Atheists call Christians "flat-earthers" - but flat earth not Biblical?

[papau]

The idea that to be religious means you are not logical or scientific has always amused me. Today on DU a few posts use the "flat-earth" smear. My Bible interpretation has always gone with the perhaps it is poorly worded, but it has a nugget of truth crowd, rather than a court room contract analysis. But if we are to discuss religion in this forum, perhaps a bit more agreement on facts would be useful? Neither creationist or liberal Christian, and no fundi's that I know of - proclaim a flat earth. And the vast majority of scientists in this area do not see the Bible claiming a flat earth - but there sure are a lot of professional atheists/amateur Bible researchers that like to assert interesting "truths" they have found in the Bible. Today a few posts on DU quoted from the atheist The Shape of the Earth, http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml ...Shake the Earth by Its Edges which focuses on the following:

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14), noting that Job spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges."

"he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth (Isaiah 40:18-23)

And of course with very logical partial truth they make their case (it is claimed ball -duwr-was not chosen by Isaiah so this means flat - but in Hebrew chuwg can be either flat circle or sphere and this is not discussed). And God-forbid if one uses a gestalt approach - total context - as opposed to word by word analysis.


An interesting question is "Who invented the concept of a flat Earth" and indeed who claimed it was invented in the Bible as they tried to sell the idea that Christianity was opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by its superstitious ignorance.

Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumference with surprising accuracy.

In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated:"A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia... afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers."(Boorstin acknowledges in his book that by the time of Columbus, most educated Europeans believed in a spherical Earth - but fails to note that, individual ministers aside over the centuries, Christian faith and dogma HAS NOT suppressed the useful image of a sphere The handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth, were in general ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint').

Lactantius

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life. He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).


Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers

Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view as typical of that of the Church Fathers. US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin (quoted above), like historians before him, simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as "round" or spherical.


Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle

In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was "apt to indulge in the imagination." Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented--it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.


Later Writers Repeated the Error

In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as "reputable" ever since. In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life. Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the 'affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves' — these were the 'Dark Ages'. Draper's work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.

Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896. Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the 'four corners of the Earth' are still used today.)

Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."

Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors. But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.

The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

Content from:
Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. (Physics), Astronomy and the Bible, pg. 17, published by Baker Book House http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-astronomy.html
Dr. Joan Sloat Morton, Ph.D. (Biology and related scientific studies), Science in the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 13

==========================================================================

..Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth ... . Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate."

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it.

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.


But, doesn't the Bible refer to "the four corners of the earth." How can a spherical earth have corners? Perhaps no phrase in Scripture has been so controversial as the phrase, "the four corners of the earth." The word translated "corners," as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity.

It is translated "borders" in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated "four corners" and again in Isaiah 11:12 "four corners." Job 37:3 and 38:13 as "ends."

The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.

Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

Some have tried to say there are four knobs, or peaks on a round earth. Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to EXTREMITIES.

There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:


Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
Paioh means "a geometric corner"
Ziovyoh means "right angle" or "corner"
Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of kanaph. For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times daily and chanted the following prayer:


Sound the great trumpet for our freedom,
Raise the banner for gathering our exiles,
And gather us together from THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH
into our own land.

The Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from the four corners of the earth. They shall come from every extremity to be gathered into Israel.

"And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious."
It shall come to pass in that day
That the LORD shall set His hand again the second time
To recover the remnant of His people who are left,
From Assyria and Egypt,
From Pathros and Cush,
From Elam and Shinar,
From Hamath and the islands of the sea.
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
(Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)





http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

[IsItJustMe]

1. All I know is that the church use to kill people for saying that the earth

was round.

[papau]

3. When and where and who died? - I believe fiction has become "fact"

via repetition.

[AllegroRondo]

5. They did kill Gallileo for saying the Earth went around the Sun

Because the Earth was supposed to be the center of the universe - everything else revolves around US.

[China_cat]

11. No they didn't

Gallileo was placed under house arrest and threatened with execution if he didn't stop teaching a heliocentric universe. But he was allowed to live with the brand of heretic because he semi-recanted.

