I suspect you could squeeze the genesis story, including the pillars of the earth and firmament, into a Flatland-style 2-dimensional world, by having them be different areas of the plane.
1 Like
Well, the modern YEC approach has roots in “Enlightenment” rationalism, and buys into the “Enlightenment” claim that really important stuff is scientific, so one could argue that it is still an Enlightenment lie when it is perpetuated by YEC.
I do not know any statistics, and these days with online stuff it is hard to be confident who is being serious and who’s seeing whom they can fool. But I did encounter a flat-earth webpage claiming that their organization was quite independent of any one theological position. It also claimed that gravity could be explained by the flat earth accelerating constantly at 9.8 m/s rather than by the mass of the earth. I thought that flat earthers tended to also promote the claim that the earth is stationary, so that seemed odd (besides the physics problems created in addition to having serious issues with relativity as that acceleration gets you close to c pretty quick). My impression from rather limited data is that geocentrism has more YEC following than flat earth.
Of course, most YEC are not geocentrists or flat earthers, though accepting “scientists are part of the conspiracy and here’s the real biblical view instead” on one topic is likely to go along with willingness to accept similar arguments on a different topic. All three insist that their interpretation trumps all other evidence, and claiming that the Bible proves their position reflects a misunderstanding of what the Bible is teaching. The Bible does use flat earth imagery. But it does not say “the earth is flat.” Flat earth is perfectly good as a description of what things look like; it’s just when you insist that it is scientific reality that you have problems. The statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream did not really exist. But that doesn’t mean that the dream was untrue. The statue was part of the message. The dream was not about geography. For the rock to fill the “earth”, probably a flat earth picture would work better to portray that in a way not confusing to Nebuchadnezzar.
8 Likes
That logic leads to rejecting the Bible. The problem isn’t the dream with the statue. It’s the dream with the tree:
I, Nebuchadnezzar … saw a dream that frightened me …
Upon my bed this is what I saw: there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:4–11)
So Nebuchadnezzar saw a tree so tall (not so wide) that it could be seen from everywhere on earth. That doesn’t make sense if the earth is a ball.
But the real error is thinking God is a liar if he accommodates a message to someone’s worldview.
7 Likes
It remains a sticking point among the Modern Orthodox Jews.
Taught to think of The Torah by The Lubavitcher Rebbe and other Teachers, as the absolute truth and authority, and thus not to be questioned, but the Hebrew translation of Genesis states the Earth as being flat
2 Likes
No Terry,
It is a biblical argument with biblical evidences (two of them - Nebuchadnezzars dream of the statue in the book of Daniel, and Johns vision that inspired the book.of Revelation).
There is no avoiding the very obvious conclusion that if those two examples of dreams/visions were God given, then a flat earth from a literalist biblical persepctive is an impossibility unless one wished to make the foolhardy theolgical claim that God lied in those visions and presented the earth as a pancake despite the statue, rock, and mountain being 3 dimensional!
So flateartherism didnt come from scripture, its usually an evolutionary complaint from individuals with almost nonexistent biblical knowledge. The traversty is that some ANE are stupid enough to parrot that argument without actually considering the theolgical stupidity of it.
One can see a statue, rock and mountain, straight on wide awake in real life, and look around and see earth as far as the horizon, and be none the wiser as to the shape of the planet.
3 Likes
Yeah whilst you may think thats a problem, what about the circle of the earth in Isaiah 40? The book of Isaiah predates the book of Daniel by at least 2 centuries!
Then a real problem comes in when we note that same description from a completely different writer who predates Isaiah in Proverbs…
Proverbs 8.27 (ESV) I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep
Because of the above, trying to use isolated example where it could be viewed as flat are highly problematic given there are obvious examples where it was shown where its not flat and that is where your claim falls. Its not the isolated evidences of flat that win the day, we only have to show examples of 3 dimensional earth in visions.
BTW, for a Christian to make the claim God taught a flat earth, which is against modern science, is to also claim the notion of an omnipotent and allpowerful creator is a phurphy. That is because you are suggesting God intentionally taught (or allowed to be taught by human stupidity) a flat earth!
I have to ask, why would an all knowing God do that knowing one day His teachings would be shown to be a lie?
What you are suggesting there is that the bible is promoting something that is more like a ponzy scheme than it is a reality.
We have to look at the big picture here…science is providing a clearer explanation of biblical narrative, but it cant change the narrative…the narrative was written more than 1900 years ago.
No Adam — symbolic visions in Daniel and Revelation aren’t cosmology. Genesis, Psalms, and Job give that plainly: foundations, pillars, firmament, waters above.
You and Burrawang are cut from the same YEC cloth — all denial, no resilience. I’ll tell you the same thing I told him: “You’re a consistent Reframer. Ultimately, … nothing new here.”
2 Likes
You are not following the point there Ron…instead of trying to interpret it as flat, why dont you try to think why God wouldnt show visions of the earth as flat…one of those reasons being that one day, humans, his own creation, would gain enough knowledge to figure out it isnt flat!
If you truly dont agree that a bible full of lies isnt a problem debuncting Chrietianity, then id suggest you study into the real problem that Islam faces…that the claim Muhhammad was in Mecca and that the Quaran was written within his lifetime in said century (ie the 7th century) is a complete,“historically proven”, fraud! We know Islam is false because its historical claims are false!
The same test applies to the Bible because fundamentally thats the standard the bible internally claims!
I dont see youtube being a peoblem tbere…because its also balanced out by those on youtube who counterclaim.
I think the notion that googlr is bad for business is a phurphy…far too many conservatives believe that. However God can use any pulpit/platform for good just as Satan can use it for bad.
i think we should strive to use any pulpit for spreading the gospel …dont ask me how this works in a drug infested warlords domain, i honestly havent a clue….but i believe it just the same because of a visit to my university years ago by a motorcycle gang called “Gods Squad”.
What Adam is arguing
- “Circle of the earth” texts prove a spherical earth.
- Isaiah 40:22 (“circle of the earth”) and Proverbs 8:27 (“drew a circle on the face of the deep”) are cited as evidence the Bible does not teach flat earth.
- He insists these trump the “flat” passages in Job, Psalms, and Genesis.
- God couldn’t have taught a flat earth.
- He says to claim God taught flat earth is to accuse God of lying or running a “Ponzi scheme.”
- In other words, if Scripture reflects a flat-earth worldview, then it makes God deceptive.
- Science clarifies Scripture.
- He claims science provides a “clearer explanation of biblical narrative” but doesn’t “change the narrative.”
- This is a harmonization tactic: the Bible never meant flat earth, so modern science is not a threat.
Where his logic breaks down
- Circle ≠ Sphere.
- The Hebrew word ḥûg in Isaiah 40:22 means “circle” (like a disk), not “sphere.”
- Ancient readers would have pictured a flat circular earth under a dome, not a globe.
- Proverbs 8:27 is about drawing a boundary on the watery deep, again matching ANE cosmology.
- Genre Confusion.
- Isaiah and Proverbs are poetic/wisdom texts, not scientific treatises. Their cosmological images are symbolic and based on common ANE conceptions, not revelations of spherical astronomy.
- The “God as liar” argument is a false dilemma.
- The Bible reflects the cosmology of its time because it was written in human language for ancient audiences.
- That doesn’t mean God lied; it means God accommodated their worldview to teach theological truths.
- Science doesn’t clarify cosmology in Scripture — it contradicts it.
- Modern science does not “explain” the firmament, pillars, or waters above. Those belong to an ANE worldview.
- To claim otherwise is to retrofit modern concepts into ancient texts.
P.S. Adam — “circle” in Isaiah and Proverbs is not “sphere.” The Hebrew ḥûg means a disk drawn on the waters, not a 3D globe. Ancient readers pictured a flat earth under a dome, consistent with Genesis, Job, and Psalms.
Calling that a “Ponzi scheme” misses the point: God wasn’t teaching astronomy, He was accommodating human cosmology to convey theological truths. Trying to retrofit modern science into those verses isn’t clarification — it’s distortion.
1 Like
I wonder, has any flat earther ever demanded you explain why it is that a round object wont remain in place when its positioned on top of a sphere? D.a.m.n it man, cant you see the truth…scientifically the earth must be flat or all the balls on earth would roll off!
“Cars have handbrakes because the earth is round and its the handbrake that stops them rolling away and off the side of the earth” would be a literalist counter argument
Then theres always the…a flat earth cant have hills right, cause if they were hills, then its not scientifically…’flat’)
One good reason not to show the earth as a globe is at the global scale, you cannot see rocks, statues, and even mountains.
2 Likes
Adam, nice stand-up routine — balls rolling off spheres, cars with handbrakes, flat hills.
But none of that cancels out what the Bible itself says: pillars, foundations, the firmament, waters above. That’s not me, that’s the text.
So while you’re laughing at flat-earthers, you’re really dodging the fact that the biblical authors described the world exactly as their ANE neighbors did. Mockery’s a fun deflection — but it doesn’t rewrite Genesis, Psalms, or Job.
2 Likes
No, but I have seen a flerf argue that on a globe people in the southern hemisphere would “fall off” because “down” is over their head. No joke. 
2 Likes
The translation of The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary Hardcover – December 18, 2018 that Young Earth Creationists will refuse to read.
Actually that’s seriously in doubt.
To quote myself, “The teaching is in the details, but the details are not the teaching”.
Which is also to say, if He doesn’t accommodate a message to one’s own worldview.
Not even relevant – but “the circle of the Earth” was a way of indicating the flat earth-disk under the solid firmament.
Refers to isolating the flat earth-disk from the great deep.
So? Accommodation is not lying.
It’s only a lie to those who demand that God conform to a MSWV, which is where this idea that things have to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate in order to be true. The Bible cannot be shown to hold such a view.
Not at all – it’s like saying that God understands that we are like children, so He speaks in the terms of those He is talking to.
“Retrofit” – good word for it. I’ll have to remember that one.
1 Like
Here are some points to raise when engaging with a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who cites Proverbs 8:27, Job 26:10, and Isaiah 40:22 as proof-texts for a spherical earth:
1. Ancient Near Eastern Context
- These texts arose in a cultural setting that did not conceive of the world as a planet in space, but rather as a flat landmass with a vault above and waters below.
- The “circle” (Hebrew ḥûg) more naturally means a circular boundary or compass-drawn horizon, not a three-dimensional globe.
- Ancient Israel shared much cosmological imagery with Mesopotamia and Egypt—neither of which depicted the earth as a sphere in their religious-poetic language.
2. Poetic and Metaphorical Language
- Proverbs, Job, and Isaiah are written in poetry and wisdom traditions, not scientific treatises.
- When Job 26:10 says God “drew a circle on the face of the waters,” it is metaphor: God setting boundaries between sea and sky, order against chaos.
- Isaiah 40:22 says God sits “above the circle of the earth,” which more naturally refers to the horizon as seen by the human eye—like the “dome of heaven”—not a globe.
3. Historical Understanding
- The earliest Jewish and Christian interpreters (e.g., Philo, early Church Fathers) did not typically read these verses as “scientific proof” of a spherical earth.
- In fact, some (like Lactantius in the 4th century) denied the earth was a sphere, showing that the texts themselves do not force that conclusion.
- If the Bible had so clearly taught a spherical earth, we would not see historical debates about it among believers.
4. Category Mistake
- To claim these verses “confirm the globe” is to impose modern cosmology onto ancient poetry.
- The biblical writers were not giving physics lessons but expressing theological truths: that God is the creator, sustainer, and orderer of the cosmos.
- The texts affirm God’s sovereignty, not scientific models.
The message is not the geometry of the planet, it’s that God is the Creator. Can that be made any clearer?
4 Likes
I’m not disputing this. But I think it’s still important not to oversell this point! There is little doubt that this is how the world was generally conceived of back then. But let’s also not let this well-supported scholarly fact contribute to another common error of thinking that this was how the world was generally conceived of by the elite thinkers of later times - including the middle ages, and including even many, such as the Greeks of Christ’s own time. Sure - the age has never existed where everybody agreed that the earth was round - including our present age today. But that in no way negates the reality that the bulk of respected (known-by-their-writings) thinkers of all recent centuries going all the way back to Christ, and even some centuries before him - the bulk of all those that gave recorded thought to such things didn’t think of the earth as flat. Eratosthenes from the 3rd century BC is well-known for even determining the size of the sphere! - it’s roundness obviously being presumed! The few exceptions that can be named, like Lactantius, are more the exception proving the rule.
So how do we know how Jesus thought of it? We don’t. He didn’t appear to be one who gave any recorded thought to such things as the shapes of planets. He - no doubt like most common people of so many centuries both before and after him - had more pressing concerns about life and mission, and his immediate mission apparently did not include trying to get us to ruminate correctly on the shapes of planets or the mechanical workings of God’s cosmos generally, other than using the occasional shared parochial assumptions in parables to help his audience lift their gazes up to yet more important spiritual matters.
2 Likes
- When speaking to a Christian Young Earth Creationist, it’s almost the opposite: the risk is underselling. YECs often assume or assert that the Bible “anticipated modern science” by hinting at a spherical earth or cosmic vastness. I was merely pointing out the actual worldview in which those texts were written. That isn’t exaggeration — it’s the necessary historical correction.
2 Likes