• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

Did the Church Teach the Earth was Flat?

Flat Earth

When I was young I was taught in school that Christians believed the Earth was flat. In this view, it was not until Christopher Columbus’ historic journey to the “New World” that the Church became forced to accept this as fact and do away with its false belief. The idea that Christians believed in a flat Earth has been taught in school textbooksshort films, and is believed by many even today.

This notion of history stuck with me through my years as an atheist, during which I'd often refer to Christians as “Flat-Earthers.” I threw the term around in online discussion forums, and ironically some non-Christians have since used it in reference to me.

The whole question of whether the Church taught a flat-earth flared up again recently when I spotted a popular Internet meme (pictured above). It's been shared thousands of times on Facebook, and its quote supposedly derives from the famous Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan:
 

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow of the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."

 
Of course, the quote often appears without any citation to its source. And for good reason: There isn't any.

The quote can be traced back to an essay titled Individuality by the famous American political leader and defender of agnosticism, Robert G. Ingersoll. There he writes:
 

"It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions—some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said,"The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church." On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success."

 
Ingersoll is not the only famous American political leader to appeal to this bogus belief. Speaking to a crowd in Washington in 2012, President Barack Obama charged Republicans with dismissing alternative energy sources by comparing them to those who thought Columbus should not set sail:
 

"Here’s the sad thing. Lately we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians—a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed—they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future.
 
We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail—they must have been founding members of the Flat-Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round."

 
In all fairness to President Obama, conservative television personality Glen Beck repeated the same historical blunder on his show just a year earlier. Beck managed to one-up the President in the myth department by inserting Galileo into the story.

The idea that Columbus sailed to the “New World” against the wisdom of his day is a complete myth, if a very persistent one. Greek astronomers were aware almost 300 years before the time of Christ that the Earth was round. What they were unsure of was the circumference of the planet.

There are only a handful of early Christian writers (mostly from the areas near Syria) that historians can point to as examples as those believing in a flat earth, but certainly this belief was never a test of Christian orthodoxy, and definitely not a doctrine of the Church at large. It was simply the opinion of a small minority—medieval and later Christians did not believe or teach this.

So then where did this myth actually come from? The earliest source I've been able to pinpoint is Washington Irving (author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow) in his four-volume series titled A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. This work is a mixture of fact and fiction. There is a scene depicted in the book where shadowy Catholic clergymen warn Columbus that he might sail off the end of the Earth. This, of course, is not supported by any real historical data, but it nevertheless provides good fodder for Internet memes.
 
 
Originally posted at Catholic Answers. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: Alligator Sunglasses)

Jon Sorensen

Written by

Jon Sorensen is the Director of Marketing for Catholic Answers, the largest lay-run apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. He earned his bachelor’s degree in 3D Animation and Visual Communications in 2004 from Platt College, Ontario. Before coming to Catholic Answers, he worked in the automotive industry producing television commercials and corporate video. He has also produced motion graphics for several feature-length films. Follow Jon through his website, JonSorenson.net.

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • The Catholic Church did not support the fiction of a flat Earth. Instead, the Church supported Ptolemy's error, placing the Earth at the center of the solar system. Some theologians claimed that the preferred position of the Earth was revealed doctrine. Some Catholics claim this still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith

    • Thanks, Paul! When you say " the Church supported Ptolemy's error," do you mean the Church officially taught this scientific view or that some Catholic leaders wrongly accepted it? Or both?

      • I don't have an answer to your question. It appears to me, after having talked with Sungenis, that the Catholic Church at one time officially taught that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. On the other hand, I've talked with apologists who claim that even if the Church called this official teaching, it wouldn't be official teaching, because it is a scientific question and not a faith-and-morals question. I don't know.

        • Pedro Dias

          The data you had at the time pointed towards the Earth being the center of the solar system. Aristotle had argued that the inexistence of a stellar parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax) proved the geocentric theory, and that one argument was the main point that left people like Galileo completley stumped.

          But back to your point. What happened was that the geocentric idea appeared to be supported in some verses of the Bible when they're interpreted in a certain manner. Galileo's idea to re-interpret Scripture was not supported until the flaws of his original theory were ironed out (as the fact of the the Sun being the center of the entire universe was seen as heretical due to being philosophically impossible, I'm not too sure why). But the heliocentric idea seemed to have its support among the Jesuits and other scientists until Galileo decided to become a trouble-maker. Until then, I see no reference of the Church doing anything that merely resembles teaching officially geocentrism until this affair appeared. It had some political implications, a not-so-sweet reaction from the Pope who opened the case and all that, but neither the Church, nor Galileo were completley innocent on this matter. But there's no ground for being any type of faith-and-morals question; a philosophical one at best. :)

          • Most of the Church Fathers were geocentrists, or so Sungenis told me, and the statement against Galileo reads as follows: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

            Especially the quote: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

            But maybe they cannot say that, because they don't have the authority to rule on scientific issues? Otherwise, why throw this out?

          • Pedro Dias

            "Most of the Church Fathers were geocentrists" - Correct. However, their views on science didn't hold any sway in the orthodoxy of Church teaching.

            And at the time (and still today), the Church tries to endorse natural theology, in which the views of the natural world and Scripture cannot contradict; if they do, either the scientific theory has flaws, or the scriptural interpretation does. This was a major thing in the 13th century in particular, in which the works of Aristotle were put to the test by scrutiny, and some of his views were declared as patently false in the Condemnations of 1277 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277). Proving Aristotle wrong was a sort of an exceptional thing to do, and it opened the doors for people to come up with better views of the world, making a bit of a basis of natural philosophy and, later, modern science.

            The real problem with Galileo is that both the Aristotelian writings and the standard of interpretation of Scripture were pointing to geocentrism. It had the argument around the stellar parallax and others (some of which Galileo managed to refute), but Galileo had the obligation of making his theory more plausible in order for it to be accepted, as Cardinal Bellarmine said. There would be no problem if Galileo kept it as a theory until he was able to bring down geocentrism definitively, and giving a good, grounded for the Church to re-interpret properly the Bible. The problem was that he shot himself in the foot by consistently teaching it as a fact and saying that the Church was patently wrong about this. That was the problem for it to be called "heresy", and the Inquisition had grounds to judge him, because he was a devout Catholic.

            I agree that they have no grounds to rule scientific issues, but you can't say that they were blind-folded to their own views, as they accepted the theories of both Copernicus and Galileo fairly. The Church still holds that heliocentrism is absurd, and still condemns the view that stating it as fact is condemnable. And you DO have both scriptural and scientific grounds to back this. It was always obvious that the Sun was not the center of world. :)

          • Do you think that the statement from Galileo's condemnation: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture." is right or wrong?

          • Pedro Dias

            I don't really know what were the theological basis in which they were stating those things, up to the point of asserting heliocentrism is a heresy. However, if you want my answer from the current theological basis which I defend, the answer is "it's wrong". I need to see how they carried their interpretation of Scripture in order to reach that conclusion, but looking at it subjectively and without checking sources, it does seem that it wasn't one that was very well done.

            On the second statement, I, again, need to see the theological basis they were asserting this things. In my opinion, something in their interpretation seem to have gone pretty damn wrong in order to achieve this type of assertion. It's obvious that at this point, the Church stands corrected and apologized for this affair. I would need to check if these interpretations were a product of a bad reading of Scripture, or by basing as well in the Ptolemaic system, which led to wrong conclusions. But the answer is the same: it's wrong. It's also a matter of understanding what went wrong in their interpretation in order to give them a fair hearing on the subject, but I see no reason to assume that this is heretical. If I had some time machine to go to the time of Galileo and stated it as fact, I think I'd have enough empirical evidence and an orthodox biblical interpretation to refute any charge of heresy. But, I can do nothing other that assume on what I'm saying.

          • I think the point is that the Bible, the Church, the popes, are supposed to be the ones with the best access to the creator of the Universe. Instead of getting hints about the actual cosmology that would be later revealed by humans, early church writings reflect a cosmological view that is just as ignorant as every other culture.

            This is understandable if there is no god. It is neutral or negative to claims of an all-knowing creator that is inspiring writings.

            A Bible and church truly inspired by the creator should be full of ideas that were radical at the time, but would later be show accurate. We would expect it to talk about a Universe so vast and us being a tiny growth on a tiny dot. Rather, it implies we are the physical centre of it all. It gets the age wrong, it has the flood, it has the sun stopping in the sky. It reflects the Greek view of crystal spheres, the firmament with water behind it in the sky.

            Sure score one for the church for not telling us the earth was flat centuries after a non-christian calculated the circumference of the globe. Subtract several million for telling us that we shouldn't eat pork but failing to mention that that mold growing on bread kills infection and can save hundreds of thousands of lives.

          • Elijah

            First of all, the 'Holy' Roman Catholic Church system, was not original Christianity, and has tried and continues to try to change basic doctrines of the faith. It was a mixture of 'forced' Christianity (un-regenerate people calling themselves 'Christians' for favor after a Roman Emperor not only finally legalized it after centuries of persecution [which the Catholic church continued to do to true Christians], but also mandated it throughout the empire [which you just can't do with Christianity]) and the Paganism of Rome (Rome was a pagan nation, and had many gods and goddesses and practices, which were leaked into the new, hybrid 'church'). I will note that within a decade (I think) of Christianity being legalized, the Gladiator and animal fights/massacres/executions for Public entertainment stopped. Back to Catholicism... the Popes, according to my knowledge have always had a power ego/God complex, along with other questionable, non-biblical morals, and their views have not always reflected BIBLICAL doctrine. Before getting into your other statements, I would bring up that the Bible is the basis of rational thought and reasoning, and it's because what's in it is true that we even have the ability and desire to observe science. Furthermore, the links and information I will provide below is completely up to you to watch and study, but you cannot make an informed decision before fully watching, listening, and studying it yourself.

            Now, your main argument is that if the Bible is from God it should have lots of information that would only later be found out to be true. Your false assumption is that it does not. I'll take the time to mention here that the Bible’s main purpose is not meant for making scientific discoveries, however, since the true God of the Bible is the very reason we have science at all, He has no problem telling His children what is best or what is reality from a scientific standpoint. I'll also point out that not only do we find such facts in the Bible, but it has also proven itself time and time again in archaeological findings. When people follow the original text like a map (again, not Catholic origin documents which are very flawed and even fraudulent, but real, authentic, copies of the Jewish and Christian scriptures), they find the things the Bible talks about, where it says they are. When people have criticized the Bible and said this or that never existed, sure enough a few years later, evidence would be dug up that a person, or people, or location did in fact exist, and in the timeframe the Bible mentions.

            Now, I'll list out the things you've said, answer them to my current knowledge, and perhaps add a few more.

            ***A universe so vast and us being a tiny spot:
            Again, the Bible doesn't (to our current understanding - look up Torah Codes - equal distance letter skip sequencing of the Torah) give us all the scientific discoveries there is to discover, in fact, the Bible says it's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out - we are supposed to search things like this out, and science is one of those methods of searching that God has given us. Further more, God tells Abraham that as innumerable as the Stars are, that would be like his descendants. Well people have tried to count the stars, even back in ancient times, and with the naked eye, we can actually count a certain number of stars (I think it's around 3,000 or something like that, I could be mistaken). God can certainly count, so why didn't He just tell Abraham his descendants would be ####? It wasn’t until recently that we knew the stars actually were innumerable to our human abilities. Of course this can be a figure of speech, but it would be a lame figure of speech if the observable stars at the time were readily countable. God also pairs this stars analogy to the sands on the seashore, almost equalizing the two. And just a heads up, this God that you mock, yet see the innumerable stars He breathed out of His nostrils and flung with His hands, and calls them all by name, has even counted the very hairs on your head... and he loves you and doesn't want you to go to Hell. That's why He sent Jesus.Furthermore, the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens with His hand, now when did we start to theorize that space is stretching out? There's plenty the Bible talks about that's scientific. Even things science still cannot explain. For example what holds adoms together? We don’t have an answer, people have theorized that so called gluons do this, but no one has ever seen or measured them, in fact the protons inside the adom should all repel each other. The Bible says that Christ, the Creator, “Is before all things, and by Him all things consist (are held together).”

            See this booklet about evolution ‘facts’: https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

            And, just fun, I bet you'd probably mock at the Star of Bethlehem, right? Take some time, and watch this documentary in full, about a lawyer, who decided to buy some astronomy software, broke the the Star found in Matthew into 8 separate data points (including things we traditionally don't think a star can do), and searched the history books and the skies to find the real time of Christ's birth, and he actually found a celestial object, which fulfills all 8 data points, as well as other celestial signs the Bible talks about.

            You can find that documentary here - note: for some reason the link always starts me halfway through the video, so just drag it back to the beginning if it does the same to you: https://youtu.be/oGUlWa2r-bk

            Bonus scene (extra) https://youtu.be/AuUPBGMONlc

            ***Implies we are the physical center of it all:
            Actually no it doesn't that I'm aware of (please give me a reference if you have one - including chapter and title and bible version). It does however imply that we are the center of God's eye, that we are special in creation, and created in God's image. That we are Stuarts of the Earth. Please expand where you got this idea from, and exactly what you mean.

            ***Age wrong:
            Now here's a long discussion. First of all, there's so many flaws and mis-conceptions AND pre-suppositions (even circular reasoning) with modern dating methods and evolutionists, and they don't even agree with each other. Further more, I was reading an article about how dating methods prove the Bible is false and evolution is true (which is the opposite actually), and all of the dating methods I went through (I did not go through all of them) were giving dates like: 8,000 - 10,000 - 23,000 - 100,000 - 63,000. Your honor, even if these dates were pinpoint accurate (which they aren't and can't be), those kinds of dates are still closer to a Biblical time frame then millions and billions of years. Furthermore, can you explain why we still have carbon-14 in diamonds, the hardest substance on Earth, when carbon-14 does not last millions and billions of years? Or why we have halos in granite? There's a lot to talk about dating methods, but most of the things I've seen, are much younger then Evolutionists would have us think, closer to a Biblical age, are constantly changing, and all disagree with each other. Might I point out that you can carbon date a living specimen and get thousands of years old just based off of the reading. Now to get an 'accurate' reading, you of course need to know how old the specimen is, but that's exactly what you're trying to deduce from the specimen to begin with. There are plenty of other dating methods and observations that point to a younger Earth.

            You need to see:
            *Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EE658qW3u8

            *Paths of Light: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm

            ***The Flood:
            I'm sorry, but this is a dumb argument. Not saying your dumb, but the argument itself. The entire landscape of the Earth today can be reasoned to be from a massive flood... quite easily, it is profoundly obvious. There's so much physical evidence, reproducible by the known laws of physics, and observable natural phenomena, that it would shock you. Not to mention thousands of oral traditions and written histories describing the Flood, strikingly similar to each other and the Biblical account, with details such as: 1. a world-wide flood (not regional), 2. one man and his family (even the number 8), 3. even the man's name being strikingly similar to Noah, 4. as well as the whole family being saved on a large boat... 5. with all the animals. These stories and writings range from China to Native America (multiple tribes), to Australian Aborigines, and practically every continent.And, they've found Noah's Ark (I'm not talking about that anonymous wooden structure they've found encased in ice on mount Ararat. I'm talking about a large, clearly boat shaped object in the mountainS of Ararat (mountains of Ararat is Biblically accurate, not mount Ararat itself) discovered by a fighter pilot during one of the wars. Ron Wyatt heard about this account, researched it, and went on more than 1 dangerous expeditions to the site, and did a series of tests, which had been very poorly done many years before him by another expedition team. Who pretty much just blasted a hole in the side of the structure without any real or careful consideration for such a structure. Ron and his team collected soil samples from around the object, samples from the structure itself, did sonar readings which revealed several evenly spaced struts and beams, as well as a collapsed structure, and even iron bolts. The structure was the correct size as well. All tests concluded that this was in fact an ancient boat sank into the water logged soil (which is several thousand feet above and miles away from the nearest open body of water. Several clues in the area also indicated this could be Noah's Ark, including (but not limited to) the valley is called the Valley of the 8 with a village called the Village of the 8, and none of the locals knew where the names came from, ancient structures resembling animal breeding pens, 2 large graves, and abnormally large, distinctive anchor stones. One of these stones contains 8 crosses, two large ones, and 6 smaller ones, suggesting that other other people (perhaps crusaders) had also visited this place and come to the same obvious conclusion. A recent Earthquake caused the normal soil to fall away from the structure, causing it to be even more evident and contrasted with the surrounding landscape. There’s also evidence that this sight was trying to be hid by some person or group, such as military documents being changed (the location from the pilot who first saw it from the air), as well as attempted assassination, kidnapping, and stealing of equipment and records. The Turkey government has created an official memorial building there since the findings were finalized and released. For facts you may not be aware of concerning evidence for the flood, check out Kent Hovind's video on the Flood, as well as his theory, called the Hovind theory, in which he explains how the flood explains everything we see around the world in geology today. Watch it in full, tons of information, including strata, petrification, fossils, etc. You will not learn about a lot or most of this from your sources, I'm pretty sure.

            *Most important video for you to see. But the others are extremely important as well. https://youtu.be/uyfRYO_ul_8

            *I would also recommend going to Path of Light's website: Science vs Evolution encyclopedia/handbook, which goes into more details about layers of strata, coal, mountains, fossils, dating methods, etc. Did you know that evolutionists literally move mountains to explain some problems? http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm

            *For the discovery of Noah's real ark, and the tests Ron Wyatt did, I would recommend watching his own documentary which documents the process. It's old school, but bare through the music and audio, and it's fascinating. https://youtu.be/pw1vAl_pGyc

            ***The Sun Stopping in the Sky:
            First of all, let me point out that this classifies as a miracle, and miracles still happen today, and do not necessarily break the laws of physics (the laws of physics can be stacked/loaded by the all knowing God that created them), and even if they do go outside of the laws of physics, it would not be outside of God's prerogatives to do so. And it’s not like we fully understand all the laws of physics, so He could have chosen to use something we’re not aware of... point being, you’re assuming the supernatural doesn’t happen, when it does. This could have meant a number of things, such as God pausing time, slowing down the orbit of the Sun or the Earth. We do not yet fully understand all of the laws of physics, even though we like to pride ourselves in thinking that we do, we simply do not. So it’s not outside the whelm of possibility. I've looked for an answer to this, there is some supposed stories of Nasa and Yale students discovering this on their computers, but even Christian sources have apparently debunked this. However, I have heard that we do find exactly what we would expect if such an event did occur: Historical records of the prolonged day from other nations, which we have. So howbeit unexplained for the time being, perhaps forever hidden from our understanding, it is in the Historical records, not only of the Bible, which would have been good enough, but also in other nation’s records.

            You can read this article about that (which also includes the apparently debunked NASA story - attention to the last 3-4 paragraphs:
            https://bible.org/question/has-%E2%80%9Cmissing-day%E2%80%9D-joshua-been-proven-scientifically

            However, I would say, check your world view. If your world view automatically assumes God cannot exist (which you can't disprove), then you will automatically rule out anything that has an explanation other than what you're familiar with, such as a miracle. Furthermore, you'll look at the same evidence a Creationist sees, the same data points even, and come to a completely different conclusion... based on your world view, not based on evidence, be careful about that. The Bible warns in the last days there will be scoffers, who are ignorant of the Creation, the Flood, and of the coming Judgment.

            ***Firmament of water behind the sky:
            Please clarify, do you mean above Earth's atmosphere, or beyond space? I will say, from what I know, some Creation scientists theorize from the Bible that there was some sort of layer in the above atmosphere, whether it was a solid layer of water, or crystalline ice, or a thick cloud cover. There's billions of gallons of water floating in the sky right now, I want you to think about that. Further more, evidence shows that the oxygen content, and electrical currents, were much stronger pre-flood. That could account for some of the overly gigantic things we see in fossils today. A barrier whatever it was could have kept extra pressure and increased oxygen content inside Earth's atmosphere, resulting in larger creatures... reproducible in lab conditions today, called hyperbaric chambers, which not only increase growth speed and size, but also heal injuries much faster, and turns venomous proteins into harmless/beneficial proteins, so I've heard. Whatever IT was, it collapsed during the flood in the form of rain (the flood had water bursting out of the ground as well by the way, and may have included other catastrophes at the same time, such as an asteroid strike). It is no more absurd then evolutionists trying to prove with lab equipment that life could form accidentally. This is also turning into forensic science, not empirical science, keep that in mind, neither side of the issue saw what it was, we only have documents. Only, our theory is not only backed up by ancient text, but IS reproducible in the laboratory. Yes, I know of the test where they tried to get proteins to form, but A. the test did not accurately portray natural conditions, but actually negated natural conditions from what I've heard, and B. the very few things that were produced were toxic to life. And just a correction to your statement, it could have very well been the Greeks reflecting the Hebrew documents... it could have also been a well known fact passed on from generation to generation. We cannot say that it didn’t exist.

            ***The Earth Being round:
            The Bible gives verses indicating the Earth is round, and hangs in nothing. Which is very contradictory to many different ancient world views that see the Earth (usually flat) as being held up by elephants, or turtles, or giant table legs. God says it hangs on nothing.

            ***Eating pork:
            Yes, I know us gentiles love to eat pigs, but God told the JEWISH people (not everyone else), not to eat pork because it's unhealthy. It's known today that Pork contains parasites that are very hard to kill, even after cooking, and in general it's just a very unhealthy meat. Something they would not have known back in those days. In fact, today, it's well known that many health problems today are caused by gut bacteria. God wanted His people healthy. In fact, all of the animals God commands the Jewish people not to eat are all known today as being extremely unhealthy. The animals God said they could eat, are the healthiest types of animals to eat. While we're on the subject of food, it's interesting to note that when Daniel and his companions were brought into Babylon, and ordered to eat the King's meal, they refused and requested a special meal called Pulse, and water. Some have debated what this meal was, but it was definitely vegetarian. A man called Don Tolman, discovered what he believes was this ancient meal, and that it was actually considered a sacred meal in places like Egypt. He reproduced it, and saw the same results that the King saw in Daniel and his companions... they were healthier, stronger, and brighter then all of the other king's men. Don Tolman sells this 'Pulse' today (it's high priced because they produce it themselves), but it's apparently a full meal in a small package and delivers everything you need, and literally makes you feel amazing.

            ***Not telling that the mold growing on bread kills infection and can save hundreds of thousands of lives:
            Again, the Bible doesn't mention everything we would ever discover, at least not in the plain text. However, God did save many lives by giving the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL certain commands, (the results of which not only lasted for their present time, but for the long run as well). Rules such as how to deal with certain molds that might appear in a house, strict precautions were to be taken. Well that's because today we know that mold is also a common cause of many health problems. God wanted His people healthy. God's Word is full of sanitation policies that are scientifically proven to be best practices today with similar circumstances. For example, God told them that if they needed to use the bathroom, they had to go outside of the camp, dig a hole with a special paddle, do their business, and then cover it up. God told them to let the land rest for a full year ever 6 years, this also is proven to be a best practice agriculturally. God gave them the Jubilee year. The date of the Jubilee was to be recorded, and celebrated every 50 years. On that day, all slaves were to go free, all debts would be erased, all property would revert back to the original owners. AND prices for things like land would fluctuate based on how close or far away the Jubilee was. Israel never practiced this, but again, we see in economics today, that in a free trade society, un-sustainable debt will accumulate within about 50-60 years, which brings about an economic crash. If people actually followed God's laws, they would be given fair warning to prepare for a voluntary economic crash, but since we don't, these crashes take everyone by surprise and they are devastating. God's smart. There's also another shorter 7 year cycle, which effects world events and economic crashes today that are noticeable, see 7 year cycles in economics and money markets. See Johnathan Cahn about that. Everything God told His people was for either their physical or moral benefit, and was far superior to any code of law by their surrounding neighbors, laws which preferred property over people, whereas God preferred people over property. They didn't always obey these things, and it always got them into trouble. There's also a distinction to be made in the Bible about an abomination to God and an abomination to people. I've heard people say things like that the Bible compares being homosexual to eating pork, or something like that... which is not the case, they are two separate categories.

          • Elijah

            *Things off the top of my head that you did not consider.

            ***Laughter:
            Proverbs 17:22 says: “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”Laughter, joy, gladness... It’s actually physically good for you and physically healing. Lo and behold, today's studies show that that is exactly right. In fact today's studies also confirm that being hateful and grouchy and unforgiving can also cause physical illness which can lead to death, which the Bible warns us often about. In fact, Jesus tells us that if we don't forgive others their sins against us, then God will not forgive our sins. Forgiveness is very important in a Christian's life.

            ***Time, space, matter:
            Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Interesting verse, here we see that time had a beginning, and that God created space and matter. Interesting these are the three elements science calls our reality, hmmm.

            *More ideas to look up on your own time.

            -Dinosaurs:
            Yes, the Bible talks about Dinosaurs, and Dinosaurs in fact have been spotted in remote locations all the way up until today. Dinosaur footprint fossils and man’s footprint fossils have been found side by side in the same rock. One of their ancient names would have been ‘dragons’ - look up some of the real descriptions, accounts, and paintings from ancient and medieval Europe and Asia.

            Kent Hovind does a thorough video showing the history of Dinosaurs and man together: https://youtu.be/w1vFqDKqNAY

            -Bible compared to other ancient texts:
            The Bible has long been an accurate archaeological guide for many years, people have found civilizations, persons, and artifacts when they dig where the Bible tells them to. When it comes to the New Testament, the manuscripts we have are the closest to the actual events then any other ancient account. Some being as early as just a couple of years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. No one debates the life of Alexander ‘The Great’, but did you know the earliest manuscripts we have were written at least a few hundred years after the fact? This is simply not the case with the scriptures we have from the New Testament, written by eye witnesses of Jesus, well within a lifetime of the actual events. And if you doubt the New Testament or the life of Jesus, it’s a well known fact that there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence not only from the Christians, but from the Jews, Romans, Greeks, etc. confirming that Jesus existed, He worked miracles, He died on a cross, and it is claimed that He rose from the dead (which He did, and ascended into Heaven in front of over 500 witnesses), as well as that His followers, the first century church, worshiped Him as God. Only those who are not intellectually honest or knowledgeable scholars would deny that these are accounted for in various historical writings by both those that loved Him, hated Him, or otherwise didn’t know what to think of Him.

            -Prophesy, even coming true today:
            The Bible is a book of prophesy, and we see that prophesy being fulfilled throughout time all the way up to present day. God says He knows the end before the beginning and the beginning before the end. This is a deep area of study, and theres’ so much to be covered. There were prophesies written about Jesus (the most important person in History and to your soul), prophesies about His birth, life, death, resurrection, and coming Kingdom. Prophesies about world events, much of which has already happened, and some of which we have seen within the last century.

            -Atheist scientists/professors deny evolution:I don’t even know if you are an evolutionist, but if you are, you should know that Darwinian Evolution, Macro Evolution is scientifically unprovable, mathematically and scientifically impossible, has never been observed. It is a big push by Global leaders to have their own agendas running and a world that complies with those agendas. Scientific evidence, what we do observe and can test, points starkly to a Creator or a Designer. This is fairly easy to find on Youtube, but look up atheist or scientist denies/refutes/disproves evolution. They can’t get themselves to involve God... yet, but they see that Darwinian evolution simply cannot and did not happen.

            https://youtu.be/pS5j3XccmUM

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY

            Expelled, No Intellegence Allowed, full documentary:
            https://youtu.be/c63awtAyHdU

            Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and it's Scientific Pretensions (note, simply shows that Darwinism has not foundation to stand and the dogma of atheism):
            https://youtu.be/0XIDykeZplU

            Lots more.

            -Dangers of Evolution, by Kent Hovind, explaining the history of violence and genocide Darwinism has created over the last century, see:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqCx2j9Ig1I

            -Rapid Erosion and geologic formations forming in nature. Case study:
            Mt Saint Helens (many others exist, and there's much more that can be studied about the area, such as trees uprooted and buried standing up - much of that is in the Kent Hovind videos I shared) http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/

            ***There’s much more to say, lots of other resources. But I hope this is enough to keep you busy for a while looking at the other side. More importantly, I hope that you would trust Jesus Christ to save you from your sins, ask Him to do that, and to come into your life to be your Lord and Saviour. He’ll save you from going to Hell for eternity, He wants you to be saved.

            John 3:16-17 says: For God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believeth in Him, should not parish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

            Whether your a Catholic or an Atheist or anyone else, believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God and that God raised Him from the dead. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. And pray this prayer:
            “Dear Lord Jesus, thank you for dying on the cross for me, I know I’m a sinner, so Lord please forgive me of my sins. Come into my life and make me new, be my Lord and Saviour, I trust in your alone from this moment forward. Thank you God for saving me, in Jesus’ name, amen.”

            If you’ve just prayed that prayer, and meant it then welcome to the family of God. You’re now spiritually adopted by God. Go and read a KJV Bible, find a Bible believing group of Christians, and grow your relationship with God in prayer, reading the Word, and worship. God is a personal God and He wants to have a personal and active relationship with you.And as you’ve seen above, having faith in Jesus, doesn’t mean you can’t be a scientist or a professor, it does mean you might have to dig a little deeper for the truth, and might suffer some persecution from the mainstream, which Jesus said you would have. But your soul will be saved, and you’ll be a new person, heading for Heaven when you die. Now live for Him.

          • Elijah

            One more, sorry, three replies, I know. Here's a short sample of what true Christianity is like: https://youtu.be/iLByt-XxKyY

          • Child of the True Church

            You argue against Roman Catholic beliefs. I can assure you that everything the RC Church teaches is found in Scripture.
            View these....

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU

            Dr Ray
            http://gloria.tv/?media=404384
            http://gloria.tv/?media=403923
            http://gloria.tv/?media=404823

            The writings of the Apostolic Fathers - those known and taught by the Apostles.
            http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.html
            http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Church_History,_EN.pdf

          • Ryan Franks

            You truly display the faith/credulity of a child, Elijah... Along with many other attributes found in the thinking of children. The saddest one is the fear of (eternal, draconian) punishment from a parent that you think is reading your mind. In the most sincere sense, you have my sympathy.

          • Doug Shaver

            You certainly have a lot to say, Elijah. Do you wish to discuss it in detail, or are you just here to preach at us?

          • Elijah

            Hi Doug. I was just researching who did teach the Earth was flat when I stumbled across this channel. I came across an ignorant statement, or line of statements, that didn't even give any resources. My response was a full response directly to the commentor, addressing each of the issues they blindly listed... it was unfortunately too long to put into one comment. And I left many resources for you to check out for yourself. You could just as easily ask your same question about the person of whom I was responding to here... was he interested in discussing or was he just here to preach to all of you? If you took the time to read what I had to say, which you may or may not have done, you'll see I was addressing each of his points individually. From a Biblical standpoint, you can certainly easily find that what I was saying is true. As to everything else, I left resources for you to check out and make up your own mind. The intention was not preaching to anyone (however you define 'preaching'), but simply to give a somewhat full answer to a list of in-accurate accusations. If you take umbrage with that, then I suggest you take the time to look at the resources I provided and see what they have to say. I am also a little surprised that don't take the same stance with the person whom I was responding to. I had no intention of further discussion, which is why I went to such lengths of an answer and gave so many resources, kind of a fire and forget kind of resource, which I hope the commentor will have a chance to read and do further study for themselves. Even this was lost in my email and I haven't seen it until now. He had his say, I had my say of his say, is that so offensive? I'm not closed off to discussion, but I can't guarantee I'll see a response or have the time to answer, or at least answer quickly. But I would highly suggest watching and searching all of the resources I gave, and then deciding if there's anything to discuss, which will take a quite bit of time, as it has for me.

            Have a great day,
            Elijah

          • Doug Shaver

            I had no intention of further discussion

            I suspected as much.

            But I would highly suggest watching and searching all of the resources I gave, and then deciding if there's anything to discuss,

            Been there, done that. I'm not new to these conversations. I even know who Jack Chick is.

          • Ryan Franks

            Kent Hovind is a "resource..." Hilarious. Yes, that's a fine collection of Youtube "resources" from a felon that doesn't understand rudimentary Earth science you have assembled, Elijah...

          • Ryan Franks

            So many comically unsupported equivocations...

            Did you seriously cite Kent Hovind multiple times? Jesus Christ... What, no Ken Hamm?

            You're a really bad Christian apologist if you try to argue in favor of biblical literalism. That you hold these childish beliefs in the 21st century is more sad than hilarious. You thinking "They (definitively) found Noah's ark" is even more adorable than your belief in a story where a couple kangaroos from Australia meandered up to a random place in the Mediterranean to get on a boat. I wonder the equivocations you use for this... I've heard that Pangaea was still whole (Just brilliant), god simply magically transferred them and the other animals needing the transportation there with his power (seems a bit circuitous to do that supernatural action, then make them all live on a boat.), and that the oceans were frozen and they walked across (Christians riffing to fit their holy narrative is just satisfyingly entertaining.). There are probably others that I'm forgetting, but when all you need is an imagination, the options are limitless.

          • josh

            "But the heliocentric idea seemed to have its support among the Jesuits
            and other scientists until Galileo decided to become a trouble-maker.
            Until then, I see no reference of the Church doing anything that merely
            resembles teaching officially geocentrism until this affair appeared."

            Galileo didn't "decide to become a trouble-maker", he just decided to advance an idea he thought was correct, which it turned out he was. The Church didn't have to specify that they were officially geocentrist until a competing idea became current. Virtually everyone was geocentrist since of course heliocentrism isn't an obvious idea. Copernicus advanced heliocentric ideas which were published just before he died (1543) but few people seem to have paid attention. Galileo famously took up his cause. Some tried to pass off heliocentric ideas as mere calculational tools but Galileo held to the perspective that said tools and observations actually reflected facts about the cosmos. The Church, in the spirit of the counter-Reformation, was cracking down on threats to its orthodoxy and declared Copernican ideas heresy, since they do conflict with the Bible (which was written by geocentrists who didn't know the earth was round).

            So, yeah, the Church outlawed heliocentrism for religious reasons and Galileo was innocent of anything except not kowtowing to authoritarians. I don't see how anyone could argue that the Church didn't teach geocentrism when it pronounced Galileo suspect of heresy and put his books and Copernicus's and others' on the Index Librum Prohibitorum.

          • Pedro Dias

            Your comment is filled with historical errors. I'll try to iron them all out...

            "Galileo didn't "decide to become a trouble-maker", he just decided to advance an idea he thought was correct, which it turned out he was."

            No, he really was a trouble-maker. He was allowed to teach heliocentrism as theory, which he did. What he also did, was to say blindly that it was above a theory and a fact, even though his theory had flaws that held a lot of sway. The trouble really came when he published the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems) and said, again, that it was fact. Worse than that, he put the opinion of the Pope in the mouth of a dunce. That never works very well...

            "Virtually everyone was geocentrist since of course heliocentrism isn't an obvious idea. Copernicus advanced heliocentric ideas which were published just before he died (1543) but few people seem to have paid attention."

            Not true. Aristotle studied the idea way back when (until he concluded that geocentrism was more accurate) and Nicholas of Cusa had this idea as well. And Copernicus published his book on the persuasion of the Church's cardinals, even though he was worried about being ridiculed by his contemporaries. He also dedicated the book on the Pope of the time, Paul III.

            "Some tried to pass off heliocentric ideas as mere calculational tools but Galileo held to the perspective that said tools and observations actually reflected facts about the cosmos."

            That's not true, that perspective came from many churcmen that were scientists during the Middle Ages, such as Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus. You can't say that that perspective was rejected at the time.

            "The Church, in the spirit of the counter-Reformation, was cracking down on threats to its orthodoxy and declared Copernican ideas heresy, since they do conflict with the Bible"

            Have you read my comment at all? I already addressed that some passages were interpreted as if the Earth was static in the universe, and bible scholars were relunctant in accepting to re-interpret an exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. And the political problems came mostly from the Thirty Years' War, not the Counter-Reformation.

            "So, yeah, the Church outlawed heliocentrism for religious reasons and Galileo was innocent of anything except not kowtowing to authoritarians. I don't see how anyone could argue that the Church didn't teach geocentrism when it pronounced Galileo suspect of heresy and put his books and Copernicus's and others' on the Index Librum Prohibitorum."

