What is interesting about this whole debate between the Flat Earthers and the "Globalist" as they tend to call them (not to be confused with globalist who are the opposite of nationalist, though one would imagine there are persons who believe both, etc.), is the religious aspect. Without fail, all the non-scientific beliefs of the Flat Earthers are based upon the premise that the "Earth is a sphere" model is anti-Christian in that it denies that man and the Earth is significant, due to, no less, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In the Flat Earth model, it is. Commonly believed to be the only thing in the "universe."
They will tend to use certain verses to justify their position Biblically. Just up my ally. So I thought I would take a look at some of them.
Before we do that, let's briefly describe, for those not familiar, what the Flat Earth model is. Of course there are variations on this, but I'm describing the most generally accepted model.
Most Flat Earthers believe that we live on the Earth, which is a giant disk covered by a glass dome, surrounded by nothingness. That the sun and moon travel at different speeds over this disk, like the hands on a clock, approximately 1/4 from the edge of the disk's diameter, and that they are both much smaller than science tells us, The sun doesn't shine all over the place, but is more like a spotlight, though strangely enough, a spotlight that accurately covers only half the Earth's disk in light, while inexplicably stopping at that halfway point over the entire length of the disk. I guess the spotlight is a weird shaped one that would have that effect. There is always an explanation.
Oh, and there is no gravity. That is an unproven, for them, theory. I've heard two explanations on what holds us to this disk. One is gravity is substituted by electromagnetism. Which I find difficult to imagine since electromagnetism doesn't work on everything, only metal. I know it doesn't work on humans. That said, apparently they believe it works on everything, not merely certain metals like in real life. In which case, you don't have electromagnetism, but something new. Sort of like gravity, but not. So that explanation gets a bit dicey. Anyway, they explain things as being buoyant (less dense) as floating while denser things, (like, I assume humans) as staying on the ground. I suppose this is how electromagnetism works on things it can't work on, though without gravity, density wouldn't matter. However, that doesn't explain how the sun and moon stay aloft. Are they not as dense as they appear? Nor does this explain why they circle the flat Earth and why drag doesn't slow them down since they would be in the Earth's atmosphere. What propulsion system keeps them jetting around in a circle over the earth?
The other explanation to replace gravity is the belief that our disk is continually accelerating upward. That would be a good explanation if it wasn't for the reality of inertia. For once we had attained a certain speed, inertia says that everything would be going that same speed on the disk, and so there wouldn't be anymore gravity-like effect. Everything would start floating off the disk, including us. Of course, there is also a glass dome over the whole thing, so at most, we'd all be bouncing around in the dome. To work, it would have to be continually accelerating. So aside from the problem that we would have to be going faster than the speed of light by this point, another problem would be that even if one could come up with a good reason why we are continually accelerating to a faster speed, what happens when we reach the limits of Earth's propulsion system, whatever that is--as well as that everything, no matter the density, would fall to Earth and stay there short of a different force acting upon an object, like propulsion or lift of an aircraft? But the Sun and Moon would fall to the ground.
Likewise, the stars and planets we see in the sky don't exist in the Flat Earth world, because they are merely lights on the dome (but what makes those lights and why do they appear so 3-D when one views them from a telescope?) The sun and the moon, if they were really as close as Flat Eathers say they are, would react differently than they do in reality. They would appear from our perspective to accelerate as they approached and would attain a top perspective speed once overhead. Likewise, upon moving away from us, they would appear, due to perspective, to go slower and slower. Also, they would appear to grow as the approached the viewers position, and grow smaller as they receded. The fact that they both appear to stay at a fairly consistent speed and size in reality as they cross the sky, would comply more with the understanding that they are very, very far away and very, very big. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible for the moon to appear to "follow" you in a car if it was so close to the earth as they suggest it is. We would expect to see them move much more than they do, at least as they floated by overhead. That, or they would in reality be giant balloons inside of those objects, filled with helium, that wasn't affected by wind, which has its own set of impossible problems that don't jive with reality.
Then there is the Antarctica issue. Flat Earthers believe that the continent is really an ice wall that goes around the exterior of the disk, holding all the oceans and water in. And that through a treaty, the governments of the world prevent your average Joe from going to the South Pole,which of course, doesn't exist. And if someone is reported to do so, they are part of the conspiracy to keep us in the dark about the Earth being a disk. All the governments on the Earth are in on this conspiracy, including many in those various agencies, like the astronauts, the jet pilots who have to navigate differently on a Flat Earth than they would if it were a sphere. And since many decades ago, they have kept people from defecting from this giant and pointless conspiracy that the Earth is really flat.
The problem is it would be easy to prove or disprove either model by simply flying around the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn respectively, If they are roughly the same distance, the world is a sphere. If, however, the trip around Capricorn is much, much longer than around Cancer, then the world is a disk. There are no government bodies prohibiting either trip. And it would prove once and for all, who is right and wrong. I suggest we stick a Flat Earther and a Spherical Earther in a jet plane to fly around the world together, one time over each latitude. Then there would be no question about it. See, that was easy! Because we all know that they would be roughly the same distance. I dare any flat Earther to do that experiment!
Okay, those are the main points and problems with their model. Now that you know what it is, we can view the Bible verses that "prove" a flat Earth.
Which would be a major task seeing how one of the websites I'm basing this on lists over 240 verses that they claim indicates such. However, most of them are context sensitive and rely upon a particular interpretation to understand. So we can look at the first few to get an idea of their arguments. I'm pulling these from: https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/flat-earth-scriptures/
The first one they use is in Genesis 1:1-19, and point out that the Sun was created on day 4, whereas the earth was created earlier, on day 1. Their point being, I would think, that the sun wasn't the first thing God created? That the earth being created before the sun would somehow translate to a belief in a flat Earth? Not sure how this disproves that the Earth is a sphere or proves how it is a disk, but there you go.
The answer to that is the literary context of this passage of Genesis. If one examines it closely, you would see that this is a form of Hebraic poetry in that it isn't necessarily detailing the order God created everything in, but the message of creating first the environment, and then the things or persons that are to fill that environment. So on day one we have the environment of light, both on the face of the deep and as dots in the sky. On day 4, we have those bodies that fill the sky. On day 2, the sky and waters are created. Then on day 5, all the birds and fishes were created. On day 3, the land and plants were created, then on day 7, all the animals and man who inhabit that environment were created. So there is no need to suggest that the earth was created first, then the sun. Indeed, under my interpretation, the sun and its light would be created well before the land and its animals. Genesis doesn't tell us what order God created, as much as it tells us why He created us and our purpose in His creation. Note He goes from the general to the specific, and ends with man. The triple indication concerning man's creation, indicates this is the climax of the section.
Now, you personally may not follow that interpretation, though I happen to believe it is a more valid one than the common interpretation, nor do I believe I have to choose one over the other. The point is, there is a valid way to understand it without having to believe in a flat Earth.
But, for arguments sake, let's assume that it is true that the earth was created before the sun. What does that prove? Nothing. Or are we saying God couldn't create a spherical Earth before the Sun if He wanted to? The only thing we can take from them including this verse is that the earth had to be created before the Sun, because the Sun is part of Earth's atmosphere in the dome. But what is to stop God from creating the Sun first, then enclosing it in a flat Earth dome? Or why then, did he create the light before he created the Earth and the Sun? I don't see this as a proof text for a flat Earth.
Then they point to a series of verses that suggest that no one knows the measurement of the Earth.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? (Job 38:4-5 KJV)
This is a cultural issue in that no one had measured the Earth at that time. No one knew how big it was. Today, however, we know those things. What God was doing there was attempting to show Job how insignificant he was in the grand scheme of things. Sort of contradictory to what you were hoping to show, I know. Sorry to point that out to you. That said, we are His special creation nonetheless.
They also suggest in the above verse that the measurement of the Earth is done with a "line", not a curve. I laughed at that thought. This is referring to a plumb line that construction people use to measure things with at the time. This is God being silly with Job, as if Job could measure the Earth with such a line. The picture it paints is meant to be sarcastic to a degree. What line could even hope to measure the Earth with? He wasn't suggesting here that such a line could measure the Earth. Much less that it was the proper tool for doing so.
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. (Isa 40:42 KJV)
In this and the subsequent verses, they point out that the Earth is described as a circle.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth (Prov 8:27 KJV)
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. (Job 38:13-14 KJV)
I'm guessing a "circle", "compass", and "take hold of the ends of the earth," in their minds, all translates to a flat Earth. Hum, first the "circle" could equally describe a sphere as it could a disk, from their perspective. Not to mention that it is all framed in metaphors here, that God sitting on the edge of the Earth is a metaphor primarily of how big God is to us and our Earth. Sort of like calling the Earth "God's footstool." So unless one is ready to suggest that the heavens are spread out over us like a giant tent . . . wait a minute. I forgot briefly who I'm talking to here. Scratch that.
Likewise, I don't see what "setting a compass upon the face of the deep" has to do with the Earth being a disk instead of a sphere. Only if one interprets a compass to equal a disk, which would be a tenuous metaphor for the Earth as a disk.
The "take hold of the ends of the Earth" is so much of a metaphor for shaking the wicked out of it, that any interpretation that derives the Bible as proclaiming that the Earth is flat would be highly questionable. One might as well suggest that this proves a blanket Earth than a disk, if one wants to go there.
This is in addition to the fact that at the time, the people all thought this way. Many believed that the Earth was flat, or very big. As a matter of fact, I would suggest many would say they didn't know. Because, well, they didn't. So factoring in many as being the honest type, that's what they would say. So any language that would be used by such people wouldn't correlate that they knew it to be flat anymore than they knew it to be a sphere.
"But it is God's word. If one part is wrong, then we would have to doubt the whole thing." No, we wouldn't. That is a very "fundamentalist" view of the inspiration of Scriptures. There is also the view of inspiration that allows for the reality that God used human authors who on unimportant matters, like the shape of the earth, might state things from their own point of view, in their time and culture that they wrote in.
That said, I don't believe any of the above has to be interpreted as "the Earth is therefore flat." It could suggest such, but it is not necessary to do so. The only verse I could find that could be a reference to a flat earth model, assuming it was to be taken literally and not figuratively is:
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth. (Duet 31:7)
But again, one would have to assume "end of the Earth" was meant literally. Many who believe the Earth is spherical would use that statement figuratively to indicate a very great distance. Same with "as far as the East is from the West."
Most of the verses that follow are based upon taking what is meant as a metaphor, literally. Like the "face" of the Earth as suggesting a flat area Yeah, right, my face isn't flat. The message they intended to convey to the people of that time--using this metaphor for those who stood on the earth's surface, curved or otherwise--was not a flat Earth.
And then there are the ones that take a plain upon the Earth to be speaking of a flat, not a curved surface. Etc. Etc. Etc. That a plain appears to be flat to our eyes, as it would have at that time, isn't any proof for a flat Earth. With something as large as the Earth, any horizon is going to appear straight to our naked eyes because the curve is so subtle as to not be easily detected except over really vast distances. And it has been proven multiple times that all the pictures showing no dip into the horizon, indicating no curve, actually prove there is a curve by not seeing the bottom of the building or mountain as would be expected based on the calculated curve of the Earth.
Also important to note the context of the term "earth" as it is used in the Bible. It follows from Genesis 1:10:
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (KJV)
You see, "earth" is understood in the Old Testament to be a specific reference to the land upon what we call Earth-the whole thing. This is clearly the understanding of "earth" used in the following verse:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Exodus 20:4 KJV)
Water under the earth? What could this be speaking of if earth is taken to be either a sphere or a flat disk? But makes perfect sense when "earth" is understood as the land. It is the water which is below the surface of the land, which fish appeared to live in. So the "face of the Earth" which they promote as a flat-Earth scripture reference would be only referring to the land surface, which "face" makes more sense then.
Consequently, a section of the earth, like a plain, appeared flat to their eyes, but just that one section.
So all of these verses could have multiple interpretations based on beliefs of inspiration, and whether one takes the context, both literary and/or cultural, into account. If a Christian wants to take these verses as proving that God created and knows that the Earth is flat, then it requires a specific set of beliefs. Beliefs not so widely shared either, even among Christians.
But this shows the basis of the flat Earth belief. It resides in a particular view of how God communicates in the Bible and appears to be primarily based upon the understanding that if the flat Earth model isn't reality, then man becomes an insignificant spec in the big universe--that we are not the pinnacle of God's creation as stated in Genesis 1.
Those verses concerning out special created status stands as true whether one believes in a spherical Earth or not. Our importance is in relation to God's plan for us, not whether the universe revolves around us or not. The idea that the world is oriented around us, that the universe circles us, is a place of pride, not the humility that the Bible clearly and unequivocally supports in many places and ways. Flat Earthers start with a set of beliefs, then look, sometimes force, verses and science into their beliefs, rather than informing their beliefs. If it was important to know that the Earth is flat, God would have clearly and convincingly said as much in the Bible.
It is also why Flat Earthers will rarely if ever, seriously listen with an open mind as to why their model won't work. That's because it is based upon religious beliefs instead of science and proofs. Rather, they attempt to prove that their religious beliefs are correct, and ignore anything that proves the contrary as wrong. Because, their belief cannot be wrong, but are always right. Otherwise, they fear, they lose God's Word, they lose their salvation, and they lose their importance to God. And that cannot happen.
But, rather, be ye humble as Christ was humble. Not considering himself as important, but as a servant to all. Caring nothing for teaching what shape the Earth is.
