Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Biblical Literalism & Flat Earth
« on: June 17, 2020, 07:46:14 AM »
Wasn't quite sure where to put this but this seemed like the right place.
So some FE beliefs are based on a literal interpretation of certain Bible verses, notably:

Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Rowbotham was clearly motivated in this way, in a later chapter of ENaG he rails against science and how it leads people away from God.
The issue with this verse is that if you look down at a globe you will see a circle. And there are other issues like this verse:

Revelation 7:1
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree."

4 corners implies a square, circles famously don't have corners. But then there's this verse which I was reminded of last night:

Psalm 113:3
"From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets, the name of the LORD is to be praised."

The ancient FE belief would have been that the earth was flat and that the sun goes up and over it across the sky during the day and under it at night.
So day would be day everywhere, night would be night everywhere. If you knew nothing about the world or science then you might well conclude that.
And the above verse does appear to support that.

As soon as quick long distance travel became possible thought it was quickly realised that day and night do occur at different times at different places.
And neither the globe or modern FE model claims that the sun literally rises or sets.

TL;DR - Biblical literalism gets you in a mess, and the reason for that is that the Bible is not intended to reveal scientific truths to us.
It's intended to tell us about our creator and our purpose, not the mechanics of how the universe hangs together.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"