Untwisting Scripture: Refuting Flat Earth Falsehoods – Part 5

In this series of articles, we’ve been addressing the most common prooftexts that FSIPs (Flat/Stationary Interpretation Proponents) cite to justify their allegation that the Bible depicts, indicates, or implies a flat and/or stationary earth. Genesis 1 is a passage frequently cited among these many prooftexts. I recommend you read the chapter before continuing.

Now, most of you are probably wondering what in the world this passage has to do with the shape of the earth. Indeed, anyone simply reading these verses in their context without a preset agenda would never link the idea of a flat or stationary earth with these verses. The very fact that I need to explain how the FSIPs infer this concept from these verses ought to speak volumes.

FSIPs usually appeal to two concepts contained within this passage: 1) the earth having a “face” and 2) the word “firmament.”^[1] According to FSIPs, the earth has a face like a clock has a face. Therefore, since a clock is round and flat, the earth must be round and flat. Additionally, they believe that the firmament is a firm or solid dome that covers a flat, circular earth, like the dome of a snow globe. (See image below)

Is this really what Moses was intending to communicate here in Genesis? Is this what any of the biblical authors were endeavoring to depict, suggest, or portray in their writings? Or is this yet another example of the FSIPs imposing their preexisting cosmological ideas onto the text to justify their cosmological beliefs? Let’s once again examine the text in context to see if there’s any validity to these claims.

The Face of the Earth

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is
on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. (Gen 1:29)

Genesis isn’t the only book of the Bible that speaks of the earth having a “face.” All told, the phrase “the face of the earth” (pā·ně hā ā’·rěṣ) appears more than twenty times in fourteen different books.

The Hebrew term pā·ně occurs ~1940 times in Scripture, with more than 350 of those being translated as “face.” Many of these instances are meant figuratively, like “he fell on his face,” seeing God “face to face,” and “seek my face.”

You have said, “Seek my face.”
My heart says to you,
“Your face, Lord, I do seek.”
Hide not your face from me. (Ps 27:8-9a)

It’s also used literally in many places. Yet, pā·ně is never used (either figuratively or literally) in reference to a clock or any other kind of timekeeping device like a sundial.

The most common sense in which “face” is intended is of a human face.

Israel said to Joseph, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face and know
that you are still alive.” (Gen 46:30)

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai… the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him… ³³ And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. (Ex 34:29–33)

Shockingly enough, human faces are on human heads, and human heads are not “flat like a clock.” Rather, a human head is shaped more like an oblate spheroid (a sphere). So, if we’re to follow the FSIPs’ reasoning, we should really conclude that since the earth has a face like a human head has a face … the earth must be an oblate spheroid!

But, of course, such reasoning is completely fallacious (as is their entire line of argumentation).

Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological views on the text naturally understands that face means surface in these passages in Genesis and elsewhere. The two words are synonymous. As a matter of fact, they’re the same word in Hebrew.

That’s why pā·ně is also rendered as “surface” in these very same translations.

Behold, the Lord will empty the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface (pā·ně )and scatter its inhabitants. (Isa 24:1)
He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the surface of the earth (pā·ně hā ā’·rěṣ),
the Lord is his name; (Am 5:8)

This is why many English translations render pā·ně as “surface” in Genesis 1.^[2] For example, the NASB1995 reads…

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters… (v. 1)

Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth.” (v. 29)

And in Ezekiel we read:

“My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.” (Ezk 34.6)

Now, all three-dimensional objects have surfaces, regardless of their shape. Both a hockey puck and a basketball have a surface. Both my desk and the globe on my desk have a surface or face. The surface of an object is simply the external or outward facing side of an object. Hence the synonym face.

Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological presuppositions on the text understands that the passage is in no way attempting to depict or communicate what the shape of the earth is by using the word “face.”

Once again, the FSIP-cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth have absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

The Firmament

And God said, “Let there be a firmament [rāqîa‘] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament [rāqîa‘], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [rāqîa‘] from the waters which were above the firmament [rāqîa‘]; and it was so. And God called the firmament [rāqîa‘] Heaven. (Gen 1:6–8 KJV)

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament [rāqîa‘] of the heavens…” Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament [rāqîa‘] of the heavens to give light upon the earth… Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament [‘al penê rāqîa‘] of the heavens.” (Gen 1:14-20 NKJV)

As I said above, FSIPs believe that the firmament in Genesis 1 is a solid metal dome that encloses a flat earth like a snow globe. How do they derive this concept from this passage?

Richard D. Phillips explains in The Reformed Expository Commentary on Genesis, “A popular view among liberal scholars is that Moses held a primitive understanding in which the sky was a metal dome holding back the waters of the cosmic sea. The use of the word ‘firmament’ in the Latin Vulgate and through it the King James Version has encouraged this interpretation… The idea is that the Israelites picked up this idea of the sky as a metal roof from their ancient Near Eastern neighbors.”^[3]

There are then two primary aspects of this interpretation: 1) the use of the word “firmament” and 2) the cosmologies of the Hebrews’ neighbors.

The Word Translated as “Firmament”

Now, chances are many of you couldn’t find the word firmament when you read through Genesis 1 in your Bible. That’s because it only appears in most of the older English translations, most notably the King James, New King James, Revised Standard, and Authorized versions. It’s likely that if you have a more modern translation, the word in your version is “expanse.”

God said, “Let there be an expanse [rāqîa‘]…” And God made the expanse [rāqîa‘] and separated the waters that were under the expanse [rāqîa‘] from the waters that were above the expanse [rāqîa‘]… And God called the expanse [rāqîa‘] Heaven. (ESV, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, YLT)

The Hebrew word being translated as firmament/expanse is rāqîa‘.

What is the best translation of rāqîa‘ here in Genesis? Let’s first look and see how the passage itself describes the rāqîa‘.

According to these verses, the rāqîa‘ is something created by God on the second day (v. 8) that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath (v. 6). The waters beneath are “the seas” or oceans (v. 10). What are the waters above? We’re not told.

In the rāqîa‘ God placed the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light), and the stars (v. 16). So, the rāqîa‘ is the space or area above the seas in which the sun, moon, and stars reside.

Further, we’re told that birds fly across the face of the rāqîa‘ (v. 20), and that God called the rāqîa‘ “heaven” (šā·mǎ·yim) (v. 8).

This is all the information we’re given. Please note that there’s nothing about the size, shape, or nature of the rāqîa‘ included in Genesis itself.

Other Uses of rāqîa‘

What about outside of Genesis? What if we turned to the other uses of the noun rāqîa‘ in the Bible (Ezekiel 1:22–26; 10:1; Psalm 19:1; 150:1; Daniel 12:3)? Do they provide any additional details about the rāqîa‘ of creation?

Daniel writes, “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky [rāqîa‘] above” (Dan. 12:3 ESV). From this we can see that the rāqîa‘ looks shiny and is above us. There’s nothing here about its shape, size, or nature, though.

Neither do we learn anything else about the shape, size, or nature of the rāqîa‘ from the two passages in the Psalms.

What about the two passages in Ezekiel? Many FSIPs cite these passages as “proof” that the rāqîa‘ is a solid dome.

In his book, Ezekiel records several prophetic visions that he’d seen (Ezk 1:1). In the first vision, he sees “the likeness of” four living creatures, each creature having four faces (a human, lion, ox and eagle face–what, no clock face?), four wings, human hands, and calves’ feet.

Beside each of these bizarre creatures, Ezekiel sees a wheel within a wheel with tall rims that were full of eyes. And above the heads of these creatures, Ezekiel sees “the likeness of” a rāqîa‘  “shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads” with a likeness of a throne above it (Ezk 1:22).

And from this highly symbolic vision, we’re supposed to understand the shape and nature of the rāqîa‘ in Genesis? Really?! Is this a good way to interpret Scripture? Is this a good example of Scripture interpreting Scripture? Are we also to understand from this vision that wheel rims have multitudes of eyeballs? And that seraphim have four heads with human, lion, ox, and eagle faces? That there’s a literal, material throne resting on top of the rāqîa‘ on which sits a human with a metal torso and legs of actual fire?

William Barrick writes, “[I]t would be a very erroneous interpretation to try to use the vision that Ezekiel saw to understand the nature, location, and relationship of the raqiya‘ [sic] with respect to other physical things in the time-space-matter world described on Days 2, 4, and 5 of Creation Week.”^[4]

This is a prime example of the outrageous lengths that FSIPs will go to make the Scripture fit their beliefs.

Even if we did use these passages in Ezekiel, the only thing that we’d learn is that something with “the likeness of a rāqîa‘“ shines “like awe-inspiring crystal” (1:22). So, it’s something overhead that looks shiny, just like in Daniel.

As it turns out, the other uses of the noun rāqîa‘ in the Bible are of no help in understanding the shape or nature of the rāqîa‘ of creation.

The Etymology of rāqîa‘

We can next try looking at the etymology of the word rāqîa‘. It derives from the Hebrew verb rāqa‘, which has several meanings depending on the context in which it appears. For instance, rāqa‘ refers to hammering a thin layer of metal (Ex 39:3; Num 16:38-39), to stamping one’s feet (Ezek 6:11; 25:6), and to David stamping his enemies “down like the mire of the streets” (2 Sam 22:43). It’s also used for spreading out the earth (Ps 136:6; Isa 42:5; 44:24).

Please note the distinction between the action and the object of that action in these passages. They hammer (action) the metal (object of the action). They stamp (action) their feet (objects of the action). The verbal action doesn’t determine the meaning of the object nor its physical properties like shape, size, or nature. The verb rāqa‘ only describes what is happening or has happened to the object.

As commentator Herbert Livingston writes, “The emphasis in the Hebrew word raqia is not on the material itself but on the act of spreading out or the condition of being expanded.”^[5]

Therefore, it’s the action of rāqa‘ that ought to inform our definition of rāqîa‘.

As Dr. Danny Faulkner explains, “In any language, when a noun is created from a verb, as is the case with rāqîa‘, it is the action of the verb that gives the meaning to the noun, not some property of what, in some cases, may be the object of the verb. For instance, consider the English verb expand. This verb, imported from French, came first, and then later the noun expanse developed. An expanse is something that has been expanded. In the meaning of the noun expanse, there is no hint of any property of something that has been expanded. Rather, the meaning of expanse is derived entirely from the action of the verb expand. In similar manner, it ought to be obvious that the meaning of the Hebrew noun rāqîa‘ comes from the action of the Hebrew verb raqa‘, not from some property of what is sometimes the object of the verb… This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render raqa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.”^[6]

Therefore, etymologically, the closest definition of rāqîa‘ is “something spread out or expanded; an expanse.”

Dr. Henry Morris writes, “The English word ‘firmament’ in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew raqia, meaning ‘expanse.’ Its meaning is not ‘firm boundary’ as biblical critics have alleged, but might be better paraphrased as ‘stretched-out thinness’ or simply ‘space.’”^[7]

Martin Luther comments, “The Hebrew word rāqîa denotes ‘something spread out,’ from the verb raqa‘, which means ‘to expand’ or ‘fold out.’”^[8]

Interestingly, the šā·mǎ·yim (God called the rāqîa‘ “šā·mǎ·yim”) is poetically described as having been “spread out” or “stretched out” (nātāh) by God in numerous places (e.g., 2 Sam 22:10; Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 44:24; Jer 10:12; Zec 12:1).

John Gill notes, “God ordered a firmament to be, or an expanse; something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called”.^[9]

Does any of this speak to the size, shape, or nature of the rāqîa‘? No. All that we can really learn etymologically is that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been spread out.

Their Neighbors’ Beliefs

Since there is nothing within the Bible that gives any indication whatsoever that the rāqîa‘ is either solid or a dome, where do FSIPs get this idea from? They presume it based on the beliefs of the Israelites’ ancient pagan neighbors.

At the core of the FSIP argument is the assumption that, even though it’s nowhere explicitly stated, the Bible must contain the idea of the sky as a solid dome covering a flat earth because Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors believed the sky was a solid dome covering a flat earth.

As FSIP Paul H. Seely writes, “The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiya‘… is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid.”^[10]

“[T]he Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts,”^[11] says Seely. He then reasons that it’s “all the more historically probable” that Moses and his readers believed like their pagan neighbors did.

Indeed, this has been (and still is) the supposition of many liberal and evangelical scholars alike.

And yet, this argument is faulty on several levels.

First, the entirety of the argument is based on conjecture. We must assume what Moses was thinking and then read that assumption into his words.

As J.P. Holding writes, “The cosmology has been kept so basic and equivocal that one must force certain meanings into the text and analyze what the writer ‘must have been thinking.’”^[12]

Why do they believe Moses was thinking this? Is it because we have extrabiblical writings from Moses that proves this? No. As Dr. Terry Mortensen notes, “We have no way of knowing what the ancient Israelites, especially at the time of Moses when Genesis was written, believed about the earth, the raqiya‘, the heavenly bodies, etc. Apart from Scripture, the Israelites wandering in the wilderness with Moses left no records.”^[13]

Is it then because we have a plethora of extrabiblical writings demonstrating that the ancient Israelites believed this? Although we don’t, let’s suppose for a minute that we did. What would that prove? Nothing other than that many ancient Israelites thought a certain way. Does that mean all of them did? No. That’s the fallacy of division. Even if many (or even most) of the Israelites had believed a certain way, that doesn’t mean every single one of them did.

Mortenson writes, “While that might possibly be true of pagan idolatrous Israelites, there is no sound reason to think that it is true of Israelites who clung to God’s Word.”^[14]

After all, a substantial part of the Old Testament is dedicated to rebuking the Israelites for their wrong beliefs and behaviors. I vividly remember a museum exhibit about the ancient Israelites’ daily lives. Among the artifacts were dozens of household idols. Many Israelites were idolatrous polytheists. Are we then to assume that Moses and the other writers were idolatrous polytheists too?

That’s essentially what the FSIPs are alleging. Seely says elsewhere, “The writer and first readers of Gen 1 also inherited Mesopotamian concepts about the natural world from the patriarchs and no doubt were influenced by Egyptian concepts during their stay in Egypt. Moses, in fact, was ‘educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22; Ex 2:10).”^[15]

Many of Israel’s neighbors believed that the god Marduk created the heavens and the earth by splitting the carcass of the goddess Tiamat in half, “making the firmament from the top half to hold back the upper waters from flooding the earth. From the bottom half he made the mountainous foundations of the sea.”^[16]

Should we then assume this is what Moses must’ve been thinking and was really intending to communicate?

In his book The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?, author and expert on ancient pagan cultures and literature John Oswalt explains that when comparing the biblical worldview with those of ancient pagan cultures, they differ “not merely slightly, but diametrically.” He continues, “I am simply saying that any straightforward comparison must conclude that beneath any possible surface similarities are radically different ways of thinking about reality.”^[17]

Richard D. Phillips writes, “It is very doubtful that the Israelites would have simply imbibed the cosmology of their pagan neighbors, since their religion strongly emphasized both physical and metaphysical separation from idolaters.”^[18]

J.P. Holding concludes, “This argument is very weak indeed. The patriarchs worshipped God and believed His Word, not Mesopotamian myths. There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.”^[19]

That last sentence is worth repeating: “There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.” Therefore, what is going to be our authority in this discussion? What some people believe Moses might’ve been thinking because of his pagan environs? Or his actual words and what they reveal?

We ought to heed the wise counsel of John Sailhamer who once said, “[W]e must be careful to let neither our own view of the structure of the universe nor what we think to have been the view of ancient people to control our understanding of the biblical author’s description.”^[20]

But if many ancient Israelites had adopted the pagan cosmologies, couldn’t they have read it into the Bible? Do you hear what’s being asked? Couldn’t someone have imposed their extrabiblical beliefs on the Bible? Couldn’t they have interpreted the meaning of rāqîa‘ according to their own perceptions? Of course!

As Holding says, “Perhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text.”^[21] [emphasis mine]

The Bible “is often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the reader’s own culture, time and beliefs,” as Seely says.

Indeed, many have done exactly this throughout the centuries. It’s precisely what happened when Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint (LXX).

As J.B. Payne explains in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, “In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a ‘stone vault’ of heaven, rendered rāqîaʿ by stereōma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV ‘firmament.’”^[22]

The point being that the meaning of the word rāqîa‘ in Scripture is unclear when it comes to shape and nature, and that people must read their preexisting beliefs into rāqîa‘ in order to see them in it (i.e., eisegesis).

As J.P. Holding writes, “[T]he description of the raqiya‘ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place.”^[23]

Ultimately, there is no justifiable reason to believe the rāqîa‘  is a solid dome as opposed to an expanse of air or space.

Therefore, from a Scriptural perspective, we are free to believe whatever we want about the rāqîa‘, so long as we believe that it’s something created by God on the second day that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath, in which the sun, moon, and stars reside and across whose face the birds fly.

So, can FSIPs read their solid-dome beliefs into the rāqîa‘ without contradicting this information? Yes!

Can someone, with as much justification, say that it squares exactly with the current understanding of earth’s atmosphere and a universe that stretches billions of light-years in every direction? Yes. Whether the “waters above” are clouds or are cosmic waters at the edge of the physical universe, both models fit within the information we’re given.

As J.P. Holding concludes, “Truly enough, one can indeed read Genesis 1 and say that a solid sky is in mind. But one can also, with as much justification, read Genesis 1 and say rather that it comports exactly with what we know today of the atmosphere and the solar system, with or without adjustments made for phenomenological language, and this is because of the utterly equivocal nature of the language used in Genesis 1.” ^[24]

We simply need to recognize that we’re reading our extrabiblical beliefs into the Bible, not getting them from the Bible. We cannot–indeed, we must not–assert that passages like Genesis 1 teach or even imply our beliefs about the nature and shape of the rāqîa‘. What we can say is the Bible accommodates our beliefs about these things because of its ambiguity concerning them.

Once again, we see how FSIPs are reading their beliefs into the Bible in an attempt to justify their positions. And once again, we see that their FSIP beliefs are nowhere to be found there. The most serious problem with this is that they’re lying about God’s Word by alleging that it says something that it doesn’t. In so doing, they not only slander the Word of God but malign the God of the Word.

In our final article, we’ll take a look at corners, pillars, and circles; oh my!

 

^[1] The word firmament appears in the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and Geneva translations.

^[2] Some versions that render pā·ně as surface are the NIV, NLT, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, CJB, HCSB, ISV.

^[3] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-83). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

^[4] Barrick, W. D. 2013. Four Views on the Historical Adam (p. 201–202). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

^[5] Livingston, G. H., et al. 1969. Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis through Deuteronomy (p. 32). Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.

^[6] Faulkner, D. 2019. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims (p. 282). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

^[7] Morris, H. M. 2010. The third firmament. Days of Praise (October 17). https://www.icr.org/article/third-firmament/.

^[8] Luther, M. 1958. Luther’s Works, Volume 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5 (G. Schick, Trans., J. Pelikan, Ed., p. 24). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

^[9] Gill, J. 1810. An Exposition of the Old Testament (Volume I) (p. 5). London: Mathews and Leigh.

^[10] Seely, P. H. 1991. The firmament and the water above – part I: the meaning of raqiya’ in Gen. 1:6-8. Westminster Theological Journal 53: 227-240.

^[11] Seely, P.H. 1997. The geographical meaning of ‘earth’ and ‘seas’ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 236.

^[12] Holding, J. P. 1999. 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. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 46.

^[13] Mortenson, T. 2020. The firmament: what did God create on day 2? Answers Research Journal 13 (August 19): 113–133.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Seely, P.H., 1997. The geographical meaning of ‘earth’ and ‘seas’ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 246.

^[16] Ryken, L., et al. 2000. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (p. 169). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[17] Oswalt, J. N. 2009. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (p. 63). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

^[18] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-82). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

^[19] Holding, J. P. 2000. Is the ’erets (earth) flat? Journal of Creation 14 (December): 51–54. https://creation.com/is-the-erets-earth-flat

^[20] Sailhamer, J. H. 1992. The Pentateuch as Narrative (p. 89). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

^[21] Holding, J. P. 1999. 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. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 50.

^[22] Harris, R. L., et al (Eds.). 2003. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press.

^[23] Holding, J. P. 1999. 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. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 44.

^[24] Ibid, p. 45.