It is really hard to be open minded...

[IDLEchild]

....when you read that people actually believe in this.

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

and....

One of the weaker scriptural arguments is that the sky literally has openings (windows) which God can open to let the waters above fall to the surface as rain (see Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah 51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10).

also...

Those who claim Biblical support for a spherical earth typically ignore this forest of consistency and focus on one or two aberrant trees. Some take refuge in audacity. Henry Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, cites one of the more explicitly flat-earth verses in the Old Testament Isaiah 40:22, the “grasshopper” verse quoted earlier as evidence for the sphericity of the earth. Quoting the King James version “he sitteth upon the circle of the earth” Morris ignores the context and the grasshoppers and claims “circle” should read “sphericity” or “roundness” [1956, 8]. This divide and conquer strategy is poor scholarship and worse logic.

Heroic efforts have been made by apologists to explain away the firmament, which encloses the celestial bodies, has waters above it, and is a masterpiece proving the Creator's craftsmanship. The late Harold W. Armstrong argued that it is empty Newtonian space, and that the “waters above” still surround the edges of the universe, though perhaps not in liquid form [1979, 26]. This simply ignores difficulties and invents evidence. Gerardus Bouw tried to identify the firmament as a mathematical plenum [1987]. In my view, it is a grave error to reinterpret ancient documents to force their authors to speak with modern voices. Gary Zukov [1979] and Fritjof Capra [1976], for instance, read modern physics into the teachings of eastern mysticism. I consider all such attempts equally suspect.

I understand the need to believe but when you flat out ignore hard evidence...well that says something.

How badly do some people need to believe in something?

Full text

 

[Shadowfax]

my typical reaction to things like that is:

and then i continue what i was doing.

 

[Gonz]

When somebody believes something so outlandish as this why bother keeping an open mind? Look at the presented evidence. If it factual ridiculous & easilyt disproven it's not worthy of further discussion.

 

[freako104]

I usually ignore people who do believe this.

 

[RDX]

It is rather absurd that people try to find evidence of scientific principles (or lack thereof), based on sections of the Bible that were not meant to be taken literally in the first place. Almost all of those references were taken from portions of the Bible that were either prophetic, symbolic, idealistic or a combination of these characteristics. I am sure that most, if not all, of the wriiters of the Bible believed in a flat earth, so it is no supprise that they would write in that manner.

In my view, it is a grave error to reinterpret ancient documents to force their authors to speak with modern voices.

That about sums it up. It does raise some interesting questions for Christians though(or any other religious group that is governed by an older text). Sometimes it is plainly obvious when a text was meant to be taken literally or not, but sometimes the distinction is not so clear. Just how does one decide when something is to be taken literally or not?

 

[MrBishop]

That about sums it up. It does raise some interesting questions for Christians though(or any other religious group that is governed by an older text). Sometimes it is plainly obvious when a text was meant to be taken literally or not, but sometimes the distinction is not so clear. Just how does one decide when something is to be taken literally or not?

I'm afraid that it goes beyond that. The Bible has gone through numerous translations, revisions, interpretations and edits since each book was written. Not all the books of the Bible are still present...and several were just cut from the text entirely. The timeline of the writing of the books covers centuries and attempted to put down spoken stories passed down through generations. The books aren't even in the order in which they were written.

IMHO...it would be a grave mistake to take any part of the biblical story literally. The alegories and morals being passed down shouldn't have changed too dramatically though...at least the core ones.

 

[freako104]

it also has had certain stories changed or taken out entirely. I think it was in the middle ages when the Church was canonising the Bible. so those stories may have more to them that isnt being said.(along with the interpertations and all)