The Flat Earth Debate of the Century?

The evening of Saturday, December 2, 2023, two pastors debated whether the earth is flat.

The Setup

How did this debate come about? Greg Locke is the pastor of Global Vision Bible Church in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. The church appears to be large, and Locke claims to have a large worldwide following online. During a sermon in October, Locke went into what many people have called a 15-minute rant in which he challenged Dean Odle to debate the earth’s shape. Odle is pastor of Fire and Grace Church in Opelika, Alabama. Odle’s church appears to be much smaller than Locke’s church, but, due to his flat-earth advocacy, he has a bit of a worldwide following too. Locke and Odle appear to have had a good relationship. For instance, Odle holds an annual conference called Skyfall, and Locke was a speaker at Skyfall 2023 in June. While the Skyfall conferences often included flat-earth presentations, they are about much more, such as eschatology and other doctrinal distinctives and various conspiracy theories. Not all Skyfall speakers are flat-earthers, and Locke is a good example of that—Odle knows that Locke is not a flat-earther, but Locke shares belief in many other conspiracy theories with Odle, so that probably was why Odle invited Locke’s participation at Skyfall 2023. After what happened at the debate, I doubt that Odle will invite Locke back.

Why did Locke jeopardize his relationship with Odle by challenging him to debate the earth’s shape? When I watched the challenge, I got the impression that Locke had recently been dealing with problems with flat-earthers within his church. Sure enough, in comments during the debate, Locke confirmed my suspicion by stating that he had been dealing with the divisive nature of the flat-earth movement in his congregation. He said that marriages in his congregation were on the rocks because of flat earth. That struck me as ironic. You see, in May 2018 Locke divorced his first wife, and within three months he married his ex-wife’s best friend and his administrative assistant. Whatever one’s opinion about the biblical basis for divorce and remarriage, the timing of Locke’s second marriage looks very bad. At the very least, Locke’s divorce and quick remarriage called for his separation from the ministry either permanently or for some time. Lest you think this is a personal attack against Locke, I assure you that it is not. I simply can’t understand why he would make this point given his recent marital history.

Given his demeanor during his challenge to Odle, I doubted that Locke would adequately prepare for the debate. After watching the debate, I think that he was more prepared than I expected, but I don’t think he prepared as much as he ought to have. A major problem was that Locke did not clearly define the question to be debated or what the format and rules of the debate would be. As I understood the challenge, the topic was to be whether the Bible teaches the earth is flat. During his presentation, Odle spent about half his time giving what he thinks is scientific evidence that the earth is flat, with the remainder of his time to what he considers to be the biblical evidence that the earth is flat. Locke’s presentation followed Odle’s, in which Locke concentrated on what the Bible says (and doesn’t say) about the earth’s shape, ignoring Odle’s supposed scientific evidence. Flat-earthers noticed that Locke did not respond to Odle’s “scientific” evidence, and they seemed to conclude that was because there was no refutation to that evidence. That buoyed flat-earthers’ confidence that Odle won the debate hands down.

I’ve found that people generally pick the winners of debates based upon which side of the debate they agree with rather than how well the interlocutors performed, so flat-earthers thinking Odle won is no surprise. On the other hand, I know anti-flat-earthers who were not happy with Locke’s performance, amounting to an admission that Odle won. Why did they think Locke did poorly? It is because if they were in the debate, they would have concentrated on Odle’s “scientific” claims. But what was the topic of the debate? As I said, I think it was the question of whether the Bible teaches the earth is flat. Hence, Odle’s “scientific” claims were not germane to the topic, and Locke was proper in ignoring them, though it would have been helpful if Locke had pointed that out. I’m not an expert on judging debates, but I suspect that any competent debate judges would have shared my observation and accordingly would have docked Odle’s score for straying. But, again, the debate topic and the debate format were not well defined.

Many people on both sides of the issue think that Odle was better prepared than Locke for this debate, but was he? I learned of Odle when he spoke at the first FEIC in 2017. Consequently, I have followed Odle’s flat-earth work. For instance, I briefly mentioned him in my book, Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims, as well as in a previous blog post. The presentation he gave in this debate was virtually the same as in previous presentations that he has given. The fact that he skipped many slides in his presentation at the debate is evidence that he didn’t prepare anything new specifically for this debate. Consequently, I don’t think Odle prepared for this debate, but merely recycled his standard presentation.

