MOJO-JOJO

I saw this as an argument about the fallibilty of the Bible once by--I think--Carl Sagan, but I don't have time to look through all his books and try to find it. He referenced a Bible verse or passage that implies belief in a flat earth.

I'm in a dbate right now with a Bible inerrantist, and I was wondering if anyone could help me out along with any standard christian defenses you may have experienced.

Thanks!

Pantera

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm" target="_blank">The Flat Earth Bible</a>

Reactor

LOL... oh man is that one sad-ass document. Talk about ripping scriptures out of context, and what is with that rubbish from Revelation and stars falling from the sky? Hint: that was a vision!

Man, if you're going to argue with someone about the flat earth stuff in the bible, you'd better have better stuff than that

Standard Christian defences are: "Don't start with your conclusion, and dogmatically try and prove it with scriptures."

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;There aren't any. There are verses that speak of the "four corners of the earth" but that could as well be poetic language. I once had a science prof who was saying a similar thing. I asked him, in class "do you think the sun will come out today Dr. So and So?" He said "maybe." I said "out from where?" Meaning, we all talk that way. He said the sun would "come out" but obviously the doesn't believe it's hidding somewhere. see what I'm saying?

Vorkosigan

The OT is obviously a flat earth work.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/1/1flat90.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/1/1flat90.html</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm</a>

Just type "bible flat earth" in google and out will pop all the arguments that show the OT is a flat earth doc, and the apologists desperately trying to avoid facing this.

Michael

lpetrich

First off, the "quoted out of context" defense rings hollow after a while; it's a knee-jerk response without any real content.

Vision or no vision, comments like that indicate belief in the flatness of the Earth. Another example is comment about the visibility of all the kingdoms of the world from some high mountain. Confining myself to the major Old-World ones (Roman Empire, India, China) reveals that such a mountain would have to be at least 2000 km tall and located in European Russia.

Look who's talking. Has there ever been any other style of Bible interpretation?

And Jesus Christ could have been pure fiction. Think of that before retorting with implausible could-bes.

And why don't you try convincing some fundamentalists that their literalism is just plain wrong?

In fact, I must say that I have some respect for strict fundamentalism, because that's a well-defined belief with little room for the common "take what you like and leave what you don't like" style of interpretation.

Reactor

lpetrich, man... play fair here. I was just having a good laugh at something I think is laughable. You would have said the same thing (had the tables been turned). Relax a little, eh? The 'out of context' comment is not a knee-jerk reaction. I understand biblical exegesis quite well, and even take it to a further extreme than most Christians (a move that can make me quite unpopular at times). It's not a defence. It's a statement, and that document does contain comments that rip the scriptures right out of context.

Also, there are forms of interpretation that can avoid obvious dogmatism. I spent quite some time trying to get all of these down, and obviously even with all of the techniques, yes, it can still happen. But my interpretation is far different from the guy who started this while thread, and less prone to blatant dogmatism. If you disagree, then I'd seriously doubt you know much about biblical interpretation- that not being an insult btw, but that is what I'd honestly think.

Grumpy

Bottom line: For centuries, Bible-believers failed to recognize the roundness of the Earth. They pointed to the Bible as proof. Sure, the language may have been poetic -- but it still led believers astray.

Even if the case isn't so strong for the "Flat Earth" belief, just change it to geocentrism. This belief persisted into the 20th century (think William Jennings Bryan), and some (very few) still insist on it today.

Undercurrent

Then you should have no problem telling us what the correct contexts are and why the conclusions of the article are false. Please. Proceed.

I certainly agree that the standard christian defence is to ignore the specific arguments and divert attention to the motivations of the arguer, as if an arguement is made invalid if stated by someone with an agenda.

m.

John the Atheist

Michael,

Just type "bible flat earth" in google and out will pop all the arguments that show the OT is a flat earth doc, and the apologists desperately trying to avoid facing this.

There are actually more scriptures that indicate a flat earth, while a couple of scriptures would indicate a globe or sphere. The latter can be found in Job and Psalms. I could dig them up if somebody wanted them. So apologists can have it either way. Just pick the ones that would indicate one way, and hope the readers don't have a good enough memory to remember the other ones stating the opposite.

Another way to corroborate the flat earth is what the early church fathers believed. I could dig up some quotes on them too, if someone wants them.

John