The Flat-Earth: Still an Embarassment to Bible Inerrantists

The Flat-Earth: Still an Embarassment to Bible Inerrantists
by Adrian Swindler
The Skeptical Review: 1990: Number Three
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/3/3flat90.html

 As I proved in an earlier article ("The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers," Winter Issue, 1990, pp. 9-11), the Hebrews conceived the world as a three-storied structure that included a flat-earth belief. That they believed in such an unscientific concept should not surprise us, because they were surrounded by pagan cultures much older than theirs whose cosmologic views were very similar. The Hebrews had simply borrowed this concept from their pagan neighbors. In Man and the Cosmos, Lars Thunberg described the pagan cosmology of two of those pagan neighbors:

The Babylonians thought of heaven as a great vault, immobile and solid, whose foundations rested on a vast ocean (apsu, meaning "the deep"). Above the vault (dome, firmament) was the "dwelling of the gods" from which the sun comes through a door every morning and returns every evening through another door. The earth was supposed to be a mountain, hollow underneath, also supported by ap-su. The abode of the dead, sheol, the land of darkness and the shadow of death, was just above the hollow interior but inside the earth' crust. The Egyptians held similar ideas. As fanciful, and even naive, as these ideas appear now, they represented the thinking of the day" (1985, pp. 26-27).

The similarity of these pagan ideas to the Hebrew conception of the cosmos should be apparent to everyone who is familiar with the Old Testament scriptures.

In the lead article of this issue, however, Jerry McDonald, a Church-of-Christ preacher in Oskaloosa, Kansas, took exception to my first article on this subject. In so doing, he said that no scholar who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible would take the position that there are mistakes in the original autographs of the Bible. That was a rather simplistic observation. It states the obvious and needs no comment. It is a lot like saying a theist would never say that God does not exist.

But what is this "original autographs" business? There are absolutely NONE, so how could anyone know that there were no mistakes in them? The copies we do have are obviously not the same as they once were. In 1958, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered in a monastery near Jerusalem a letter containing a missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark that had been deliberately suppressed by Bishop Clement of Alexandria. It originally followed Mark 10:34 where Jesus, after predicting the approaching death of the "Son of man," said, "... and after three days he will rise again":

And they came unto Bethany, and certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of Jordan," (Secret Gospel, p. 14ff).

In present versions, this same young man is apparently mentioned in Mark 14:51: "And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."

This secret gospel was suppressed by Clement because the Carpocratians were using it to prove that Jesus approved of homosexual activity. This fragment was about the raising of Lazarus, and, like most accounts of the gospels, it varies from John's version. Professor Smith thinks that homosexuality was probably not involved here but rather the description of a typical mystery school initiation--a ritualized and symbolic death and rebirth of the sort so prevalent in the Middle East at that time. The point is clear, however, that we don't have all of the old copies now, so how much more has been excised, added, and altered? No one can tell.

A similar case concerns what the voice in Luke 3:22 said after the baptism of Jesus. Justin Martyr quoted it as, "Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee." He said that this was in the "Memoirs of the Apostles," (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 190 & ciii 6). The Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other western authorities quoted it the same. But is it that way in your copy? No! So is the Bible complete? Infallible? Inspired of God? The fact is that we can determine very little about who wrote and when they wrote most of the Bible.

In Harmony of the Gospels, A. T. Robertson, M. A., LL. D., Litt. D., one of Jerry's old fundamentalist scholars whom the Church of Christ has used for years, said this about the Bible writer Luke:

Luke is the first critic of the life of Christ whose criticism has been preserved to us. Others had drawn up narratives of certain portions of Christ's work. Others still had been eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus and gave Luke their oral testimony. Luke sifted it all with care and produced an orderly and reasonably full narrative of the earthly ministry of Jesus. We cannot reproduce all the sources Luke had at his command, but it is clear that he followed in the main our gospel of Mark, as anyone can see for himself by comparing the two Gospels in this Harmony. Both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark. But they had other sources too.

So here is your scholar, Jerry! He admits that Luke and the writer of Matthew were about as inspired as you are. The very fact that Luke wrote his gospel shows that he considered all others questionable and that he was going to give the straight dope to Theophilus. If Luke had thought the other gospels were correct and complete, all he would have had to do was point to them as faithful accounts of the story.

So with the theory of "inerrant original autographs" put to rest, we can now turn to Jerry's views on scholarship. He didn't care too much for my scholars. Ian Wilson and Richard Friedman are indeed two of them, but others would include the 100+ translators of the New American Bible and The Good News Bible. To these can also be added the ones who gave us The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible and the 74 who compiled the New Jerome Bible Commentary. And that is only a start. My scholars are the professors of philosophy and religion at the major universities in this country and Western Europe. These are honest people in their fields, who will not sell out to ignorant and prejudiced fundamentalists. On the other hand, Jerry's "scholars" are the old manipulators who are adept at using possibility answers to "explain" the insurmountable inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. Possibly this, maybe that, it could be, it might be--this is their strength. My! My! It's so easy to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes.

Jerry's 19th century scholars have presided over nearly 300 fighting fragments of Christianity that cannot agree on much of anything. Of course, even the scholars disagree on a multitude of interpretations. The Church of Christ has been relying on characters like these for almost two hundred years and has at least 10 divisions, all of which claim to be the "one true church." The "doctors" of this church are constantly at one another's throats, with J. D. Bales (Harding College) and Thomas B. Warren (Freed-Hardeman College) disgreeing vehemently over marriage issues and other interpretative matters. As editor of The Spiritual Sword, Warren tried with pontifical pronouncements and "definitive" treatment of all subjects to write the creed for the church. It didn't work!

Jerry even quoted three 19th century scholars whom, if they were still alive, he would not even allow in his pulpit on Sunday morning, men who believed that baptism is not essential, that babies should be baptized, that pouring and sprinkling in baptism is acceptable and that a 1000-year literal reign of Jesus is coming. Jerry loves them when he can use their deceptions, possibilities, and perversions, but he would never give them the right hand of fellowship.

As for the opinion of scholars, I think even Jerry has heard of Bultmann. He, knowing of the three-tiered structure of the world taught by the Bible, made this cogent observation:

The whole conception of the world which is presupposed in the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament generally is mythological, i.e., the conception of the world as structured in three stories, heaven, earth, and hell; the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events; and the conception of miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatu- ral powers in the inner life of the soul, the conception that men can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits. This conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece and which has been accepted by all modern men, (Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958, p. 15).

The pre-scientific character of the Bible is obvious to all who will read it objectively.

Jerry spoke of "faulty translations," yet he uses the KJV. "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God...." What? "Wot ye not...." This is the nearly 400-year-old language of the KJV. There are thousands of words that are either mistranslated or obscurely rendered and several others that are now obsolete. Besides this, the KJV was too highly colored in many places with the party opinions and ideas of those who translated it to be considered a faithful record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "It was made a little too complaisant to the king in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these, it is probable, were also the translators' opinions. Their translation is partial, speaking the language of and giving authority to one sect." And he imparted this not to the translators alone but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their judgment in the matter but were restrained by "reasons of state." So the KJV is not a translation from the oldest MSS--there are no originals--but merely a revision of the versions then in use. Those versions had only eight MSS available, whereas there are about 700 Greek MSS now available. What do these facts say about the reliability of the KJV?

With Jerry's complaints and quibbles about inerrant original autographs, liberal scholars, and faulty translations out of the way, I can now address the "rebuttal" arguments in his article. Space will allow us to reprint only one of the graphics from my first article, so if you have saved the first issue of TSR, you might want to keep it close at hand for reference purposes as I analyze Jerry's "counterarguments."

PSALM 24:1-2. Jerry didn't seem to understand why I cited this passage. My point here and throughout was to show that the graphic illustrations of the NAB and The Interpreter's Bible were accurate in depicting the Bible writers' conception of a three-tiered universe, with heaven, hell, and a flat earth. A verse that touches on any one of those three tiers, as these do, confirms the graphics that contain all three. Jerry said nothing about this.

But one of his scholars has tried to circumvent the obvious embarrassment of this passage. Scholar Barnes said, "As the earth appeared to be surrounded by water, it was natural to speak of it as founded also upon the waters...." Natural indeed to the pre-scientific, ignorant primitive mind but absolutely false nevertheless! In fact, Barnes' statement is an admission that the writer was wrong and was basing his statements on appearance rather than fact. Furthermore, Barnes himself is in error in this statement: "The earth has been elevated above them (the seas)...." That is absolutely incorrect. The earth is not built upon the seas; it contains the seas. The vast majority of the land is under the water with some rising above it. The Bible is wrong; the earth (Barnes' and Strong's "globe") is NOT founded upon the seas! Anyone should easily recognize that Jerry's scholars lived recently enough to know from science that the earth is round, and that they simply inserted scientific knowledge into their definition of tebel as meaning "the earth" and by extension "the globe." By their extension, the earth is a globe, but their extending the meaning of the word results in a vicious lie! There is absolutely NO Hebrew word for globe in the sense of Earth, because those ancients thought the earth was flat. By their extensions, Barnes and Strong simply lied. They extended the truth, and that constitutes lying. Young's Analytical Concordance has every instance where the words translated earth are used, and NOT ONCE does the root mean globe. Jerry's fundamentalist scholars have been clearly discredited.

DANIEL 4:10. The dream and interpretation of it in this passage were, according to the story, inspired by God. This was not like one of Jerry's dreams, which is caused by something he eats, but was a sensible dream with a sensible interpretation. That dream clearly presented a flat earth with a tree at the center that could be seen from the ends of the earth. This expression was used over and over in the Bible, as it was here and in Job 38:13-14, and Bible writers used it because they thought the earth was flat and had ends, just as most people did at the time of Columbus and before. Jerry said, "We still use that language, even though we know the earth has no ends." That's true, but the expression originated in a time when people did think the earth had ends. Our language is filled with unscientific expressions, such as sunrise and sunset, that originated when people thought they conveyed scientific fact. They are in our language, because we have a tendency to retain such idioms long after we know them to be erroneous.

MATTHEW 4:8. The only reason for taking Jesus to an "exceedingly high mountain" was for a visibility factor that would show him ALL the kingdoms of the world, just as taking him to the highest point of the temple was to give falling distance. Jerry appealed to Dungan and the hermeneutic principle of word substitution. I agree wholeheartedly with this principle and will, to Jerry's embarrassment, shortly use it myself. However, Jerry wants to substitute Palestine for the world in this passage, so let's look at the consequences of this substitution. The same word kosmos was used in Mark 16:15: "Go into all Palestine and preach the gospel...." Well, well, well!

On this verse, Jerry had his scholars contradicting each other and himself. Barnes said, "... we need not suppose that there was any miracle when they (the kingdoms) were shown to the savior." But Boles said, "The devil may have had supernatural power and presented Jesus with a mental vision of 'all the kingdoms of the world....'" So Jerry goes along with Barnes who claimed only a tiny world was involved and therefore no miracle happened, but then he quoted Boles who gave the devil credit for a miraculous showing of all kingdoms of the earth in a vision! This is a fundamentalist nightmare. Their own scholars disagree with each other, and all they can propose is maybe, possibly, could be, perhaps, it is possible, ad infinitum and ad nauseam. So please explain something, Mr. Boles et al. Why take Jesus to an "exceedingly high mountain" only to show him a MENTAL VISION? Hogwash and balderdash! Barnes, Jerry, et al, how much could you tempt a person by showing him the glory of Palestine? Glory? What glory? A depressed, primitive, third-worldlike area! You and your pitiful scholars are batting exactly zero, and you don't get any better.

GENESIS 11:4. The language and context here clearly shows an anthropomorphic god was afraid that, if he left the people to their own devices, they would reach heaven where his throne was. Yes, Jerry, those writers were just like you were in your childhood, but they had no one to teach them science as you had. The only reason you don't feel the same way about the distance to the stars now is because you have been taught scientific facts. It isn't because you're an adult but because you have been taught that the earth is not flat and that the stars are billions of miles away. Science is your teacher and not the Bible. Hold to the Bible and you, like the Amish and the people of Zion City, Illinois, will believe the earth is flat. We can at least credit them with honesty. They believe this because they believe the Bible, but you are trying to explain these things away.

Jerry's scholar Leupold carried no weight at all with his foolish comment: "It cannot but work harm to let this situation continue." How ridiculous! Those people couldn't have hurt a thing with their ziggurat. Many of them were built in that area at this time. Language didn't come from a god confounding their speech; it developed from grunts and growls and has been changing ever since. The English of 500 years ago was so different from ours that, if we were taken back in time, we wouldn't be able to understand it.

JOB 38:22. This Bible writer had no idea how snow and ice are formed, so he had his god pose this as a problem for Job. Jerry's Barnes gives us another idiotic and unsupported statement, but the scholars who translated the NAB, The Interpreter's Bible, and MATC understood clearly that god was telling Job that he stores up the snow and hail. But we know very well how hail and snow are formed; it is no mystery at all. Job's god lied to him and told him he kept the snow and hail "ready for times of trouble, for days of battle and war." We know, of course, that there was no god involved, merely an uneducated, pre-scientific writer.

Let's look, for example, at the questions this god allegedly asked Job. They are either questions that little children in school could easily answer or those that are based on erroneous conceptions. "What holds up the pillars that support the earth? Who laid the cornerstone of the world?" (v:6). ANSWER: There ain't any, and nobody! "Who closed the gates to hold back the sea?" (v:. ANSWER: Nobody, because there are no gates. "Have you walked on the floor of the ocean?" (v:16). ANSWER: People have, so what? "Do you know where light comes from or what the source of darkness is?" (v:19). ANSWER: What a question! It reminds me of an old "little moron" joke. In a class discussing the relative importance of the sun and the moon, the teacher asked, "Which is more important, the sun or the moon?" The little moron answered, "Why, the moon is more important! It gives us light at night when we need it; the sun is there in the daytime when it's already light." This entire chapter in Job is laughable to anyone educated in science.

GENESIS 1:6-7. Jerry quibbled over the meaning of dome, expansion, firmament, and vault and then quoted Leupold again, who said that the firmament surrounding the earth is simply an air space. Now where did Leupold get that? Ipsi dixit will not do. What scripture did he rely on? It is simply an explanation without evidence. As fundamentalists are so prone to do, Jerry accepted it and then said that this air keeps the mist, fog, and rain apart from the earth. So Jerry is still a child. I've seen all of those elements in very close connection with the earth but never at all separated.

To test the soundness of his theory, let's use Jerry's hermeneutic trick and substitute air for firmament:

And God said let there be lights in the air of the heavens to separate the day from the night... and let there be lights in the air of the heavens to give light upon the earth.... And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the air of the heavens to give light upon the earth, (Gen. 1:14-17).

Now isn't that something? All of those heavenly bodies up there in the air! That means they are all within 200 miles of the earth. Does this mean the moon is not 238,000 miles away? The sun is not 93 million miles out in space? How do our space vehicles get past that vast array of bodies that are all up there in the air?

Let there be air in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the air and separated the waters which were under the air from the waters which were above the air. And it was so. And God called the air heaven, (vv:6-8).

Now isn't that a shocker? Is there actually water above the AIR? Mind you, that is not in the air but above the AIR! Not water in the firmament but water above the firmament! Are the sun and moon and all the stars up there in the AIR? Jerry's Dungan (a real scholar) and hermeneutics are very useful, eh?

My use of Psalm 104:3, 13 was misunderstood by Jerry (so what else is new?). Check the NAB graphic illustration again, and you will see that the throne of god is above the dome and the floodgates (sluices) need merely be opened from god's palace. Also, the expression "who lays the beams of his chambers in the waters" has reference to his throne established on the waters above the dome. Since this language supports the graphic illustrations I referred to, it teaches the three-tiered structure, including the flat earth.

Job 38:12-14. Jerry tried to justify the Bible writers for saying "the ends of the earth" on the grounds that people still say this. Just a tiny bit of thought should have suggested to him that the expression originated in a time when people did believe the earth was flat. In my comments on Daniel 4:10, I addressed the issue of unscientific idioms. The same principle applies here, so nothing more needs to be said about it.

Job 26:7. Apparently, Jerry didn't realize I was answering an argument that claims this verse teaches a global earth. It teaches no such thing, and my statement on this should be read again with that context in mind.

Job 26:11. The fact that the writer speaks of the "pillars of the earth" proves again that my graphic illustrations are correct. Jerry hangs in there with his discredited Barnes who speaks of "mountains which seem to support the earth," (emphasis, AS). Can you believe an adult of even average intelligence would make a statement like that? Job 38:6 asks, "What holds up the pillars that support the earth?" I suppose Barnes would have said the pillars "seem" to support the earth. Barnes adds to what is written and deserves the condemnation of Revelation 22:18.

Isaiah 14:13. Jerry misunderstood my use of this passage, even though my argument was clearly directed against those who use it to prove the writer thought the earth was round. My original statement should be reread with that context in mind.

Isaiah 40:22 was used for the same purpose as above. I showed that this verse does NOT teach a round earth. Poor Jerry thinks the old King James per-Version is the correct one, even with its 20,000 errors. I wonder if those translators were right when they substituted easter for passover in Acts 12:4? The NAB and GNB translators made Isaiah 40:22 quite clear: "He sits enthroned above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; he stretches out the heavens like a veil, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isn't that exactly what the graphic illustrations showed? Of course it is! Isn't it nice to know that the heavens are spread out like a tent? All the tents I have seen were domed over a flat surface. My, my, what you can learn from the Bible! This is the very verse medieval churchmen quoted to prove the earth was flat! Now comes Jerry McDonald to tell us it teaches the earth is round.

Those old churchmen understood the Bible much better than Jerry and his deceptive, shifty, sly, and crooked commentators. Consider, for example, this quotation from Man and the Cosmos:

We now come to the "dark ages" in the development of cosmology. From Aristotle and Ptolemy until Copernicus thirteen centuries later, no apparent advance had been made. It even took until A.D. 1000 for the West to accept a round earth and Ptolemy's system. However, to understand the background of the Copernican revolution that was to follow, we should know the important factors of those intervening, nonproductive years, which included political and religious considerations affecting the study of cosmology.... In its desire to stamp out any pagan influence, the church soon adopted a rigid interpretation of Scriptures and rejected anything that might even remotely challenge her influence. Lacantius (A.D. 240 ca.- 320), writing on the false wisdom of the philosopher, ridiculed the belief in a round earth. His arguments were the ancient ones about the impossibility of walking upside down and places where the rain and snow fall upward. He quoted Isaiah 40:22, "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; he stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in," (pp. 64-65).

Strange, isn't it, that Jerry and Lacantius quoted the same verse, one to prove the earth is flat and the other to prove it is a globe? Lacantius had a better understanding than Jerry, because the idea in this verse was the ancient one in which God sat enthroned above a dome (vault, firmament, expanse) that he had stretched out as a tent to dwell in.

Jerry alleged that Farrell Till is not sure of his position and assumes that I take the same position. Well, he assumes far too much. I know Farrell quite well, and both he and I are very sure of our position. Also, I am very sure the Bible is inspired but not by a god. No god would make those horrendous mistakes.

Jerry bragged that he has shown my position to be false, but in fact he has failed most miserably in this regard. That kind of attitude reminds me of the little boy whistling to cover his fear as he goes by the graveyard.

I have clearly established the correctness of the graphic illustrations of NAB, The Interpreter's Bible, and Man and the Cosmos. A dome over a flat earth, which was built on the seas, with pillars reaching into the seas to support the earth and sheol deep in that flat earth--this was the three-tiered world of the Hebrews, the world their writers described in the Bible.

(Adrian Swindler's address is P. O. Box 695, Elmwood, IL 61529.)

I think I need only make a single, solitary rebuttal.

What gives the bible this authority, and how, without using any bible refrences, and using ONLY direct reproducible evidence, can you prove this authority of the bible?

Thank you.

Allow me to give you the two equations that, together (with various levels of bastardization) describe nearly all of physics:

(Paste into Wikipedia with the tag <math> around it, or into a LaTeX program)

G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}

and

\hat{H} \Psi = E \Psi \to \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} \Psi + V\Psi = i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi

Well after viewing that mostly atheistic load of crap, I have to say that the ignorance and gawl of some people is truly amazing.  No where does the Bible clearly SAY "The Earth is flat."  That is an interpretation.  In fact, it is a gross misinterpretation.  

The flawed reasoning and total ineptitude of people with an anti-Christian agenda boggles the mind.  Use of words like "like a tent" does not in any way prove a flat earth.  Does anyone know what a simile is?  

For those who like to post weak interpretive information from atheists, here's a little dose of factual reality:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

What Shape is the Earth In?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology

J. P. Holding


[Introduction] [Stretched Heavens and a Firmament] [Earth as "Circle"] ["Ends" of the Earth] [Long/Broad] ["Spread" Earth] [Center of the Earth] [Corners] [Pillars and Foundations] [Not a Globe?] [Height of the Sky] [Conclusion]


A rather common accusation made against the Bible in skeptical circles is that it teaches a view that promulgates a "flat earth" and contains other primitive cosmological/natural data like a solid, domed sky. Here we will have a look at some of the verses commonly used to assert this position.

We begin with a bit of groundwork. It should be understood that the Hebrews, like all ANE cultures, obviously lacked the scientific terminology we use to describe things today. We should not expect descriptions of "tectonic plates" or of "molten lava". On a lesser scale, we will find that the Hebrews lacked key words which would have been most useful in describing cosmological phenomena.

Furthermore, we will not address certain words and verses that use "phenomenological" language - i.e., sunset, sunrise, or references to sun and stars moving. As we still use such terms today, in spite of hundreds of years of "knowing better", it should not reflect badly upon the use of such language in the Bible.

Now to the verses in question. We will use the KJV as our English cite-source for the most part here, since it is the one most commonly used by skeptics in this arena.



A Heavenly Stretch
Some descriptions of the sky in the Bible indicate to skeptics that some sort of solid mass is involved. I have dealt with many of these cites in an article written for the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal; let's look at what's left:

Jer. 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
(Note - "world" here is the Hebrew tebel - see below.)

Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
Do these imply a physical dome of some sort? Actually, it is not possible to determine one way or another, for the Hebrews (like many cultures of this time) lacked a word-concept of infinite physical space. With that in mind, we may ask how they would describe the sky as it exists, and metaphor is the most probable choice. We surmise that the sky as a "stretched" space or object comes as close to capturing "infinity" as one can without the word-concept. But is there any less ambiguous assertion about the sky? Some note verses like this:

Ps. 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
The word here which we render "firmament" is:

7549. raqiya', raw-kee'-ah; frm H7554; prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
Indications are, however, that this raqyia is not the solid structure that "firmament" implies; see the linked article above.



Circle the Planet
Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...
Skeptics will assume from these verses a concept of a flat, circular, pancake-like earth. In each case, the Hebrew word here is exactly the same, as Strong's tells us:

2329. chuwg, khoog; from H2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
And here is where we alert the reader to another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast!), but that they simply did not create a second word for it.

Some may cite in reply here the KJV version of Is. 22:18, "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." The Hebrew word here, however, is:

1754. duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.
This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:

Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape.



The End
Ps. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
Ps. 59:13 Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah.
Ps. 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going f7orth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven...
Deut. 28:64-5 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind...
In each of these, it is supposed, the author is thinking of opposite ends of a flat earth. Let's look at the key words used among these verses.

The word used for "ends" is:

7097. qatseh, kaw-tseh'; or (neg. only) qetseh, kay'-tseh; from H7096; an extremity (used in a great variety of applications and idioms; comp. H7093):-- X after, border, brim, brink, edge, end, [in-] finite, frontier, outmost coast, quarter, shore, (out-) side, X some, ut (-ter-) most (part).
This word has a broad usage throughout the OT. It can signify the termination of a period of time, or of an action. But let's look exclusively at geographic connotations of some sort.

Gen 23:9 That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a buryingplace amongst you.
Gen. 47:21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. (Note: "Borders" here is yet another Hebrew word, gebuwl.)
Ex. 25:18-9 18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:
Josh. 15:5 And the east border was the salt sea, even unto the end of Jordan. And their border in the north quarter was from the bay of the sea at the uttermost part of Jordan:
1 Sam. 9:27 And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may show thee the word of God.
Another word used for "end" is this one:

657. 'ephec, eh'-fes; from H656; cessation, i.e. an end (espec. of the earth); often used adv. no further; also (like H6466) the ankle (in the dual), as being the extremity of the leg or foot:--ankle, but (only), end, howbeit, less than nothing, nevertheless (where), no, none (beside), not (any, -withstanding), thing of nought, save (-ing), there, uttermost part, want, without (cause).
This word most commonly is translated "nevertheless" - as in this verse:

Num. 13:28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
So we have a fairly strong word here, one that seems to favor the skeptical position. But now let's look at the words which come out as "earth". The first is one that we shall have cause to refer to often:

776. 'erets, eh'-rets; from an unused root prob. mean. to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):-- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
This is the word used to indicate "earth" in Genesis 1:1 and in later parts of Genesis involving creation and the Flood. So, do we have an earth with ends? The answer is, not necessarily. The word is used over 2500 times in the OT, and elsewhere it is used to indicate a limited space, as in these examples:

Gen. 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
Gen. 13:7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
Gen. 20:15 And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.
Gen. 42:33 And the man, the lord of the country, said unto us, Hereby shall I know that ye are true men; leave one of your brethren here with me, and take food for the famine of your households, and be gone:
1 Sam. 29:11 So David and his men rose up early to depart in the morning, to return into the land of the Philistines. And the Philistines went up to Jezreel.
2 Sam. 24:6 Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon...
So what can be said here? It is far from clear that any of the original verses cited referring to the "ends" of the "earth" are indicating a flat earth with edges. They might be - but they might not be. Ps. 22:27, for example: "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." This is a reference to peoples rather than geography; physical ends of the earth could hardly "remember" anything! Job 28:24 says, "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven..." - which might seem like a problem, until we consider the context of the verse:

Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame thereof with our ears. God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven; To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure. When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder: Then did he see it, and declare it; he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.
We are obviously dealing with poetry here - not a scientific treatise. So the bottom line: It cannot be absolutely asserted that a flat earth is in view here, in any of these verses. One would have to get into the minds of the writers to know for certain that a flat earth is intended. (We might add 1) that we still use the phrase "ends of the earth" today - so that we can hardly criticize the use of the phrase in the Bible!; 2) This last phrase, at any rate, is a quote of Job - in which case, it may be argued that we are simply being told what he believes!)

Now there is a second word that translates as "earth" in some places -- but it only occurs 38 times in the OT:

8398. tebel, tay-bale'; from H2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extens. the globe; by impl. its inhabitants; spec. a partic. land, as Babylonia, Pal.:--habitable part, world.
This is used in the Psalms verse in particular, and here:

1 Sam. 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.
This second word carries the implication of the peoples of the earth rather than any sort of reference to geography. Where it is used it certainly cannot be seen as favoring a flat earth.



Long and Broad
Here is a verse that comes up for critical review:

Job 11:9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.
This is supposed to indicate a measurable earth with "length" - but "earth" here is that slippery old 'erets, and in light of the fact that a fixedly measurable body like "sea" is used in parallel, we are justified in reading 'erets here in its less "global" sense.



Spread Out
Is. 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
The word "spread" here is taken to mean a flat earth. But hold the phone: It also says that God "spread" that which "cometh out" of the earth - i.e., the plants and animals. Does this mean that the plants and animals are flat, too? Obviously not. The word here (raqa' - related to the word used for the sky, above) therefore indicates creative formation, not shape.



Journey to the "Center" of the Earth
Ezek. 5:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.
Some will cite this verse which is translated in some versions as saying that Jerusalem is in the "center" of the earth - which is said to fit in with a flat earth. But that particular translation has a few bugs in it. The word here for "midst" is --

432. tavek, taw'-vek; from an unused root mean. to sever; a bisection, i.e. (by impl.) the centre:--among (-st), X between, half, X (there-, where-) in (-to), middle, mid [-night], midst (among), X out (of), X through, X with (-in).
"Countries" is the word 'erets again. "Nations" is --

471. gowy, go'ee; rarely (short.) goy, go'-ee; appar. from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (fig.) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
Finally, the word "round" is:

439. cabiyb, saw-beeb'; or (fem.) cebiybah, seb-ee-baw'; from H5437; (as noun) a circle, neighbor, or environs; but chiefly (as adv., with or without prep.) around:--(place, round) about, circuit, compass, on every side.
The implication here seems far more political and religious than geographical, especially when we consider that the book of Ezekiel then goes on to condemn Israel for adopting the practices of the "countries" ('erets) all around them. (Thus some translations will now say that Jerusalem is "most important" rather than using words which indicate a geographic connotation.)



Sittin' in the Corner
For this objection we'll be crossing the Testaments. Let's start with the OT:

Is. 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Some will cite this as evidence of a flat, SQUARE earth - which is a little odd, after it is argued so often that a flat, CIRCULAR earth is in mind! But let's look at this word "corners" --

3671. kanaph, kaw-nawf'; from H3670; an edge or extremity; spec. (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle:-- + bird, border, corner, end, feather [-ed], X flying, + (one an-) other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing ([-ed]).
"Earth" is our familiar word 'erets, so the same constraints apply as above. But what about "kanaph"? It indicates compass points: Note how it emerges elsewhere --

Gen. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ex. 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
The word can also refer to clothes:

1 Sam. 15:27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
...and in a few places, it is translated "ends". But the reference to "four" kanaph, and the application to wings (of birds, cherubim, etc.), along with reference to the specific nations which the Israelities are to return from in the verse previous (Is. 11:11), make it far more likely exegetically that this word indicates compass points.

We should note, however, one often-cited exception - one used by my pal Kornform:

Job 38:12-3 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends (kanaph) of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
However, "earth" is again that slippery old 'erets - so one cannot say whether it is indeed meant in a global sense here. (Even so, this is manifestly metaphorical: One does not suppose that this suggests that the light itself actually picked up the earth and snapped it around like a towel! We may suggest that the "end" here might refer to the artificial dividing line between night and day.)

But now to a NT cite:

Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Once again, it is likely that we are dealing with compass points, owing to the reference to the winds. The word here is:

137. gonia, go-nee'-ah; prob. akin to G1119; an angle:--corner, quarter.
This word is used only 9 times in the NT, and it does refer, for example, to street corners (Matt. 6:5) and to cornerstones (Mark 12:10). But the context, the reference to the "four winds", supports the idea of compass points. (And once again, this is a phrase we STILL use, so we cannot really be that critical!)



Foundations and Pillars
There are a few words that indicate to skeptics that the earth is on top of some sort of supporting system. Let's start with "foundations" -

Ps. 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
2 Sam. 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Zech. 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
We have selected these verses as samples, for they encompass the entire range of words used for "foundation(s)" in reference to the earth. Now let's consider each word in the Hebrew.

Ps. 104:9 uses this word:

349. makown, maw-kone'; from H3559; prop. a fixture, i.e. a basis; gen. a place, esp. as an abode:--foundation, habitation, (dwelling-, settled) place.
This word, used only 17 times in the OT, has the connotation of a living place or "home". For example:

Ps. 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
Clearly this has nothing to do with physical foundations. Now 2 Sam. 22:16 uses:

4146. mowcadah, mo-saw-daw'; or mocadah mo-saw-daw'; fem. of H4144; a foundation:--foundation.
This word occurs only 13 times in the OT. Here is how it is used in places where the earth (or heaven) is not referenced:

Deut. 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Ps. 18:7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.
Is. 58:12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Jer. 51:26 And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the LORD.
Clearly we have something of a mixed bag here. We have something that can be seen as physical, obviously, but we also do not have anything to indicate exactly how this mowcadah acts as a "foundation" for the items in question. (By the way, "earth" in the relevant verses is mostly that vague 'erets, and in a couple of places tebel!)

Job 38:4 uses:

245. yacad, yaw-sad'; a prim. root; to set (lit. or fig.); intens. to found; reflex. to sit down together, i.e. settle, consult:--appoint, take counsel, establish, (lay the, lay for a) found (-ation), instruct, lay, ordain, set, X sure.
This word seems inclined to the idea of "foundation" in both an abstract "beginning" sense and a physical "building" sense. Note how it is used elsewhere:

Ex. 9:18 Behold, to morrow about this time I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since the foundation thereof even until now.
Josh. 6:26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn...
1 Kings 5:17 And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house.
1 Chr. 9:22 All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office.
So here, a "physical" idea is possible - but not necessary. Finally, here is Zechariah's word:

3248. yecuwdah, yes-oo-daw'; fem. of H3246; a foundation:--foundation.
This odd word appears only 5 times in the OT, 3 times in Zechariah. Here are the other cites:

Ps. 87:1 A Psalm or Song for the sons of Korah. His foundation is in the holy mountains.
Is. 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation (muwcad!): he that believeth shall not make haste.
Zech. 4:9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. (Zec. 8:9 similar)
There is probably not enough here to go on. Zechariah's word-choice in 12:1 may have been influenced by the parallel and equally-spaced usages in his book rather than by any notion of what the physical structure of the earth was. Bottom line: These words offer no necessary proof - much less sufficient detail - to assume the idea of an earth with unmoving roots.

But what about our other word, "pillars"? In most cases where a pillar is referred to (as in a building) one of two words is used: matstebah or 'ammuwd. The latter word IS used by Job in reference to "pillars" of the earth and of heaven (9:6, 26:11) - but note the context of the verses:

Job 9:5-10 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number. Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him not: he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
In both cases we are dealing with a situation that is charged with poetic indications (pillars that can be "astonished"?) and we are obliged not to read things too literally. (Same also, Ps. 75:3.) That leaves one verse, 1 Sam. 2:8 -

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.
"Pillars" here is yet another word:

4690. matsuwq, maw-tsook'; or matsuq, maw-tsook'; from H6693; something narrow, i.e. a column or hilltop:--pillar, situate.
- and it is used only TWICE in the OT, here and 1 Sam. 14:5 --

The forefront of the one was situate northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah.
Here, it seems, there is no indication of physical pillars necessary at all (see also note on this verse above). At the very least the data is insufficient to decide one way or another. At the very worst it is simply a quote of the belief of Hannah, Eli's mother!



Global Conspiracy
Ps. 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
A minor point on this verse - it is sometimes alleged that this indicates a flat earth, for on a globe, east does meet west. The Hebrew terms here - mazrach and ma'arab - are equivalent to saying, "the rising" and "the setting", so that it is essentially like our "sunrise" and "sunset". Obviously, we still use this sort of phenomenonological language today, so this verse can hardly be criticized on the same basis. Even so, it is a bit tricky to assert that abstract concepts like "east" and "west" are like physical objects that can meet around a globe and come to a grinding halt! One would suggest that they could proceed around the globe infinitely since they have nothing to run into!

As a side note, we should consider the verse previous to this one:

Ps. 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
So then - this reckons as a parallel to the next verse; and since the idea the Psalmist is putting across is that God's mercy and forgiveness are INFINITE, this seems to argue for an infinite distance along the earth - which would work either on a globe OR on a flat earth (after all, east and west don't stop at the edge, either!) - and for an infinitely high sky, we might add, as we proceed to...

Finally, we note this passage:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them...
This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. Indeed, I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a cheap psychological ploy by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen! Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
However, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe. Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world, and Matthew's reader's would roll over laughing and throw his book in the garbage! It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed. (The mountain in question was probably Mt. Quarantania, not far from the site where John probably baptized. It commands an incredible view of the Jordan Valley. Monkeys who further wonder who gave this account seem to forget that Jesus was perfectly capable of doing so after the fact to his disciples.)

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
For more on these passages, see here.



Sky-High Club
Now there are a few verses some say indicate a close-by sky or a hardened dome in other ways than we have seen and that I cover in my CENTJ article. Here is a twosome from the NT:

Rev. 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Matt. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
In each case above it is said that the indication of stars falling to earth suggests a close sky with stars hung from it. But this fails to account for the fact that the Greek word here, aster, was used to refer to any object with the appearance of a star, including meteors - an anachronism which we preserve today in the expression, "shooting star."

At the same time, it is reckoned here and elsewhere that referring to the heavens as being "shaken" indicates a solid dome. But look at the Greek:

531. saleuo, sal-yoo'-o; from G4535; to waver, i.e. agitate, rock, topple or (by impl.) destroy; fig. to disturb, incite:--move, shake (together), which can [-not] be shaken, stir up.
This word is used of physical objects being shaken, but it is also used of intangible objects:

Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Acts 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
2 Thess. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
So, it is quite possible to read this verse in Revelation in terms of "disturbed" rather than "shaken" in a physical sense.

There are also a few verses in the OT that are used for this. 2 Sam. 2:28 says, "Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth." Sounds pretty bad, until you read the verses following: "There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind..." And so on - quite poetic, obviously far from literal. Joel 2:10 says, "The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining..." But the Hebrew word here is important:

7493. ra'ash, raw-ash; a prim. root; to undulate (as the earth, the sky, etc.; also a field of grain), partic. through fear; spec. to spring (as a locust):--make afraid, (re-) move, quake, (make to) shake, (make to) tremble.
Note the "field of grain" reference. This is the sort of word that might be used to describe a visual phenomenon like the Northern Lights - it does not necessarily indicate a shaking, solid dome. Finally, Is. 13:13 says, "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." But this is yet another Hebrew word without physical connotations:

264. ragaz, raw-gaz'; a prim. root; to quiver (with any violent emotion, espec. anger or fear):--be afraid, stand in awe, disquiet, fall out, fret, move, provoke, quake, rage, shake, tremble, trouble, be wroth.
The reference, then, in line with God's referenced wrath, is more likely to refer to an inspiration of fear than a literal shaking of what is supposedly a solid dome.

Job 37:18 says, "Hast thou with him spread out (raqia) the sky (shachaq), which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" (Techincally, this verse being spoken by Elihu would not be a problem, but we'll add it here anyway.) Shachaq is an unusual word that appears only 25 times in the OT, mostly in Job and Psalms, and seems to be a synonym for raqia. It is also used for the clouds in Isaiah 45:8. Finally, it is best related to Deuteronomy 28:23: "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron." This verse refers to drought, not solidity.

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
This verse was once popular among critics, but not much any more. The words "may reach" are an insertion of the KJV. The reference is now recognized as meaning that the tower was to be dedicated unto heaven, not built to reach it. Of course, even if it did have the other meaning, it only reflects what men "said" at the time -- not that they were right about what they said.

We will add one other passage a reader suggested, chock full of positive data:

Job 26:7-10 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it. He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
26:7 fits gravitational attraction as opposed to an endless stack of turtles! 26:8 matches that water vapor makes up clouds. The throne is taken to be the moon and would describe an eclipse. For 26:10, the boundary between night and day on a spherical earth illuminated by the Sun must be a circle. At the time the book of Job was written there was no theory of gravity, no knowledge of a spherical earth, and no knowledge of water vapor. How did the writer know?



Conclusion
It must be admitted outright that SOME of the items listed here COULD be interpreted as giving a false cosmology - but it is also possible to interpret them other ways. The Bible lacks specifics in this regard (i.e., precise distances and descriptions - as were often offered up by the pagans), and so leaves the answer, "Does the Bible teach bad cosmology?", quite ambiguous in a few places. But for the majority of the cites we have seen, there is no such ambiguity, merely misinterpretation by skeptics and/or poetry. We are justified in our assertion that there is no proof that the Bible teaches a false cosmology.

topscholar1....

that was great thank you! atheists shouldn't be trying to disprove the bible when it's something they clearly dont believe in.

topscholar1....

that was great thank you! atheists shouldn't be trying to disprove the bible when it's something they clearly dont believe in.

Why, what should they try to disprove then? The things they do believe in?