See other Religion Articles
Title: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!
Source:
christinaanswers.net
URL Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Published: Nov 23, 2005
Author: ?
Post Date: 2005-11-23 16:56:52 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Scripture!, writers, believe
Views: 165
Comments: 15
Photo copyrighted. Courtesy of Eden Communications. No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture! Some Bible critics have claimed that 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. [DD] 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. [DD] 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. [JSM] The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM] Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica] 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. [JSM] 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. [DD] 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. [JSM] "When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Maybe they didnt believe that BUT the people who read the bible later believed that was what they meant so that was the law.. they lived in basically what was a theocracy..
People mis interpret scripture all the time. Im sure I have too.
Well then not sure what your point is in this article..
was it not referring back to the other article you posted?
Yes it was. Im not saying I mis interpreted this.
I think what got Galileo in trouble with the Inquisition, was not whether the earth was flat or spherical, but whether the earth was the center of the universe around which everything else revolved.
Right! They believed that the universe revolved around the earth rather than the solar system around the sun..
And apparently this made some big deal regarding Catholic theology, although I'm not sure what.
Everything that's old is new again as they say.. only it's not w/Catholic theology today.
The apologist here does a good job of obfuscating the issue but never deals with the subject at hand, which is "Does the Bible teach..." Citing the Encyclopedia Britannica and droning on about Greek mathemeticians does nothing to make or break his case about the issue at hand. Either the Bible says it or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. Sadly, most apologists prefer sleight-of-hand to dealing with actual truth. If the apologist wanted to be honest, he would say "The Bible doesn't give enough detail to draw a conclusion but people have interpreted it over the years to mean X Y or Z" as opposed to the knee-jerk comment "Its always right because I say so and I can throw enough shiny things out there to distract you from realizing I haven't said anything of substance here!" Deconstructing Apologetics has become a hobby as I've been researching the history of the Christian religion over the last couple of years.
The problem is.. people look to scripture as a history book or a science book or a newspaper.. it's none of those although the dispensationalists and the revisionists would like people to think so.. the bible is for one purpose and one purpose only.. to reveal what God's plan was and is for man to make peace with God through his provision for salvation.. its the story of the Church and I dont meant the Roman Catholic one..
Exactly! It teaches *religious truth* only. In that, it is 100% true.
Its rather odd really.. how the bible and Christianity has been politicized.... certainly not accidental.
Of course not. How else can the evangelists raise money from their followers, etc? History says that Christianity was originally "politicized" by Constantine when he declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. He also called the councils which determined the original Catholic Bible. The Catholic Church then referred to the "Donation of Constantine" and the "Divine Right of Kings" and exercised control over who was crowned who was not. Then came Luther, a Biblical revision, and the religious wars of Europe -- some countries in Europe still have a "state" Church there. So, historically, Christianity has always been politicized. One can hardly blame folks for continuing the tradition, right?
Then came Luther, a Biblical revision, and the religious wars of Europe -- some countries in Europe still have a "state" Church there. So, historically, Christianity has always been politicized. One can hardly blame folks for continuing the tradition, right? True.. I suppose I was thinking of more recent events.. re the bible etc.. pretty much focusing on Scofield and the effect his 'notes' have had on biblical interpretation.
Scofield was pushing a particular viewpoint, as are most folks when they are writing. Even the New Testament says that it is part propaganda in the Gospel of John where it says "These things were written that you may believe." I've come to figure that Protestantism is a negative religion because it focuses on "we are not them" and raises the sect to be holier than God. First comes love of sect and that leads to love of self. History and fact are ignored entirely. Most of them simply aren't Christians and there are VERY few who take the Golden Rule seriously. You should see what kinds of responses I get when really closed-minded and ignorant Fundie- Thumpers are told I'm a "Recovering Catholic" - they don't listen and just start bashing the Catholic Church and ordering me to bail out lest I go down with the ship. Where to go? Well, THEIR sect, of course! Sometimes a group from different sects start in with that and then they start arguing with each other over "who has the truth" and who doesn't. Or I get told to go to a "Bible believing Church" - I'd like to see a single Christian Church that doesn't take the Bible seriously and believe it was inspired. There isn't one! They don't hear the "recovering" part at all. They hear what they want to hear, preach their prattle to everyone else, and ignore reality. They don't realize that they make asses of themselves and half of what they have to offer is useless tripe, like the "Bible believing Church" routine I've seen so often.
#2. To: Zipporah (#1)
Maybe they didnt believe that BUT the people who read the bible later believed that was what they meant so that was the law.. they lived in basically what was a theocracy..
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
People mis interpret scripture all the time. Im sure I have too.
#4. To: Zipporah (#3)
#5. To: Zipporah (#1)
BUT the people who read the bible later believed that was what they meant so that was the law.. they lived in basically what was a theocracy..
I've already said too much.
#6. To: MUDDOG (#5)
I think what got Galileo in trouble with the Inquisition, was not whether the earth was flat or spherical, but whether the earth was the center of the universe around which everything else revolved.
#7. To: Zipporah (#6)
Right! They believed that the universe revolved around the earth rather than the solar system around the sun..
I've already said too much.
#8. To: MUDDOG (#7)
And apparently this made some big deal regarding Catholic theology, although I'm not sure what.
#9. To: Zipporah (#1)
#10. To: mirage (#9)
#11. To: Zipporah (#10)
the bible is for one purpose and one purpose only.. to reveal what God's plan was and is for man to make peace with God through his provision for salvation..
#12. To: mirage (#11)
Exactly! It teaches *religious truth* only. In that, it is 100% true.
#13. To: Zipporah (#12)
Its rather odd really.. how the bible and Christianity has been politicized.... certainly not accidental.
#14. To: mirage (#13)
History says that Christianity was originally "politicized" by Constantine when he declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. He also called the councils which determined the original Catholic Bible. The Catholic Church then referred to the "Donation of Constantine" and the "Divine Right of Kings" and exercised control over who was crowned who was not.
#15. To: Zipporah (#14)
I suppose I was thinking of more recent events.. re the bible etc.. pretty much focusing on Scofield and the effect his 'notes' have had on biblical interpretation.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest