Biblical Cosmology

[Anna G]

Introduction

I’m writing this post as a follow-up to the discussion that we had a little while ago about Biblical cosmology, as I was asked to provide some scriptures on this subject during the conversation. I hope that this post provides some good foundational scriptures for you. Please note that I’m continuing to use the term “Biblical cosmology” to refer to the cosmology described in the Bible in order to clearly differentiate it from the cosmology proposed by the heliocentric model.

During our discussion, I also said that I would provide a visual representation of the Biblical cosmology model. I think this is important so that people can get a basic understanding of what the Bible describes, as many Christians today have been taught to apply the heliocentric model to Biblical text rather than to study the subject of cosmology directly from scripture. (I think it is relevant to note here that although the heliocentric model can be imposed onto the Bible, it simply is not described in the Bible.)

Additionally, I think it’s important to look at models that illustrate Biblical cosmology to clarify that the Bible does not describe any of the foolish “flat earth” models that can be found on the Internet.

I have, therefore, attached a document which shows some of the models that people have created in an attempt to represent the cosmology that is described in the Bible. These images, along with others, can be found by doing a simple search on the Internet for “Biblical Cosmology” or “Hebrew Cosmology” etc. (There is also information online which shows that some pagan cultures also originally believed in a flat and enclosed earth. I am not in any way advocating that we Christians should source our truth from pagan cultures; however, I do think it’s noteworthy when we see threads of commonality running through different cultures—a good example is the fact that many cultures acknowledge in their history and/or mythology that there has been some kind of great flood similar to the world-wide flood of Genesis.)

There are some significant differences between the cosmology described in the Bible and the cosmology proposed by the heliocentric model. They are, in fact, decidedly opposite systems in many ways. However, one significant difference that is of particular importance for the Christian is that Biblical cosmology clearly identifies the location of heaven. This is of great relevance when cosmology is studied from a scriptural perspective.


Some thoughts about the use of language (and some initial cosmology scriptures)

Applying the principle identified in Isaiah 28:10 is very relevant for the study of Biblical cosmology as the subject is described throughout the Bible, albeit sometimes more directly and sometimes more subtly.

“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” Isaiah 28:10

It is correct that Christians who believe in Biblical cosmology generally take scriptures about creation more literally. This is because creation is generally a physical, material, concrete reality which we experience with all of our senses. Though language can be used poetically, it remains natural and logical to describe and understand real and concrete things in real and concrete ways, i.e., literally.

It is also necessary to acknowledge that poetic language is used throughout the Bible, such as through the use of similes and metaphors etc. This does not, however, mean that truth is not being revealed when this language is employed. Contrarily, such language often reveals truth through ideas and images that speak to our hearts and minds with an expressiveness, salience, simplicity, and/or depth etc. that cannot always be accomplished with the limitations of literal wording. Truth can be communicated through the use of both literal and figurative language.

So, as an example, (focussing on just one aspect of the scripture) here is how someone who believes in Biblical cosmology would likely interpret this first part of Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;”

Firstly, the language structure of the first part of the verse, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,” can be read as a literal statement about the Lord’s physical location in relation to the earth—there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively. Applying Isaiah 28:10, this verse correlates well with other scriptures in the Bible which similarly describe the physical location of God, the throne of God, and heaven as being directly above the earth.

Secondly, the second part of the verse, "and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;” uses the figurative language of a simile to add further detail. Putting the whole sentence together it can be understood that not only does the Lord sit physically above the earth, but He is also in close physical proximity to its inhabitants, who are “as grasshoppers” to Him. The Lord dwells above and close to all the people of the earth. Though both literal and figurative language have been used together, there is no contradiction in meaning, but rather understanding has been enhanced through the use of both types of language.

Furthermore, it is possible to find a figurative and literal meaning from a scripture at the same time, without contradiction. As a simple example, the words “under the sun” are found 27 times in the book of Ecclesiastes. This expression is naturally read figuratively as a simple phrase which means “in the world” or “on earth”. However, it is also possible to find literal truth in these words, i.e., the phrase acknowledges in a natural way the reality that the earth is physically located under the sun. (It would be logical that the figurative expression derived from the literal meaning, i.e., that the literal understanding came before the figurative expression was developed.) I understand that some people would argue that it just appears that the earth is located under the sun from our perspective on earth; however, when applying the principle of Isaiah 28:10, it is logical to take the words “under the sun” as a plain and simple acknowledgment that the earth is physically located under the sun because this interpretation correlates perfectly with other cosmology scriptures throughout the Bible.

Additionally, sometimes looking at words from a literal perspective can add further light to their meaning. For example, Christians who believe in Biblical cosmology can understand that the title of God as the “Most High” has the capacity to be understood literally. Of course, this title can be understood in the sense that the Lord God is the Most High in every way possible—He is above all of His creation, at all times, in all places, and in all ways. However, it can also be understood in a literal sense, as a study of scripture shows that the Lord God dwells as the Most High above His creation: the heaven where the Lord God resides is physically located above the sun, moon, stars, earth, and everything under the earth. Other than there being questions about the exact location of “ye waters that be above the heavens” (Psalm 148:4), the Bible describes the heaven where the Lord dwells as the highest part of His creation.

Ultimately, as Christians I believe we should prayerfully ask the Lord God Himself how literally and/or figuratively we should be interpreting scriptures about this subject, rather than making assumptions about interpretation based on our own pre-conceived ideas of cosmology, our scientific understanding, or any personal discomfort that may arise from having our worldview challenged.


Some foundational scriptures

As you can see from the Biblical cosmology pictures that I have attached, the term “flat earth” is quite a reductive description because the Bible describes a flat, stationary, and enclosed earth. Additionally, the Bible describes creation as having three basic tiers: heaven, earth and under the earth. I put the below scriptures in a previous post on the forum, but I am reposting them here as I believe they lay the best scriptural foundation to start studying this subject:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” Exodus 20:4

“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:” Deuteronomy 5:8

“Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.” Psalm 135:6

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” Philippians 2:10

“And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.” Revelation 5:3

“And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” Revelation 5:13


Some descriptions from the Bible

Below are some scriptures which—if we take them literally as real and true descriptions—make natural, understandable, logical, uncomplicated, and consistent sense on a flat, stationary, enclosed earth which is part of the three-tiered system described in the Bible.

(You may want to pray about whether these same scriptures make natural, understandable, logical, uncomplicated and/or consistent sense if we live on a globe earth which is spinning on an axial tilt as it orbits around the sun travelling at high-speed through space.)

The Tower of Babel
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” Genesis 11:4-7

Jacob’s Ladder
“And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.
And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.” Genesis 28:10-12

Ezekiel’s Vision
“Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.” Ezekiel 1:1

“When those went these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.” Ezekiel 1:21-26

Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream
“Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:” Daniel 4:10-11

The Temptation of Christ
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matthew 4:8-10

“And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Luke 4:5-8

The Baptism of Jesus
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” Matthew 3:16

“And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:” Mark 1:10

“And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.” John 1:32

The Ascension of Christ
“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Acts 1:9-11

The Stoning of Stephen
“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Acts 7:54-56

Peter’s Trance
“And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.” Acts 10:10-12

The Return of Christ
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Revelation 1:7

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Matthew 24:29-30

“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” Mark 13:24-26

“And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.” Isaiah 34:4

“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:” Revelation 6:13-16

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?” 2 Peter 3:10-12

New Jerusalem
“And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,” Revelation 21:10


Concluding thoughts

There are various aspects of Biblical cosmology that can be studied in further detail, such as: the heavens; the sun, moon and stars; the firmament and the waters above; the face, shape and ends of the earth; the foundations of the earth; and the non-movement of the earth, etc.

At this point I’d like to note that due to the nature of this subject, i.e., because we have all received repeated and ongoing messaging about the heliocentric model from most parts of our society since we were young, I understand that it can be quite challenging for some people to question the globe earth model without discomfort, both intellectually and emotionally. Because of this, I believe it is particularly important that we try to put away everything we think we know about this subject, and humbly and prayerfully ask the Lord God to reveal His truth as we study His Word with an open heart and mind.

I hope the above scriptures provide a good foundation for people to study this subject, and I thank you for the opportunity to present this information to you. My apologies for the delay in preparing this information and thank you for your patience.

[Rowan M.]

I'd like to begin by thanking you for this very well-written post, Anna. You have presented your case in an articulate and gracious manner, and it was a pleasure to read. Thanks also for the PDF file with the Biblical cosmology models. That was helpful for additional understanding.

Ahead of the planned Sunday night (US time)/Monday morning (NZ time) discussion, I think it is important to make clear that "flat earth" and "stationary earth" are two separate issues - at least, I consider them thus. There are Christians around who advocate for geocentricity and a stationary earth, but reject a flat-earth model. A few days ago on Facebook, I came across a flat-earth debate. (I wasn't seeking it out; it just appeared in my newsfeed. However, I believe that the Lord meant for me to see it.) In this debate, someone shared the following article:

https://http://geocen.blogspot.com/2015/12/flat-earth.html

Teno Groppi, the man who runs this blog (in fact, I think he was the one who shared the article from it in the Facebook debate), would likely agree with many of the points you have made in your post, Anna. When it comes to rejecting heliocentricity, for example, he'd be with you all the way. He believes in a stationary earth, like you do. But he does not accept that the earth is flat. And there are other people around like him. So that's why I think we should make a distinction between those two issues. Actually, I'm saying this not so much to you, Anna, but more as a general guideline for the upcoming discussion. This is not solely a "flat-earth debate". (Not that you are calling it that, but in case anyone thinks that, there's a lot more to it, as you yourself rightly point out. It's about Biblical cosmology as a whole.)

When thinking about cosmology myself of late, one of the things I have wondered is what the ramifications would be if the earth stopped spinning (if indeed it spins at all). Because if the "sun standing still" was due to the earth temporarily stopping its rotation, wouldn't that have caused some pretty freaky things to happen? This is actually a question that Mr Groppi addresses in his blog:

https://http://geocen.blogspot.com/2014/06/earth-stopped-spinning.html

For that matter, when the shadow of the sun went back on Hezekiah's sundial, does that mean the earth would have temporarily REVERSED its rotation? How else could the shadow of the sun have gone back if the earth spins? And again, what might that have done to our world? Also, what is the "circuit" of the sun in Psalm 19:6? Could that refer to the sun having an orbit? It doesn't say that the earth has a circuit, but that the sun does. The moon is generally understood to orbit the earth - could the orbit of the moon be considered a circuit? When Joshua stopped the sun, both the sun AND the moon stood still (see Joshua 10:13 and Habakkuk 3:11). So if the moon stopped orbiting the earth for a brief period of time, is it not possible that the sun did likewise? Anyway, I think there are maybe some reasons why we could question, at the very least, the idea of the earth rotating, and maybe even consider the possibility of the sun orbiting the earth the way the moon does. Also, does the moon rotate? How come we only ever see one side of it? If the moon rotated, wouldn't we see more of it at different times? (The "official" scientific explanation is that the moon rotates within the same period of time that it orbits the earth - I suppose that could work.) If the moon is stationary (in the sense of not rotating), maybe the earth could be too? I don't know. I'm open to that possibility though. It's certainly interesting to ponder.

It's also interesting that you mention many cultures referring to a great flood. Something else that many cultures have in their history/mythology is a story about an extra-long day or night (depending on what part of the world they are in). New Zealand's own Maori culture includes a myth about Maui "slowing down" the sun, which most likely refers to what occurred in Joshua 10. An example of that is here: https://eng.mataurangamaori.tki.org.nz/Support-materials/Te-Reo-Maori/Maori-Myths-Legends-and-Contemporary-Stories/How-Maui-slowed-the-sun

So for me at least, the notion of a stationary earth is plausible, although I'm not saying it's definitely right. But this is a point on which I may be able to find partial or even entire agreement with you. However, I cannot agree with the earth being flat. Before I explain my reasoning for that (and I have thought and prayed about it, so this is not a case of my "flatly" refusing to believe in it), I would like to say that I fully agree with your point that we should prayerfully study God's Word with an open heart and mind. Also, it can be all too easy sometimes to unthinkingly accept things that we're taught while growing up. I will admit that I have been guilty of taking it for granted that the earth is a rotating sphere. We should NOT simply take such things for granted, but make the effort to investigate and study them. After all, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to prove ALL things. I have been rather too lazy in this particular area. So I do want to thank you, Anna, for challenging my perspectives on cosmology. Moreover, the amount of time, effort and prayer that you have put in to studying it and laying it all out is very commendable. Speaking of lazy, I think that those who mock people who believe in a flat earth are quite intellectually lazy. Maybe not all of them, but some certainly are. Even if I don't agree with it myself, I still feel a lot of irritation with those who mock and scoff about it. Their mockery shows the pride in their hearts.

The Bible tells us a great deal about our world, but it doesn't tell us everything. Even when it does talk about things, there is a lot it leaves out. For example, it refers to moths eating clothing and generally corrupting things. However, it doesn't specify that it is the moth LARVAE that do this. Adult moths can't eat at all. Their only purpose is to breed. But the Bible doesn't explain that part. So how do we know that moth larvae rather than adults damage things? Through study and observation. The Bible never mentions the platypus. So how do we know that this remarkable creature, which seems to made up of spare parts from other animals, exists? Again, through study and observation (not to mention exploration to discover it in the first place). Of course, there are some things that can only be discerned spiritually, and only those who are saved have that ability. But God has also given us the capacity to reason, study and observe. While he tells us many things in His Word, He has, in His wisdom, left us to work out some things on our own, using the abilities He has given us. Such would appear to be the case with the shape of the earth. The Bible never explicitly states anywhere that it's a sphere OR flat. The only major clue it gives about the earth's shape is in Isaiah 40:22 (a verse you discussed quite extensively), where it mentions "the circle of the earth". But that could mean a sphere or a flat disc. How can we work out which one it is? Well, God has actually given us a number of different means to do so. And people have been concluding that the earth is spherical long before NASA came on the scene, or even Galileo. Pythagoras and Aristotle believed in a spherical earth all the way back in ancient Greece, and some ancient Greek and Roman coins have globe earths on them. As a general rule, they have drawn these conclusions through observing things like lunar eclipses or the movements of the sun. The stars and principles of navigation play their part too.

Now, whether the sun's rising and setting is due to the earth rotating, or whether it literally rises and sets as it orbits the earth (as geocentrists believe), the fact remains that at different latitudes, it rises and sets at different times. For example, here in Wellington, it's summertime, and the Longest Day occurred quite recently. Currently, our days are still pretty long, with today's sunrise scheduled to occur at 5:56am, while sunset will be at 8:58pm. In your city, Anna (which is just a little way north of mine), the sun will also rise at 5:56am, but set at 8:52pm. Up in Auckland, where our friend Joshua JZB lives, sunrise is at 6:10am and sunset at 8:44pm. So he has rather less daylight than what we do, because he is closer to the Equator and further away from the South Pole. But down south in Dunedin, which is that much closer to Antarctica and the South Pole, sunrise is going to be at 5:57am, while the sun will set at 9:31pm. So Anvilhauler, who lives there, gets a whole lot more daylight in the summer months - more than half an hour of it than you or I do, and just about an hour more than Joshua. Way down in Invercargill, sunrise will be at 6:03am, but the sun doesn't set until 9:42pm.

This is an observable phenomenon. We don't need any "scientific experts" to tell us this. All we need is to look out the window and check the time when we see the sun coming up or going down. I'm sure that if Joshua and/or Kevin care to, they could verify the times I have mentioned above. Certainly, I know from my own observations that Wellington's sunrise and sunset are occurring at these times right now. But why do these sunrise and sunset times vary so much? During New Zealand's summer months, why is it that cities located further south get more sunshine hours than those that are further north? Conversely, why would those same more southern cities be much darker in the winter?

Of course, while we're enjoying summer Down Under, it's winter in northern parts of the world. In your old country of England, for instance, it's currently winter. So the days in the UK are very short right now. For example, in London, the sun won't rise today until 8:05am, and will set at 4:06pm. Further north in Manchester, sunrise will be at 8:23am, while it will set at 4:04pm. Crossing the border to Scotland, Edinburgh's sunrise will be at 8:42am, and its sunset at 3:54pm. In Lerwick, Shetland Islands (not all that far from the Arctic Circle), sunrise is at 9:05am, while the sun will set there at 3:14pm. Notice again how much darker it gets the further north you go. But having visited Shetland once during July (high summer), I can tell you that the sun at that time of year shines until around midnight and rises again at about 3:00am.

Another thing to consider is: why are the seasons so completely flipped around between southern lands like Australia and NZ, and northern countries like the US and UK? Why are we in summer here, but they're in winter? And why will they be basking in summer from June until August when we're shivering in winter at the same time?

The logical explanation would seem to be that there are two hemispheres making up a sphere. Both hemispheres taper off into poles at either end. The amount of sunlight that any given location gets depends on its latitude. Cities closer to the Equator get much less variation in their sunshine hours throughout the year. Conversely, cities located close to either pole get wild fluctuation in the daylight hours, with extremely long days in summer and very long nights in winter. But also, the seasons are flipped around between the hemispheres. How would these fluctuations in sunshine hours be able to occur on a flat earth? How would the seasons flip around as neatly as they do? For that matter, how is it possible for the Big Dipper to only be visible in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Southern Cross to only be visible in the Southern Hemisphere, if the earth were flat? These things could all be possible on an earth that was spherical and spinning, OR spherical and stationary (I think), but not on a flat one - at least, I can't see how. But perhaps you do know a way it could work, Anna? If any flat-earth advocates have explained these things, or you have come to an understanding yourself, please share it with me. Rest assured that these are not intended as "gotcha" questions. If there is some logical way that variations in sunrises, sunsets and seasons could work on a flat earth, I am absolutely open to learning about it.

Also, whenever there is a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth as it passes across the moon is very clearly circular. Now, that could be due to the earth being a flat disc. But depending on the angle it's at to the moon, it would struggle to cast a perfectly round shadow on the moon during an eclipse if it were flat. Speaking of the moon, if the earth were flat, we should be able to see different sides of the moon depending on what part of the world we're in. This would apply regardless of whether the moon itself is flat or a sphere. But everybody everywhere only ever sees one face of the moon. (Which again does beg the question of whether the moon rotates.) Another thing about the moon, as Teno Groppi points out, is that when it is in half or quarter mode, it shines on one side in the Northern Hemisphere, and on the other in the Southern. (So if the light appears to be on the left side of the moon in one hemisphere, it will seem to be on the right side in the other hemisphere.) Again, how would such things be possible on a flat earth? You can't have hemispheres with two distinct poles on a flat disc.

Then too, you get things like the way water drains (clockwise in one hemisphere, anticlockwise in the other). All of these phenomena logically fit a spherical earth, but not a flat one. But none of them are due to any funny tricks played by NASA. They all occur naturally, and we can observe them with the eyes that God has given to us, and draw logical conclusions with the brains that He created in us. We don't need any "experts" to tell us. We don't need to "trust the science". We can observe and work it out for ourselves, entirely independently of anything corrupt scientists may say.

This post is starting to get pretty long, and I want to wrap it up soon. But one point I'd like to make with regard to Heaven being above us is that there is no reason it couldn't be wholly above a spherical earth as well as a flat one. There is an easy way to demonstrate that within the physical realm. Place a spherical object and a flat object next to each other on a floor. You yourself will be above them both equally. Other objects will be physically above them. Mind you, it has occurred to me that both the spherical and flat objects in this experiment would be STATIONARY (although I suppose there's always a risk of the spherical object rolling away). That said, you could put a spinning top next to them. But the point is, things can be above them both equally, so there does not seem to be a reason why Heaven couldn't be entirely above a spherical earth (although whether it's spinning on its axis is another matter). Also, God is not limited by physics in the way that we are.

So in conclusion, I want to thank you again, Anna, for writing such a well thought-out and informative post. I enjoyed reading it, and I appreciate all the effort that you've made with it. You make a lot of very interesting and thought-provoking points. Unkind people might call you crazy, but it is very evident from this post that you are absolutely NOT crazy and have a sound mind. And perhaps you are half-correct in that the earth could be stationary (although I'm not firm on that - I just think it's more of a plausible possibility). But there are a number of significant problems with the concept of a flat earth. I have only addressed some of them above. One thing I do want to say is that I'm not emotionally attached to the idea of a spinning globe. Indeed, I think there are some valid reasons to question the "spinning" part. Moreover, I certainly don't "trust the science". I don't believe in a globe because "science" says so. I therefore don't have an intellectual attachment to a spherical earth either. As a matter of fact, the way in which people scoff at a flat earth, in an eerily similar way to how they scoff at the six-day creation or vaccine hesitancy/scepticism, actually made me more open to the idea of the earth being flat. However, when I consider some of the things I talked about above, I just think that many of the phenomena we can observe (without any "help" from scientists) fit more logically with a spherical earth. The Bible tells us to "prove all things", and using logic and reason is a big part of that. Anyway, that is where my understanding of all this is currently at. As we discuss it more though, I certainly don't rule out some changes to what I currently think, depending on how the Lord guides me.

One last thing before I close: what led you to believe in a flat, stationary and enclosed earth in the first place? What was your own process of reaching that position? Did you arrive at it solely through your study of Scripture, or were there other factors at play (such as articles or podcasts that made you reconsider your previous understanding)? I'd be interested to know how you adopted this position to begin with, and it might be useful for others to learn as well.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Looking forward to discussing this on Sunday.

[anvilhauler]

It is interesting when topics come up like this where it is necessary to give proofs for why we believe certain things and as we have found out over time that needs to be done for everything rather than blindly trusting what we have been told. 

An indication that the earth revolves around the sun is shown by the analemma which is the pattern described in the sky when you photograph the Sun at the same exact time every day for a year, you get something that's shaped like a figure 8. 



The explanation for the analemma can be found here:

https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/26/why-our-analemma-looks-like-a

[creationliberty]

I had originally moved this thread to the private section of our forum for Anna's sake since, if I left it here in the public section, I would have to respond to it, and it would be embarrassing for Anna. Over a Skype call with our church yesterday, she accused me of censorship (attempting to hide the accusation behind some flattery), so I have returned it to the public section, and will now expose her deception.

I want others to know that Anna joined our church about three months ago, and she was removed from our church this past weekend due to that deception. If she decides to come here and argue that was not true, we have an audio recording of that meeting where we can prove that, in which when she was offered to walk through the Scriptures together with us so we can determine the context of them, she refused, stating that she was "uncomfortable" going through them.

To be clear, Anna's removal from our church had NOTHING to do with whether or not she believes in a flat earth. We don't care about that. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that she lied to us repeatedly (which is common with flat-earth cultists), she was deceptive, and she refused to sit down and reason out the Scriptures together with us. She never fellowshipped with us, she just spent three months sitting back and listening to us fellowship with each other, while she made passive aggressive (i.e. murmuring) comments in the background.

Anna lied to us so many times in such a short period, I have come to believe that she is NOT born again in Christ. Others may have differing opinions; that's fine. I do not believe her as of yet. She covers the bitterness and hatred in her heart with British niceties, and mistakes timidness for "humility," and I have not seen an ounce of repentance in her heart.

I’m writing this post as a follow-up to the discussion that we had a little while ago about Biblical cosmology, as I was asked to provide some scriptures on this subject during the conversation. I hope that this post provides some good foundational scriptures for you. Please note that I’m continuing to use the term “Biblical cosmology” to refer to the cosmology described in the Bible in order to clearly differentiate it from the cosmology proposed by the heliocentric model.

I have come to learn that Anna prefers to use the term "Biblical cosmology" because she doesn't want to be labeled as a flat-earth cultist (i.e. one who worships flat-earth in place of Jesus Christ), however, after Skype discussion with her, I am convinced that flat-earth is Anna's version of "jesus." She is one of those flat-earth cultists, but she doesn't like the association because it makes her look bad on the outside, and yet, she acts exactly like all the rest of them on the inside, and I am about to demonstrate that. Cosmology (i.e. study of the cosmos) is cosmology. Truth is truth. If what cosmology teaches is truth, and what the Bible teaches is truth, then it's just cosmology. The phrase "Biblical cosmology" is nonsensically redundant because religious cultists (like Anna for example) have made assertions and conjectures about Scripture instead of abiding by the context of Scripture, and so the phrase is nothing more than a show of vanity to deceive.

During our discussion, I also said that I would provide a visual representation of the Biblical cosmology model. I think this is important so that people can get a basic understanding of what the Bible describes, as many Christians today have been taught to apply the heliocentric model to Biblical text rather than to study the subject of cosmology directly from scripture. (I think it is relevant to note here that although the heliocentric model can be imposed onto the Bible, it simply is not described in the Bible.)

She now switched definitions because prior to this, she said it was about the shape of the earth, but now she's lumping that into the beliefs about whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth.

Additionally, I think it’s important to look at models that illustrate Biblical cosmology to clarify that the Bible does not describe any of the foolish “flat earth” models that can be found on the Internet.

The only reason I disagree with this is because the models she presented are just as foolish (if not moreso) than those found on the internet. If you looked at the images she presented, you will notice that all of them are made up from pure imagination because none of that is Scripturally supported, even though she calls it "Biblical cosmology."

I have, therefore, attached a document which shows some of the models that people have created in an attempt to represent the cosmology that is described in the Bible. These images, along with others, can be found by doing a simple search on the Internet for “Biblical Cosmology” or “Hebrew Cosmology” etc. (There is also information online which shows that some pagan cultures also originally believed in a flat and enclosed earth. I am not in any way advocating that we Christians should source our truth from pagan cultures; however, I do think it’s noteworthy when we see threads of commonality running through different cultures—a good example is the fact that many cultures acknowledge in their history and/or mythology that there has been some kind of great flood similar to the world-wide flood of Genesis.)

I took mythology courses in high school and college, and studied quite a number of them. Did you know that the majority of pagan mythology around the world has the world being created from an egg? If we accept Anna's argument here, we would also have to accept that there are "threads of commonality" that indicate the earth was created from an egg.

My point is that these are fallacious arguments in support of flat-earth, and flat-earth cultists are forced to use those fallacious arguments because they do not have Biblical standing.

There are some significant differences between the cosmology described in the Bible and the cosmology proposed by the heliocentric model. They are, in fact, decidedly opposite systems in many ways. However, one significant difference that is of particular importance for the Christian is that Biblical cosmology clearly identifies the location of heaven. This is of great relevance when cosmology is studied from a scriptural perspective.

Again, Anna doesn't want to say "geocentric." She wants to say "Biblical cosmology" because she knows it makes her sound like she has a "Biblical" argument for all this (because Anna is all about having a good outward appearance in front of other people), but I am about to demonstrate her fallacy, as soon as she gets to her point.

Applying the principle identified in Isaiah 28:10 is very relevant for the study of Biblical cosmology as the subject is described throughout the Bible, albeit sometimes more directly and sometimes more subtly.
“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” Isaiah 28:10

This was amazingly deceptive, especially coming from someone who said the following in a Skype call just yesterday concerning Isa 40:22...
Chris: I'll read the Scripture right now and ask you some basic questions and let you answer them. Would you be willing to do that?
Anna: Um... I would actually prefer just to part ways now.

When Anna posted Isa 28:10 in her forum post here, it was all for show. She doesn't abide by that at all. She can't even bring herself to have a discussion about Scripture with other Christians, but is more than willing to assert that she has the knowledge of God, and that we are all wrong about the Bible. She's a hypocrite and a liar.

It is correct that Christians who believe in Biblical cosmology generally take scriptures about creation more literally. This is because creation is generally a physical, material, concrete reality which we experience with all of our senses. Though language can be used poetically, it remains natural and logical to describe and understand real and concrete things in real and concrete ways, i.e., literally.

I would like Anna to give us an example of when the Bible is just speaking "poetically." I don't know of any Scripture that is meant to simply be "poetry" (i.e. flowery descriptions) because it is a book of instruction, rebuke, correction, and judgment. God literally created the world, but what Anna is about to do is take metaphor literally, which is the hallmark of a flat-earth cultist. (i.e. I have yet to meet one flat-earther who does NOT do what Anna's about to do.)

It is also necessary to acknowledge that poetic language is used throughout the Bible, such as through the use of similes and metaphors etc.

That's called "education," not poetry. I don't think Anna understands the difference. I use metaphors and similes all the time when I'm teaching, but I'm not being "poetic."

This does not, however, mean that truth is not being revealed when this language is employed. Contrarily, such language often reveals truth through ideas and images that speak to our hearts and minds with an expressiveness, salience, simplicity, and/or depth etc. that cannot always be accomplished with the limitations of literal wording. Truth can be communicated through the use of both literal and figurative language.

That last sentence, namely, "Truth can be communicated through the use of both literal and figurative language," just demonstrated Anna's deception. It made everything she just started out saying in her introduction completely pointless. What she attempted to do here was put an emphasis on "truth being taught in metaphor" because what she is actually about to do is transform the Scripture to make metaphors into literal interpretation, so it fits her flat-earth narrative, and then she can say flat-earth is "the truth." This is the M.O. of flat-earth cultists, meaning that, since I have started ministry, I have not encountered one of them that does NOT do this very deceptive thing that Anna just did, because their entire argument hangs on this deception.

So, as an example, (focussing on just one aspect of the scripture) here is how someone who believes in Biblical cosmology would likely interpret this first part of Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;”
Firstly, the language structure of the first part of the verse, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,” can be read as a literal statement about the Lord’s physical location in relation to the earth—there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively. Applying Isaiah 28:10, this verse correlates well with other scriptures in the Bible which similarly describe the physical location of God, the throne of God, and heaven as being directly above the earth.

What Anna just did is disgusting, and over a live Skype call with us, she refused to answer for it because once we exposed what she was doing, she suddenly became "uncomfortable" talking about the Scriptures.

The reason I highlighted one section of her statement is because this is the foundation for her house of cards she calls "Biblical cosmology." She said that Isa 40:22 "can be read as a literal statement," and when I read that, I said to myself, "Okay, here's what I've been waiting to see" because I expected her to present her argument of why Isa 40:22's first half should be taken literally, and the second half should not be taken literally so we do not consider all men and animals to be literal grasshoppers.

She went on to say, "there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively," and again, I thought, "Okay, so show us your argument that there NOTHING in this passage that should be taken figuratively." Folks, go read the rest of her post for yourself because Anna NEVER EXPLAINS IT. She does not bother to make an argument to support her very strange statement here, and I was very disappointed because I wanted to hear an actual argument.

What Anna did here is called "assertion." In case you don't know what that means:
assertion (n): a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
Anna just made a positive statement (i.e. "there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively") and did not bother to provide any support or reasoning for it.

However, I can offer support and reasoning against it. I will now take us over to Isa 40, starting in verse 13, which, by the way, Anna (over Skype) refused to do with us because she was afraid of what she would find (i.e. she was scared to death that her beloved idol known as "flat earth" would be disproven):

Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
-Isa 40:13-14
I ask anyone reading this: What is the context here? The Bible is asking men who directs God, or who God goes to for counsel. The answer is nobody. God is where all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding begin and end. The Lord is the judge over all because He is in authority over all.

Now that we have that context, let's continue to apply it, just as Isa 28:10 teaches us to do:
Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
-Isa 40:15
Are nations literally bucket drops? No, obviously not; it's ridiculous to think such a thing because this is obviously figurative language, but remember, Anna told us "there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively." According to her philosophy, she is stuck between a rock and hard place because she either has to admit that she was wrong, or she has to admit that she thinks nations are literally drops of water.

Those of us who take the Bible seriously know that this is applying the context of Scripture, namely, that God has total authority and power beyond our placid understanding, to the point that, whereas mankind believes a nation to be great, God has so little regard to their person that it is the same as we would consider losing a single drop of water out of an entire barrel.

And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.
-Isa 40:16
Lebanon was well knows for its lush trees, and had a very big logging industry coming from it. Even to burn the whole with all the beasts of the world thereon would not be enough sacrifice for man (countering the pagan ideology, where their gods are satisfied after a certain amount), which is why Jesus Christ had to come to be the ultimate sacrifice, to end all sacrifices.

All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
-Isa 40:17
Does Anna believe that nations don't exist? After all, the Bible says that all nations are nothing in the sight of God, and because she said "there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively," therefore, she must believe that nations don't exist... or she might have to go through the horrific process of admitting she was wrong. Tough choices.

To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
-Isa 40:18-19
God cannot be likened unto symbols made by the hands of men. This is why I have a teaching called "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian," and that includes the pagan cross symbol that is plastered all over so many church buildings.

He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
-Isa 40:20
How can you make an image or symbol to represent the Holy Omniscient All-Power God? Again, the context of these verses is the might, authority, and perfect knowledge of God that cannot be fathomed by man.

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
-Isa 40:21
Here, the Jews were asked questions, and let's consider the context. What have they known? Was it flat-earth? What have they heard? Was it flat-earth? What did God tell them from the beginning? Was it flat-earth? God is speaking to the idolatrous Jews, and the context is that what they have known, and heard (even from their forefathers), and God told them from the beginning is the power of the Godhead, and that He cannot be replicated by men, despite their pathetic attempts to do so with the work of their meager hands.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
-Isa 40:22
So what is the context here? Is the context flat-earth? No, obviously not. I just demonstrated that very clearly. It is that God sits above all and judges all, just as the previous verses tell us. It's that simple. God is not bound by physical limitations in that he is literally sitting on top of the world, as if the center of it is His throne. (And the Bible tells us that God's throne is in the third heaven, in His spiritual kingdom, not in this physical world.)

However, Anna provided no arguments to tell why she took those first 11 words literally instead of metaphorically, and then switched back to taking the rest of the verse metaphorically. She knows she would look like an idiot if she she claimed that people are literal grasshoppers, or that the heavens are a literal curtain, or that space is a literal tent.

She would also have to justify why she believes that princes (i.e. rulers of this world) do not exist because, after all, that's what the Bible "literally" went on to say, that princes are "literally" nothing, which can easily be taken to mean that they are figments of our imaginations:
That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
-Isa 40:23-24

Anna would have to go on to explain to us how rulers and judges of this world are plants that are literally sown as seeds and grow. She would have to tell us where we can find their roots growing in the ground. She would have to explain how the rulers of nations are all taken out by tornadoes because, after all, it was Anna who declared boldly that, "there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively."

Anna has not just been led astray by corrupt religious cultists, she has been WILLINGLY led astray. She told us over Skype, in no uncertain terms, that no matter what we showed her about the Scriptures, no matter how much Scriptural evidence that we presented to her, she would continue to believe in flat-earth (i.e. willingly blind faith without any Scriptural evidence, all the signs of a religious cultist), and others in our church who were at that meeting can testify to her saying that. That is corruption (i.e. leaven) that Anna brought into our church, she refused to the discuss the matter after we gave her 3 months to prepare for it (and she kept dodging the discussion by lying to us to say she was "tired" every time we brought it up), and even had the nerve to lie to us again and say that she was not prepared to discuss the very thing that SHE claimed she had absolutely knowledge of by special revelation from God through prayer.

It's disgusting for Anna to claim to be a disciple of Christ do this garbage to twist and distort the Word of God to her own destruction.
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
-2Pe 3:16

Meanwhile, she sat in the background making snide, murmuring remarks at the rest of us while hiding behind her British niceties to save face. If Anna cannot see the corruption in her own spirit, she will never come to acknowledge the truth that she might be brought to repentance and finally understand salvation in Jesus Christ. There's nothing more I can do to help her see that because she has chosen the idol of flat earth over Jesus Christ, so I wrote this rebuke publicly so others would understand.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
-Tts 1:13-14

As a final thought, here is a 60-second video for everyone else's enjoyment; an experiment run by flat-earthers, in which they accidentally disproved their own theory.
Flat-Earther accidentally proves the earth is round in his own experiment

[someguy85]

Fun fact...you know what book does state the earth is flat? The Quran. To the best of my recollection, the actual physical shape of the earth isn't overtly mentioned in the bible, but think about it...if the the earth is flat, then that means that actual photographic evidence, law of magnetism and gravity, astronomer from the last few centuries, and even the other planets we can see are all a deception and a lie. Especially today too when we have the tech that anyone with merely a few thousand dollars can board a plane and fly around the world in approximately 24 hours...photographs from the top of MT Everest show the curvature of the earth...long distance snipers have to consider the rotation of the earth when taking shots from a mile away. Plus as far as evidence for a flat earth...well, where is it? The whole concept is something I find almost akin to the absurdity of people who deny that the holocaust happened. If it was all a hoax then that would involve building multiple MASSIVE death camps across Europe, multiple survivors with intricate memories about how everything was run, multiple rescue soldiers traumatised by the conditions etc (and no one I've ever seen can keep in character acting for 40+ years.)

Sorry Anna but the whole concept is pretty weak, I mean there's more photographic evidence of ghosts, aliens, living dinosaurs and big foot than there is of a flat earth. (Yes I believe a lot of the things I listed are real in one way or another, but video or photo evidence of them is notoriously hard to get, let alone good quality ones.)

[Ellie]

To the best of my recollection, the actual physical shape of the earth isn't overtly mentioned in the bible,

Exactly. But she believes that all those scriptures she shared DO reveal that the earth is flat. I went through all of them, and tried to see what she was seeing, but she never gave us an explanation of why some things are literal and some things are figurative, so it leaves a lot of confusion (and guess who is NOT the author of confusion? 1 Cor 14:33). You have to go in with a presupposition in order to even remotely see what she is saying, but even then, it doesn't make sense when you look at the entire context and think more deeply about it. But anyway I'm glad you said this because you're not even a part of CLE church and you were't there when we had these meetings, but you are able to see yourself that the scriptures do not prove the flat earth theory. To use Anna's words, the flat earth "can be imposed onto the Bible, it simply is not described in the Bible." And that's exactly what she was doing, she was imposing the flat earth onto the bible, and she prayed and got a feeling in the bosom that it was true as part of her "study" technique. We don't study scripture like that and don't come to conclusions like that.

-------------------

I began writing this analysis of Anna's post before the last call, and have edited it to update it:

So, as an example, (focussing on just one aspect of the scripture) here is how someone who believes in Biblical cosmology would likely interpret this first part of Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;”

Firstly, the language structure of the first part of the verse, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,” can be read as a literal statement about the Lord’s physical location in relation to the earth—there is nothing in the language to suggest we should be reading this figuratively. Applying Isaiah 28:10, this verse correlates well with other scriptures in the Bible which similarly describe the physical location of God, the throne of God, and heaven as being directly above the earth.

In the section I emphasized above, Anna says that this section of the verse shows God’s literal physical location in relation to the earth, and that there is nothing in the language that suggests we should read this figuratively. If that is true, that this is a literal statement about His physical location, then this verse is telling us that God is literally sitting upon the earth. Interestingly, Anna doesn’t actually believe that part was literal, as you can see in the following quote from her next paragraph:

Putting the whole sentence together it can be understood that not only does the Lord sit physically above the earth… The Lord dwells above and close to all the people of the earth.

If the section of that verse was to be interpreted entirely literally like Anna says, and that there is nothing that suggests it is to be figurative—well, it says that God sits UPON the earth, not ABOVE the earth. But I suspect that because Anna was trying to use this verse to defend her point, she didn’t realize/ she was blinded to the fact that she contradicted herself in her own beliefs about how that section of the verse is to be interpreted. She doesn’t believe that God’s physical location is sitting on the earth, so she didn't interpret that part literally, but that He’s sitting above the earth. She believes that because it’s obvious that this verse is speaking figuratively--her mind automatically assumed that God isn’t literally sitting on the earth, but that it was figurative.

Secondly, the second part of the verse, "and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;” uses the figurative language of a simile to add further detail. Putting the whole sentence together it can be understood that not only does the Lord sit physically above the earth, but He is also in close physical proximity to its inhabitants, who are “as grasshoppers” to Him. The Lord dwells above and close to all the people of the earth. Though both literal and figurative language have been used together, there is no contradiction in meaning, but rather understanding has been enhanced through the use of both types of language.

Even her analysis of the next section of the verse is off. The fact that we are “as grasshoppers” to God doesn’t have as much to do with His “close physical proximity to [the earth’s] inhabitants,”—it has to do with the fact that we have no power or authority and essentially, God can judge mankind as He sees fit and we can do nothing about it. Hence, we are as grasshoppers to Him—pathetic, defenseless, and as nothing compared to Him in every way possible. But when she read this part of the verse, she didn't interpret it that way, she is still just thinking of God's physical location rather than what the context actually is saying.

Ultimately, as Christians I believe we should prayerfully ask the Lord God Himself how literally and/or figuratively we should be interpreting scriptures about this subject, rather than making assumptions about interpretation based on our own pre-conceived ideas of cosmology, our scientific understanding, or any personal discomfort that may arise from having our worldview challenged.

Anna is the one who is improperly interpreting scriptures based on her assumptions because she is looking past the actual meaning of the verse in order to assert that it promotes her own worldview about cosmology.

And on the note of the implication that we may have “personal discomfort that may arise from having our worldview challenged,” this is extremely hypocritical of Anna, because on the calls when this was discussed in the church, she seemed incredibly uncomfortable with her views being challenged, and not even just uncomfortable, but fearful to even discuss the topic. And she confessed herself that she was uncomfortable in the last meeting when we wanted to discuss the interpretation of scripture. Her incredible discomfort and fear of having her worldview challenged is obvious, especially considering the fact that the Skype discussion that we had been waiting for was awkwardly drawn out without mention by her for nearly 2 months, and after she was asked about it she finally told us she could do it on an upcoming Sunday, and during that week after making this post— she requested an additional 3+ more weeks claiming she needed to “prepare” to talk about the topic. This makes zero sense to me that she would need over three more weeks to prepare to have a conversation about a viewpoint that 1. she already believed before even joining the church, combined with 2. having nearly two months after joining to think about it more and prepare, and 3. after already writing out this post about her arguments. What more is there to prepare for? It truly makes no sense why it would take that long when she already made her points here, except that it was an excuse because she didn't want to talk about it.

It was evident that Anna had an emotional attachment to her flat earth theory, but she kept claiming/implying that we had an emotional attachment to the round earth. That's sort of funny because I actually can't recall anyone even trying to convince her of a round earth or arguing for it during these last couple meetings, because we could see the real issue was Anna's fallacious interpretation of scripture, her immense pride in her "revelation" and her time spent "studying," and her inability to be corrected on those things. Behind her "sweet and gentle" appearance and her seemingly kind and pristine "godly" words, she hides a deceptive and manipulative heart. It became extremely frustrating to talk with her because when someone would rebuke her or point something out to her about what she was doing, she would start out most of her responses with "thank you" or "I appreciate that" or "I understand." It's strange that she thought that we would believe her when she was saying those things, when they were obvious lies. It was basically a bunch of PR (public relations) phrases to give us a false appearance that she's actually listening to us and that she's humbly considering things when in reality, in a burst of emotion, she confessed the actual truth to us early on--that she was never going to stop believing in the flat earth.

She was repeatedly given the chance to just simply explain her interpretation of scripture in context, but she refused. I guess she was content with doing a scripture dump on here expecting us to just adopt her presuppositions and assertions as we read the verses, but when it actually came to going through the scriptures together "... precept upon precept; line upon line," she was "uncomfortable" doing that. She claimed she did follow Isaiah 28:10's instructions on understanding scripture, and if those verses truly proved a flat earth doctrine (which they don't), then she did find them "...here a little, and there a little" (i.e. in dispersed throughout the bible), but she took the verses out of context and added her presuppositions to them which is not how we're supposed to interpret scripture, so she definitely did not adhere to that verse. Someone can take verses from a bunch of places in the bible and wrest them by imposing their own beliefs onto them and claim the doctrine is "...here a little, and there a little" when the bible was never actually saying what they claim it is.

Overall I'm not surprised she left. I'm just glad the truth was so evidently revealed to us about her. There are many church buildings she can find if she wants "fellowship" without having to talk to anyone about scripture or get rebuked when necessary. Or there's also flat-earther communities that exalt the shape of the earth as their god they worship, while claiming they love Jesus. Or I suppose she can go back to being by herself coming up with other private interpretations of scripture based on the feeling in the bosom she gets when she prays. She has many different options about what she could do. In any case, she hates the light that exposes her sin, so if she doesn't want it exposed, she can fellowship with those who hide in the darkness because she wasn't a good fit here. Once the light was upon her and showed the truth about what she was doing, she tucked tail and ran. Hopefully one day she will see her error and repent of her lies and wresting (twisting) the scriptures.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. - John 3:19-21

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:16