Many believers after coming to see the scripture for a Hebraic faith begin to look at what else they've been taught that isn't true. Instantly distrusting everything. This can be a great thing in testing our doctrine and theology! But sadly this can also lead to digging a rabbit hole where there isn't one. Sometimes, like with Sacred Name sects which us grammatically incorrect Hebrew, those rabbit holes are big issues that can hold a large impact. After all, to so strongly push only a name of Elohim that can not be his actual name is to use his name in vain at best, and at worse be pushing a different gospel! Yet sometimes such rabbit holes are not the same level of issue. They fall within non-essentials, not really affecting the general scheme of doctrine and theology.
The growing belief in a Flat Earth is one of these non-essentials. In the grande scheme whether you believe in a flat earth or a globe earth really doesn't affect your doctrine or your faith. At most either side could argue that the other is using the Bible incorrectly, weak in hermanutics or using erroneous translations of language. But to go any further in that on your stance of the opposing side is foolishness when we are called to Unity among non-essentials. Ephesians 4:3 and Romans 12:16 when applied with a passage like 2 Peter 2:1, among others, show us that it is the heresies we are to divide over, not the Heterodoxy. Discuss, absolutely, but it should absolutely not be a dividing point.
Never the less this is a topic that I feel I need to address simply because of it's growing popularity. As many proponents of this belief make the claim that in believing they are simply believing scripture above men I wish to dispel such a myth and implication that those who do not believe in a flat earth are disregarding scripture. I whole-heartedly agree that there is something fishy when it comes to much of the information of space we are given and not all adds up when it comes to NASA, but NASA is not the reason that society believes in a Globed earth so their stance or evidences are irrelevant to the actual conversation. We also must dismiss any source which holds the goal of discrediting scripture with such a belief, which can sadly also appear to be in disguise. What we will be looking at today is scripture, geographic evidence and history. As the commonly heard claim is that there are over eighty scriptures which push the flat earth theory I will be addressing only the most popular ones, and I'm sure I will add ones through time, but we can all agree that not matter how much I put into this blog there will always be more to learn and study and so this is by no means a comprehensive source.
Scripture is foremost in this discussion as the whole premise of the flat earth argument for Believers is their view on select verses. So lets go on to some of the often discussed passages.
1 Chronicles 16:30 says, Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established, immovable. But what does this mean? Well let's finish the stanza and not just tear a single verse out of context here. Verses 31-33 go on to say, Let the heavens rejoice; let the earth be glad; let them say among the nations, “Adonai is king!”
32
Let the sea roar, and everything in it; let the fields exult, and all that is in them.
33
Then the trees in the forest will sing before Adonai, because he has come to judge the earth. There's actually a lot going on in this passage, and none of it necessarily applies to the current state of the Earth! The key here is looking at the last verse, it is speaking of when Yeshua returns to judge the earth, how the earth trembles, how the people of all nations with shout out, how even the trees will sing. This isn't a stand alone concept either, Yeshua himself says in Luke 19:40, But he answered them, “I tell you that if they keep quiet, the stones will shout!” and Psalm 96:11-13 says, Let the heavens rejoice; let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and everything in it;
12
let the fields exult and all that is in them. Then all the trees in the forest will sing
13
before Adonai, because he has come, he has come to judge the earth; he will judge the world rightly
and the peoples with his faithfulness. So to take verse 30 out of context and apply it to the state of the earth as it is now is poor hermanutics to begin with. And even if it wasn't, would it change anything? Not really. With the context we can see that the earth will tremble before Elohim, but that currently it is not doing so and seems immovable. Even the idea of a future trembling is not alone, as we see in Nahum, 1, Isaiah 2 and Hebrews 12. And even from there further, how does this even imply a a flat earth when the earth can be just as stable as a globe?
Four corners of the earth type verses are a favorite of the theory of the flat earth, but do they even stand up when applied with scripture in it's entirety? We see verses like Isaiah 11:12, He will hoist a banner for the Goyim, assemble the dispersed of Isra’el, and gather the scattered of Y’hudah from the four corners of the earth, Revelations 7:1, After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the land, on the sea or on any tree, and Revelations 20:8, and will go out to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the earth,Gog and Magog,[a] to gather them for the battle. Their number is countless as the sand on the seashore. Many will look at these verses and exclaim "See! There are no corners on a globe!", well, I hate to break this to them in their excitement but there is no actual corners even on a flat earth model. mainly because of verses such as Isaiah 40:22, He who sits above the circle of the earth —
for whom its inhabitants appear like grasshoppers — stretches out the heavens like a curtain, spreads them out like a tent to live in. Showing us that even if the earth is flat it is actually still a circle. And so to then use these passages to push the concept of a flat earth is inconstant on every level of hermanutics. Instead we need to understand them as they where understood when they where written, that such corners of the earth are actually the four directions, north, south, east and west. Such a concept isn't even extra biblical as the Bible itself defines this in Ezekiel 10:11, When they moved, they could go in any of the four directions without turning as they moved; rather, wherever the head looked, they followed without turning as they moved. We also can not fall into a trap in the use of Isaiah 40:22 of misunderstanding what is written there either. To use this verse for a flat earth argument at all is to drastically misrepresent the Hebrew language used here. The word used that most translations have changed to circle is חוג—chuwg, which, while not wrong to translate into a circle, can also encompass a sphere, and not forcing a two dimensional object. So even to use this would be a stretch in and of itself.
So then let us look to Job, in Chapter 26 we see verses 5-13 we see, “The ghosts of the dead tremble
beneath the water, with its creatures.6 Sh’ol is naked before him; Abaddon lies uncovered.
7 He stretches the north over chaos and suspends the earth on nothing.
8 He binds up the water in his thick clouds, yet no cloud is torn apart by it.
9 He shuts off the view of his throne by spreading his cloud across it.
10 He fixed a circle on the surface of the water, defining the boundary between light and dark.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble, aghast at his rebuke.
12 He stirs up the sea with his power, and by his skill he strikes down Rahav.
13
With his Spirit he spreads the heavens; his hand pierces the fleeing serpent. We see a few things in this passage of interest to our topic. Again we see that the circle is used in relation to the planet, the same word as in Isaiah 40, but by saying that this circle is how we get the boundaries between light and dark. A physical difference that can only be supported by the idea of a sphere to block the light on one side while taking it in on the other. This passage also shows that the earth is suspended on nothing, nothing holds it up nor down. It simply remains in it's position by the grace of Yahweh. But there is something in this passage that is often missed and overlooked which could potentially change everything we think of the passage and this is in verse 5 when it speaks of Sh'ol. See, Sh'ol is not so much a physical place as a spiritual one to the Hebrew mindset, it is the "place" souls go to sleep before the resurrection of the dead. So for this passage to assign it a physical location would be in direct conflict with the entire concept of Sh'ol as scripture teaches it. As we know that scripture does not conflict with scripture and that we must apply scripture with scripture and not against it we must then conclude that this passage can only be used as a figurative description of physicality and can not hard line that it is the exact reality. It is descriptive of what is going on, but there is allegory and idiom within it to make it's points. Aspects known to the original audience and missed by our mindsets. To support this aspect we also see that 'his hand pierces the fleeing serpent'. We know that who is being pierced is Lucifer himself, but we also know that a serpent is just a representation of him, not his true physical form. With all this said we are left with one part of the puzzle of this passage, what is meant of the pillars of heaven. And yet even if the explanation of a level of allegory in the passage leaves you wanting this by no means forces a flat earth. After all, even if Sh'ol has a physical place beneath our feet that could very well be within the center of a spherical earth and by no means force it to be beneath a flat earth, and that the circle is directly applicable to the difference o light and dark would indeed imply the sphere was what was being spoken of, because light itself would be in violation of physics for a light source not to shine on all that it is aimed at without an impediment blocking it.
Another one we run into when people describe the flat earth is 1 Samuel 2:8, He raises the poor from the dust, lifts up the needy from the trash pile; he gives them a place with leaders and assigns them seats of honor. “For the earth’s pillars belong to Adonai; on them he has placed the world. Which hosts any hermautic issues yet again. First the passage, and the context prior, lends all credence to allegory to make a point. After all, only one person was ever literally created from the dust, and not all the needy live in around a trash pile, but the point remains that he helps and lifts whom he helps and lifts and that he is control of the world around us. So to the base that the earth must have physical pillars is to go against what the actual point of the passage is saying. And even if it does, this by no means forces a flat earth as such pillars may very well be a part of the spherical earth structure.
So from here let's look at issues within the models of the flat earth theory, which are as numerous as the proponents in the field. One of the best that I have seen is this one shown below. This is because they at least go through the effort of showing where their standpoints are coming from.
We can all agree that the home of Elohim, a distant heaven (please note that Scripture has many definitions of Heaven and in this instance we are speaking of the Spiritual locale), is 'out there' be it physical or a purely spiritual location. The verses we all study on this aim credence to either stance and so to worry about those for this discussion is irrelevant.
