Does holy scripture teach a "flat Earth"?

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There are passages in the holy scriptures that give the impression that the authors thought of the earth as a flat disk-shaped world with foundations and a dome (expanse) above where the stars and sun & moon were and where heaven was. Do you think that is what the holy scriptures intended to be taught?

enns3.jpg
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Clipboard01.jpg

No it teaches a hollow earth and satan bends the light and NASA makes fake pictures. Had a discussion about that once for over 30 pages.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
attachment.php


No it teaches a hollow earth and satan bends the light and NASA makes fake pictures. Had a discussion about that once for over 30 pages.

There are some strange ideas out there :p
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
A round earth is a liberal conspiracy.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
But seriously, no I don't think the Bible teaches a flat earth. The 4 corners of the earth could be from the land or North East South West. And the N. T. teaches a round earth. Jesus would be in the heart of the earth 3 days. And the thief in the night, some are working, some are sleeping.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Seriously.....


On the one hand, I believe that Scripture is the inscripturated words of God. And as a property of such, it cannot err. What it states is, by necessity, true. On the other hand, what is stated tends to be what is read. And NONE of us come without some "baggage." Our worldview, our presumptions/assumptions, our "stuff." Eisegsises - no matter how condemned (including by me) is not ENTIRELY avoidable (especially if we insist on reading it INDIVIDUALLY instead of as the whole people of God - spread out over all the continents and centuries - as I believe it is mean to be "read"). As I approach Scripture, I am uber-sensitive that I'm a 21st Century American with a Ph.D. in physics.... I'm bringing TONS of baggage with me, "reading" through the "glasses" of all that enormous stuff. Nearly all of it "stuff" that the original readers (the audience) would NOT have had. Makes me humble. Causes me to resist thinking I'M the infallible/unaccountable interpreter..... that I should insist that I'M the ONE who just KNOWS what God intended/meant (lacking the ego of the LDS or RCC or ______).

But Scripture is true..... I'm not necessary. No human is necessarily. Even all us together are not necessarily. ONLY God is all-knowing, all-smart, always true.

On the one hand, I KNOW the planet Earth is (sorta) round..... I KNOW life existed on this planet for BILLIONS of years - in ever increasingly complex forms. And truth = truth. God cannot be untrue. So, I TEND to look at Scripture and where it COULD be "read" to say something that is untrue, God cannot be untrue so that CANNOT be what God is saying. WE can be false (and no doubt are - about a LOT more than we realize) but on the other hand God cannot be wrong. About anything. Could the Earth NOT be (sorta) round? Maybe - but I sure doubt it. Thus, while SOME verses COULD be "read" that way - that MUST be wrong since God cannot be wrong. But I say that with a lot of humility..... people (even all of us) have OFTEN, OFTEN been very wrong - and I'm sure that's still the case. Where "problems" exist - I tend to place the "problem" with homo sapiens and not God.

While my degree is NOT in biology (and so I avoid ANYTHING REMOTELY authoritative - lol - about biology, I don't think the Earth was created 4,000 years ago in 6 24-hour days. My sister (who DOES have a Ph.D. in biology - although in a completely wrong field to speak on this) tells me in her opinion, life on this planet began billions of years ago and evolved - and that life DIED long ago. I can live with that vis-a-vis Scripture (where the "rub" comes is NOT with evolution, it's with Adam and Eve).

But I don't loose sleep over this. As a Christian or as a scientist or as both. As a scientist, I've been mandated to uber-humility. And as a Christian, I've been called to uber-humility. But what that Truth is - in ALL matters - may not be as definitive as some like to think. I'm not sure it is possible to tie together, to KNOW absolutely EVERYTHING in order to have a great life (and afterlife).

I'm not a relativist or a minimalist. Just humble and honest.


Sorry....


Back to the issue of this thread.



- Josiah
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So, basically [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], you believe that there are "pillars of the earth" and "for corners" and a "firmament" of the heavens and so forth?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Seriously.....


