The Bible Doesn't Say the Earth is Flat

Every now and then, history is misrepresented in order to advantage a particular interest-group.

This is seen perhaps over land disputes in the Middle East. Perhaps it's also seen when the motives behind the British Commonwealth's annexation as protectorates of other nations is concerned.

There is often an element of myth involved in such distortions.

One field of history where an element of myth has become widely accepted is the view that Christianity and the Bible were always obstacles to scientific advances.

Myth: that everyone before Capernicus thought the earth was flat.

In fact, much of the world had already thought of the world as a sphere since hundreds of years BC.

Myth: that the Church persecuted Christopher Columbus for in effect asserting that the world is round.

In fact no such persecution took place, and this mistaken view of history has been listed as one of the top 20 common mistakes in people's understanding of history.

Myth: that the Church universally persecuted scientists who proposed that the sun, and not the earth, is the centre of our solar system.

In fact this proposal was taught very early by a Church leader, and later during the Middle Ages by a bishop of a church, and the view was widely held by Christians. Resistance by the Church did exist in some parts of the Church at some times in history - but it certainly was not universal across the Church, it was not permanent, and it was not as strong as what is widely purported.

Myth: that the Bible says the earth is flat.

The Bible mentions the circle of the earth. The sphericity of the earth and the centrality of the sun were depicted in early drawings long before the Middle Ages.

Conclusion: the popular criticism that the Bible has stood in the way of scientific discovery is an imbalanced and somewhat biased distortion of history that is commonly presented in a synical way against people of faith, but is not based on as much historical fact as has been widely purported.

The extent to which Capernicus may have been persecuted is over-stated. The extent to which the organized Church may have resisted scientific discovery has been over-represented, and is not an accurate reflection on the longheld concepts contained in the Bible itself and always adhered to by groups of Christians.

A more balanced view of history is to understand that the Bible and Christians were some of the earliest to assert and promulgate the scientific concepts of a spherical earth with the sun as the centre of the solar system, concepts which have now found universal acceptance.

While some church-groups and Christian individuals at some times in history did criticize those concepts, there were always other church groups and Christian individuals at the same time in history who always did embrace them.

It's important to understand this point of history in a balanced way, because it removes the myth that the Bible is largely at odds with science on that particular fundamental point of science.

It means that when a Christian sits down to consider other scientific theories, he can do so knowing that the Bible and Christians were among some of the earliest proponents of other scientific concepts which later found universal acceptance.

It means that when he sits down to consider some other scientific hypotheses - such as macro-evolution, or the age of the universe, for example - he need not bring with him the notion that his Bible has proven historically to be an obstacle. Rather, he can come without that false inferiority, knowing that his Bible has proven historically to be a positive catalyst for a growing and good understanding of natural philosophy (science).

It puts whatever other scientific hypothesis he is considering on a level playing-field with his Bible - rather than on an apparently imposing pedestal based on mis-history.

And that can only be of assistance towards openness.

Stellar Distance Theory

In the currently popular model of stellar distance, which states that many of the stars are millions of lightyears away, wouldn't you think that every now and then, as the light of distant stars begins arriving on earth for the first time, that new stars ought to be appearing for the first time?

Shouldn't it be happening that stars which have never been seen before suddenly appear in the night sky, at full brightness, where previously no star has ever been visible? Like lights being turned on.

Or at least, wouldn't you think the Hubbel telescope ought to occassionally be seeing starlight appear where previously there was none?

I wonder if there is any historic record of this happening. I'm not currently aware of any such record.

I certainly haven't personally ever noticed any new stars.

We've heard of new stellar activity being observed - but only in stars that were already visible.

And we've heard of new stars allegedly being discovered - but these weren't cases of new starlight appearing for the first time, rather they were cases of new and stronger telescopes being used, enabling scientists to 'see' light that in fact was already arriving.

But I haven't seen any reports of starlight actually arriving for the first time ever.

Perhaps such reports do exist. I would like to know.

But if no new starlight is arriving on earth, becoming visible for the first time, it invokes a number of questions:

One, it could simply mean that if any such stars exist, they must be so far away from the earth that their light hasn't had time to reach the earth yet but will at some unknown time in the future.

In theory, this should mean that any day now, or at any time in the future, we could see a star or stars suddenly appear in the night sky. And in theory, it means that as time goes by and more and more new starlight reaches the earth, the nightsky should become progressively and measurably brighter.

It still presents another question though. If no new starlight has ever yet appeared, not even from a single new star, it means that any such new stars, if they exist, must be thousands of lightyears away from the nearest visible star. That represents a much bigger space between the stars than anything so far observed. How would you explain the uncharacteristically large space between stars at that place. It doesn't quite fit the scenario of a uniform big bang.

Another possibility is that all the stars might be moving away from the earth, and that the light of all stars is therefore already arriving at the earth.

If that's possible, then the record of the Book of Genesis can also be possible, which states that God made light and that it appeared upon the earth on the very day it was made.

A second question could be about whether there really are any stars so far away that their light hasn't already been arriving at the earth.

Or slightly differently: might all the stars actually be far closer to the earth than is suggested by currently popular theories?

To what extent might the variables in the methods used to calculate stellar distances, effect reliability? The word "guess" is used quite a bit, when such methods are described. You might be surprised how often it is admitted by those describing such methods, that such methods are only theories.