I’m almost afraid to ask the question. It seems whenever I do, something comes along to produceĀ an affirmative answer.
Lately I’ve been seeing things on Facebook (or have had those who follow my work sending me items) that ask if I believe the earth is flat. That’s a question I never thought I’d get, and I’ve gotten hundreds. Why the surprise? It’s difficult for me to believe anyone is so gullible and, yes, stupid, to believe the earth is flat. But as with so many other nuggets of nonsense, social media has brought forth its exhibits to demonstrate that reality.
Those of in the sane world might wonder where the question comes from. The answer is my work (not mine, really — just those ancient writers in the Bible whose worldview knew nothing of modern cosmology, space flight, celestial mechanics, etc.). I and other OT scholars (e.g., John Walton; see below) have written articles about the pre-modern cosmology of the biblical writers — about how the biblical text describes a round, flat earth, complete with a covering dome, to which were affixed the stars (which in turn were thought to be divine beings, or under the power of divine beings). That work is being used byĀ leaders in the flat earth camp (yes, it exists — in the same neighborhood as ancient astronaut theorists) as proof of this view. Ā My picture and links to my writings or lectures have been touted on Facebook and other hallowed learning communities creating the impression that I believe the earth is flat, not round.
What Mike Thinks
I’m appalled that people who follow Christ are this dumb (or so easily led astray into embracing beliefs that are demonstrably contrary to reality). This level of willful ignorance dishonors God. The stupidity of modern flat earth belief is transparent in today’s world. Space flight (really, flight between hemispheres), satellite communications, space photography (any photography showing the earth’s curvature), etc. show the idea to be utter nonsense. And that’s before getting into the nuts-and-boltsĀ science. Yet some people think they need to believe it to have a “true” Bible. This is mindless, simplisticĀ literalism at its worst. (Well, maybe it can get worseĀ … keep reading).
My position is straightforward. The biblical writers do indeed describe a flat round earth (with other features the flat earthers skip; see below). They wrote about the world this way because they lived at a time before knowledge of the natural world was sufficient toĀ demonstrate otherwise. But I don’t believe the earth is really flat “because the Bible tells me so.” The knowledge the biblical writers had of their physical surroundings isn’t a truth proposition for biblical theology.Ā Anyone who uses my work to prop up this idea without providing a disclaimer that I reject modern flat earth thinkingĀ is unprincipled and deliberately dishonest.
I can already hear the comeback. “Let God be true and every man a liar!” Let me just say God isn’t a liar. He knows (and knew) the earth is a globe. It just happens that the people he chose to produce this thing we call the Bible didn’t know that. And God couldn’t have cared less.Ā The writers God used to produce the Bible were not inspired to write about things of the natural world that were beyond their own worldview and knowledge base. And to argue (as normal 24-hour day creationists do) that God gave them advanced scientific knowledge, or that such advanced knowledge is encrypted in the biblical text, means that what they wrote could never have communicated that important knowledge to their original audience (or any audience prior to recent centuries). These approaches are absurd and undermine the communicative purpose of the Bible. What we read in Genesis (and elsewhere) reflects a common ancient Near Eastern perspective about cosmology with one crucial difference: the credit for creation is given exclusively to the God of Israel against all other gods. thatĀ is its truth claim with respect to creation. That Israelite cosmology is quite consistent with wider ancient Near Eastern cosmology is easy to demonstrate.1Ā That God chose people of a certain time, a certain place, with a certain (limited) knowledge base was up to him. We dishonor His choices when we impose our questions and our context on the biblical writers. Precisely the same limitations would be in place if God chose a scientist today to write Genesis. 1000 years from now people would chuckle at how primitive he/she was (“Can you believe this is what they thought?”). This is why the Bible intentionally transcends science discourse — science always changes with new discovery and knowledge. Who the creator was never changes.
So I have a better comeback line: “Let God’s decisions for inspiration be honored, and every flat earther be ashamed for dishonoring God’sĀ decisions.”
For a short essay I wrote on Israelite cosmologyĀ for the lay person, seeĀ this link:
Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology
Or you can watch my lecture on this topic:
Moving On
I want having to talk about this drivel to actually be a teachable moment — in this case, one about logic and consistency in interpretation. (In other words, let’s talk about how dishonest flat earth teaching is). IĀ have some questions for the flat earthers:
- If the earth is round and flat, where are the edges? (where is its rim?) Can you give us the latitude and longitude for that … pardon, we wouldn’t need latitude and longitude if the earth were round, but you get the point.
- If we are to take Israelite cosmology as literal scientific reality, where is the dome over the earth? If earth were basically one gargantuan snow globe, how is it we can launch satellites? Why doesn’t the space shuttle crash into or through the dome? Where are the “dome shards” from such impacts? (Oh, let me guess — they were taken by the government and are now in the Smithsonian’s secret cellars). How are meteors possible? What about asteroids? Are both of those space debris items just made up?
- If we are to take Israelite cosmology as literal scientific reality, why don’t you take other items of “biblical science” literally? Here are some examples:
- Do whole human persons really reside in the loins of males before they are conceived, much less born? That’s what a literalist reading of Hebrews 7:4-10 says (vv. 9-10 – “. . . Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him”). Sorry, but we really do know where babies come from — better, whole human persons. Whole persons are a fusion of body and soul (material and immaterial nature). Every human person is the result of a combination of genetic material from a man and woman (or a male and female donor). That union of material can only reside in a woman (in the natural world) or a petri dish in our scientific world. Artificial insemination and “test tube babies” are realities because Hebrews 7 isn’t accurate science. If it was, then the “science” of Hebrews 7 has us committing murder with every use of a condom, or every ejaculation outside the womb, deliberate or otherwise (so you “natural birth control” folks are just as guilty). This is perverse on so many levels. But I ask again, if the Bible’s flat earth teaching corresponds to literal scientific reality, why aren’t you embracing the argument of Hebrews 7? (This, and with respect to what follows, is the part where things really can get dumber, per this post’s title).
- Is the hair on a woman’s head really part of her genitalia that assists in drawing a man’s semen to her uterus so she can conceive? That’s what people in Paul’s day believed about hair. And based on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 about hair and covering the head, he believed it, too. So I guess we need to in order to “believe the Bible.” Why not? You believe the earth is really flat, so why are you omitting this “Bible reality”? Don’t think thatĀ what I’m saying about first century people connecting hair to fertility and procreation is correct? Listen to this episode of my Naked Bible podcast. I quote ancient Greco-Roman philosophers (ever heard of Aristotle?) and physicians (how about Hippocrates?) to show this is indeed the case.2 (That’s called using primary sources for tapping into the worldview of the biblical writers — same thing I did for the flat earth stuff … so are you going to be consistent or not?) Again … we know today how procreation really works, scientifically. The hair on a woman’s head isn’t part of conception.
- Does the brain play no role in thought (oh, the jokes I could insertĀ here for this whole topic) or emotion? The Bible attributes those things to the kidneys, heart, and general innards (Gen 6:5; Psa 16:7; 26:2; Jer 11:20; etc.). Biblical Hebrew has no word for brain. So, the Bible tells us that our brain must be useless with respect to those things. But those are poetic expressions, Mike! Why? How is that consistent with your flat-earth literalism (no poetic expressions allowed)? So, dear flat earther, is mental illness really something a cardiologist should be addressing? When you have heart problems do you visit a psychiatrist or psychologist? If you don’t, you’re dishonest with your hermeneutics.
I could on. I trust my clear-thinking readers get the point. I only hope flat earthers will as well. Not only is modern flat earth belief irrational, the alleged honor it pays to the Bible is disingenuous without consistency. My guess is that flat earth theory leaders won’t care. They seek to build their own little fiefdoms of faithful, deluded followers. They want to be looked upon as gatekeepers of the truth. But they are self-deluded attention seekers. No allegiance should be given to them by followers of Christ.
- See for example: John H. Walton,Ā Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew BibleĀ Luist Stadelmann,Ā The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study. ↩
- The excerpts are drawn from a wider mass of material put forth by the work of NT scholar Troy Martin, whose academic focus is Greco-Roman medical texts; see the podcast link for the source. To quote part of Martin’s conclusion: “This ancient physiological conception of hair indicates that Pauls argument from nature in 1 Cor 11:13-15 contrasts long hair in women with testicles in men. Paul states that appropriate to her nature, a woman is not given an external testicle (ĻĪµĻĪ¹Ī²ĻĪ»Ī±Ī¹ĪæĪ½, 1 Cor 11:15b) but rather hair instead. Paul states that long hollow hair on a woman’s head is her glory (Ī“ĻĪ¾Ī±, 1 Cor 11:15) because it enhances her female ĻĻĻĪ¹Ļ, which is to draw in and retain semen. Since female hair is part of the female genitalia, Paul asks the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to display her genitalia when praying to God ( 1 Cor 11:13)”. ↩
Very amused by this baffling movement in the “all the world’s a conspiracy” department, and I can hear the emotion dripping in your tone.
I’ve recently been challenged by “Love God with all of your Mind” by J.P. Moreland, who challenges us to engage material harder than we can are comfortable with (like, um, learning Ancient Hebrew) as an act of worship and to combat the anti-intellectualism that pervades too much of Christianity. As I often tell my pre-teen daughter, get off of YouTube, put your phone down and pick up a book.
Quick note on Walton… Logos has his “Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology” book available this month for $1.99. https://www.logos.com/free-book-of-the-month
I started learning Biblical Hebrew via lectures uploaded onto YouTube. š
But I agree with you otherwise.
Interesting stuff, Mike, about women’s hair. I have always struggled to understand that passage. It seems there is a fair amount of stuff impossible to understand outside the cultural context.
Yeah… I should’ve studied some of those YouTube videos before signing up in Dr. Heiser’s Memra class on Biblical Hebrew… I’m woefully behind and have to keep reminding myself that I’m taking it as an act of worship… I’m taking it as an act of worship… Don’t give up… don’t give up…
https://jasonbiette.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/creational-epistemology/
https://jasonbiette.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/special-revelation-vs-general-revelation/
Thank God you stepped into that conversation Dr Heiser, it was getting deep.
I was still defending your view for the next two hours in three threads on the same post!
I know I shouldn’t waste too much time, however he (who shall remain nameless, for now) was trying to justify himself, which I thought was no better.
If I hadn’t taken the time I was afraid they would just believe his self deluded sense of piety.
Thank you Dr Heiser for being a voice of reason in a very literalist world of Western “theology”.
I haven’t had the same problems talking with traditional Christians, they recognize the different writing methods, take E. Orthodox for example, this video clearly shows they comprehend exactly what you’re talking about, https://youtu.be/68tEUHepVQY
This is very refreshing.
Thanks again sir, you help us in apologetics more then you think!
you’re welcome; I appreciate the defense, but no doubt the time could have been spent more profitably.
Complete waste of time no one has ever gone from one pole around the world and came to where they began crossing the other pole along the way
When the flat earth facts are looked at.
Its undeniably a plane and the sun and moon circle above us as described by the flat earthers who wrote the bible and built the pyramids.
This makes absolutely no sense at all — which is why I approved it. Thanks!
Awesome dude! I was hoping there would be some funny comments on this thread, thanks again for making me laugh.
Biblical scholar E. W. Bullinger was a flat earther?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4l6w84xvpq33bv/Ethelbert%20William%20Bullinger%20%28A%20Documented%20Flat-Earther%29.pdf?dl=0
if so, that would be sad.
Just reference the report (from the above dropbox link.
I showed the evidence which I have gathered to Ron Shea (a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Hastings College of law)and he stated that, taken together it provides “clear and convincing proof” that E. W. Bullinger was a committee member of a flat-earth society.
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not.
Legal standards for burden of proof from lowest to highest:
1. Reasonable suspicion
2. Reasonable to believe
3. Probable cause for arrest
4. Some credible evidence
5. Substantial evidence
6. Preponderance of the evidence
7. Clear and convincing evidence
8. Beyond reasonable doubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
This is a good example of sophistry. It answers none of my questions.
Sophistry: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.
If you believe my report on Bullinger to be falsified information, then prove it.
The Bullinger report is pertinent to your article as will be shown in the following syllogism:
All modern flat earthers are stupid
E. W. Bullinger was a modern flat earther
Therefore, E. W. Bullinger was stupid
You may retort, “Ah, but he didn’t have access to photos from space, GPS, and satellite TV.” To which I reply, are these the great proofs of the heliocentric globular Earth model? Was not the heliocentric globular Earth model “proven” centuries ago? Did Bullinger not have access to the nuts-and-bolts science of which you allude?
As it stands, a sound deduction will verify that you are clearly asserting that Biblical scholar E. W. Bullinger was a dumb, stupid, gullible, mindless, irrational, deluded, willfully ignorant, dishonest, God dishonoring, simplistic, and easily led astray individual.
Yes, it’s sophistry to use these arguments to defend something as falsifiable as a flat earth.
There, I proved it.
YUP! Just the facts..
2 Timothy 3:16 -All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Obviously Heiser doesn’t accept that. Therefore he is a heretic.
I used to respect the man. He should go join Putnam and the other Jesuits at Skywatch.
I do accept it. All Scripture is ultimately of divine origin (providential use of people or otherwise). God knew what he was getting with the people he chose. But not everything in the Bible is a truth proposition. I doubt you know what that means. If you want to know, look it up. I get the impression you’re not teachable, so I won’t bother. If you’re in the flat earth camp, you lost the ability to think clearly some time ago. I wish that hadn’t happened.
@ Thomas
Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (ESV).
Hey look, we can quote scripture too!
