Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 10:45:08 AM

Title: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 10:45:08 AM
Phenomenological language means speaking of the appearance of a thing although this is not its real nature.  For example, consider this sentence:

He looked down from his penthouse window, watching all the tiny people rushing off to their jobs.

The people described in this sentence are not actually any smaller than normal.  The author does not intend to indicate that they are, nor does the reader understand it that way. They both realize the people look small because they are far away.

A similar way of using language occurs in this situation, in which a mother speaks to a young child:

“You stay here with Daddy.  Do you see that little tree over there? Mommy is going to be near there, and will be back for supper time.”

In this case too, the tree looks smaller than it really is because of distance.  The child, however, is too young to understand perspective and does not realize that his mother is talking about a tree that is actually big.  The mother is not lying to the child, but telling the truth using terms the child will understand.  The mother intends to convey a message to reassure the child that she will return.  She is not talking about the size of trees.

According to Providentissimus Deus, Scripture sometimes uses this kind of language:

Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Note that this idea is not some novelty introduced by Pope Leo XIII, but a teaching going back at least as far as St. Thomas Aquinas. This interpretation is not an attack on the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not a lie or error to describe things according to how they appear to our senses or put into terms that one’s readers can understand, even when the appearance is not the same as the inner nature. 

To apply this to a specific passage of Scripture, let’s look at this one from the first chapter of Genesis: 

[6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=6-#x) And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=7-#x) And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 

The Church does not expect us to take this literally, since it is contrary to reason.  Therefore, we may interpret it as speaking of how things appeared to people at the time it was written.  To them, it appeared as if there were a hard, clear dome above the earth which had water on the other side, giving the sky the same colour as water in lakes and rivers. This water could come to the earth as rain.  The hard dome is what held the lights in the sky in their places: the sun, the moon, and the stars.

As stated in PD, “the sacred authors and the Holy Ghost who spoke through them…did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature.” The point of this passage and its larger context is to say that everything that we see was created by God, by deliberate act, and God made His creation good.

This message was in contrast to surrounding pagan mythology which explained creation as a random, violent event.  They said things like the gods had battled and blood from their wounds  made the world.  It was all a big accident.

Just as the mother in the example above was not trying to teach her child about the size of the tree but to reassure him, Scripture is not trying to teach that the sky is a hard dome but to reassure us that creation was not random.  God wanted to make everything that we see around us.  God made it and it is good. 

This message is as important now as it was when it was written.  We too live surrounded by people who believe a creation myth based on randomness, which is what atheistic evolution is. We need to focus on the point of the story, rather than try to turn Genesis into a science book.
 
This way of understanding Genesis is explicitly allowed by Pius X:

Quote
Question 5. Must each and everything, namely, the words and phrases, that occur in the aforesaid chapters always and of necessity be interpreted in the literal sense, so that it is never permitted to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used not literally (but) metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the literal sense?
Response: No.
https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/ (https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/)
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Meg on February 13, 2018, 10:54:02 AM


Phenomenology is the belief that truth can be best gained through direct personal experience. That's why modernists such as JP2 were admitted phenomenologists. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 11:01:33 AM

Phenomenology is the belief that truth can be best gained through direct personal experience. That's why modernists such as JP2 were admitted phenomenologists.

Phenomenology as a philosophical position has nothing to do phenomenological language. One might as well say that those who take Scripture literally must like literature. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Meg on February 13, 2018, 11:07:20 AM
Phenomenology as a philosophical position has nothing to do phenomenological language.

It's the same word. Of course it's the same thing. JP2 admitted that he was a phenomenologist. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 11:19:23 AM
It's the same word. Of course it's the same thing.
They both come from the same root word.  Phenomenological language is a figure of speech in which one describes phenomena by their appearance rather than real nature.

According to Wikipedia:
Phenomenology may refer to:
·        Empirical research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research), when used to describe measurement methods in some sciences
·        An empirical relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_relationship) or phenomenological model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenological_model)
·        Phenomenology (architecture) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(architecture)), based on the experience of building materials and their sensory properties
·        Phenomenology (archaeology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(archaeology)), based upon understanding cultural landscapes from a sensory perspective
·        Phenomenology (particle physics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)), a branch of particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy experiments
·        Phenomenology (philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)), a philosophical method and school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938 )
·        Phenomenology (psychology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(psychology)), subjective experiences or their study
 
The philosophical approach founded by Husserl is problematic for Catholics.  This does not mean that every possible use of the word is something bad.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Meg on February 13, 2018, 11:24:10 AM
They both come from the same root word.  Phenomenological language is a figure of speech in which one describes phenomena by their appearance rather than real nature.

According to Wikipedia:
Phenomenology may refer to:
·        Empirical research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research), when used to describe measurement methods in some sciences
·        An empirical relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_relationship) or phenomenological model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenological_model)
·        Phenomenology (architecture) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(architecture)), based on the experience of building materials and their sensory properties
·        Phenomenology (archaeology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(archaeology)), based upon understanding cultural landscapes from a sensory perspective
·        Phenomenology (particle physics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)), a branch of particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy experiments
·        Phenomenology (philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)), a philosophical method and school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938 )
·        Phenomenology (psychology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(psychology)), subjective experiences or their study
 
The philosophical approach founded by Husserl is problematic for Catholics.  This does not mean that every possible use of the word is something bad.

Like how the root word of "Modernism" may not be all bad? Modernists, of course, do not believe that the term 'Modernism' is bad at all. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: hismajesty on February 13, 2018, 11:31:07 AM
They both come from the same root word.  Phenomenological language is a figure of speech in which one describes phenomena by their appearance rather than real nature.

According to Wikipedia:
Phenomenology may refer to:
·        Empirical research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research), when used to describe measurement methods in some sciences
·        An empirical relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_relationship) or phenomenological model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenological_model)
·        Phenomenology (architecture) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(architecture)), based on the experience of building materials and their sensory properties
·        Phenomenology (archaeology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(archaeology)), based upon understanding cultural landscapes from a sensory perspective
·        Phenomenology (particle physics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)), a branch of particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy experiments
·        Phenomenology (philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)), a philosophical method and school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938 )
·        Phenomenology (psychology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(psychology)), subjective experiences or their study
The philosophical approach founded by Husserl is problematic for Catholics.  This does not mean that every possible use of the word is something bad.

Jayne,
can you produce a reference prior to vatican II, which is not suspicious, using the word "phenomenological"  as a legitimate approach?
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 11:33:32 AM
"He sitteth above the compass (literal) of earth,  and the people are spread out like locusts (phenomenological) beneath."
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 11:35:37 AM
Like how the root word of "Modernism" may not be all bad? Modernists, of course, do not believe that the term 'Modernism' is bad at all.
Yes.  There is nothing necessarily wrong with modern style furniture or modern plumbing.  Even "modernism" could be referring to art or literature.  But modernism, meaning the heresy, is of course a great evil.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 11:38:54 AM
To apply this to a specific passage of Scripture, let’s look at this one from the first chapter of Genesis:

[6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=6-#x) And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=7-#x) And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

The Church does not expect us to take this literally, since it is contrary to reason.  Therefore, we may interpret it as speaking of how things appeared to people at the time it was written.  To them, it appeared as if there were a hard, clear dome above the earth which had water on the other side, giving the sky the same colour as water in lakes and rivers. This water could come to the earth as rain.  The hard dome is what held the lights in the sky in their places: the sun, the moon, and the stars.

bzzzt.  This crosses over from phenomenological / metaphorical language into blatant error.

Because it looked to "them" (who's "them" ... since the Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture?) to be hard, they "mistakenly" described it as such.  Because the idiots saw a blue sky, they mistakenly concluded that there was water up there.  This is not phenomenological language at all ... but blatant error.  Phenomenological language might include things like "and then the sun set".

This is nothing but modernist crap.

Here's my take on firmament.  If there's no such thing as a solid firmament, then it's because the original Hebrew word actually means "expanse" ... the Latin word for which is spatium ... from which we get our word space.  So the original Hebrew did not imply solidity ... even though the Latin translation did ... by way of interpretation.

This passage above makes the people who wrote Scripture into a bunch of ignoramuses whose ignorance somehow broke through the authorship of Scripture by the Holy Spirit to inject their errors into it.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
Firmament is ABOVE the clouds. OBVIOUSLY.

There is no person who observed the sky and said it looked "hard" or "strong".

Does it look that way tp YOU??

No.

God is teaching us what we cannot know: there is a solid barrier holding back the waters above.  LITERALLY.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: MyrnaM on February 13, 2018, 11:43:28 AM
Which is why when it comes to the Church that Christ found, the Holy Ghost inspiration was to have the official language to be Latin since it was a language that would not be misunderstood, nor the meaning changed.  Forever the words meant what they were intended to mean.
Just another indication that the novus O made sure to put the language on the way back burner, in order to change, change and change.

Novus order means NEW. 
Francis the leader of a NEW CULT, Not Catholic!

Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 12:01:13 PM
Jayne,
can you produce a reference prior to vatican II, which is not suspicious, using the word "phenomenological"  as a legitimate approach?
I don't think I would be able to find such a thing, because I suspect the use of that term was introduced with Biblical literary criticism.  The word itself, however, is not important. I could have written that post without using it.  The idea that words in Scripture can refer to how things appear rather than their real nature is very old and St. Thomas writes about it in the Summa
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 12:03:27 PM
bzzzt.  This crosses over from phenomenological / metaphorical language into blatant error.

Because it looked to "them" (who's "them" ... since the Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture?) to be hard, they "mistakenly" described it as such.  Because the idiots saw a blue sky, they mistakenly concluded that there was water up there.  This is not phenomenological language at all ... but blatant error.  Phenomenological language might include things like "and then the sun set".

This is nothing but modernist crap.

Here's my take on firmament.  If there's no such thing as a solid firmament, then it's because the original Hebrew word actually means "expanse" ... the Latin word for which is spatium ... from which we get our word space.  So the original Hebrew did not imply solidity ... even though the Latin translation did ... by way of interpretation.

This passage above makes the people who wrote Scripture into a bunch of ignoramuses whose ignorance somehow broke through the authorship of Scripture by the Holy Spirit to inject their errors into it.
To make matters worse, that modernist crap was WRITTEN BY Jaynek. 
She wasn't quoting. Hilarious. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 12:08:05 PM
https://www.amazon.com/Flood-Evidence-Reasons-Still-Matter/dp/0890519781



Book discusses Firmament and waters above and Flood.


Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 12:11:31 PM
Jaynek has a very long list of Biblical dogmas that she does not believe in. 
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: hismajesty on February 13, 2018, 12:14:02 PM
I don't think I would be able to find such a thing, because I suspect the use of that term was introduced with Biblical literary criticism.  The word itself, however, is not important. I could have written that post without using it.  The idea that words in Scripture can refer to how things appear rather than their real nature is very old and St. Thomas writes about it in the Summa.

well why can't you just use a traditional word then please. You're thread title has a very authoritative ring to it, and is thus misleading.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Meg on February 13, 2018, 12:20:56 PM
I don't think I would be able to find such a thing, because I suspect the use of that term was introduced with Biblical literary criticism.  The word itself, however, is not important. I could have written that post without using it.  The idea that words in Scripture can refer to how things appear rather than their real nature is very old and St. Thomas writes about it in the Summa.

The problem with judging things on how they appear is that is can be subjective. That's the problem with the phenomenology. There are those in the conciliar church today who believe that JP2 confirmed the right and traditional view of religion, in that he was able to show the truths of the Catholic faith through his subjective and observable analysis. But that's a problem, too, in that once something is made subjective, it is susceptible to differing views of reality. And then subjectivity becomes the norm or measure, rather than absolute truth.

Dietrich von Hildebrand was also an admitted phenomenologist. He rightly saw the terrible changes in the church after the council, but he did not tie them in with the role that phenomenology played in the rise of modernism.

Progressives have been interpreting St. Thomas to suit their views for awhile now.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 12:23:08 PM
To make matters worse, that modernist crap was WRITTEN BY Jaynek.
She wasn't quoting. Hilarious.

Well, I apologize for the strong language.  I mistakenly assumed that it was lifted from the link at the bottom of the post.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 12:27:06 PM
Is it this Compass? (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31It3iC%2BTNL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg)Does God sitteth above this?

I could find three definitions of the noun compass. The one above, the magnetic one that points north, and the one that is probably meant by Isaiah 40:22.


Not to mention that it's a huge mistake to interpret Scripture based on ENGLISH translations of it.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 12:31:53 PM
bzzzt.  This crosses over from phenomenological / metaphorical language into blatant error.

Because it looked to "them" (who's "them" ... since the Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture?) to be hard, they "mistakenly" described it as such.  Because the idiots saw a blue sky, they mistakenly concluded that there was water up there.  This is not phenomenological language at all ... but blatant error.  Phenomenological language might include things like "and then the sun set".

This is nothing but modernist crap.

Here's my take on firmament.  If there's no such thing as a solid firmament, then it's because the original Hebrew word actually means "expanse" ... the Latin word for which is spatium ... from which we get our word space.  So the original Hebrew did not imply solidity ... even though the Latin translation did ... by way of interpretation.

This passage above makes the people who wrote Scripture into a bunch of ignoramuses whose ignorance somehow broke through the authorship of Scripture by the Holy Spirit to inject their errors into it.
Providentissimus Deus includes a statement that the Sacred authors "put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."  Are you disagreeing with that or do you think I am not applying it properly?

I checked the BDB Lexicon on the Hebrew and I don't think it supports your translation of "raqia".  It gives the meanings "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; (cf Job 37:18 )), flat expanse (as if of ice), as base, support, hence the vault of heaven  or "firmament" regarded by Hebrews as solid and supporting waters above it."  It comes from a root word that refers to beating out sheets of metal, so that seems like a pretty strong connotation of solidity to me.  I'd say the Vulgate firmamentum captures the Hebrew better than your suggestion does.

I don't think you can avoid the problems of taking this literally by translating your way out of it.  
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 12:37:41 PM
well why can't you just use a traditional word then please. You're thread title has a very authoritative ring to it, and is thus misleading.
In hindsight, I think you are right.  
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 12:40:59 PM
Well, I apologize for the strong language.  I mistakenly assumed that it was lifted from the link at the bottom of the post.
No problem.  Perhaps I can take it as a compliment to the professionalism of my writing style, if not to the orthodoxy of my ideas.  :D
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 01:35:49 PM
Is it this Compass? (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31It3iC%2BTNL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg)Does God sitteth above this?

I could find three definitions of the noun compass. The one above, the magnetic one that points north, and the one that is probably meant by Isaiah 40:22.




The passage is referring to all that is within limits of the Earth. It most definitely is not referring to it's shape. If it was, I doubt it was referring to the one in the picture above. Also, as far as I can tell, the magnetic compass was invented in China as a divination device about 600 years after Isaiah was written. Whether those timelines are true or not, it's pretty clear that Scripture is not talking about shapes.
You're painfully dumb.
You didn't read your dictionary very far either.
What SHAPE does that noun make? A circle.
But compass is alse a VERB: to encircle, go around. 
As in, "I will COMPASS thine altar, O Lord."
Or don't you follow at Mass?
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 01:44:49 PM
In hindsight, I think you are right.  
Mr Garrison is always misleading, and thinks quite a lot of herself,  as evidenced above where she thinks Lad was complimenting her condescending writing style
.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 03:02:35 PM
Am I dumb for taking your translation of the Verse literally? Isn't that what you are doing just using a different definition? Anyway, all the Hebrew Bible translations I've seen say "circle". A definition of circle can be "the area within which something acts, exerts influence, etc.; realm; sphere" So the circle of the earth could be His area in which He acts or His realm of the Earth.

Dictionary.com also has this as the 16th definition of circle: it even seems to use Isaiah 40:22 as an example. Curious.
So your reading of Scripture as the Earth being in the shape of a circle is your bias as a flat-Earther, not necessarily what Scripture is trying to convey.
We've covered this ad nauseam. 
Circle = 2D
Sphere = 3D
St Augustine, Basil, & Lactantius taught "earth round like a trencher (cheesboard) and not round like a ball. "
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 11:14:11 PM
.
I have a 1609 Catholic Bible that infallibly defines "A firmament" (Genesis 1:6, "And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters") as follows: 

.
"Chap. 1.   Ver. 6.   A firmament.  By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds."
.
Consequently, the firmament is not any solid or hard material but rather it is the zone or space between the earth and the highest stars which modern man would call the atmosphere and outer space. The water that is divided is the separation between liquid water as it occurs on the surface of the earth and vaporous water as it occurs in clouds in the sky. The ancient Bible authors had no way of understanding that the principal limit of water vapor is the earth's atmosphere. But today, we know that even in outer space, water can exist albeit in a very sparse and expanded form, with much distance between each water molecule without confines of ambient air pressure.

Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 14, 2018, 09:34:24 AM
Providentissimus Deus includes a statement that the Sacred authors "put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."  Are you disagreeing with that or do you think I am not applying it properly?

I checked the BDB Lexicon on the Hebrew and I don't think it supports your translation of "raqia".  It gives the meanings "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; (cf Job 37:18 )), flat expanse (as if of ice), as base, support, hence the vault of heaven  or "firmament" regarded by Hebrews as solid and supporting waters above it."  It comes from a root word that refers to beating out sheets of metal, so that seems like a pretty strong connotation of solidity to me.  I'd say the Vulgate firmamentum captures the Hebrew better than your suggestion does.

I don't think you can avoid the problems of taking this literally by translating your way out of it.  

Well, if the Bible says there's a SOLID expanse above the earth, then there's a solid expanse above the earth.  There's no error in the Bible.

RAQIA is from the same root as a verb that means to spread out.  It's commonly used of metal, when you beat metal out into a sheet.  But it could just as easily be applied to spreading peanut butter with a knife onto a piece of bread.  Core meaning is to spread something out ... or even stretch out (and would also line up with the "tent" metaphor used elsewhere).  While commonly used in the context of metal, it's can't be considered LIMITED to solid things.

But your explanation that the people who brought us the Bible (not the Holy Spirit?) were just mistaken in thinking it was solid based on how it looks ... goes beyond phenomenological language to plain error.  It would be quite another thing to say that they used a metaphor with a solid thing (like they did with the tent) to imply the stretching or spreading out.  That's different.  But to say that the author of the Scriptures mistakenly THOUGHT it actually WAS solid is wrong and introduces error into Sacred Scripture.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 14, 2018, 09:41:04 AM
Not even going to address what I said? You called me dumb for doing something you do yourself...constantly. At least try to have a comeback.
St. Augustine (City of God XVI.9): "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."

This doesn't sound like a guy who's teaching flat-Earth. He's open to the possibility of a spherical earth.

Actually, the statement from St. Augustine DOES support flat earth.  He rejects the notion of antipodes, but says that the WORLD is round.  If you look at the ancient cosmology, the OVERALL world was indeed round or spherical because it included the FIRMAMENT as a round DOME.

(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png)

So, you see, OVERALL, the WORLD is round and spherical, but the earth itself is flat WITHIN the round world.  This would also address the problem of various private revelations which pictured the WORLD as a globe.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 14, 2018, 09:47:45 AM
and most ancient peoples had a similar conception --

Mayas, Incas, Navajos, etc. etc. etc.

(http://robschannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MayanFirmament.jpg)

(http://robschannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/IncaFirmament.jpg)
(http://robschannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NavajoFirmament.jpg)

IMO too much of a coincidence.  I am a believer in what's been called "primitive revelation" so that when a bunch of people scattered around the world have very similar concepts about some things, that this knowledge is derived ultimately from the first human beings (Adam and Eve).
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 14, 2018, 10:11:29 AM
World = entire universe
Earth = flat plane of land/seas
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on February 14, 2018, 10:19:20 AM
His statement that "They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form" implying that he does not believe the "world" is round or spherical but flat. I completely admit that he held this opinion. The point is that he didn't hold it to such a high importance as to consider it Divinely Revealed, as evinced by his admission that the world being proven round is possible. The model is irrelevant to the issue of whether St. Augustine TAUGHT the flat Earth.

True.  He dismissed it as speculation and lacking proof.  I agree that it doesn't sound like the Church Fathers were TEACHING this as somehow part of the Deposit and received wisdom from the Apostles.

Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: happenby on February 14, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
His statement that "They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form" implying that he does not believe the "world" is round or spherical but flat. I completely admit that he held this opinion. The point is that he didn't hold it to such a high importance as to consider it Divinely Revealed, as evinced by his admission that the world being proven round is possible. The model is irrelevant to the issue of whether St. Augustine TAUGHT the flat Earth.
I've studied the Fathers trying to understand what the Fathers are saying here.  From what I can tell, Augustine is addressing whether the world, (everything) is encased in a spherical cover where the top half is a dome, (attempting to answer whether heaven is spherical) that either the the heavenly star-containing dome encircled the flat earth around the bottom, or, was it strictly a dome that covered the top portion of flat earth while leaving the bottom half of earth outside.  That is why he didn't consider it of much import.  Either way, a dome (firmament) covers the top and meets up with the sides of earth at some point before proceeding around the other side, if indeed heaven is spherical. Or there's only a dome. Everyone seems to interchange terms to suit their understanding.  But Augustine was a flat earther and when he said "world", as far as I know, he didn't interchange the term with "earth".  As far as I can tell, when the Fathers discuss the heavens, universe, firmament, dome, or world, they are not talking about earth and vise versa.  So the answer to your question is no.  Augustine did not think the universe is flat.
Title: Re: Phenomenological language in Scripture
Post by: happenby on February 14, 2018, 01:14:24 PM
Tell your friend Smed.
I'm pretty sure he knows because he said:
World = entire universe
Earth = flat plane of land/seas