Yesterday morning, as I was thumbing through Twitter for a few minutes before I sat down to have my coffee at Starbucks, and then get working to preparing for my class on the Major Prophets, I noticed that the folks at Answers in Genesis had posted a new article. This one was by their astronomer, Danny Faulkner, and it was entitled, “Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?” My first thought was “Of course not. It’s not trying to make authoritative statements about science in the first place.”
And then, of course, my next thought was, “I wonder how AiG is going to spin this?” And so I spent the next few minutes, reading how their resident astronomer engages in biblical exegesis. And boy, did he…it was so engrossing that I just had to write a post about it. The reason why it was so engrossing was that, not only did it contain the randomly bizarre statements I’ve come to expect from AiG, but one of the underlying themes of Faulkner was his criticism of people to read the Bible too literally!
That, and I got the strange feeling that AiG is stalking me…well, not really, but I’m pretty sure someone there is reading some of my stuff. There were just a number of things that just kept on popping up that made me wonder…
Faulkner’s Opening Statement
The article begins by stating, rather correctly, that the modern notion that the medieval Church had taught the earth was flat was sheer nonsense. In fact, as I read the first couple of paragraphs, I thought, “Mmmm, that’s exactly what I wrote about in a few of my “Ways of the Worldviews” posts!”
Then in the third paragraph, Faulkner specifically argued that John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White had essentially solidified this misconception about the medieval Church in their highly partisan propaganda in the 19th century. “Wow,” I thought, “I just wrote about those guys last week on my blog and made the exact same argument!”
Faulkner proceeded to mention misconceptions about Galileo and Christopher Columbus, and how the modern narrative about how they had to fight against a hostile, anti-science Church was simply historically false. (At that point, I half-jokingly wrote a note in the margin, “This sounds like they’ve been reading my stuff!”).
With that opening, Faulkner then pivoted to the main argument of his post: flat-earthers wrongly think that the Bible teaches the world is flat, and they have simply unknowingly been suckered by secularists like Draper and White who did their best to discredit the Bible by claiming that the Bible teaches the world was flat. Now, if you are scratching your head and thinking, “Why should we care about the lunatic fringe of flat-earthers in the first place, and besides that, what did Faulkner just say anyway?” all I can say is, yes, those are valid questions because the entire premise of the article is about something nonsensical. Just go with me, this is going to get interesting.
The Earth Has Edges?
You’ve heard the phrases before, the “four corners of the earth,” and “to the “ends of the earth.” Faulkner then pointed to the verses in the Bible that use these phrases, and then said that “secular skeptics” try to use these verses to argue that the Bible teaches the earth is a flat square. Or, at the very least, those “secular skeptics,” say, “this shows that the Bible writers believed one of the flat earth cosmologies of the ancient world, thus proving that the Bible is not inspired, but that the people who wrote the Bible merely reflected the worldview of their times.”
At that point, I stopped and said, “But the Bible writers were people living in the ancient world; why wouldn’t they use the cosmology of their culture? And why that mean the Bible isn’t inspired?”
In any case, Faulkner then pointed out that none of the ancient cosmologies that envision a flat earth, envisioned a flat square earth—they envisioned a flat round earth. Therefore, if the Bible was teaching a flat square earth, then it wouldn’t have been like the other ancient cosmologies…so take that, secular skeptics!
I yawned. “That was a pretty stupid point,” I said under my breath. “This looks like the typical AiG article.”
Well, I was wrong. I certainly didn’t see what was coming next. Faulkner then turned his attention specifically to the book of Revelation, and it’s use of “the four corners of the earth.” Surprisingly, I read something I never thought I’d read in an AiG article: Faulkner argued that these expressions were poetic idioms, and were not to be read literally. Well, good for AiG—they got at least one thing about the Bible right!
Do the Heights in the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?
Faulkner then turned to Daniel 4:11, when we are told that in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, there was a large tree that grew so tall, that it was visible to the end of the world. Does this mean the Bible is teaching a flat earth? Well of course not…and at least Faulkner acknowledges that this argument is truly bizarre. And again, Faulkner correctly points out that this is in a dream, and then says, “It is remarkable that anyone would construe the content of a pagan king’s dream recorded in Scripture as evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.”
Yes, that is remarkable—so remarkable that I’ve never heard anyone ever make it. I guess I could thank AiG for pointing out dreams are not to be read as scientific claims…but I sort of already knew that.
Faulkner then referred to the accounts regarding Satan’s temptations of Jesus, particularly, in Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus up a very high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world—does this teach the world is flat? Well, of course not. Faulkner, rightly, but entirely unnecessarily asks, “If this mountain with its view of the entire earth is literal, then where is it?” Thank you for stating the obvious.
In any case, Faulkner then mentions that in the parallel accounts in Luke and Mark, the temptations are in different order. But that’s not a problem, he states, because it is obvious that the temptations are treated thematically not chronologically. Now that comment struck me as odd. After all, AiG is the organization that argues the days in Genesis 1 have to be chronological, just like it states, and a day is a day is a day…and if you don’t believe that you call into question then reliability and authority of the Bible itself! Heck, if it’s not six literal 24-hour days, how can you be sure Jesus rose from the dead? And yet, within the Gospels themselves, when faced with a chronological difference in what I assume they believe is a historical event, Faulkner just passes it off as, “Eh, that’s not chronological! No biggie!”
Now, for the record, he’s right—the difference in order of the temptations is no biggie. It’s pretty irrelevant, actually. But it still is astonishing at the glaring inconsistency in how AiG interprets scripture.
And what is even more astonishing is that fact that Faulkner then points out that in Luke’s account, that it just says that Satan “took Jesus up” to see the kingdoms of the world–Luke doesn’t say ‘mountain’! Most Bible scholars do not see this as a big deal, and realized it is clearly implied. Mark doesn’t mention the specific temptations, Matthew mentions a mountain (I think you could argue that mountains are a significant literary feature in Matthew), and Luke doesn’t–so what? But Faulkner the astronomer isn’t so sure: “This is a relatively minor point, but it may have some bearing on whether the mountain that Matthew recorded literally was a tall mountain from which all the world’s kingdoms could be viewed.”
Well, I’m glad to see he realizes it is a “relatively minor point,” but for the life of me I can’t figure out what point he is implying that “relatively minor point” is making. How might it have bearing on whether or not Matthew’s mountain was so tall that one could literally see all the kingdoms of the world? What is the point of making such a nonsensical, “relatively minor point” that doesn’t make any point regarding whether or not there is a literal mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world? No such mountain exists, the earth isn’t flat, a only a fool would think Matthew is claiming a literal mountain like that exists.
But aren’t you glad Faulkner put to bed that conundrum regarding that question? I’m sure you’ve stayed awake at night, thinking, “Did Jesus literally see all the kingdoms of the world from a really high mountain that was literally tall enough for that to happen? Is Jesus claiming the earth is flat? Is this as important as whether or not there were six literal 24-hour days? Is the authority of the Bible at stake? Is the Gospel true?”
Rest assured–it’s only a relatively minor point…but it may have some bearing…who knows?
This Can Get Long…I’m going to have to split the baby and make two posts!
There’s much more to Faulkner’s article. In my next post, I will cover what he says about the “firmament” that Genesis 1 talks about. This takes up the biggest section in his article, and so it really deserves its own post. You’ll want to come back for the next post—there is going to be some fireworks.
I’ve noticed that AiG has gotten weirdly concerned with flat earthism lately. It’s odd, because it seems to lampshade their own inconsistencies with the literalness of certain scriptures, but it’s never been quite as apparent as in this article.
It may hasten their own demise. I won’t shed a tear if it does.
Denis Lamoureux discusses ancient cosmology of the 3 tiers including a flat earth and tries to show that the Bible writers assumed it, and I think he succeeds. See his website for more. Being on a tall mountain or tall anything and being able to see everything on earth implies a flat earth.
To a point, sure, the biblical writers assumed it and used the cosmology that culture was familiar with. I just don’t think we should force things too much. I’m pretty sure the original audience didn’t think Jesus was LITERALLY looking at all the kingdoms of the world. They didn’t have a concept of a globe like we do, but they did know (for instance) that it took a really long time to travel to Babylon or Egypt, and there was no mountain in the Judean desert tall enough where one could see all the kingdoms of the earth. Simply put, they could do metaphor and hyperbole as well.
Sure, they probably generally thought the earth was flat; but did they view the ANE cosmology as “science”? I think it is misleading to say that. Does that make sense?
Sensuous Curmudgeon posted on the Faulkner article. (But I only skimmed the former as I didn’t have the energy at the time to plough through the latter.) My only thought is that there is visual evidence that plainly falsifies a flat Earth but you cannot visually falsify a 6,000 year old Earth in the same manner.
For the record (and for fun!), note that on a spherical earth the distance to the horizon in miles as seen by an observer h feet above the surface is (neglecting the effects of atmospheric refraction) approximately
sqrt(1.5h). It’s straightforward to verify using basic geometry. This derivation assumes the earth is a sphere (it’s not, of course) of radius 3960 miles. Including atmospheric refraction increases the distance to the horizon by about 9% but then there is the problem of light scattering because of the increased light path leading to reduction in contrast, etc.
I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you, to learn there are inconsistencies in anything AiG claims. 🙂
Haha! Crazy, eh?
And your suspicion that AiG is following your blog is probably correct. They love to find evidence that their worldview is under attack.
If that is the case, that is super! I just want name recognition…lol.
Ham wrote on his facebook yesterday “The Bible does not teach the earth is flat”. The Bible does not clearly teach about the shape of the planet, no. By the exact same reasoning the Bible does not teach the earth is young. Fundamentalist Christians make various inferences from parts of the Bible – also taking due account of those scientific realities they cannot plausibly deny plus whether what the Bible specifically does teach depends on Earth having a particular shape or age (an old Earth is thought to ‘mess up’ Biblical theology).
The problem with most “Bible scholars” is they’re just repeating what they were taught by their teachers, taking everything they were taught as gospel and not studying to prove all things. Same reason people in general actually believe in the absurd humanist creation myths of the dumb big bang spontaneous generation which violates laws of science, life from nonlife abiogenesis which violates laws of science, and evolutionism changes of kinds which has never been observed or proven with the scientific method. They show kids variations within a created kind, then tell them to have faith that proves their ancestors are monkeys and fish and all life came from a common ancestor that came to life from nonliving material which came from nothing; but they present it as “settled science fact™” and this atheistic humanist religion and it’s retarded creation myths are paid for at the barrel of a gun through property taxes. Imagine the outrage if Biblical creation was taught in schools for even one day. They get 180 days every year to indoctrinate kids and it’s been working very well for their goals. And most “Bible scholars” would jump at the chance to compromise on that issue as well to be friends with the world and appear wise unto men.
The problem with AiG is they already compromised on the Word of God by using these modern perversions and corruptions which introduce errors and contradictions, make Jesus a sinner, blaspheme Christ by giving his name to Lucier, attack the doctrine of salvation, leave words untranslated (because that’s “easier to understand”); and while you’re at it, they’ll tell you to learn Greek and Hebrew because that’s easier than reading the King James Bible and picking up a dictionary when your vocabulary is lacking — the hypocrisy of the crusade against God’s preserved words, faithfully preserved through the ages by God who promised to do so, and faithfully translated into English for over 400 years. Does it make sense that God would need to keep doing the same work he already finished again and again? Modern textual criticism doesn’t even believe God preserved his words as he promised to.
How can someone say the Bible should be interpreted literally when their corruptions and perversions of the Word of God which they use can’t be interpreted literally otherwise it’d be full of errors and contradictions? Whereas there are no errors nor contradictions in God’s Word regardless of what language it is in, if it is the true Word of God. If it has even one error or contradiction in it, then it cannot be God’s pure words. People hate this doctrine for the same reason they hate English-speaking saved believers who promote the King James Bible only for English-speakers, they don’t like a perfect God whose standard is perfection and which we cannot attain on our own, only by faithin Christ are our sins remitted and we receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, for the just shall live by faith; they instead like works-based salvation or back-loading works like Calvinism which lets man boast of his “many wonderful works” who Jesus will tell he “never knew”. They haven’t fully trusted in Christ alone to be saved, they’re still trusting in their own works and their own filthy rags.
Bunch of fools they are. Building their house on sand with these corruptions and perversions of the Word rather than the Rock which is Christ whose name is called the Word of God. I would cite Scripture, and it would help the readers of my comment, but I wouldn’t even need to do so if you were familiar with God’s word and actually saved; the Spirit would bring relevant verses to your mind and I wouldn’t even have to reference them. Are you saved? Are you fully trusting in his grace this hour? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Get saved, believe in your heart that Jesus died for your sins and God raised him the third day; and read the King James Bible just once, then you can go back to these garbage modern perversions and you’ll just know it’s wrong in your soul (or you can study in depth to see how they drastically change and attack core foundational doctrines of the faith), it’s a witness of the Holy Spirit. Go ahead and read the preserved Hebrew or Greek texts if you know the languages, or any other language’s equivalent of God’s pure and preserved words; it all says the same thing and there are no contradictions in God’s Word regardless of the langauges it’s in; and guess what, for English, we’ve had it for over 400 years in the King James Bible with most English versions before it agreeing completely in meaning; then look at modern versions that drastically change core doctrines and even if the doctrine isn’t changed too much or at all, it just waters down and destroys the sharpness of the Word of God. And it’s calling God a liar when you think only recently with modern Jesuit reinvented “textual criticism” (for their continued counter-reformation because they could no longer burn all the Bibles and burn anyone who’d translate them like Tyndale) can we “reconstruct” or “rediscover” God’s Word. God promised to preserve his words, not one jot or tittle would pass. Who are you going to believe? God or this world? Have ye no faith?
Proverbs 3:5-6
[5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
[6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
–
p.s. Funny I see one such “educated” man eager to state the Bible doesn’t teach a young earth, because it clearly does. The Emperor has no clothes. Evolution is a lie, those geological layers were laid down in the flood, millions of years is disproven by so many different ways that I don’t care to start listing them all, you clearly haven’t even looked into it and you are a lazy twat since I know you’re going to expect spoonfeeding, as if I haven’t done enough already. You can simply count the years in the geneologies and you can get a rough estimate for how long ago God created in six literal days (See Exodus 20 if you think Genesis creation account isn’t literal — all these posers who have an issue with an Almighty God who can work miracles don’t even want to believe he does the miracles the Bible plainly said he did). The actual scientific data supports a young creation too, but the foundation of our faith is the Word of God, not history or science or whatever.
Luke 18:8
[8] I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Romans 1:16
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 10:17
[17] So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
>Evolution is a lie …
How is it that, if Evolution is a lie, that the science works so very well. It gives us new inventions, patents, medical treatments, and opens new area of research and discovery. All those are hallmarks of good science, which should not be the case if the theory is wrong.
More likely you are simply gaslighting.