years ago, yet 'god' had to 'dumb it down' to the point of lying to the Hebrews?

This same 'god' has no trouble expecting us to believe in men riding fiery chariots into the sky, men rising from death, virgin births, demons, angels, the Sun standing still, water turning to wine, talking snakes and donkeys, yet he can't expect us to believe the Earth is a sphere?

[Purple Knight]

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

Well, there is always the Holy Spirit. Isn't that it's job? That aside, dumbing it down for the limited intelligence that God gave his beloved creations doesn't mean that he has to go so far as to make it utterly obscure or potentially wrong. It is far more probable that there is no God in the picture and that people were just trying to produce a scenario that they found plausible.

One of the things I would look for if I was looking for divine inspiration is for someone to get things right who had no logical way of knowing those things.

Now, that doesn't mean they can't also get things wrong. Even if they are divinely inspired they're probably also engaging in the act of making their revelation more believable. I was going to make a nasty comment about what nasty lying creatures people are, but really this act is more or less part of the process of communication.

[otseng]

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.

[Diogenes]

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.

[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?

As I see it we humans have always imperfectly represented nature, every theory and model contains assumptions or inconsistencies with other theories.

No matter how the Bible expressed the nature of the earth it would always be insufficient, always fall short of a complete and perfect representation.

Such an argument is preposterous and goes directly against the ethics otherwise touted throughout scripture. A supreme and omniscient being surely could anticipate minds as great as Einstein's and the concept of the curvature of spacetime. Yet somehow this 'god' cannot conceive of the idea this same species could accept the idea of a spherical Earth? Greek philosophers understood and proved the reality of a spherical Earth at least 2500 years ago, yet 'god' had to 'dumb it down' to the point of lying to the Hebrews?

What if to really understand one has to pursue? what if the pursuit of meaning is a necessary part of being able to comprehend that meaning? Einstein struggled for ten long years pursuing a new theory of gravitation, sometimes despondent, sometimes making no progress. In doing so he began to see nature differently, to see things he'd never seen before, to grasp profound relationships hitherto unsuspected, that search and pursuit and eventual arrival was a huge source of edification for Einstein (and several collaborators) if a sense of discovery is part of truth then does that not answer your question perhaps?

This same 'god' has no trouble expecting us to believe in men riding fiery chariots into the sky, men rising from death, virgin births, demons, angels, the Sun standing still, water turning to wine, talking snakes and donkeys, yet he can't expect us to believe the Earth is a sphere?

Again nobody can understand anything without going through discovery, education, this is an essential part of understanding science.

In order to understand any theory, any explanation, one must first become acquainted with the basic principles, laws, mathematics and that is always necessary.

The Bible speaks of knowledge being revealed to us, until something is revealed it is hidden, therefore the experience of it being revealed, being discovered is itself part of the knowledge.