I hope those that agree with Mike can take this discussion to its natural conclusion.
That being – if the scientific evidence supports Evolution and the Bible isn’t built to comment upon whether Evolution is true or not, it is therefore “ok” to be a Christian and also accept the scientific facts of Evolution…
I would say, it is my opinion that the Bible cannot comment in any significant or meaningful way upon any of our current understandings of science, as Mike has shown in several of his recent posts. If this be true for flat earth (an idea which the Bible clearly supports) and if it be true for hair being a sex organ (which Paul clearly believed) and if it be true for the idea that the soul resides in the kidneys/abdomen (which the Bible clearly states), then it is also true of ANY scientific fact that we know to be true but “conflicts” the Bible.
So, you have to come to grips with the fact that the Bible isn’t designed to address modern understandings of the scientific workings of our world. We cannot hold it accountable for something that it isn’t trying to do. If that be the case, then there IS NO conflict between the Bible and modern science. You just have to let the Bible be what it is.
I believe the bible is silent on evolution, quantum physics, how germs are spread, etc. for the reasons indicated in the post. None of what modern science says (theoretical or confirmed) is in view for the biblical writers. It is not part of their world, so we’re foolish to make it part of their world.
Wonderful! Pointed out much of this to a FB friend “Leader” on two occasions. I prayed daily for this LEADER to come back to “Rationality” and to consider all the Harm being done to their “Followers”. (This is the key point we must debate, the Harm to their Followers, not FE) Both times this LEADER, withdrew from FB / Internet for weeks…. And I thought God had answered my prayers, yet sadly each time this christian LEADER returned to their Internet presence with a stronger and more blind commitment to this absurdity- which will cause so much harm to new and young believers….. I continue to pray. But will not argue with these folks anymore. They have had the Gaul to tell me that more people have come to Christ through FE than than through all their previous preaching! This post is wonderfully complete! beware of wasting to much time on this subject….
Christopher – Have you ever used the phrase “I felt it in my gut” or something similar? Do you literally think that your feelings come from your gut? Why can’t the bible use similar phrases? I don’t think these passages imply the hebrews literally thought that the soul was in the abdomen.
They were not being figurative. We want to take it that way b/c we know the truth of the matter. And you can take it that way if you want. But, ancient man thought the spirit/soul was located in the abdomen. That is why those organs were saved by the Pharoahs while the brain was removed and destroyed. That is just what they thought and it came across naturally in the way they wrote about these things. I don’t know why this is a problem…
When I say “saved by the Pharoahs” I mean that when they died their internal organs were put in jars and kept in the tomb for the afterlife, so their soul would accompany them on that journey. Their brain was removed and destroyed…because they really didn’t know what it did. That just goes to show what they thought about where the soul dwelt.
Provide evidence the ancient Egyptians destroyed the brains when embalming, and also prove your assertion of why they did it. Because I am calling BS on this one.
I’ve read the OP and subsequent comments here. I agree that Flat Earthers” are doing way more harm than good. Frankly, it’s embarrassing.
But here’s the real issue for me. Does Scripture contain an accurate record of life’s orgins or is it merely the lore of the ANE? It seems Dr. Heiser would say it’s a mixture of both (i.e. Scripture is of human origin but ultimately by divine providence). This however doesn’t lend much support for how one is to go about separating the “truth” from the “lore”. One could easily dismiss Genesis as entirely lore. If Genesis contains more lore than truth, for example such that “firmament” means “solid structure” (and NOT “open expanse”), then it’s more fiction than reality.
So where is the lay person supposed to land? How are we to separate fact from fiction? How are we modern day folks to orient our own reality in light of Scripture? If Scripture contains fiction (which it does if “firmament” can ONLY mean “solid structure”) then how can the rest of Scripture be trusted, including its salvific content?
It sure would be nice if someone would come up with a WORKABLE paradigm for what exactly makes the combined writings of Scripture “authoritative”.
And, yes, I realize tomes have been written on this. It’s the “workability” of the proposed paradigms (at least that I’ve seen) that are lacking, particularly with respect to internal consistency.
If anyone knows of an objective, cogent resource that can steer me in the right direction for understanding WHY the writings of Scripture are authorative (beyond circular reasoning), I’d truly appreciate it.
PS: HELP!!
The bible is not a science book!
No kidding, Chis. I think I fully realize this. But neither should Godās testimony of Himself to mankind contain FALSE information especially information that REPRESENTS HIM. Really, how difficult would it have been for God to simply communicated to the writer (or editors) of Genesis 1-3, FROM THE GET GO, that there is NO SOLID STRUCTURE over the earth? Certainly He has the ability to communicate this doesnāt He? With all this omnipotent ability that God has, WHY would He simply let a FALSE notion be perpetuated? Didnāt God realize (or care) that our generation would see this description as nonsense? Does He not realize that people want a reliable document to base their life and faith on? Was Scripture only written for the generation in which it was produced? If that is the case then what are to we make of the idea that Scripture is given by āprocessā of PROVIDENCE? What does this say about the transcendence of Scripture for ALL generations, or Godās ability to insure that the Book that represents HIM is a VALID representation?
I donāt buy the analogy that Dr. Heiser uses that āIt isnāt a lie to tell a toddler that the baby is growing in mommyās tummyā. WHY? Because the parents HAVE NO INTENTION of allowing this description to be PERPETUATED throughout the life of the child!
Yet we see the God of the universe allowing nonsense about the world HE CREATED being PERPETUATED. A simple intervention at the time of the writing of Genesis would have quickly put to rest the nonsense of a āsolid domeā. No scientific treatise is necessary, just a few simple word changes that actually jive with reality.
So then if the content of Genesis 1-2 is nonsense, then whoās to say that the content of Genesis 3 where the Fall is recorded isnāt likewise NONSENSE? And this particular “NONSENSE” contains SALVIFIC THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION (i.e the āseed of the woman to crush the head of the serpentā.)
Sorry, I am left more confused about the āauthorityā and āreliabilityā of Scripture than ever. I understand now why people abandon faith entirely.
Distilling this down for clarity sake, the matter for me comes down to the translation of the Hebrew word “raquia”.
So here is my question: Is the more correct translation of raquia “firmament” (which conveys “solid dome”) or is it “expanse” (which allows for the understanding of an “open heaven”).
Maybe I’m wrong here, but the OP seems to suggest that the correct (and ONLY) translation possibility for the Hebrew word “raquia” is “firmament” and NOT “expanse”. The reasoning proffered is that “solid dome” corresponds more correctly with ANE cosmological thought.
Perhaps “firmament” is more consistent with ANE cosmology, but WHOSE cosmology is being “telegraphed” in Genesis 1-3, ANE cosmology or God’s?
I can live with the answer “both”. But “solid dome” doesn’t seem to include that possibility.
If I’m misunderstanding Dr. Heiser on this, please help me understand what I’m NOT getting. I’m only asking about the translation of one word here (“raquia”).
No, it doesn’t come down to this word; it comes down to how it’s described with other words (see the PDF or the lecture).
Wow. What a debacle!
Re: “My guess is that flat earth theory leaders wonāt care. They seek to build their own little fiefdoms of faithful, deluded followers. They want to be looked upon as gatekeepers of the truth.”
Your “guess” is quite accurate. The effort is to erect a sort-of firewall around a faith-group, using a point of absurdity to separate the group from those outside of it as well as driving a wedge between them and reality. It increases insularity by making the faith-group seem laughable to those outside of it. Derision of others confirms the self-righteousness of the group. And it discourages the group from stepping outside to verify anything.
Ultimately, as you say, the goal is to make the leader of the group into its sole arbiter of reality. It’s a tactic used by a lot of “cult” leaders. Teach something really bizarre, force members to latch onto it, wait until they’re derided and dismissed by outsiders, then tell them they’re unjustly condemned by the wickedness outside, then show them they can get comfort only from inside.
Another example of this (outside of traditional religions) which has become a bit notorious, is the Xenu crap taught to Scientologists who’ve progressed to a certain point in that “religion.”
Actually, this seems rather an obvious manipulation tactic. I’m surprised people like you have to point it out to people. And it’s ridiculous that you have to put up with abuse and accusations of “heresy” because you did.
… Just a little input from an insolent, cynical, skeptical, godless agnostic heathen.
@ Merrill. I suppose a good analogy is this,,,. Imagine God revealing himself for the first time, to a world that completely believed in evolution. What would be more important and helpful to God and humans in that situation? Convincing the world evolution is completely false, or convincing the world God is real and created everything?
God never claims the earth is flat, it is the humans that claim that, but the main important point is the attribute everything to God and not lesser gods. I find the message quite simple and fail to see how others can pervert it so much. Maybe grammar is an important subject?
The brain is hard wired to the gut. When the brain is on fire (stress, anxiety, arousal, etc.) the gut is active–sometimes painfully so. This is an example of the ancients responding to careful observation, and developing a theory about it.
Personally I believe the mind/soul has non-corporeal existence probably in a related but separate space-time location. Lots of reasons for that, but I seriously doubt the gut is the place!
Yes, that is exactly what they were recognizing, but of course the idea that the soul is in the gut would be unscientific…yet that is exactly what they thought. Their observations led to an unscientific conclusion. And yet it is in the Bible. And it is no big deal.
I think a point of clarity here is needed. When something is unscientific it doesn’t mean it is an “error” or a “lie”. It is just what those people honestly thought at that stage of human scientific development. They didn’t have it all figured out, but that is ok – the basic truth they were communicating is still true. That is true of everything Genesis itself says and/or is silent about. If God was going to make sure they got all the science right…would we even be able to comprehend it reading it here in the 21st Century? If He is going to go down that road, where would He stop?
If being not fully scientifically accurate is the standard for something being “inerrant”, then the Bible isn’t “inerrant”. But, that is not how I define inerrancy. God can allow the science to be “dumbed down” and therefore not fully accurate and still communicate the truth that He wanted communicated. Thus, the Bible can be unscientific and still inerrant, as long as you allow for scientific inaccuracies to exist within it’s pages that were observation-based honest assessments of reality that were still fundamentally flawed (scientifically speaking). Just don’t make the Bible have to be a science book.
We are kind of required by God to communicate what we understand to be true both scientifically and spiritually, with an honest spirit. This is why, if I see evolution staring me in the face in the scientific data, then I have to be open and honest about what I am observing – just like the writers of the Bible were about what they were observing EVEN THOUGH their conclusions were ultimately wrong. I would be sinning if I went on lying about what the evidence clearly shows. They too would have been in error had they not faithfully communicated the prevailing scientific thought of the day. Thus, for their day, they were not at all errant.
So yes, God let the Bible writers communicate their own understandings of science their own way b/c they were simply telling the truth as they saw/observed it, and therefore not communicating any error and certainly not lying – particularly to their own audience. On theological matters, God of course took that one over fully Himself. The Bible is a book of theology, it is not intended to be a book of science anyway.
But, even theologically, isn’t it having to dumb down it’s explanation of who God is? Is it being inaccurate when it does this? I think you could say – yes, something is not fully accurate until fully understood and explained. The problem is, improved accuracy can always be achieved, which is true of everything in life – even with respect to our understanding of God. The Bible even says that with reference to the things of God (and not science) – “we look through a glass dimly” (1 Cor 13:12 paraphrased).
Scientifically that is easy for us to see when comparing Bible “science” to modern science – they were really seeing things dimly back then and yet God gave them a “pass” on that. Theologically it is not such an obvious phenomenon, but even there it has to be going on and the scale of dumbing down is certainly exponentially greater on the theological side of it than even the scientific…if you just think about how far separated we are from what God is.
Dang. Why is this so hard to make clear. It is so crystal clear to me…
@Stephen DeNagy.
Correct it is called the “vegus nerve”.
In extreme cases death is possible.
http://www.vnsmessageboard.com/index.php?topic=4499.0
**CHALLENGE ISSUED**
I almost forgot… I once took an intro to astronomy class in college as an elective. It was amazing!
Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are what are known as “naked eye planets”. Meaning you can see them in your backyard if you just look up at the night sky and know where to look. Mars is that star that has a reddish appearance in the southern sky.
With a beginners telescope in the range of $500-$850 you can actually see what these planets look like (i.e. their shape)! We actually had to this in my intro to astronomy class as an assignment So my challenge is this…
Go beg, borrow, or steal a beginners telescope and point it at Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn and tell me what shape they ALL have! Better yet, go to the nearest university, to their physics department, and ask to speak to an astronomy professor. I promise you if you tell them that you seriously believe in a flat earth they will personally show what these planets look like for free as public service.
In lieu of actually having the courage to test your demonstrably false claims that the earth is flat (lest your hard sky begin falling), I would HIGHLY encourage you to visit the following 3 sites:
http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/mars-telescope.htm
Above link: In lieu of buying a telescope or having the cojones to ask a professor to visibly show you what these planets actually look like, this astronomer has been kind enough to post video these planets and what they look like through his telescope every night and even the seasons of Mars. That’s right, Mars has seasons. We know this because it has surface features that turn. They rotate out of sight and then return, constituting 1 year. “Flat planets” don’t do that just FYI.
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
Above link: the top 10 ways we know the earth is not flat.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/21/who-discovered-the-earth-is-ro/
Above link: This is a really cool site that goes into HOW WE’VE KNOWN THE EARTH IS A SPHERE FOR OVER 2,000 YEARS. Spoiler alert… Eartosthenes of Cyrene (276 BC-195/194 BC) was the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria and is the first guy to calculate the circumference of the round earth.
Again, please know that a spherical Earth is NOT a recent invention or conspiracy theory… it is over 2,000 years old!!! You are literally taking us back 2,000 years.
Lastly, here is the curvature of the earth as seen with the naked eye.
http://erezmarom.deviantart.com/art/Curvature-of-the-Earth-165243474
Having put this issue to rest… I’m done with it. I’m done talking about it. If you can’t bother to follow the links or ask someone, I don’t know what to tell you.
With Love,
Nathan
I, like SOME others, am somewhat agnostic on this issue. How? By actually swallowing hard and checking out the arguments. Shocking and compelling. But I did exactly as you said. So did most everyone else on this subject, except it seems those who call FE explorers dumb. We clicked links and spent a lot of time examining evidence presented to us. Many of us are now attempting to conduct our own scientific experiments to try to draw a “conclusion.” It hurts to have the foundations rattled but I’m willing to endure the pain while I pursue answers.
The things you put forth as evidence are compellingly countered hundreds or maybe thousands times. Perhaps you didn’t click any links?
@Christopher
Here you are again. I can see your intent.
This thread is not about whether “evolution” conflicts with the bible or not. Plenty of people ( Hugh Ross comes to mind ) argue the bible does not conflict with evolutionary theories.
Uniformitarianism, is actually a very old concept, and that view was not held by the biblical writers.
Did you know that Darwins cousin Francis Galton, was the founder of the eugenics movement.
Evolutionary belief is dangerous, and is promoted because it can,has and is used for the plan the Satan conspired to convince humans they are gods.
Evolution theory is inherently racist,, people like Helena Blavatsky knew this. We all need to evolve into our alien masters image,,? Evolution,enlightenment,transhumanism,kill off the less evolved (Africa comes to mind). It is all nonsense.
Kinda a false dichotomy here, you present it as either:
A. We reject concordism by saying the bible is wrong about cosmology, and take Genesis 1 as figurative, and only teaching theology, rather than being a 100% correct narrative of the creation of the world (as the traditional, concordist view holds).
B. We take every word in the bible 100% literally and believe the earth is flat, the entirety of a child comes from the father, that the sky is a dome (which is clearly not the teaching, I’m sorry Mike, but this is wrong “shamayim” refers to the sky, the biblical writers didn’t think it was solid) and that Jesus is a door.
Why can’t Genesis 1 be a poetic account of the creation of the world?
Why can’t the bible be both figurative and literal?
Why does it have to be textbook-literal or complete poetry, with nothing to say about reality?
Why can’t it teach both real facts about the natural world AND theology (those categories are both man-made concepts BTW)
Personally, I am a day-age creationist, and disagree with you and John Walton that the bible describes a flat, circular earth, or even that the biblical writers THOUGHT the earth was flat.The idea of a spherical earth has been around alot longer than people think, see “myth of the flat earth”.
I mean no disrespect (I love most of your work), but I really do not like non-concordist positions on the bible. I think it downgrades the doctrine of inerrancy, and grossly underestimates the holy spirit’s power to ensure there are no inaccuracies (period) in the bible.
Inerrancy has to be defined. There are at least a half dozen definitions. That’s just reality. It isn’t easy to spell what counts as an error. My view is the simplest — I honor God’s choices in who he used. It’s about affirming reality, both spiritual and natural.
Why don’t we just define it simply, everything the bible says is true. If Genesis says plants are created before sea life is created, that’s what really happened. This doesn’t somehow make the text incomprehensible to the israelite audience. I’m not saying the bible talks about quantum mechanics, genetics, relativity, etc.
I’m just saying that what is DOES say is true 100% of the time, regardless of what man-made category of knowledge we ascribe it’s truth-claim to (science, history, geography, theology, philosophy, etc.)
I think that’s alot simpler than your definition, which says only the “theology” in the bible is true, but it says wrong things about science.
To me it just seems like a cop-out against the allegations of so called “higher-critics” that the bible says that earth is flat, is 6000 years old, has a dome-sky, etc. Rather than disproving their interpretations (which in many cases can be done through basic logic).
I’m the one sticking to the text here with the Israelite cosmology. And it’s demonstrably untrue. The distinction between truth propositions and what a writer might have floating around in his head to use as vehicles for the proposition or not is an important one — and totally rational. You and I, for instance, will both have ideas that we believe true but aren’t. That’s because we’re not omniscient. And yet we can say things that are true. We can utter true propositions and use flawed illustrations or strategies for communication in proposing those true propositions. That’s called being human as well. And guess what? God used humans to produce the Bible.
Again, all completely comprehensible and rational. It was God who decided to use humans, and to use humans born at a certain time. I didn’t.
ANY Christian book on inspiration and inerrancy from ANY perspective will also demonstrate that defining an error isn’t easy. If I tell me toddler that mommy has a baby in her belly, did I err if I don’t give the toddler complete, exhaustive detail on the process of sexual procreation and the stages of embryonic development? Should I add a discourse on the anatomical distinction between the uterus and the stomach? If I don’t, is my information “true”? In what way? Is it “inerrant”? The Bible is filled with these sorts of things — language that comes from experience or observation, or approximation. Some people call such instances errors, some don’t. And that’s the tip of the iceberg. I could tell you that it’s easy, but then I’d be lying to you. We don’t do that here.
It would seem to me that there is a big (unjustified) leap of logic here. The statement you made about the “baby in mommies belly” is not untrue, it just lacks certain information. I never said the bible was an exhaustive resource for information about all topics.
But what I cannot accept is that the bible says things that are untrue (rather than saying nothing about an issue). For instance, you claim that Genesis 1 describes a flat earth, I would disagree that it does. If it did, it means the bible is describing something inaccurately.
I just don’t see the leap in logic from “the bible doesn’t talk about everything” and “the bible describes some things inaccurately”.
You know Dr. Heiser,
I don’t agree with you and I would never be that harsh or acrid to you.
There are many Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the earth is flat or at least question the curvature of the earth. Some are just geocentric’s.
Christians who believe the earth is flat are not idiots. They are Christians who are on a quest for truth. We always ask others to prove us wrong. Research it yourself we often say. We have a lot of evidence that make us question the globe. Believe me, there are professionals from all over the world. Engenders Pilot’s Doctors, Researchers, Army, Navy Air-force. We have done experiment’s and have photographic evidence from NASA and armature rockets and balloons that show no curvature.
I am saddened that you would attack all of us without checking us out for your self. It breaks my heart because I respected you.
It breaks my heart that you believe something contrary to reality. That will drive people away from Scripture and Jesus, not toward them.
Then why can’t you see Antarctica from Greenland? It’s the perfectly flat ocean. Why is there a need for a “crows nest” on ships? Why do ships disappear over the horizon?
Let’s talk about military science for just a moment… I’m a former soldier. I’m assuming you’re not.
Fact: Long range marksmanship (including missles) must take into account **NOT ONLY THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH BUT ALSO THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH**
Then why can’t you see Antarctica from Greenland? It’s the perfectly flat ocean. Why is there a need for a “crows nest” on ships? Why do ships disappear over the horizon?
Let’s talk about military science for just a moment… I’m a former soldier. I’m assuming you’re not.
Fact: Long range marksmanship (including missles) must take into account **NOT ONLY THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH BUT ALSO THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH**
The point is that the statement is unscientific.
@ Alexander:
Alexander said, “If Genesis says plants are created before sea life is created, thatās what really happened.”
I’m glad you brought that up! Let’s take Genesis 1 & 2 very literally.
Genesis 1’s creation account is as follows:
Land –> Vegetation –> Animals –> Humankind
Genesis 2’s creation account is as follows:
Man–> Vegetation –> Animals
Please explain.
Genesis 4: Who was Cain’s wife? How did Cain build a city if there are only 4 people on the planet?
I’m still waiting for a response to Job 37:18 as well. Please don’t make claims and then not back them up.
Respectfully,
Nathan
@ Alexander:
Alexander says, ” that the sky is a dome (which is clearly not the teaching, Iām sorry Mike, but this is wrong āshamayimā refers to the sky, the biblical writers didnāt think it was solid)…”
Job 37:18
“Can you, like Him, spread out the skies,
hard as a cast metal mirror?” (ESV).
Guess we have to take Job out of the cannon since it’s clearly heretical.
@ Alexander:
Alexander says, ” that the sky is a dome (which is clearly not the teaching, Iām sorry Mike, but this is wrong āshamayimā refers to the sky, the biblical writers didnāt think it was solid)…”
Job 37:18
“Can you, like Him, spread out the skies,
hard as a cast metal mirror?” (ESV).
Guess we have to take Job out of the cannon since it’s clearly heretical.
Here is an chunk of an article by Rich Deem at a good website called “godandscience” on that very verse.
{ “Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror?” (Job 37:18)
Out of context, it seems like an open and shut case that the Bible teaches that the skies are solid. However, there are some definite problems with the English translation of this verse. First, the Hebrew word shachaq,19 translated “skies” is probably a bad translation of the Hebrew. The usual word that would have been used for “sky” or “heaven” is shamayim.20 The meaning of the Hebrew word shachaq is usually “cloud” or “dust.”21 Looking at the context of Job 37, the entire beginning of the chapter is describing a violent storm.22 In three other instances within the same chapter, the word shachaq is translated as “cloud,” so it would make sense to translate it as “cloud” in this verse, also. The Hebrew word rei, translated “mirror,”23 is found nowhere else in the Old Testament, so its exact meaning remains uncertain. However, it is derived from the Hebrew word raah, which means “to appear” or “to see.”24 Further evidence that rei does not mean “mirror” comes from the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (translated by the Jews into Greek during the 3rd to 1st centuries BC), where the translators used the Greek word horasis, which means “appearance.”25 From this information, we can come up with a much better translation that fits the context of the chapter:
“Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds, with a molten appearance?” (Job 37:18)
This translation fits the context much better, since the entire first part of Job 37 is about a storm. In addition, the sky does not have a molten, flowing appearance, but clouds do. So, from the context, it is pretty obvious that this verse is referring to the appearance of clouds and not some solid “firmament.”}
It’s not a bad translation. The term is elsewhere used of hard objects.
Assuming that’s true, I don’t think that means it ALWAYS refers to solid objects. Otherwise, how would birds fly “in” the “firmament”. I do not think the bible describes a flat-domed earth.
wow. Birds fly under the firmament in the ancient mind, but anything above ground is “in” the heavens. Whew.
I’ll leave the Hebrew up to drmsh since he translated the entire OT for Logos version of the KJV…
What I will tell you is this:
The following was a disclaimer I used for my Bible study on Genesis 3. It is actually an excerpt from John Dominic Crossan’s book The First Christmas with SOME editing to relate the material to Genesis instead of the New Testament…
Which brings up an excellent point: how do you go about interpreting the Christmas narratives of Matthew and Luke???
Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and settling in Nazareth out of fear of Herod’s son.
Luke tells us Mary and Joseph were FROM Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem because of the census, after which they went home.
These two stories don’t line up. This is a problem for literalism. There’s POWER in their message don’t get me wrong, and so much power it brings me to tears thinking about it… but they are not historically factual like your Greco Roman mind NEEDS them to be. In fact I would argue to insist on their literalism robs them of their POWER… but that’s just me.
Not to mention the genealogies don’t add up.
How do you account for this???
I’ll leave you now with the excerpt from JDC’s The First Christmas:
First Christmas Excerpt
What kind of stories are these? What is their purpose? What did the author intend them to be? What is their literary genre? Are they fact or fable? For many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, these are the two choices. Either these stories reported events that actually happened or they are no better than fables. For most people today, fables do not matter much. They may be entertaining for children, but need not be taken seriously. Thus, it is important to realize there is a third option that moves beyond the choices of fact or fable.
The issue of the factuality of Genesis and the Bible in general is recentā¦ the product of the last few hundred years. In earlier centuries their factuality was not a concern for Christians. Rather the truth of these stories, including their factual truth, was taken for granted. Their truth and the truth of the Bible as a whole was part of conventional wisdom much like basic science is a part of our conventional wisdom. It was just part of what everybody knew. Believing them to be true, including factually true, was effortless. Nobody worried about whether they were factually true. All of the interpretive focus was on their meaning.
Pre modern Christians and ancient Israelites didnāt require faith to believe in them. It was simply just the way things happened. We often come to know these stories as children. Most of us who grew up in the church took their factuality for granted when we were young childrenā¦ just as people in the pre-modern Christian and ancient Israelite worlds did. We heard these stories in an early childhood state of mind known as pre-critical naivetĆ©. In this stage we take it for granted that whatever the significant authority figures in our lives regard as true, is indeed true. Whether these stories are factual was not an issue.
Impact of the Enlightenment:
This pre-critical way of reading the Bible has become impossible in the modern world, both for Christians and non-Christians alike. The reason is the impact of the enlightenment, which began in the 17th century with the emergence of modern science and scientific ways of knowing. It generated a new period of western cultural history commonly called modernity. Modernityās effect on the world has been enormous. Its technological achievements are the most obvious result. Of greatest importance to Biblical study, modernity has greatly affected how modern people think.
It produced what is called the modern mind ā a mindset that shapes all our thinking. The enlightenment generated an understanding of truth and reality that is very different from that in the pre-modern world. In philosophical terms in generated a new epistemology and a new ontology. Epistemology focuses on how do we know, and what is true. Ontology focuses on what is real and what is possible.
Epistemology: The enlightenment has lead many people to believe that truth and factuality are the same. Itās mindset was and is the concerned with the distinction between truth and superstition. Truth and fable. Truth and traditional authority. Truth and belief. The primary basis for the distinction the modern scientific method of knowing, with its emphasis on experimentation and verification.
The result has become: truth is what can be verified and conversely if it canāt be verified then it cannot serve as truth. What can be verified of course, are facts. This has become known as fact fundamentalism. Both believers and non-believers worship at the church of fact fundamentalism and they are locked in heated, often bitter debates using facts to either prove or disprove the Bible. We saw this with Genesis 1 and ancient cosmology vs. modern cosmology.
According to fact fundamentalism: if something isnāt factual, it isnāt true. Fact fundamentalism has impacted Christians as well as those who are skeptical of religion all together, and Christianity in particular. Many in both camps, believers and non-believers, believe that a statement is true only if it is factual.
Among American Christians, this is a major reason why at least half affirm a literal, factual understanding of the Genesis stories of creation and of the Bible as a whole. In their minds, if these stories arenāt factual, then they are not true. And the Bible itself is not true. Christian biblical literalism is about biblical factuality. And it is rooted in fact fundamentalism. As such it is not ancient, but a product of the recent past.
Ontology: The enlightenment had an additional effect. The modern mind is shaped, not only by fact fundamentalism, but by a world view, an image of reality of what is real and what is possible. A big picture of the way things are vs. the way things used to be. With the enlightenment came a world view very different from pre-modern world views. This world view is a new ontology (what is real and what is possible).
Within the modern world view, what is real is the space time universe of matter and energy, operating in accord with the natural laws of cause and effect. This world view of what is real and what is possible has shaped everybody that lives in the modern world. Even those who reject it.
We internalize it because we are socialized into it. It effects believers and non-believers alike. Itās view of what is real and what is possible makes the central claims of religion questionable. We donāt know what to do with claims about a non-material reality, claims about a spiritual reality, or claims about God. Prior to the enlightenment the reality of God was taken for granted. It didnāt require belief because God was seen as more real than the world. But the enlightenment reverses this. This world of matter and energy is what seems real and the world of God has become questionable.
Consequently, the modern world is going to take a skeptical view on Biblical topics: Do things like supernatural interventions actually happen? Are they even possible? Etc. etc.
Christian responses to the Modern Worldview in relation to the Bible:
Christianās have responded in more than one way to the impact of the enlightenment on the stories contained within the Bibleā¦
Conscious Literalism: The most public group insists on their factuality. “In spite of the doubts generated by the modern world view, this camp wears literalism as a badge of honor. Earth was created in 7 days. Animals and people were created on Day 6, therefore people and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time. To critique this camp only emboldens them as they see it as suffering for their faith” (My words for the Bible study not Crossan’s)
Conscious literalism is very different from the taken for granted literalism of our pre-modern ancestors. They actually acknowledge that the events in these stories are hard to believe, and yet insist with varying degrees of intensity, that they are factual. Conscious literalism is modern. Grounded in the fact fundamentalism of the enlightenment. These Christians counter the notions that spectacular events found in the Bible donāt happenā¦ by affirming that they are supernatural interventions by God and that because God is all powerful, to doubt their factuality is to doubt the power of God.
Defending the Bible against the notion that at least some of the stories in the Bible are fables, legends, or symbolic is their primary mission.
Here it is important to note that both biblical literalist and modern skeptics agreeā¦ if these stories arenāt factual, they arenāt true. And if they arenāt factual, then the Bible and Christianity arenāt true.
The other camp of Christian believers reject the notion that the truth of Christianity is dependent upon the factuality of these stories.
They are open to skepticism and are aware of some of the problems associated with taking these stories literally, but uncertainty of the stories doesnāt lead them to a rejection of the Bible and Christianity as a whole. They are unsure of what to make of the stories but they arenāt going to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. If they arenāt factual, what are they? Imaginative? Are they just another ancient fable? Or is there an alternative way of seeing them? [Crossan, First Christmas, some editorial liberties taken].
Finally, John Walton…
āMythology in the ancient world was like science in our modern worldāit was their explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked. The gods had purposes, and their activities were the causes of what humans experienced as effects. In contrast, our modern scientific approach attempts to understand cause and effect based on natural laws. Mythology is thus a window into culture. It reflects the worldview and values of the culture that forged it. For ancient Israelite culture, many of the writings we find in the OT performed the same function as mythology did in other culturesā¦ When we read the mythology of the ANE, we discover how these ancient peoples thought about themselves, their world, and their gods. When we read Genesis, we see how Israelites thought about themselves, their world, and their God. Whether the Israelite views were the same as their neighbors, as they sometimes were, or diametrically opposed, there is value in the comparison.ā (Walton, NIV Commentary p.27)
With love,
Nathan
Nathan: I really enjoyed this response. Recalls to mind some of what I learned from “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes” by O’Brien. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. It’s a shame that American pulpits aren’t equipping their people to read scripture this way. It’s time we “repent” (change our thinking.)
Are you serious right now or are you trolling?
I sure hope you’re not eating shellfish or wearing blended clothing you abomination.
@Alexander
I think the problem is, you do not seem to have a grasp on ancient cosmology. It was not just the Hebrews that thought the earth was plate like, but many other ancient cultures too.
The bible being truth, means it has to have recorded history correctly (even if that history is scientifically wrong).
Why don’t you provide a peer reviewed paper that proves any ancient culture held the view of a spherical earth.
Mikes latest podcast shows that a woman’s hair was thought of as part of her genitals,,so is that belief any different than the belief of a flat earth? If so prove it!
We need to understand that biblical culture was inspired, but no where in the bible does it state, the scriptures are “scientific infallible fact”. I mean just imagine it, God says to Moses, ‘here is the inner workings of the genome and here this is how quantum physics work’ then Moses repeats that to the Israelite crowd. It just does not work.
Thanks for jumping in, Dr. Mike! Part of the flat earthers’ error is to propose a far more complex solution to explain elegant reality. That makes God out to be a deceiver.
A spherical earth explains everything nicely. Flat earthers propose an infinitely more complex solution to a solve problem that does not exist.
My favorite “proof” of theirs is the lack of a curved horizon garbage: “why can’t you see the curvature of the earth in an airplane?” Well, because from our vantage point at elevation, our sight lines scribe a circular horizon upon the spherical earth, which will appear level and not curved (mountain ranges excepted. Imagine dropping a cone on a globe. The edge of the cone will scribe a circle. The apex of the cone is your vantage point. The horizon of the cone will appear to be flat and level. The part of the globe that bulges up will appear closer, and the horizon will appear farther away. Gee, just like reality! Just like in an airplane!
Sheesh!! Now THIS garbage really makes these Christians–and the rest of us by extension, look really dumb!
The Lynch paper (i.e., http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf)disagrees with you, and concludes with the following:
āāā”Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20,000 ft.”
so where’s the dome? How do we get meteors? etc. Curvature is just a common illustration — and just because you can see it at 20K feet doesn’t mean it hasn’t been photographed from space. Logic check.
Dude — there’s no solid dome up there.
I never thought it could happen like this…but this is an example of being given over to a strong delusion!
Wow! Finally I got through all the comments. I replied to the ones I could be bothered with.
I think many of the disciples of FE teachers, are actually really genuine and are led astray by the “leaders” of the FE faith. I do not believe in dinosaurs, but I never debate the topic from a religious point of view, because that would cast me as one of those “crazy Christians”, and that is not a good look for representing God. On the other hand I am not an apologetic. I will not try to fit scripture to accommodate advancements in science.
I actually think that trying to place any sort of human perceptual restriction on God and his ways, is just ignorant and illogical.
Mike,
Perhaps when you go to Boulder,CO you can pay a visit to the “Distinguished Professor Daniel Baker, director of CU-Boulderās Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP”, who is quoted as saying the following regarding “killer electrons” hitting the earth:
“Itās almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space… Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. Itās an extremely puzzling phenomenon.”
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/26/star-trek-invisible-shield-found-thousands-miles-above-earth
Could these be your missing pieces of glass?
http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/#E
Right, an invisible but visible solid firmament — and don’t forget, the Bible says it’s “hard a solid brass.” With stars afixed to it. And where are the edges of the round earth located.
What do you want to bet the professor doesn’t believe in a flat earth?
I have always *THEORIZED* they actually come from when “the fountains of the deep” broke open. Something to ponder? https://youtu.be/sD9ZGt9UA-U
The hydroplate theory is based on a the geophysics of a globe, not a flat earth.
Maybe it works on a Pear, Convex, Concave & Oblate Spheroid etc?
I am glad that you have spoken up to clear your name, I have been livid over the accusations as I am very grateful to both yourself and Dr Walton for your ANE and Biblical studies. It is horrid to think that anyone would toy around with your reputation solely to promote an agenda. And yet, this is the natural consequence of teaching Scripture as a science book – as though science is somehow important (speaking as a chemist here) in the whole scheme of our spiritual lives, more important than the revelation of the character of God.
It comes with the turf. This is one reason why real scholars don’t get involved with fringe topics. Their work can be abused. But I’d rather be involved than not.
Amen!
Thank you man…
Thank you drmsh for getting involved! This type of thinking can only thrive when scholars don’t engage.
“Jesus loves you and wants to be your Lord and Savior… btw the earth is flat! ‘Merica!”
The clear need for this post makes me sad.
Makes me sad, too. This is a good illustration of why many scholars will not engage “Christian Middle Earth” – it’s a waste of time to them and they risk their work and words being distorted and abused.
I’m sure that practically any individual investigating the flat-earth model which quotes from Heiser’s work realizes that Heiser doesn’t believe in a flat earthāthat fact is so blatantly obvious. The reason that his material is used by flat-earth investigators is because it’s refreshing to witness a clear and honest presentation of that which Scripture truly presents (i.e., a flat earth) since so many ministers and ministries (such as Answers in Genesis) attempt to teach the modern heliocentric paradigm from Scripture. Even though he’s a liberal theologian, he’s still getting the word out about what Scripture truly presents. Whether or not he chooses to take the liberal route on the matter and state that Scripture is only about “theological messaging” is immaterialāthe fact remains that Scripture presents a flat earth, and this expert acknowledges such. Hopefully this will begin to wake up some Answers in Genesis fans, because so many people today are still attempting to teach the modern heliocentric paradigm from Scripture. They need to realize that the only way that they can continue to hold that view is to become liberal as well, instead of twisting Scripture to say what it does not actually say.
I do not agree with your conclusions, nor the condescending spirit in which you speak, but I do respect your integrity in admitting that the scriptures do describe a circular, domed flat earth if taken literally.
While there are clear-cut cases of scriptural allegory, to take our liberties with allegorizing is a true Pandora’s box. There are scriptures that you take literally, yet some scholar or theologian more liberal than yourself may allegorize those same scriptures to your disgust. So where do we draw the line?
There is a whole lot more to the FE argument than what you have addressed. Wisdom admonishes you to understand first, then rebuke.
Sometimes tough love is necessary. I see no reason to blow kisses at an idea that is demonstrably false and will lead many to conclude the gospel isn’t worth even thinking about since it will get linked to such nonsense.
I believe in tough love too, so I will say this. Your reply to my post reveals your heart in this matter. You are more concerned with how people perceive you than whether or not you are speaking the truth. If you will be dead honest, you fear the social stigma of FE so much that you will not even give this a fair shake. That is called worldly compromise.
The Most High is going to destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is that going to leave you, Doctor?
No, I’m concerned that people aren’t driven from the gospel. You can psychologize someone else. I was pretty transparent in the post and am so now. It’s simple. Nathan’s comment illustrates the point.
@Hiram
Why go all ad-hominem , why not just provide your evidence? Is it because you have nothing that will stand up to the scrutiny of logical people?
This comment is what is called baiting.Eye-rollingly obvious at that. I’m glad Dr. Heiser didn’t take it.
One aspect of the Old testament cosmology, it is not as far off as one would think at first, and it surely cannot be applied to the Flat Earthers.
– The flat earth theory has the sun (A) circling some 3000 miles above the earth, and ye, the moon is also its own light source,(B)in its model there is night and day in the 24 hour Known world.
– The OT cosmology is not even a lie if you take it for its relative terms. Here in opposition to the flat earth the (A) Sun Goes down at west, into the deep and rises at the east the next morning. (B) it is all dark in their known world until the Sun rises again.
That is contrast number one.
And frankly the OT model is not all false, if you take a segment out of the earth say the size of America, but in the ANE culture, the Sun goes down and there is all dark in the land. In its relative term fair enough, since they did not reach all around the globe, the sun went into the great deep and rose on the other side. It simply describes what they felt and saw.
The other frantic about the Flat Earthers, is in their conspiracy mode, that by replacing the earth as the center of the universe, for the sun as the center for our solar system ie heliocentric, – comes from the pagan Sun worship cults, who then moved into the Christian culture and science to deceive us, and alot more into this rabbit hole.
Dr Mike, you said:
I think this is too far a stretch. I don’t know of any 24-hour or “young earth” creationists who argue for this point about scientific knowledge.
It is unnecessary to the basic thesis that God’s Word is trustworthy from verse 1, is consonant with and does not contradict operational scientific knowledge (whereas it does contradict the Darwinian evolutionary worldview, and rightly so).
I do know that the Bible and the people within it use a “phenomenological viewpoint” to describe reality, that is taking a view as an everyday person would. To illustrate, even astronomers still talk of “sunrise” and “sunset” even though the strict scientific fact is that the Earth rotates on its axis, and orbits elliptically around the Sun.
This perspective as first person eyewitness does not preclude an accurate and “scientific” understanding that the Earth is a globe, inferred from various factors such as the way ships “disappear” over the horizon hull first and masts last.