co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, September 20, 2026
No Flat Earther Here, Sirs (Nor Many in Early Church History)
@answersingenesis
Did the Church Teach That the Earth Is Flat?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1YUIhlLloRs
While the Church didn't teach the Earth was flat, it seems individual Church Fathers did.
And that's good, it means they rejected Greek cosmology. Now, is Greek cosmology that bad? Not really, but Greek cosmology taught concentric solid and transparent (so, crystalline) spheres.
Meanwhile, this leaves all of the early Church teaching that "Earth" ... sorry LAND ... has four corners, which is what Eretz means in contexts like Apoc. 7:1 (not sure of the precise extension of meaning of the Greek "ge" but it's used as a calque of Eretz), and all of the early Church teaching that Earth (this time, it's the correct English term) doesn't move, but Heavens move around Earth up to the stars.
(Solid spheres were refuted by Tycho Brahe, by the way, when observing a comet as not purely atmospheric and which would have passed through several solids if they had been there).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment