Is the ‘erets (earth) flat?
With regard to James Holding’s paper, Is the
’erets (earth) flat?1 I have never said or implied
that the Bible ‘teaches’ either that the ‘firmament’ is
solid or that the ‘earth’ is a flat disc. Rather, I believe both are
divinely inspired concessions to the views of the times, as
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and
21:10–14 are concessions to the ethics of the times (Matthew 19:8/Mark 10:5).
This later interpretation of
Matthew 19:8/Mark
10:5 is part of mainstream evangelical theology and was greatly employed
by Calvin. I am simply understanding Scripture in the light of this Biblical revelation.
As to Holding’s main point, he lifts all the relevant OT verses out of their
historical context and some of them out of their Biblical context; and then assumes
that if he can get rid of the OT evidence which infers the earth is flat, we have
the right to read in a spherical globe as the meaning of the word ‘earth’
in the OT. But there is not a single OT verse which infers that ‘earth’
in the OT is a spherical globe. Holding is rationalizing away the relevant Biblical
evidence, and then dragging in the concept of a spherical earth from modern science
and reading it into the text. That is exactly what concordists do with the 24-hour
days of Genesis
1, the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, etc.
Holding’s only positive Biblical case for a spherical earth is a caption to
a picture which cites
Luke 17:34–35 and
Matthew 24:40–41 (NT verses, not OT) and says these verses do
‘not make sense if the world was flat. On a flat earth, the sun would rise
on everybody at the same time. You would not expect to find people in bed, while
others were out in the field’. [Ed. note: even if Seely were right, which
is questionable as Holding shows below, this diagram was inserted by the editors
so they, not Holding, are responsible for any error.]
But, neither passage says that some people were in bed while others were out in
the field.
Matthew 24:40–41 does not mention anyone being in bed. Luke 17:34–35
mentions two people being in bed and two others grinding grain. Only v. 36 (which
Holding does not cite) mentions two men out in the field; and that verse is widely
acknowledged to be a textual addition to Luke, not part of the inspired original
(and hence rejected by the NIV among others).2
As for
Luke 17:34–35, ‘the passage refers to the period just before
dawn when some people are still asleep and others are up early to perform their
tasks’.3–5 And, this could well apply to men in the field
as well.
So Holding’s positive Biblical case that ‘earth’ in the OT can
refer to a spherical earth is resting on a single NT text which is from a considerable
different time period, is probably not part of the inspired original, and can be
explained other ways. Holding’s position is, therefore, no different in principle
from that of those who rationalize away the contextual meaning of Genesis 1 and
put in its place the finding of modern science.
Paul H. Seely
Portland, Oregon
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
References
- Holding, J.P., Is the ’erets (earth)
flat? Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a
response to Paul H. Seely, Journal of Creation 14(3):51–54,
2000.
- Bock, D., Luke 9:51–24:53, Baker, Grand Rapids, p. 1443, 1996.
- Marshall, H., The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, p. 667, 1978.
- Ellis, E.E., The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, p. 211, 1974.
- Bock, Ref. 2, p. 1438.
JP Holding replies:
Paul Seely tells us that he has ‘never said or implied that the Bible “teaches”
either that the “firmament” is solid or that the “earth”
is a flat disc.’ I find this disclaimer curious in light of statements in
his original articles such as, ‘the language of
Genesis 1 suggests solidity’, ‘the historical-grammatical meaning’
is such, ‘Gen.
1:17 also testifies’, etc. If this is not saying that the Bible teaches
these things, then what is it saying?
Seely’s comparisons to ethical concessions are without merit. There does exist
a hierarchy of morals, wherein under certain conditions one moral
imperative may supersede another (which is not the same as saying that morality
is subjective),1 but there is no corresponding hierarchy of scientific
data. It’s a category mistake–moral statements are in the imperative
mood, i.e. about what is permitted and forbidden;
propositions about the Earth’s shape are in the indicative
mood, and are either true or false. Despite his
obfuscations, Seely is claiming that the Author of truth inspired a false teaching.
Another important point is that Scripture itself teaches that some
moral imperatives were concessions, but there is nothing in Scripture countermanding
the alleged scientific errors claimed by Seely. So his views have baneful implications
for the doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture and that Scripture is its own
best interpreter, which are foundational to Seely’s own denomination (Reformed)!
It is clear from Seely’s vague and generalized comments that I lift ‘verses
out of their historical context’, etc.—without providing any specific
responses!–that he has completely missed the point of my articles concerning
the use of equivocal language in Scripture, or else is unable to
provide a response. He is as before unable to distinguish properly between adaptation
to human finitude and accommodation to human error. It is tempting to ask how he
could have missed this point about equivocal language, which was in the very
title of both my responses to him, in light of his own equivocation
above!
In terms of
Luke 17:34–35 and
Matthew 24:40–41, while I did not choose the Biblical citation
and the illustration it accompanied [True, as we note in Seely’s letter. Also,
Holding subsequently informed us that he no longer holds the eschatological views
the picture presupposed, and suggests that anyone wanting more information should
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. So it’s rather academic
now.—Ed.], Seely seems to be trying to separate the two passages
somehow, and imply that one of them is not an authentic representation of the words
of Jesus–if so, this is not legitimate, and places Seely yet again outside
the camp of genuine evangelicalism.2 As the New Testament scholar N.T.
Wright has observed, the things Jesus said, he most likely said many times, and
with many minor variations.3 These two verses certainly reflect variations
upon the same general warning which Jesus made several times during his years of
preaching.
That said, we could of course argue that the people in bed were sick during the
day while others were grinding grain; or perhaps the word (κλίνη
klinē) used by Luke indicates a couch for eating or reclining; or
perhaps it was early when some people were up and others were not—but an implication
of a spherical earth is certainly possible.
In conclusion, Seely has done nothing to defend his original thesis.
JP Holding
Florida
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
References
- Norman Geisler makes a good case that such graded absolutism is
consistent with Scripture, Christian Ethics, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
MI, USA, Part 1, 1989.
- If Luke 17:36 were not part of Luke’s autograph, then it must have been incorporated
by a later scribe from
Mt. 24:40. This means that the teaching and context were part of the autographs
of the NT as a whole, so reflect Jesus’s teaching accurately.
For more explanation on such textual considerations, see White, J., The King James
Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House,
pp. 154 ff., 1995.
- Wright, NT, The New Testament and the People of God, SPCK, London / Fortress
Press, Minneapolis, pp. 422 ff., 1992.
Related articles
| Give $5 for 5. Although this article may have only taken 5 minutes to read, it could have taken over 5 hours to write. Consider a $5 donation to support our ministry efforts.  | | |
|