            Bring me evidence that the work of Copernicus was placed in the Index. That counters directly my sources...
            As for Galileo being innocent in the light of religion, I already addressed this as well. He could teach his theory upon the boundaries of it being a theory, not a fact. Galileo is obviously guilty of a stubborn attitude, even though there was a really good argument against his theory. That's not authoritatiranism, that's simply pressing against a wall with a flawed view of the universe.

            And it turns out that the Church was correct in saying that the sun was not the center of the universe. Aristotelian geocentrism was wrong, but you can't say Galileo was 100% correct, either.

          • josh

            I can't find a historical error on my part in your comment.

            "No, he really was a trouble-maker. He was allowed to teach heliocentrism
            as theory, which he did. What he also did, was to say blindly that it
            was above a theory and a fact, even though his theory had flaws that
            held a lot of sway. The trouble really came when he published the
            Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... and said, again, that it was fact. Worse than that, he put the opinion of the Pope in the mouth of a dunce. "

            As I said, Galileo advanced the idea that heliocentrism was a fact. There are understandable, though mistaken, arguments against that position but he was hardly 'blind'. The Dialogue was published in 1632, the Inquisition first convened on Galileo in 1616, I'd say that's 'trouble'. The point is that whether or not there were secular arguments at the time, the Church was taking a religious position and had no business threatening or banning Galileo's ideas. Being a 'trouble-maker' here just means disagreeing with the Catholic hierarchy. Galileo considered himself a loyal Catholic.

            "Not true. Aristotle studied the idea way back when (until he concluded
            that geocentrism was more accurate) and Nicholas of Cusa had this idea
            as well. And Copernicus published his book on the persuasion of the
            Church's cardinals, even though he was worried about being ridiculed by
            his contemporaries. He also dedicated the book on the Pope of the time,
            Paul III."

            I didn't say Copernicus was the first person to ever consider an idea like heliocentrism, he brought a 'modern' version to light in Europe. Most people held to Aristotle's Ptolemaic view. Nicholas of Cusa seems to have had a mystical view that only God was absolute so neither the Earth nor anything else could be absolutely fixed and perhaps there was no center. This was a personal idiosyncracy, not widespread and has little to do with heliocentrism or science. Copernicus was encouraged to publish by a few friends, but his work was presented as mathematical and theoretical to defend it from accusations of advocating literal truth. Dedicating your book to the Pope is a good way to try and shield it from censure. Nonetheless, although he received some religious criticism, not many people payed attention to his cosmology.

            "That's not true, that perspective came from many churcmen that were
            scientists during the Middle Ages, such as Roger Bacon and Albertus
            Magnus. You can't say that that perspective was rejected at the time."

            I didn't say that Galileo was the first person to advocate a proto-scientific outlook. Galileo held this outlook and it lead him to support the idea that heliocentrism was factual, contra the idea that it was only a mathematical abstraction or that it could be overridden by scripture.

            "Have you read my comment at all? I already addressed that some passages
            were interpreted as if the Earth was static in the universe, and bible
            scholars were relunctant in accepting to re-interpret an exegesis for
            the sake of a flawed theory. And the political problems came mostly from
            the Thirty Years' War, not the Counter-Reformation."

            Your comment gives misleading implications here. That the Biblical authors were geocentric isn't really in question, so it's not so much a matter of 'appeared to be supported when interpreted in a certain matter'. It's later readers who have had to reinterpret or ignore certain passages to maintain their idealized view of the book. The Church didn't say, 'continue your research and we'll withhold judgment', they convicted him, banned his work and put him under house arrest. The authorities weren't scientists worried about stellar parallax, they were worried that the official view of the Bible was being challenged, as was the semi-official Ptolemaic-Aristotelian system that had been absorbed into Church doctrine. I was using 'Counter-Reformation' in the broad sense of reaction to Protestantism and tightening of doctrine. Obviously the Thirty Years War falls under the same broad conflict, although the Office of the Inquisition seems more directly relevant.

            "Bring me evidence that the work of Copernicus was placed in the Index. "
            Done and done: "This Holy Congregation has also learned about the
            spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether
            contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless,
            which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus's On the Revolutions of
            the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuniga's On Job. This
            may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father,
            whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Foscarini, on the
            Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth's Motion and Sun's Rest
            and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio,
            1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above-mentioned
            doctrine of the sun's rest at the center of the world and the earth's
            motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture.
            Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the
            prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books
            by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres)
            and Diego de Zuniga (On Job) be suspended until corrected;
            but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely
            prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same
            be likewise prohibited,..." http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#indexdecree

            Again, 'guilty of a stubborn attitude' is a defense only an authoritarian could make. Would it be okay to jail you for a stubborn attitude on this point?

            "And it turns out that the Church was correct in saying that the sun was
            not the center of the universe. Aristotelian geocentrism was wrong, but
            you can't say Galileo was 100% correct, either."

            I don't know anyone in history who is '100% correct', but later advancements beyond Galileo's theory don't make the Church correct. They were wrong, they were wrong for stupid reasons, they acted unethically in punishing someone who was far more correct, but they would have acted unethically even if he had been completely wrong. This shouldn't be controversial.

          • josh

            Damn copy and paste spacing out my quotes weirdly !

          • Pedro Dias

            You brought more detailed information on points I disagreed with you, and there seemed to be points in which either I misunderstood what you said or vice-versa (I pointed out the dialogue as a bit of a pinnacle point of this "touble-making" I was asserting, but was not directly saying Galileo had been out of trouble before so, nor was I intending to do so), and we were actually in common ground. With that in mind, I stand corrected and apologize for assuming the historical inaccuracy of what you've said. There's only one thing I want to point out:

            "The authorities weren't scientists worried about stellar parallax, they were worried that the official view of the Bible was being challenged, as was the semi-official Ptolemaic-Aristotelian system that had been absorbed into Church doctrine."

            But this was one of the reasons why they were not accepting the geocentric system in the first place. Cardinal Bellarmine said: "If there were real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circunspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."

            The teaching as fact of a theory is something that is completley reprimendable, up until the days of today. Things that aren't questioned due to having good backup (especially when that includes Scripture) carry a lot of inertia when there are attempts to debunk them, and there's no ground to say that this wasn't the case here. You can't say, however, that the Church would be as relunctant to the Copernican system (which the original form had various flaws, but we already discussed this) if the geocentric arguments that countered it were refuted by Galileo or whoever. Bringing the thing as a theory will always dismiss condemnation or censorship, as it's no threat to the authorities the way that asserting something as fact is.

            To top it off, I don't agree with the condemnation of Galileo's works (even though a house arrest in a palace of the de Medici family doesn't sound that bad, if we want to be fair!). I don't feel, however, that we can completley judge the Inquisition until we bind ourselves to the time's mentality, which is a pretty hard thing to do. Not that this, in the end, was objectively justified, but we need to see it in fair eyes. :)

          • "Damn copy and paste spacing out my quotes weirdly!"

            (Friendly tip: When pasting, if you hit "Control+Shift+ V" on the computer, it pastes without formatting. That should fix the extra spaces.)

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            the Inquisition first convened on Galileo in 1616

            The 1616 business did not address Galileo. In fact, he received a memorandum from Bellarmine specifically stating that Galileo was not being corrected. Copernicus' work was placed on the Index "pending correction." This was because the reviewers had decided that there were passages that were "unclear" and could confuse the reader. The corrections were made, and Copernicus was taken off the Index a few years later. Outside Italy, no one bothered to insert the Corrigenda.

            The problem was that geocentrism was both obvious and supported by all available empirical evidence. Heliocentrism was falsified not only by the lack of parallax, but also by the lack of Coriolis effects, the lack of a strong east wind, etc. etc. All of physics was against it. Geostationary models were (as we say today) "settled science," and had been so for the better part of two millennia in classical Greece, among the Arabs, and so on.

            Galileo was not only asserting geomobility, but was doing so against the best available scientific evidence. This was primarily a dedication to perfect Platonic circles and Pythagoreanism. Though he diligently sought empirical evidence, he never found it. His "proofs" were bogus. Yet in his Letter to Castelli he overstepped his bounds and instructed others how to interpret scripture in light of the geomobile hypothesis, as if it were fact. This was outside his expertise and way outside his authority.

            The Church meanwhile was under fire from Protestant fundamentalists who harped on naively literal reading protocols, and was feeling a might defensive about it all. The Church Fathers, in their commentaries on the Scriptures, had read certain passages as being literally geostationary because that's what the science of the day stated, and by 1600 there was still no reason to read otherwise.

            Bellarmine told Foscarini (and Galileo) that there was no objection to changing the reading protocol in the light of new facts -- since the matter did not touch on faith and morals, but only on how a passage was read. But they had to be facts, not speculations.

            Details here: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

          • Paul Boillot

            "it turns out the that Church was correct in saying that the sun was not the center of the universe."

            An utterly silly observation, and only saved from complete disgrace by a technicality.

            Yes, the Church was correct that the Sun wasn't the center of "the world." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

            It also said that the idea that the sun is "the center of the world"

            is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

            The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

            Furthermore, that the Sun is the "center" (technically, it is not) of our solar system is at least understandable and consistent with astrological observations available at the time.

