Guest whatever by David Middleton
Do People Really Think Earth Might Be Flat?
A poll says lots of Millennials evidently do—and it’s not entirely clear why
By Craig A. Foster, Glenn Branch on August 21, 2018
“Just 66 percent of millennials firmly believe that the Earth is round,” read the summary from the pollster YouGov. Kids today, right? But it’s not only curmudgeons eager to complain about the younger generation who ought to find the survey of interest. For despite the recent prominence of flat-earthery among musicians and athletes, YouGov’s survey seems to have been the first systematic attempt to assess the American population’s views on the shape of the Earth.
Moreover, the results raised a number of compelling questions that deserve attention. For example, why is the scientifically established view on the shape of the Earth less popular among younger respondents (according to YouGov) when the scientifically established view on the history of life and on the cause of global warming have been, in poll after poll, more popular among younger respondents?
[…]
The authors (“a psychology professor at the Air Force Academy and a long-time staffer at the National Center for Science Education”) went on to examine the raw data and could not verify YouGov’s survey results…
Puzzled but undeterred, we used the information in the spreadsheet to calculate acceptance of the round Earth by age groups and found that only about 82.5 percent of millennials (as YouGov called 18–24-year-olds) agreed with “I have always believed the world is round.” That’s still dismayingly low, of course, but it’s not as dismayingly low as 66 percent. And those aged 25–34 turned out to fare a tad worse, with only about 81.8 percent agreeing.
The discrepancy between the data underlying YouGov’s original report and the data provided in the spreadsheet undermined our understanding of both data sets. Frustratingly, YouGov was unable or unwilling to provide further assistance. Although there are transparency standards in survey research, such as the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls, they are, regrettably, not universally followed.
Even more oddly, the majority of the ~18% of survey respondents who didn’t believe the Earth was round(ish) also didn’t believe it was flat.
In the absence of further information, what can we conclude? Clearly, despite the discrepancy between the results, younger people are less likely to agree with the scientifically established view of the shape of the Earth. Yet, B.o.B. and Kyrie Irving notwithstanding, the spreadsheet data indicate that they are not substantially more likely to agree that the Earth is flat. Indeed, firm belief in a flat Earth was rare, with less than a 2 percent acceptance rate in all age groups.
Rather, according to the spreadsheet data, younger people were more likely to be uncertain or ambivalent about the shape of the Earth, either agreeing that they have recently entertained doubts that the Earth is round or opting for the “Other/Not Sure” choice on the questionnaire. Importantly, these responses weren’t distinctive to those aged 18 to 24 but were comparably prevalent among those aged 25 to 34 and those aged 35 to 44.
What can we conclude from this? I’d like to conclude that the 16% of not round, but not flat respondents were thinking spheroid… which is still round(ish). Although the most likely answer is that they are uninterested in the shape of the Earth because it didn’t come from an iPhone app.
We can also conclude that the results of public polling need to be taken with a LARGE grain of salt.
I’ll just conclude with a bit of humor…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Clearly, the Earth is flat, because this is how my Google-maps “find directions” shows it on my computer screen. How can anybody today doubt Google?
That depends on whether your monitor is a flat screen or an older CRT model.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bYpPAjTyO4s/UAf4OaMZHII/AAAAAAAAClk/H22kypjkvrM/s1600/discworld.jpg
Discworld is flat and round, perhaps spherical should have been a choice.
[And Pratchett’s Diskworld revolved on its own axis, with the moon orbiting around the entire system. The mods will not go into the reproductive cycle of the turtle underneath it all. Nor of the elephant-friction problems involved. .mod]
Large numbers of Americans are very stupid & poorly educated. Well, there’s a surprise!
“Even more oddly, the majority of the ~18% of survey respondents who didn’t believe the Earth was round(ish) also didn’t believe it was flat”
Only odd if you don’t read the survey. The options were, always believed it was round, always believed it was flat, used to believe it was round but am now skeptical, or always believed it was flat but am now skeptical. The percentages also include “other / not sure”.
