What the Bible Got Wrong: A Flat Earth
An examination of the ancient Hebrew cosmology of a flat earth as found in the Bible and the apologetic defenses some Christians use to argue that the Bible, under divine inspiration, did not get this particular observation wrong.
Flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth.
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint.
Also, the Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships.
So u saying the the Bible is lying? in the scientist telling the truth?Do u have any proof that we on a spinning ball I'm not talk about fake CGI technology. do you actually have proof that we on the spinning ball ?No NASA pictures we all know what NASA stand for Never going to be A Space Agency
The heliocentric model has yet to be proven. The whole concept is based upon assumptions and theories and made up mathematics which is then presented as proof.
The norse image of earth being flat with a domed heaven, held up by the tree of ygdrassil...
The four cornerstones of the universe are not that steady, since aquarius is away a wander... in fact it is not even in the position it was when the bible was first written, and now occupy's another 'constellation, constellation being another grouping of stars... I'm sure if you remove a leg from a table, the table becomes off balance...
To see what should be beneath the horizon is enough.
The oldest and most accurate map, the pirrie rease map was drawn based on the earth being flat... the dogon knew of sirius b before the bible was written..
And Seqoia proves the great flood did NOT happen. If you think you can prove the flood happened 2 thousand or so years ago... can explain these tree's being 10.000 years old, what's your excuse for Pinus Longavious still being alive? They are currently in excess of 27.000 yeras old. As for the lost city discovered in the arctic, 1.8 BILLION yeras old... yeah, well trust in the FORCED beleif of a bunch of people who sold their soul to lucifer, in particular, the catholic church. Believe, believe...
After all, ALL LIVING THINGS died.
Very brainwashed and gullible people fall for the Jew/Freemasonic NASA LIES and the cartoon Outer Space Religion. The New Testament tells us that Jews killed all the prophets and are the enemy of mankind (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
In Job, it says the earth hangs on nothing, dont sound like an earth on a solid foundation or pillars to me
The orginal Hebrew was translated wrong into English. It does indeed describe the earth as a spherical shape.
You don't even have to use a thermal cam. On a clear day you can use a telescope and trigonometry. A extremely close approximation of the Height an object above sea level would have to be, in order to be seen over the horizon is Height = X^2/7913 where X is in miles, minus the height above sea level you are viewing from. For instance if you are looking from a height of 6ft out 10 miles across a lake, bay, peninsula, etc. and can see an object that is less than 60ft tall, such as building on some docks, then you have seen what the spherical earth society doesn't want you to know.
Such is the human condition of conditioning or indoctrination. So few will do this simple experiment since they bought into what they were told as did those who told the tellers.
Why would they lie? Why indeed! If you don't want to know why they would lie then it is unlikely you will do such a simple experiment. Meaning you don't really believe in science, you only believe in your ego. Which is the problem with much of so called science.
When you are able to overcome your indoctrination, you will realize that a ship never sails over the horizon, it just gets smaller until the water vapor in the air masks it from view.
Look up the old Boston LIbrary flat earth map. Whether you sail south via that map or the globe you will still hit Antarctica.
Earth has already been proven flat through thermal imaging. The scope lines can't bend, and don't pick up mirages. It's the very proof that made Neil Degrasse go quiet.
It's over peeps; earth can be proven flat through thermal imaging easily, and anybody can do the test by picking up a thermal cam
God extends beyond mere space and time, thus he is above all sees all time at once.
Earth, in mans view, is spherical. But it also exists in real time. Real time is a thin slice of time, like a slice of bread. Thus from Gods view across all time, mans view of Earth is flat compared to his point of view.
PeterAV is a wise person.
You people are nuts. You better go back and read to study Gods word. There is not one single word wrong in the Bible.
read other ancient books, travel and find some keepers of real ancient knowledge and you will find more answers, for example the Qros in Peru who are the real Incas and were only discovered by "civilization" not to long ago, they know more about science than they know anywhere else and yet they use magic everyday!
The earth is of intelligent design. vastly superior to our finite understandings. Isaiah knew the difference between a ball and a circle son. Isaiah 22:18 ball so he DID understand the difference between BALL and circle. Isaiah 40 :22
This doc should be renamed "what atheists got wrong" Because of many reasons. The word "flat" occurs only a few times in the Bible, none is associated with the Earth.
Isaiah 40:22 "The circle of the earth" does not refer to earth's shape but rather the horizon that divides night and day.
The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies claims "According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome" (Meyers 1989, 63-9).
