Showing posts with label flat earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flat earth. Show all posts

The Flat Earth Myth? It's true that Columbus and most Church Fathers were not flat earthers, but don't start cheering just yet…

Christopher Columbus Map

The map (to the right) displays how Columbus and some other fifteenth century Italians imagined the earthʼs geography looked, click here for more info. Columbus died, still thinking he had reached islands near India. We will discuss Columbus (along with the influence theology had on Medieval map making, and myth-making) again at the end of this blog entry but for now itʼs enough to note that Columbus was no flat earther.

But long before Columbus (and even before the Church Fathers), writings and imagery from the ancient Near East demonstrated that ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Hebrews agreed the earth was flat and stationary. Even the authors of inter-testamental works like Daniel and Enoch (written between the time of the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament”) assumed the earth was flat. Even the authors of the New Testament, in the first century, employed ideas and phrases appropriate to the flatness of the earth, and also appropriate to a three-tier cosmos with Godʼs heaven above, earth below and “sheol/hades/tartarus” lying “under” the earth—all such Greek terms being translated in the New Testament with the Germanic word, “hell” (see “The Cosmology of the Bible,” a chapter in The Christian Delusion, click here, and see “Is Flat Earth Biblical Cosmology merely an Infidelʼs Delusion?” click here).

Furthermore, the idea of the sun, moon, and stars, having waters set firmly above them was discussed by early rabbis as well as Church Fathers, and medieval Christians, in fact right up till Martin Lutherʼs day at the dawn of the Reformation in the fifteenth century. See this pic from Lutherʼs Bible:

Only after the invention of the telescope did enough data pour in such that ancient ideas and words of Scripture no longer determined how the cosmos was viewed (with some modern day Christians still in denial, from geocentrists to young-earth creationists, click here. While other Evangelicals are striving to get their brethren to understand the ancient Near Eastern background of Genesis 1, click here, here, and here.

Returning to the question of what the Church fathers believed, the majority were not flat earthers but sought a concordance between the Bible and the notion of a spherical earth as found in the Hellenstic world, the same world that the Church Fathers wished to evangelize. Though a few did reject the “pagan” notion of a spherical earth, click here for more info.

One Christian in particular, writing under the pseudonymn, “Cosmas Indicopleustes,” who lived toward the end of the reign of the Christian Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, attacked the pagan “spherical earth” view and defended instead the view that the earth was flat, based on the idea in the Letter to the Hebrews that the earth was like Godʼs tabernacle in the Old Testament in which God dwelt. His book was called Christian Topography, click here. Ironically, modern day Evangelical Christian scholars (including inerrantists like John Walton, and G. K. Beale, as well as apologists like N. T. Wright) agree that the setting up of the cosmos according to Genesis chapter 1 should be interpreted as the building and consecration of a “temple” for God to dwell in—which resembles the view of Cosmas, i.e., that the cosmos was shaped like the “tabernacle” used by Moses in the wilderness, a “tabernacle” being a sort of movable “temple.” [see ENDNOTE #1] So these modern day Evangelicals view Genesis 1 as a story about the creation of the cosmos based on the motif of “temple mythology.” Cosmas would probably be annoyed at the rejection of his literal interpretation, yet also pleased to at least hear that his tabernacle/temple idea has withstood the test of time and even been applied to the first chapter of the Bible.

Even as late as the eighth century at least one medieval Christian wrote a book that depicted the earth in flat terms, attributing his work not to himself in the eighth century but to an author before Cosmasʼ own day. The book was titled, The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister, click here for a description.

And even though most Church Fathers accommodated themselves to the prevalent Hellenistic idea of a spherical earth, note that a major Church Father like Augustine denied that human beings lived on the other side of that sphere.

Saint Augustine (354-430 CE):

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.

Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point; Augustine continues:

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.

Flat earthism underwent a bit of a revival in the early 1900s when some Christians in both Britain and the U.S. cited Scripture in its support and defended it in the face of what they called the “evils of modern astronomy.” British supporters of a flat earth challenged spherical earth scientists to public debates, and the flat earthers were said to have won over their audiences. In the 1920s in the U.S. Wilbur Glenn Voliva built one of the most powerful radio transmitting stations in his day, and broadcast his flat earth views widely from the city of Zion, Illinois, a Christian religious community that upheld the flat earth view.

According to Robert J. Schadewald, who was researching a book on the history of Flat Earth movements before he died in 2000, there are still flat earthers today:

[The late] Charles Johnson, a twentieth century Flat Earther and editor of The Flat Earth News, was sort of a wacky character, but he was not really representative of flat earthers in general. The half dozen or so other flat earthers Iʼve spoken or corresponded with have included a successful Boston trial lawyer, a priest who belongs to a society devoted to the preservation and translation of ancient Coptic manuscripts, a retired financial officer from a major metropolitan school system (he thoughtfully corrected an error in Greek grammar I had copied from a flat earth source), and a young man who intended to translate an eighth century flat earth treatise by Aethicus of Istria from Latin into English. Not exactly a bunch of semiliterates!

Schadewald added:

The Antiochene Fathers of the early Christian Church more or less invented the historical-critical method of exegesis popular among modern fundamentalists within the Reformed tradition. (Not surprisingly, *every* Antiochene Father whose views on the subject I have been able to discern was a flat earther!) So I think it is a bit strong to suggest that this method doesnʼt have ‘anything to do with the history of Scriptural interpretation.’ It may have been moribund for a long time, but it has ancient roots. [Emails dated 8/10/99 and 8/5/99 respectively from the late Robert Schadewald, author of numerous articles on “flat earthism,” and author of the unpublished work, The Plane Truth: A History of Flat Earth Science.]

For some articles by Schadewald that touch upon the history of nineteenth and twentieth century flat earth groups click here.

Not only do the flat earthers whom Schadewald met attest to that beliefʼs presence in the year 2000, but some twenty first century flat earthers appear to have set up a serious web forum, click here.

T-shirt sold at TheFlatEarthSociety.Org

Geo-centrism is yet another view that has never died out among believers in the Bible who cite Scriptures in support of their belief. Early Church Fathers were geocentrists, as well as the Fathers of Protestantism, Luther and Calvin (click here). Today there are still geocentrists among some orthodox Jewish educational institutions (click here). Geocentrism is also promoted by some Catholics and Protestants, who held a joint conference recently, attempting to augment their Bible-based belief in geocentrism with “scientific arguments,” click here.

A T-O type map, from 1300 (Hereford Cathedral, England) with Jerusalem at center, east toward the top, Europe at bottom left and Africa on the right.

Columbus & Ptolemyʼs Geography

Columbusʼ fifteenth century view of the size of the earth was based on Ptolemyʼs second century Geography book. Ptolemy calculated that a degree was 50 miles (not 70 as we know today), which gave him an earth with a circumference of only 18,000 miles. Ptolemy also stretched Asia eastward for 180 degrees (not 130 degrees as we know today). Therefore, Columbus, taking the word of a book composed thirteen hundred years before he was born, thought India was far closer than it really was.

Why was Ptolemyʼs Geography still considered relatively accurate thirteen hundred years after its first publication? Europe had become Christian. Expanding knowledge of the physical world was deemed to be of relatively less importance than theological notions concerning the world, especially the “world to come.” In fact there was no English word for “geography” until the 16th Century.

A classical T-O Map, but this one is from a printing press, not hand drawn like the one above, and far from being the earliest. It dates to 1472.

At any rate, Columbus appears to have used a version of Ptolemyʼs smaller size of the earth along with a belief that less sea probably existed and more land (per II Esdras, see below). So when he did reach land he remained convinced he had discovered islands off the coast of India. Columbus also noted the existence of fresh waters from what we know today as the Orinoco river which implied a great river and a vast continent. Christian geographers said that such could not exist south of the equator. So, he decided that he had found the location of Paradise. Columbus grew increasingly religious in his later years and wrote, A Book of Prophecies (1505), in which passages from the Bible were used to place his achievements as an explorer in the context of Christian eschatology.

Other Peculiar Notions About Geography That Were Held During the Middles Ages

  1. The Insignificant Ocean—A passage found in the Catholic Bible (and in early Protestant Bibles that used to include the Apocrypha), implied that the earth was mostly land rather than sea. The “Ocean,” was believed to be a body of water that surrounded the earthʼs three major continents (Europe, Asia, Africa) in a circular fashion, but not as expansive as the continents themselves. The verse in question was this one:

    Upon the third day [of creation] thou didst command that the waters should be gathered in the seventh part of the earth: six pats hast thou dried up, and kept them, to the intent that of these some being planted of God and tilled might serve thee. [II Esdras 6:42, II Esdras is an ancient Apocryphal work included in Catholic Bibles, but also included in early Protestant Bibles, even the first edition of the King James Bible]

    The verse implied that six sevenths of the world must be land, so the ocean was believed to be far smaller than we know it to be today. The “Ocean” simply meant a circle of water that surrounded the three major continents of the world, with Jerusalem in the center. While beyond the “Ocean” lay Paradise.

  2. Early Medieval maps, driven by theological rather than geographical concerns, often pictured Asia at the top [east was at the top] and Europe and Africa beneath Asia, one on the right, the other on the left, all three continents being encircled by the “Ocean,” with a “T”-shaped body of water dividing the three continents. The upright trunk of the “T” was the Mediterranean Sea, the right cross bar of the “T” being the Nile river, and the left cross bar of the “T” being the Danube river (or some other major European river).

  3. It was also commonly believed that the three known continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa, constituted the entire world, and that each continent was occupied primarily by the descendants of one of the three sons of Noah after they left the ark, and/or after the dividing of the world after the tower of Babel incident, with Jerusalem lying at the “center of the world.”
  4. In short, Medieval map makers came up with ways to design maps that supported Christian theological beliefs. Different portions of the Bible provided added opportunities for creative cartography.

    At the top of the T maps, also called T-O maps, geographers placed the Garden of Eden. (Keep in mind the top was Asia, the east.) Typically surrounded by a mountain range or a high wall, outside of which was a wasteland filled with wild beasts. Popular tales told of monks who traveled to locate Eden.

    Saint Brendan (484-578), an Irish monk, apparently believed Eden was in the Atlantic. He reportedly sailed west and found a beautiful island paradise. “St. Brendanʼs Island” remained on maps until at least 1759, even though it was never found by anyone else.

    The books of Ezekial in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New Testament both warned of “Gog and Magog,” so they were added to maps. Usually located in the extreme north (per Ezekielʼs description). Roger Bacon urged the study of geography to prepare for an invasion from Gog and Magog.

    In the twelfth century during the Crusades, Europe sought allies in the Holy Land. Prester John was said to be a priest-king who had defeated the Muslims in his kingdom. Allegedly descended from the same race as “the Three Wise Men” (who traveled far to deliver gifts to the baby Jesus), Prester John was also allegedly a pious Christian, military genius, and an enormously wealthy ruler. About 1165, a letter appeared from Prester John to the Byzantine emperor of Rome and the King of France allegedly promising to help them to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims. “Prester Johnʼs Letter” was extremely popular and widely published. It included mention of such things as: “birds called griffins who can easily carry an ox or a horse into their nest to feed their young.” “Horned men who have but one eye in front and three or four in the back.” Bowmen “who from the waist up are men, but whose lower part is that of a horse.” For years, mapmakers continued to attempt to locate Prester Johnʼs kingdom.

    A Catalan Atlas from 1375, made for King of Aragon by Abraham Cresques, a Jew on Majorca, was created by combining empirical geographical knowledge gained from ships of trade with theologically based ideas. Jerusalem was still near the center of the earthʼs geography, Gog and Magog still present.

    The cartographerʼs greatest act of self-control was to leave parts of the earth blank. A difficult act of self-control indeed, as eons of cosmological speculation and mythmaking—from the time of the ancient Near East till today—demonstrates.


Endnotes

#1 Some Bible scholars argue that the story of a “tabernacle” in the “wilderness” might also be a myth retrojected back into the Moses story, based on the later building of the temple in Jerusalem.

Does the Bible “Teach” Geocentrism?

Geocentrism remains a minority opinion but a lively one among some creationist Christians. See poster below advertising one of their conferences, a joint affair, featuring both Catholic and Protestant speakers:

Geocentrism

Geocentrists remain hopeful even in this heliocentric age because as Gerardus Bouw (Ph.D. in astronomy, president of the Association for Biblical Astronomy and the countryʼs leading proponent of geocentrism) puts it:

“As long as people have some faith in Scripture, thereʼs a future for it.

“I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures.

“The only way we can know for certain whether or not geocentricity is true would be to leave the universe, take a look around outside the universe, and then come back in to tell us what is really happening in that larger scope. Since God is infinitely greater than the universe, and so extends beyond the universe, what God says must present the ultimate case … God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity.”

Compare Bouwʼs words above with these:

“The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.” [Henry Morris, founder of the Institute of Creation Research]

Bouw converted to geocentrism only after meeting Walter Van der Kamp and studying Scripture further. Van der Kamp came to creationism relatively late in life and had not gotten far in his research when something began to trouble him about the relationship of creationism to heliocentrism: If Genesis 1 clearly states that God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day in order to rule an already existing day and night on an already existing earth, when did the earth begin to move, and how did we ever get the idea that it was the earthʼs rotation toward and away from the sun that caused day and night, rather than the light that God so dramatically created in Genesis 1:3? Besides, would God really have created a planet, set it into orbit around nothing, then four days later placed a random minor star at the center of that orbit? Obviously, something didnʼt add up. Unless geocentrism was true.

Robert Sungenis, another geocentrist, has an interesting past. He was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Christian, graduated from a pro-inerrantist Reformed Christian seminary (Westminster Theological Seminary), and later returned to Catholicism before becoming a geocentrist.

Both Bouw and Sungenis admit that some of their fiercest critics are fellow creationist Christians who “want to downplay” geocentrism as much as possible.

For instance, the creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, dismisses geocentrism with several arguments including the observation that “the question of the earthʼs physical position is less important than the spiritual reality of Godʼs love for his people.” But isnʼt that similar to the way Theistic Evolutionist Christians dismiss creationism? i.e., with the observation that “the question of whether humans were created directly from the dust of the earth or not is less important than the spiritual reality of Godʼs love for his people.” Bouw points out that Answers in Genesis is not being consistent, “You canʼt say that one part of the Bible is more credible than another part simply because you feel uncomfortable with what it says.”

Bouw adds that quite a few creationists are closet geocentrists, “including some bigwigs.”

What does the Bible say? Bouw points out that it speaks with divine assurance of the earthʼs “foundations” and that God “has established the world, it shall not be moved.” Bouw asks heliocentric Christians whether they can honestly interpret such speech as Godʼs way of communicating “the relative stability of the earthʼs orbit as it follows its circuit through the heavens?”

He points out that to heliocentrists the earth remains incessantly in motion—rotating daily—revolving annually—and over longer periods of time the tilt of its axis wobbles in a small circle. Heliocentrists are forced to admit that the Scriptures never praise God for exerting His vast power to keep the earth in constant motion, but only praise Him “for establishing the world so that it can not be moved.” What does that imply about Godʼs inability to inspire human writers with true cosmic knowledge concerning creation? If all the Bibleʼs passages that assume geocentrism and daily solar movements and God directing the annual ups and downs of the constellations as they cross the horizon are all untrue—and God is NOT exerting His power to hold the earth still, and the sun is NOT moving daily across the sky, NOR is God “directing” the seasonal movements of the constellations higher or lower above the earthʼs horizons, then what about the truth of Genesis 1-11? How can Young-Earth creationists claim the authority of “Godʼs plain speech” for how THEY interpret what God uses His powers for, but geocentrists must abandon theirs?

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric and or Flat Earth Cosmology

Non-Canonical Religious Texts That Agree With Scriptural Ones in Assuming the Truth of a Geocentric Cosmology

The Fathers of the Christian Church Were Geocentrists

The Fathers of the Protestant Reformation Were Geocentrists:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This man wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.
Martin Luther, Table Talk

The Illustration Of The Cosmos On The Right Appeared In Lutherʼs Translation Of The Bible.

“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters … We Christians must be different . . . in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.”
Martin Luther, Lutherʼs Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves…Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.
Melanchthon, famous Protestant Reformer and dear friend of Luther who helped carry on his legacy.

Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.’
John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by Godʼs hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced — YEA, he hath established it.
John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdmanʼs, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

Bouw also mentions that in the modern cosmos there is no true “up” or “down.” The earth is not higher or lower than anything else in the cosmos, including the stars which “the Jews were tempted to worship” because they imagined them as being above them and divine. The earth is merely one cosmic wanderer among others, neither above nor below “the stars.” Only in a geocentric cosmos is there a firmly established sense of “up and down,” speaking of which, Bouw also introduces an argument based on the relationship between Godʼs throne in heaven and His footstool below. At the very least one can see how the metaphor of a divinely established throne with an unmoved footstool might have appealed to ancient geocentric [and/or flat earth] biblical writers. Bouw writes:

“Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49 both state, ‘Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? [i.e., the Temple]’

“It is usual for thrones and footstools to be at rest relative to each another. As Professor James Hanson has put it: ‘Footstools are not footstools if they are moving.’”

“Compare Lamentations 2:1: ‘How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!’”

“From I Chronicles 28:2,7 Psalm 99:5 and Psalm 132:7 we know that ‘his footstool’ is the Temple upon which ‘the LORD looks down, and beholds from heaven’ (Lamentations 3:50 and 51). This is not heliocentric talk. Godʼs footstool has not moved. It is right where he left it. The Temple mount, Mount Moriah, is still under his throne as it was at the time of Isaacʼs sacrifice (Genesis 22), at Davidʼs purchase of the threshing floor (II Samuel 24:18-25), at the destruction of the Temple (Lamentations, Jeremiah 52), and at the millennial return (Ezekiel 40-48).”

Geocentrists also also focus on verses in which the sun is commanded not to move. Job 9:7 says, God “commands the sun, and it does not rise.” This can not be a case of the sun merely “appearing” not to rise, because it is the sun to which God addresses His command. Itʼs true that this line is spoken by Job, who, as a man, may be mistaken, but Bouw believes this passage is a prophetic reference to an incident known as Joshuaʼs long day. Joshua 10 recounts a day in which, according to inspired Scripture, Joshua commanded the sun not to move, instead of the earth, and, “the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” An obvious rejoinder by a heliocentrist is that if God had inspired the words, “God commanded the earth to stand still,” and, “the earth stood still,” no reader until the 16th century would have understood him. But Bouw labels this as the central heresy of the church—the heresy that the Creator of earth, sun and cosmos was incapable of inspiring human beings to say what He actually commands, moves and does. The God of the cosmos, creator of language, could not have somehow inspired His people to speak of the “circuit of the earth” instead of the “circuit of the sun?”

To quote Bouw:

“Both the anthropocentric theory of inspiration and the phenomenological-language theory are forms of accommodation where God is said to accommodate his wording to the understanding of the common man. Though that may sound good on the surface, accommodation still maintains that God goes along with the accepted story even though he really does not believe it.”

God leaves his followers with the job of continually revising the meaning of Scripture over the centuries in reaction to advances in scientific knowledge such that a rejection (in the 1600s) of geocentric biblical astronomy was only the beginning. It was followed (in the late 1700-early 1800s) by the rejection of a worldwide Flood and rejection of a young-earth. Which was followed by the rejection (in the mid-to-late 1800s) of the special creation of Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth.

Given the capitulation to heliocentrism, says Bouw, the demise of special creation was inevitable. “By the time evolution comes around, well, you gave in on the geocentric thing: Scripture doesnʼt teach how the heavens go, it teaches how to go to heaven. Fine, evolution is like that too, it has nothing to do with how to get to heaven, so thereʼs no contradiction.” Geocentrists view their work as a necessary component of creationism.

Additional Similarities Between Creationists And Geocentrists

[SOURCE: Man in the Middle: An Exclusive Cut Excerpt from Rapture Ready! by Daniel Radosh]

“Having spent a considerable amount of time talking with creationists, I recognized fundamental similarities between their approach and that of the geocentrists: the emphasis on casting doubt on established theories rather than developing their own testable hypotheses; the claim that all theyʼre asking for is an open debate. And Sungenis also echoed creationists’ assertions that they donʼt deny fossil evidence but merely interpret it in a different way. ‘We also have to backtrack on the experiments that were done that were interpreted in the heliocentric framework and ask if they can be interpreted in the geocentric framework,’ he said. ‘And we find that that is the case. That is exactly the case. All the experiments have been done for us already, its just a matter now of showing the world that those very experiments donʼt prove for modern science what they are said to prove.’”

“Another similarity between creationism and geocentrism is that when a typical scientific ignoramus — such as myself — encounters an expert in the field, he will quickly find himself drowning in a swamp of what sure sounds like science. At one point, Bouw sought to dismiss a common objection to geocentrism, which is that if the entire universe is revolving around the earth, the stars would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light in order to complete the rotations observed each day. ‘There are a couple of ways to object to that,’ Bouw explained. ‘First of all, relativity does not deal with rotation, so rotation can be beyond the speed of light. But even if thatʼs not the case — even if you just strictly take the view that all you have is gravitational rotation — because E=mc2, when you use the formula for gravity, you have to replace the m by E/c2, and so then the centrifugal energy — the energy used as the centrifugal force, the kinetic energy there — and even the potential energy — are big enough that they increase the tension so much that the speed of light changes locally. The speed of light is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field: the stronger the field, the faster it goes. And so if the universe is being held together by gravity, out beyond even twenty billion light years or so, itʼs still going to hang together. The gravitational tension is going to be huge, the speed of light is going to be tremendous — much larger, actually, than the speed of rotation — but the physics does work that way.”

“Does it? You tell me.”

“In Walter van der Kampʼs memoir there is a point when he asks himself if by clinging to geocentrism, he isnʼt merely repeating the error of ancient Christians who believed the earth was flat. And then he seems to wonder if that even was an error.”

“One should not so quickly deride these old-time pillars of staunch orthodoxy who predicted and feared that accepting the heathenish Ptolemaic sphericity in the long run would lead to the negation of Godʼs message altogether. It was Jerusalem contra Athens, revelation against human reasoning. In A.D. 748, Saint Boniface, apostle to the Germans, complained that a certain abbot, Vergilius, held the heresy of the existence of antipodes; and many of us, had we been there, might well have sided with the formerʼs literalism against the latterʼs liberalism.”

“Are there still flat-earthers? The Flat Earth Society, an organization whose name is synonymous with delusion, died in 2001 along with its final president Charles K. Johnson, although it has recently been revived with unclear earnestness. The society, founded in 1956, grew out of a movement that began in England in the mid-19th century. Like geocentrism, flat-earthism was as much a religious belief as a scientific one. Members of the Flat Earth Society — there were reportedly a few hundred in 1980 — believed in the plain language of scripture. Didnʼt God say he had “stretched out the earth” (Psalm 136:6) and could “take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it” (Job 38:13)? Even photographs of the planet from space — alleged photographs — could not sway them from Godʼs word.”

The late Robert Schadewald, while not an exponent of a “flat earth,” wrote several articles on its advocates, past and present, unfortunately he was not able to finish his magnum opus, a book titled, The Plane Truth: A History of Flat Earth Science. But he sent me [Ed Babinski] a couple emails in 1999 to let me know that flat earthism was not quite extinct. Robert said, “Charles Johnson of the Flat Earth Society is sort of a wacky character, but he is not really representative of flat earthers in general. The half dozen or so other flat earthers Iʼve spoken or corresponded with have included a successful Boston trial lawyer, a priest who belongs to a society devoted to the preservation and translation of ancient Coptic manuscripts, a retired financial officer from a major metropolitan school system (he thoughtfully corrected an error in Greek grammar I had copied from a flat earth source), and a young man who intended to translate an 8th century flat earth treatise by Aethicus of Istria from Latin into English. Not exactly a bunch of semiliterates!” He added, “The Antiochene Fathers of the early Christian Church more or less invented the historical-critical method of exegesis popular among modern fundamentalists within the Reformed tradition. Not surprisingly, *every* Antiochene Father whose views on the subject I have been able to discern was a flat earther! So I think it is a bit strong to suggest that this method doesnʼt have ‘anything to do with the history of Scriptural interpretation.’ It may have been moribund for a long time, but it has ancient roots.” [SOURCE: Emails dated 8/10/99 and 8/5/99 respectively from Robert J. Schadewald] See also The Flat Earth Bible by Robert J. Schadewald

Which reminds me, Evangelical theologian Ben Witherington wrote this in Bible Review in 2003:

“In the late 1960s, my car broke down in the mountains of North Carolina, and I had to hitchhike… I was picked up by an elderly couple driving an ancient Plymouth. After a little conversation, I discovered they were ‘Flat-Eathers,’ by which I mean they did not believe the world was round.

“Honest.”

“I pressed them on this and asked, ‘Why not?’”

“The elderly manʼs response was, ‘It says in the Book of Revelation that the angels will stand on the four corners of the earth. The earth couldnʼt have four corners if it was round.’”
[SOURCE: Ben Witherington III, “Asking the Right Question: To Get the Most Out of the New Testament, You Need to Know What Kind of Book Youʼre Reading,” Bible Review (April, 2003) p. 10.]

The 1920ʼs Scope Trial journalist, H. L. Mencken, ran into some flat earthers in Tennessee and they showed him a signed petition they were planning to deliver to their state congressmen to get their sacred flat earth beliefs acknowledged in public school classrooms.

Today many top notch Evangelical OT scholars have given up on attempting to squeeze history out of Genesis 1, or even out of Genesis 1-11. See the BIOLOGOS website.

What does Gerardus Bouw have to say about verses in the Bible that appear to assume a flat earth?

“I investigated it, yes,” he said. “I donʼt see that the scriptures teach a flat earth… But I have no problem defending a flat earth if I have to. Because itʼs a theoretical construct. I can defend a spherical earth too. Just pick your geometry, thatʼs all.”

To End This Blog Entry With The Question With Which It Began, “Does The Bible ‘Teach’ Geocentrism?”

Thereʼs no simple yes or no answer to such a question if only because geocentrism was so much taken for granted at that time that it could be treated as a given, a universal assumption, and thus there was no need to “teach” it. The same could be said about “flat-earth-ism” pre-600 BCE in the Near East.

Which leaves open the question of what other “assumptions” the Hebrew writers of the Bible took for granted concerning kingship, laws, gods, religious beliefs and rites? How can one know they are “true” assumptions or whether they need to be reinterpreted based on later knowledge, like the geocentric passages in the Bible? This also raises the question of whether the Scriptures can indeed “interpret themselves?” Can they?

Evidence of Belief in a Three-Tier Cosmos, Or Purely Metaphorical “Burial Language?”

Jesus Descends into Sheol

Paul wrote of beings existing “under the earth.” Paulʼs Hellenistic and Jewish readers were familiar with underworlds in which beings lived, i.e., the Greek Hades, the Roman Tartarus (both terms appearing in the Gospels themselves) and the shadowy Sheol of the Hebrew Bible:

The departed spirits tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Naked is Sheol before Him [Yahweh].
Job 26:5-6

A witch in Endor calls up Samuel from Sheol. (She is not calling him up from his personal burial site because he was not buried in Endor.)
1 Sam. 28:3,12ff

The dead are not simply lying dead in the earth but “under the earth” and remaining active in some sense, if only in a shadowy sense in the case of early Greek and Hebrew views of Hades and Sheol. Below are verses from Paul and Revelation that mention beings living under the earth. Consider them from the viewpoint of a first century Hellenistic convert:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
Philippians 2:10

English Bibles fail to render fully the meaning of “under the earth” in the above verse—the Greek word katachthonion refers to “the beings down (kata) in the chthonic (chthovios) or subterranean world.” The Anchor Bible translation is “those in the world below,” with the added comment, “katachthonioi was a designation for the dead in the underworld [the commentary then cites sources from Hellenistic antiquity]… The meaning is spirits above, humans on earth, and the dead in Hades, appropriate for ‘the Roman milieu of Philippi.’ … The full phrase came naturally for Christians there to describe the universe… Those in the heavens [several ‘layers,’ 2 Cor. 12:2 ‘the third heaven’]; on earth [1 Cor 8:5; 10:26; 15:47]; and in the world below, Sheol or Hades.” [John Reumann, Philippians, The Anchor Yale Bible, 2008, p. 357-58]

The book of Revelation features a similar notion:

No one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. Revelation 5:3 … Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” Revelation 5:13

Also consider how a Hellenistic convert might read these verses, starting with talk of a “prince of the power of the air,” and also about “descending into the lower parts of the earth”:

…in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 2:2 … That the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. Ephesians 3:10 … Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things. Ephesians 4:9-10 … Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

Interestingly, a different letter says that these “things in heavenly places” were reconciled to God:

… and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 1:20

Further Information On Sheol In The OT

Sheol is typically depicted as a place to which one “goes down” (urd; see Num 16:30;Job 7:9; Isa 57:9; cf. Isa 29:4; Ps 88:3-4). It represents the lowest place imaginable (Deut 32:33; Isa 7:11) often used in contrast with the highest heavens (Amos 9:2; Ps 139:8; Job 11:8). To emphasize further the depth of Sheol we also find it modified by tahtit/tahtiyyot (e.g. Deut 32:22; Ps 86:13; Ezek 31:14-18), usually translated “the lowest parts of the underworld.”

Sheol is also associated with terms for chaotic waters, including Sea, River, breakers, waves, and the deep. So Sheol is associated with primeval waters lying beneath the earth as well as with judgmental waters loosed by God (water that God is depicted elsewhere as miraculously holding back in order to maintain creation, see “The Cosmology of the Bible” chapter in The Christian Delusion). Ancient Near Eastern imagery also links a crossing of water with oneʼs travel to the underworld and the imagery is so common from Mesopotamia to Greece that it probably played a role in the Hebrew linkage of water with the land of the dead.

The inhabitants of Sheol are called the Rephaim, and a great deal of literature has been written on the nature of the Rephaim since the publication of Ugaritic texts where they are mentioned extensively.

As already stated, it is not a matter of being forced to choose between totally metaphorical usage versus all other usages or understandings. In early usage Sheol is like a metaphor for the Uber-grave, but even metaphors do not preclude other meanings, depictions, definitions rather than purely “burial imagery.” In fact, recognition of ideas shared by biblical and ANE sources makes the likelihood of belief in a three-tier cosmos more likely, not less so. Same goes for NT conceptions, see below.

Further Information On The Underworld In The NT

The underworld is depicted not only as “Hades” in the NT (into which Christ descended in order to preach to the spirits of the dead, 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6—such a “descent into hell” becoming part of the Apostleʼs Creed), but the underworld is also depicted as the “Abyss” (abussos), often translated as “Bottomless Pit” (Luke 8:31; Rom 10:7; Rev 9:1-2,11; 11:17; 17:18; 20:1,3). “Tartarus” is another word derived from Greek mythology and employed by NT authors, itʼs a place that Greeks depicted as lying as far below Hades as earth is below the heavens, so much so that an anvil could fall for nine days and nights until it reached it. Tartarus is described as a prison with gates and sometimes personified (as was Hades, and also Sheol in the OT). The author of 2 Peter 2:4 mentions rebel angels being cast into Tartarus, based on a story found in the inter-testamental work, 1 Enoch (or at least based on a general knowledge of the “Watchers” myth in 1 Enoch):

1 Enoch 10:2-3, 10:11-14 — A deluge [Flood] is about to come upon the whole earth … And the Lord said unto Michael: ‘Go, bind [the evil angels] in the valleys of the earth till the day of their judgment … is consummated. In those days they shall be led out to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever.’

Compare 2nd Peter 2:4-5 — God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness [Tartarus], to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah … when he brought a flood …

Portions of the Book of Enoch can also be found in the NT books of Jude and Revelation. Interestingly, 1 Enoch depicts a flat earth.

[Much of the information in the above sections on Sheol and the NT underworld was derived from Theodore J. Lewis, “Dead, Abode of the,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, Doubleday, 1992]

Final Point Of Interest: Did The Ancient Israelites View Sheol As Real Or Not?

“A cursory overview of modern interpretation of biblical thanatology quickly reveals the lack of current consensus among scholars. There is pressing need for further study and clarification. Was Sheol real or not for ancient Israelites? If it was real, were all souls expected to end up imprisoned there? How did Israelites interact (or refrain from interacting) with the shades of the dead?”—Stephen L. Cook

Cookʼs complete paper is online: Funerary Practices and Afterlife Expectations in Ancient Israel

Prior to the publication of his paper Stephen L. Cook also composed these shortened presentations of various points:

  1. To Be Gathered To Oneʼs People
  2. Burial and Afterlife in Yahwism, Part 2
  3. Burial and Afterlife in Yahwism, Part 3
  4. Burial and Afterlife in Yahwism, Part 4
  5. Burial and the Hereafter in Yahwism, Part 5
  6. Burial and the Hereafter in Yahwism, Part 6
  7. Yahwism and Life after Death: Part 7
  8. Life after Death, Part 8

See also this new book on the afterlife, L’homme face à la mort au royaume de Juda: Rites, pratiques et représentations by Hélene Nutkowicz. Cook comments: “Nutkowicz suggests that the Hebrew people believed in amortality. At first glance, it seems to me that this might be a helpful term, since it stresses that the soul does survive death, but it does not view death as positive or beatific as might be implied by the term immortality. N. also discusses the relationships between the living and the dead, the repa’im [also spelled, Rephaim], the ’elohim, the practice of necromancy, the duties toward the dead and toward the living, inscriptions, and the cult of the dead and of the ancestors.”