The world is flat! (to Lisa)
Adnan balboa19@idt.net
Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:41:41 +0000 (00887488901, 3.0.5.32.19980214144141.00836240@idt.net)
>> (DAVE 2/14) Lisa: Can you please forward the reference where the Bible
>> states that the world is flat?
ADNAN
Here is an article by Robert J. Schadewald. Dave might want to post a
response to it.
*************************************************************************
When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I
was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is
and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. I have since assembled
and read an extensive collection of flat-earth literature. The Biblical
arguments for flat-earthism that follow come mainly from my reading of
flat-earth literature, augmented by my own reading of the Bible.
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible
describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference
in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of
scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a
bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:
> 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...”
>
> Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable
as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly
cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth
view is geocentricity with further restrictions.
>
> Like geocentrists, flat-earth advocates often give long lists of texts.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited
76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental second edition of Earth
not a Globe. Apostle Anton Darms, assistant to the Reverend Wilbur Glenn
Voliva, America's best known flat-earther, compiled 50 questions about the
creation and the shape of the earth, bolstering his answers with up to 20
scriptures each. Rather than presenting an exhaustive compendium of
flat-earth scriptures, I focus on those which seem to me the strongest. I
also comment on some attempts to find the earth's sphericity in the Bible.
>
> Scriptural quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the New English
Bible. Hebrew and Greek translations are from Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible. The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly
stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. The Bible is
a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed
by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The
Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book.
>
> This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the
Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both
civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely
parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon
Egyptian cosmology.
>
> The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The
Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass
surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting
upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free)
waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The
Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of
round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The
Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the
enclosing dome.) What was the Hebrew view of the universe?
>
> The Order of Creation
>
> The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew
cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional
perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth
was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis
1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version
was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the
vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and
they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
>
> The Vault of Heaven
>
> The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in
the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it
is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of
the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In
ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or
beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast
brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the
vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
>
> Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a
solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of
engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it
exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
>
> 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]...”
>
> If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely
much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be
lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of
the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of
earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out
the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to
live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.”
By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job
22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both
verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit
and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In
Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as
grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the
doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job
> 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks
down on all the stars, high as they are.”
>
> This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew
word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26
and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault
or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like
a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli).
Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and
“like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a
vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in
Isaiah 40:22.
>
> The Shape of the Earth
>
> Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is
required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of
great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky
and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a
sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,”
but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the
temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took
him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world
[cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the
earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming
with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
>
> The Celestial Bodies
>
> The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis
creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to
the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and
second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit
inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12,
which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale
of Aijalon.”
>
> Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living
beings. For example, “In them [the heavens], a tent is fixed for the sun,
who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a
strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his
circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat
(Psalm 19:4-6).” The stars are anthropomorphic demigods. When the earth's
cornerstone was laid “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of
God shouted aloud (Job 38:7).” The morning star is censured for trying to
set his throne above that of other stars:
>
> You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set
my throne high above the stars of God, I will sit on the mountain where the
gods meet in the far recesses of the north. I will rise high above the
cloud-banks and make myself like the most high (Isaiah 14:13-14).
>
> Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that
they were created for other peoples to worship.
>
> Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29.
The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
>
> ...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by
a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the
mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One
who sits on the throne...”
>
> This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it
is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all
the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from
any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of
which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also
viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they
fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One
throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).
>
> Weaker Arguments
>
> Flat-earthers also offer some scriptural arguments that are (in my view)
weak, ambiguous, erroneous, or irrelevant. (Ironically, it is these that
apologists for sphericity usually choose to deal with in their rebuttals to
the flat-earthers!) The weak and ambiguous arguments can help support a
cumulative picture but are insufficient on their own.
>
> One of the weaker scriptural arguments is that the sky literally has
openings (windows) which God can open to let the waters above fall to the
surface as rain (see Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah
51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10). While the idea and scriptures are certainly
consistent with the flat-earth cosmology, they could (for instance) refer
to openings in a spherical shell surrounding a spherical earth. The same
applies to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:4, often cited as an
attempt to literally reach the heavens.
>
> Likewise, flat-earthers frequently cite the numerous Old Testament verses
referring to the earth's foundations (see 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4, Psalm
18:15, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, and numerous others). Foundations are,
however, fairly well-covered by geocentricity. No one would argue for a
flat-earth solely on the basis of “foundations” quotes.
>
> Another less-than-conclusive argument that the Bible is a flat-earth book
is its references to the earth's “corners.” For example, “After this, I saw
four angels stationed at the four corners [gonia] of the earth holding back
the four winds...(Revelation 7:1).” Spherical apologists are quick to point
out that the Greek gonia can refer to regions rather than points. Most
translations of the Bible opt for points (the King James version says “on
the corners of the earth”), implying that the writer viewed the habitable
earth as a four-cornered area. (This was indeed the way many early
churchmen interpreted it [Cosmas, 548]. The modern flat-earth model doesn't
have literal corners.) The corners could, however, be those regions at the
ends of the earth referred to by Jeremiah: “[H]e brings up the mist from
the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out
of his storehouses (Jeremiah 51:16).” We shall return to the ends of the
earth.
>
> The Biblical view of the universe is relatively clear and consistent.
Biblical statements bearing on cosmology are (with one possible exception
yet to be discussed) consistent with the well-known flat-earth cosmologies
of the ancient Near East, but they are often flatly con- tradicted by
modern science. How do spherical apologists reply?
>
> Spherical Apologetics
>
> Those who claim Biblical support for a spherical earth typically ignore
this forest of consistency and focus on one or two aberrant trees. Some
take refuge in audacity. Henry Morris, president of the Institute for
Creation Research, cites one of the more explicitly flat-earth verses in
the Old Testament Isaiah 40:22, the “grasshopper” verse quoted earlier as
evidence for the sphericity of the earth. Quoting the King James version
“he sitteth upon the circle of the earth” Morris ignores the context and
the grasshoppers and claims “circle” should read “sphericity” or
“roundness” [1956, 8]. This divide and conquer strategy is poor scholarship
and worse logic.
>
> Heroic efforts have been made by apologists to explain away the
firmament, which encloses the celestial bodies, has waters above it, and is
a masterpiece proving the Creator's craftsmanship. The late Harold W.
Armstrong argued that it is empty Newtonian space, and that the “waters
above” still surround the edges of the universe, though perhaps not in
liquid form [1979, 26]. This simply ignores difficulties and invents
evidence. Gerardus Bouw tried to identify the firmament as a mathematical
plenum [1987]. In my view, it is a grave error to reinterpret ancient
documents to force their authors to speak with modern voices. Gary Zukov
[1979] and Fritjof Capra [1976], for instance, read modern physics into the
teachings of eastern mysticism. I consider all such attempts equally suspect.
>
> 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.
>
> Speaking of foundations, Gerardus Bouw, in an undated paper entitled “The
Form of the Earth,” cites a barrage of scriptures about the foundations of
the earth or world as evidence for sphericity. All (or nearly all) of these
verses have traditionally been used by flat-earthers to prove the earth
flat. If one views the earth as an architectural structure with floor,
curtain walls, and a roof, it is natural to assume it has foundations (and,
I might add, a cornerstone). Why a sphere would have foundations escapes
me. Bouw's argument that these scriptures refer to the earth's core seems
strained at best. Also strained is Bouw's interpretation of “the ends of
the earth” as the points most distant from Jerusalem, and his
identification of the Chukchi Peninsula of the Soviet Union, Alaska, Cape
Horn, and the southeastern tip of Australia as the “four corners” of the
earth.
>
> Bouw's most interesting argument for sphericity is based on the gospel of
Luke. He compares the King James version of Luke 17:31 and 17:34. The
former says “In that day, he which shall be upon the house top...” and the
latter “in that night there shall be two men in one bed...” (italics
added). Bouw then cites 1 Corinthians 15:52 to argue that the events are
simultaneous, claiming simultaneity is possible only on a spherical earth.
First of all, the latter claim is wrong. The modern (though not the
ancient) flat-earth model has day and night occurring simultaneously at
different points on earth. Second, the Greek hemera was used much like the
English “day.” It could mean the daylight hours, a 24-hour day, or
(figuratively) an epoch of unspecified length. Third, Luke appears to have
been writing figuratively, and citing Paul to prove otherwise begs the
question.
>
> One more spherical argument deserves notice. The 1985 National Creation
Conference in Cleveland ended with a formal debate on the relative merits
of heliocentricity and geocentricity. Richard Niessen of Christian Heritage
College, defending the Copernican view, remarked that the Bible teaches a
spherical earth because it treats north and south as absolutes, but east
and west as relative. As evidence of the latter, he cited Psalm 103:12
which says, “As far as the east is from the west, so far has he put our
offences from us.” Again, the modern flat-earth model holds that north and
south are absolutes, but east and west are relative. In the ancient
flat-earth model, however, east and west were about as far apart as you
could get, which seems to be the image Psalm 103:12 was intended to invoke.
>
> In my view, all arguments to prove the Bible teaches a spherical earth
are weak if not wrong- headed. On the other hand, the flat-earth cosmology
previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the
special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity.
>
> The Book of Enoch
>
> 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. Ambiguities in ancient documents can often be
elucidated by consulting contemporary docu- ments. The most important
ancient document describing Hebrew cosmology is 1 Enoch (sometimes called
the Ethiopic Book of Enoch), one of those long, disjointed, scissors and
paste jobs beloved by ancient scribes. For a dozen or so centuries,
European scholars knew 1 Enoch only from numerous passages preserved in the
patristic literature. In 1773, the Scottish adventurer James Bruce found
complete copies in Ethiopia.
>
> Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian
monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book
are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C.
[Charles, 1913]. These conclusions were largely vindicated when numerous
fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls at
Qumran. There have been two major English translations of 1 Enoch, the 1913
translation of R. H. Charles and the 1983 translation by E. Isaac. All of
the quotations that follow come from the newer translation.
>
> The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly
community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that
many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:
>
> There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New
Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man,
the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final
judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder,
therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and
Church Fathers [1986, 10].
>
> First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several
other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in
2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery
(or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most
dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion”
as follows:
>
> It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam,
directed his prophecy when he said: “I saw the Lord come with his myriads
of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of
all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words
which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15).”
>
> The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a
recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing
prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.
>
> First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books
of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science,
sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The
narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the
heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is
precise- ly the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical
books.
>
> The Ends of the Earth
>
> The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several
trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the
surface. For instance, Enoch says:
>
> I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts,
each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one
another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts,
I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the
gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1
Enoch 33:1-2).
>
> (The sharp-eyed reader will note what I suspect is an editing error in
the Isaac translation. The earth resting on the heaven makes no sense. R.
H. Charles has “whereon the heaven rests.”)
>
> Again, Enoch says, “I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme
ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a
great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven;
when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of
the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch
34:1-2).” This accords well with Jeremiah 51:16 which says, “he brings up
the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings
the wind out of his storehouses.” In subsequent chapters, Enoch journeys
“to the extreme ends of the earth” in the west, south, and east. In each
place he saw three more “open gates of heaven.”
>
> There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we
deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth
out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On
several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of
heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance,
“And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor
an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could
this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?
>
> An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the
cornerstone of the earth (18:2).
>
> The Sun and Moon
>
> And what of the sun and moon? Psalm 19:4-6 (quoted earlier) suggest that
the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. Enoch
expands upon this idea. In 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun
and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they
return...” Further, “they keep faith one with another: in accordance with
an oath they set and they rise.”
>
> Enoch discusses the solar and lunar motions at length, explaining why the
apparent azimuths of their rising and setting varies with the season. The
explanation, found in the section called “The Book of the Heavenly
Luminaries,” begins thus:
>
> This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a
luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the
direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven,
(located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and
six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through
the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those
whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of
them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many
windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there
goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the
roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The
chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets
in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the
east; it is guided so that it shall reach
> the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).
>
> The openings in the vault of heaven in the east and west are matched to
the seasons. On the longest day of the year, the sun rises and sets through
the northernmost pair. On the shortest day, it rises and sets through the
southernmost pair. The return routes of the sun and moon are outside the
dome. Perhaps they rest in their “storerooms” during their time off.