The "pillars of heaven" is referred to mountains "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (Job 26:11) " The Bible associates the pillars with shaking and says that,
instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them." (Psalm 104:6-8). so it is obvious this pillars aren't holding anything up but are merely free-standing pillars similar to those found in Solomon's Temple. Source Richard deem
The flat earth myth is not a biblical error but a modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the middle ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. The "history" that Christians taught a flat earth was not invented until the 19th century. An error that the Historical Society of Britain listed as number one (or second) in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. A illusion established by Washington Irving who loved to write historic fiction under the guise of history.
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific
Affiliation Conference August 4, 1997 at Westmont College
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."
Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".
(NOTE: Not trying to incite a flame war, this is just my personal opinion.) This series of short videos is quite informative. I feel that it's not too one sided or biased. It presents both sides of the discussion but rebukes several points of the Bible/Torah. TBS often uses a common philosophical practice of giving the author/presenter the benefit of the doubt, in that he (or she) is the most knowledgable in his (or her) subject. Beyond this he also provides several logical arguments as to why the Earth isn't round. While his arguments were convincing, I feel that a better outlet for TBS would've been a written form of expression. While his arguments were sound in every way I feel that the video itself isn't enjoyable to watch. I feel that if this were published as a blog post or website.
The bible says the earth is round...
It is high time Christians turn towards other religions and find the truth for themselves concerning the creation of this universe and earth .If they want a quick answer then look into Koran
Jesus spent his time amongst the least influential and outcasts like lepers. He taught us to treat each other with respect. It seems that his message was about social justice. Fast forward to today, Jesus' followers are seeking places of influence and power. Also when did you ever hear a Christian speak respectfully to a gay for instance? And what about human rights issues regarding fair pay and compensation? If you really ask God for wisdom (intelligence), you cannot help concluding that Christians are the exact opposite of what Jesus intended them to be. Jesus was himself against religion. Religion is Evil disguised as good, a wolf in sheep's clothing, Evil is disguised as an evangelist pastor, pushing his own opinions on a weak minded sector of our populace.
if pible people wanto belive that god made us, apple and mcdonalds. Let them belive that there is a flat earth and let them belive that they can fall of from it. Totally wasted 40 mins.
Are you kidding me? This entire argument is built on the prophets calling the world round instead of a "sphere"? This proves the Bible is true! Ask someone - anyone - the shape of the earth, and they will say it is round.....false science....and yes, there will be hell to pay....
The Europeans up till the 14th century thought the earth was flat. That was what Columbus challenged right?......And the Church was running the affairs of the lives of men during those times..... Sooooo, it is plausible to see how they lied to the people to keep them controlled under whatever covert or esoteric ideal was governing the function of the Church.
I see your coment to be 5 months old. I just hope you came to understand the truth already. To read stuff like: "If you belive in God you must reject Allah," even though those 2 names represent one principle, that is beyond my belief. It is like saying: " If you eat apples, you must reject oranges."
Next time you hear a person arguing why the world is a sucky place, look into your own life. Hopefully you will find something worth giving energy to.
When fear and hope fight, the winner is always the side you back up most. Now go out there and have fun! :)
robertallen1... No willful ignorance here... just the simple realization that I don't know everything. Truly intelligent people realize this fact, and continue to study and gain knowledge and understanding about relevant topics... but its obviously you that's the one who thinks they know everything... funny how I have yet to see any shred of evidence (biblical, scholarly, or otherwise) presented alongside your arguments... other than nonsensical babble about what you read in a science book... my arguments are actually primarily based on simple reasoning, more than what I think... you present some questions but yet you do not seek to answer them.
Your text books were just recently authored with fairly new concepts and Ideas lining their pages. But their mostly just theories. If you don't understand the potential for fallacy that the word "theory" implies, please examine your own level of ignorance. The arguments I presented are founded on science, as well as the Bible... which I do, indeed, happen to believe to be true... obviously you don't... do I think that's intelligent? NO... considering that the Bible has been around A LOT longer than any of the modern scientific texts you can offer up to support your argument, and has stood many, many tests of accuracy... other than just that of this thread.
The only thing I've seen you offer up is a series of well-articulated insults and shots at an individual intellect... and not anything concrete, relevant to the subject matter at hand. You're entitled to your own opinion though, as I am mine.
As stated before; peace be unto you...
How weird would it be to mention the "circle" of the earth, but still saying its flat... its says he sits "on the circle"... not "on the flat part of the circle"!.. to me, for one to totally overlook and disdain the circle in this statement is actually a twisting and stretching of words to fit their opinion. I mean why say "circle" if the surface you're on is flat anyway? Who would bother, unless they could see the roundness from where they stood. The argument against Isaiah 40:22 is one of very precise acuteness, and a trivial one at that... like much of the argument that modern-day science presents against the Bible... just splitting hairs over minute points and details... and in the end you still have one problem...
As men, there is so much we will never be able to explain or understand about how this world works. The Book tells us his ways are higher than ours. I know most people these days are bothered by the idea of not being in complete control or the idea of the unknown, but I guess.. I'm not... I'm content controlling what's been imparted unto me and not trying to over-think and offer theories for something that was probably not meant for me to understand, in the first place. And if it is for me to understand, eventually I will. Now , I do not believe myself to be unreasonable or unintelligent, in any way. I just try to be humble and meek enough to accept my own imperfection, and God's place in our world and my life.
In the end... to each; his own. Peace be unto you all.
The debate we seem to be having has been going on since Darwin first offered his theory to the scientific public. And yet, over 100 years later, his theory remains JUST THAT... THEORY... a hypothesis... an educated guess. Perhaps he did observe something, but its just one theory to how this all came about.
Concerning intelligent design, to me the proof is "in the pudding"... things don't just randomly happen or evolve. They are purposely, intently, and intelligently designed and set into order. You can not get order from randomness (disorder/chaos). There is too much order here, to suggest it came from random, or gradual changes over time. And even if you wanted to consider evolution (which I don't)... you have to wonder; what "force" or "causation" caused these things to grow or "evolve" for the better? What gave these supposedly evolving creatures the ability to adapt to their environment, in such a way as to improve their chances of survival? Computer upgrades are precise. planned endeavors that require planning and under standing of an intelligent design. I can't imagine the upgrade of an organism being any more random... or have any less of a factor of causation.
Until you can definitively answer that question of original causation, Naturalism offers no more explanation than any other portion of man's science. The "Buck" stops at the source... and as long as the source is beyond explanation of this world, I'll take it to be that there's a reason for that... even after all of our superior intelligence and modern-day theories, there's still something bigger, and smarter than us out there, and its what put this here in the first place.
Funny Mr. Evolution (Darwin) was so smart but still could not prevent his own untimely death, from illness... and I guess you'll say that was random.
Debates of this sort always trace back to the points of origin... the debate of Darwinism/Naturalism VS Creationism... I beseech you brethren... to dig deeper... deeper than surface-level science... probe for the source...
There is indeed a order to the things of this world, and science is the discovery and understanding of this order, and the application thereof... but it does NOTHING to explain how things came to be set in such order. Please do tell me, what scientific evidence supports the "Big Bang Theory"? Are you suggesting that all this order came from some random, primordial explosion that just randomly came together to work the way it currently does... just try it... take all the parts of a machine and throw them down randomly... then see if that machine works as intended. You cannot get order out of randomness. Order requires intentional, intelligent, purposeful design... or else there is no order. For example if the computer, a precise machine with very detailed design, receives the wrong random instruction, it can be rendered completely inoperable. It requires intelligent design to be created, and also to sustain its operation. As does, anything in this world.
The theory of Natural Selection is one that cannot explain the source of its own volition... at some point something with intelligence had to set these processes in motion and order. Things don't just happen. There is always cause and effect... which is precisely what science is good for.
What makes the light? What makes atoms, photons, electrons, and molecules align the way they do, to fit together and create such organisms as ourselves? How is it that this one planet, out of many that are out there came to be perfectly suited to support mankind and his fragile and frail existence? If you don't our existence to be fragile... just consider that this the one planet in this area of space that can support us. There is a cause for that.
The Good Book states, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Most High created everything in this Earth "after its own seed" and "after its own kind"... if by Naturalism, you mean a slight deviation in exterior colors or variations in the size of certain parts of creature, then that theory may have some minute merit. However, if you intend to imply that we, as intelligent, abstractly-thinking men, evolved from primitive apes, then would you be so kind as to tell me why we still have apes. If we came from chimps, then why did they not ALL evolve? According to the theory of Natural Selection, the selection/evolution took place as part of competition for resources... and that is the theory's supposed explanation for the extinction of species involved in the process. Why didn't all the apes die out, as the more intelligent, supposedly successor humans began consuming their resources? To me, the answer will be because we did not come from them, and things did not happen the way this theory presents. That 2% difference in genetic makeup of the closest ape to our own genetic material is enough to convince me that they are two distinct creatures and were indeed created that way.
22 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:
23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
This OLD TESTAMENT... people need to read their Bibles! God's word is truth and will perfectly align with any Science that is true.
To me Psalms 19:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 don’t say anything about the Sun going around the Earth…
Maybe a ball back then wasn't round or spherical and that is why the author didn’t use it? I’ve seen people today refer to something spherical as being circular.
The illustration, as you well know is just that. when you say that the suffering of the driver pulling the trailer is his own fault you are purposely avoiding the point and the point only was the design criteria of the illustration. I am only showing the everyday function of that which we call "a conviction of conscience.The first thing out of your mouth is born of reasoning that allows you to ignore the conviction of conscience. This "one fallen robot" language only bogs down the conversation. If you want me to speak "normal English" you must do so also. When you begin to avoid the obvious point I am making with the illustration it becomes obvious what your motivations are. It is very important to you to establish in your reasoning that I "know no more about conscience (?) then anyone else. So how about showing me one of the "assumptions" I made?
Yes and I'm sorry but when you consider this particular subject you get exiled to Gibberland. It was there that I learned Gibberish. There are not many people that speak this language on this site but there are a few. If one of them responds to my comment I will enjoy talking to them in my favorite language, Gibberish.
In Giberland, where the language is ass-backwards, the language you speak is called Robot fallen one. When reversed for the real world this becomes "One fallen robot.
The flat earth could easily be interpreted as part of the sacred geometry. Everything is flat...2D and our brains interpret it as 3D.
The narrator of this documentary seems to be taking the wrong approach. It's not so much whether the "author" of Genesis meant 24-hour days or figurative ones, but rather how the fictive reader/listener of the time would have taken them. This approach provokes greater complexity and speculativeness, for it first requires a characterization of the type of reader/listener that Genesis was aimed at, including the area of the known world the reader/listener inhabited, the reader/listener's upbringing (including sex), the reader/listener's probable level of education, etc. In short, was Genesis intended for the elite (i.e. those with education and hence the ability to read) or the masses (i.e., those without) who formed the far greater majority)?
In the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian story of creation (1800-1600 BC) about 1,000 years before Genesis, the earth is created by six generations of gods and, interestingly enough, on the sixth day, Marduk, the head honcho, creates man AS A SLAVE (so much for free thought) and then rests. So a fictive reader/listener of the time would not even have considered a 24-hour day or for that matter the concept of a day which was simply irrelevant to the acount. I wonder if there are any other creation myths which we know of prior to Genesis which include the definite time divisions. If not, it seems that somewhere along the way, the concept of generations got changed into days for the convenience of the political correctness of monotheism. If the fictive reader/listener of the 7th century BC were anything like the fictive reader/listener of the 17th century BC, my guess is that in light of the traditions in which this person most likely would have been brought up (things did not change all that rapidly within the millennia referred to), this would probably have interpreted the days in Genesis as indefinite divisions and, of course, the "author" of Genesis would have been well aware of this and written his narrative accordingly, his only concern being to slant his narrative towards monotheism and, as mentioned above, the use of days was simply a literatry convenience. In short, the last thing he was thinking about, although he was conscious of it, was a 24-hour day.
Also, the narrator does not indicate whether the word for day employed in Genesis and other sections of the Old Testament also had figurative uses connoting in general an indefinite period of time, cf. any day, judgment day, heyday, holiday, lackadaisical, daisy.
Thus, I do not believe that the narrator has made a strong enough case for day in Genesis meaning a 24-hour day.
P.S. In light of the documentary, I must make the self-serving statement that the only agenda here is scholarship.
@ robertallen 1
Please learn how to speak properly. Always speaking with respect to others is the best way to communicate. I only respond to intelligent comments from those who are aware that they may be able to learn something. I have read many of your insults to others over time and you are not the kind of person I enjoy talking to. Does this make sense or does it sound like "gibberish"?
This does not prove that the Bible is inaccurate. It proves that if it is accurate that the correct interpretation is not being embraced by those who hold it to be a literal description of "physical" reality. When understood as a framing of motivational dynamics that drive the evolution of human consciousness, all of the Bibles self-contradiction is removed.
The phrase "ends of the earth" is not a reference to the edge of a pancake shaped planetary surface. It is a consistent reference to that small group that least far departed from a unifying perspective. This is our convicting conscience. "Earth" is a reference to a narrow or division justifying motivation that wars in opposition to our conviction of conscience. This motivation arises from the processing of information through the five physical senses. Those who have the weakest convictions of conscience are automatically most influenced by their intellectual reasoning or individual perspective because they have little motivation from the inward "voice" of conscience to temper or restrain or properly direct it. These people are at the middle of the "earth" so to speak. Others with stronger convictions of conscience are influenced also by their individual perspective but it can be said that they are at the "edge" of it. they are not fully immersed, so to speak. This concept is also illustrated in the story of Lot being not fully in Sodom but standing "in the gate" so to speak.
What the Buybull got wrong? Hmmm...that would be...well everything!
The Quran states that the earth is round in this ayah:(And the earth, moreover, hath He extended as a round shape)
the verb in arabic is (daha) which is exclusively used in round shaped figures...
u can also look for of these facts by simply searching for(science miracles in quran)
Felt I had to throw myself into this discussion. I'm an atheist, by the way.
One thing that should be noted about the bible is that it was never intended to be read outside the sphere of Judaism - it is a text written by jews, for jews (some proselytizing happened, but not much).
Secondly, the focus on the English language in the debate about the biblical view of the bible makes it a strange debate (I've seen this topic discussed on other places). I'm Swedish, and in the Swedish bible the word "rund" (round) is used to describe the earth (as far back as 1541). "Rund" can mean both circular and spheric.
I assume a lot of people use the King James Version when quoting the bible and there it indeed says "circle" (Isaiah 40:22 for example), however, translation is in part interpretation and the hebrew word for circle, "chuwg", can be translated as compass, circuit and vault as well. Now, if the word chuwg is interpreted and translated as a circle, one can be lead to think of the earth as flat, but should it be translated into vault, which indeed carries with the notion of something rounded (and, I would imagine, if the vault encompassed the earth, it would result in a spheric form).
The notion that people through out the ages have thought the world to be flat is actually quite wrong. The greeks saw the earth as a sphere, for example. The Ionian philosohpers thought of the earth as a disc, but their world view was soon replaced by that of the greek mathematicians (and fishermen, who quite easily figured out that the world was round by watching the horizon).
It is not my intention to defend the bible or Christianity (as I mentioned, I'm an atheist), but the one-sided critizism of the bible can sometimes be quite ridiculous when you don't consider multiple ways of interpretations and translations. I'm quite convinced that the word chuwg means something rounded and not flat, but that's just my personal opinion. Asking a jewish scholar about the meaning of the word is probably the best way to go.
Sorry i mean that they knew about the world not being flat in fact their Qur'an described it as similar to an egg that to a perfect sphere.
it is relay amazing the Muslims knows about the earth being flat 14th century ago and they also knows about the pulse star, amazingly it was written in their Qur'an
Ironically the bible authors were seemingly least educated and far behind their contemporaries. So much for being inspired by an all-knowing god ha ha
um... the moon looks like a circle... what a week argument.
I am a unwanted child. As an adult I told my birth mother I wish she had chose to have an abortion. Yes, I would have been better off. You cannot speak for everyone.
I don't get what peoples issue with historical sciences is, the religious sects were for a while some of the best educated scholars. Everyone makes discoveries based upon what their perceptions or measurements tell them, and nine out of ten times those discoveries are wrong until we look at things from a different direction.
Leave the past in the past an maybe we'll have a smarter society, rather then one were people occupy their time beating each other over the head with ideas that are only prolonged by people arguing them...
What about Isaiah 40:22 when the scripture implies that the Earth is circular??
"God sits above the circle of the earth. The people below seem like grasshoppers to him! He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his tent from them."
I can sense the prefrontal lobotomy of religion.
The Bible does mention Dinosaurs........Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34)
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Right, now to actually watch the damn thing.
People take the translated version of the bible and take it literally.
people need to realize that their faith is not what they think it is...if you look at it with logic and common sense you will see that idea of god is to explain something you dont understand,something people didnt understand 2k years ago and we still dont complitly understand.its simple to say god made it all, its gods fault, and put your head in the sand not understanding what or why something realy happend.imagine 2ky ago you live in a village, no light polution, you look up to the sky and you see a center of our galaxy, just this beautiful disk made of stars. now by that time they didnt have a word to describe these things or even know what they were. so of cuorse the idea would be that the heavens is where you go when you die or that is where god lives, understandable. if you look at a person, we are all born ignorant, so is the humanity when you look at it as a whole. we learn then we know things.