Biblical Cosmology: Is the World Round?

Originally published: May 12, 2026

This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Contents of the Article

Biblical Cosmology: Is the World Round?

In polemical literature, claims are raised against the scientific reliability of biblical conceptions. In that context, verses are cited that ostensibly contradict contemporary scientific knowledge. For example, claims are made against biblical cosmology, which presents the earth as a flat disk and the heavens as an inverted bowl above the earth. Likewise, claims are made that in the Bible the sun moves and the earth stands still, contrary to the Copernican picture accepted today. Such claims were published on the “Hofesh” website, based on an article by Glen Eilart.

To understand the meaning of such claims, I should first note that contradictions between the Torah and science should be divided into two main types: a. verses in Scripture that contradict the scientific knowledge of our time. b. statements of the Sages and the medieval authorities that contradict the scientific knowledge of our time. Contradictions of the second type are less troubling, since there is no reason to assume that the Sages possessed broader or deeper scientific knowledge than that available in their own day to the scientific scholars of the rest of the world. Even in our own time, decisors who require scientific knowledge turn to professionals in the relevant fields. One may indeed ask how we should relate to the legal rulings of the Sages and the medieval authorities that arise from assumptions contradicting updated scientific knowledge (that is, whether a legal ruling based on such assumptions is binding on us or not), but the contradiction itself is not problematic. By contrast, a contradiction between Scripture and scientific knowledge raises a difficult problem. If God wrote and gave the Torah, and even the words of the prophets are spoken in His name and from Him, it is not reasonable that there should be scientific errors there. God should be equipped with complete and entirely up-to-date scientific information.

The question of biblical cosmology obviously belongs to the first type. If Scripture really yields a picture according to which the earth is flat, whereas today we know that it is a sphere, that raises questions. Does the God who wrote the Torah not know that our earth is a sphere? Alternatively, perhaps this indicates that He did not write and give the Torah? On the “Hofesh” website they apparently intend to persuade the reader of one of these two claims.

But this inference is based on a mistaken interpretation of the Bible. It is not necessary, and sometimes it is simply unreasonable, to read biblical verses as straightforward factual claims. Sometimes they are metaphors, and sometimes they are a mode of description suited to the ears of the ancient listener to whom the Bible was addressed. A literal interpretation of speech or written text is in many cases childish (can one infer from the phrase “the four corners of the earth” that the earth is flat and square?), and I would not build devastating arguments against the Bible on that basis. I will now try to illustrate this general principle by responding to Eilart’s claims about biblical cosmology.

The most important biblical quotation supporting a geocentric universe appears in the book of Joshua (10:12–13):

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over before the children of Israel. And he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on its enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to set for about a whole day.

Joshua’s miracle appears again as a reference in the book of Habakkuk (3:11):

Sun and moon stood still in their lofty abode; at the light of Your arrows they went, at the brightness of Your glittering spear.

The claim is that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not command the earth to stop rotating, nor did he add the divine information that this is only how things appear. Hence the Bible assumes that the sun is what moves, and not the earth.

On this I would make two remarks:

Contrary to the claim so beloved of atheists and critics of the Bible, Copernicus did not prove that the earth revolves around the sun. As is well known, when body A revolves around body B, that motion can be described in two different ways: a. the origin of the coordinate system is placed on body A—in this description body B moves around body A. b. the origin of the coordinate system is placed on body B—in this description body A moves around body B.

If so, there is actually no meaning at all to the claim that the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa. These are two equivalent claims, and everything depends on where we have located our coordinate origin. What Copernicus showed is that the description that places the coordinate origin on the sun is more convenient and simpler. The question of which description is the correct one is meaningless, since there is no correct description.[1] The choice of description is made only for reasons of convenience.

We can now understand that the biblical formulations describe the events as they appear to the observer (who of course is on earth). It is no surprise that they choose to place the coordinate origin on the earth rather than on the sun.

Even if the Copernican description were objective factual truth, there would still be no obstacle to reading the verses as though they were addressing the observer on earth. From his perspective, the picture is that the sun is what moves. And even if he were mistaken about this, a text addressed to him should not say that the earth stops, since the reader would not understand what was being said.

Eilart writes: On the other side of the geocentric coin, if the sun moves then the earth cannot move. There are several verses that forbid, more or less, the movement of the earth. For example, I Chronicles (16:30, and see also the parallels in Psalms 93:1; 96:10):

Tremble before Him, all the earth; indeed, the world is established, it shall not be moved.

It is not clear where in the verse there is any connection between the earth’s stability and the movement of the sun, but ostensibly he is right that one can infer from it that the earth is stable and does not move.

But whether or not we accept the divine origin of the Bible, it is clear that this is a childish interpretation of the verses. Take, for example, the verses before and after this one (31–33):

Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad, and let them say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.” Let the sea thunder, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and all that is in it. Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for He comes to judge the earth.

On that same literal interpretation, we would have to explain that the trees sing and dance, the fields exult, and even the sea thunders with its voice. Is it not clear that these are metaphors meant to express joy, love, and honor toward God? So why interpret דווקא the verse that appears immediately before these verses literally?

The same applies to verses that speak of the foundations of the earth (the foundations on which it rests), as for example in II Samuel (22:16; likewise Psalms 102:25; Proverbs 8:27–29; Isaiah 48:13; Job 38:4–6; and others):

Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils.

These verses are presented as though they are unaware of the possibility of earthquakes, and as though they contradict the Copernican conception that the earth moves around the sun. I assume there is no need to explain the childishness of these interpretations.

Another claim is that the Bible implies that the earth is not spherical. According to these texts, from a very high point (the heavens, for example) one can see the entire earth, so that nothing is hidden. Such a thing is impossible on a spherical earth, since one cannot directly see the other side. Hence the claim that the Bible here expresses a conception of a flat earth.

Thus, for example, in Job (28:24):

For He looks to the ends of the earth; He sees under the whole heaven.

And likewise in Psalms (19:4–6):

Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world; in them He has set a tent for the sun. And it is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing like a mighty man to run a course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them, and nothing is hidden from its heat.

Or alternatively in Isaiah (40:22):

He sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Again, this is childish interpretation, and for two main reasons: a. When one speaks of seeing the whole earth, one does not mean every single centimeter of it. The meaning is that everything is under one’s gaze. If I were to say that I see the whole book you are holding in your hand, would there be room for the claim that I do not see what is written inside it? b. This is not physical sight, since God has no eyes. It refers to divine apprehension of everything that happens on the face of the globe. In that sense, indeed, nothing is hidden from Him. Clearly, the sight here can be interpreted as a metaphor meant to illustrate that nothing is hidden from God, like someone sitting above and seeing everything. When those blessing a couple under the wedding canopy tell them that a father or grandmother who has passed away is looking at them from above, should we reject that because the canopy blocks the view?

The next argument is that not only is the earth flat, it also has an end. Thus, for example, we find in Psalms (103:12):

As far as east is from west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.

The claim is that on a spherical earth one can travel eastward or westward without end. Therefore this verse seems to say that the directions east and west have limits. Here he brings many additional verses as well.

But beyond the claim that this is a metaphor, there is also a factual mistake here. True, if we walk westward or eastward we shall never reach an edge, but when I stand somewhere and look westward or eastward, there certainly are extremities that are, relative to me, the end of west and the end of east. One can certainly speak of a specific and defined distance between the easternmost edge and the westernmost edge (something like half the circumference of the earth, for example, which is about 20,000 kilometers).

One could of course continue regarding the nature of the stars or of the heavens, but I think the principle is entirely clear.

Anyone who troubles himself to read the article will immediately see that Glen Eilart does not intend to undermine what is written in the Bible, nor does he actually do so. He merely argues that it should not be interpreted literally (exactly as I argued above). It is important to understand that these things are being written by a science teacher in the United States, in the context of the debate conducted there over teaching creationism as a scientific thesis in schools. The fundamentalist creationists in the United States oppose evolution, and even more its teaching in schools, and claim that alongside it—and preferably instead of it—one should teach the Bible’s “scientific” theory, according to which the world was created ex nihilo in six days by God. The debate usually revolves around the truth of the Bible and, of course, also around the scientific validity of evolution. Eilart advances a claim that completely shifts the axis of the discussion. In his view, one can accept the Bible, believe in it, and study it, and still there is no place to teach the creationist theory in schools. In his article he shows that even the creationists agree that the Bible does not always intend to provide a historical and scientific description, but sometimes uses parables and allegorical descriptions, and speaks in human language addressed to those to whom it was speaking. If so, Eilart argues, one cannot teach the Bible’s creation theory even if one believes in it and accepts its words, since the Bible does not necessarily mean what it says in a literal sense. The verses at the beginning of Genesis, too, are not necessarily to be interpreted literally, and it is entirely possible that there as well we are dealing with parable and allegory, or with speech in human language. Hence, teaching in school a doctrine according to which the world was created in six days in the order that appears at the beginning of Genesis is not necessarily teaching the Bible’s theory (if there even is such a theory). Eilart’s article is directed against those who adopt what is written in the Bible literally, not against those who believe in the Bible. But that is exactly what most defenders of the Bible also argue against fundamentalist believers (see, for example, my book God Plays Dice). Therefore all the arguments raised in the article can certainly be read דווקא as arguments in defense of the Bible.

In the subtext of the “Hofesh” website, it seems they are trying to steer the reader to see Eilart’s arguments as undermining the reliability of the Bible, leading us to abandon belief in it and in its divine origin. How do I know? First of all, because in Israel, unlike Christian fundamentalism in the United States, no such discussion is being conducted at all. Even in the religious educational system, evolution is taught, and the Bible is not presented as a scientific alternative. Here as well, the religious side generally does not contest this (except for esoteric fringes that advocate fundamentalism), because we all understand very well what Glen Eilart writes: that biblical verses do not always speak about scientific or historical truth. Why, then, is this article translated on the “Hofesh” website? Perhaps only for our general edification when we come to study the Bible? The “Hofesh” website is not engaged in teaching Bible but in attacking religious faith and its sources. The article is translated and brought here because they are trying to direct us to see Eilart’s arguments as an attack on the reliability of the Bible and to create the appearance as though science here overcomes the Bible. In the subtext they are conveying to us a message as though there are crushing arguments here in the dispute between secular people and religious people, which may perhaps be true for the fundamentalist segment in the United States, but certainly not with regard to what is happening in Judaism and in Israel.

At the end of the translation of the article on the “Hofesh” website, they refer the reader to the “Da’at Emet” website, which is yet another site devoted to attacks on the Bible. This is a further indication of their attempt to present a false picture of the discussion. We have seen that this article attacks only fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, which almost no believing Jew holds. If there is someone who does, then it is certainly reasonable to join the opposition to his views.

This presentation of the article is not only a mistake in reading the Bible, but also in reading the article under discussion itself. The conclusion that emerges from Eilart’s arguments is at most that the Bible does not contain an alternative creation theory that can be taught in schools, and that one should not accept all biblical verses in their literal sense. But, as noted, at least in Israel this is an attack on a straw man. The “Hofesh” website is trying to present the dispute between believers and atheists as though there were here a dispute about the reliability of science and its replacement by the Bible, but that is simply not the case.

Up to this point I have shown that a reasonable interpretation of the Bible neutralizes the fundamentalist cosmology that interprets it in a childish way. In this, creationist fundamentalism joins atheist criticism, since both of these camps read the Bible in a childish and literal way. The more reasonable reading is the one I proposed above. I fully join Eilart in the claim that it is wrong to use the Bible as a scientific source. But not because I do not believe in it; rather because I do not accept childish interpretations as correct. Eilart’s claims support the non-fundamentalist approach to the Bible and its verses, but not against the Bible itself and belief in it.

But now I will go one step further and argue that even the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not really suffer a mortal blow from these arguments. Eilart argues against the creationists that if they interpret the expressions cited above (“the foundations of the earth,” “the wings of the world,” “Sun, stand still at Gibeon”) in a non-literal way, then there is no obstacle to doing the same with the creation verses.

But Eilart’s arguments concern specific expressions that should not be interpreted literally, but rather as metaphors. As noted, the expression “the four corners of the earth” does not mean that the earth is square, but that one is referring to all the ends of the universe or of our globe. This is not because of one difficulty or another; rather, the context teaches that this is how it should be interpreted. So too regarding the examples cited above. But it is very difficult to infer from this that entire Torah narratives are not factual. If I find in some history book a vivid or metaphorical expression, will I stop relating to the facts presented in it as facts? That is very simplistic and formalistic thinking. Think of an exhibition critic who says that a certain picture “stabbed his eye,” or that “his heart ached” at the sight of something. It is now clear to us that these are metaphors: his eye was not stabbed, and his heart did not ache. Shall we therefore stop relating to the factual part of his remarks as factual?

The creation verses at the beginning of Genesis (which are the subject of the dispute with the creationists) are not just some expression about which one can say that it is a metaphor. There we have what appears to be a factual description, though within it metaphors also appear. Therefore Eilart is not right in his claim that the use of metaphors necessitates a non-fundamentalist approach to the Bible.

Just to sharpen and clarify: I personally am certainly willing to accept the claim that the creation verses are not a factual description (although the basic order of the days, the primary scheme of the description, does indeed parallel the evolutionary order). This admittedly does not follow from the metaphorical nature of one expression or another, but it still may certainly be true. The contradiction between the findings of contemporary science and the biblical description can certainly lead me to interpret those verses non-literally. In this I indeed do not agree with the fundamentalists who propose to interpret them literally.

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that already the Sages and the medieval authorities often departed from the plain meaning of biblical verses, even without any connection to apologetics vis-à-vis modern science. In the legal context, the Sages interpret “an eye for an eye” as monetary compensation (see Bava Kamma 83b and elsewhere). In the factual context, Ramban at the beginning of Genesis, long before modern science, already writes that everything said in the description of creation is a parable and should not be interpreted as a factual description. Maimonides interprets the meeting of the angels with Abraham as events that did not actually occur, but rather in a dream. The allegorists, from Philo through Yedaya HaPenini and others, do this with almost all the stories of the Torah, again without any connection to scientific or other difficulties and questions. All the more so when there are difficulties in the literal interpretation arising from scientific and rational findings; there Maimonides already teaches us in his Guide of the Perplexed (see, for example, Part II, ch. 25) that in such cases we should adopt an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation of the verses.

Therefore, treating verses in general, and the creation verses in particular, as parables rather than factual descriptions is not the result of ex post facto apologetics in light of the scientific findings of our day. An interpretation that removes the words from their literal plain sense, whether because of various difficulties or simply otherwise, is a possible and legitimate interpretation.

[1] Here I mean only the kinematic meaning of motion (a description of the motion itself). In the dynamic sense (the forces created because of the motion), there is a dispute on this issue (around the bucket experiment and Mach’s principle), but in any case this dispute is only about physicists’ definitions. It may be that in physics one can define, in some objective way, a system at rest and a rotating system, but even if this is true, it is a definition and not a claim. On the level of the motion itself, it is clear that the choice of coordinate origin has no importance whatsoever. Beyond that, Copernicus himself was certainly speaking about kinematics and not dynamics.

We would be glad to receive comments, criticisms, and additions. Responses to the article “Biblical Cosmology: Is the Earth Round?” may be added in the box below.

Notes

Source (knowingfaith): https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2/%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9B%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5-%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9C

Contents of the Article

שתף

Leave a ReplyCancel reply