In 1992 he was finally pardoned.

[bluerum]

15. Ha ha, pardoned in 1992. Hmmm, no one was killed? Inquisition?

[China_cat]

37. I didn't say no one, I said Gallileo wasn't executed.

He wasn't.

And he did survive the trial by quite a bit. He was sentenced in 1616, tried again in 1633 and died in 1642.

[AllegroRondo]

16. He didnt live long after the questioning

it is believed he contracted pneumonia from the days of being held in the Vatican prison and constant questioning.

[Goblinmonger]

22. But they did kill Giordano Bruno

for saying that the universe "is an infinite uniform universe of stars, inhabited planets, structures, etc., with no real center"

[China_cat]

2. "Who invented the concept of a flat Earth"?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[papau]

6. LOL - I've enjoyed these clowns for years - but my post above gives

facts - not fictional works plot lines that were turned into "what the church always thought" bullshit.

The interesting one I thought was the Roman who tossed the Greek and in the process rejected the millenniums held belief - in and outside of the church - of a spherical world.

[China_cat]

8. The real flat earth website

flatearth.org has a 404 that says it's fallen off the edge of the world. But I guess that was to be expected when its founder died a couple years ago.

[bowens43]

4. There is nothing that you have posted that indicates

that the authors of the bible thought that the earth was anything but flat. Certainly Isaiah 40:22 doesn't do that. It CLEARLY says circle of the earth. A circle is NOT a sphere.

[papau]

9. You are wrong - Isaiah is translated as "circle" but the word also means

sphere.

The assertion that it is "clearly" "flat" is the atheist assertion - which you can choose to believe - or not.

[sybylla]

28. Um, look again

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14), noting that Job spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges."

"he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The problem with the first quote is that spheres do not have edges, only shapes with flat surfaces have edges. Perhaps they were thinking cube, not sphere? Or did the translators screw up translating edges?

The second quote assumes a flat earth. Because the earth is a sphere, it is impossible to see "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" from a mountain top. Even from the highest mountain, you can only see a few hundred miles in any direction before the curve of the earth takes the rest of the 11,000+ miles out of sight. Thus, the context of the quote implies its speaker believed the earth was flat.

The third quote suffers from the problems of both the first two quotes. Again it implies there is an "end of the whole earth." The surface of spheres do not have fixed edges or ends, again assuming a flat surface. And no tree can be seen to the end of the whole earth because of the curve of its surface preventing us from seeing anything that is more than a couple hundred miles away.

While you have not provided citations that clearly state anyone in the bible believed the earth to be a sphere, I believe you failed in providing quotes that prove the idea of a flat earth wasn't supported by the bible.

Now as to whether the church supported a belief in a flat earth is quite another thing which makes the bible completely irrelevant to the claim. Of course I would argue that the church was, if it did believe the earth was a sphere, at the very least indifferently quiet in supporting their spherical beliefs during the dark and middle ages and allowing superstition to reign. But then again, the church is made of men and men are fallible.

[papau]

32. Um - perhaps you looked again a bit too fast. The German word Gestalt

is one of my favorites as it refers to "all imputs" - as it not just noting the tree - but also seeing the forest.

The Atheist link I posted does indeed state and use the logic you have in your post. And the answers I posted are in part answers to that logic.

"Extremities" solves "The problem with the first quote is that spheres do not have edges, only shapes with flat surfaces have edges. Perhaps they were thinking cube, not sphere? Or did the translators screw up translating edges?" and indeed it solves "The second quote assumes a flat earth. Because the earth is a sphere, it is impossible to see "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" from a mountain top. Even from the highest mountain, you can only see a few hundred miles in any direction before the curve of the earth takes the rest of the 11,000+ miles out of sight. Thus, the context of the quote implies its speaker believed the earth was flat." and the "The third quote suffers from the problems of both the first two quotes. Again it implies there is an "end of the whole earth." The surface of spheres do not have fixed edges or ends, again assuming a flat surface. And no tree can be seen to the end of the whole earth because of the curve of its surface preventing us from seeing anything that is more than a couple hundred miles away." - this was was discussed and refuted

As always in atheist discussions - the atheist side uses the "you have not provided citations that clearly state" or "it does not not provide enough proof ... for me" - so perhaps we - you and I - are at that point.

