In yesterday’s post, I began to look at an article by the AiG resident astronomer Danny Faulkner, “Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?” In today’s post, I want to address the real “meat and potatoes” of his article: the bit that’s found in Genesis 1. So, does the Bible teach the Earth is flat? Well, the Answer is in Genesis (apparently).
Is the Firmament a Dome Over the Earth?
Despite what Faulkner said about those other figurative biblical passages (mentioned in part 1) when it comes to Genesis 1, AiG is pretty clear: there can be no figurative language…it’s going to be literal, or else you’re undermining the authority of the Bible. Faulkner begins his exposition as follows:
“The cosmology of the flat earth holds that a dome covers a circular, flat earth, with its edge resting on the earth beyond the ice wall of Antarctica. The stars are affixed to this dome, while the sun and moon are above the earth but beneath the dome. Some have called this a snow-globe cosmology, because of its resemblance to a snow-globe.”
For one, I did not realize that the people of the ancient Near East were aware of the existence of Antarctica. But more importantly, did he say, “snow globe?” I believe he did! I think this is another clue for me that AiG might be reading my stuff, because that is the exact analogy I made when describing the cosmology of the ancient Near East in in a few earlier blog posts: “How AiG is Really Good at Confusing You When it Comes to Discussing How We Know the Bible is True” and “The Smoke of Non-Existent YEC Predictions.”
I remember actually telling a few friends that I was quite proud of myself for thinking up the analogy, and that I was not aware of anyone ever using that analogy before. And lo and behold, according to Faulkner, there are “some” who have called this a “snow-globe cosmology.” Well, I’ve never heard anybody call it that–and I like to refer to it as an analogy. But in any case, I can’t help but speculate that maybe I was the “some” he was talking about. If so, I’m flattered…I just wish he’d give me props for it. After all, I’m naming him in my post. [Please note: I’m not being serious with my “speculation.”]
The House is Raqia…(Props to Stevie Ray Vaughan)
Well, the focus of Faulkner’s argument is the Hebrew term raqia in Genesis 1:6, which is often translated as either “firmament” or “expanse.” It comes from the root that means “to stamp/pound out,” as in pounding out metal to make a shape of something. Therefore, biblical scholars who study the original language and the culture of the ancient Near East, explain that cosmology of the ancient Near East tended to look like the picture to the right. As you can see, it sort of looks like a snow-globe placed on mountains that are jutting out of the water. The raqia (dome/firmament) separated the “waters below” (i.e. seas and rivers) from the “waters above” (i.e. where does the rain come from?).
You can read the posts I linked above to learn more, but the point is, this is how the people in the ancient Near East generally viewed the created order. Yet we must remember that this understanding of the created order should not be considered some kind of “scientific understanding” of the world. They weren’t making scientific claims. Yes, they were speaking about the world around them, but they freely used poetry and metaphor as well. We need to see it as a poetic and literary description of creation, and not a scientific explanation of it.
But Faulkner would have you believe that biblical scholars are claiming that the Bible is making a scientific claim that the earth is literally flat and that there is some sort of literal snow-globe dome over the earth. In his entire discussion regarding the raqia, Faulkner constantly refers to people who claim that raqia means some sort of dome (i.e. biblical scholars) as flat-earthers (for the record, I don’t know of one biblical scholar who is a flat-earther; and aside from Kyrie Irving, I don’t know any other human being who believes the earth is flat—I’m sure there are a few, but they’re nuts).
Apparently, Faulkner knows better than biblical scholars how to read Hebrew and interpret raqia in its proper context. According to him, it’s pretty obvious: the raqia isn’t referring to a literal dome, it’s referring to outer space. That’s right, Faulkner would have you believe that the people of the ancient Near East, without telescopes or satellites, already had a working knowledge of outer space.
Faulkner then pointed out that since the Bible says that the birds fly “upon the face of the raqia,” the raqia obviously includes not just outer space, but also the earth’s atmosphere. After all, Faulkner wrote, Keep in mind that the distinction between the earth’s atmosphere and outer space is of modern origin.”
That is just nonsensical: of course the distinction between the earth’s atmosphere and outer space is of “modern origin,” because the people of the ancient world had not concept of outer space to begin with. They thought that the sun, moon, and stars were lights that were somehow fixed in the solid dome that the Bible renders as raqia.
On to Ezekiel
Faulkner then moved on to Ezekiel 1 and 10 to supposedly prove his point. In both passages, Ezekiel sees a very complex vision of God as the Divine Warrior, riding on His chariot/throne on the clouds, coming for judgment. (Read most any Bible commentary, and you’ll see this is fairly obvious to most biblical scholars.) In the midst of the vision, Ezekiel sees something like a raqia above the cherubim, and a throne above the raqia. People who know how to read literature realize this is a poetic picture of God’s throne in heaven, and, given the cosmology of the ancient Near East of which Israel was a part, it is pictured as being above the “firm dome” of the raqia.
Not so, says Faulkner! Then he proceeds to interpret this passage with wooden literalism: Ezekiel says, “like” the raqia, so it clearly can’t be the same raqia mentioned in Genesis 1! He then speculated that since Ezekiel 1:25-26 say that a voice and the throne was above the expanse, there must be some sort of gap between the expanse and the throne, and could possibly be a description of an aura. (As a side note, I’m sure he uses “expanse” here because it sounds more like outer space).
Faulkner then turns his attention to attack the “snow-globe model” as mistakenly thinking that the earth is literally flat, that there is a literal clear dome above the earth, and that God’s throne is literally sitting on top of the dome. He states: “For those who insist on taking everything in the Bible as woodenly literal, this is fraught with problems.” Of course, this is nonsense. No biblical scholar thinks the ANE cosmology is a literal, scientific description of the universe. The reason why Faulkner makes this insinuation is obvious: he is trying to equate biblical scholarship with the fringe-nuttiness of flat-eartherism.
And the ironic thing is that he is the one who just interpreted Ezekiel 1 and 10 literally! Remember, this is an organization that argues that poetic passages like Job 26:10 (“He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters…”), and Isaiah 40:22 (“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”) are scientific statements that “prove” the Bible claims the earth is a globe.
And What About Elihu?
Faulkner then moves on to Job 37:18, where Elihu says, “Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” For anyone familiar with ANE cosmology, it’s pretty clear he is describing the raqia in ANE cosmology. “Not so fast,” Faulkner warns—it’s just another flat-earther trap!
First, he claims that the larger unit of Job 37:14-18 is poetic and is describing weather phenomena, so “teaching cosmology is not the point.” Well, YES…in fact, most of Job is written in poetry, not just Job 37:14-18; and YES…it’s not trying to “teach” cosmology. BUT, Faulkner is wrong in his claim that Job 37:18 is “describing weather.” It’s pretty clear that Elihu is describing the skies much in the same way the ANE cosmology understood it—as a hammered out, solid dome over the earth. Remember though, we’d be wrong to assume that Job 38:17 is making a scientific claim–it’s poetry. Yet, ironically, Faulkner rejects the clear reading of Job 38:17 because he wrongly thinks ANE cosmology is making scientific statements.
Secondly, Faulkner points out that these are the words of Elihu, and not God, and therefore, since Elihu said it, that doesn’t mean it’s infallible: “if Elihu’s words contain cosmological information, it merely reflects his understanding and not necessarily reality.” In other words, Faulkner is saying even if Elihu was reflecting ANE cosmology, that’s no biggie, because Elihu isn’t God, and therefore he could be wrong in his understanding of the universe…and he clearly is, because there is no literal dome in the sky.
Stop and think for a moment what Faulkner has just said: He just claimed that parts of the Bible are not inspired—and his criteria seems to be, “If a human being is talking, then it’s not infallible…or at least doesn’t have to be.” Let’s be clear: that statement blows away the biblical notion of inspiration. Talk about undermining biblical authority.
The reason Elihu’s reflection of ANE cosmology is no biggie is because ANE cosmology is poetic and metaphorical at its core; it’s wrong to assume it is making actual scientific claims. Yes, it is loosely based on what they observed, but it is clearly rife with poetic, metaphorical, and mythological imagery—and that is entirely okay.
Thirdly, ironically, Faulkner points to the fact that Job is Hebrew poetry! But if that’s the case (which it is!), why is Faulkner claiming that the ANE cosmological description of the created order is supposedly scientific, and then rejecting in on that basis?
Let’s Wrap Up
Faulkner concludes that “there is no clear evidence that the raqia is a solid dome over the earth.” News flash: we already knew that there is no literal solid dome over the earth. When scholars point out that the raqia was understood to be a dome, when “some” like me refer to it as something like a “snow-globe,” we’re not not claiming there is a literal dome in the sky over a flat earth.
Let’s be clear: (1) Biblical scholars aren’t flat-earthers, (2) ANE cosmology (along with that idea of that raqia be a solid dome) wasn’t trying to give a literal scientific description of things—it was fundamentally poetic and metaphorical; and therefore, (3) Faulkner’s entire claim that ANE cosmology is wrong because it is scientifically wrong with “no clear evidence” for it is fundamentally and completely wrong from the jump.
After a brief mention of the Septuagint (you can read that part if you want), Faulkner states as a fact something that is factually untrue: “we have no knowledge of what specific cosmology the ancient Hebrews believed.” —Actually, yes we do—it’s the ANE cosmology that Faulkner spent an entire article rejecting on the basis that it is incorrect scientifically, even though it is wrong to assume that it is trying to be scientific in the first place.
He claims that the common belief that the Bible depicts a solid dome over the earth that is supported by subterranean pillars (i.e. the claim that is universally held by biblical scholars) is “at odds with the facts.” –No it’s not: it reflects the very cosmology of the ANE culture of which ancient Israel was a part.
He claims that we should be doing exegesis of these passages, and that it is eisegesis to read these passages as if they are referring to a solid dome. –He has it absolutely backwards: it is exegesis to understand raqia as a solid dome because that reflects the ANE culture of which Israel was a part; it is eisegesis to claim raqia means “outer space,” a concept that the people of the ANE simply would not even have.
He says the Bible doesn’t endorse any specific cosmology, because if it did endorse an ancient cosmology, then modern people would reject it, because modern science has shown them to be wrong. –Again, he’s partly right. The Bible doesn’t “endorse” or “teach” any cosmology as scientific truth. But it does reflect the views of the time, and that’s okay—ANE cosmology isn’t trying to be “scientific” anyway. Ironically, by claiming the raqia is “outer space,” Faulkner is the one trying to argue that the Bible is endorsing a modern understanding of the cosmos.
He claims that biblical scholars who read the biblical description of raqia as reflecting ANE cosmology have been deceived by those nasty 19th century skeptics who sought to discredit the Bible by claiming the Bible taught the earth was flat: “Those who support the flat earth believing that this is what the Bible teaches have fallen into a trap. Ironically, while apparently motivated to defend the Bible, they have been tricked into using the same false arguments that skeptics use.” –Once again, AiG puts forth the conspiracy theory that biblical scholars have been duped by the secularists. It’s good to know that an AiG astronomer has enough training in biblical studies to set the record straight. In addition, I can’t help but notice that Faulkner’s argument regarding how some people who are trying to defend the Bible are tricked by using the arguments of the skeptics sounds strangely similar to the argument I have made numerous times about AiG and YECism. Let me explain…
I have said that in their attempt to “prove Genesis 1-11 is true,” AiG assumes it must be scientifically accurate—that assumption, though, betrays an Enlightenment assumption that only things that can be scientifically proven can be “true.” In other words, in an attempt to combat Enlightenment attacks against the Bible, AiG actually starts from Enlightenment assumptions. Therefore, I have to wonder, “Are they reading my stuff and twisting things to try to make their argument?” If so, I’m flattered and amused.
And the Grand Finale
Faulkner ends his article with quite a “big bang,” to say the least, when he states: “It is a shame that professed Bible-believers recently have embraced this false argument and have gone on to promote the flat earth. When combined with the its many scientific and observational problems, the flat-earth theory is disproven.”
The juxtaposition of this immediately after his claiming that biblical scholars have been duped should make it obvious he is implying that biblical scholars are flat-earthers. This is what I like to call slander and mud-slinging. In addition, although he is obviously right that flat-eartherism has been disproven, he is obviously disingenuous and deceitful when he equates flat-eartherism with ANE cosmology. Flat-eartherism is a bogus scientific claim; ANE cosmology is poetry and metaphor.
And finally (hold on to your hats!) Faulkner says this: “The snow globe earth model requires that the earth be motionless. Therefore, flat-earthers are geocentrists, and many of them also support their position with biblical passages that supposedly teach that the earth is stationary.”
There’s that “snow globe model” reference that “some” (i.e. ME) have used! And yes, he is interpreting it literally! Yes, he doesn’t get the concept of speaking metaphorically. And yes, he said it: (A) Belief that raqia refers to a dome means (B) you are a flat-earther, and (C) you are a geocentist!
Do I even need to point out this absurdity? This is sheer mud-slinging and name-calling by a YEC astronomer with no training in Biblical Studies in an attempt to slander legitimate biblical scholars who actually know what they’re talking about.
So why do I spend my time writing about AiG’s claims? Simple: hopefully, over time, more Evangelicals who might be partial to AiG and YECism will eventually realize just how absurd, inconsistent, and insidious much of the AiG rhetoric really is.
The light will continue to shine in the darkness and expose it.
CLARIFICATION
Based on a few comments, let me just clarify the long and short of all this:
(A) Faulkner is right–the earth isn’t flat.
(B) Faulkner is right–the Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is flat. Yes, the passages he uses are all either poetic or metaphorical, and thus shouldn’t be interpreted literally, as if they were scientific claims.
(C) He is wrong, therefore, when he rejects the “snow globe” picture of ANE cosmology because it wrong scientifically. It’s not meant to be scientific in the first place.
(D) He is equally disingenuous to imply that biblical scholars who insist on reading the Bible within its historical and literary contexts are “flat earthers” and “geocentrists.”
(E) Genesis 1 is poetic and metaphorical, but he and AiG can’t accept that, because their whole organization is based on insisting that is is scientific and literal. Therefore, he ends up interpreting raqia as “outer space,” and thus as a literal and scientific description of the universe. That’s the amusing irony of the whole thing. He’s saying that scholars who interpret raqia as a dome are engaging in wooden literalism, and are thus flat earthers and geocentrists, when it’s clear it’s poetic and metaphorical. And then he turns around and insists that raqia is a description of the literal outer space.
Even Martin Luther insisted that the solid dome and the water above it had to be taken literally.
That’s the thing. Luther was living in a time that was starting to look at everything through the lens of “science.” He thus read the Bible through that lens–I submit that the very more “modern” question regarding, “Is it literal? Is it scientific?” would not even have been asked by the original audience. I think the ANE would have understood “raqia” as a dome, but I don’t think they had the same “scientific” perspective as moderns. To use an analogy, in Orthodox churches there is a dome that represents heaven. Everyone recognizes it is symbolic, still we render heaven as a dome.
Rather than using a snow globe metaphor, I think the ancient cosmology is like a planetarium, in that there is a hard curved shell on top of the viewer and a flat round space where the viewer sits. The difference is where the lights on the dome come from. But this is how the ancients conceived of things, the way things appeared to be was the way they were.
Denis Lamoureux is one that uses the term “science of the day” or *ancient science” to describe ancient cosmology. I think a better term is something like pre-scientific understanding or worldview, but that is the phrase he likes to use. My point is that AiG is not entirely making it up. I think what they are doing is reading thru their own filters, as all of us do; it is just that theirs are so strange.
P.S. The geocentrist viewpoint is not entirely nonsense, Einstein says one can sit anywhere in his theory of relativity (as a generalization without getting too technical). So it is valid to assume where one is sitting is actually standing still and everything else is moving around you, although this may not be the easiest way to describe the resulting equations.
I would agree that “a pre-scientific understanding of the world” works better. I like Lamoureux, but I didn’t like him calling it the “science of the day” either. To the point, it is the poetic/mythological understanding of the world.
Greetings!
In the past few days I have been stunned to learn that flat-eartherism is a “thing” early in our 21st century, growing both in secular and conservative Christian circles. I had no idea! As I was learning about it I came across the Faulkner article and your response to it.
Full disclosure before we begin. I believe in inerrancy: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs” (the ETS’s doctrinal statement), is about as clear as possible. Next, Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine commands my assent. Further, while certainly acknowledging the presence of poetry, metaphor, symbolism and other non-literal literary devices, in general I read the Bible literally. (Perhaps the hardest questions for the interpreter to answer are, Which passages are figurative, what leads one to draw that conclusion, and then what does the passage teach through its poetical, metaphorical, symbolic device?)
Continuing: if I were to answer honestly, I would say that I believe in the creation account in Genesis as literal but not necessarily scientific. (Perhaps that’s whacked! I don’t know.) I haven’t read enough of your posts (only 1.5) to know if you believe in actual individual human beings named Adam, Eve, and Noah, or if they are symbolic figures. If you put a gun to my head I would confess today that I do believe them to be actual individual human beings; that we are descended from them; that the Genesis account is a true telling of actual events, people, relationships, and so forth. I do believe that substantial doctrinal difficulties arise if they are not literal, but I haven’t considered whether those difficulties are insurmountable. Finally, as far as the age of the earth, my view is inchoate; I’ve just not given it much thought.
I also confess I have not spent much time pondering YEC, nor have I read or know much about Ken Ham or AiG. I’ve never read anything of Faulkner’s prior to this article.
So, finally, to my comments–which I trust will be well-received if not affirmed!
Snow globe
I actually heard the snow globe analogy years ago, and more recently, but not from you. Perhaps Faulkner did not borrow it from you either. I am not able to credit a source; I’ve just heard it somewhere. Not persuasive, but true.
Biblical authority and inspiration
I think you have misunderstood what Faulkner said. I’ll cut and paste your comment below for the full context.
“Secondly, Faulkner points out that these are the words of Elihu, and not God, and therefore, since Elihu said it, that doesn’t mean it’s infallible: “if Elihu’s words contain cosmological information, it merely reflects his understanding and not necessarily reality.” In other words, Faulkner is saying even if Elihu was reflecting ANE cosmology, that’s no biggie, because Elihu isn’t God, and therefore he could be wrong in his understanding of the universe…and he clearly is, because there is no literal dome in the sky.
Stop and think for a moment what Faulkner has just said: He just claimed that parts of the Bible are not inspired—and his criteria seems to be, “If a human being is talking, then it’s not infallible…or at least doesn’t have to be.” Let’s be clear: that statement blows away the biblical notion of inspiration. Talk about undermining biblical authority.”
That is not at all what Faulkner said or means. The doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy demand that what is recorded in the Bible is an accurate account of what “happened.” It is the record that is inerrant. The Bible is an accurate record of both sin and righteousness. There are lies and errors and sin and evil thoughts, words, and deeds that are accurately, inerrantly recorded in the Bible. Job’s conversation with Elihu is accurately recorded; what Elihu said is correctly written down, but he certainly might be mistaken in what he said (I’m not arguing that point right now!). In fact, God rebukes Job’s friends for speaking error to Job in his suffering. But the conversation is recorded correctly, inerrantly. That is what Faulkner is saying. Far from undermining biblical authority, he affirms it. He absolutely did not claim that parts of the Bible are not inspired. I think you seriously misunderstood and misrepresented Faulkner’s position.
Conservative Christians (biblical scholars) believe in a flat earth
Briefly, Faulkner is not impugning all Bible scholars, which is how I read you reading him. Perhaps I’m not understanding you. He’s absolutely right that SOME conservative Christians are falling into this trap (I have a family member involved, which is why I’m suddenly interested in it), but I don’t think he’s suggesting ALL are.
Well, my battery is about to die, so I guess another point will have to wait.
I look forward to reading and interacting with more of your posts.