That can get into sketchy territory because that is the perspective Moslems take on Christian scripture to promote their idea that it was actually just a "Jesus-lookalike" that was crucified instead of Jesus himself, and that the crucifixion accounts were honest but unreliable.
We should at least approach it from the perspective that God willed scripture to be true in all cases with the caveat that the context or meaning might be unclear in a given description. That the accounts are reliable but incomplete.
This is a great spinoff topic piece by itself, but in the context of the whole flat earth vs globe earth conversation, if we accept the premise that the Bible is written by "reliable narrators" we would still have to find a fitting alternative context to explain some of the verses that FE proponents use in FE position. Figurative language can be an approach for many verses, but we would need to determine a holistic convention for determining which verses would likely be figurative vs literal. Sometimes possible solutions are less obvious. The "magenta" solution for the robe question is an example that might counter our intuitive assumption that "purple =/= red", but "p =/= r" has one case where it isn't true (magenta).
I find that exploring the Greek in the New Testament is simpler than OT Hebrew because the context of the OT Hebrew has had Talmudic Judaism actively trying to reinvent what the language means for two millenia. Their solution to the New Testament is just to call it a lie or unreliable (honest but unreliable observations resulting from deceptive manipulations of demons rather than the works of God). The Old Testament poses more difficulty and need for attention because it is a secondary part of their core scripture (the Talmud is their central body of scripture), meaning that they have an invested interest in trying to claim that some interpretations contrary or incompatible with Christian scripture would be necessary interpretations. We should never trust at face value what a Talmudic Jewish scholar has to say about OT scripture for that reason. We can conservatively count all of the Talmudic Judaic opinion on OT scripture as basically just bad advice. But we can still evaluate their input against the whole of Christian scripture to see how sound it is.
And from individual interpretations often comes an overall approach to exegesis. E.g. using Kabbalah numerology. So if we start from bad advice, we can end up using a bad approach to understanding scripture, and from there end up in all sorts of strange concepts that are inherently unnecessary or worse that are contrary to scripture.
It can be difficult exploring OT scripture because of the mixed signals that can be recieved from nonChristian. Unfortunately, the creation account and flat earth accounts are all in the OT. So if we have a Talmudic Judaic scholar making claims that "these particular types of descriptions are never metaphor because... Kabbalah" it can confuse the issue because some Christians might not understand how it can be bad advice.
It might be the case that some of these "man's description vs objective truth" false dichotomies might come from Talmudic philosophy. And so we can address the symptom (the incorrect belief) or the root of the problem (sympathy or adoption of Talmudic philosophy), but preferably both.
We should at least approach it from the perspective that God willed scripture to be true in all cases with the caveat that the context or meaning might be unclear in a given description. That the accounts are reliable but incomplete.
This is a great spinoff topic piece by itself, but in the context of the whole flat earth vs globe earth conversation, if we accept the premise that the Bible is written by "reliable narrators" we would still have to find a fitting alternative context to explain some of the verses that FE proponents use in FE position. Figurative language can be an approach for many verses, but we would need to determine a holistic convention for determining which verses would likely be figurative vs literal. Sometimes possible solutions are less obvious. The "magenta" solution for the robe question is an example that might counter our intuitive assumption that "purple =/= red", but "p =/= r" has one case where it isn't true (magenta).
I find that exploring the Greek in the New Testament is simpler than OT Hebrew because the context of the OT Hebrew has had Talmudic Judaism actively trying to reinvent what the language means for two millenia. Their solution to the New Testament is just to call it a lie or unreliable (honest but unreliable observations resulting from deceptive manipulations of demons rather than the works of God). The Old Testament poses more difficulty and need for attention because it is a secondary part of their core scripture (the Talmud is their central body of scripture), meaning that they have an invested interest in trying to claim that some interpretations contrary or incompatible with Christian scripture would be necessary interpretations. We should never trust at face value what a Talmudic Jewish scholar has to say about OT scripture for that reason. We can conservatively count all of the Talmudic Judaic opinion on OT scripture as basically just bad advice. But we can still evaluate their input against the whole of Christian scripture to see how sound it is.
And from individual interpretations often comes an overall approach to exegesis. E.g. using Kabbalah numerology. So if we start from bad advice, we can end up using a bad approach to understanding scripture, and from there end up in all sorts of strange concepts that are inherently unnecessary or worse that are contrary to scripture.
It can be difficult exploring OT scripture because of the mixed signals that can be recieved from nonChristian. Unfortunately, the creation account and flat earth accounts are all in the OT. So if we have a Talmudic Judaic scholar making claims that "these particular types of descriptions are never metaphor because... Kabbalah" it can confuse the issue because some Christians might not understand how it can be bad advice.
It might be the case that some of these "man's description vs objective truth" false dichotomies might come from Talmudic philosophy. And so we can address the symptom (the incorrect belief) or the root of the problem (sympathy or adoption of Talmudic philosophy), but preferably both.