            The notion that there could be other solar systems and 'suns', let alone galaxies, local groups, galaxy clusters etc... was not to be adduced from the evidence of the day.

            The Church had no idea about other systems, and when it called the notion of heliocentrism "absurd," it did so because that notion conflicted with their reading of words on paper...or scrolls...or papyrus...or whatever.

            That's a little bit wronger than Galileo assuming that ours is the only system because he couldn't discriminate between objects with undetectably different distances.

          • Pedro Dias

            "An utterly silly observation, and only saved from complete disgrace by a technicality." - The value of truth in that statement is independent of your opinion about it. And what I said is, in fact, true. Have they accepted thoroughly Galileo, and they wouldn't have done any leap forward; just taking away a wrong fact and replacing it with slightly less wrong one...

            The idea of erroneousity of any celestial body other than the earth being the center of the world was due to the combination of a wrong estimation of the size of the universe (given that it was believed to be static and not expnading), and, again, the lack of a stellar parallax in the other stars (which can only be seen in highly-optimized telescopes, but hardly, as they're prety far away; far more than they estimated to be), which combined with the first preposition, made it absurd that we would be rotating to any other celestial body. So I disagree, there were scientific grounds on the data that they had at the time to put to rest heliocentrism. And I might point out that at this time, what we call "science" was called natural philosophy. To say it's false philosophically is to say it's scientifically incorrect, and conflicts with "the paper" can be resolved if the paper was proven to be wrong. It wasn't.

            "That's a little bit wronger than Galileo assuming that ours is the only system because he couldn't discriminate between objects with undetectably different distances." - So couldn't his contemporaries, in order to say that geocentrism was false. How is that wrong?

          • Paul Boillot

            I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. By "words on paper...or whatever," I meant religious poetry originating in verbal traditions, passed down through generations of nomadic, and then semi-nomadic, shepherd cultures. Finally, they were inscribed by we know not whom, nor when, nor on what, and then copied down through the ages....until they were used to prove that the Earth must be immobile and Galileo wrong.

            "And it turns out that the Church was correct in saying that the sun was not the center of the universe."

            The Church did not say that the sun was not the center of "the universe," but of "the world," since there was at the time no concept of other systems or galaxies outside our own. She did so because of a later-denounced interpretation of holy writ.

            I'm sure that your opinion of that statement is that it has some truth value, but that is independent of the fact that it has none.

            "Have they accepted thoroughly Galileo, and they wouldn't have done any leap forward; just taking away a wrong fact and replacing it with slightly less wrong one."

            No, my friend, you have entirely missed the point. The march of science will always be the process of replacing an incorrect, but previously accepted, 'fact' with one slightly less so.

          • David Thang

            "the bible was written by geocentrists" CORRECT "they didnt know the earth was round" FALSE . The bible clearly states the earth is round.... but heres the interesting bit listen closely! flat earth is described as a round disk (half a sphere semisphere/hemisphere) it never mentioned a ball sphere, it says it is flat, round and unmovable (like a plate with a tent over it somewhat like a dome. read the fucking bible moron. whether the earth is truly a sphere or a round flat disc, the bible describes the latter. so if you are a christian and believe in a spherical earth revolving around the sun you are a heretic. note i'm not a christian but i have unbiased views the end.

          • Paul Boillot

            "The data you had at the time pointed towards the Earth being the center of the solar system."

            Retrograde motion?
            (http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-retrograde-motion)

            I'll admit that the philosophical and cosmological frameworks of pre-Gallilean societies don't seem to have been particularly conducive to the geo-to-helio centered paradigm shift, but you are wrong.

            The data pointed as much to an Earth-centered Solar system as otherwise. Wittgenstein: http://blog.creativethink.com/2009/07/good-old-wittgenstein.html

          • Pedro Dias

            The only difference the retrograde motion did was to call the planets "wandering stars" instead of just stars (that's what "planet" means, by the way). And also, keep a bit in mind that'd be a minor argument, given that they hadn't found the explanation for this retrograde motion, and nobody really seemed to conclude anything out of that motion. Besides, it was believed the planets and stars orbited at the exact same speed; they wouldn't have figured out this was caused by the occurrence of two different speeds until the Newtonian laws were discovered.

            "The data pointed as much to an Earth-centered Solar system as otherwise." - Aristotle concluded one was more plausible than the other. And he was the type of guy no one really tried to counter; everybody loved him.

          • Paul Boillot

            If we're going to be pedantic here, let's at least be precise. "Planet" is an english word derived from the greek for "wanderer," planetoi, not "wandering star," that's the whole phrase "astēr planētēs": aster (astronomical) for star, planetes for wanderer.

            In reference to retrograde motion, you offered the observation: "that'd be a minor argument." The history of what people have thought about the heavens and the arguments they've made, minor and major, about them contradicts you, I'm sorry to say.

            In fact, it's the first thing mentioned in the section on the early development of heliocentric theories.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Early_developments

            You can side-step to Aristotle-love, or the future revelations of Newton, and the Wittgenstein quote, but the fact remains that you are wrong.

            "The data you had at the time pointed towards the Earth being the center of the solar system." - This is false, the data never pointed to anything but the truth of heliocentrism, despite how hard it was for certain cultural/philosophical/religious mindsets to grasp it.

            In closing, I wonder if you could tackle Wittgenstein's question: what would the universe have to look like in order for it to appear as if the Earth went around the Sun?

        • "It appears to me, after having talked with Sungenis, that the Catholic Church at one time officially taught that the Earth was the center of the Solar System."

          Do you have any evidence of this? Any reference to a specific Church document or teaching? I'm not familiar with any. This seem like misinformed hearsay.

          Either way, this is hardly enough to ground your earlier claim that "the Church supported Ptolemy's error."

      • monk ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

        When Galileo first told the Pope of his theory. He was actually interested in it and encouraged his studies.

    • Curious Thomist

      You might give Mike Flynn's blog a look. He only recently did a series of posts on the Galileo Controversy and what actually happened, and why. First one is here. (Read the whole series, it's fantastic, and very informative. And interesting as all heck, too.)

      http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

      The picture painted here by the historians and letters between the various men of science in that time is quite different from the popular misconception.

      • Thanks for the link. Actually, I had seen this blog before (someone else linked to it in these comments a few days ago). I found it enjoyable and educational. But it does miss one important point.

        Maybe the Galileo affair had little to do with the Bible or science and was more about conflicting personalities. One of those personalities was the pope. If the pope or those in the Church given some authority over declaring on doctrinal disputes end up calling heliocentrism heresy, even for petty and personal reasons, those declarations become part of Church teaching, if only for the time.

        For the time, the Church did support Ptolemy's error and opposed science. That the Church did so for petty reasons only makes things worse.

  • ksed11

    Jeffrey B. Russell has written a book on this:

    "Inventing the Flat Earth"

    http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382477328&sr=8-1&keywords=inventing+the+flat+earth

    Russell writes:

    "It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

    Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few -- at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

    Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman)..."

  • Might I point out that likely the person most responsible for disabusing us of this myth is hero of atheists and skeptics Carl Sagan in episode one of Cosmos?

    Yes, Eratosthenes discovered the round nature of the Earth and the church did not get it wrong. He even calculated the circumference. Given this, I cannot help raise Matthew 4:8:

    "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

    This passage seems to generate a number of difficult questions. Literal or metaphorical, the intent seems to be that by being up high on a mountain one could see all of kingdoms of the world. An odd thing to say in a world where Eratosthenes discoveries were widely known.

    I am sure this can be interpreted any way one likes to. My interpretation is that it is a made up story for people who were generally clueless about Eratosthenes and did indeed think the Earth was flat.

    I would have been impressed if this text, inspired by the creator of the Cosmos, had written, ", the devil took him out beyond into the heavens and circled the globe and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor, near, far and across the seas, yet undiscovered." Still lots of mystery there and this would likely have inspired more people to cross the seas and find these undiscovered countries.

    We never get anything like that in the Bible.

    • Pedro Dias

      I think it's unlikely for one to have the capability to learn to read and write Greek in the first century AD and not have enough knowledge to know the generally accepted idea that the earth was round. That passage (and the whole chapter of the context within that Gospel, for instance) has a metaphorical nature to it. I don't think either the writer nor any reasonable reader would guess that there was a mountain in the middle of the desert of the Levant that was able to see the entire world. Think about it :)

      • Fair enough. The author of Matt was likely educated. What is the metaphor you think this represents?

        • Pedro Dias

          I'll give you my opinion on the matter. I'm not sure wheter you can consider it completley orthodox.

          In the context of the cahpter, this was soon after Jesus was baptised in the Jordan River. He then went into the desert after being filled by the Holy Spirit. That verse in particular was an attempt from the Devil to seduce the human nature of Jesus to fall under temptation. It is a bit of an useless attempt to try to break one of the Persons of the Trinity into corruption, but if he succeeded once, the crucifixion would be far from having the same effect on the salvation of men. This also shows Jesus's sinless nature, and that his integrity couldn't be broken by the biggest of temptations of men, showing that His nature wasn't entirely natural after all. In this case, the devil was about to offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if He bowed and worshipped him. I don't know about you, but I think anyone would be up to accept that amound of absolute power, it's pure human nature.

          We need to keep in mind as well, that as far as it is known, Matthew was one of the original converts from Judaism (he might even be the tax collector that shared his name, and was chosen to become an Apostle; I could show you the verse, but I didn't find it), and this Gospel was to show the divinity of Jesus to a Jewish crowd (in the same way that, for instance, Luke was directed towards a Gentile crowd). He intended to emphasize the signs that Jesus was the Messiah that was predicted along Scripture, and some events in his Gospel can be downright bizarre to one that doesn't know the OT properly. But to one who does understand it well, can fully understand the implications of these events. But then again, whoever was able to read or hear this, either had enough scholarly knowledge to understand it, or was hearing someone who had such. :)

    • Lionel Nunez

      Do you know what 'inspired' even means in the context of Catholic theology?

      • No, I don't, but I am guessing it doesn't mean writing just what you saw and Jesus told you, identifying yourself, when you are writing, and what your sources are?

    • XJDHDR

      "Matthew 4:8 reads, “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”

      From this, flat-earthers presume that the world would need to be flat as all kingdoms could be seen from a high mountain. But once again, this would imply that, like Nebby’s tree above, this mountain would also be visible from everywhere. So where is this mountain? And even from a flat-earth perspective, given the dimensions of their disk, would kingdoms even be visible with the naked eye from such a great distance?

      Also, the parallel passage in Luke 4:5, “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” It’s notable that the flat-earthers don’t cite this passage, which explains that the Devil showed Jesus the kingdoms in a moment, and doesn’t mention a mountain. So the emphasis is the Devil taking Jesus up to some isolated spot, and showing him a vision of these kingdoms."
      https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth#refuting-200

  • SteveTirone
    • DannyGetchell

      An excellent presentation. Thank you for the link and I intend to thank the author as well.

      To the extent that the Church's position on science and the Bible can be gleaned from this exposition of the Copernicus-Kepler-Galileo story, I read it as follows:

      A scientific theory which does not contradict the language of Scripture may be taught as fact.

      A scientific theory which does contradict the language of Scripture may be taught as fact only after every possible objection to that theory has been conclusively refuted.

      Would you agree, and if not, why not??

  • DannyGetchell

    This is getting a bit silly. Dredge up an old wheeze of nil relevance to the real questions which separate Catholics from non Catholics, bravely dispatch it, and stand tall convinced that you've Won A Big One For The Faith.

    Next week I expect: "Eat Meat On Friday, Go To Hell? ..... Exposing the Libel."

    • Danny, what's ironic is that you're the only one here who has tackled a straw man. You accuse Jon, or the other Catholics here, of standing tall, "convinced that [we've] Won A Big One For the Faith."

      But where does any one say or suggest that? Nowhere I can see. Therefore your criticism is empty and invented.

      • David Nickol

        Therefore your criticism is empty and invented.

        I think DannyGetchell is squarely on target in characterizing at least this question (whether or not the Church ever taught that the earth was flat) as "an old wheeze of nil relevance to the real questions which separate Catholics from non Catholics." In many ways, the Inquisition and even the Church's treatment of Galileo are rather trivial issues, although of course they are still hotly debated in some quarters.

        I thought the point of Strange Notions was more about the issues that divide theists (who here often are Catholics) from atheists, but defending the Catholic Church from rather tired, old criticisms does seem to be a goal here.

      • DannyGetchell

        My comment above has been edited in response.

  • E. Murray

    That Catholic monarchs held orbs (models of the earth) symbolizing temporal power is proof that the Church did not teach that the earth is flat. Isaias 40: 22 says that the earth is a globe.

    • josh

      Isaiah 40:22 says the world is a circle, not a globe, hence flat. It also says that God sits above it (an absurd notion for a spherical world) and the heavens are spread out like a tent over it, again implying a flat or bowl shaped world. Whether monarchs of the middle ages thought otherwise is a different question.

      • E. Murray

        I was quoting from the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true original Bible sanctioned by the Councils of Carthage, Florence and Trent. That quote in no way implies what you say, because it only describes the authority of God over His creation: "It is He that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." (Isaias 40: 22).

        • josh

          Maybe you should try a more modern translation. As I showed, the content of the quote indicates that 'globe' is a misleading reading. I agree that the primary goal of the quote is just another obsequious paean to the man upstairs, but the language used, even if only intended figuratively, shows a non-spherical conception.

          • E. Murray

            The more modern translations are inaccurate. The revelation of God ended with the death of the last apostle, therefore antiquity is the sign of veracity. The Latin Vulgate has a higher authority than any other "version." That you read into that quote a non-spherical conception is flying in the face of the text and is only your interpretation.

          • Susan

            The revelation of God ended with the death of the last apostle, therefore antiquity is the sign of veracity

            Please explain why you believe you know this.

            The Latin Vulgate has a higher authority than any other "version."

            Why? If your answer is based on your first assertion, please justify your first assertion.

            That you read into that quote a non-spherical conception is flying in the face of the text and is only your interpretation.

            As opposed to your interpretation, I gather. Or (possibly) more accurately, the interpretation of others that you have accepted.

            Please explain the "proper" interpretation and why it is the right interpretation.

          • E. Murray

            The apostles and their successors are the divinely appointed custodians of Sacred Scripture having the protection of God Himself to keep them from any error. The Church councils I mentioned above are exercises in the Church's infallible magisterium in handing down the authentic bible.

          • Susan

            The apostles and their successors are the divinely appointed custodians of Sacred Scripture having the protection of God Himself to keep them from any error.

            It is precisely that sort of assertion that I have been trying to find justification for here at Strange Notions, with no success thus far.

            The Church councils I mentioned above are exercises in the Church's infallible magisterium in handing down the authentic bible

            Please explain.

          • E. Murray

            Before Jesus was crucified He promised to send the Holy Spirit to abide with His Church forever (Jn. 14: 16) the Spirit of truth to keep them in all truth (Jn. 16: 13), or in other words to keep the true faith true and protected from error. This applies only to the apostles and their legitimate successors, the popes, bishops and priests of the Catholic Church which was the only Church that Jesus founded. The thousands of Protestant Churches all disagreeing with each other began after men broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s. The teaching authority of the popes, the Fathers of the Church and the legitimate Councils is the Magisterium guaranteed infallibility by Jesus Christ who is God incarnate. The Old Testament also had the guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep them from error, but this was taken from the Synagogue and given to the Church of the New Covenant after the crucifixion of Jesus and His ascension into Heaven (Acts 2: 1-33). Special help from God is needed to keep the Church He founded from erring in faith and morals, and to make it a reliable guide in the way of salvation.

          • Susan

            Before Jesus was crucified He promised to send the Holy Spirit to abide with His Church forever

            According to an anonymous writing likely based on other stories that was written down in some form (not necessarily the form with which you are familiar) decades after this character is supposed to have existed.

            the Spirit of truth to keep them in all truth

            What does that even MEAN?

            Special help from God is needed to keep the Church He founded from erring in faith and morals, and to make it a reliable guide in the way of salvation.

            That is meaningless unless you can define what a god is, provide evidence for it and explain why Yahweh is a real god.

            I'm familiar with catholic assertions. What I have yet to encounter is a clear explanation of why those assertions should be taken seriously.

          • E. Murray

            Those assertions should be taken seriously because they are true, that is, they are based on historical events that were faithfully recorded by the stated authors (there is nothing vague or uncertain as you suggest), and miracles that people can still go and see today, for example, The Shroud of Turin which cannot be explained by science, and other miracles such as Lanciano and the incorruption of bodies of Saints which is not found outside of Catholicism. People such as Padre Pio and Therese Neumann who bore the crucifixion wounds of Christ, including the wound in the heart. The latter did not sleep, eat or drink for 40 years, and their wounds never healed but bled profusely on days associated with the sufferings of Christ. They were investigated by experts in and out of the Church and found authentic. Padre Pio died in 1968 and Therese Neumann died in 1962. Catholicism has so many verifiable miracles it is impossible to enumerate them all. The doctrine of the Bible is unlike anything of human origin and is perfect and it could only come from God. "He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believes not shall be condemned." (Mark 16: 16).

      • XJDHDR

        Some claim that Isaiah said circle but this is based on reading some English translations, not the original language or even translations written before the secular myth that ancient people were idiots and didn't understand concepts such as a spherical Earth. The word Isaiah used in 40:22 is חוּג (khûg) which, it is claimed, means a flat disc. However, if this were the case, then that means Job 22:14 is describing the atmosphere as a flat disc as khûg is used to describe it's shape as well. In reality, these passages are describing both the Earth and Sky as spheres. Some argue that if Isaiah had wanted to call the Earth a sphere, he would have used the word דּוּר (dûr), as he did in 22:18. In reality, this would have introduced ambiguity as this word can mean both a sphere and a flat disc. An example of the latter being 29:3 (the army besieging Jerusalem didn't create a dome around the city). So not only does the Bible already call the Earth a sphere, the suggested revision would actually remove this clarity from the text.

