Did Jesus Believe The Earth Was Flat?

[DesertBob]

I always assumed that Jesus was "taken up into a high mountain" not physically but as part of the vision and then shown a series of images of the wealth and power of the various kingdoms that would be his. It would have just been a "mind's eye" vantage point.

 

The text doesn't say it's a vision. If one wants to read a vision into it, then the only place I can see a remote justification for it is when it says that the devil "showed" him the kingdoms. However, that comes after it says that they went up on a high mountain, so we have to wonder, what would be the point in going to a high mountain to show a vision? It seems much more likely to me that the trip to the high mountain was meant to indicate that it was a real occurance and that they could actually see out over all kingdoms, not just that there was a vision. (That is, if we assume the Gospels were meant as literal history to begin with; I'm not so sure about that anymore, but I addressed it in that manner because many Christians take the Gospels as historical accounts.)

Even fundamentalists understand that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively and others literally. Since there's obviously no mountain that tall and even if there were you could not see any real seductive detail about the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the world, it seemed natural to me to take it pretty figuratively. But then again, that may have just been my own compensator circuit trying to keep me from going on "tilt". Thankfully I no longer have to put all that effort into explaining such things :-)

[DesertBob]

I learned once that David and Jonathan probably were gay. The story doesn't say it outright, but if you read between the lines.

You don't really even have to read between the lines. The love between them is pretty intense. They embrace and kiss each other. I used to enjoy seeing this story make ministers squirm and tap dance and be obliged to explain why this didn't mean they were homosexual lovers.

 

The other one that's more of a reach is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who is said to be "leaning against his bosom" at the Last Supper, but even that makes you wonder.

 

A gay messiah -- now that would be something.

[Ouroboros]

 

A gay messiah -- now that would be something.

Gaysus.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I always assumed that Jesus was "taken up into a high mountain" not physically but as part of the vision and then shown a series of images of the wealth and power of the various kingdoms that would be his. It would have just been a "mind's eye" vantage point.

 

The text doesn't say it's a vision. If one wants to read a vision into it, then the only place I can see a remote justification for it is when it says that the devil "showed" him the kingdoms. However, that comes after it says that they went up on a high mountain, so we have to wonder, what would be the point in going to a high mountain to show a vision? It seems much more likely to me that the trip to the high mountain was meant to indicate that it was a real occurance and that they could actually see out over all kingdoms, not just that there was a vision. (That is, if we assume the Gospels were meant as literal history to begin with; I'm not so sure about that anymore, but I addressed it in that manner because many Christians take the Gospels as historical accounts.)

Even fundamentalists understand that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively and others literally. Since there's obviously no mountain that tall and even if there were you could not see any real seductive detail about the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the world, it seemed natural to me to take it pretty figuratively. But then again, that may have just been my own compensator circuit trying to keep me from going on "tilt". Thankfully I no longer have to put all that effort into explaining such things :-)

 

I know that even literalists don't take everything literally, but there really is nothing in this passage to suggest that it wasn't meant literally. Again, that is if we are taking the Gospels as actual historical accounts. Literalists who claim that this story was just a vision are, as far as I can see, just trying to force it to be a vision so they don't have to deal with the problems it presents when taken literally. When I was a Christian, if I had been pressed on this issue, I probably would have taken it as a vision too, but that would have been a rationalization based on a preconceived notion that the Bible had to be 100% accurate.

[DesertBob]

I know that even literalists don't take everything literally, but there really is nothing in this passage to suggest that it wasn't meant literally. Again, that is if we are taking the Gospels as actual historical accounts. Literalists who claim that this story was just a vision are, as far as I can see, just trying to force it to be a vision so they don't have to deal with the problems it presents when taken literally. When I was a Christian, if I had been pressed on this issue, I probably would have taken it as a vision too, but that would have been a rationalization based on a preconceived notion that the Bible had to be 100% accurate.

Exactly.

[MikeMo]

I am reading many arguments about the differentiation between literal and figurative interpretations. The realm of the "Spirit" is merely the metaphorical reality of the parabolic "flesh." The image/reality relationship is similar in Plato describing his Theory of Forms. For this reason Apostle Paul says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). Everything supposedly "figurative" is developed from the interpretation of that which is "literal," meaning that even the "eternal power and Godhead" can be "understood by the things that are made." So, every "figure" of speech is addressing the reality of a perceived scientific interpretation.

 

Jesus believed that his life was the fulfillment of the Scriptures. Therefore, the whole New Testment is merely a rewritten Old Testament...to show the reality of the Old Testament image fulfilled in Christ. Christ was to be the "figure" of that which was "literal." There is no narrative, person, word, etc. in the New Testament without direct reinterpretation of Old Testament texts. So, Jesus, like every Scriptural disciple, believed in the Genesis creation. So, read the Genesis creation and find out what Jesus believed, for Jesus was said to have been the Word through which that creation came, and also the Word which would simultaneously come into that creation that he made. So, Jesus came to fulfill the creation of Genesis in himself...the doctrine of the Christians is that he reconciled the creation to God by his flesh.

 

What does Genesis say? God created "heaven and earth." Then the description goes into the specifics about the "earth." Out of nothing, God created "darkness," "formless," and "void." So, out of nothing God created chaos. And then God creates light, form (the first three days of creation), and fullness (the latter three days of creation). So, out of chaos God creates that which is "very good."

 

The light and darkness were perceived as lightswitch conditions...obviously darkness theologically came before light for the Jews (so the Jewish day began at evening). The night was 12 hours, while the day was 12 hours. Note that there is no Sun, Moon, or Stars. So, light and darkness were believed to be conditions independent of the stars.

 

Then the Sky and Seas were separated, and the the Sky was believed to be the tangency to the "heavens," where God and Angels existed. For this reason, all ascend to heaven literally (Elijah and Jesus ascending, and the Spirit of God descending from the splitting sky). The firmament was that illusory expanse that can be seen separating Sky and Seas .

 

Then the Seas are separated from the Earth, and when death became relevant, the Earth was believed to be the tangency to "hell," where the dead existed. For this reason, all descend to hell literally (called the pit, or Sheol, etc.). Furthermore, as was already mentioned, there are numerous references to "four corners" of the Earth. Therefore, the Earth was a flat box (mountains and hills were understood to be places of worship, since they reached the pinnacles of heaven) and a stationary box. And then the Earth brought forth vegetation.

 

So far, we have been given that light and darkness are independent of stars, there is an expanse above the Earth that becomes tangent to heaven, and an expanse below the Earth that becomes tangent to hell. These three days are the Form days....and they precede the stars.

 

The next three days are the days of Fullness...and they represent the fullness/creatures of the first three days as follows:

 

Day 1: Form of Light Day 4: Creatures of Light

Day 2: Form of Water Day 5: Creatures of Water

Day 3: Form of Earth Day 6: Creatures of Earth

 

On the fourth day, the Sun, Moon, and Stars were created as the government of light and darkness...they were the governing/moving creatures of the light, and these were believed to rotate about the Earth in a vertically counterclockwise fashion. The Sun was considered the greatest Star, the Moon was considered the lesser Star, and the other stars were the least of all. The lights would birth in the east, make their ascent to the pinnacle in the vertically north tangent to heaven, make their descent to death in the west, make their further descent to the vertically south tangent to hell (where the Hebrews believed that the Sun, Moon, and Stars travelled underneath their feet through the depths of the Earth), and finally make their ascent into the resurrection in the east. The Hebrews built their numerical and literary system off this counterclockwise rotation: their government of 12 (and the number seven was believed to be the first number in which the Stars were angled below the equator) and their writing from right to left. The Stars became associated with figurative fulfillments in covenants. Since the Moon governed the darkness, and darkness came first theologically, the figure of the Moon became the Law of Moses, which governed the spiritual darkness of sin. The 10 perceived phases of the Moon became the 10 commandments. The 12 lunar months became the 12 tribes. The Messiah was associated Scripturally as the Sun of the covenant. So, the figure of the Sun became the Law of Christ, which governed the spiritual light of righteousness. The 1 phase of the Sun became the summary of the 10 commandments in love. The 12 solar months became the 12 Apostles. So, these Stars of the fourth day were creatures of the first day (as fish and fowl were to the Sky and Seas, Day 5 to Day 2, and as animals and Man were to the Earth, Day 6 to Day 3), moving about the stationary Earth. (Likewise, Christ birthed the East, tangented the North in his baptism, died in the West upon the cross, preached to the "spirits in prison" in the South for three days, which was the interpretation of the three days that the angle of the Sun remains the same before rising above the equator again, and finally resurrecting into the East.)

 

Then on Day 5 came the creatures of Sea and Sky. Then on Day 6 came the creatures of Earth...animal and Man.

 

Notice too the theological structure of triples: darkness, formless, void...light, form, fullness...sky, seas, firmament...grass, herb, fruit trees...sun, moon, stars...whale, fish, fowl...beast, cattle, creeping thing...man, woman, flesh (Father, Son, Spirit...Christ, Church, Cross)...likeness, dominion, eat.

 

These are the things that Jesus believed because these are the things that Jesus came to fulfill in himself. All of these explanations come into account when one considers the "figure" of Jesus saying seven things on the cross, seven men chosen in Acts, seven gifts given in Romans, seven Churches and Angels and Spirits and Seals and Trumpets and Plagues given in Revelation. These all come from the "figure" of the "literal" belief in the Scripture, which were inspired by Jesus as the Word from before the foundation of the world. The gospel was created upon the "literal' interpretation of Scriptural creation...which was inspired by God.

[Antlerman]

That was quite elaborate. There are flaws in it however, assumptions, and a lot of looking back for significance and finding of correlates, sort of like creating astrology as a system in finding patterns. I don't believe those who crafted these stories were thinking in these terms exactly, especially when you get to the New Testament times. So the assumption of motives to the writers in looking at the Old Testament thinking in terms of these patterns is suspect. If these were Jewish mystics thinking in these terms, and you could see this earmark elsewhere in their writings that might make a possible case, but I don't think your average bloke in the day thought like this. Add to the fact that their knowledge of the OT is suspect in these citations of it to prop up Jesus as thoroughly Jewish. Born of a literal virgin woman? This is not someone who was an adept in Old Testament scholarship.

 

The myths of Jesus seem much more a piecemeal stitching together of various regional elaborations, woven together haphazardly by later people's who were thoroughly non-Jewish. So your New Testament is hardly a direct response to the mind of ancient Jews. What seems more likely is taking grandmother's quilt and seeing patterns in it from a later perspective and ascribing significance to those patterns in grandmother's thinking at the time. In reality, she was trying to create a quilt to keep herself warm, without intending to weave a mystery pattern of cosmic significance into it.

[★ Citsonga ★]

That was quite elaborate. There are flaws in it however, assumptions, and a lot of looking back for significance and finding of correlates, sort of like creating astrology as a system in finding patterns. I don't believe those who crafted these stories were thinking in these terms exactly, especially when you get to the New Testament times. So the assumption of motives to the writers in looking at the Old Testament thinking in terms of these patterns is suspect. If these were Jewish mystics thinking in these terms, and you could see this earmark elsewhere in their writings that might make a possible case, but I don't think your average bloke in the day thought like this. Add to the fact that their knowledge of the OT is suspect in these citations of it to prop up Jesus as thoroughly Jewish. Born of a literal virgin woman? This is not someone who was an adept in Old Testament scholarship.

 

The myths of Jesus seem much more a piecemeal stitching together of various regional elaborations, woven together haphazardly by later people's who were thoroughly non-Jewish. So your New Testament is hardly a direct response to the mind of ancient Jews. What seems more likely is taking grandmother's quilt and seeing patterns in it from a later perspective and ascribing significance to those patterns in grandmother's thinking at the time. In reality, she was trying to create a quilt to keep herself warm, without intending to weave a mystery pattern of cosmic significance into it.

 

I have to agree with this.

[London]

I learned once that David and Jonathan probably were gay. The story doesn't say it outright, but if you read between the lines.

You don't really even have to read between the lines. The love between them is pretty intense. They embrace and kiss each other. I used to enjoy seeing this story make ministers squirm and tap dance and be obliged to explain why this didn't mean they were homosexual lovers.

 

The other one that's more of a reach is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who is said to be "leaning against his bosom" at the Last Supper, but even that makes you wonder.

 

A gay messiah -- now that would be something.

 

Not to take you all off topic but here is an explanation that's pretty good.

Ruth and Naomi

David and Jonathan

Daniel and Ashpenaz

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

[MikeMo]

I appreciate your feedback. I enjoy the free thought available to this forum. The statement that there are flaws does not bother me. I have noticed from all my experiences in Church and University that any disagreement in thinking between people is understood relatively as a flaw to logic. I appreciate your differences...it would be boring if all of our thoughts were the same. Fortunately, eternal consequences will not be appropriated because of our differences on this topic. There are assumptions in my thinking, you are right, meaning that some, but not all, of my descriptions are not explicitly stated in those terms Biblically, and they are assumptions that I am personally confident with in relation to my understanding of Biblical doctrine as a whole...since this is a forum concerning theology. I have looked back for everything, you are right again...since the New Testament life of Jesus is Biblically defined as a fulfillment of the Scriptures. Every word, narrative, person, etc. in the New Testament is reinterpreting Scriptures from the past. It is the Hebrew practice of looking back to formulate the present doctrine. Every gospel and epistle uses references from the Scriptures to define their supposedly legitimate case...the way that they prophetically substantiate their belief. I agree with you that their interpretations of the Old Testament were suspect...every single one of them, and I still suggest that with this illegitimacy they interpreted every aspect of their gospel...to the detail of the Hebrew doctrine. You are right that many new discoveries had been made by the time that the New Testament was being constructed, but that does not illegitimate the use of the Old Testament to govern the minds of those who wrote the New Testament...the tradition of the Hebrews governing the contemporary Hebrews/Christians (since salvation is of the Jews). The same is like saying that many new discoveries have been made since the New Testament was made, yet many Christians are confident that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old because they believe in the Scriptures as their inspired government. The Bible explicitly states that the New is a fulfillment of the Old...that the Old was an image and shadow of the reality that came in the New. My explanation is merely the process that has been helping me convert from my lifetime involved in the Church, and seven years as a Protestant missionary. My explanation is my personal contribution to this forum, to attempt to explain my problems with the Hebrew interpretation of creation, which governed their nation and everything within it...that continues to govern contemporary Christians and their inability to understand the discoveries made about our earth because of their infallible interpretation, and their obsession with doctrines that become obsolete through new discoveries...like resurrection, which is a flat earth doctrine assuming expanses tangent above and below earth. If we understood the Hebrew interpretation of nature, which was the image of the spiritual reality for them and their descendants, only then could we understand how their belief system was constructed and how it influences the present day.

[Antlerman]

Fair enough. I'll spend some time revisiting your thoughts on this.

[jasonother]

I think that God is not interested in trying to prove the validity of His Word by giving scientific proof. In fact, He wills that those who come to Him believe by faith that He Is and that "He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Faith comes by testimony of the Holy Spirit, which surpasses "evidence" of science. God is the master over sciencer. Perhaps He conceals a thing for Hi own Glory.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think that God is not interested in trying to prove the validity of His Word by giving scientific proof. In fact, He wills that those who come to Him believe by faith that He Is and that "He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Faith comes by testimony of the Holy Spirit, which surpasses "evidence" of science. God is the master over sciencer. Perhaps He conceals a thing for Hi own Glory.

You have still yet to answer why there isn't a countradiction. If god wills people to believe by faith and doesn't will certain people, then he is not all good if he is just creating living beings to suffer. Why is he better then satan then? Its like a mother birthing a kid just to kill it.

[Mystery]

Well for the Bible to make sense, the earth had to be flat.. or else it would have discredited a lot of issues. The Bible says God is "up there" somewhere in the sky.. That the universe had three tiers Hell (under earth) Earth, then Heaven (above earth). They had a worldview of the earth is the center of it all, and we are God's main focus. Big Brother in the sky was always watching them, helping them, sending miracles to them. Evidence of such subtle perspectives is when God sent "fire from the Heavens" to burn up the sacrifice offered by Elijah (I Kings 18:20-46). Or Jesus ascending into the heavens after his death (Acts 2). The diciples tell stories of Jesus descending onto mountain-tops from the Heavens (Matthew 28:16:20).. and Paul seeing the same Jesus in the sky on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) shows that to say Heaven is UP is ignorant, and a lack of knowledge. Up to an American and up to an Australian are in two totally different directions. and "up" points into a vast, black space that goes on in every direction for light-years. So either one... Jesus was an alien. Or two.. they thought the world was flat and Heaven was directly above them.. But either way they are crazy.

[★ Citsonga ★]

For the heck of it, I've decided to post here an excerpt from a letter I wrote a while back detailing a lot of the reasons why I no longer believe the Bible. The letter is quite lengthy, but here I am just posting the portion dealing with the flat earth subject. The remainder of this post is that letter excerpt.

 

The Flat Earth

 

Ancient cultures believed that Earth is flat and that the sun, moon and stars were bright dots on a dome over Earth. Now, of course, we know that such a concept is absurd. The Earth is a sphere that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, that the sun and stars are massive balls of fire, that the sun is just the star that Earth is closest to, and that the moon revolves around Earth.

 

If the Biblical authors were inspired by an all-knowing God who created the universe, we would expect the correct view of the universe to be reflected in the Bible. After all, this God would not inspire them to write things that are wrong, would he? With this in mind, let's take a look at what the Bible has to say on the matter.

 

In the very first chapter of the Bible we read, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). Many Christians assume this "firmament" is referring to the atmosphere, but that is not what it is saying. The Hebrew word is "raqiya" and refers to a solid surface. In other words, the firmament is firm (to support waters above it). Some versions of the Bible accurately translate the term as "dome" (NRSV, CEV) or "vault" (NIV 2011). This fits with the ancient cultures' belief of a flat Earth, but it is not consistent with what we now know from science.

 

Going on we read, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years" (Gen 1:14). Here we have the sun, moon and stars being hung in the firmament/dome, which is consistent with the ancient flat Earth belief that the sun, moon and stars are dots on a dome, but it is not consistent with what we now know from science.

 

We read from a prophetic vision, "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs" (Revelation 6:13). So, the stars can fall to Earth like figs falling from a tree? Later the vision proclaims that a "third part of the stars of heaven" are "cast" down "to the earth" (Rev 12:4). From the ancient flat Earth perspective that the starts were just dots hanging from a dome, this prophecy would be believable. However, knowing that stars are enormous balls of fire and that the Earth would disintegrate before coming into contact with even one star, this prophecy is clearly absurd. Even Jesus espoused this misunderstanding when he said that "the stars shall fall from heaven" (Matt 24:29)!

 

When Jesus was being tempted by the devil, we read, "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world" (Matt 4:8). So, every kingdom of the world could be seen from "an exceeding high mountain"? This would be believable from the flat Earth perspective, but we now know that Earth is a sphere and therefore it would be impossible to see the whole surface of Earth from any point. Some try to argue that this was a vision, but the text does not give any such indication. In fact, if one insists on interpreting this as a vision, the only point at which it would make sense would be where it says the devil "sheweth him" (in that he showed him a vision), but that comes after the devil supposedly "taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain." But if it was merely a vision, then what would be the point in going up on a high mountain? Clearly, the narrative here does not support the suggestion that it was just a vision. The story is saying that all the kingdoms of Earth can be viewed from a very high mountain, but we now know that this is not true.

 

Daniel 4 tells of King Nebuchadnezzar having a dream, and when describing it the king said, "I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.... Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth" (Dan 4:2,10-11). Here we see the idea of a tree being so tall that it was visible over the whole Earth, in a vision reportedly from God! Lest one suggest that the Bible is only presenting this as the king's claim, let me point out that the remainder of Daniel 4 tells of the dream being interpreted by Daniel and then coming true, so the clear implication is that this was indeed a vision from God. And that dream from God is based on the ancient flat Earth belief, which we now know is false!

 

Some Christians bring up Isaiah's reference to "the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22), as though it confirms reality. Unfortunately for them, though, Earth is not a circle, it is a sphere. In response, they say that from outer space the Earth looks like a circle. However, Isaiah does not say that Earth merely looks like a circle from outer space, it calls Earth a circle. The Hebrew word used is "chuwg," which means circle or compass (to encircle or draw a circle), and it can also mean a vaulted circle. In other words, the image here is a disc shape, a flat circle, possibly with a dome over it. This fits in with the ancient view of a flat Earth, but we now know that Earth is a sphere!

 

Some also argue that Hebrew didn't have a word for "sphere," and therefore "circle" was their best approximation. However, this has a couple flaws. First, languages evolve to incorporate concepts as they arise. Therefore, if the Hebrews had believed that the earth was a sphere, then they would have come up with a way to convey that concept in their language. Second, Hebrew does have a word for "ball," which Isaiah used when he said that God will "toss thee like a ball" (Isa 22:18). If Isaiah had wanted to convey the idea of a spherical Earth, then "ball" would have been a better word choice than "circle"!

 

As such, it is obvious that the Christian claim that Isaiah confirmed the Earth's spherical shape is wrong. Isaiah presents the Earth as being a circle, which is a flat disc, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

 

In fact, we read that "the Lord" spoke (Job 38:1) of taking "hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it" (Job 38:13). From the flat Earth perspective, one could believe this, but a spherical Earth has no "ends" to grab hold of, and we know that there is no edge of the Earth from which people can fall off of the planet.

 

We also read, "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (Psalm 93:1), and "the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved" (Psalm 96:10). Elsewhere a psalm of David says, "The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (I Chron 16:30). The idea being presented here is that the Earth is in a firm location and cannot be moved, which is consistent with ancient flat Earth belief, but we now know that the Earth is constantly rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun.

 

In Ecclesiastes we are told, "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose" (Ecclesiastes 1:5). Elsewhere we read about "the sun," that its "going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it" (Psalm 19:4,6). These clearly depict the sun going on a circuit around the Earth. Similarly we read, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.... So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). This alleged miracle is also clearly written from the perspective that the sun is a bright dot that goes around the Earth.

 

Some argue that these passages were merely written the way things appear to us as humans, as if that somehow solves the problem. Of course they are written the way things look to our eyes, because they were written by mere mortal humans, just like us! They just didn't have the advances in knowledge that we have to show that reality is different from how it appears to the naked eye. Had these passages really been inspired by an all-knowing Creator, then he would have known better! And, with regard to the sun standing still, if in fact the Earth stopped rotating, then not only would there likely have been serious physical consequences for the planet, but such an event would have been observed by people of all cultures. Yet the people of other contemporary cultures, some of whom wrote extensively about astronomical observances, are completely silent about this supposed event.

 

Some also point out that even today we use the metaphors "sunrise" and "sunset," and therefore the Biblical depiction of the sun is warranted. However, the texts already cited mention not only the sun rising and setting from our perspective, but also that the sun "hasteth back to his place where he arose" (Ecc 1:5) and travels a "circuit unto the ends of" the earth (Psalm 19:6). This clearly depicts the sun going around Earth, which is simply not true. In addition, the very terms "sunrise" and "sunset" probably have their origin in the ancient concept of the sun going around the Earth, and have merely become metaphors now that we know better. Our modern literature thoroughly documents the fact that Earth rotates and revolves around the sun, but the ancients really believed that the sun physically moved around the earth. There is nothing in the Bible or cultures from which the Bible came that gives any indication that the Biblical references to the sun rising and setting were meant metaphorically. Instead, they clearly depict the sun going around Earth.

 

At any rate, there is nothing in the Bible that presents the Earth as the sphere revolving around the sun, as we now know to be true. On the other hand, the Bible consistently indicates that its authors believed in a flawed ancient concept of a flat Earth vaulted by a dome, and that the sun, moon and stars are just bright dots moving around on the dome. So much for the Bible being inspired by the all-knowing Creator of the cosmos!