On the one hand, I believe that Scripture is the inscripturated words of God. And as a property of such, it cannot err. What it states is, by necessity, true. On the other hand, what is stated tends to be what is read. And NONE of us come without some "baggage." Our worldview, our presumptions/assumptions, our "stuff." Eisegsises - no matter how condemned (including by me) is not ENTIRELY avoidable (especially if we insist on reading it INDIVIDUALLY instead of as the whole people of God - spread out over all the continents and centuries - as I believe it is mean to be "read"). As I approach Scripture, I am uber-sensitive that I'm a 21st Century American with a Ph.D. in physics.... I'm bringing TONS of baggage with me, "reading" through the "glasses" of all that enormous stuff. Nearly all of it "stuff" that the original readers (the audience) would NOT have had. Makes me humble. Causes me to resist thinking I'M the infallible/unaccountable interpreter..... that I should insist that I'M the ONE who just KNOWS what God intended/meant (lacking the ego of the LDS or RCC or ______).

But Scripture is true..... I'm not necessary. No human is necessarily. Even all us together are not necessarily. ONLY God is all-knowing, all-smart, always true.

On the one hand, I KNOW the planet Earth is (sorta) round..... I KNOW life existed on this planet for BILLIONS of years - in ever increasingly complex forms. And truth = truth. God cannot be untrue. So, I TEND to look at Scripture and where it COULD be "read" to say something that is untrue, God cannot be untrue so that CANNOT be what God is saying. WE can be false (and no doubt are - about a LOT more than we realize) but on the other hand God cannot be wrong. About anything. Could the Earth NOT be (sorta) round? Maybe - but I sure doubt it. Thus, while SOME verses COULD be "read" that way - that MUST be wrong since God cannot be wrong. But I say that with a lot of humility..... people (even all of us) have OFTEN, OFTEN been very wrong - and I'm sure that's still the case. Where "problems" exist - I tend to place the "problem" with homo sapiens and not God.

While my degree is NOT in biology (and so I avoid ANYTHING REMOTELY authoritative - lol - about biology, I don't think the Earth was created 4,000 years ago in 6 24-hour days. My sister (who DOES have a Ph.D. in biology - although in a completely wrong field to speak on this) tells me in her opinion, life on this planet began billions of years ago and evolved - and that life DIED long ago. I can live with that vis-a-vis Scripture (where the "rub" comes is NOT with evolution, it's with Adam and Eve).

But I don't loose sleep over this. As a Christian or as a scientist or as both. As a scientist, I've been mandated to uber-humility. And as a Christian, I've been called to uber-humility. But what that Truth is - in ALL matters - may not be as definitive as some like to think. I'm not sure it is possible to tie together, to KNOW absolutely EVERYTHING in order to have a great life (and afterlife).

I'm not a relativist or a minimalist. Just humble and honest.

Sorry....

Back to the issue of this thread.

- Josiah

What's interesting is that we don't really KNOW life existed on the planet for billions of years. We have evidence that we currently understand to indicate billions (or at least millions) of years but if in the future our methods turn out to be wrong we may find that life has been around for much longer, or much less, time.

The hollow earth theory is more than a little bizarre but maybe there's something more to it than a spheroid in a vast expanse of nothingness. Or maybe there isn't. I'm disinclined to agree with ideas other than the earth being spheroidal and revolving around the sun, but having only ever seen small parts at a time all I can do is trust images I've been given.

I forget who it was who first made this point, but it's a good one. The idea is that if the Bible is wrong on matters relating to creation it's hard to see why we should trust it on matters relating to salvation. That said, I don't see any reason why parts of the Bible shouldn't be seen as metaphorical rather than literal. One interesting theory I heard a while back was that, having created Adam, God explained (over the course of six days) what had been created and in what order. It makes at least a modicum of sense, not least because no human would have known the sequence of creation having not been around until the sixth day.