You feel you should charge the church with being indifferently quiet in supporting their spherical beliefs - say charge the Church with being concerned with religion just about to the exclusive of all other topics. While there are spherical moments in early church history - and no flat earth moments - We can agree that the spherical question was not not number one for the Church.

[sybylla]

38. Yeah... that makes it much more clear.

Since we're generalizing here, seems safe to say that the gnostic crowd seems to think everyone needs to take everything that comes out of religion on faith. You'd find you get along much better with atheists if you got over that presumption or at least admitted to yourself that faith vs. evidence defines the differences between the two groups.

Whatever "Extremities" says, it can't refute the facts I mentioned in my first post. It can construe them in some fashion toward their own ends, which seems to be what every believer in the bible does, but it can't refute the meaning of the words you posted. As I said, when it comes to xtianity, what the bible says quite often doesn't matter. But if you're trying to use these quote to justify that the bible holds that the earth is a sphere, all you have proven is, at best, its ambiguousness.

[papau]

41. I agree - context is my context/interpretation - and you must judge for

yourself based on your view of the context.

I've enjoyed the discussion!

:toast:

:-)

[sui generis]

7. holey shite papau

almost broke my scroll wheel getting down here.

You're generalizing. Not all atheists say that - don't "all christians" hate it when atheists generalize about them?

:P

[papau]

12. True - I was doing atheist outreach at a UU thing and no one said that

- and I am not a UU - I just like the folks at this fellowship! -

But there certainly are postings on DU that assert the incompatibility of science and religion - and today there were the two posts that started the above thought in my head.

But you are of course correct.

As an aside - I do not recall "atheist outreach at UU" in the 50's and 60's. This group is new to my life (last 5 years) and just as wonderful and tolerant as the folks I recall from the 50's - but when did "searchers outreach" become "atheist outreach" (I could not ask Sunday for fear of making a social error).

[Brilligator]

10. You're right...

...it's kind of a misnomer.

I think what they are referring to would be more accurately called "Sun-revolves-around-the-Earthers" (referring to the Church's heresy conviction of Galileo, banning of his writings and forced recantation) but I guess "flat-earthers" just rolls off the tongue easier.

[papau]

14. I agree - Galileo's mistreatment may be the point - but "flat-earthers"

was the phrase that woke me up!

:-)

[bluerum]

13. Since we are being literal here and quoting the bible, I would

suggest a book by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman called Misquoting Jesus.

I don't think that the use of the term flat earther is meant to directly point up discrepancies in a literal translation of the bible. The fact that the biblical documents are historically inconsistent and contradictory is easily demonstrated.

Rather, I think that the term "flat earther" is a reference to the practice of promoting a belief system that cannot be supported by logic, documentary evidence, physical evidence, or any other kind of evidence beyond a ritualized set of beliefs.

[moobu2]

18. That’s exactly what the term is used for

""I think that the term "flat earther" is a reference to the practice of promoting a belief system that cannot be supported by logic, documentary evidence, physical evidence, or any other kind of evidence beyond a ritualized set of beliefs.""

[papau]

19. It really isn't that easy to PROVE "inconsistent/contradictory " of any

Biblical statement.

And in Math we find in the mag Sci. American a nice article this month on how some truths can not be proven by logic, documentary evidence, physical evidence - is this case -math - proving that there are truths for which there can be no explanations/theorems other than to restate the truth.

So no grand theory of everything from which everything else can be derived.

There are some truths that just are.

[bluerum]

21. Well, I beg to differ. There are many biblical documents and texts

that are inconsistent and contradictory.

How would one go about re-stating a truth that cannot be demonstrated? How does one define the concept of truth when it cannot be demonstrated?

This is absurd and contradictory on its face.

[papau]

23. The article in Scientific American explains it better than I can.

As to inconsistent/contradictory is this as to message or is this as to temporal "fact"

If Temporal fact then I agree - as the Gospels do not even try to co-ordinate there exact wording/story. The fate of Judas being an easy point to make.

"absurd and contradictory on its face" ????

That is the term used by many atheists for all things religious - and indeed for the Bible.

But today I only have time to deal with the "flat-earth" term used in a couple of posts this morning.

[bluerum]

24. And I have no time for sophistry. eom

[Brilligator]

51. Don't confuse "some truths can't be proven"

with "nothing can be proven or disproven."

There are certainly truths that can't be proven. But all of them, every single one, are not able to be disproven. That is to say, they don't cause a logical contradiction (for example).

[hobbit709]

17. You can only see so far

from a "high mountain" until the curvature of the earth gets you past the horizon. Even from space you can't see the whole earth at once. The itinerant sheep herders were not well versed in complex mathematics-even by Greek or Babylonian standards.

[Goblinmonger]

20. So where on DU

has an atheist said that flat-earth = biblical? I must have missed that.

[papau]

26. it is my pharaphrase of two posts this morning that implied that idea.

Namely that science was in conflict with the Bible, religion was in conflict with the Bible, and of course then staing that we - like myself - like science.

I thought it deserved a discussion in Religion.

Perhaps these topics are better discussed in some other forum?

[Goblinmonger]

29. I have no problems with it here

I just have never read a post like that. Though for the record:

I think the Bible (and subsequently religion) is in conflict with science quite a bit if you take the Bible literally. If not--if it is seen a collection of allegory and metaphor--it doesn't have to be in conflict.

Though I think too may people want to go down the road of allegory/metaphor but still use it as a binding document. But that is another thread. Or maybe not?

[papau]

33. Message is binding - as a science text it isn't -although it is spot on

for a lot of ideas that science did not get around to for a few thousand years later

The term allegory/metaphor - while accurate - is used by the atheist crowd as equivalent to saying "not true" - and that is not true.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Now I don't know where you are going

It is either a work of fiction or it is not. If it is binding you have a lot of contradictory questions to answer. If it isn't binding, then people need to stop using it as a crowbar. I don't care which way you go as long as you are consistent.

So the bible is true? Rabbits chew their cud?

[papau]

39. Why are there only either/or binding/not-binding fiction/non-fiction

way of viewing religion/Bible?

At a personal level I like yes/no. Which is why real science drives me batty at times. The world of physics is no longer action/re-action. And as Scientific American noted this month, the world of math has gone the way of physics where some tings just are the way they are and the truth of that state can not be derived from a great theorem - it can only be stated.

I am curious as to "using it as a crowbar" - what action does this refer to?

As to Work of fiction - no it is not fiction, IMHO - but I believe you see a bright line between fiction and "truth" and have rules for how your "truth" is labeled "truth". I do not believe we have the same rules. as I do not see any need to explain contradictions, yet you seem to hang your hat on such temporal inconsistency as the only and correct way to prove truth, and you then use the inconsistency to reject whatever.

I certainly agree that there are contradictions - as I noted Judas's end is an obvious one.

So I said the Bible is not a science/history text - and I think we agree on that.

Where we disagree is my seeing "truth " - truth that is "binding" - in the Bible, when and where I suspect you do not.

I have never been a "fundi" and therefore can not discuss how they see the Bible - as in the binding question of yours. I know the Fundi and I both see the Bible as binding as to message - but how they get the message they see as binding is not well known to me. Everyman is his own Priest has a few thousand years behind it - and is very true - at least in my world.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Here's the problem I have with it:

It seems to me to be a moving target. Here is a generic example of the frustrating exchanges I have had:

Theist: You should do X because it tells us to in the Bible.
Me: Ok, but why aren't you doing Y? It also says to do Y in the Bible.
Theist: Well, Y is outdated/a metaphor/not what god wants/some other reason.
Me. How come you get to dismiss Y as something you need to do but not X?
Theist: You are bashing my religion.

In the end, I don't care what you believe about the Bible as long as it has no bearing on me (the crowbar was a metaphor for "prying" into my life). But once you tell me that something is true or should be done because it is in the Bible, I don't think it is unreasonable of me to question why the heinous shit in the Bible is just ignored in favor of whatever supports your argument.

If you want to talk about the "reality" of "truth," I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I would enjoy it. I have a masters in communication and am quite interested in the epistemic nature of many things. But that isn't really the point here. I only have a problem with the "reality" of the Bible when people use it to prove their point to me, to make public policy, or to somehow "bring harm" to others. Then they have to be ready for me to point out what are, to me, glaring inconsistencies in what they are using as data for their claim. Again, I don't know why that isn't reasonable. If someone uses the John Birch Society documents as support for why we should get out of the UN, am I not supposed to point out the problem with their evidence?

[Xeric]

25. The Association for Biblical Astronomy

http://www.geocentricity.com/ "The Association for Biblical Astronomy" shows that there at least some Christians still trying to push the idea that the sun goes around the earth and other anti-scientific nonsense like the intelligent design people. I don't know of anyone who still believes that the earth is flat or that the bible teaches that. However, it's clear that the bible is not a scientific tome in any way shape or form. The idea of biblical inerrancy is almost heretical considering the historical inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies. Not to denigrate Christians, but you would do well to avoid instigating these kind of debates against science. You will always lose in the long run and it does nothing for your cause.

[papau]

31. Nuts are found on all sides of all topics - biblical errancy is tough to

prove once we define the inerrancy that must be shown was as to message - and not history.

And from your quote, the fellow says the Bible does not teach "flat earth" - but he implies folks once did believe that the Bible taught that.

A straw man is a straw man .... if a few individuals said something that means we can say that Christians believed that something - or Jews believed that something?

What is a Debate against science?

What is Science -is it Leibniz's derive a theory from facts, or is it the more modern shoot from the hip and guess a theory and then see if future facts fit the theory?

What is "against" science, however science is defined. Is it against the corporate sponsored whoredom on Campus and in the Company lab that justifies excessive disbelief of what ever might cost the company money to fix?

If religious folks want to fight GM foods are they to be warned off by your quote?

[moobu2]

27. The Bible Doesn’t say the Earth is flat,

therefore Atheist are wrong, therefore you can use the Bible in any science class etc...Oooook.

[bluerum]

30. Wipe that stuff off your chin please. eom

[papau]

34. Why have a science class?

:toast:

:-)

[bluerum]

43. To teach science.

[papau]

45. :-) -you must mean bible studies :-)

:-)

If it means the same thing why have two names for it!

:toast:

[bluerum]

47. Who says it means the same thing.

I think you been doing too much suds bub.

[papau]

49. it is hard to joke around in this media format - for the record I agree

with you on the destinction.

peace

:-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I can't recall it being used in a literal sense on DU

It's normally used as a metaphor for those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and who are convinced that their interpretation is correct. For while you can manage to explain away most of the references (who am I to say whether 'sphere' is an accurate translation of the word in Isaiah?), the tendency of the passages in question is to say the earth is flat, with limits (eg the Daniel quotation, for which not explanation is provided in the works you have quoted). And there were, in the period when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire and its successors, several important churchmen arguing that the Bible did say the earth was flat, and that the Bible's word always had to be taken over our own evidence. See http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html

And a few people have taken that view up more or less to the modern era. One of the references on that page is my great great grandfather, David Wardlaw Scott, who wrote a book, in all seriousness, called "Terra Firma: The Earth Not A Planet" published in 1901. He was a Congregational Minister, and the title page says "as proved by Scripture, Reason and Fact", and it's heavy on the scripture, wrong on the reasoning (eg he says he was told as a child that water stays held to the earth in the same way that water stays in a bucket when whirled round quickly in a vertical circle; but since the water is on the inside of the bucket, not the outside, he says this must mean that no-one knows how water stays on the earth - but one person giving an incorrect simile doesn't destroy all the other reasons), and his facts are just plain wrong (eg he says "it is well known that circumnavigating the earth at 50 degrees south is twice as far as at 50 degrees north" - thus proving, to him, that the earth is a circle with the North Pole at the centre. He didn't live long enough to hear about his namesake reaching the South Pole).

Reading it, it's clear his starting point was that the Bible could never be wrong, or even misleading, and he then selects all his 'reason' and 'fact' to back this up (he uses an incorrect formula for how far away the horizon is, just saying it is 'well known', and then says that when he shows the formula is incorrect, this must mean the earth is flat). He completely ignores the hundreds of years of successful navigation of the oceans, all based on assuming that it's a sphere. He proceeds to calculate that the Moon is less than a hundred miles above us, and the Sun not much further beyond that. So being a 'flat earther' is a state of mind - "don't tell me the facts, I know what it says in the Bible".

[papau]

40. I agree-a state of mind -as in do not talk of Bible or Religion as I know

they are fiction and will screw up my attempts at logic.

The Daniel quotation requires more that the extremities nuance? I think I am getting tired because I do not see that.

Over years great religious speakers - and great atheist speakers- used bad science/logic to move their argument along. David Wardlaw Scott by writing a book accomplish a great more than most - despite the bad science! :toast:

The proving to yourself the strength of your belief via "don't tell me the facts, I know what it says in the Bible" has always seemed to prove the opposite. But I have known many like that.

The Church (Roman) and indeed all Catholic (Orthodox and Episcopal) find no contradiction possible between science and religion. I admit to a lack of depth of knowledge of other variations of Christianity such that I can't say that which - or even if - any reject science because of the Bible, beyond that which we call fundi.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. I wouldn't call it 'nuance'

"The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." That's a straightforward description of something so tall that it is visible everywhere - with there being an 'end' of the earth. You can't get that with a spherical model.

Believing the earth was flat wasn't that bad 2,500 years ago - the arguments such as the shape of a lunar eclipse, or how a ship appears/disappears over the horizon wouldn't be known to an awful lot of people, and a people without great interest in astronomy, geometry or marine navigation could easily not have worked them out. It's when people have heard the arguments, and say "la-la-la, I'm not listening" that it gets infuriating. Unfortunately, I don't think DWS accomplished anything in that book, apart from showing himself to be an obstinate old fool, who either directly lied, or accepted completely incorrect claims without checking them, and then repeated them.

[papau]

44. A "dream" that is using symbolism is not a science theory and not exactly

a flat earth statement.

Indeed one could claim the lack of 10 mile high trees proves the Bible worthless - if that is the size or the strength of a contradiction one needs - and no wiggle room is allowed for dreams and symbolism. Danial is not offered as a basis for drawing conclusions about physical science.

But I agree with you that it gets infuriating when people have heard the arguments, and say "la-la-la, I'm not listening" - be it about science, or job performance evaluation, or business plan - or religion. A simple "I disagree" is a lot easier to take than the "la-la-la - - I'm not listening" response.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Sure - it just shows the belief of the writer of that verse

and that it was a common enough belief among the people he knew that he'd describe a huge tree that way. He may never have really thought about it at all - the horizon looks flat, apart from hills that average out, and the basic biblical creation story says the earth isn't infinite (and infinity is a tricky concept anyway - I can't get my head round some of the mathematical meanings of it), so a flat, finite earth is what you'd assume from simple everyday experience and the culture then.

[papau]

50. I agree-bad enough they use Greek Letters in the weather report-but Hebrew

letters in discussions of the relative sizes of a two items of infinite size is hard to get ones head around! :-)

However we disagree on the validity of the assumption that flat was the standard view even among the average Joes in the way back.

I submit the average Joe view was "no opinion - never thought about it"

The Bible clearly has a lot of sphere-ness like comment, and no spot on flat earth comment.

Tops of Mountains touching the heaven - or Gods living at the top - is indeed a common idea across culture - and flat world would be the common experience as folks took a 1000 years to migrate a 1000 miles - but I doubt any folks thought about it as a question to be answered.