The Bible's Flat Earth

quote:

---

The four winds are in today; the Easterlies, the Westerlies, The Northerlies and the Southerlies.

---

Nope. When modern meteorologists discuss a "northerly" they are talking about a specific weather system. A specific wind, a temporary event, yes? The direction given is relative to where the forecaster is talking about. This is clearly not the case in the Bible, as shown here; These winds sound as though there are four basic winds, one for each of the cardinal directions. That is a long way from the modern usage.Also, I'm no expert on meteorology, but last time I checked, the weather forecast didn't mention any "storehouses" for the wind. Funnily enough, these storehouses sound just the same as the ones visited by Enoch. These are clearly literal storehouses, one at each "corner of the earth" and I see no reason to assume that the canonical texts mean anything different when they use the exact same language.What's the problem Buz? I thought you were a literalist?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi ICANT,

quote:

---

You never cease to amaze me, especially when you want to pound Buz on the head.

---

I'm glad I amaze you, but I have no desire to pound Buz on the head. We disagree is all. If I put forward my points forcefully, that's just because that's the kind of person I am. Buz is a big boy and he can take it.

quote:

---

The first thing you need to do is get you a good Bible.

---

Sorry, but I don't think that there is such a thing.

quote:

---

The second thing would be to get the Holy Spirit to lead you in what it says.

---

Again, sorry, but...

quote:

---

God has a storehouse that rises at least 1000 kilometers, above the earth as there is a trace of the Earth's 'hydrogen cloud' as its outer atmosphere.

---

Funny, but the text says "storehouses", plural. It usually refers to them as being at "the ends of the earth". You can interpret this as referring to an atmosphere that the authors had no idea existed if you like, but I beg to differ. The storehouse/treasure references are quite clear and the simplest explanation is that they are literal. They are the same storehouses that Enoch visits in his cosmic sightseeing tour.

quote:

---

The clouds do not rise from the ends of the earth as you proclaim.

---

I did not proclaim any such thing. Your favourite sci-fi book proclaimed that the winds came from the ends of the earth. I am simply taking it at its word.

quote:

---

The vapor rises from all extremities of the earth and forms the clouds.

​

Wouldn't those extremities include all the surface of the earth.

---

An extremity that includes all the surface of the Earth is no extremity at all.

quote:

---

What is the problem with the four angels standing on the four cardinal corners of the earth.

---

a) A moment ago you were interpreting the "ends of the earth" as being the whole surface of the Earth. Now you are changing your tune.b) Where is the Eastern corner of the Earth exactly? Where is the West?

quote:

---

Since the writer is addressing the four cardinal points, what is the problem?

---

The angel is standing at the Western end of the Earth. Where is he standing exactly?

quote:

---

Keep in mind that we are talking about points N, S, E, and W from where you are that could extend to the end of the universe not curve around the earth.

---

That may be your interpretation, but good luck finding anyone else who'll sign up to it. You have wandered off into the realms of science fiction. The Bible authors had no concept that even came close to the modern picture of the cosmos and trying to force such a concept into their words strikes me as fundamentally pointless.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

ICANT, you are being deliberately obtuse, yet again. please stop it.

quote:

---

You have been arguing this entire thread that the earth is flat.

​

You have argued that the writers only saw it as flat.

​

Then you make the statement the authors had no concept that you could go as far East, West, North, or South as you wanted towards the stars, and that there was an angel at each end.

---

No, you have misunderstood. I am saying that there were four locations, at the edge of the disc/earth and at each of those locations (the ends of the earth) there was a storehouse/treasure, where the winds were kept/originated from. At least, that is the picture painted by the texts. Clear?I am not talking about points way off into space, that's your silly idea.

quote:

---

Actually the text says treasures.

---

I know what it says and the various translations have either version. Each means essentially the same thing. Storehouse=treasure=treasury.

quote:

---

When you interpret the word to say what you want it to say you are proclaiming.

---

I am proclaiming nothing. I am merely making a literal reading of these texts.

quote:

---

Wouldn't that be determined from your point of perception.

​

From inside a cave or from heaven any point on the surface of the earth would be an extremity.

---

Rubbish. You have just defined the term out of any possibility of meaning. Extremity=anywhere/everywhere. I don't think so. These references are clearly referring to specific places, not generalised references to anywhere-at-all.

quote:

---

The extremities of the earth and the four cardinal corners of the earth are two different things.

---

No they're not ICANT. They are exactly the same things, hence the identical modern idiomatic use of "the four winds" and "the ends of the earth".

quote:

---

The Eastern corner is where the angel will be standing when the prophecy is fulfilled.

​

The West is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the East.

---

Don't dodge the question. Where, exactly, is the angel standing? I'm looking for a precise location. I know where the Northern extremity of the Earth is, I know where the Southern extremity is. Where is the Eastern extremity.

quote:

---

Well since the prophecy has not come to pass yet he is probably standing before the throne of God giving Him praise.

---

Don't be silly, you know that's not what I'm asking. The angel is at the extreme Eastern end of the Earth. Where, precisely, is he standing?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

They are not presently standing at the four corners of the earth.

​

They will be standing there in the future.

---

Or to put it another way, you know perfectly well what I am asking, but, lacking a convincing sensible answer, you are going to try and brush the question off with a smart Alec answer.Not even a nice try.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks for your cordial reply Black.

quote:

---

What evidence do you have suggesting that the Hebrews perceived our earth as flat?

---

Well for starters, it was the prevailing view of the time. Most of the civilisations that surrounded them believed in a flat Earth. It would have been pretty exceptional for the Bible authors to have known otherwise. This becomes even more exceptional when you consider that they did not choose to explicitly refer to this novel idea.Then there are verses like this one. Spread out? How does one spread out a sphere? This makes much more sense when viewed as describing God spreading out a flat continent upon a flat body of primal water. The heavens are stretched out? Try as I might, I can't quite picture this with a spherical Earth and its thin layer of atmosphere. On a flat Earth however, it makes sense.In some verses, it is possible to see or be seen from, all parts of the earth at once. The whole Earth? Note that this amazing visibility seems to be purely a function of the tree's prodigious size. Even within the context of a vision, this is impossible to picture on a spherical Earth. On a flat land mass however, it is perfectly intuitive. God can see the whole world at once. But he's omniscient right? So no problem? Well, perhaps. Except that I don't recall the Bible explicitly saying that God is omniscient. It seems just as likely to me that God can see everything simply as a function of his perspective from atop the firmament, as per Isaiah 40:22. Note the description "like a tent" here. That implies a dome-shaped sky. This is necessarily support for a flat earth, since a dome makes no sense at all when applied to a sphere.Also note that this verse calls the earth a circle. That is a two dimensional, or at least flat object. I have seen the claims that this can mean circle, but I am afraid that I am not convinced, mostly due to the lack of corroborating examples.

quote:

---

Can you please quote the scripture you derived this information from?

---

The dome or the winds?The firmament is mentioned in many passages, such as this one; Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27-29 also mention a solid-sounding sky.For the four winds, how about this; Revelation 7:1 is also pretty explicit.There are other verses for both of these concepts.

quote:

---

The Hebrews were obviously unaware of the Mayans and as such it does make perfect sense that in Mathew 4:8 Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world(the world known).

---

That is possible. It should be noted however, that it is not a literal translation. It does not say "known world", but "all the kingdoms of the world". At best, this passage is using flat Earth imagery. It also comes directly after mention of Satan tempting Jesus in the desert, an event that has traditionally been interpreted as being absolutely true. Sounds like pick-and-choose literalism to me! Well, yeah... I feel it is a point worth making though. Take Peg for instance. To my mind, her suggestion that a "fixed" Earth refers to its being "fixed in its orbit" is totally wrong headed (not to single out Peg or anything, it's just the example that came to mind). The Bible authors had no idea that the Earth was in orbit, quite the reverse in fact. They simply did not have access to certain pieces of knowledge, much of cosmology included.It is a mistake to force ancient peoples to speak with modern tongues.

quote:

---

The "ends of the earth" could easily be interpreted as the "ends of the earth known to the hebrews" beings that the text is relevant to them.

​

and

​

Again, the earth known to the Hebrews!

---

Very Hebrew-centric isn't it? I thought Christianity was supposed to be universal. Is God not interested in shaking the wicked out of China?Consider the known world of that era. It was pretty small by today's standard. Would that small area of the Middle of Eurasia not have seemed flat? Considered on its own, the then-known world can hardly be compared to a sphere, it simply doesn't cover the ground. This view of the world is equivalent to believing in a flat earth anyway. This is why the idea persisted; the earth they knew made sense when viewed as an essentially flat circular expanse, topped off with a solid dome. There is nothing to suggest that they thought otherwise.The authors do not differentiate between the known world and the entire world. They make no distinction because to them, the known world was the entire world.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

he's not standing in a literal position this is a symbolic expression

---

It is entirely consistent with the flat earth that I am presenting though. It is entirely consistent with Enoch's Earth. If we are not to take this as literal, why should we take any of the rabid imaginings of Revelation as literal?

quote:

---

'the four corners of the earth,' and 'the four winds of the earth' (Re 7:1) cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square.

---

I can't shake off the feeling that you're not paying attention. I'm not saying that they thought it was square. Perhaps a picture will help. Here's one from Robert J. Schadewald's flat earth page. This one is similar. Second image from James L. Christian, Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, 6th ed.,(Harcourt, 1994), p. 512. It is not to be used without giving him proper credit. Apparently.I am saying that the earth was thought of as a circle, just as Isaiah describes it.

quote:

---

The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions 'to the ends of the earth,' 'to the four corners of the earth,' in the sense of embracing all the earth.

---

Which came first, the belief or the idiom? The idiomatic use of these phrases simply dates back to the ancient belief in a flat Earth. Their use in modern Western cultures is there because of the Bible, not the other way around.

quote:

---

All the things spoken of in REvelation such as the 4 riders of the Apocalypse (War, Pestilence, Death, Famine) for example, will happen earth wide.

---

Well that's something to look forward to. Are they literal? How do you tell these things?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

My entire argument is simple. The Hebrews wrote in a context of what they understood(obviously). If the Hebrews were unaware of the Mayans, how can the Mayans be included in a context in any scripture written by the Hebrews?

---

This is a fair point, but if it is your entire argument, then it fails to address the other passages I have cited.The text simply does not say "the known world". The authors would have been perfectly able to say this if it were their intent. When Genesis 1 says that God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn't mean the known earth. It means all the earth. When the flood is described, it doesn't describe the known world, it describes a flood that kills all living things. Likewise, when the Devil shows Jesus the world, it is intended literally. When the Bible says "all the world", it generally means it.Besides, at sea level, the horizon is only about three miles away. The curvature of the Earth would prevent the elevation gained from even the highest mountain from giving you a view of the known world of the time. Only on a flat Earth would this be even remotely feasible.Please understand, I would not be putting forward this argument if there were not a large number of other passages that support a Babylonian-style cosmology. Matthew 4:8 alone would not be very convincing. It's not alone though. Between them, the passages I have cited, and a few more besides, add up to a big picture of a universe very much like the one in the pictures I posted above.If I'm wrong, show me the scriptures that contradict this model.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks for replying to the least relevant part of my post. Am I to take it that you have nothing further to say regarding the topic?

quote:

---

He probably did not know what they represented, but if we look at the earth today, we can see that there is a literal fullfilment to the symbolisms of the 4 horsemen.

​

literally we do see war, famine, disease and death

---

Proving absolutely nothing. There has always been war, famine, pestilence and death. This is a pretty banal fulfilment. You also seem to be confused as to the meaning of the word "literally". You can't have a "literal event" related to the Four Horsemen, without having four bloody great ghouls on horses. What you describe is a symbolic representation of events that may later occur, but it is not literal in any way. There is no such thing as a "literal event", only a literal description of an event or a figurative/symbolic description.You can't have your literalist cake and eat it. Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Sigh.

quote:

---

6 Assumptions! 6 Assertions! Any Evidence?

---

1) Are you suggesting that there was no Hebrew word for "known"? Don't be ridiculous. A quick search of Bible Gateway produces 143 references for "known". If they wanted to say "known world" they could have.2) Are you suggesting that the intent of Genesis was to tell us that God only created the Known World? Don't be absurd. Who made the rest?3) Which bit of "all flesh died that moved upon the earth" sounds localised to you?4) That the Matthew 4 is intended literally is evidenced by the use of elevated perspective to provide an enhanced view of the surroundings. If there was nothing to be gained by taking Jesus to an elevated position, why bother taking him up to a mountain? Also I think we are both aware that the preceding verse about Jesus' temptation in the wilderness is traditionally taken as entirely literal.5) You provide some examples of "all the world" meaning part of the world then. I'll provide examples of it meaning "all the world". We'll see who runs out first.6) Wikimedia Error You understand what that means right? Look at that graph. Supposing that the mountain were 10,000 metres tall (taller than Mt. Everest), the horizon would only be just over 250km away. That's not far enough to include the whole of the known world of that time. Parts of the known world would be beyond the horizon, so a literal-but-known-world-only-interpretation doesn't work.On a flat earth, there is no horizon of course.

quote:

---

WHAT ABOUT THE FISH? THE BUGS? THE BIRDS?

---

Please don't insert your own text into quote boxes with my name on them. It's not good etiquette.I am not going to be dragged into an off-topic conversation about the flood. Suffice to say that they would all have been screwed too.

quote:

---

Where?

---

In Message 182.

quote:

---

I already have.

---

Er... Where?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Typo and dB code fixes.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Everything that you have quoted is in the context I've stated.

---

Do you have any evidence of that? Mutate and Survive?

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Well I have scripture too and we can't both be right...Perhaps you could provide a specific chapter and verse quotation that contradicts the model I have presented?Even if Matthew 4:8 is meant figuratively, which I am still not convinced it is, and even if it does refer only to the known world, which is your own assertion, I have quoted many passages in this thread. Together they add up to a big picture, a picture that bares a strong resemblance to both pagan cosmologies and to the Book of Enoch.Can you cite any verse that directly contradicts this model? Or not? You claim to have the scripture, so this should be easy.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

The issue is not the evidence the issue is that we are interpreting the same evidence differently which is typical.

---

By which you meant to say "No Granny, I can't think of any scripture that contradicts the model you presented.".If you do think of any, or if you decide to engage in a meaningful and considered dialogue at any point, do feel free to chip in. You might even stretch to a couple of paragraphs if you really push yourself. This is a debate board after all, not a chat room.Nighty-night.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Peg,

quote:

---

the cited scriptures do not 'prove' that the writers believed the earth was flat

​

We are being told that these scriptures prove beyond any doubt that the writers believed in a flat earth.

---

It is a little annoying when you bear false witness about what I have said. I am not saying that the case for a flat-Earth Bible is proved beyond doubt. In fact, I have made it clear that this is not my opinion.

quote:

---

GM says that part of the evidence is that "it was the prevailing view of the time" (msg 180)
This is not evidence for what Hebrews believed.

---

Of course it is. The claim that the Hebrews had knowledge that was totally contrary to the cultures around them is the only extraordinary claim being made here. The beliefs of surrounding cultures are not proof that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth, but it is strong evidence.

quote:

---

the Hebrews were not influenced by the beliefs of the nations around them.

---

This is a fantasy. All cultures are influenced by their neighbours. As Modulous has said, are you really going to force us to prove this to you? It ought to be obvious. (Hint; both have flood myths)

quote:

---

look closely at the last scripture... if we are to take this literally then we must also agree that the Hebrews also believed that all humans were in fact grasshoppers and the sky was a curtain.

---

Again, I am in agreement with Mod. The text, in English at any rate, has these comparisons as similes. A simile can be literally true. The sky can be literally like a curtain, without literally being a curtain.

quote:

---

Seriously! ...its merely the way the writers chose to describe the natural world, in a way that could be visualized by their readers. The writers never claimed to be scientists, they were'nt teaching people about the sun and the earth...they had a completely different purpose for writing and so did not need to be scientifically specific.

---

How do you know? The Bible makes a great many concrete claims about the world and the cosmos. Why make such claims if they were not to be believed? And why take any such claim seriously when you are saying that they might be mere metaphor?Another important point is that just because a passage is metaphorical or symbolic, does not mean it is useless to my argument. You say that the language was chosen to appeal to its audience in a way they could understand. The intended audience was the Jewish people. If you are saying that the Jewish people best understood an argument made in terms of a flat Earth, you are making my point for me. If the Jews best understood the earth when it was described as flat, that would mean that the Jewish authors would have thought the same way. If they knew better, they certainly kept quiet about it.No-one would communicate using flat earth imagery if they did not believe in a flat earth, at least not in a holy book that was intended to be believed. Use of flat earth allegories is evidence that the culture of both audience and author(s) was a flat earth culture.

quote:

---

GM also states that when the bible says 'All the World' it means it literally. Which world? The bible talks about the 'world of mankind' and this is surely figurative...

---

Why is it surely figurative? The Bible has God leaving mankind as stewards of this world. It seems like a pretty clear reference to this world to me.

quote:

---

If someone cannot discern the context, then its best not to speculate on what is being spoken of dont you think?