In many ways I think if we look at the first four words of the Bible we see what's important - "In the beginning God". If God created us then it's of secondary importance to understand exactly how and exactly when.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION], current dating and fossils of microbiological life indicate that life existed on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION], current dating and fossils of microbiological life indicate that life existed on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago.

Sure, I get that. My point is that if at some point in the future we discover our current dating methods are flawed we may determine that life existed 38 billion years ago, or 3.8 million years ago, or some other figure.

When we say "we know" essentially we're saying "based on currently available measuring methodologies the evidence, as we understand it, indicates that".
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sure, I get that. My point is that if at some point in the future we discover our current dating methods are flawed we may determine that life existed 38 billion years ago, or 3.8 million years ago, or some other figure.

When we say "we know" essentially we're saying "based on currently available measuring methodologies the evidence, as we understand it, indicates that".

The scenarios you give are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The scenarios you give are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Perhaps, but there was a time when Galileo was the only one who believed in the absurd notion that the earth revolved around the sun, no?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Perhaps, but there was a time when Galileo was the only one who believed in the absurd notion that the earth revolved around the sun, no?

No. That time is imaginary. Check the history of Galileo's opining about helocentricity.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What's interesting is that we don't really KNOW life existed on the planet for billions of years. We have evidence that we currently understand to indicate billions (or at least millions) of years but if in the future our methods turn out to be wrong we may find that life has been around for much longer, or much less, time.

The hollow earth theory is more than a little bizarre but maybe there's something more to it than a spheroid in a vast expanse of nothingness. Or maybe there isn't. I'm disinclined to agree with ideas other than the earth being spheroidal and revolving around the sun, but having only ever seen small parts at a time all I can do is trust images I've been given.

I forget who it was who first made this point, but it's a good one. The idea is that if the Bible is wrong on matters relating to creation it's hard to see why we should trust it on matters relating to salvation. That said, I don't see any reason why parts of the Bible shouldn't be seen as metaphorical rather than literal. One interesting theory I heard a while back was that, having created Adam, God explained (over the course of six days) what had been created and in what order. It makes at least a modicum of sense, not least because no human would have known the sequence of creation having not been around until the sixth day.

In many ways I think if we look at the first four words of the Bible we see what's important - "In the beginning God". If God created us then it's of secondary importance to understand exactly how and exactly when.


I "see" your point....

I start from the perspective that Scripture is right (since God cannot be wrong)... but I do not THEREFORE embrace that I'm right in how I "read" Scripture. WE have our "stuff" (no one reads Scripture without 'glasses' so to speak), we ALL bring our "baggage" (our assumptions, world view, etc.). Realizing that is the first thing needed to limit the impact of that.

Without MY individually appointing ME as the "all-knowing one", without ME appointing ME as the ONE who is to interpret/read things, I view Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 as true. I'm not sure SURE it's meant as a typical 21st century American with a Ph.D. in physics (or even an elementary school education in science) tends to "read" it. I think THAT'S what tends to be the problem..... I don't conclude SCRIPTURE (and ergo God) must be wrong because SELF is so smart, so knowledgeable, so intelligent - I KNOW (and unfortunately, God doesn't), so (for example) Genesis 1:1-2:4 MUST be science, MUST be modern geophysics, MUST be biology because I "read" it that way. I lack the ego to assume that.

I think the many verses that TO THOSE of us who live in the 21st century with all the assumptions, worldview, etc. (all our baggage, our "glasses") sure suggests the Bible is saying the world is small, square and flat are, well, they are LIKELY wrong: Not that SCRIPTURE is wrong, we are wrong to "read" it as teaching a small, flat, square planet. I find it very likely that the world is not square or flat but (sorta) round. So I find it likely these verses are NOT teaching a falsehood - rather WE are "reading" it falsely, our "glasses" messing it up, imposing, spinning it in a way that is wrong. God is true..... we are fallible. It COULD be true with Genesis 1:1-2:4 (and the one or two creation accounts there).... IF the Earth is over 4 billion years old, if life has existed here for more than 6,000 years, if PHYSICS didn't happen in the squence that Gen. 1 states - maybe the problem is not with Scripture but with the readers, readers IMPOSING stuff on Scripture.... eisegesis rather than exegesis? Maybe? Possibly? Yeah.... it takes the humility to ascribe infallibility, intelligence, etc. to God above self.... to believe God is likely smarter than self.... the "problem" is more likely on our end than God's end.



- Josiah
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So, basically [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], you believe that there are "pillars of the earth" and "for corners" and a "firmament" of the heavens and so forth?


I never remotely implied anything related to that.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I "see" your point....

I start from the perspective that Scripture is right (since God cannot be wrong)... but I do not THEREFORE embrace that I'm right in how I "read" Scripture. WE have our "stuff" (no one reads Scripture without 'glasses' so to speak), we ALL bring our "baggage" (our assumptions, world view, etc.). Realizing that is the first thing needed to limit the impact of that.

Without MY individually appointing ME as the "all-knowing one", without ME appointing ME as the ONE who is to interpret/read things, I view Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 as true. I'm not sure SURE it's meant as a typical 21st century American with a Ph.D. in physics (or even an elementary school education in science) tends to "read" it. I think THAT'S what tends to be the problem..... I don't conclude SCRIPTURE (and ergo God) must be wrong because SELF is so smart, so knowledgeable, so intelligent - I KNOW (and unfortunately, God doesn't), so (for example) Genesis 1:1-2:4 MUST be science, MUST be modern geophysics, MUST be biology because I "read" it that way. I lack the ego to assume that.

I think the many verses that TO THOSE of us who live in the 21st century with all the assumptions, worldview, etc. (all our baggage, our "glasses") sure suggests the Bible is saying the world is small, square and flat are, well, they are LIKELY wrong: Not that SCRIPTURE is wrong, we are wrong to "read" it as teaching a small, flat, square planet. I find it very likely that the world is not square or flat but (sorta) round. So I find it likely these verses are NOT teaching a falsehood - rather WE are "reading" it falsely, our "glasses" messing it up, imposing, spinning it in a way that is wrong. God is true..... we are fallible. It COULD be true with Genesis 1:1-2:4 (and the one or two creation accounts there).... IF the Earth is over 4 billion years old, if life has existed here for more than 6,000 years, if PHYSICS didn't happen in the squence that Gen. 1 states - maybe the problem is not with Scripture but with the readers, readers IMPOSING stuff on Scripture.... eisegesis rather than exegesis? Maybe? Possibly? Yeah.... it takes the humility to ascribe infallibility, intelligence, etc. to God above self.... to believe God is likely smarter than self.... the "problem" is more likely on our end than God's end.

- Josiah

Part of what I find interesting is the notion that "the first day", "the second day" etc could describe a period of time not necessarily confined to 86,400 seconds in the way we currently understand "a day" to mean. Genesis talks of "the evening and the morning", which does suggest that whatever periods of time they were they related to a rotation of the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean a day as we'd currently describe it - if the earth revolved more slowly back then a day could be more or less any length of time.

It also doesn't explicitly state that each day followed the previous day without any spaces. On the first day I disassembled a clock and cleaned it, on the second day I manually cleaned the nooks and crannies with pegwood, and on the third day I reassembled it. It's just that between the second day and the third day was a week waiting for the new mainsprings to arrive from my supplier.

I must admit I'm curious to find out just what it all does mean, even if I don't find out this side of heaven.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Part of what I find interesting is the notion that "the first day", "the second day" etc could describe a period of time not necessarily confined to 86,400 seconds in the way we currently understand "a day" to mean. Genesis talks of "the evening and the morning", which does suggest that whatever periods of time they were they related to a rotation of the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean a day as we'd currently describe it - if the earth revolved more slowly back then a day could be more or less any length of time.