  • Steve Matthews

    Dear Jon,

    This post is pithy in the best sense of the word. I have taught both the history of science and the history of Christianity at a public university for the past ten years (plus four as a Ph.D. student.) I have no problem getting students right way round on the issue here, simply by making them read Ptolemy, Aquinas, and Copernicus, and them giving them pictures of "orbs" both in medieval Christian iconography and in armillary spheres. However, even confronted with the spherical projections of Ptolemy (made prior to Columbus) my colleagues are willing to embrace a myth over evidence.

    I spend way too much time trying to explain the problem in detail (which loses my academic crowd, but not my students). You have the essence here, and I will simply link to you in the future.

    Cool also that you spent a period as an "atheist." I emerged from atheism as Eastern Orthodox. You have emerged as the other claimant to Ancient Christianity. The real epidemic of atheism, as Gavin Hyman points out, is the shallow definition of God produced by modernism. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy suffers from this shallowing of the intellectual pool.

    God bless,

    Dr. Steven Matthews
    the University of Minnesota, Duluth

  • Abraham Alhashmy

    Old

  • Libera Nos Domine

    I personally don't see a way around the cosmic background radiation showing that the earth is at least at the centre of the measurable radiation of the universe, and thus in a unique enough position in the universe to dispel the idea of any kind of natural happenstance creation in a random Big Bang-like event or other naturalistic explanation.

    • XJDHDR

      A while ago, I read that the CMB's "Axis of Evil" actually creates a huge problem for secular cosmology. This is a region of the CMB that is warmer than average and aligns with the plane in which the earth and the other planets orbit the sun. The most popular explanation by secular astronomers is to ignore it by labelling it a statistical anomaly. One alternative explanation is that the CMB is not a CMB at all but a Local Microwave Background. If this is the case, then this MB doesn't say anything about the universe or Earth's position in it.

  • C.G Souche

    If the Roman (lead by Roman Empire) Catholic church and Columbus had read and studied for themselves the bible they would have realized (and by revelation as well ) the earth was round. If people would have also studied it well they would have known about DRAGONS and DINOSAURS as well ( before they found bones buried all over the place). I found these verses in the bible the other day about these subjects. Might want to check it out; here are some verses:

    Job 41-Dragon in Bible (God explains to Job)

    Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
    ringed about with fearsome teeth?
    15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
    tightly sealed together;
    16 each is so close to the next
    that no air can pass between.
    17 They are joined fast to one another;
    they cling together and cannot be parted.
    18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
    its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
    19 Flames stream from its mouth;
    sparks of fire shoot out.
    20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
    as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
    21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
    and flames dart from its mouth.

    Isaiah 40:22- Round Earth

    21Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has
    it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood
    from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is He who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens LIKE a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    Job 40:15–24 (dinasaur)

    "Behold, Behemoth, which I made as
    I made you(God speaks to Job); he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his
    loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his TAIL
    stiff like a CEDAR; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His BONES are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.

    "He is
    the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his
    sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts
    play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in
    the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the
    brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not
    frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can
    one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?"

  • Christians still think the earth is flat.lol

  • Chris Dominguez

    Many bible quotes supporting flat earth.

    Is Genesis chapter 1 not a chronicling or order in which creation takes place?

    Did God create the earth first or the sun first?

    1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And god made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. 9 God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. 10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And he said: let the earth bring forth green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth, and it was so done. 16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars. 17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. 18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day. 20 God also said: let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. 23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

    • XJDHDR

      Many Bible verses are claimed to support a flat Earth but these charges don't stand up to scrutiny:
      https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth#refuting-200

      What does Genesis 1 have to do with the Earth's shape. It does document the order in which God created everything, including the Earth before Sun. This says nothing about the Earth's shape, however.

  • brae

    with your papel condemnation of galilio i notice it was written in computer language and that the signitures are not that but just typed names why didn't you just copy it and you typed it all out since when do they have computers in 1688 or whenever that was anyways

  • YITADEE

    Interesting. You never hear it mentioned anymore that this was the thought. Good article.

  • I never heard the alleged Magellan quote until just now. I did grow up hearing that Columbus had to contend with a consensus that the earth was flat, but it was always presented as a secular consensus, not as church dogma.

    I discovered around the time I finished high school that it was a myth, but shortly afterward I discovered how persistent the myth was. In my first history class in college, the instructor (a Roman Catholic, by the way) repeated it and made fun of me when I attempted to tell him he was mistaken.

  • The Flood

    At the top of the page "shadow on the moon" well a simple google search could fix that because no one that is serious about science thinks that the shadow is caused by the "curvature of earth" you can prove this for yourself when you see the moon during the day with a shadow "moon phase". God put 2 lights in the sky not 1, check the word. Either the bible is 100% correct or it's false, you decide. Here is a link to what causes the shadow on the moon; https://www.google.co.za/search?q=what+causes+the+shadow+on+the+moon&oq=what+causes+the+shadow&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.11972j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    The earth is flat research it

    • MarcGEM

      All scientific evidence points to the spherical shape of the Earth

      • Rob Allen

        The earth is indeed flat

    • Trent Hill

      Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:22. The bible IS 100% correct, but you my friend, are not.

    • XJDHDR

      First, the "shadow on the moon" quote is a made up one that secularists invented so whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant.

      As for your argument, you present zero evidence that "no one that is serious about science thinks that the shadow is caused by the "curvature of earth"". Conversely, you will the find the exact opposite of your claim when you search for what science says causes lunar eclipses.

      As for your claim that the Bible teaches the moon is a light source, here you go: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/by-the-light-of-the-moon/
      There is nothing in the Bible which requires that the moon produce light and disqualifies it from reflecting light. It's ironic that you are embracing a claim that Atheists invented to discredit the Bible to try reinterpret reality.

      Finally, here is my "flat" Earth research: https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth
      It's ironic that you are trying to reinterpret reality again by appealing to yet another idea that Atheists invented to discredit the Bible (look up John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, as well as their connection to the modern flat Earth movement). You have also committed the fallacy of the Double Standard. It's ironic that you said "no one that is serious about science thinks that the shadow is caused by the "curvature of earth"" while ignoring the fact that no one that is serious about science thinks that the Earth is flat.

  • John Trent

    Isaiah 40 verse 22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth," apparently they were not reading their scripture

    • XJDHDR

      In reality, they knew that Isaiah described the Earth as a sphere. Some claim that he said circle but this is based on reading some English translations, not the original language or even translations written before the secular myth that ancient people were idiots and didn't understand concepts such as a spherical Earth. The word Isaiah used in 40:22 is חוּג (khûg) which, it is claimed, means a flat disc. However, if this were the case, then that means Job 22:14 is describing the atmosphere as a flat disc as khûg is used to describe it's shape as well. In reality, these passages are describing both the Earth and Sky as spheres. Some argue that if Isaiah had wanted to call the Earth a sphere, he would have used the word דּוּר (dûr), as he did in 22:18. In reality, this would have introduced ambiguity as this word can mean both a sphere and a flat disc. An example of the latter being 29:3 (the army besieging Jerusalem didn't create a dome around the city). So not only does the Bible already call the Earth a sphere, the suggested revision would actually remove this clarity from the text.

  • David Taylor

    The earth is flat and the sun, moon and stars are located in the raqia between two bodies of water Genesis 1:6-18 the same place where birds fly Genesis 1:20 not 230,000 miles,93 million miles out, in a science created outer space. Where they (sun,moon and stars) move around the flat, stationary earth Joshua 10:12-15.

    There is the earth, below the earth, 1st Heaven (sky), 2nd Heaven (believers home) and 3rd Heaven (location of God). No outer space/universe, planets and all the other ideas put into humanity's mind by science and satan.

  • Flat Earth Trads

    We are Catholic Flat earthers. We believe that the globe is wrong. The Fathers condemned it. Common sense condemns it.
    Our sites flatearthtrads.com and flatearthtrads.com . We welcome a discussion on the topic, so long as it is respectful

    • XJDHDR

      Since you're advertising your websites, let me advertise a website proving you wrong:
      https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

      In reality, the Bible never teaches a flat Earth. Science, and hence, common sense, confirms the sphere rather than condemning it. Any Fathers who deny the spherical Earth did so because they had an opinion, not because scripture supported their beliefs.

      • Flat Earth Trads

        You are not the first person, and will not be the last, who tries to distort Sacred scripture to their own ends. Honest people just need to read the first few chapters of Genesis.
        In any theological argument, for Catholics, the Fathers of the Church are the first authority. Theirs is not just "an opinion". It merits respect. Something protestants and Conciliar Catholics know almost nothing about.
        Look, you need to get your house in order about being Catholic before engaging in flat earth arguments. Outside the Roman Catholic Church, NO salvation.

  • Pascal Xavier

    People often think that Galileo was sentenced by the church for claiming that the earth was round, but it is absolutely not for that reason that he was sentenced, but because he was claiming that the earth was not center of the universe and moving (around the sun).

  • XJDHDR

    What are you going on about? Here is a quote from the article:
    "Of course, the quote often appears without any citation to its source. And for good reason: There isn't any.

    The quote can be traced back to an essay titled Individuality by the famous American political leader and defender of agnosticism, Robert G. Ingersoll."

    The author agrees with you that Magellan never said this.

  • Tern

    An inaccuracy could be written into a biography, find readers disposed to believe it, and stick as legend. If tnat could happen for Columbus, it shows how easily it could and did happen for all the biographed characters in the Bible.