The Bible's Flat Earth

Peg and I recently came to a disagreement in Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God? over whether or not the Bible portrays a flat Earth. It is my contention that there are many Biblical verses that imply a flat Earth and that the writers of much of the Old and New Testaments considered the Earth to be flat.Flat Earth cosmology was common in the ancient world. The Babylonians, Egyptians and pre-Classical Greeks all believed the earth to be flat. The Babylonians in particular viewed the Earth as a flat disc floating on a great ocean. I believe that this kind of cosmology was, at the very least, a profound influence on the Bible.It seems that the Bible authors viewed the world as being flat, probably disc-like, with a dome above it and resting upon it, which was the sky. They viewed the earth as fixed and immobile, resting upon pillars or foundations. Here are some of the most revealing quotes;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.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”Peg has claimed that these passages refer to the Earth as being fixed in its orbit. There are several problems with this. Firstly, the idea of a geocentric Earth was part of Christian thought until the time of Galileo. Also, “immovable and firm” seems an odd way to describe something that is hurtling through space at thousands of km per hour. Further, the Earth’s orbit is not fixed. It varies over time, most notably in the process known as precession. As for never being shaken, it is quite conceivable that the Earth might be knocked out of its orbit by a massive enough collision with some comet or other huge celestial body.These passages mean exactly what they say; the Earth is fixed and immobile.In Daniel 4:10-11., the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”. Clearly this makes little sense if the Earth were spherical, but it makes perfect sense on a flat Earth, where a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to all.In "Job 38:14, “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." This is reference to the ancient practice of stamping out clay tablets. This passage makes no sense at all if it is about a sphere, but it does make sense for a flat Earth.Matthew 4:1-12 has the Devil taking Jesus atop a high mountain, to show him the world. "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them". This would only be possible on a flat Earth. I have heard it suggested that the Devil showed Jesus a vision, rather than a physical view, but if so, why bother going to the mountain?Robert J. Shcadewald writes, in his excellent essay “The Flat Earth Bible”; This concept of the “firmament” as a solid dome makes sense of a great many Bible passages, such as these; This clearly implies a solid, domed sky. The dome of the firmament is apparently solid. With this, some waters are beneath the firmament (oceans and rivers) whilst others are above (rain, hail and so on).There are a number of other passages, but I shan’t attempt a comprehensive list here.One final item of note is that whilst the canonical books of the bible never explicitly state that the Earth is flat (why would they?), the apocryphal book 1 Enoch is much clearer. In this work, Enoch is described as journeying with the angel Uriel. He is witness to the ends of the Earth, where the dome of heaven meets the ground. He travels beyond this dome and sees the storerooms of the Sun and Moon. He sees the gates of heaven, through which rain and hail come. He travels to the extreme East and West of the earth, a concept that makes absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth.The cosmos of 1 Enoch is explicitly flat. This is important, because the book dates back to 300-100 BCE and was highly regarded enough to be quoted in the New Testament (Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9). 1 Enoch’s depiction of a flat earth is in close agreement with the Bible’s Earth. If the Earth had been understood as being spherical, how could 1 Enoch have enjoyed any kind of popularity when it explicitly describes a flat Earth?Doubtless there will be many objections to this. Every point I have raised will have an apologetic lined up in answer. My view is that these apologetics miss the point. One simple, parsimonious answer explains all of the problematic Bible passages at a stroke; the Bible authors thought the Earth was flat. Does this matter for the modern Christian? Not really. There are many errors in the Bible and this is just one of them. This is only an problem for extreme literalists, including the many kooks out there who still believe in a flat Earth.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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Christian responses to the idea of a flat earth evidence in the Bible always baffle me, especially when I present them with this little tidbit from Matthew: This would make sense, if the Earth were indeed flat, and the mountain was sufficiently high enough. But again, anyone with an elementary school education knows that the Earth is in fact not flat.Perhaps this is one of those metaphor-thingies that Christians like to call upon whenever they don't know the answer to things. But then we can safely say that this interpretation isn't literal.If this specific story isn't literal, then how can you differentiate between this and any other given story in the Bible?Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

I find it interesting that, at least by Galileo's time, the educated churchmen had accepted a spherical Earth and already done their apologetics-shifting to show how the Bible agreed with them. Some of the Greeks had gone beyond flat-earth concepts in Classical times - Earth's shadow on the Moon during an eclipse, Ol' Whazisname measuring the diameter of the Earth with noontime shadows - but the word must not have made it to the authors of Enoch or Matthew.I have never read enough Augustine or the like to know what their take on the issue was - and I don't know, either, whether the early Church Fathers read the Pythagorean round-earthers or not.But I plan to learn some of that in this thread.

I am engaged in this same discusion with a YUC on a different forum.
It began with his idea that starlight was created in situ in transit.
I suggested that since the stars are so far away we are unaware if they really exist as yet. And certainly super-novas cannot represent actual explosions but can be nothing more than mere light created in transit. So the stars apparently were not 'literally' created.
But the only reason to adopt this strained cosmological viewpoint in the first place is to support literalness.Besides the book of Enoch which is fairly conclusive, the account in genesis supports this as well.
The earth and the canopy above it are created in Gen 1:1. Only later are the sun, moon, and stars placed within that canopy. This is an earth centric view, not a heliocentric view. To interpret genesis according to modern cosmology is to take it out of an ancient context. The modern definition of the word earth, a spherical planet, did not exist anciently. The word merely meant land.

Daniel was interpreting a dream of the king. Obviously this was metaphoric. This is a looong stretch on your part. We all know how ridiculous dreams can get. LOL. All this is depicting is the fact that the earth is designed and shaped according to the design intended for it. The topography of it is irrelevant for the purpose of the analogy. The devil never physically took Jesus anywhere. Obviously a man standing anywhere on the earth could not see physically with his eyes all of the kingdoms of the earth whether it was flat or spherical. That the temptations were visions is further evidenced by the fact that a man and the devil are not going to be standing physically on the pinnacle of the temple. This was a visionary event. This is nothing but a bare assertion, having no evidence. This is not clearly a solid domed sky. Obviously you're not savvy to Biblical speak. You, like other skeptics metaphorize texts which are clearly not meant to be and cite intentionally abstract texts to falsify the scriptures.As in abstract poetry and other literature, sometimes abstract phraseology is used by notable authors.Job also says: (ASV) This is just a sampling. Numerous other examples of obvious abstract phraseology could be cited.There is obvious abstract wording in the Bible when the occasion calls for it. This is one of the aspects of the Bible for which it has been highly regarded in academia as a good example of literature, that is, until the Biblifobic bug infected academia. I fail to see correlation to a flat earth here. As for the waters, we know that there is water in the atmosphere. What's the deal? Likely, because it isn't flat. There is a word for flat in Hebrew, but no word for sphere. Circle (as per Isaiah) works relative to context.In Job 26:7, "....he hangeth the earth upon nothing." (ASV) So the foundation thing which you cited simply means it's location is established.Consider this: The Bible says there was a world wide flood covering the whole earth. On a sphere, this could apply, but not feasable on a flat earth. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix wordEdited by Buzsaw, : So designated. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fixed a typo messup caused by a previous edit.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The Bible says the earth is round but the Hebrew word for "round" also means "sphere":Isaih 40: 21-23:

quote:

---

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

​

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

---

The Hebrew word for circle is "chuwg" which refers to both circle and sphere:H2329 - - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

Or it started meaning "sphere" after educated folks became aware that the Earth was one, and stuck that definition in. Mr Strong was comfortably in that time period.And there is a Hebrew word for "ball," which you'll agree is often a sphere other than in football/rugby. Isaiah 22:18, if you're interested.Edited by Coragyps, : add citation

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hi GM,i'd like to look at those scriptures in context

quote:

---

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.

---

1 chronicles here is actually a song written by king David. Songs, like poetry do not need to use literal language. They can be descriptive and metaphorical. In verse 31 he says 'Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad'This just shows that it is not poetic language he is using and its not to be taken literally. The sky does not rejoice nor does the dirt of the earth.

quote:

---

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

---

If you look at the rest of the verse it says 'he will judge the peoples with equity' So the full scripture is
'Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns. The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity'Once again the 'world' in this context is referring to the 'world of mankind' its the world of people who are immovable. This is obviously poetic language and is not a reference to the actual earth.

quote:

---

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

---

Again its a song using poetic language. We've heard the term 'shaken to his core' when some gets a terrible shock...its expressive language being used and not literal.

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

---

another version reads in full
'For this is what the Lord says - he who created it the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited - he says: I am the Lord, and there is no other'that doesnt sound anything like the way you've cut out the quote and applied an interpretation to. Its simply not an accurate way to explain this verse. By using just a small snippet of it, you can make it say whatever you like....but it doesnt say anything about the earth being unmovable, in fact its talking about God making the earth for the purpose of being inhabited. the earth is fixed in its orbit. The book of Enoch is not considered an inspired book, it was never a part of the biblical cannon so using it in an argument against the bible is pointless. Its not part of the bible.Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres and this was the belief in the 16th and 17th centuries when his teachings were the status quo.
Yet nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging 'upon nothing at Job 26:7. In the original Hebrew, the word for nothing is beli-mah” and literally means 'without anything'.And as has been mentioned, Isaiah wrote that the earth was a sphere when the rest of the ancient world believed it was flat.So does the bible really teach a flat earth? No, it was not influenced by the erroneous, flat-earth view prevalent when it was written. It was accurate and still is.

Hi GM,
Amazing how often I come across this issue on debates about biblical inaccuracy. Usually it leads back to the old argument of where to apply metaphorical meaning, and what parts to take seriously.Christians have interpreted the bible differently ever since it was written, and do so still. Obviously when new discoveries are made, like evolution, heliocentrism, etc. people read different meanings into the same words.Nowhere does the bible say that the writers (yes, human writers, even if inspired by an omniscient deity) knew all the facts of the universe. The purpose of the verses you have quoted had nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

quote:

---

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.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

---

They were meant to express the greatness of God from the writers' worldviews. And the belief in a flat-earth was the name of the game at the time. I'm not aware of any Christian claim that God revealed all the secrets of the universe to the writers. I suspect it would have been Moses, rather than Einstein, who theorized of Relativity if that were the case

quote:

---

In Daniel 4:10-11., the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”. Clearly this makes little sense if the Earth were spherical, but it makes perfect sense on a flat Earth, where a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to all.

---

If the king had seen a spherical earth in his dream he would not have known what he was seeing. Why would God give dreams that make no sense to the dreamer? Can you see any sense in a deity giving visions incorporating string theory and ten-dimensional space to a modern layperson?

quote:

---

In "Job 38:14, “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." This is reference to the ancient practice of stamping out clay tablets. This passage makes no sense at all if it is about a sphere, but it does make sense for a flat Earth.

---

Here is the whole verse:

quote:

---

It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment

---

Which is it? Clay or a garment? If you read the whole chapter you'll see some pretty wild imagery.

quote:

---

“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb

---

Either the writer had some pretty wild ideas of how the world works, or he was using imagery. Now if you want more verses to support your argument you're in luck, most of the imagery in the chapter does describe the earth as "flat" or "stretched out". But would the words have had the intended impact on an iron age audience if they had alluded to a spherical earth?

quote:

---

Matthew 4:1-12 has the Devil taking Jesus atop a high mountain, to show him the world. "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them". This would only be possible on a flat Earth. I have heard it suggested that the Devil showed Jesus a vision, rather than a physical view, but if so, why bother going to the mountain?

---

The verses do indeed imply a flat earth, although the text does not "explicitly" describe the flatness of the earth. Perhaps the mountain was a vision? After all, the passage never explains how Jesus got off the "exceedingly high mountain".
The passage does not necessarily have to imply a flat earth, but would probably have done so for people at the time.The bible was written a very long time ago, and from an iron age perspective. Even assuming that an all-knowing god inspired it, the message could not be diluted with unfamiliar images of the world as a spherical planet.

The earth is not fixed in it's orbit and neither is the orbit fixed.For example the precession of the equinoxes causes the to wobble tracing a circle which currently points towards Polaris in Ursa Minor.3000 years ago it pointed toward Thuban in the constellation Draco.13000 years ago it pointed toward Vega in the constellation Lyra.3000 years ago the sun entered the constellation Ares on the vernal equinox. Now the sun enters Pisces on the vernal equinox.The orbit is changed by perturbations caused by Venus & Mars.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

is the earth adrift in space?or is there some other reason why we know exactly where the new year begins and when Haley's comet will return and when we can expect to see certain planets in certain parts of the sky at certain times of the year?Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Well I gave you the reference, and there isn't a Hebrew word that distinguishes a sphere from a round (but flat) object. The Hebrew word was around before Strong and can be traced as such because the jews study it as part of their tradition. They've produced some pretty good scientists by the way, considering they are such a small part of humanity.I guess they weren't into geometry back then. The imagery of a tent admittedly seems more adapted to a round object, but on the otherhand, the dome is apparently spherical. I don't know how you fit a sphere to a flat object. Then again is the universe really a sphere, curvlinear, or what? You tell me.H2329 - - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)The word is used 3 times in the bible, and this is how it was interpreted on three different occassions:Strong's Number H2329 matches the Hebrew ’ (chuwg), which occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV
Page 1 / 1 (Job 22:14 - Isa 40:22)Job 22:14 Thick clouds 5645 [are] a covering 5643 to him, that he seeth 7200 not; and he walketh 1980 in the circuit 2329 of heaven 8064.Pro 8:27 When he prepared 3559 the heavens 8064, I [was] there: when he set 2710 a compass 2329 upon the face 6440 of the depth 8415:Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth 3427 upon the circle 2329 of the earth 776, and the inhabitants 3427 thereof [are] as grasshoppers 2284; that stretcheth out 5186 the heavens 8064 as a curtain 1852, and spreadeth them out 4969 as a tent 168 to dwell in 3427 :

Hi Peg,The discussion in this thread is more Biblical than astronomical, but all Bluescat was saying is that the Earth's orbit isn't fixed because it is subject to variations and perturbations, and he even provided some examples. An orbit with minor variations is not equivalent to what we would normally refer to as "adrift in space" (though I suppose one could argue that everything everywhere is adrift in space). If you'd like more detail you should propose a new thread.--Percy

This would also make sense if the earth was a sphere, but the Americas did not exist or were uninhabited (and the known continents smaller that they actually are).Either way, there is some 'splainin' to do.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev