The notion that the Old Testament (OT) universally presupposed a flat earth with a solid metal dome is increasingly repeated in skeptical and liberal scholarship—but it is far from universally accepted. In fact, many competent scholars have shown that this claim rests on selective readings and methodologically flawed assumptions. One of the more helpful responses comes from Dr. Vern Poythress in Redeeming Science (p. 96):
“Sometimes it is said that the language in the Bible arises against the background of ancient ‘cosmology’ that postulated underlying waters, then solid earth, then a solid ‘firmament’ dome for the sky, then the sea above the firmament…
For one thing, the ancient Near East did not have one unified ‘ancient cosmology’ but several accounts—Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hittite—contradicting one another at points but nevertheless with some similarities. Genesis 1… repudiates the pagan accounts in favor of a monotheistic alternative…
[T]he idea that the firmament is literally solid is disconfirmed by the statement in Genesis 1:17 that God set the lights ‘in the expanse [firmament] of the heavens.’ If the lights in heaven were literally embedded in a solid, they could not move in the way that they obviously do.”
Poythress reminds us that Scripture’s language is observational and phenomenological, not technical or mechanical. The assumption that Genesis affirms an ANE cosmology collapses under scrutiny.
The Triple-Decker Obsession
Steve Hays once pointed out the inconsistency of privileging a so-called “triple-decker” universe model:
“Critics of the Bible like to belabor the triple-decker universe. This overlooks a number of considerations.
- The Bible employs a double-decker formula (e.g., Gen. 2:4) as well as a triple-decker formula (e.g., Exod. 20:4). Given this stylistic variety, there is no reason to privilege the triple-decker formula over and above the double-decker formula.”
Critics often assume a monolithic ANE cosmological background and project it onto Israel, ignoring internal diversity and political motivations behind certain mythologies.
Flat Earth Fundamentalism and the Early Church
A few nights ago, I debated a friend who abandoned inerrancy because he believes Scripture teaches a flat earth. He assumes a universal ANE background that extended into the early Church, refusing to consider contrary evidence. Jason Engwer offers a much-needed corrective in a rebuttal to John Loftus:
“Pliny the Elder, writing in the first century A.D., comments that belief in a spherical earth was the common view of his day (Natural History 2.2)… OT passages like Job 26:10 and Proverbs 8:27 may refer to the circular shape of the horizon.
Some church fathers did refer to the earth as flat, but the spherical view and agnosticism on the subject seem to predate the flat earth position among extant Christian sources.”
He also defends non-literal readings of common proof texts:
- Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 7:1 are not literal visual scenes. Jesus is supernaturally shown the kingdoms by Satan. It happens “in a moment of time” (Luke 4:5), not by visual elevation.
- “Four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech still used today. Tertullian, who used the phrase, also affirmed a spherical earth.
What Did the Early Church Actually Say?
The early Church was not cosmologically dogmatic:
- Victorinus, an early Revelation commentator, interpreted the “four corners” figuratively:
“By the corners of the earth, or the four winds across the river Euphrates, are meant four nations, because to every nation is sent an angel.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 9)
- Commodianus, a premillennial literalist, refers to the earth as a globe:
“He [the Antichrist] himself shall divide the globe into three ruling powers.” (The Instructions of Commodianus in Favor of Christian Discipline, Against the Gods of the Heathens, 41)
- Basil of Caesarea acknowledged divergent views:
“Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the form of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes… He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us.” (Hexaemeron, 9.1)
Even when incorrect, these thinkers qualified their statements and prioritized theological essentials over cosmological speculation.
Scripture Is Not a Cosmological Textbook
There is no detailed cosmology in Scripture comparable to ANE mythologies. Attempts to construct one by cherry-picking poetic texts (e.g., 2 Samuel 22; Job 26) are methodologically flawed. Critics like Loftus and Seely ignore:
- The diversity of ANE views.
- The phenomenological nature of biblical language.
- The restraint and nuance of early Christian writers.
Ultimately, the Bible speaks truly, but in terms consistent with ordinary observation—not scientific precision or pagan mythology. To collapse theology into outdated cosmology is to miss the point of revelation.
The Council 