I surmise that the group who said it wasn’t round were the best educated. Of course it isn’t ROUND like a penny is round: it is roughly SPHERICAL- an oblate spheroid to be pedantic
Round is relative. Earth is about as round as a billiard ball… despite being an oblate spheroid.
It is actually quite small the number of people that are correct in believing that the Earth is not round, but an oblate spheroid. Flat Earthers and Round Earthers are wrong.
Educated people in the times of Columbus already knew that the Earth was close to a sphere (hint: the shadow of the eclipses). The Greeks had already measured the circumference a couple of times. The discussion was about how big it was, because a correct size meant the Indies were out of reach. Columbus thought it was small, and so he was wrong, but nobody knew there was an entire undiscovered continent between Europe and Asia. The vikings didn’t tell anybody, and probably were unaware of what they had stumbled upon.
The Vikings would tell them, but then they would have to kill them.
The Scandinavians knew there was land west of Iceland (Greenland), and since Greenlanders had requested Roman Catholic priests, so did the Vatican. Columbus had sailed up to Scandinavia, so he certainly knew about Greenland, if not Newfoundland.
2 groups of people in 15th century Europe definitely knew that the Earth was a sphere:
1. Educated, such as the priesthood and royalty because, as you noted, the Greeks knew.
2. Sailors, because they experience the Earth’s curvature daily. (hint: crow’s nest lookout)
None knew because they had seen roundness in the Moon’s shadow on the Earth. At over 2,000 miles across, only a tiny part of it can be experienced.
I’ve seen the edge of the Earth’s shadow fall upon the Moon, but it was so fuzzy edged I couldn’t be sure of a curvature that wasn’t due to the Moon being a sphere. Even if the curved edge of the Earth’s shadow was clearly visible, how could one know it wasn’t because the Earth was a round, flat disc that always faced the Moon?
For me, the strongest visual evidence that the Moon is a sphere (not just a disc always facing the Earth) is the curvature of the terminator visible on the Moon except at quarter Moon (half phase). This combination of curvedness and straightness only works if the Moon is a sphere.
SR
In the Europe of 1492, most people knew that Earth is roughly spherical, not just the clergy and mariners. Even Iberian Visigoths in the seventh century knew this.
The flat earth myth regarding Columbus was made up by early 19th century American fantasist Washington Irving.
Besides the size of Earth was the issue of the extent eastward of Asia. Columbus underestimated the size and overestimated the extent.
He probably knew that land lay not much farther west than the longitudes of Iceland and the Azores, ie within sailing distance of late 15th century ships. In both places as a mariner, he heard stories of land to the west. Greenland had been abandoned by the Norse earlier in the 15th century. In the Azores, bodies sometimes washed ashore which didn’t look like Christians. And sailing west of the Azores, one might encounter signs of land to the west, such as floating vegetation coming from and sea birds heading toward that direction.
So he was willing to bet that the Greeks’ pretty good estimate of the size of the Earth was too big. In any case, the issue was its size, not the shape.
Only Queen Isabella fell for his claim that the Earth was smaller than Eratosthenes calculated.
I think he believed Eratosthenes was correct about the size of the Earth. His line about the Spice Islands being within sailing range was a ploy to get funding so he could explore westward for new lands. I think his gamble was that if there was land within sailing range in the north (Iceland and Greenland) there was probably land within sailing range in the south.
He never expected to sail all the way west to the Spice islands. He found land at the approximate distance he claimed the Spice Islands to be to the west. Had he believed he had reached the eastern edge of the Indies, he would have reprovisioned and continued his journey westward. Instead, he sails back to Spain and claims he almost got there.
Even on his second and third trips west he never went any further west. Clearly He believed there was a lot of ocean between his new lands and the Indies.
SR
Columbus was right as to where he thought he’d find land, but he still thought that he was in the Indies. That’s why he thought he saw a minaret on Cuba.
So IMO he wasn’t lying. He really thought that Earth was smaller than it is and Asia extended farther east than it does. IMO the information he gained in Iceland and the Azores convinced him that Asia was reachable. I don’t think he imagined that two new continents lay in the Ocean Sea.
I thought I saw maps of his explorations throughout the Caribbean, and he definitely went west of where he established his “colony”.
they just don’t believe “what goes around comes around”
Well, technically you have to BE a flat-earther to believe that the IPCC has used models…
It isn’t perfectly round, the best description I could find was that it’s a bumpy oblate spheroid – maybe some of the respondents actually know more/are more pedantic, than the survey setter!
It may be the question: “I have always believed the world is round.”
When I was 4 I didn’t believe the earth was round or spherical, so I would have to answer no to that question. Since then I have believed it to be round/spherical, but which category would I be in if the poll doesn’t take into account that kind of honest answer?
One of my jobs was designing and contracting with polling firms for public opinion polling and focus groups. There are reasonably good pollsters and some big named truly awful pollsters. The 2016 election clearly indicated that the last out numbers the first. Some of the worst polling groups are at universities. Against my judgement I was required to contract with one of them. Many of those designing polling apparently took a course called “statistics for non-statisticians.” On one survey, in spite of contract requirements, they didn’t stratify the sample prior to conducting the survey, then collected the data, only then tried to stratify the sample, and then applied the most basic of statistics. Before providing us with survey results they went to the news media with their “profoundly amazing results”. It was not pretty. We were lucky because even the reporter they tried to use didn’t believe their results and came to us.
Polling has always had problems. They require extremely careful design, sampling stratification and a good use of the statistical model. However the world has changed dramatically when it comes to polling. Besides polling being misused, misreported, selectively reporter, just getting a reasonable accurate sample is tough due to call screening, mobile phones, etc. My rules of thumb for political polling are (1) if the answer is more than yes, no and no comment I pay little attention. (2) if the results show close to a 50-50 split I ignore the results, (3) if they results are a 60-40 split or more then I begin to pay attention, though I delve into the “banners and tabs” if available. And (4) if the no comment, don’t know, undecided or similar answer is more than 20% again I pay little attention to that specific poll.
Edwin,
Though I am long retired, in my corporate life one of the areas of responsibility which always landed in my lap was market research due to the fact that I had significant statistical educational background. Obtaining samples which were truly representative of the population from which one was attempting to obtain information was always the key issue, ie, sampling. Interview methodology had significant effect upon the accuracy of results along with question and questionnaire design. At times I used structured panels such as those offered by organizations such as NFO. All in all obtaining results which accurately predicted behavior were many times hit or miss. In the real world sometimes people really don’t know or just won’t tell you. Personal interviews, telephone interviews, mail interviews, or structued panels all have their pros and cons. Tabulating what people actually do vs demographic information was sometimes very helpful in predicting what they would do next. Stratified samples, with significant enough sample size in each cell was also very useful. Focus groups were a joke and only marginally useful in questionnaire design at best.
Actually, it’s just bots surveying other bots, for a fee of course.
The baby boomer pastime of crapping on Millennials carries on, I see. You really don’t understand the generation you birthed and raised, do you? If somebody asked me, unironically, “do you believe the earth is round?” My first thought is, time for some fun, and my answer would be.. “no… I believe it’s shaped like a starfish and smells like raspberries and has a big unicorn horn sticking out of the side of it that barfs rainbows at the moon!” What this poll represents and what the post represents is the desire of closed-minded old farts to bash the younger generation just like they were bashed (and rightfully so) when they were young. Just more entitlement from the ME generation. My attitude got you mad? In the words of Boomers everywhere, TOO BAD.
Now that you have that rant off your chest, do you have anything intelligent you want to add to the conversation?
Now that you have that rant off your chest…
Or skyscream?
I scream, you scream, we all scream for skyscream. 🙂
You really don’t understand the generation you birthed and raised, do you? If somebody asked me, unironically, “do you believe the earth is round?” My first thought is, time for some fun, and my answer would be.. “no… I believe it’s shaped like a starfish and smells like raspberries and has a big unicorn horn sticking out of the side of it that barfs rainbows at the moon!”
With all due respect to “the generation;” it would appear you’re argument for these answers is to blame your parents for birthing and raising a smarta**?
Why exactly is that mommy and daddy’s fault now that it would seem you’re grown up enough to, in Mark’s words, “rant” on the subject matter?
Just more evidence Millenials are immature brats.
I think a fair number of my boomer cohorts went in for the starfish, raspberry, unicorn thing also. That may be why I was not attracted by their joints and sugar cubes.
“the scientifically established view on the cause of global warming”
“But it was impossible to reconcile the data with the original report’s results for a number of technical reasons,”
“Although there are transparency standards in survey research, such as the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls, they are, regrettably, not universally followed.”
Oh, the irony.
A negative self-awareness of this magnitude forces us to reconsider not just whether the Earth is round, but whether the entire space-continuum may, in fact, be bent.
Really, why would anyone respond to such a poll honestly? Wouldn’t such questions bring out the inner troll in all of us?
Probably about as many as take it seriously.
Somewhere there is a video of graduating seniors at an ivy league school trying to explain the seasons. It is sobering to think of the resources spent educating them, and what results.
During the Apache Wars, a group of warriors being held prisoner at a Texas military base was asked if they knew the world was round. No, they all thought it quite obvious the world was flat. The officer in charge asked them to consider how, when they traveled away from a mountain on a flat plain, the mountain appeared to sink into the earth. He then made a diagram to show why this was so. They understood and accepted the explanation but failed to see why they should care.
I’m surprised an Apache didn’t respond that as the distance to the mountain increased, of course the angle of the line of sight to the peak lessened. He might add that in his experience a man’s apparent height reduced with distance even while his feet were still visible. (not yet over the horizon)
P.S. My experience of approaching the Rockies from the east was that the plains may be flat, but they are tilted up on the side nearest the Rockies. This tilt means the base of the mountains is visible as far away as details can be made out. If you are far enough away for the base of the mountains to be over the horizon, a local ridge is already blocking the view.
SR
My bet is thst except for a tiny number of mentally ill people nearly all those claiming to believe in “flat earth” are indulging in trolling.
The music video is incredible!! lololol
For most Millenials the world is flat.
With dimensions 5″ by 3″.
There used to be a globe in every classroom. Orbits within the solar system were a big deal. Now there is apparently just global warming brainwashing.
“I have always believed the world is round.”
Not only invites a negative response because its spheroid but also because they believed it was flat when they were 5yo. How hard is it to write a proper survey?
And now my pet hate. The very left leaning online Encyclopedia Britannica on Columbus no longer points out that the flat earth myth is that it was never believed.
I believe, if you travel far enough on the Earth’s surface, things tend to repeat.
What are they smoking? The Earth is round and “our civilization actually exists on the inside of the globe. We are held fast to the ground not by gravity, but by centrifugal force as the Earth rotates. The stars, so goes the theory, are twinkling chunks of ice suspended high in the air, and the illusion of day and night is caused by a rotating central sun that is half brilliant, half dark.”
/SARC
I wonder if respondents to this 2017 Gallup poll on evolution lied.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
It shows that only 38% of Americans surveyed now agree that, “God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”. That’s the lowest level of support for Young Earth Creationism found in 35 years.
Even so, that’s still twice as many (19%) who believe that, “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process”. Another 30% thought that evolution with God somehow involved was the ticket, for overall support for some kind of evolution at 49%.
Big differences in geography, religious belief and education level have been found in such surveys of US opinion.
A 2014 poll found that 56% of Americans still then believed that “Adam and Eve were real people”, and 44% believed so with strong or absolute certainty.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html
So the flat earth finding might not result from respondents’ lying.
https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
Problem: “ancient “Adam” and ancient “Eve” probably didn’t even live near each other, let alone mate”
Where does the Bible say the earth is flat?
Sheri, I don’t think Sgt meant the Bible says the Earth is flat. I think he said silly Millenials believing the Earth is flat is comparable with silly Christians believing statements found in the Bible are true. His point was that since many people believe silly things, those Millenials may have actually believed the Earth is flat, that they may not have been kidding the pollsters.
On the question of whether the Bible says the Earth is flat, see:
Job 26:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness.
(Other translations use “compass”, which means “circle”)
This is the Earth’s terminator – the curving edge of the sunlit side of the Earth. It makes a circle because the Earth is a sphere. The Bible reveals that the Earth is a sphere by describing a view of the Earth from space at a time in history when none could have known the terminator makes a circle, or that there is a terminator.
SR
Okay, but I find people who call religion silly to be offensive. One could equally claim the silly ones are the nonbelievers.
I didn’t call religion silly.
I’m merely stating what the Bible plainly says, taking its meaning literally.
Steve,
You are correct as to my point.
Sheri,
The Earth is clearly flat in the Bible, to include both Testaments. For the Old Testament, that’s no surprise, since the standard Near Eastern cosmological model was a flat Earth covered by a solid dome. Until the beginning of Greek science c. 600 BC, that was also the classical European “consensus”.
An Old Testament passage showing a flat Earth is Isaiah 11:12 (KJV):
“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
A globe-shaped Earth does not have corners. Other translations render “corners” as “quarters”. The Hebrew word, also used in the same way in Ezekiel 7 and twice in Job, is כַּנְפ֥וֹת (“kanaph”).
The Greek equivalent is so used in Revelation 7:1, ie γωνίας (“gonias”).
Another New Testament passage showing a flat Earth is Matthew 4:8 (KJV):
“Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”.
Obviously, this would not be possible on an Earth shaped like a ball.
When you combine passages such as these with those showing an immovable Earth, supported by pillars, over which the sun passes, and covered by a “firmament” or “vault of heaven”, it is clear that biblical cosmology is that of the ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, which is only to be expected.
In the OT, God walks upon the vault of heaven, from which hang the stars, which can fall to Earth. He opens and closes the storehouses of snow, rain and other precipitation. God also sits on the edge of the Earth, from whence people look to Him like insects. He personally laid the foundation of the motionless Earth.
Isaiah 40:22 (KJV):
“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:”
The Hebrew word here translated as “circle” is elsewhere rendered “circuit”, as in “edge”. It also shows, yet again, that the heavens are solid. In Genesis the Hebrew word for the dome of heaven is “raqiyeh”, an onomatopoetic word, like English “racket”, which means something pounded out, as a bowl.
Sgt,
When I look at any weather site on the internet, watch any weather program on TV, read the weather page in any newspaper, I see or hear “The sun sets at xx:xx” and “The sun rises tomorrow at xx:xx”. – The sun clearly circles the Earth in our culture. That is what I might think if I took what was plainly printed (or plainly said), taking the meaning literally, just as you said you do of the Bible. Of course, we all know the phrases “sunrise” and “sunset” are not literal , but are descriptive. The sun merely appears to rise and set. I should not take a phrase literally when it was used descriptively, figuratively, metaphorically or any other way not meant to be literal.
And neither should you. Yet, that is what you did. None of your Bible references were intended literally. Most were metaphorical or descriptive.
EXAMPLE:
“Isaiah 40:22 (KJV):
“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:”
The Hebrew word here translated as “circle” is elsewhere rendered “circuit”, as in “edge”.”
You state at the end that the word “circle” means edge. Yes, it is elsewhere rendered “circuit”, and used as an equivalent for “circle”. Nowhere is it used like “edge”. The Hebrew is “chuwg” as best I can type it, meaning “a circle”
The actual word of interest in that verse is “upon”. You quoted the KJV, which was written in English as used 400 years ago. Every version translating this verse into current English uses “above”.
Isaiah 40:22 New International Version (NIV)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers…
This is a description of appearances. God is looking down at the Earth as if from a great height. People look like bugs on the apparently round disc of the world. This verse describes how a sphere in space would look from a distance.
“sitting upon the edge of the Earth” is clearly wrong, as people would be up close, not distant.
How about verses written to be understood literally:
Job 26:7 New International Version (NIV)
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
Job 26:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness.
If you take only the literal verses literally, the Bible describes a spherical Earth suspended in space, half lit by the sun.
SR
SR,
While we use “sun rise” and “sun set” figuratively, the Bible doesn’t.
I’ve replied with some biblical passages showing a flat earth and geocentric universe, but am under moderation.
Please check this space.
Thanks.
Sgt, I am interested in what you have to say, but I cannot agree that the Bible does not use figurative, metaphorical, descriptive, etc words and phrases:
John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in…
P.S. I was in moderation for most of the night upthread, for no reason I can figure.
SR
SR,
Of course the Bible uses figurative language. But not in its Old Testament cosmology. The Greek New Testament is a very different kind of compilation of writings from the Old.
If my citations of obviously flat earth and geocentric passages is lost forever in cyberspace, I won’t reassemble them. Knowing how often this happens, I should have saved my long, original response.
Suffice it to say that for 1500 years all Christian denominations were in agreement that the Bible supported geocentrism. The Church abandoned the biblical flat earth from about AD 400 because Augustine wisely argued that propagation of the faith among educated pagans was more important than adherence to biblical literalism.
So the Church accepted a spherical earth, while retaining biblical geocentrism.
What Church Fathers believe about the universe and what the Bible says about it definitely are not the same thing. Many verses are not understood when written. Understanding comes later when more is understood.
SR
Sorry, I had to truncate my 7:59 response. I intended to say:
Understanding comes later when more is revealed, or when world events shed light on a prophetic scripture.
I am sure no one could make sense of Job 26:10 until photos of Earth from space were available. The 2nd half of Isaiah 40:22 was a puzzler before Edwin Hubble came along. Those Scriptures may have been put into the Bible long ago so that people of this day would realize God is the guy behind the curtain.
SR
Sr,
People made proper sense of Job 26:10 millennia before photos of Earth from space were available. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. Much of Job was indeed obscure, however, until elucidated by the discovery of the Ugaritic texts.
That goes double for the 2nd half of Isaiah 40:22. How can you possibly imagine that a verse which has God sitting on the edge of the Earth, looking down on people, who appear as insects, bears any relation to what is now known of the Earth as a planet orbiting the sun?
Contrary to your interpretation, the idea that the heavens are spread out like a tent, ie a solid structure, over the Earth, was one of the passages which Augustine said harmed the propagation of the faith, since educated pagans knew how unphysical it was. It’s just another version of the “firmament” or “vault of heaven”, the solid structure covering the flat Earth.
It bears no relationship whatsoever with Edwin Hubble’s observations. You read into passages whatever you want, without justification, while declaring others obviously meant to be taken literally to be “figurative”.
Just one question. How do you interpret Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 12, in which “a man in Christ”, apparently himself, visited the Third Heaven?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Corinthians-Chapter-12/
And in Ephesians 6, whom do you suppose are the “principalities and powers” with whom Christians wrestle?
The Books of 1 and 2 Enoch will make all clear, with much else mysterious in both Testaments. Enoch, as you may recall, was the father of Methuselah, hence an ancestor of Noah. Enoch lived 365 years, then, “walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him” (Gen 5:21–24), which some Christians interpret as Enoch’s entering Heaven alive.
The Books of Enoch (except the third, which is bogus) are now in the Jewish apocrypha, but were very popular in Jesus’ time, being the second most common book in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls. Snippets were incorporated into the Roman canonical New Testament. All of 1 Enoch is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the entirety of 2 Enoch survives in the Bulgarian Orthodox canon. Bits of its Aramaic and Greek originals or version have also survived.
There are good theological (rather than cosmological) reasons why the two books of Enoch didn’t make it into the Masoretic text of the OT, but they show what biblical cosmology truly was. Paul clearly was familiar with them.
In the apocryphal books, Enoch visited the ten heavens, saw God both from afar and close up, and encountered various angels, fallen and not, to include principalities and powers. There is no way to equate 21st century cosmology with the heavens described in Enoch and in the canonical Bible. One of the heavens has the constellations, and in the next heaven lives the personage responsible for moving them.
Nowhere in the Bible is Earth a spherical planet going around the sun, with outer space between it and its sister planets, with the whole system orbiting the galactic barycenter. Not even close.
I refer you to John Calvin, to whom it was obvious that biblical cosmology didn’t reflect physical reality. For him, it was the waters above the firmament. His explanation was perfectly rational. The author of the first creation story in Genesis was writing for a prescientific audience. He took standard Mesopotamian and Egyptian cosmology (reworking old myths about which Calvin had no knowledge) and injected the God of Abraham into it. No problem. What mattered to him, as to Augustine, was the propagation of the True Faith, ie revelation of doctrinal issues critical to salvation, not the lack of science in the Bible.
If you look for it, you can see that scriptures using phrases like ‘Pillars of the Earth, the vault of the heavens, are indeed metaphorical or figurative, etc. It isn’t that God was saying one thing for then, and another for now. It is and was, that God speaks to us using concepts we can understand. The pillars of the Earth in first Samuel 2:8 are figurative. The wordage tells people in 1000 BC that God maintains the Earth. They would know the pillars are figurative because Job 26:7 was written earlier. Yes, they paid that close of attention.
SR
SR,
My long list of flat earth and geocentric passages appears permanently lost or moderated out for some reason.
So I’ll just comment on Job 26:10, which does not imply with a spherical Earth.
“He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.”
This passage probably refers merely to the horizon as seen at sea, the line that terminates light and commences darkness, called here עד תכלית אור עם חשך ad tachlith or im chosech, giving “until the completion of light with darkness”.
Or, if תכלית tachlith here be the same as תכלת techeleth, in Exodus 25:4 and elsewhere, translated as “blue”, it may mean that somber sky-blue appearance of the horizon at the time of twilight, i.e., between light and darkness; the line where the one is terminating and the other commencing.
Or, He so circumscribes the waters, retaining them in their own place, that they shall not be able to overflow the earth until day and night, that is, time itself, comes to an end.
But most likely the first interpretation, IMO.
Nowhere in the Bible are the vault of heaven or pillars of the earth figurative. As shown by Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Canaanite myth and art, the ancients thought of the earth as flat and covered by a dome. The sun ran over earth under the dome, then returned to the place of his rising, either under the earth or outside of the dome.
The earth-dome complex is surrounded by waters below and waters above, not by outer space. God walks on the solid dome, from which hang the singing stars. He personally operates the levers of the storehouses of snow and other precipitation on the dome.
“Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; And He walks on the vault of heaven.” Job 22:14 (NASB)
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?” Job 38:22-23 (NIV)
The Book of Enoch was the second most popular among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which belonged to Jesus’ sect, the Essenes. The book didn’t make it into the Hebrew Masoretic text (7th to 10th centuries AD), upon which Christian OTs are based, because Enoch went straight to heaven, like Jesus.
Bits of Enoch are quoted in the Bible, but only the Ethiopian Orthodox canon preserves the whole book. It makes clear the ancient cosmology underlying passages in the canons lacking Enoch.
Sgt,
Many words have multiple meanings, and multiple uses foe each meaning, and multiple derivatives. A simple example is the word “day”. It can be used to indicate a period of time equivalent to 24 hours, or just the sunlit portion of each 24 hours. We decide which is meant from context.
Note the word “vault”. It derives from the Latin “volvere” which means to “travel a circular course”. Revolve, as in planets revolve, also derives from this word. “vault” merely means “curved”. A vaulted ceiling is called that because it is formed into a circular curve, not because it is solid. A soap bubble is a vault. A dome is one form of a vaulted ceiling. Think of it as an arch that has been rotated around its apex. Domes are hemispheres (semi-spheres).
Again, “vault” means “circular curve”
He walks on the vault of heaven.” Job 22:14 (NASB)
“Vault” is rendered in 16 translations, as “dome” in 4 translations, as “circuit” in 6 translations, and as “circle” in 6 translations.
The Hebrew is “chuwg”, commonly understood as meaning “circle’ or “circuit”.
Many translations use “in” or “above” instead of “on”.
KJV … and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
Sgt, I don’t think your claim that “vaulted heaven” = literal solid dome, is confirmed by the text at all. That phrase is just as figurative as our modern phrase “celestial dome”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky
Job 26:10 has always been problematic for translators, because they couldn’t make sense of it. It contains that same Hebrew word “chuwg”, meaning circle or circuit.
Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
“Chuwg” often gets translated, as above, as”horizon”. This is a problem because the horizon at sea does not actually divide light from dark. In my experience, during the day the horizon divides light blue from darker blue, unless the sky is overcast, then it divides 2 shades of gray. During the night it divides dim from very dim. I think “light and darkness” is context that disallows the use of “horizon”. Thus 19 translations use “circle”, the most straight forward translation.
Job 26:10 also contains ‘owr, meaning light, or daylight;
choshek, meaning darkness, or night;
ad, meaning “as far as”, used for distance or time (until);
and choq, meaning decree, enactment, appointed, bound.
So many possibilities just could not be resolved. That is, until you see a picture like this:
Job 26:10 NASB
He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.
P.S. If you still hold to your position, Sgt, there is no point in us going further.
SR
SR,
Were the firmament not solid, God could not be said to walk on it in order to let precipitation fall down from the storehouses of the rain, snow, hail, etc.
The Hebrew word “raqiya”, translated in the Greek Septuagint as “stereoma” and thence by Jerome into Latin as “firmamentum”, whence English “firmament” literally means something pounded out.
The firmament, dome or vault of heaven is variously described in the Bible as crystalline, metallic or spread over Earth like a tent, but always solid. The biblical flat Earth is surrounded by the waters above the firmament and the waters below, not by outer space.
Earth in the Bible is flat, covered by a solid dome. No other interpretation of its plain words is possible. The passages in which God Himself lays the foundations of the Earth with his own hands aren’t figurative, but meant literally.
No. What translation of Genesis do you prefer I disagree with you using?
RA,
Is that question directed to me?
There are tendentious translations which try lamely to render “raqiya” as “expanse”, but they’re totally bogus.
The word, like English “racket”, is an example of onomatopoeia. The Greek-speaking Jewish scholars at Hellenistic Alexandria who translated the Septuagint in the last centuries BC rendered it as “stereoma”, having to do with firmness and solidity.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/stereoma.html
The Greek root is “stereoo”, which means to make solid, firm, strong or strengthen. The ancient Hebrew scholars knew what “raqiya” meant.
It’s not just in the first creation story in Genesis in which the firmament or vault of heaven appears. Everywhere in the Bible, the Earth is flat and covered by a solid dome.
” Another 30% thought that evolution with God somehow involved was the ticket, for overall support for some kind of evolution at 49%.”
Adding the 30% for God directed evolution to the 38% believing God created humans within the last 10,000 years yields 68% believing God made humans compared to only 19% believing in no God.
Interesting that the percent of people who believe that life could spontaneously start up (19%) is so close to the percent of Millenials (17.5%) who claim to doubt the Earth is round.
SR
I have been warning people for years. I have been mocked by WUWT readers.
(The following isn’t truthism.)
Why do people accept the official WTC structural failure explanation?
Maybe because it’s sound. But then, the same people get their news from sources that still can’t use the correct unit for energy (while claiming that energy is the most serious issue in geopolitics or for Earth survival) or ionizing radiation dose rate, many years after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. So these people wouldn’t be able to recognize a sound description of a structural failure. Not credible.
They accept an explanation because it sounds legit, it comes from a trusted source, or they like it.
You can’t tell x people accept the official explanation when these people have not been exposed to the “refutation” of that official explanation. They accept it by default. Until every person has heard the 9-11 truth “arguments” you can’t say anything.
Round Earth came from a trusted source and they accepted it. Now the Internet says there is a debate on the shape of Earth so maybe it’s flat, trihedral or a torus.
Same for the Apollo missions, some people believe they happened as described only because they worship NASA. Nothing NASA did or might have done can be questioned.
For the same reason, until someone vaccinated has been in contact with a pathogen, you can’t say anything about the effectiveness of the vaccine.
And if people HAVE researched it, you likely will call them stupid or an idiot and dismiss them for disagreeing with you. I’ve seen it—NOTHING is evidence to those who “BELIEVE”.
Sheri, laudable, but you’re wasting your time…….
Probably, but I sometimes give it a shot.
Probably, but I sometimes give it a shot.
Good, because even if you don’t convince this one, another may come along and either be convinced, or a seed is planted for our Maker to give the increase. You just never know.
????????