One of the strongest arguments with this image is for the firmament and the waters above. Many, myself included ascribe to the canopy theory in which the waters above where placed above the 'first heaven' at the edge of our atmosphere, which mostly fell when the earth was flooded and resulted in a following Ice Age. This is supported by the understanding that in the original Hebrew the firmament was the broad term for the heavens, plural. that to say in Genesis 1:7 that the water was above an expanse in no way contradicts that this water was placed above the flight of birds but below the distance of the sun and the moon. Indeed in verse 16 of the same chapter the Interlinear stated that the sun and moon where placed in the expanse of the heavens, which again is a term that does not have to apply to the same concept of sky. Now it is entirely possible that beyond the realm of what we know of the sky there could yet be more water, there is certainly the argument to be made for it, but this by no means would force either a flat or a globed earth. The concept of the firmament being one unit in this image however is to deny that there is a difference to the physical heavens through scripture, which would show that the first where the birds fly and there is heavens beyond where the sun, moon and stars are placed.
This image also shows a clear misunderstanding by it's creator for basic Hebrew Allegory and context of passages. I've already explained the ends of the earth in connection with the four corners, as well as the circle of the earth and it being immobile with it's strong foundations. That we have water below the crust of our earth is a very strong scientific theory, backed by the fact that there is water below our own land if you go deep enough. Natural wells are all over the place, it's just a matter of how deep you dig. Additionally 'stars falling' is an idiom we ourselves use frequently! So to then ignore it in their use is hypocrisy at it's finest.
But my real issue with such a depiction of this is found on the scripture he uses for the sun moving. Firstly, Psalms is an entire book of allegory so to try and use it for scriptural evidence of a physicality is folly. But the big issue is in the use of Ecclesiastics 1:5, which they pluck entirely out of the context of the chapter which says, starting at verse 1 and going to verse 7, The words of Kohelet the son of David, king in Yerushalayim: Pointless! Pointless! - says Kohelet - Utterly meaningless! Nothing matters! What does a person gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come, generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, the sun sets, then it speeds to its place and rises there. The wind blows south, then it turns north, the wind blows all around and keeps returning to its rounds. All the rivers flow to the sea, yet the sea is not full, to the place where the rivers flow, there they keep on flowing. So first with this passage we see that these are the words of a man about something, not necessarily the words of God nor the authority of God. But that it is scripture as Elohim wishes to learn something of it. The whole statement of Kohelet is truly quite hopeless and depressing, and not in the least bit factual in our world. After all, does not what we do matters? Of course, it matters quite a lot to God! We do in fact gain things from our toil under the sun, things like our gardens and livestock which maintain us. To lend to much credence to this Nihilistic view is to seriously pollute what the scripture is saying, so to use it as the argument for a flat earth with the suns motion, a way to describe how the author views the suns motions when sleep seems to change time, is simply ineffective and to change scripture to suit the desire of the image's creator.
We also run into a wholly different issue with the idea of a flat earth. A geographical one. To look at this we are going to look at air travel and travel by sea to show at the earth can not in fact be flat at all, and in order to deny a spherical earth you would have to adopt a cylindrical one. Which would then be completely unsupported by the Bible. So let's look at a few images here. The first is a common depiction of a flat earth map. That we are on the circle of the earth. As you can see the farther south you get the farther away places get from each other. The picture immediately blow it would show the way that planes then fly when going east to west, in a circle.
This is where we run into a problem. It's entirely true that flights running over the north and south poles don't really happen and for many, many reasons. Such as temperature, distance between fill ups etc, so to read in that it is a part of a conspiracy isn't a necessary aspect. In fact that thought would be countered by capitalism, companies all eager to save the most money and make the best time to earn the best dollar. If it was efficient to fly over the north pole to save time between Russia and Canada they certainly would so, but it isn't cost effective so flights go east to west. Below is an image of largely trade routes, which show the east to west passages.
Now please notice something, there are still trade routes within the southern hemisphere that work but they aren't as often used. The simplest reason that we see the most movement happening in the north is that it is shorter distances between these countries. Which applies on a globe map or on a flat earth. Shorter time between fill ups means less wait in the fuel tank and thus better mileage, among other things. We also have a closer large population needing trade to the north than to the more land dispersed south. The topic of the curvature of these trade routes is also falling into the category of companies wishing to make the most money and having to adapt to the curvature of the earth, much of which I will leave to a mathematician. But do look at how the curvature of the routes changes North to South. It reverses in the south because by adding this curve you save distance, by going toward the poles which come to points on a sphere this saves distance and closes the space. if the earth was flat on one of the prior models it would ineffective and add distance to curve to the south when making these voyages. It would instead close distance to go further north, and drastically, as we go from point A to point B within the souther hemisphere. We also need to look at how these routes are still in use at all. I would refer you again to the image above which shows the plain going in a big circle, so as you go further south you'd be going further out, and thus that circle gets bigger and bigger. Why would anyone use a route east to west with the extreme distance then put between Australia and South American? The flight times between these areas would be immensely longer than to fly Russia to Canada as the circle is bigger, the distance is immeasurable larger for the trip. So in order to support that we can in fact go around the world to the east or west and go all around the world, with it taking longer along the equator but shorter toward the northern and southern hemispheres, such travel would point us toward a spherical earth. to not have the south take immeasurably longer, even if the difference along the equator was debatable, is to point to a cylindrical earth and ultimately put a nail in the coffin of a flat one. After all, not every entrepreneur is going to be involved in the conspiracy to hide the shape of our planet, they're just out to make the most money, which means being the most effective. We often from here see claims of the math of the curvature of the earth, and I'd suggest you to look into those with someone wiser in math than I which refutes the claims and points out the errors.
There's one more issue, similar to how the sun shining needs something to block it to then have the darkness, aka the spherical earth rotation. If we are on a flat earth, we are all looking up to the same sky. How then do we see different constellations in the southern and northern hemispheres? The idea that you can see the North Star in Australia has been refuted as nothing more than myth, the star they instead see is the South Star. Another polar star that remains stationary to our eye similar to that of the North. If the maps above of teh flat earth are true it would be inconsistent to think that those towards the inner, the north, see the same constellations but those toward the edges see different than the north, but still the same ones no matter where in the south you live, Australia or Chile. While the closer you get to the equator the more overlap you see among the constellations.
Test everything, absolutely, but don't believe something simply because it is not the mainstream. Think on this, besides the idea of NASA pushing demonic aliens (which wasn't a concept millenia go when the round earth was first believed), what purpose would it serve to 'be decieved by the shape of the earth'? We've already discussed that it is a nonessential, it changes nothing in the grande scheme of theology.
Now please notice something, there are still trade routes within the southern hemisphere that work but they aren't as often used. The simplest reason that we see the most movement happening in the north is that it is shorter distances between these countries. Which applies on a globe map or on a flat earth. Shorter time between fill ups means less wait in the fuel tank and thus better mileage, among other things. We also have a closer large population needing trade to the north than to the more land dispersed south. The topic of the curvature of these trade routes is also falling into the category of companies wishing to make the most money and having to adapt to the curvature of the earth, much of which I will leave to a mathematician. But do look at how the curvature of the routes changes North to South. It reverses in the south because by adding this curve you save distance, by going toward the poles which come to points on a sphere this saves distance and closes the space. if the earth was flat on one of the prior models it would ineffective and add distance to curve to the south when making these voyages. It would instead close distance to go further north, and drastically, as we go from point A to point B within the souther hemisphere. We also need to look at how these routes are still in use at all. I would refer you again to the image above which shows the plain going in a big circle, so as you go further south you'd be going further out, and thus that circle gets bigger and bigger. Why would anyone use a route east to west with the extreme distance then put between Australia and South American? The flight times between these areas would be immensely longer than to fly Russia to Canada as the circle is bigger, the distance is immeasurable larger for the trip. So in order to support that we can in fact go around the world to the east or west and go all around the world, with it taking longer along the equator but shorter toward the northern and southern hemispheres, such travel would point us toward a spherical earth. to not have the south take immeasurably longer, even if the difference along the equator was debatable, is to point to a cylindrical earth and ultimately put a nail in the coffin of a flat one. After all, not every entrepreneur is going to be involved in the conspiracy to hide the shape of our planet, they're just out to make the most money, which means being the most effective. We often from here see claims of the math of the curvature of the earth, and I'd suggest you to look into those with someone wiser in math than I which refutes the claims and points out the errors.
There's one more issue, similar to how the sun shining needs something to block it to then have the darkness, aka the spherical earth rotation. If we are on a flat earth, we are all looking up to the same sky. How then do we see different constellations in the southern and northern hemispheres? The idea that you can see the North Star in Australia has been refuted as nothing more than myth, the star they instead see is the South Star. Another polar star that remains stationary to our eye similar to that of the North. If the maps above of teh flat earth are true it would be inconsistent to think that those towards the inner, the north, see the same constellations but those toward the edges see different than the north, but still the same ones no matter where in the south you live, Australia or Chile. While the closer you get to the equator the more overlap you see among the constellations.
Test everything, absolutely, but don't believe something simply because it is not the mainstream. Think on this, besides the idea of NASA pushing demonic aliens (which wasn't a concept millenia go when the round earth was first believed), what purpose would it serve to 'be decieved by the shape of the earth'? We've already discussed that it is a nonessential, it changes nothing in the grande scheme of theology.
In closing, we can now see that it was not at all from scripture, but from Greek Philosophy, that this concept of the flat earth came from and that it has ebbed and flowed through history in it's strength on the populace, we can see that the passages used to support really do no such thing, instead being a case of the lens you view it with and the presupposition you apply, and we can see that the concept of a flat earth doesn't add up on a scientific level. Please, continue to test what you learn, both for and against, study scripture and draw closer to our Elohim.