(Don’t like to read? Scroll to bottom for video version!)
The belief that the earth is flat has, since about 2012, been on the rise, particularly in western nations such as the United States and Canada (Faulkner, 2019). Although some nominal Christians are flat-earthers, the community is actually quite eclectic with devotees having a variety of beliefs ranging from new age spiritualism, to deism, all the way to pantheism. Surprisingly, conservative, evangelical Christians seem to have also been caught up within this growing movement.
Although a plethora of YouTube videos discuss this topic from a scientific perspective, there is very little content that addresses flat-earthism from a Scriptural perspective—most likely because Christian leaders think the phenomenon is so absurd it requires no apologetic critique. Yet many sincere Christians are being led astray because they are told that the Bible not only teaches that the earth is flat, but that rejecting this interpretation is tantamount to being deceived by Satan.
If that is you, then let me say at the outset that my goal in this series is not to misjudge or ridicule you. I fully understand the tension that exists between science and Scripture and admire a tenacious desire to put God’s word first. As I will show, however, there is no need to be concerned. The Bible categorically does not teach that the earth is flat.
One of the most common arguments that flat earthers use to support their model is the Scriptural evidence describing the apparent movement of the sun through the sky. So, verses like Psalm 50:1 (KJV), “The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.” As it turns out there are multiple verses that say something like this in one form or another, so how should the Christian respond?
Well, the first thing we need to keep in mind before going forward is to recognize that verses such as these have got nothing to do with whether the earth is a flat, circular disk or a sphere. Does the movement of the sun through the sky, whether apparent or “real,” have any bearing whatsoever on the flatness or sphericity of earth? And the answer is no. As it turns out, passages related to the sun’s rising and setting are used as proof texts by those endorsing another belief called geocentrism—that is, that the earth is stationary with the sun orbiting the earth. The heliocentric model has earth orbiting a stationary sun. So, although these passages don’t argue for or against a flat earth, they are used in tandem with other Scriptural passages by flat-earthers to help leverage their overall flat earth model. I point this out because unfortunately, many Christians don’t know this. So, to emphasise, Scriptures that talk about the rising and the setting of the sun do not one way or the other prove that the earth is a flat round disk, a circular sphere, or even a square cube for that matter.
Since, however, these verses are discussed in flat-earth literature, then it will be important to address them. The key to understanding all of these texts can be found in the language being used. It is phenomenological. That simply means that the language being used is true to the person experiencing the phenomenon. It is the language of appearances. Even today, and given our heliocentric worldview, we still say that the sun rises and sets. All of us use observational language every day, whether we are talking to our wife about a beautiful sunset or to our child whose shoes “just keep getting smaller”!
Clear examples of this phenomenological approach can also be found elsewhere in Scripture. For example, in Acts 27:27 Luke says (Young’s Literal Translation), “And when the fourteenth night came — we being borne up and down in the Adria—toward the middle of the night the sailors were supposing that some country drew nigh to them.” A straight forward rendition of the Greek clearly says that it was the land that drew near to the ship, not the ship drawing near to the land.
Most modern translations have, however, removed the ambiguity. The KJV, for example, says, “But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country.” But the Greek is unambiguous. It was the land that drew near to the ship—clearly an absurdity if taken in overly wooden, literal sense. There is no problem with the text, however, if we understand that Luke was using the language of appearances. This is what it looked like for the sailors, even though they knew full well that it was the ship that was moving.
As it turns out, there is another kind of language that people use to describe reality. This is called scientific language. When using scientific language, the person is wanting to get to the very heart of natural phenomena. This way of describing reality deals with the way things work and is akin to modern methods of scientific investigation. When an astronomer moves from his observational perspective, say, taking a walk in the park with his wife at sunset, to one that seeks to explain the sunset using reasoning and evidence, say, in a classroom filled with students, then his language naturally changes. While in the park he might turn to his wife and declare, “you know dear, the going down of the sun tonight has really set the clouds on fire,” yet when talking to his students in a classroom, he will naturally change the language to suit the occasion.
Both ways of talking about reality are true but importantly have completely different goals. The Bible rarely uses scientific language and almost always uses the language of observation or appearance because this is the normal way of referencing aspects of the real world.
I challenge you to try and describe a sunset using scientific language by keeping all reference to observation out of your description. You’ll find that your portrayal will sound very weird. And that’s because all of us use phenomenological language all the time, every day. In fact, the only time you’ll come across theoretical language is when someone is trying to show you how something works, like when you are at school listening to your earth science teacher.
Quite honestly, this distinction between phenomenological and scientific language should be enough to satisfy most people’s objections, but as it turns out it is not. Someone could object and state that the use of phenomenological or observational language cannot work as a solution because most ancient cultures actually believed in a flat earth and all of them believed that the sun, moon, and stars orbited a stationary earth. So, when David penned Psalm 50:1, he did so as a geocentric flat-earther. This objection is usually put forward by both liberal theologians and Bible believing flat-earthers. The liberal theologians will say that David was mistaken and so the Bible has errors, while flat-earthers will say that David was correct thus proving that the Bible supports a geocentric, flat earth cosmology.
But, and this is really important, does it really matter what David believed? For example, if a bona fide geocentric flat-earther turned to you and said that this evening’s sunset was exceptionally stunning, is his statement in error just because he believes that the sun is objectively moving through the sky? The answer is no. If you did not know the person was a geocentric flat-earther, you’d not only be none the wiser, but you would probably encourage his statement by reciprocating in the affirmative. “Yes, it most definitely was stunning, especially as the sun slipped under the horizon, setting off that dazzling light show against the backdrop of the clouds.” You see phenomenological language is always true regardless of what the person believes. That means David’s statement about the movement of the sun through the sky was completely accurate, regardless of whether he believed in a flat earth, a spherical earth, or even if he’d never really given it a moment’s thought. It just doesn’t matter.
But what about when it is God who is speaking, as in Malachi 1:11 (KJV), “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles.”
Yet even here we can appeal to the use of phenomenological language and not scientific language. God is speaking through a prophet to the people of Israel who are located on the earth. Remember, God is not teaching his people about planetary motion. Instead, God is clearly schooling His people in the reality of a future where all people shall worship God all the time. That’s the point. Think about it, if God revealed Himself through a modern prophet today and that prophet spoke these words to the nations of the earth, would the message include references to the rotation of the planet? Of course not, that would be just plain weird. It would be stated exactly as it is recorded in Malachi.
Of course, even this solution does not please everybody. According to ardent critics, the Bible as God’s authoritative word is responsible to ensure that it speaks to that which is “real.” So, whenever the Bible appeals to observational reality, then the onus is on God to speak as accurately as possible about the natural world. If He does not, then either the Bible is in error, the liberal approach, or the spherical, heliocentric view of modern science is wrong, the view of the modern geocentric flat-earther. So, when Joshua said, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed” (Joshua 10:12-13 KJV), then the sun literally stood still. But as Bible scholar Vern Poythress has astutely observed, using words like “real” or “reality” is often fraught with all sorts of problems when discussing motion.
To correctly suggest that it is the earth that actually moves and not the sun can itself turn into a false statement dependent on one’s relative frame of reference. Using scientific language, most of us would confidently declare that the sun is stationary while the earth is moving. But is this entirely true? If I was positioned on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and then given the appropriate experimental equipment, I would see the sun, the earth, and in fact the entire solar system, move in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way—at least according to my heliocentric view of the universe. Given this frame of reference, the statement about a stationary sun would prove false. You see, the quest to find a universal body that is truly at rest is, as all astronomers know, elusive. Everything is in motion and so the language of motion is absolutely dependent on one’s frame of reference. This is why Poythress says, “As the theory of relativity has made amply evident, to eliminate the observational standpoint is to eliminate the very ability to talk coherently about motion and rest” (Poythress 2019, p. 73). In a real sense then, it was scientifically accurate for Joshua to say, relative to him, the sun actually, in an objective sense, stood still. Consider these words from astronomer and young-age creationist Dr. Danny Faulkner:
“Since all we can ever measure is relative motion, in many respects, we are free to use whatever standard of rest we wish. For instance, I believe that it is the earth that rotates each day, producing sunrise and sunset. However, sunrise and sunset could be explained by a stationary earth around which the sun and everything else spins once per day. Therefore, in a very real sense, the sun does rise and set each day. I’m not appealing merely to appearance or saying that sunrise and sunset are phenomenological. I’m saying that in a very real sense, the sun does move in the sky each day” (Faulkner 2019, p. 204). Personally, I find the phenomenological explanation completely satisfying, but if you’re really struggling with that, then you have the freedom to look at things from an earth-bound frame of reference.
Finally, as it turns out, flat-earthers must themselves engage in the language of appearances. And that is because in all flat-earth models, the sun never dips below the horizon. According to flat-earthers, the sun never “rises” or “sets.” It is merely going around and around in a circuit. Flat-earthers themselves thus explain sunrise and sunset in terms of appearances.
In part 2, I will get into all the nitty gritty about verses describing the ends, the 4 corners, the circle, the foundations, and the pillars of the earth. So, stay tuned.
References
Faulkner, Danny. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims. New Leaf Publishing Group, 2019.
Poythress, Vern S. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1‒3. Crossway, 2019.