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]

[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.

Yet you couldn't explain a spherical earth without using "hanging" - the earth is not hanging though so why did you say it was?

I asked what you think the Bible should have written within it and you cannot answer me.

You are powerless, you claim to understand yet obviously you don't, you reject what you don't understand.

[Purple Knight]

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.

I'm actually generally on your side in this exchange. However...

I do have to point out that there's a fundamental uselessness point we reach, that we do reach, regardless of whether the source is lying, not lying but deceiving, or whether we just have an inability to understand it. And that the result is exactly the same: We can't trust the source.

I know someone who does something very nasty to his girlfriend that's an example of this. He always speaks in such a way that no matter what, he always has an out. It's always, she misinterpreted, here is what he really meant, she's the one who's stupid, she's the one who is misunderstanding. And he's hounding her with me standing there, saying how dare she not trust him, he has always been truthful, she cannot give one example where he has lied, or even one example where he has deceived - she has always just misunderstood.

So I pointed out that it makes no difference whatsoever. The fact in the end is, he speaks, she comes away with an understanding that is not correct. So why should she trust that her understanding is correct this time? Well, she shouldn't. Fine he's perfect, fine it's all her making the mistakes, fine he makes none. That's totally irrelevant because the uselessness point has been come to and it doesn't matter whose mistake it is. It's irrelevant whose mistake it is.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I'm actually generally on your side in this exchange. However...

I do have to point out that there's a fundamental uselessness point we reach, that we do reach, regardless of whether the source is lying, not lying but deceiving, or whether we just have an inability to understand it. And that the result is exactly the same: We can't trust the source.

I know someone who does something very nasty to his girlfriend that's an example of this. He always speaks in such a way that no matter what, he always has an out. It's always, she misinterpreted, here is what he really meant, she's the one who's stupid, she's the one who is misunderstanding. And he's hounding her with me standing there, saying how dare she not trust him, he has always been truthful, she cannot give one example where he has lied, or even one example where he has deceived - she has always just misunderstood.

So I pointed out that it makes no difference whatsoever. The fact in the end is, he speaks, she comes away with an understanding that is not correct. So why should she trust that her understanding is correct this time? Well, she shouldn't. Fine he's perfect, fine it's all her making the mistakes, fine he makes none. That's totally irrelevant because the uselessness point has been come to and it doesn't matter whose mistake it is. It's irrelevant whose mistake it is.

I understand. Unlike a human relationship the Bible is passive, you pick it up and read or you don't, you put it back on the shelf or you leave it on the table in full view perhaps to be read again tomorrow, it is there for you to consider or not, tomorrow next year, it matters not, you are free to do as you please.

[brunumb]

Yet you couldn't explain a spherical earth without using "hanging" - the earth is not hanging though so why did you say it was?

I asked what you think the Bible should have written within it and you cannot answer me.

You are powerless, you claim to understand yet obviously you don't, you reject what you don't understand.

As usual you switch horses midstream. The issue here is describing the earth as a ball rather than being flat. Now you are harping on about the word 'hanging'. It's the same pathetic tactic you have employed in all the science threads where you have been unable to make your case. I really don't know why we bother following you down the rabbit hole. God could have described the earth as a ball if he had any degree of intelligence above ancient goat herders and had anything to do with the Bible. There is an obvious conclusion to be reached.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yet you couldn't explain a spherical earth without using "hanging" - the earth is not hanging though so why did you say it was?

I asked what you think the Bible should have written within it and you cannot answer me.

You are powerless, you claim to understand yet obviously you don't, you reject what you don't understand.

As usual you switch horses midstream. The issue here is describing the earth as a ball rather than being flat. Now you are harping on about the word 'hanging'. It's the same pathetic tactic you have employed in all the science threads where you have been unable to make your case. I really don't know why we bother following you down the rabbit hole. God could have described the earth as a ball if he had any degree of intelligence above ancient goat herders and had anything to do with the Bible. There is an obvious conclusion to be reached.

Stop procrastinating, your only suggestion for addressing what you see as a gross inaccuracy ("flat earth") is to replace it with another even worse gross falsity ("hanging") vacuous, total nonsense.

Moreover if you knew anything about non-Euclidean geometry you'd know the surface of the earth is flat if one takes a small enough region.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #35]

Moreover if you knew anything about non-Euclidean geometry you'd know the surface of the earth is flat if one takes a small enough region.

The actual surface of the Earth can take on all kinds of shapes at different spatial scales due to local geography (flat, concave, convex, etc.). But a true mathematical sphere is never flat no matter how small the region (something you should know if you understood non-Euclidean geometry). Just like no two adjacent points along a circle can have tangents that are parallel to each other no matter how small the scale.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #35]

Moreover if you knew anything about non-Euclidean geometry you'd know the surface of the earth is flat if one takes a small enough region.

The actual surface of the Earth can take on all kinds of shapes at different spatial scales due to local geography (flat, concave, convex, etc.). But a true mathematical sphere is never flat no matter how small the region (something you should know if you understood non-Euclidean geometry). Just like no two adjacent points along a circle can have tangents that are parallel to each other no matter how small the scale.

I'm referring to a region so small relative to the sphere's radius that the curvature is undetectable, like in a football field, no amount of measuring a triangle drawn on the surface will reveal curvature, the interior angles will add to 180, try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So lots of chit chat but no sensible written description that the earth is a sphere!

[brunumb]

Stop procrastinating, your only suggestion for addressing what you see as a gross inaccuracy ("flat earth") is to replace it with another even worse gross falsity ("hanging") vacuous, total nonsense.

Worse, but I daresay only according to you. A flat earth sitting on pillars is a far cry from a ball hanging on nothing. You may wish to align yourself with the ignorant goat herders who wrote down their fantasy view of the world, but you should at least acknowledge that there was no God involved in that absurdity.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Stop procrastinating, your only suggestion for addressing what you see as a gross inaccuracy ("flat earth") is to replace it with another even worse gross falsity ("hanging") vacuous, total nonsense.

Worse, but I daresay only according to you. A flat earth sitting on pillars is a far cry from a ball hanging on nothing. You may wish to align yourself with the ignorant goat herders who wrote down their fantasy view of the world, but you should at least acknowledge that there was no God involved in that absurdity.

How does "the earth is flat" (which I hasten to add, does not appear in my Bible) become more scientifically accurate when replaced with "the earth is a giant ball hanging on nothing"?

I mean, seriously? based on this clearly derailed logic, I think the Bible is better as it is. The earth is not remotely "giant", take a look at Jupiter or Saturn (the gas giants) nor does it "hang" (you'd have had Galileo in stitches with that one) nor does any legitimate scientific theory invoke "nothing" as an explanatory mechanism of mechanical support.

Furthermore, other than your good self, the silence from the supposedly erudite atheists is deafening.

Face it, I - a creationist - am running rings around you, and why? because despite the incessant bleating about science, logic and so on, it is clear you are out of your league, I a creationist know more than you about this discipline.