---

But we do have the context. You have a Bible. Look it up. If you want context, how about dropping your refusal to acknowledge the importance of the beliefs of other ancient Near East cultures? How about accepting the importance of works such as 1 Enoch? That should provide plenty of context.

quote:

---

The book of Enoch has been mentioned repeatedly as evidence but this book is not even part of the bible... yet its contents are somehow being used to prove what bible writers believed...ok now im confused!

---

Perhaps you would be less confused if you addressed my rebuttal of this point from the last time you made it.The Book of Enoch is an incredibly close match for the canonical Bible in its cosmology. It uses the exact same language to describe the same things, including the firmament, the four winds, the windows of heaven, the cornerstone of the earth and more. In the Ethiopian church, it actually is canon. It was well respected enough to be quoted in Jude. It was written by Jews for a Jewish audience, just as the Bible was. It dates to around the inter-testamental period, so it gives a good idea of what Jews of the time thought. It clearly describes a flat earth, making it very clear that the Jews who came before it very likely believed the same.Ask yourself this; if the author of Jude knew the Earth to be a sphere, would he have had any respect for the prophecies of Enoch? Wouldn't Enoch's cosmic grand tour have made someone who knew the truth of the earth's shape a little suspicious? Anyone with knowledge of a spherical Earth would have known that 1 Enoch could not possibly be true. So why quote a lying prophet?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

ICANT, you have again wandered off into sci-fi fantasy land. The super-continent that you describe pre-dated humanity by hundreds of millions of years. For your preposterous nonsense to be true would require a lying god of appalling proportions.The ancient Hebrews were not talking about space or other galaxies when they talked of heavens. They had no idea that such things even existed.I find it sad that you are so willing to mutilate the texts that you claim to admire. I think that it is disrespectful to the authors.Fortunately, you are alone in this particular fantasy.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi there deadendhero and welcome to EvC Forum.

quote:

---

I'm also young so forgive any misspelling, I'm recovering from texting.

---

No problem. My spelling is not great either and my typing is diabolical. Spell-checkers can help a lot and make sure that your point gets across.

quote:

---

I would like to say that it is belived by many Christians that Heaven is infinite. So therefore, it can cover all of the known galaxy quite easily.

---

Perhaps. But are you really going to go along with ICANT's suggestion that the ancient Hebrews were writing about things that they did not know existed? That seems silly to me.The description of God sitting above the Earth is far more intuitive when it is applied to a flat, disc-like Earth.

quote:

---

But, who said the bible must be taken literally? Even if the bible was "divinely" inspired by a supreme deity, he/she/it didn't write the bible. It was written by humans whoA) Tend to exaggerate, and (B) were not as educated as the modern day grade schooler.

---

They were not, I agree. And one of the things that they did not know was that the Earth was a sphere moving through space. How could they possibly have known? Divine revelation? If so, why did they not mention this new revelation in clear terms? Why did they continue to speak quite clearly about a Babylonian/Egyptian style cosmos?As for literalness, I think that we can both agree that there are Bible passages that were intended to be taken literally and some that were never intended this way. The problem is working out, at a remove of thousands of years, which is which.I am taking the passages that I have been quoting here as literal because they add up to a big picture of an internally consistent cosmos, they agree closely with the cosmology of neighbouring cultures and because they agree exactly with the explicitly literal Book of Enoch.In the light of this, I see no reason to interpret them as metaphor.

quote:

---

Does anybody in this place take Herodotus literally too?

---

Well, yeah... in parts at least. I am no expert on Herodotus, but although some of his claims were pretty wacky, they were mostly intended to be believed. I am not suggesting that we interpret the Bible or Herodotus literally from start to finish; that would be absurd. What I am suggesting is that some Bible verses have to be interpreted as literal, even though they are now known to be mistaken.It seems to me that Christians are too keen to explain away Biblical mistakes by hand-waving and saying "Well that's just metaphor!", when in fact the passage in question may have been interpreted as literal for centuries before the mistake was noticed. Take the immobility of the Earth. This is quite clear in the Bible and was interpreted as entirely literal right up until the revolution in thought brought about by Copernicus and Galileo. Of course this is an embarrassment to modern Christians keen to cling onto an inerrant Bible, so the verse must now be interpreted as metaphor.It was never metaphor. It was intended as literal truth. It was mistaken, that's all. The thing to do is to simply admit the mistake and move on, not twist the Bible in ways it was never meant to be twisted.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade