The Bible clearly states how the Earth is not a globe, but is flat and fixed, sealed by a dome. Here is a link full of versus that prove the Earth is flat, God bless:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:22 pm
I'm all for not blindly swallowing the assumptions/philosophical presuppositions/beliefs in secular science; however, people can't divorce God's Word from what He allows mankind to observe with their eyes:
God's divine revelation and God's design in nature acknowledged together is what has us arriving at the sound conclusion/interpretation, not "either/or" by itself—which makes us stray too far to the left or too far to the right when we ignore one or the other—but both [1] God's divinely inspired words and [2] God's design in nature taken together to keep us on the straight and narrow (the truth, what actually conforms to reality).
In essence, as we can find Biblical precedent of, God asks two things of us: [1] What do you see/hear (not always necessarily what do you interpret, but what do you see/hear literally) around you? and [2] What does God's Word (the trustworthy eyewitness account—of past, present, and future) say?
Whether He's showing you a parable in a vision or showing you something literally:
Jeremiah 1:11-12 (NIV)
11 The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?”
“I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied.
12 The Lord said to me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching[a] to see that my word is fulfilled.”
Footnotes:
a. Jeremiah 1:12 The Hebrew for watching sounds like the Hebrew for almond tree.
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (NIV)
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.
Luke 10:25-28 (NIV)
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
Footnotes:
a. Luke 10:27 Deut. 6:5 b. Luke 10:27 Lev. 19:18
What can be seen and heard personally—whether on earth or in the heavens—as seen or heard by a reliable eyewitness (God, His prophets, disciples, etc), and that doesn't deviate from what is written, is the foundation of our belief. Thus, again, what can be seen (this isn't blind faith, nor blind interpretation):
Ephesians 2:20 (NIV)
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
Romans 1:20 (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Again, the Word of YHWH—God's revealed words/thoughts—and God's design of nature ("what has been made") that we can sense with our "five" senses (including our eyes/sense of sight), both, working together to keep us soundly in the truth of His Word, stably interpreting what is written.
However, the article you're linking to is [1] refusing to acknowledge what can be observed (“what has been made [by God]” — i.e. the spherical planet which can be observed) and [2] rejects this observation in favor of what they personally think is a more fitting use of terms like “foundations” and “cornerstone”, and other such words (even though, as you saw above, “foundation” and “cornerstone” also have an abstract use in Scripture not talking about physical location of the foundation).
For example, their interpretation of the term “immovable” / “fixed” in relation to the earth's foundations as described in these verses:
Quote from the website (for the record, which states these are from the New English Bible [NEB]):
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
The Holy Spirit could just as easily be referring to how no one can move the earth from its orbit (we're not 3rd planet from the sun one day, 9th planet the next. The earth is consistently in the same track in order of planets from the sun; you can't move it from its course; ergo, it's fixed). In the same manner that our eyes are fixed on God (our course submitted to His Way), not that we're never looking at anything/anyone else, as if our eyes are cemented in one place, never moving:
Psalm 141:8 (NIV)
8 But my eyes are fixed on you, Sovereign Lord; in you I take refuge—do not give me over to death.
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Job 26:7 (NIV)
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
...which he tried to say is a contradiction to the foundation passages in Scripture, however...
Quote:
Perhaps the scripture most frequently offered as evidence of the earth's sphericity is the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north [tsaphon] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing [beliymah].” (The New English Bible translates it, “God spreads the canopy of the sky over chaos and suspends earth in the void.”) It is not clear what this means. The Hebrew tsaphon literally meant hidden or dark, and it was used in reference to the northern regions. Beliymah literally means “nothing.” That would contradict all of the scriptures which say the earth rests on foundations, but that interpretation is not necessary. We will return to Job 26:7 later.
...it's not a contradiction. The human body also has a foundation. Is it beneath us? No, it's inside of us: the skeleton—upon which the muscular system is built, and without which we cannot stand firmly/stably, yet it's not physically beneath our feet. And there are other systems built that keep the earth in place (e.g. gravitational pull). The word "foundation" does not inherently, nor always, speak of location (where the foundation is found). Thus, there's no need to doubt what the Hebrew term "beylimah" means (nothing, nothingness) which is how it has been translated. The earth—as God witnessed and continues to witness—is suspended over nothing; as a second witness, what mankind has been able to observe of the earth in the blackness of space.
So, no, contrary to how you paraphrased the website, Scripture is not "clearly" flat earth, as even the website you linked to admitted:
Quote: [...]The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. [...]
[...] The cosmology previously described is derived from the Bible itself, following the 19th century flat-earthers. Some of the evidence is more ambiguous than we would like. [...]
However, that's where the intellectual honesty ends. Reading through the article, I found him either [A] force-fitting verses to fit a flat earth interpretation while disregarding what can be observed (footage of the entire planet that was photographed for over a decade by the time he wrote this—12 years of ignoring [The Blue Marble] and there have been more since then in crisper detail), or [B] either unaware of (or unfamiliar with) how the Hebrew language oftentimes uses concrete objects to communicate an abstract trait (consequently, the way that he interpreted the term "raqia" ignores the following about Scripture).
To illustrate this aspect of the Hebrew language, take for instance:
2 Samuel 22:3 (NIV)
3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield[a] and the horn[b] of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior— from violent people you save me.
Footnotes:
a. 2 Samuel 22:3 Or sovereign b. 2 Samuel 22:3 Horn here symbolizes strength.
Psalm 89:26 (NIV)
26 He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’
Isaiah 44:8 (NIV)
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Question: Is God a big, gray boulder?
No. So, why is the word "rock" being used? To communicate how—in contrast to things like sand or chaff—He is sturdy, reliable, enduring, thus trustworthy to take refuge in and build your faith on, like the unchanging, everlasting "rock" that He is.
Matthew 7:24 (NIV)
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Job 19:24 (NIV)
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on[a] lead, or engraved in rock forever!
Footnotes:
a. Job 19:24 Or and
Isaiah 26:4 (NIV)
4 Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord himself, is the Rock eternal.
"Rock" is not describing His physical hardness to the touch, but abstract traits of "stability", "permanence", thus reliability.
Similarly, with the Hebrew term "raqia". Yes, just like "rock", the literal molten objects that were beaten out (thus "raqia"-ed) are physically hard; however, physical hardness is not necessarily the focus of the comparison when conveying something about the sky (like God's physical hardness to the touch was not the focus, nor the claim, when comparing Him to a rock); things that are described as having been "raqa" or having a “raqa” also have other traits: a reflective luster to them, like a mirror, or how they are stretched out by the craftsman (like God stretches out the sky). Neither of which inherently suggest physical hardness to the touch (whether reflection or having been stretched). So even if the sky is described as having been raqa-ed [beaten out, stretched] or described as having a raqia [a reflective vault], it isn't necessarily referring to physical hardness; yes, there is still a layer of something stretched out that is present there, but it's not necessarily physically hard, yet can still be reflective [like water is, whether liquid, gas, or fragile crystal form in the clouds, as we actually observe in the sky and there would have been even more in the atmosphere pre-flood]). Even in such a case, YHWH still made it (e.g. reflective, gaseous vault) and stretched it out.
Ergo verses like,
Quote from the website (for the record, which states these are from the New English Bible [NEB]):
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...” Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.” Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.” Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...” Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The author is reading into the text that the Hebrews, who submitted to YHWH's word in truth, are suggesting physical, solid hardness here, but that's his interpretation. The text itself doesn't limit the use of raqa the way he is doing so.
The atmosphere doesn't have to be solid to separate the waters beneath it (rivers, springs, lakes, sea) from the water above (clouds and waters from outside our atmosphere as well). And quite frankly, it's not solid: it's gaseous, like the air that it is. Still physically there (and reflective, and able to be stretched out), but not physically hard to the touch.
The only reason he's arguing this way is because of [1] not taking other verses into equal consideration, but trying to dismiss them, [2] putting way too much emphasis on ancient cosmologies not described by the Bible and [3] on top of that denying what can be observed in what God has made.
He (this Mr. Robert J. Schadewald) tried to allege that those who believe in the sphericity of the earth resort to "special pleading", but regardless of which definition he's alluding to:
spe·cial plead·ing noun 1. argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
That's exactly what he is doing (or did—back in 1987 when this was written). To conclude that the earth is flat, we have to ignore verses that describe seeing things on earth in vision, thus supernatural perspective, not naturally from a physical vantage point on earth; define terms in an un-Biblical manner (i.e. beylimah which Biblically means "nothing", but he says, "nope, it can't only because...outside the Bible, there's this unsubstantiated claim and pagan belief"), and forcefully limit a Scriptural term to one particular use (foundations, cornerstone, fixed), when the term is found to have more than one use in Scripture, all while ignoring what is happening in physical creation itself. Taking all of the verses, even "flat-earther" verses in addition to the witness in nature that God designed and allowed man to see, a spherical earth is the cohesive conclusion that can make sense of all the Biblical criteria and dismisses none of the evidence on the table (neither in Scripture nor of what is physically seen in the rest of the earth and the heavens).
Do not fall for the flat-earth interpretations; they shut their eyes to (at worst) or are unfamiliar with (at best) the full criteria that God tells us to look at, and all of the ways that the Hebrew language operates.
Reply