It also doesn't explicitly state that each day followed the previous day without any spaces. On the first day I disassembled a clock and cleaned it, on the second day I manually cleaned the nooks and crannies with pegwood, and on the third day I reassembled it. It's just that between the second day and the third day was a week waiting for the new mainsprings to arrive from my supplier.

I must admit I'm curious to find out just what it all does mean, even if I don't find out this side of heaven.

The earth rotated on its own axis more rapidly in its early history was about six hours long. 600 Million years ago it was about 21 hours long. Now it is 24. The change occurs because of a tidal effect which transfers Earth's angular momentum to the moon as orbital momentum. Thus the moon is drifting further away from the earth as the earth's rotation decelerates.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Part of what I find interesting is the notion that "the first day", "the second day" etc could describe a period of time not necessarily confined to 86,400 seconds in the way we currently understand "a day" to mean. Genesis talks of "the evening and the morning", which does suggest that whatever periods of time they were they related to a rotation of the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean a day as we'd currently describe it - if the earth revolved more slowly back then a day could be more or less any length of time.

It also doesn't explicitly state that each day followed the previous day without any spaces. On the first day I disassembled a clock and cleaned it, on the second day I manually cleaned the nooks and crannies with pegwood, and on the third day I reassembled it. It's just that between the second day and the third day was a week waiting for the new mainsprings to arrive from my supplier.

I must admit I'm curious to find out just what it all does mean, even if I don't find out this side of heaven.


To US, the relating in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (sometimes referred to by MODERN folks as "the First Creation Account") sure LOOKS like it's talking about a sequence and 24 hour periods of time. We all wear "glasses".... we all have assumptions, a perspective, a worldview, stuff we hold as true - we ALL do - whether we are aware of it or not. And it's extremely difficult to not impose that upon what we read/hear, what is presented to us - it ALL gets "filtered" through our stuff, our baggage, our glasses. KNOWING that, realizing that, is the first step in limiting the impact of that.... in minimizing the eisegesis and increasing the exegesis.


Yes, we note this quite clearly in the "flat, small, square planet" thing..... yup, to modern 21st Century man (who thinks in very distinctive ways, who has a worldview, who has assumptions) those verses SEEM to clearly state that the planet here is small, square and flat. But we are pretty _______ sure that's not the case! So........ we come to the unavoidable point: Either Scripture is wrong OR we are wrong in our interpretation/spin of Scripture. Some will insist this proves Scripture teaches falsehood (and thus is unreliable). Others will conclude that PEOPLE can be wrong in how we understand Scripture. I fall into the second camp.


It seems to ME that there are TWO different things here - one in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the other in 2:4ff - and while I've seen many attempts to merge the two, I'm not convinced of it. I wonder if the revelation here is affirming God as Creator rather than trying to speak to 21st Century astrophysics and geologists and biologists, in the language and thoughts of 21st. Century Science to explain in scientific terms HOW all came about that "is." I'm aware that "science" as we think of it didn't exist for thousands of years after those two things were first penned...... maybe we have a situation like the "flat, small, square planet" thing: not science at all? Read the next paragraph....


I said I WONDER. I didn't say I KNOW. I think the issue is this: Where 21st century modern man THINKS Scripture is conflicting with what WE currently hold as true..... is this because Scripture is wrong or because WE are wrong in what we impose on it, in our eisegesis? Frankly, it comes down to a pride vs. humility thing. Simply, I lack the ego to insist that I'M smarter than God.... I'M the ONE who KNOWS what God should have inspired and whether God was wrong or right in how He chose to relate things to all the cultures and ages of humanity.... that I'M the one who knows what is TRUTH and God is wrong if He SEEMS to ME to be saying something at variance with ME. The egoism... the individualism.... that's where the problem likely resides? The assumption that how I'M spinning it is what ergo is truth, including when MY spin shows God to be wrong.


I didn't say I know. That's not relativism or minimalism, it's humility.



- Josiah
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does holy scripture teach a "flat Earth"?

I would flatly deny that.
 
Top Bottom