Posted on 08/04/2003 7:48:51 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
Who invented the flat Earth?
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 16(2):48–49
March–May 1994
Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.
For instance, Christianity has been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. In his book The Discovers last decade, author Daniel Boorstin stated: ‘A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia … afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers’.
Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.
He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.
US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin (mentioned above), like historians before him, simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.
Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument and the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.
In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.
Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.
Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.
Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)
While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).
There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.
Care to know WHAT THE BIBLE DOES SAY ABOUT THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH?
Let's see ... first verse that comes to mind is this:
Isaiah 40:22:
‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ….’
Doesn't look "flat" to me. Too bad people don't read the Bible and believe what atheists say about the Bible.
20th Century law perhaps .... it didn't cut any ice before then.
http://www.artsci.villanova.edu/arabislamic/
Center for Arab and Islamic Studies
Director, Dr. Mine Ener
Villanova University established the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies in 1983 in recognition of the critical importance of the Middle East. Arab and Islamic civilization has had a profound impact on the arts and sciences for centuries.
Today, international politics and economics are deeply affected by the dynamics in the Arab and Islamic world. Government officials, members of Congress, corporations, banks, the media and researchers stress the need for professionals who have the specialized knowledge essential for comprehending the geostrategic, socioeconomic, religious and intellectual dimensions of the region.
The Center's interdisciplinary program serves undergraduates who wish to emphasize Arab and Islamic studies in conjunction with a regular major. The course of studies enables students to add an Arab and Islamic dimension to their understanding of international issues and world cultures. The program also prepares students for work in government or business related to the region and for advanced graduate studies on the Arab world and Islam.
The Center organizes lectures, film series, conferences and outreach programs for the University and the Greater Philadelphia communities. The Center also hosts academic seminars by scholarly associations, including the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies. "The Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies," published at the University, features articles by highly regarded analysts and scholars on issues pertinent to modern Islam.
Back to the witch burnings, then.
Appealing to a supernatural dimension does not get you closer to the point of being able to define the limits of insanity. If anything it adds a whole other dimension of uncertainty and ambiguity. So rather than increasing your ability to place blame on the individual, it dilutes it.
Doesn't look "flat" to me. Too bad people don't read the Bible and believe what atheists say about the Bible.
A circle is flat. A sphere has the third dimension.
The Catholic Church has officially accepted the possibility of evolution. They certainly don't teach a flat earth theory.
That has nothing to do with the fact that there are indeed Christians who believe in creationism and the flat earth. If the shoe fits.
But being depressed didn't maker her a homicidal maniac. Depression doesn't do that, or we would be awash in blood. Using depression to defend homicidal maniacs is a non-sequitor.
You can't be serious.
But blaming God for all those things hardly makes an reasonable argument either. If you are going to suppose the existence of a Judeo-Christian God, then you logically have to accept the Judeo-Christian definition of God. That definition precludes laying every tragedy at the feet of God.
Especially in cases like this, where some human action is undeniably present.
Lumping believing in creation with believing in a flat earth now?
"On the bright side, self-esteem isn't a problem."
The robots do.
Straw man argument, based on Social Darwinism. In other words, jlog is saying that history is a grand march of progress from the primitive to the advanced, and therefore anything from the past is primitive and ignorant, the present is partly illumined due to current scientific knowledge, and if we keep going in the same direction (fudning scientific research will plenty tax dollars of course), we will arrive at a glowing wise future. Kind of like the stupid gradeschool text books I've seen in the 80's - pictures of Mommy in a spacesuit cooking in a space kitchen, just pushing buttons. A materialistic Utopia. A fantasy.
The doctrine of Social Darwinism - which is based on a soulless, meaningless, purposeless universe, with no God in control, everything being accidental - still sees a purpose - that of its own false doctrines implemented, and its "march" of scientific enlightenment and perfection unhampered by those of us who see the universe in a different light. Note that Social Darwinism is the basis of Communism, socialism, and the other evil philosophies and systems mentioned above.
Why do you think I am already making plans to leave the country? Too dang many liberals, who will excuse this behavior.
Psychosis and depression are two entirely separate conditions. This what exhaustively dealt with during the aftermath of Adrea Yate's murders, and post-partum depression is simply not violent. Various dishonest feminists just make that claim.
Using it to "defend" murder is not the same thing as saying that post-partum mental illness should be cared about. If you care about this murder you should care about whether she had post-partum depression.
That is wrong. Post-partum depression is not in itself violent.
Then maybe you might be able to step in and save someone you know or love. It can happen to any mother.
Oh, yes, every mother is a potential killer. /sarcasm
Frankly, I think that state of mind can be a mitigating factor in prosecution of crimes; in the court system it is as a matter of law. Disordered and irrational thinking that a killer has no insight to, is not as heinous a murder as a cold-blooded decision to punish a mate, or collect insurance money, or keep a boyfriend that doesn't want children.
Sure, state of mind is a factor because we are always looking for ways to let a murderer walk. Society hates children, so mudering moms get a pass on whatever a dishonest lawyer and a paid feminist "expert witness" can make up on the fly. When that works to get the murdering skank off, it becomes worth repeating and conventional wisdom.
But that doesn't change the fact that it is a lie. It is just a lie that works for us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.