lee_merrill

Sure, pebbles are generally not flat--to use Chrysostom's example, now if only they would float, then Chrysostom's objection would be answered. We know by the way that the earth's crust does float!

Johnny Skeptic

Lee Merrill was actually joking. He just pretended that he was serious. Consider the following:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

[Johnny Skeptic: As many readers at the IIDB know, Lee Merrill is notorious for making lots of ridiculous arguments and vacating threads as soon as arguments become difficult for him to reply to. This thread will most certainly not be an exception. With Lee's past inept track record, it is a wonder that he still participates in debates. He thinks nothing of debating complex issues in biology even though he has not even passed one semester of college biology. When I debated him regarding the Babylon prophecy, he took issue with presitigious fundamentalist Christians scholars who disagreed with his position, including a Bible commentary that is edited by noted fundamentalist Christian Bible scholar F.F. Bruce. His pride and egotism are apparent. What should anyone expect from an inerrantist and a presuppositionalist who ALWAYS assumes his conclusions PRIOR to having debates, and always rejects anything from a consensus of experts when the experts disagree with the Bible. Inerrantists and presuppositionalists believe that the Bible is true not matter what. It doesn't really matter what any other evidence show. One Scripture says that God does not tempt anyone. Another Scripture says that God tempted Abraham. How many examples like that should it take to convince people that the Bible contains contradictions?]

lee_merrill

Strange that we have these expressions also in English, and use them. Would this make every English speaker a member of the flat-earth society?

But no, this is figurative language, these are idioms and poetic expressions, such as the storehouses of the hail, there was not this expectation that we could see a house filled with hail, if only we found the right spot, nor was there a thought that the wicked are tumbled off the edge of the earth during earthquakes.

Johnny Skeptic

But in ancient times, everyone who knew about those Scriptures believed that they described a flat earth. No one considered them to be figures of speech like people do today.

If a God inspired the writing of the Bible, it is obvious that his intention was to encourage dissent. Otherwise, he could easily have inspired a Bible that was much easier to understand. As noted Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has noted, there has never been a consistent, unified Christian position, including in the 1st century A.D. Even Paul admits that there was considerable disunity in the Corinthian church. In addition, as noted Bible scholar Elaine Pagels has said, "the victors [orthodox Christians] rewrote history, 'their way.'" Who is to say which books belong in the Bible? What about the Gospel of Thomas and the Apochypha? Who is to say whether or not God inspired any of the Bible, and preserved any of the Bible?

Trubble

Yes, and if refrigerators could float, we might have a whole new explanation for the Ice Age.

I don't see Chrysostom making an "objection in this text, but never mind. I do see him stating that the earth floats entirely on top of the waters, and that it has four corners. Perhaps I lack your powers of imagination, but I can't picture any shape fitting that description that is not, more or less, flat.

Jehanne

It's in the Wikipedia article, where Saint Augustine states, "But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet..." So, clearly, by Augustine's time, the knowledge of the spherical Earth had became more broadly known. Find a Christian theologian prior to Augustine who used such language. For instance, what does "four corners" imply??

lee_merrill

Oh, I don't know, maybe what we mean when we speak of the corners of the globe?

Boro Nut

The point is Johnny, that it doesn't matter if it was a figure of speech then or not. It only became a figure of speech when it was eventually accepted that the world didn't have corners. Before that point it would by definition have been a statement of belief. You don't just pluck figures of speech out of the air. They are artifacts from previous ages.

So if it was already known that the world was spherical at the time the bible was written (a likely story) then what purpose did God have in introducing this misleading figure of speech? The only logical conclusions to be drawn are that either god (who was dictating) believed the world had corners, or that the bible writers did. Either ways they lose.

And why would god say that Jesus was taken up the highest mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth? The only thing he could have seen were the next couple of dozen highest mountains on earth. If it was a magic vision, then why not just show him it all from the comfort of his sofa? The inescapable conclusion is that it was clearly meant to indicate that all the kingdoms of the earth are visible from the highest mountain, so again either this was god's belief or that of the bible writers. Either way they lose.

Boro Nut

WishboneDawn

Is it the 'four zones' that implies a flat earth? If so, how? In the Irenaeus quote I mean.

Jehanne

Have you read the Wikipedia article? Here are some highlights:

"Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings."

"In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. According to Aristotle, Presocratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BCE) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BCE) believed in a flat earth .[3] Anaximander, believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things;.[4]"

"Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[6] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon."

Do you dispute any of this? Do you dispute that Cosma "in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans"?

Where do you think that Cosma got his ideas from? Why did the Church not condemn him as a heretic for teaching a "false" doctrine?