The Debate

The program began with Locke making a few opening comments, after which he invited Odle to the stage, where the two simply engaged in conversation. This took up the first hour. This was not a good sign, as the schedule called for this debate to last two hours. With one hour already gone, that left only an hour for the debate. As it turns out, Odle’s presentation took an hour and a half, so the program ran far longer than advertised. I understand that many people began to leave after two hours, missing much of the program.

Locke began by asking how Odle became a flat-earther. In his response, Odle brought up several arguments that influenced him, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Foucault pendulum, government documents that supposedly admit the earth is flat and covered with a firmament, the perception that Polaris never moves despite all our motions, and that he can see Orion in the same place in the sky every night. You can follow the links to find some of my responses to these claims Odle made. Locke chose to respond to only one of these claims (this was a bit odd because it was getting into the debate before the debate actually began). Locke said that he agreed with Odle on many conspiracies, such as the 2020 USA presidential election and COVID-19. However, unlike those other conspiracies, flat earth is tied to the Bible. He further pointed out that Odle and other flat-earthers express great distrust of government and especially NASA, saying that NASA lies, so why is it that he can trust NASA when he thinks NASA documents admit the earth is flat? Odle responded that the documents were top secret and were never intended to be read by the public but were released through Freedom of Information requests. This is false, as I have examined many of the documents Odle referred to. Most of them were made public shortly after they were produced. If any of them were released much later, they hardly were top secret, but were merely classified. You see, there are many levels of secrecy in government documents, though I doubt Odle understands this. In the minds of many people, classified is the same as top secret.

Locke asked Odle why flat-earthers don’t have a map yet. That is a good question. Odle responded that the Gleason map works well but that all maps are wrong. As I discussed on pages 135–140 of my book, the Gleason map is an azimuthal equidistant projection of the spherical earth onto a plane with the North Pole at its center. As an example of how all maps are wrong, Odle brought up the incorrect land sizes on the Mercator projection of the earth. It didn’t occur to Odle why those land sizes are incorrect on a Mercator projection. In fourth grade, I learned that all maps fail to faithfully depict the earth because the earth’s surface is curved and maps are flat. This is a simple fact of geometry that Odle apparently failed to learn in grade school. With such a poor education, it is no wonder that Odle was so easily fooled by flat-earth arguments. Locke kept coming back to the lack of a flat-earth map. Odle always responded that he already answered that question. As poor as Odle’s answer was, he answered the question to the best of his ability. Locke badgered Odle by repeatedly asking the same question. Odle got a bit testy over this, and I thought that he was about to walk away before the debate even started.

In this discussion, Odle brought up several false flat-earth claims. One was that if the earth is spinning, aircraft could not land on a north-south runway. This false claim assumes Aristotelian concepts of physics that would have aircraft losing all their angular momentum when they take off. Related to that, Odle claimed that a plane flying at 500 mph would have to dive 2,000 feet every few minutes. As I explain on pages 196–197 of my book, all one needs do is run the numbers to see that this claim is false. Related to this, Odle brought up the eight inches per mile squared formula of earth curvature that flat-earthers like to use. Locke challenged this, saying that it is a parabolic approximation to the earth’s spherical shape. Odle dug in his heels, saying that Locke was wrong. Odle said that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) does not account for curvature over 100 square miles. This must be a reference to the quadrangle topographical maps that the USGS produces and sells. Each of these maps form a quadrangle that borders 7.5 arcminutes in both latitude and longitude. Since an arcminute of latitude is equal to a nautical mile, and a statute mile is shorter than a nautical mile, and with foreshortening of longitude not on the equator, the quadrangle maps encompass about half of 100 square miles. But how much distortion is there on quadrangle map scale or even a larger 100 square miles? The distortion is so small that it doesn’t show up on the scale of these maps.

Odle said that astrolabes work only on a flat earth. I doubt that Odle knows what an astrolabe is. Astrolabes have different plates for different latitudes, based upon the earth being spherical. Odle said that “we see too far.” As I described in my discussion of Odle in my book, Odle misinterpreted what he saw. What his photos show is what we expect on a globe earth. Several times I’ve tried seeing too far on a spherical earth. I never do. Odle said if Locke read the Antarctic treaty, he would see that it forbids travel to Antarctica. Locke said that he has read the treaty, and it doesn’t forbid travel to Antarctica. I’ve read the treaty too—Locke is correct. Locke mentioned gravity, giving a flat-earther response that gravity is caused by an upward acceleration. Odle responded that flat-earthers don’t believe that—that the only source for that claim is the Flat Earth Society (FES), and that the FES is controlled opposition. Odle is correct on this—only the FES seems to support that notion. It’s a pity, because that claim actually would work. However, if Locke had better prepared, he might have known that few flat-earthers endorse this claim.

Before the opening conversation came to a close, Odle admonished that we must test all things for ourselves before believing them. This was stated in a way that suggested Odle was talking about testing all things physically. Locke quoted John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,” and denounced Odle’s admonishment as “nonsense.” I thought Locke’s approach was a bit harsh, but I agree with the thought—Odle was telling us to test all things in a physical way, but God is not amenable to that sort of test. Odle seemed offended by this, and for a moment it looked like he might walk, but things soon calmed down.

Odle’s Presentation

Odle claimed that there is a satanic deception to hide creation and that deception begins with convincing people that the earth is spherical rather than flat.

Odle began his presentation by saying the Bible teaches the earth is flat and stationary. Odle quoted several passages, such as 2 Peter 1:16–20; 2 Timothy 3:16–17; Revelation 12:9; Psalm 2:1–5; and Romans 1:18–20. He said that the Bible does not use hyperbole. That is false, as hyperbolic language does occur in Scripture. Locke took this up in his presentation. Odle claimed that there is a satanic deception to hide creation and that deception begins with convincing people that the earth is spherical rather than flat.

Odle moved on to the big bang model and evolution. This is a common flat-earther approach—tie belief in evolutionary ideas with spherical earth. I certainly am a counterexample to disprove that equivalence. But flat-earthers often say that they were once like us—they believed the earth was spherical. But many of those same people, such as Odle, didn’t believe in the big bang and evolution when they thought the earth was spherical, so why do they think big bang and evolution must necessarily go with the earth being spherical? Flat-earthers’ memory of how they were once like us is faulty.

Odle next went on to play videos of physicist Michio Kaku saying there is a mismatch of theory and observation by 120 orders of magnitude and astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying that we are 96% stupid regarding dark matter. These videos are popular with flat-earthers, but I don’t know why. I guess that it is because they don’t understand what Kaku and Tyson mean, but it’s probably also because of their insistence on tying big bang and dark matter to spherical earth. People have known this earth is spherical long before I was born, but I can remember when the big bang and dark matter were not popular.

Odle showed diagrams of the flat-earth cosmology that the Bible supposedly teaches. It looked like those diagrams came from the late Michael Heiser’s work.

Odle quotes Matthew 24:29–31 and said that Jesus said that stars, not meteors, will fall from heaven. This is equivocation. The term “meteor” is of recent origin, so at the time of Jesus, that term did not exist. If one examines the meaning of the word “star” from the past, it includes many objects, such as meteors, that we don’t think of as being stars anymore. It is incorrect to impose modern meanings of terms onto biblical texts.

Odle then played several testimonies of former atheists who became Christians after first coming to believe that the earth is flat. I’ve encountered this claim quite a bit. Frankly, I’m a bit dubious about some of these claims. I fear what might happen to these people if they ever come to realize that the earth is not flat after all. In his presentation, Locke discussed this, and I thought his response was good.

Odle then returned to “scientific” arguments for flat earth, all of which I had seen before. He began with a list of nine arguments for the earth being a spinning sphere orbiting the sun and an ever-expanding universe. There is the mashing of several disparate things again. The spherical shape of the earth was recognized long before heliocentrism was accepted. The expanding universe was accepted less than a century ago. Flat-earthers often conflate things this way. Even if the earth doesn’t orbit the sun or if the universe is not expanding, it doesn’t follow that the earth is flat. Odle showed images of space, showing varying sizes of the continents. I discussed this in a previous blog post. Odle also showed a clip from the documentary A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. Keep in mind that the makers of this film are not flat-earthers. They think some of the images of the moon from Apollo 11 were faked in low earth orbit. Furthermore, even if the Apollo moon landings were faked, it doesn’t follow that the earth is flat. This is a distraction, which is why I rarely discuss the Apollo moon landings with flat-earthers.

Odle turned to the Bible at this time. The word “face” occurs twice in Genesis 1:2, referring to the surface of the primordial waters. Odle said that “face” means a flat surface of a solid object. I note that water is liquid, not solid. But aside from that, this is just one definition for the word. That is a common problem with flat-earthers—they insist on one and only one definition for words.

Odle insisted that the firmament is not an expanse, insisting that this is dishonest to say so. It is dishonest for Odle to make this claim, for Hebrew lexicons make it clear enough that the word raqia, which early English translations of the Bible render as “firmament,” means expanse. Citing Isaiah 40:22, Odle said that a circle is not a ball. And, as expected, Odle said that if Isaiah had intended to convey that the earth is spherical in Isaiah 40:22, he would have used a different Hebrew word, the one used in Isaiah 22:18. Indeed, most English translations render the Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:22 as “circle,” and the different Hebrew word in Isaiah 22:18 as “circle.” However, the Hebrew word translated as “ball” in Isaiah 22:18 also appears in Isaiah 29:3, where it clearly refers to a circle. So much for this other word always meaning a sphere. I don’t think flat-earthers are aware of this second occurrence in Isaiah. Truth be known, both Hebrew words in question refer to something round, whether it is a two-dimensional round (a circle), or a three-dimensional round (a sphere). Isaiah 40:22 is not a good text for arguing either a spherical or a flat earth.

Odle then switched back to “science” to show photographs ostensibly demonstrating that the sun and moon are so close to the earth that they are in the clouds. I’ve heard from some flat-earthers since the debate that they find this embarrassing. After this, Odle quoted Zechariah 1:11 that the entire earth was still and at rest. Anyone other than a flat-earther reading this verse in context knows that this is not referring to geocentrism.

Odle then reverted to “science” with a misquote from Einstein about motion. Odle claimed that the temperature of the earth’s core is above the melting point of iron and nickel, so there can’t be a solid inner core in the earth. Odle dismissed the fact that the pressure in the inner core raises the melting point, something based upon good science.

Odle finally finished after more than an hour and a half, at 8:45 p.m. CST, 45 minutes after the scheduled end of the program. This is where a format with enforced time limits would have been very helpful.

Locke’s Presentation

Locke began by thanking Odle and commenting that Odle had asked the audience to accept the whole ball of wax. I think that was a subtle joke. Locke began with Psalm 8, which he said is about man, not about the creation. That is a good point. He then criticized the flat-earth image from Logos software. This is inconsistent with there being other planets. While Locke believes other planets exist, he made it clear that he believes only the earth is inhabited. I cringed when I heard Locke’s scriptural basis for this (Hebrews 1:3), and Odle rightly corrected him later.

He said that this discussion isn’t about the earth’s shape. He criticized Odle and other flat-earthers that make it sound like flat earth saves, emphasizing that it is the gospel that saves us. Locke said that he once believed in a secret rapture, referring to a pre-tribulation rapture, but he no longer does. But he rejoices that the Left Behind movies that endorse a secret rapture brought people to salvation. That is, what we might think is incorrect beliefs or theology can bring people to salvation, but their testimonies do not validate the incorrect beliefs or theology. Those testimonies validate the gospel.

Locke next took on flat-earthers’ incorrect understanding of Job 38:12–14. He showed that the context clearly is not the entire earth, but rather refers to the transformation of the landscape as dawn arrives. This is exactly the same as my understanding of Job 38:12–15.

Locke said that his beef is not with people who think the earth is flat; his beef is with people who say the Bible teaches the earth is flat.

Locke said that his beef is not with people who think the earth is flat; his beef is with people who say the Bible teaches the earth is flat. He further said to forget 1 Enoch. Again, I agree with Locke about 1 Enoch.

He said that he doesn’t rely upon NASA, that NASA did not teach him anything about the earth’s shape. Nor do stickers on the bottoms of globes reveal anything. I’ve not published anything on stickers on globes yet. Flat-earthers claim that globes sold in stores have disclaimers on them that state that they are not for educational purposes but are merely decorative. Since first hearing of this claim a few years ago, I’ve made it a point to check globes in stores to see if they have these labels. I have found them on smaller, inaccurate globes that obviously are for decorative purposes. I have yet to see such labels on larger, accurate globes. Flat-earthers must not be able to tell the difference between decorative and accurate globes, or else some are gullible enough to accept this claim made by other flat-earthers without checking for themselves.

Locke responded to Odle saying that the Bible does not contain metaphors. He admonished Odle that he better say that a passage is a metaphor when it is a metaphor.

Locke had promised that he would refute the entire notion that the earth is flat with a single passage. Many people, myself included, thought that it might be Isaiah 40:22. Instead, it was Psalm 103:11–12:

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Locke said that in the flat-earth model, the heavens aren’t very high above the earth. That puts a limit on God’s love and mercy. I’ve heard others make this argument, and I think it has merit. The universe flat-earthers conceive is quite small, much smaller than even some ancient conceptions of the universe, such as that of the Ptolemaic model. But if one grasps the true immensity of the universe, Psalm 103:11 is a very powerful statement of God’s love.

On the other hand, I disagree with what Locke said about verse 12. If one goes east on a globe, one never reaches west, even though one goes around and around the earth. Making this out to be a contrast seems to express a fundamental misunderstanding of the flat-earth model. In flat-earthers’ model, one can go around the earth repeatedly by traveling east. Locke compared this to moving north-south on a spherical earth. That doesn’t work on the flat earth, but Psalm 103:12 doesn’t say that God will remove our transgressions as far as north is from south.

Locke made it very clear that he has been very critical of Freemasonry. He made this point in response to the frequent flat-earth claim that the understanding of the earth as spherical comes from Freemasonry. I am very tired of hearing this claim too.

Locke began a discussion of some of the passages on Nathan Roberts’ list of 240 Bible verses that supposedly teach the earth is flat. I have discussed some of these 240 verses. Much of Locke’s response to the claims about passages on this list were similar to my responses. However, I think Locke didn’t handle some of them very well.

It was during this time that things began to spiral out of control. During the first hour of discussion between Locke and Odle, there was not much audience reaction, nor was there much audience interaction during Odle’s presentation. There was some cheering and applause from the flat-earthers in the audience during Odle’s presentation, but it was not nearly as vocal as the disapproval of the flat-earthers during Locke’s presentation. Their negative reaction was subdued at first, but it gradually increased in loudness throughout Locke’s presentation. During Locke’s discussion of Roberts’ list of 240 verses, Odle became vocal. Odle said that Roberts’ list was Roberts’ list, not his, and he didn’t agree with inclusion of some of those verses (with the implication that Odle agreed with them). I’m sure that Locke didn’t agree with some ideas that Odle criticized during his presentation (such as evolutionary ideas), but Locke was polite and did not speak out as Odle did. So why did Odle think that it was acceptable for him to begin to argue with Locke on this point? Locke pointed out that Roberts’ list frequently is brought up by flat-earthers. I would have added that this debate was about flat earth, not Dean Odle.

By this time, Odle was on the stage with a microphone. That was out of line. Locke said nothing during Odle’s too-long presentation, but there was Odle standing on the stage in the midst of Locke’s presentation, demanding to rebut some of Locke’s statements. Things began to get heated, especially when Locke said that Odle had said people cannot be Christians and believe in a spherical earth. I’m not aware that Odle has said this. Odle certainly responded that he hadn’t. Odle once again threatened to leave, and Locke encouraged him to do so by asking for Odle’s microphone to be turned off. Odle responded by tossing his microphone at Locke and walking off the stage.

The broadcast soon ended, at least on Locke’s channel that I was watching. I turned to a few flat-earth channels and found that several flat-earthers were live streaming the broadcast, though not through Locke’s AV equipment. Things got a bit heated. Nathan Thompson later posted a video of an altercation he had with someone from Locke’s church while still inside the building. In watching the video, I wondered what preceded what Nathan showed. You see, I had an experience with Nathan videoing me without my permission and then posting only part of the interaction. I am sure Nathan edited out of his video things potentially damaging to himself. I understand that Odle and his supporters were ordered out of the building, so they met outside for a while and debriefed. I saw some of that live after the debate. I understand that a police officer soon showed up and asked the flat-earthers to leave. Apparently, concerned by how heated things had become, someone from Locke’s church called the police so that the crowd would disperse. This was a prudent response to the situation, but flat-earthers have interpreted it as hostile.

Conclusion

Was this a debate? Hardly. The question to be debated was not clearly defined. Nor were there rules for the debate or a debate moderator. I’ve seen one flat-earther comment on social media that he has seen Locke do debates in his church that had rules and a moderator, so this was a departure from what Locke has done in the past. I know many anti-flat-earthers who were disappointed with Locke’s performance. For some time, people will discuss who won and who lost that evening. Overall, Odle seemed more prepared, but as I said, I thought more than a month before the debate that Locke would not adequately prepare for it. I wonder if Locke’s 15-minute rant really was a rant, and that once he issued Odle a challenge in it, he couldn’t take it back, so his response was to not set up a more formal debate, leaving him flexibility in what he would do. If so, that is unfair. But on the other hand, Odle bought a pig in a poke by accepting the challenge without the rules established first.

Was this a debate? Hardly. The question to be debated was not clearly defined. Nor were there rules for the debate or a debate moderator.

I thought this program would turn into a circus. While listening to the debate, I think I faintly heard calliope music and elephants in the background. I watched in anticipation of perhaps learning something new, but, alas, I was disappointed, for I saw and heard nothing new.