PDA

View Full Version : Does the Bible say the earth is round, sf. global warming



Desmond
18-12-2007, 08:22 PM
No, because the Bible indicates a round earth, and the Church has almost uniformly taught it.As if. The Hebrews believed the world to be flat. This is illustrated by their concept of Sheol, which was the underworld (i.e. under the world) where the dead reside.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 08:45 PM
As if. The Hebrews believed the world to be flat. This is illustrated by their concept of Sheol, which was the underworld (i.e. under the world) where the dead reside.
Come off it. We talk about the "underground" even now, so by your "reasoning", we must believe the world is flat even now (i.e. under the ground). What about undersea? I suppose you will chide your wife if she says, "Look at that beautiful sunset", pointing out that the sun isn't really setting but that the earth rotated so that your line of site to the sun became tangential to the earth's curvature. This chronological snobbery is all too common among misotheists.

Desmond
18-12-2007, 08:51 PM
Come off it. We talk about the "underground" even now, so by your "reasoning", we must believe the world is flat even now (i.e. under the ground). What about undersea?
It was not for them a turn of phrase as it appears in the translation, but a belief system.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 11:46 PM
It was not for them a turn of phrase as it appears in the translation, but a belief system.
Prove it. The double standards are glaring. If we give the benefit of the doubt to a modern astronomer who says "sunset", we should do the same to other cultures with the same common sense idiom.

pax
19-12-2007, 12:47 AM
No, because the Bible indicates a round earth, and the Church has almost uniformly taught it.

Ok, I'll bite. Where does the bible (unambiguously) indicate a round earth?

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 06:10 AM
Where does the bible (unambiguously) indicate a round earth?
Belongs in another thread guys!

This thread is about the obvious links between global warming and piracy on the high seas ... :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2007, 10:37 AM
Ok, I'll bite. Where does the bible (unambiguously) indicate a round earth?
Isaiah 40:22 refers to ‘the circle of the earth’, or in the Italian translation, globo. The Hebrew is khûg (חוּג) = sphericity or roundness. Even if the translation ‘circle’ is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space—to him, the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from.

Also, Jesus Christ’s prophecy about His second coming in Luke 17:34–36 implies that He knew about a round earth. He stated that different people on earth would experience night, morning, and midday at the same time. This is possible because the spheroidal earth is rotating on its axis, which allows the sun to shine on different areas at different times. But it would be an inconceivable prophecy if Christ believed in a flat earth.

pax
19-12-2007, 12:14 PM
Isaiah 40:22 refers to ‘the circle of the earth’, or in the Italian translation, globo. The Hebrew is khûg (חוּג) = sphericity or roundness. Even if the translation ‘circle’ is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space—to him, the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from.

That's a pretty thin argument.



He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Let's see: he sits above a circle, and he stretched out the heavens like a tent. That's pretty clear flat-earth language.

Almost every English translation of chuwg in this passage is "circle". See here (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329) and here. (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2328.htm) Contrast this word, with Isaiah 22:18 "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL" (duwr). Why use the word for 'circle', when an unambiguous word for ball is available?



Also, Jesus Christ’s prophecy about His second coming in Luke 17:34–36 implies that He knew about a round earth. He stated that different people on earth would experience night, morning, and midday at the same time.

A very long bow.



It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot's wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.

First, there is nothing proving that these events are simultaneous. Secondly the word 'day' (hemera) does not necessarily imply daylight hours. In Greek, as in English the word can be used to indicate a particular 24 hour period.

How does you interpret Daniel's tree visible from the whole earth?


'Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
'The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

If you want to continue this, we might best split the thread. Unless I can work in some pirate jokes..

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2007, 02:14 PM
Let's see: he sits above a circle, and he stretched out the heavens like a tent. That's pretty clear flat-earth language.
Only in English. At best it is equivocal language, phenomenologically correct that can be taken either way. It's notable that the Bible also states that the earth ‘hangs upon nothing’ (Job 26:7), which is as good a description as any.


Almost every English translation of chuwg in this passage is "circle". See here (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329) and here. (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2328.htm)
A sphere appears as a circle when viewed from any direction.


Contrast this word, with Isaiah 22:18 "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL" (duwr). Why use the word for 'circle', when an unambiguous word for ball is available?
What village atheist site did you parrot this off? Isaiah 29:3 uses this same word dûr as follows:


And I will encamp against you all around

So are the soldiers camped in the shape of a sphere around the city? Obviously dûr is used of a general round pattern.


First, there is nothing proving that these events are simultaneous.
Yes there is. Jesus' Second Coming will be instantaneous (‘in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’ (1 Cor. 15:52, cf. 1 Thess. 4:13 ff.)) and seen by all.


Secondly the word 'day' (hemera) does not necessarily imply daylight hours. In Greek, as in English the word can be used to indicate a particular 24 hour period.
It means daylight hours in this context, the contrast between the night, morning and noon. Amateurish word studies do you no credit. Dr Don Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies calls this:


‘Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.’


How does you interpret Daniel's tree visible from the whole earth?
Good grief, try reading the context! So many village atheist sites just copy from each other. This is actually a dream by a pagan king. It is nonsensical to argue this was intended to be a picture of reality. Next you'll be telling us that Genesis 41 teaches the existence of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat, since that was a dream of Pharaoh. :wall: :wall:

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 02:54 PM
pax, you're on a hiding to nothing on this subject ... sorry mate ...

pax
20-12-2007, 12:18 AM
pax, you're on a hiding to nothing on this subject ... sorry mate ...
Garbage. My case is much easier, since the onus is on Jono to show an unambiguous case in the bible for a spherical earth, and he hasn't even come close. I do not make the case that the bible argues unambiguously for a flat earth - I merely pointed out some of the flat earth language as a contrast to Jono's supposed round earth language.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2007, 02:33 AM
Garbage. My case is much easier, since the onus is on Jono to show an unambiguous case in the bible for a spherical earth, and he hasn't even come close. I do not make the case that the bible argues unambiguously for a flat earth — I merely pointed out some of the flat earth language as a contrast to Jono's supposed round earth language.
Hah, and you were wrong about dûr, were out of context with hemera, and missed the obvious fact that Daniel 4 reports a dream!

pax
20-12-2007, 01:02 PM
Hah, and you were wrong about dûr, were out of context with hemera, and missed the obvious fact that Daniel 4 reports a dream!

I was not wrong about duwr, and I am perfectly aware that Daniel refers to a dream. You still have nothing but a contorted argument based on the supposed simultaneity of night and day - it's an extraordinary stretch to call that support for a spherical earth. The ball (or disc) is still in your court.

Spiny Norman
20-12-2007, 01:09 PM
Then allow me to resolve things.
If you want to see a flat earth supported in scripture, you can interpret it that way.
If you want to see a spherical earth supported in scripture, you can do that too.
There's no slam dunk either way.
I can see why Jono (and I) would interpret it as spherical, because the earth is spherical, as confirmed by actual observations.
What I don't properly understand is why Pax, who clearly also believes that the earth is spherical, would bother to take the opposite interpretation?
Oh, hang on, yes, I do understand it ... never mind ... carry on ...

pax
20-12-2007, 02:14 PM
I can see why Jono (and I) would interpret it as spherical, because the earth is spherical, as confirmed by actual observations.

Interpreting scripture as referring to a spherical earth, with the a posteriori knowledge that the earth is spherical is one thing. Jono is proposing something rather different - that the bible taken in isolation refers unambiguously to a spherical earth. That is quite a different proposition from yours.



What I don't properly understand is why Pax, who clearly also believes that the earth is spherical, would bother to take the opposite interpretation?
Oh, hang on, yes, I do understand it ... never mind ... carry on ...

For the third time, I am not taking a flat-earth interpretation. I am merely taking issue with Jono's rather outlandish claim.

Spiny Norman
20-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Pax, this all started when people took issue with something Jono said:

... because the Bible indicates a round earth ...
Which it does, regardless of whether you agree that the particular Hebrew word can rightly be translated as 'sphere', it is at least round.

Then we had an allegation from Boris:

The Hebrews believed the world to be flat.
and then the whole thread blew up.

Now listen ... the Bible clearly indicates the world is round/circular ... its possible to translate or interpret as spherical (i.e. its not stretching the bounds of credulity to interpret it that way).

But Boris unnecessarily inflamed things with the "world is flat" line, because its a common fallacious argument (otherwise known as flinging mud) where a discussion with creationists is taking place.

So let me bring a bit of balance back. I'll accept that the Hebrews believed the world was flat (taking Boris' argument about "Sheol being below") at face value, provided Boris accepts that Geoscience Australia (http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/astro/) also believes that the earth is flat, because they also refer to "sunrise", and we all know that the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates.

The whole line of argument is ridiculous. There, I've said it, that's the end of it ... unless of course you all want to go on arguing over something that can't be PROVEN DEFINITIVELY one way or the other.

pax
20-12-2007, 03:07 PM
The whole line of argument is ridiculous. There, I've said it, that's the end of it ... unless of course you all want to go on arguing over something that can't be PROVEN DEFINITIVELY one way or the other.

I'll leave it to you to persuade Jono of that ;)

Desmond
20-12-2007, 08:10 PM
Prove it.Why bother when you have already decreed that anything that contradicts your fairy tales cannot be right. You're just trying to set me busy work. I think it's pretty well established that they didn't know the Earth was a sphere at that time, and if you want to prove otherwise be my guest.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2007, 09:31 PM
Why bother when you have already decreed that anything that contradicts your fairy tales cannot be right.
For one thing, I am not the only one on ChessChat. For another, it's pretty clear that your are as dogmatic in your blind misotheistic faith as what you're trying to paint me about the Christian faith.


You're just trying to set me busy work. I think it's pretty well established that they didn't know the Earth was a sphere at that time, and if you want to prove otherwise be my guest.
Translation: I can't produce a smidgen of evidence that they thought that the earth was flat. Pax's best case was a dream :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2007, 09:34 PM
I was not wrong about duwr,
Ahem, you said it unambiguously meant ball, yet I showed that it was used of a soldiers' encirclement.


and I am perfectly aware that Daniel refers to a dream.
Only because I showed you. Otherwise you wouldn't have used it as one of your best passages supposedly showing that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

No, you just parroted from some village atheist site, although that's unfair to parrots which have some rudimentary comprehension skills.

Desmond
20-12-2007, 09:48 PM
For one thing, I am not the only one on ChessChat. For another, it's pretty clear that your are as dogmatic in your blind misotheistic faith as what you're trying to paint me about the Christian faith.Nope, not trying to paint anything, words from your mouth.



Translation: I can't produce a smidgen of evidence that they thought that the earth was flat. Pax's best case was a dream :lol:I could write a thesis and get it signed by God but it would not convince you.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Nope, not trying to paint anything, words from your mouth.
Ignoring the evidence that has convinced me that the Bible is reliable.


I could write a thesis and get it signed by God but it would not convince you.
What you could do is irrelevant. What you have failed to do is prove your flat earth accusation. You probably also believe in the myth of Columbus sailing in the face of widespread flat earth belief :lol:

pax
20-12-2007, 10:53 PM
Ahem, you said it unambiguously meant ball, yet I showed that it was used of a soldiers' encirclement.
Ok, fine, it's not unambiguously ball. Yet the dictionaries I have looked at include ball as a definition of duwr, but no spherical meaning for chuwg. But this is all a sidetrack, since you don't even dispute that the passage says circle (despite your completely misleading inclusion of the Italian translation).


Only because I showed you. Otherwise you wouldn't have used it as one of your best passages supposedly showing that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
You are the one that needs comprehension lessons. I have never claimed that the bible teaches a flat earth. It is merely contains a number of instances of flat earth imagery. Certainly enough to contradict your outlandish and virtually unsupported claim.



No, you just parroted from some village atheist site, although that's unfair to parrots which have some rudimentary comprehension skills.

One day you'll pull your head out of your posterior and see the sunshine. Or maybe you won't.

Desmond
20-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Ignoring the evidence that has convinced me that the Bible is reliable.Who cares what some of the evidence says. You have to look at it all, which you don't do. Like playing a chess move that wins in some lines, but forgetting that it loses in others.



What you could do is irrelevant. What you have failed to do is prove your flat earth accusation. You probably also believe in the myth of Columbus sailing in the face of widespread flat earth belief :lol:What a Creationist thinks is probable is of no concern to me. :lol: I'm not your Columbus following straw man, and, and while we are at it, I'll point out again as I am not a misotheist.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2007, 12:43 AM
Who cares what some of the evidence says. You have to look at it all, which you don't do. Like playing a chess move that wins in some lines, but forgetting that it loses in others.
But then you haven't even bothered to provide any evidence! Just look at this thread: you just know that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth, but haven't a microgram of proof.


What a Creationist thinks is probable is of no concern to me. :lol:
What an goo-to-you-via-the-zoo true believer thinks is probable is of no concern to me.


I'm not your Columbus following straw man, and, and while we are at it, I'll point out again as I am not a misotheist.
Well, you are arguing like one (on both counts).

Desmond
23-12-2007, 08:39 AM
But then you haven't even bothered to provide any evidence! Just look at this thread: you just know that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth, but haven't a microgram of proof.Everyone knows it, except for fundamentalists like your self.

Not that any amount of evidence is going to convince you of anything, but this link contains various reference that support what the rest of us know.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/flatearth.shtml

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2007, 11:49 AM
Everyone knows it, except for fundamentalists like your self.
And everyone knows that "fundamentalist" is just a religious swear-word by dogmatic misotheists like yourself.

What a pathetic dodge, although the best source "evidence" so far adduced by you and Pax fell flat. So do you whinge about "sunset" or not?


Not that any amount of evidence is going to convince you of anything, but this link contains various reference that support what the rest of us know.
Once again, mere arguments from authority. But when you look at the primary Hebrew texts, they are no more evidence of flat-earth belief than the modern ABC program "Four Corners", or the expression "ends of the earth", or any more than a modern astronomer saying "sunset" is evidence of belief in absolute geocentrism. But these cited writers take the same phenomenological language in the Bible and hyperliteralize it.

See also Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650/).


See

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/flatearth.shtml
Yeah right, a bunch of "freethinkers", although if your thoughts are the results of atomic motions in the brain obeying the fixed laws of chemistry, how is this thought free at all?

Spiny Norman
23-12-2007, 12:39 PM
I was once so open-minded, my brains leaked out ...

Desmond
23-12-2007, 12:39 PM
And everyone knows that "fundamentalist" is just a religious swear-word by dogmatic misotheists like yourself.Lurn2read, I already told you I am not a misotheist.


What a pathetic dodge, although the best source "evidence" so far adduced by you and Pax fell flat. So do you whinge about "sunset" or not?Still waiting for you to tell me what evidence you will accept that will convince you. Until then I view all this as pointless busy work, since your mind is already closed to the possibility that you could be wrong.


Once again, mere arguments from authority. But when you look at the primary Hebrew texts, they are no more evidence of flat-earth belief than the modern ABC program "Four Corners", or the expression "ends of the earth", or any more than a modern astronomer saying "sunset" is evidence of belief in absolute geocentrism. But these cited writers take the same phenomenological language in the Bible and hyperliteralize it.So the bible means what it says when it suits you and vice versa.


See also Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650/).oooh goody more links to your website. :rolleyes:


Yeah right, a bunch of "freethinkers", although if your thoughts are the results of atomic motions in the brain obeying the fixed laws of chemistry, how is this thought free at all?:lol: Speaking about pathetic dodges. You want to ignore their arguments because of their name?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2007, 09:49 PM
Lurn2read, I already told you I am not a misotheist.
OK, I won't call you a misotheist if you won't call me a fundamentalist. :P


Still waiting for you to tell me what evidence you will accept that will convince you. Until then I view all this as pointless busy work, since your mind is already closed to the possibility that you could be wrong.
Produce the body of Christ would do your cause a world of good. Meanwhile, since the evidence that He was who He said He was is so overwhelming, then it would require extraordinary evidence to contravene it.


So the bible means what it says when it suits you and vice versa.
Nope, it always means what it says. It's just that you're twisting perfectly reasonable phenomenological language of the Bible whereas you practise double standards by not twisting modern phenomenological lan


oooh goody more links to your website. :rolleyes:
Exactly. A scholarly source, this time explaining common sense about the equivocal phenomenological language that all cultures throughout the ages have used, and use today.


:lol: Speaking about pathetic dodges. You want to ignore their arguments because of their name?
Since you mentioned a chess analogy above, I will do the same: this is like having a 1500 player arguing with me about a positional chess concept.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2008, 11:47 AM
Dr Noel Weeks, expert in "Ancient Near East with particular interest in Mesopotamia and Israel; Akkadian Language", University of Sydney, (http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/cah/staff/associates.shtml#weeks) "The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1–11", Themelios 4(1):12–19, September 1978.


‘Naive cosmology’

Sometimes it seems that those who claim that the Bible used the symbols of its day are merely trying to say that it used a naive as opposed to a scientific cosmology, or, to put it more popularly, it did not bother to correct the prevalent three-storey cosmology. If we assume for the sake of the argument that this is the case, then it should be clearly recognized that all we have established is that scientific dogma should not be made out of biblical cosmology. The argument has no relevance to other parts of the account like the creation of animals, man, etc. Unfortunately this argument is generally used without this careful delimitation. Generally it is argued that the fact that one element shows the use of non-scientific concepts proves that the whole uses naive ideas whose details may not be pressed.

Yet once more the validity of the basic premise must be questioned. Was there ever a pure ‘three-storey universe’ idea in antiquity? For the pagan contemporaries of the Bible writers, cosmology was theology. The heavens expressed and were controlled by the various divinities. The sort of abstract spacial/mechanical interest involved in the idea of a three-storey universe is a product of the demythologization of Greek rationalism and Euclidian spacial concepts. One should not try to project a late idea back into biblical times in order to explain the Bible. In its rejection of polytheism biblical cosmology is of necessity radically different to its surroundings. It is not popular cosmology.

pax
21-01-2008, 12:15 PM
The thread title is not quite accurate. Better would be "Does the Bible say the earth is round".

The discussion was sparked by a statement by Jono asserting that "the bible indicates a round earth".

Kevin Bonham
21-01-2008, 05:54 PM
The thread title is not quite accurate. Better would be "Does the Bible say the earth is round".

The discussion was sparked by a statement by Jono asserting that "the bible indicates a round earth".

Agreed; title changed.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-01-2008, 01:32 PM
People did believe in the past (very distant past!) that earth is flat, and came to conclusion later that it's spheric.

Did the Christian church (or other major religion) enforce the view that the Earth is flat and punished anyone who said it's spheric for saying so? Don't think so. If it is so, I'd like to see evidences.

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2008, 02:16 PM
People did believe in the past (very distant past!) that earth is flat, and came to conclusion later that it's spheric.

Did the Christian church (or other major religion) enforce the view that the Earth is flat and punished anyone who said it's spheric for saying so? Don't think so. If it is so, I'd like to see evidences.
Quite the opposite. Historian Prof. Jeffrey Burton Russell, author of the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians showed that nearly all the leaders from the beginning of the church who commented on the shape of the earth affirmed its roundness. None other than Stephen Jay Gould reviewed the book favorably in The Late Birth of a Flat Earth (http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf). In his summary (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html), Russell writes:


It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters—Leukippos and Demokritos for example—by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few—at least two and at most five—early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2–3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

The myth of widespread flat-earth belief in the church came from dishonest 19th-century anticlerical polemics, as well as Washington Irving's fable about Columbus.

Desmond
22-01-2008, 07:08 PM
What is your view on the writings of Saint Augustin, Jono?

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2008, 03:54 PM
What is your view on the writings of Saint Augustin, Jono?
Some very profound, others not so good. Why do you ask? In Refuting Compromise I cited more things with approval than disapproval.

Desmond
23-01-2008, 06:57 PM
Some very profound, others not so good. Why do you ask? In Refuting Compromise I cited more things with approval than disapproval.
Specifically his writing on antipodes. I have been reading some debate as to whether his writings indicated a belief (based on the bible) that the world was flat. From what I have read so far it seems that he believed that no people lived on the 'other' side of the world, but that belief does not necessarily preclude there being another side.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2008, 08:46 PM
Specifically his writing on antipodes. I have been reading some debate as to whether his writings indicated a belief (based on the bible) that the world was flat. From what I have read so far it seems that he believed that no people lived on the 'other' side of the world, but that belief does not necessarily preclude there being another side.
That's one of the things I wrote about (and you're basically right)!


Long agers such as the Christadelphian Alan Hayward have tried to paint Augustine as a flat earther [Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies, p. 70, London: Triangle, SPCK, 1985], glibly parroting 19th century humanists Draper and White. However, as the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell showed, he never disputed the roundness of the Earth. Here is what he actually said:


‘As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.’ [The City of God 14:9]

This shows that Augustine disputed a totally different concept, that of the Antipodes, although wrongly. But this is not the same as disputing the round earth, as opposed to something that doesn’t necessarily follow from this. As Russell explains:


‘Christian doctrine affirmed that all humans must be of one origin, descended from Adam and Eve and redeemable by Christ, “the Second [sic—1 Corinthians 15:45 says “last”] Adam.” The Bible was silent as to whether antipodeans existed, but natural philosophy had demonstrated that if they did, they could have no connection with the known part of the globe, either because the sea was too wide to sail across or because the equatorial zones were too hot to sail through. There could be no genetic connection between the antipodeans and us. Therefore any alleged antipodeans could not be descended from Adam and therefore could not exist.’ [Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991]

It’s especially inexcusable for Hayward to quote this passage and not even realize that it says nothing against a round earth. In fact, Augustine explicitly called the Earth a ‘globe’ [The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2.13.27].