>
> The Stars
>
> Like the Bible, 1 Enoch typically depicts stars as living,
anthropomorphic beings. The Sons of the Gods are also dealt with in 1
Enoch, and they are associated with stars. This is consistent with Job
38:7, which says that when the earth's cornerstone was laid “the morning
stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud.”
>
> As mentioned earlier, Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:13 deal with stars
that fall to earth. The image comes from Enoch, but Matthew and John omit
some details. In 1 Enoch 88:1, a star that fell from the sky is seized,
bound hand and foot, and thrown into an abyss. A few verses later, other
stars “whose sexual organs were like the organs of horses” are likewise
bound hand and foot and cast “into the pits of the earth (1 Enoch 88:3).”
>
> Most stars just go through their motions night after night. Some stars
never set, and Enoch was shown their chariots (1 Enoch 75:8). Stars that do
rise and set do so through openings in dome, just like the sun and moon.
God, according to 1 Enoch, runs a tight universe, and stars that do not
rise on time are thrown into the celestial slammer. Showing Enoch a hellish
scene, the angel Uriel explains:
>
> This place is the (ultimate) end of heaven and earth: it is the
prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven. And the stars which
roll over upon the fire, they are the ones which have transgressed the
commandments of God from the beginning of their rising because they did not
arrive punctually (1 Enoch 18:14-15).
>
> Enoch was not told the sentence for tardy rising, but Uriel later shows
him other stars “which have transgressed the commandments of the Lord,” for
which they were doing ten million years of hard time (1 Enoch 21:6). Enoch
also was shown an even more terrible place, a fiery prison house where
fallen angels were detained forever (1 Enoch 21:10).
>
> 1 Enoch deserves study for its cosmology, but there is much more of
interest. It profoundly influenced Christian eschatology, and it is
necessary reading for anyone trying to understand Hebrew religious thought
at the dawn of the Christian era.
>
> Conclusion
>
> From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the
ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very
beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that
to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The
flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by
English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural
scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably
disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews
had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone.
Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.
>
> Notes
>
> Armstrong, Harold, 1979. “The Expanding Universe and Creation.” In
Repossess the Land (essays and technical papers from the 15th Anniversary
Convention of the Bible- Science Association, August 12-15, 1979), pp.
22-27. Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association.
>
> Bouw, Gerardus, n.d. “The Form of the Earth.” Contributions of the
Northcoast Bible-Science Association No. 2. Cleveland: Northcoast
Bible-Science Association.
>
> Bouw, Gerardus, 1987. “The Firmament.” In Bulletin of the Tychonian
Society, n. 43 (April 1987), pp. 11-20.
>
> Capra, Fritjof, 1976. The Tao of Physics. Reprint. New York: Bantam
Books, 1977
>
> Charles, R. H., 1913. “Book of Enoch.” In The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, v. 2, edited by R. H.
Charles, pp. 163-281. London: Oxford University Press.
>
> Cosmas Indicopleustes, 548. Topographia Christiana. Translated by J. W.
McCrindle. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1897.
>
> Darms, Anton, 1930. “The Teaching of the Word of God Regarding the
Creation of the World and the Shape of the Earth Fifty Questions and
Answers,” Leaves of Healing, v. 66, n. 9 (May 10, 1930), pp. 176-179, 182-184.
>
> Isaac, E., 1983. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, edited by James H.
Charlesworth, pp. 5-89. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
>
> Morris, Henry M., 1956. The Bible and Modern Science. Revised edition.
Chicago: Moody Press.
>
> Rowbotham, Samuel Birley, 1873. Earth Not a Globe. London: John B. Day.
2nd edition.
>
> Shanks, Hershel, 1987. “Don't Let the Pseudepigrapha Scare You,” Bible
Review, v. 3, n. 2 (Summer 1987), pp. 14-19, 34-37.
>
> Strong, James, 1894. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Reprint.
Nashville: Abington Press, 1978.
>
> Zukov, Gary, 1979. The Dancing Wu Li Masters. New York: William Morrow
and Company, Inc.