The Earth is flat and the mindset you need to see it in the Scriptures (Bible)
The Earth portrayed as a globe is such an unquestionable theory that most believers and unbelievers alike will defend it until their last drop of blood. No wonder, the devil has such a power over the world, his theories are taken as granted, as if Science was god. What most fail to understand is that Science is the realm of the evil one and Science became the god of this world. The Scriptures, however, tell us that we live on a flat earth, under the dome of the sky. This post is going to lay the foundation for future posts about the flat Earth.
"Who is this who darkens counsel
by words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man,
for I will question you, then you answer me!
- Job 38:2-3 (WEB)
Literal vs figurative speech
One of the most common defense mechanisms believers bring up to disprove the flat Earth is using the argument for figurative speech. They say that what we read in the Scriptures about the flat Earth is "figurative speech". When asked, they fail to answer the question "how do we differentiate between literal vs figurative speech?". The answer to this will debunk this first defense.
For this exercise, let's walk through the story of creation.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light “day”, and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Most people have no problem with day one of creation. It's accepted as literal speech. Creating heaven and earth, creating light and separating it from darkness may be difficult to understand but we accept it as a miracle of God. But wait: you then literally accept something that Science doesn't because according to Science there are no miracles.
God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let dry land appear,” and that is how it was. God called the dry land Earth, the gathering together of the water he called Seas, and God saw that it was good.
- Genesis 1:6-10 (CJB)
Waters under and above the dome? According to Christians, that must be "figurative speech" because there's no water above the skies! And their reason: it's a Scientific fact.
I understand. If you want to fit the "waters above" in the model of the Earth that we were taught by Science then you must conclude that it's just "figurative speech". But then you'd need to conclude that even though the whole story of creation is clearly literal speech this one is an exception for unknown reasons.
The other option is that the whole story of creation is figurative speech. If the waters under and above the skies are just figurative speech then "night" and "day" are also just "figurative speech". Based on this we could conclude that we actually have no night and no day because all this is just "figurative speech". We could also conclude that there's no light either because that's just "figurative speech", too. And then creating the heavens and earth would become "figurative speech" also, further proving Science, not Yahuah.
God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth”; and it was so. The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs to mark seasons, days, and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
God said, “Let the waters abound with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky.” God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
Continuing this thought then "see" and "earth" and every tangible thing created - these would be all "figurative speech" - further proving Science and evolution, not God. After all, how can God create just by uttering words? Science doesn't accept that! Things like that happen over millions of years by accident according to Science.
Yahuah God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Continuing this thought then Adam being formed from the dust would be just another "figurative speech" because how could God create a man from the earth? Science doesn't tell us so, we have "no proof for this". And it sounds "ridiculous", right? After all, Science has ultrasound to look at the embryo so therefore, God could not have created Adam from the dust of the ground. Because all this is "just figurative speech".
And how about Eve?
Yahuah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. As the man slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Yahuah God made a woman from the rib which had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
Continuing this thought we have no other option but to admit: this is for sure a "figurative speech" because how can God take a rib out from Adam and make Eve out of it? That's ridiculous, right? That must be "figurative speech" because Science doesn't accept this. All sorts of questions arise: How did He make him sleep? How did He form Eve? There's no scientific evidence for this.
But the truth is this: Yahuah created the Earth and the Sea and every living thing in a way that Science does not accept. Waters above the skies is just as literal as day and night or creating Adam from the dust. We have chicken and dogs and cats and trees in our garden, all tangible, non-figurative literal things - all miraculously created by God.
Here's where the two roads diverge. One way is Science, the other one is God. You're the one who will need to make the choice which one you'll believe. Using the excuse of "figurative speech" is embarrassing and is just a sign of trying to hide from the truth.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost
Accommodating Scripture to Science
You may not have heard about this but Calvin's "doctrine of accommodation" enabled Christians to accept findings of Science even if they didn't completely match the Scriptures.
The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds. "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin. "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's "doctrine of accommodation" allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.
The doctrine of accommodation is basically the idea that God authored the Scriptures in a way that we "silly little children" can understand, however these things may not be so as the adult God knows that Science is right.
Accommodation (or condescension) is the theological principle that God, while being in his nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to. The concept is that scripture has accommodated, or made allowance for, the original audience's language and general level of understanding.
The 16th-century Protestant Reformer John Calvin is a key developer of the concept, in response to that century's discoveries in natural science, foremost Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism that conflicted with medieval theological traditions of reading the Bible "through geocentric spectacles".
In other words, according to Calvin, when we read in Genesis that there is water above the dome, God used a human architectural picture for his "silly little children" to be able to comprehend that actually He created a Globe. If you think this makes no sense, you're not alone. But in fact, most Christians adopted this thought process of condescension. Is it any surprise then that, consequently, they also label many literal stories of the Scriptures as figurative speech?
Searching for the truth without Bias and testing everything
The best results in life are often held back by false constructs and untested assumptions
- Tim Ferris
Whether it's about believing that Yahuah's Instructions (Torah) is abolished, believing that Yahuah created a heliocentric globe Earth, or believing that Shabbat is from Evening to Evening it's about us having a preconceived idea that we don't dare to question and don't put it to the test.
When we don't want to test something we won't put in the necessary time and effort to find the truth. So we research with bias just to disprove the new information that tries to attack our world-view. We try to defend our views and we don't really want to understand it.
You can't find the truth without being open to exploring different options and without the mindset "what if I'm wrong?". We should be testing everything!
However, many Christians hearing about the flat Earth will turn to what they learned from Science instead of Scripture and say things like:
"But then how do you explain the periods of night and day and how about the seasons?"
"How do you explain that people circumnavigate the earth?"
"How do you explain meteors?"
Why don't you rather examine the Scriptures to prove or disprove the flat Earth? Do you see that this is simply dwelling on your current understanding taught by Science? These are not really questions, these are defense mechanisms to disprove the danger you're facing. Just like an ostrich, when she puts her head in the sand and thinks that just because she can't see the danger it doesn't exist. You're escaping. And the danger you're trying to disprove is this: you may have been wrong. Is this such a big thing? After all, everybody has been wrong at some point in their lives. But you taught the globe Earth to your children, and explained God to unbelievers using the universe and so you'd need to retrain your children and adopt a new worldview to testify about your faith. And? Can't you humble yourself? Isn't it more dangerous to lie to yourself and to the world than to admit: you were wrong based on a lie that you were taught?
When responding to these initial Science-related questions with thought through answers there's no appreciation or further discussion about the answers but further defense-questions.
"How do you explain the changing Moon phases?"
"How do you explain the existence of other planets?"
"How do you explain air programs?"
Not that these questions are inherently wrong. In fact, we can and should find the answers to these questions. The problem is where these questions come from. These never ending questions without appreciating clear answers already given and not even entertaining the possibility of these answers being right, prove that the person is not trying to understand the topic but wants to catch you.
Science-god vs the real God, Yahuah
People don't realize that they accept readily everything that Science tells them. They bring Science to a level higher than Yahuah, the Almighty. They accept what Science says because Science, we are told, is based on researchable and repeatable experiments.
knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
What you don't know though is that Science is the forefront of the Devil. It was the devil that created Science in order to disprove the existence of God. The devil concocted Science in order to deceive all nations to believe in Science-god, instead of the one true Almighty, Yahuah - whose name is forever blessed.
Well, it turns out that the lie that we live on a globe Earth, the lie that there is a vast universe, the lie that we're just so small in this universe, the lie that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun are fueling our atheist culture, the theory of Big Bang, Darwinism, homosexuality and sin. People no longer look up to the skies and wonder how the stars have a clear route in the dome sky. People no longer go out to the meadow and think about the Earth they live on, looking at the horizon all around and perceive that the Earth is flat. People no longer look at the grass and the flowers and the bees and the trees and ask how all these came into existence. People now accept everything the way Science tells them. Science is this world's god.
But if people were interested in these things and wanted to ask questions, they would come to the conclusion that there's a Creator. Then we could come and preach to them about Yahuah and His Instructions. If people were told that the Earth is flat and Science lied to their faces, they would want to ask questions, they would want to look up to the skies and wonder how things are.