The Bible's Flat Earth

Well a reasonable argument when viewed with hindsight. But people didn't travel as far across the globe as they do today nor have communication with distant peoples. A better argument for them 'figuring it out' might be the periods of the moon. That if anything should have given it away you'd think. Maybe if tidal forces didn't keep the same face always pointing towards earth. Apparently such 'obvious' facts with hindsight aren't obvious without. ref
The Moon in Ancient Egypt

In the interest of thouroughness I'll add the following. Again the argument is not whether God exists. This thread is about whether people of biblical times had a correct concept of the earth or whether the earth was flat in their view.The first verse indicates at the very least that they didn't seem to be aware of a thinning atmosphere with elevation. If they didn't have the 'firmament or dome' idea why were they building the tower?Whether or not the scattering in the second verse was indeed into all the earth isn't the argument either. What is the issue is whether the people of those times would know what the term 'all the earth' meant from a modern perspective. Here again history confirms the idea that they did not. The 'new world' would not be very new if they had would it? If they did not know of 'all the earth' then how did they know of all the 'sphere'? Why didn't their maps wrap all the way around if they knew the world was a sphere?While ancient peoples did apparently know about spheres and calculating surface areas and volumes of spheres.
School of Science and Mathematics - Truman State University
They did not seem to apply this concept to the world they lived in.

Good point. How close would this 'star' have to be?Matt 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.Maybe to preserve biblical inerrancy we might consider this star to be Elvis?

Actually when hangliding, seeing people about the size of grasshoppers is out for anything above about 500ft.
Maybe that tower of babel story included plans for a not so tall tower? And that ties in so well with the grasshopper objection you raised earlier. Oh wait.. I see the study of Newtonian mechanics has not been wasted on you. Is that in consequence of the cosmological inflation?Hi ICANT,
I see the opposition has called you in off the bench. Please don't let them down.

Hey Buz,
Anybody from your side of the debate going to field an answer to my post # 148?
If they knew stars were distant suns etc but lacked a knowledge of the speed limit in the universe, c, then the description in Matt 2:9,10 is either impossible and the bible is incorrect here and hence fallible, or the light was not from a star and the bible describing it as from a star is incorrect and hence fallible. So which is it, fallible or fallible?

I don't think this is OT as it has to do with their view of the cosmos which ties into the picture they seemed to have of a flat earth. So a metaphorical use of the word star in one location allows that use in another occasion but does not demand that interpretation? Or are we to conclude that the stars mentioned in the creation account of genesis are not really actual stars but rather angels as well?I will ask another question. Is the use of star by Paul when saying there is one glory of the sun, another of the moon, and another glory of the stars in accord with the use of this word as well? I will trust you here to give the honest answer. Thanks.

Hi black,
Welcome aboard. That different interpretations exist is a given. What GM has done is collect together various passages that taken together paint the same picture. This argument is not new but will be to some individuals.In support of the view that the heavens were a dome into which the stars were placed I will offerIsaiah 14:13,14
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high.In this verse we see that ascending above the stars is comparable to ascending above the clouds. Even allowing an order of magnitude difference between clouds and stars we are left with the conclusion that a modern concept of stars eluded ancient peoples.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a viewpoint, but this is a debate forum with rules in place for participation. We are to present the 'evidence' for our viewpoints.I came across this erudite conclusion from a paper on this topic:From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.ref
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htmI like your appeal to common sense. The problem I have discovered with it is that other people have differing views as to just what constitutes common sense. The ones that come to my mind in the forefront are those who claim the universe as well as the earth was created recently, that starlight was created in transit etc, and then go on to teach this to children all of ten years of age. What happens to the teachings that they want these children to receive such as "treating others in the manner they would like to be treated"? Or "sacrifice of self for the greater good"? When these children grow to maturity and discover with their own thinking that last Thurdayism has made them the laughing stock, what happens to the rest of their foundation for responsible behaviour within society?

Sorry black, your previous two posts conceded the point, now you change your mind?? It seems to turn on whether or not you perceive GM's argument to affect the veracity of other teachings in the bible.Looking back at your original post you presented no evidence there either.You picked a few of the scriptures that were presented by GM and quibbled about them not being directly to the topic when they were used to support a corresponding aspect of the flat earth model, immobility.Some more evidence for those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear"

quoted before you change your statement again with an edit.. Quite a few scriptures have been presented that support this view as well as the book of Enoch as well as evidence from what bible fundamentalists read into the bible as well as what scholars think it says as well as what the historical context says. The point is now conceded, the authors are limited in their scientific understanding. More agreement here. So if not a science primer then it is OK if the authors did not know the science. How is anybody being deceived by presenting the context of the biblical world view?

The earth was believed to be flat. It has been proven. Any dissenters will now be eliminated by inquisition..

He didn't give up. He failed to follow his own advice 'to use common sense' and told a moderator to go fertilize himself..

Keep sinking the ship..
Of what use are inspired writings of God if no one understands them? What is the purpose of such writings?
Oh I forgot, you are the reason they were written, as you are the only one with your interpretation on the face of the planet..

But are it's flat earth teachings the point upon which they broke away?