Answers in Genesis and Their Accusations that Biblical Scholars are Flat-Earthers and Geo-centrists (Part 1: The Opening Salvo)

Yesterday morning, as I was thumbing through Twitter for a few minutes before I sat down to have my coffee at Starbucks, and then get working to preparing for my class on the Major Prophets, I noticed that the folks at Answers in Genesis had posted a new article. This one was by their astronomer, Danny Faulkner, and it was entitled, “Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?” My first thought was “Of course not. It’s not trying to make authoritative statements about science in the first place.”

And then, of course, my next thought was, “I wonder how AiG is going to spin this?” And so I spent the next few minutes, reading how their resident astronomer engages in biblical exegesis. And boy, did he…it was so engrossing that I just had to write a post about it. The reason why it was so engrossing was that, not only did it contain the randomly bizarre statements I’ve come to expect from AiG, but one of the underlying themes of Faulkner was his criticism of people to read the Bible too literally!

That, and I got the strange feeling that AiG is stalking me…well, not really, but I’m pretty sure someone there is reading some of my stuff.  There were just a number of things that just kept on popping up that made me wonder…

Faulkner’s Opening Statement
The article begins by stating, rather correctly, that the modern notion that the medieval Church had taught the earth was flat was sheer nonsense. In fact, as I read the first couple of paragraphs, I thought, “Mmmm, that’s exactly what I wrote about in a few of my “Ways of the Worldviews” posts!”

Then in the third paragraph, Faulkner specifically argued that John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White had essentially solidified this misconception about the medieval Church in their highly partisan propaganda in the 19^th century. “Wow,” I thought, “I just wrote about those guys last week on my blog and made the exact same argument!”

Faulkner proceeded to mention misconceptions about Galileo and Christopher Columbus, and how the modern narrative about how they had to fight against a hostile, anti-science Church was simply historically false. (At that point, I half-jokingly wrote a note in the margin, “This sounds like they’ve been reading my stuff!”).

With that opening, Faulkner then pivoted to the main argument of his post: flat-earthers wrongly think that the Bible teaches the world is flat, and they have simply unknowingly been suckered by secularists like Draper and White who did their best to discredit the Bible by claiming that the Bible teaches the world was flat. Now, if you are scratching your head and thinking, “Why should we care about the lunatic fringe of flat-earthers in the first place, and besides that, what did Faulkner just say anyway?” all I can say is, yes, those are valid questions because the entire premise of the article is about something nonsensical. Just go with me, this is going to get interesting.

The Earth Has Edges?
You’ve heard the phrases before, the “four corners of the earth,” and “to the “ends of the earth.” Faulkner then pointed to the verses in the Bible that use these phrases, and then said that “secular skeptics” try to use these verses to argue that the Bible teaches the earth is a flat square. Or, at the very least, those “secular skeptics,” say, “this shows that the Bible writers believed one of the flat earth cosmologies of the ancient world, thus proving that the Bible is not inspired, but that the people who wrote the Bible merely reflected the worldview of their times.”

At that point, I stopped and said, “But the Bible writers were people living in the ancient world; why wouldn’t they use the cosmology of their culture? And why that mean the Bible isn’t inspired?”

In any case, Faulkner then pointed out that none of the ancient cosmologies that envision a flat earth, envisioned a flat square earth—they envisioned a flat round earth. Therefore, if the Bible was teaching a flat square earth, then it wouldn’t have been like the other ancient cosmologies…so take that, secular skeptics!

I yawned. “That was a pretty stupid point,” I said under my breath. “This looks like the typical AiG article.”

Well, I was wrong. I certainly didn’t see what was coming next. Faulkner then turned his attention specifically to the book of Revelation, and it’s use of “the four corners of the earth.” Surprisingly, I read something I never thought I’d read in an AiG article: Faulkner argued that these expressions were poetic idioms, and were not to be read literally. Well, good for AiG—they got at least one thing about the Bible right!

Do the Heights in the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?
Faulkner then turned to Daniel 4:11, when we are told that in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, there was a large tree that grew so tall, that it was visible to the end of the world. Does this mean the Bible is teaching a flat earth? Well of course not…and at least Faulkner acknowledges that this argument is truly bizarre. And again, Faulkner correctly points out that this is in a dream, and then says, “It is remarkable that anyone would construe the content of a pagan king’s dream recorded in Scripture as evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.”

Yes, that is remarkable—so remarkable that I’ve never heard anyone ever make it. I guess I could thank AiG for pointing out dreams are not to be read as scientific claims…but I sort of already knew that.

Faulkner then referred to the accounts regarding Satan’s temptations of Jesus, particularly, in Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus up a very high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world—does this teach the world is flat? Well, of course not. Faulkner, rightly, but entirely unnecessarily asks, “If this mountain with its view of the entire earth is literal, then where is it?” Thank you for stating the obvious.

In any case, Faulkner then mentions that in the parallel accounts in Luke and Mark, the temptations are in different order. But that’s not a problem, he states, because it is obvious that the temptations are treated thematically not chronologically. Now that comment struck me as odd. After all, AiG is the organization that argues the days in Genesis 1 have to be chronological, just like it states, and a day is a day is a day…and if you don’t believe that you call into question then reliability and authority of the Bible itself! Heck, if it’s not six literal 24-hour days, how can you be sure Jesus rose from the dead? And yet, within the Gospels themselves, when faced with a chronological difference in what I assume they believe is a historical event, Faulkner just passes it off as, “Eh, that’s not chronological! No biggie!”

Now, for the record, he’s right—the difference in order of the temptations is no biggie. It’s pretty irrelevant, actually. But it still is astonishing at the glaring inconsistency in how AiG interprets scripture.

And what is even more astonishing is that fact that Faulkner then points out that in Luke’s account, that it just says that Satan “took Jesus up” to see the kingdoms of the world–Luke doesn’t say ‘mountain’! Most Bible scholars do not see this as a big deal, and realized it is clearly implied. Mark doesn’t mention the specific temptations, Matthew mentions a mountain (I think you could argue that mountains are a significant literary feature in Matthew), and Luke doesn’t–so what? But Faulkner the astronomer isn’t so sure: “This is a relatively minor point, but it may have some bearing on whether the mountain that Matthew recorded literally was a tall mountain from which all the world’s kingdoms could be viewed.” 

Well, I’m glad to see he realizes it is a “relatively minor point,” but for the life of me I can’t figure out what point he is implying that “relatively minor point” is making. How might it have bearing on whether or not Matthew’s mountain was so tall that one could literally see all the kingdoms of the world? What is the point of making such a nonsensical, “relatively minor point” that doesn’t make any point regarding whether or not there is a literal mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world? No such mountain exists, the earth isn’t flat, a only a fool would think Matthew is claiming a literal mountain like that exists.

But aren’t you glad Faulkner put to bed that conundrum regarding that question? I’m sure you’ve stayed awake at night, thinking, “Did Jesus literally see all the kingdoms of the world from a really high mountain that was literally tall enough for that to happen? Is Jesus claiming the earth is flat? Is this as important as whether or not there were six literal 24-hour days? Is the authority of the Bible at stake? Is the Gospel true?” 

Rest assured–it’s only a relatively minor point…but it may have some bearing…who knows?

This Can Get Long…I’m going to have to split the baby and make two posts!
There’s much more to Faulkner’s article. In my next post, I will cover what he says about the “firmament” that Genesis 1 talks about. This takes up the biggest section in his article, and so it really deserves its own post. You’ll want to come back for the next post—there is going to be some fireworks.