The Bible's Flat Earth

I don't usually use a physical hard-copy Bible. I generally prefer BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. which is very easy to use or Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages. The latter is extremely useful in discussions like this, as it can display each verse in multiple translations, from KJV to NAS. It also has a lexicon and other features. The only down-side is that it is a little clunky to use.Honourable mention should also go to the excellent Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon , although I have a feeling that you'll prefer Biblos... 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

Hmm. But are you the only one who gets to decide when they're being used, Peg? Genesis 1-3 can't be an extended metaphor, mut the word "immovable" can be? That's a bit unfair to us heathens....

I came across this Forum and found it interesting because of a book I recently read, called The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology: Why the Bible is not the Word of God, by David Presutta.The book has a very detailed and extensive examination of the passages in the Bible that relate to the biblical cosmos. The author used several Hebrew lexicons to get to the original meanings of important words. His construction of the biblical cosmos is not really different from the standard previous views--that is that the earth is a flat, immovable disk supported by pillars and covered by a solid vault.Essentially, Presutta shows that the Bible is consistent throughout from Genesis to Revelation in its cosmological viewpoint, and he shows that virtually every passage in the Bible that relates to the cosmos fits that viewpoint. His argument is that if the Bible writers did not have that viewpoint in mind one would not be able to construct such a consistent description from what they said.For example, Presutta shows in detail that Job 26:7, in saying that the earth hangs upon (or over) nothing, is actually referring to the abyss under the disk of the earth rather than to the outer space of the modern view of the cosmos as Bible believers frequently say.What he shows is that Job 26:7 is actually a restatement of the creation of heaven and the earth. He shows that the *nothing* in the passage reiterates the *empty place* of the first part of the passage. The *north* of the first part of the passage actually was a figure of speech meaning *heaven* (the NAB concurs in that, and Presutta presents considerable evidence in support of that interpretation), so the first part of the passage refers to the creation of vault of heaven over the abyss (actually the watery chaos of the deep), and the second part of the passage refers to the creation of the earth also over the abyss. So the passage means that God first created the heaven and then the earth under the heaven.Presutta also presents a considerable amount of evidence showing that the biblical earth is a flat disk and that the firmament of heaven is a solid vault. He shows that there are numerous passages that make sense only in this view of the biblical cosmos.He also has an appendix that takes a look at the Book of Enoch and shows that the Bible and Enoch support each other in their respective cosmological views.

Giving everybody a headsup that the thread is heading towards closure. If you have anything you want to say, say it now.

i dont decide when they are being used. the context of the verses is the decider.

quote:

---

I came across this Forum and found it interesting because of a book I recently read, called The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology: Why the Bible is not the Word of God, by David Presutta.

​

...

​

What he shows is that Job 26:7 is actually a restatement of the creation of heaven and the earth. He shows that the *nothing* in the passage reiterates the *empty place* of the first part of the passage. The *north* of the first part of the passage actually was a figure of speech meaning *heaven* (the NAB concurs in that, and Presutta presents considerable evidence in support of that interpretation), so the first part of the passage refers to the creation of vault of heaven over the abyss (actually the watery chaos of the deep), and the second part of the passage refers to the creation of the earth also over the abyss. So the passage means that God first created the heaven and then the earth under the heaven.

​

Presutta also presents a considerable amount of evidence showing that the biblical earth is a flat disk and that the firmament of heaven is a solid vault. He shows that there are numerous passages that make sense only in this view of the biblical cosmos.

---

In message #245 I provided references to evangelical Christian scholars who have been saying essentially the same thing. But of course they do not see this as evidence of "Why the Bible is not the Word of God." They see this as consistent with a divinely-inspired text written to communicate theological truth in a specific cultural context.

kbertsche. In your message 245 you stated the following:However, this doesn't mean that the Bible is "wrong" or that it is teaching error. It means that the biblical authors were normal people, fallible and imperfect. God accommodated His message to the language and culture of the day. If He had first taught the biblical authors about the Big Bang and had them express theology in this language, their audience would not have understood what they were talking about. It was necessary to use the cultural imagery of the day to be understood. Neither God nor the human authors were trying to TEACH cosmology with this language; they were trying to TEACH theology in a way that the people would understand.The problem with your explanation is that if God cannot be trusted concerning what he says about the cosmos, why should he be trusted in anything else he says? If he used the cultural imagery of the day concerning the cosmos, who can say he didn't use the cultural imagery in other matters. Was the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall--or anything else in the Bible for that matter--simply an example of cultural imagery? And then, if the Bible was written for all time, why would God use only the imagery of the time in which it was written and not imagery that would apply to all time. It is because of that imagery that science and the Bible have been in conflict over the centuries and remain in conflict. Did God not know that this imagery would cause such conflict?As Presutta pointed out in his book, the ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth is a sphere and that it rotated on its axis, and one of them even proposed that it orbited the sun. Did God then consider the ancient Israelites too stupid to understand those things?

I think that a pretty strong case can be made for a flat earth Bible. There are lots of passages that support a Babylonian/Egyptian-esque cosmos, from the actual flatness of the earth, to the solidity of the firmament. The Book of Enoch is merely the icing on the cake, making it clear that references to things like "the cornerstone of the earth" are not metaphors or poetry; they're intended as absolutely literal.I knew when I started that people would disagree with my assessment, but I had no idea that the opposition would be so vociferous. Why are people so offended by this idea? Surely we are all aware that there are errors in the Bible? This is just one of them. By the standards of the time, it is not an especially unreasonable one.Personally, I do think that a mistake of this magnitude severely damages the case for the Bible as the word of God, whether direct or inspired, but no more so than scores of other Biblical errors, be they scientific, historical or moral.The suggestion that God was communicating in the cultural mindset of the time just doesn't convince me. People in the past were no stupider than us, arguably less so. They simply had less knowledge. If God had chosen to share the knowledge of a spherical earth, they would have understood it perfectly well. I cannot conceive why God would choose to hide that knowledge away and offer falsehoods in its place.To my mind, there is a very simple explanation; the Bible was written by men, fallible, often ignorant men, who did not understand much about their cosmos. Because of this, it should not be used as any kind of guide to reality. Attempts to use it that way are doomed to fall flat.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

I mostly agree with you but consider this: today we can not convey the concepts of modern physics and cosmology to the average person (even the above average). We struggle with rubber sheet analogies for GR and don't even manage that much for string theory and QM.Today, if we tried to write for God we might think we can choose a different way to present it but we shouldn't be so sure.Here is one view: It isn't important to get it right when communicating to the people of the time. For example, they would have had big trouble accepting that all those stars were actually suns. Much less the idea of island universes beyond that.The issue arises because some people think that the Bible should be communicating scientifically to people today. Obviously we would write something different today then we would have then.To that degree I think you can make a (arguably weak) case that God was communicating to the people of the time. However, science writers for popular consumption have the struggle of simplifying something without getting it actually wrong. In this God gets a fail.

quote:

---

The problem with your explanation is that if God cannot be trusted concerning what he says about the cosmos, why should he be trusted in anything else he says?

---

Good question. If this imagery is seen as telling how things actually ARE, it would indeed be a cause for mistrust. But if it is simply a cultural vehicle, like a metaphor or a parable, why should it engender any mistrust?

quote:

---

If he used the cultural imagery of the day concerning the cosmos, who can say he didn't use the cultural imagery in other matters. Was the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall--or anything else in the Bible for that matter--simply an example of cultural imagery?

---

More good questions. As you probably are aware, evangelical scholars are divided on the answers to these. But all are agreed that whether it is literal or metaphorical is not the main point; these stories are meant to teach spiritual truth. It seems to me that the spiritual truth comes through fairly well no matter which position scholars take on this.

quote:

---

And then, if the Bible was written for all time, why would God use only the imagery of the time in which it was written and not imagery that would apply to all time.

---

I can see three main approaches that would have been possible:
1) use cultural imagery of the day to convey spiritual truth (the position I've been presenting)
2) teach them the truth about cosmology (big bang, etc), before conveying spiritual truth. This would have been a huge distraction from the spiritual message.
3) use some sort of "culturally neutral" imagery, as you suggest.I see no fundamental problem with your suggestion. But it would probably have been harder for them to remember. This is a culture based on memory and storytelling. Using imagery with which the ancient near east was aware would have made it easier to memorize the story. And if it were given a unique theological message, distinct from all the other accounts, this would serve to focus attention on the theological message rather than on the common cultural elements.

quote:

---

It is because of that imagery that science and the Bible have been in conflict over the centuries and remain in conflict. Did God not know that this imagery would cause such conflict?

---

I don't believe it is the imagery per se which causes these conflicts. I believe it is overly-literal interpretations of the imagery which cause the problems, as with geocentric imagery in Galileo's day. (And in Galileo's day this was just an excuse, of course. The fundamental problem was with the scientific/philosophical establishment of the day, not with the church. The establishment had invested their careers in Aristotelian idealism, and Galileo threatened perspective by removing the earth from the center of the universe.)

How about:4) Continuously update every Bible and human memory to reflect the zeitgeist. He's God, why is He so limited?Edited by lyx2no, : To add a redundancy, recognize it as a redundancy, and remove the redundancy.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

bibles do get updated all the time.

By God?The discussion was on cultural imagery being problematic. My point was "Why would it be problematic for God?" God could easily update the Bible and human recollection to fit every new discovery. Galileo looks through his telescope and sees for the first time that Venus goes through the same phases as the moon and remembers having read about that in the Bible. Never would we have to kill each other over interpretations.AbE: This is the problem with trying to rationally discuss religion at all. God is magic and to rationalize why God did this or didn't do that is wishful thinking at best. People thought the world was flat. They wrote about it as if the world was flat. To wish this away is silly. To limit the size of the wish is sillier. Wishing for one hundred dollars is kind of stupid when you could just as easily wish for a jazillion.Edited by lyx2no, : To expound.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

How the heck are you even capable of such inconsistency? I mean seriously! This talking out of both sides of your mouth is more a detriment to your position than anything.You go on about how the authors are independent of their own perspective from revelations given by YHWH, but then don't hesitate for a second to pull the perspective limitation card when it suits you. The only person you are fooling here is yourself.Edited by Michamus, : No reason given.

If 'bibles' change over time, how can one or any be considered literal and inerrant?Are you saying 'bibles' evolve?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza