Danny Faulkner's Missing History of Flat Earth P-1

Misrepresents evidence that strongly supports a FE Church in the 6th Century

There are many more fallacious claims to address in the first chapter of Danny Faulkner’s Falling Flat. Lord willing, I can do that in one final post on Chapter One. However, it may take more than one to keep things at a readable rate.

Today, I want to focus on a whopper of a claim that Faulkner makes. Not only is it a whopper — but he also refutes himself, while distorting the facts.

Sadly, this is the typical sophistry I’ve grown accustomed to with Faulkner. Yet, here’s what’s encouraging: he is exposing himself as an imposter. After hearing George Hobbs of

The Fact Hunter

and Flat Earth Files read an essay written by Ken Ham in 2019,¹ I think the entire AIG organization is compromised. I say that with a sad heart because I have used the organization as a “go-to” source.

Here’s my theory. I’m not saying this is true. Yet, it’s how I make sense of the “conservative Christian” organizations who step out of their lane or ignore the Bible to promote a false globe narrative.

We know from Scripture and history that evil men infiltrate the Church and parachurch organizations. What better way to keep the globe narrative alive than by strategically placing men (maybe Jesuits, maybe Freemasons, maybe Traveling Men like Will Duffy) in conservative platforms to gain the trust of Christian men and women? These are sleeper agents who are called upon when needed.

• Maybe they are called upon to push the COVID-19 narrative and vaccines (Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse?).

• Perhaps they are asked to speak against conspiracy theories and theorists (Joe Carter of TGC?).

• Or, they might be called out of their niche to defend the globe because the FE Movement is growing so rapidly (Justin Peters? Will Duffy? Living Waters?).

We may not know the true intentions of these men until heaven. Yet, God knows all. And when it comes to controlled opposition, the Bible says we can rejoice. For even if these men preach Christ from false motives, they still preach Christ.

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.

Philippians 1:18

So whether these men are merely deceived or are intentionally deceiving, we can rejoice.

We can also rejoice in the fact that Satan is a defeated foe. Christ triumphed over him at the cross, Colossians 2:15.

The truth will ultimately prevail on God’s Flat Earth.

This entry is the ninth installment in my review of Danny Faulkner’s Falling Flat, which I will divide into Parts One and Two. You can access the previous installments here:

1. “Falling Flat” by Danny Faulkner: A Cover-to-Cover Review

2. Top Twelve Flat Earth Claims to Hold Faulkner's Feet to the Fire

3. Does Danny Faulkner Rewrite Flat Earth History from Page One?

4. Danny Faulkner Accidentally Admits Flat Earth Requires a Creator

5. Danny Faulkner’s Contrived Flat Earth

6. Danny Faulkner’s Malicious Flat Earth God and Reified Moon

7. Faked Space: Faulkner Thought of It First

8. Danny Faulkner Straw Mans Augustine's View on the Shape of the Earth

Below are the shocking claims I’ll address in this two-part series on Danny Faulkner’s Missing History of Flat Earth.

First, Faulkner claims the Church NEVER taught that the earth is flat. Here’s his quote in context:

To the Christian believers that the earth is flat, the modern flat-earth movement means even more, for it represents a return to biblical Christianity. Though, as we shall soon see, the church never taught the earth is flat. ²

Later, in Faulkner fashion, he contradicts this claim by sharing two early Christian leaders who taught a flat earth, and as expected, Faulkner misrepresents them both to make them seem like strange outliers in the Christian Church.

Finally, Faulkner admits that the early Church held to a geocentric cosmology, but emphasizes again that they never held to a Flat Earth cosmology.

“Let me reiterate that historically, the cosmology of the church was geocentric, but not flat earth.”³

Here’s where the irony sets in. On Page 16 of Falling Flat, Faulkner writes of Flat Earth proponents.

Their ignorance of the history of cosmology is appalling. In a weird way, this faux history of man’s knowledge of the earth’s shape is an aid in roping people into the flat-earth camp. ⁴

The irony here is — that it is the ignorance of the history of Flat Earth in the globe-believing Church — that keeps Christians from questioning Faulkner and causes them to eat his lies bite after bite.

Faulkner projects the ignorance in the Church upon those who hold to Biblical Cosmology. Slick. And slimy.

Before I address the 4,000-plus years of missing history (which I will attack in Part Two), I want to address Faulkner’s misrepresentation of Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes, focusing mainly on the latter.

Misrepresenting Flat Earth Teachers

In posts indirectly connected to this series, I shared the writings of two early Church leaders who taught a Flat Earth:

• Flat Earth Teachings of Lactantius c. 250 – c. 325

• "Christian Topography" by Cosmas Indicopleustes 6th Century

I’m thankful to Faulkner for introducing me to these works, but I am sorely disappointed at his misrepresentation of both.

As mentioned in a previous post, Faulkner attempts to trivialize the work and life of Lactantius and Cosmas. He writes, “Neither Lactantius nor Cosmas are known for anything else. If not for their odd ideas about the earth’s shape, they would be more obscure than they already are.” ⁵

Yet, we saw that Lactantius’ writings were well-respected by Church leaders through the years, likely influencing Augustine’s understanding of Christian theology and the antipodes.

Let’s see how Faulkner treats Cosmas.

Cosmas and Pagan Philosophy

Faulkner discusses Cosmas and Christian Topography, claiming that the existence of his book proves that the Christians of his time generally believed the earth to be a globe.

Faulkner writes:

He [Cosmas] later wrote Christian Topography, in which he argued that the earth was flat and rectangular. The heaven above was shaped like a box with a curved lid. He took contemporary Christians to task for believing that the earth was spherical, claiming that the spherical earth was pagan-inspired.* That is evidence that Christians at that time generally believed the earth to be a globe for why would one criticize a belief that did not exist?

This paragraph is rife with sophistry, especially when joined with the footnote (see above asterisk for context): “Many flat-earth Christians raise the same objection. Perhaps they got the idea from Cosmas. At any rate, they would generally reject Cosmas’s cosmology.”

A little research will show just how wrong Faulkner is about Cosmas and his cosmology.

Cosmas, from the beginning, maintains that the Christian and biblical position was a flat, stationary earth covered with a solid firmament. This truth is not only reflected throughout the book, but it is plainly stated in the title, Christian Topography. He wrote about the Christian view of the topography or shape of the earth. The work is also known as The Opinion Of Christians Concerning The World.

Christian men and leaders urged Cosmas to write about biblical cosmology because pagan philosophies of a spherical earth and spherical heavens were creeping into the Church. Spherical earth was NOT the common belief held by Christians. Cosmas was connected to a robust Christian community that encouraged him to write the several books of Christian Topography to counteract the paganism creeping into the Church.

Cosmas first mentions writing the book at the pleading of Pamphilus [Emphasis mine]:

In days long gone by I hesitated, O God-beloved, God-loving and Christ-loving Pamphilus, to take in hand the treatise descriptive of the constitution of the whole world which you enjoined me to draw up. ⁶

Later, adding that other admirable men asked him to do the same:

How long I put off the composition of my work regarding the figure of the world, even though other admirable men as well as thyself frequently urged me to undertake it, you know best of all, O dearest, God-loving and Christ-loving Pamphilus, a man worthy of that name, since all holy men love thee. ⁷⁸

Notice also that Pamphilus was much loved and respected in the Christian community “since all holy men love thee.”

Cosmas also names at least two other Church leaders who encouraged him to write Christian Topography. He writes Book VII at the request of Athanasius and Book VIII at the behest of a man named Peter.

Cosmas also mentions an earlier work on the nature of the cosmos that he wrote for Constantinus, encouraging his readers to “further look into the volume which we have composed for that lover of Christ, Constantinus: a volume wherein we have described more fully the whole earth….”⁹

This book may be lost.¹⁰

Cosmas did not come to understand biblical cosmology by the Scriptures alone (though they are a sufficient testimony). Instead, he was taught the doctrine by Christian men who went before him; he specifically named Patricius.

Cosmas writes:

I explained to thee personally by the living voice in a cursory way, not as communicating opinions and conjectures of my own framing, but what I had learned from the divine scriptures, and from the living voice of that most divine man and great teacher Patricius, who…propagated the doctrines of holy religion and true science. ¹¹

This succession shows that Cosmas did not invent Flat Earth cosmology. He was taught it in the Church.

It also explains why Cosmas was so concerned about pagan philosophies infiltrating the Church, calling those who attempted to synchronize a spherical earth with Scripture “counterfeit,” “supposed,” and “pretended” Christians.¹²

The evidence shows that Faulkner’s claims about Cosmas Indicopluestes are false. He was not an obscure figure in the Christian Church. He was a well-respected and highly sought-after Christian writer who significantly influenced the saints of his day. 

His writings strongly imply that the Christian position in his day was a flat, stationary earth with a solid firmament.

This evidence refutes Faulkner’s claim that the Christian Church NEVER taught a Flat Earth. Part Two of this series will put the nail in the coffin.

But before I move on, I can’t ignore Faulkner’s self-refuting argument.

By sharing the teachings of Lactantius and Cosmas, Faulkner refutes his own NEVER claim.

As Fievel Mousekewitz famously said in An American Tail (1986), “Never say never, Papa”

The word “never” is difficult to support, especially in the context of history. Faulkner is not omniscient. Sharing self-refuting evidence against his own “never” claim is sloppy at best. At worst, it is an attempt to gaslight his audience by exploiting their confirmation bias. Either way, Faulkner’s reasoning is flawed.

Faulkner also conveniently ignores Cosmas’ contribution to history.

Cosmas’ Contribution to Lost History

Cosmas was not only influential in Christendom, but he also earned a claim to fame for preserving history.

Despite Faulkner’s claim that Cosmas would be obscure had he not written about Flat Earth, Princeton Professor Emeritus, G.W. Bowersock, credits Cosmas for preserving the history of the Red Sea Wars.

In Book II of Christian Topography, Cosmas presents a detailed account of an inscription on a throne he saw while traveling in Ethiopia. The throne is no longer in existence today. Yet, because Cosmas took detailed notes on its appearance and inscription, the Throne of Azulis survives today through the written word.

I discovered this finding while trying to learn how to pronounce “Indicopleustes.” For those wanting to know, it is pronounced — In-duh-cuh-PLOO-stees. Or, better yet, watch the video to hear it yourself — and learn the significance of Cosmas’ detailed account.

Bowersock, author of The Throne of Adulis, tells a short version in about two minutes.

Let’s examine some additional claims of Faulkner concerning Cosmas.

Did Cosmas “Claim” the Spherical Earth Was Pagan?

Faulkner writes:

He [Cosmas] took contemporary Christians to task for believing that the earth was spherical, claiming that the spherical earth was pagan-inspired.

Here, Faulkner commits a subtle but significant logical fallacy when he describes Cosmas as merely “claiming” that the spherical earth is a pagan concept.

At first glance, this is a straw man fallacy that simplifies a well-established historical fact into a personal opinion. History reveals plainly that pagan Greek philosophers introduced the idea of a spherical earth, a teaching that has no origin in ancient Hebrew cosmology or the Bible.

Even Faulkner instructs us to look to the pagan Greeks as the starting point to understand cosmology, instead of the Scriptures. ¹³

By reframing the fact (that a spherical earth has its foundation in pagan philosophy) as a “claim,” Faulkner misrepresents the historical record, positioning the truth as though it were merely a questionable assertion.

But here’s what’s even more dangerous.

Beneath this surface-level fallacy, lies a deeper agenda to control the framework of our understanding. Faulkner seeks to influence how people think about what is true or credible, supplanting truth with fiction.

Faulkner also seeks to control the narrative by manipulating readers into viewing solid historical realities as optional or questionable based on who states them, rather than on the facts themselves.

This manipulation becomes apparent when we consider Faulkner’s footnote: “Many flat-earth Christians raise the same objection. Perhaps they got the idea from Cosmas.”

Here, Faulkner poisons the well by associating the valid historical objection — that the spherical earth concept has pagan origins — with Cosmas, a figure he paints as having “odd” ideas. ¹⁴

This faulty logic can also be classified as a genetic fallacy because it implies that because modern Christians might share an idea with Cosmas, the idea itself is, therefore, suspect.

Rather than addressing the substance of the objection — the undeniable historical influence of Greek paganism on spherical cosmology — Faulkner redirects the reader’s attention to the supposed disreputability of its alleged messenger.

This rhetoric is a classic guilt-by-association fallacy.

Ironically, many (if not most) Christian Flat Earth believers have never read the writings of Cosmas Indicopleustes, making Faulkner’s claim almost laughable. The reason we believe the spherical earth has a pagan origin is because this is a historical fact. It has nothing to do with Cosmas. Yet, I am thankful for his contribution to the discussion.

The final claim I’d like to address also comes from the footnote.

Would Modern Christian FE Proponents Reject Cosmas’ Cosmology?

In a footnote of Falling Flat, Faulker claims that “Many flat-earth Christians….would generally reject Cosmas’s cosmology.”

Whoa! Another unsupported claim. Yet, I will give Faulkner some credit here. Cosmas’ cosmology is slightly different than that of modern biblical cosmology. But not as distinct as Faulkner might have you believe.

Here are the major differences that Faulkner likely refers to:

1. Cosmas held to a rectangular earth. This concept is not as shocking as one might think. Nor is it contrary to modern-day Biblical Cosmology. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. Cosmas held this position because he saw the pattern of the earth represented in the pattern shown to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This idea is not unlike Rob Skiba’s view, even though Skiba took a different approach to the Tabernacle. Learn more here.

2. Cosmas’ firmament adheres to his rectangular earth, with straight walls and a curved top. At first glance, this might seem incompatible with modern Biblical Cosmology. Yet, Cosmas’ was merely being consistent with his Tabernacle understanding. And he might be more insightful than we know. We may never understand all the mysteries of God’s creation until heaven. God makes this case in Job 38.

3. Cosmas believed in other lands beyond our earth. I especially love this one because it opens up the possibility of the moon map theory and the “outer lands” theory. Cosmas’ view was that man was separated from Eden by the flood. Eden was the outer land. He also emphasized the four rivers that go out from Eden. Read the book. It is enlightening.

4. Cosmas may have held that parts of the earth were concave (think Ortega Ferguson). At one point, Cosmas might suggest that rivers flow uphill. This interpretation could be the manipulation of a hostile translator. Or it could be something else that we don’t understand. Ortega Ferguson held to a concave earth. The concept seems to defy logic, much like the globe narrative. Yet, tidal forces (which are real — even though not caused by the moon) could cause water to act in a way that defies our understanding. Or it could be a translation error.

5. Cosmas held there were two compartments to the universe. He bases this dualistic idea on the Tabernacle model of the earth. He saw the “veil” akin to the firmament of heaven, separating the holy of holies (heaven) from the outer court (earth). This view is entirely compatible with modern Biblical Cosmology. According to Cosmas, the two compartments of the cosmos are the earth below and the heavens above. What separates them? The firmament — a solid structure. The only confusion that might suggest a divergence from Biblical Cosmology is that the Bible speaks of three heavens. Yet, there is no contradiction, for the Bible calls the firmament heaven. And it is the firmament that separates Cosmas' two compartments.

There’s a final point that I’d like to share about Cosmas’ Christian Topography. The pagan concept of the spherical earth in Cosmas’ day was not the same as the spherical earth teaching of our day. Not only did his contemporary pagans hold to a spherical earth, but they also held to spherical layers of heaven. This teaching is not too much unlike the layers of our modern cosmology. Yet, these layers were solid and housed the luminaries. The 6th-century pagans believed that the layers rotated in various directions to account for the movement of the wandering stars. Each wandering star had its own solid sphere in which it traveled. Not only did Cosmas write against the many heavenly spheres, but he also spoke strongly against the idea of the heavens rotating, assigning the movement of the luminaries to angels.

Cosmas writes:

Since then, the luminaries of heaven in this manner pursue their course, making day and night, seasons and years, serving also for signs for those sailing upon the seas or travelling through deserts, while they also supply the earth with light, we shall not say that they are moved by the revolution of the heavens, but rather by powers that are rational, as if they were so many torch-bearers, as we shall prove once more by the declaration of divine scripture. ¹⁵

Cosmas continues on to explain that these rational powers that move the luminaries are angels. This thought also coincides with the biblical narrative that closely associates the stars of heaven with the angels.

Wrapping Things Up

In conclusion, we can see that Danny Faulkner has misrepresented Cosmas by naming him as an insignificant figure in the Christian Church and the world. While he correctly points out that Cosmas’ cosmology was different from modern Biblical Cosmology, I don’t think Christians would reject it. Instead, they could learn from it, holding on to the irrefutable points, namely, that the earth is flat and that a solid firmament separates the earth from heaven.

The most egregious error Faulkner makes might be saying that the existence of Christian Topography proves that the Christian understanding of the world was a spherical earth when the work suggests the diametric opposite. Just because the belief in a spherical earth did exist in Cosmas’ day, does not assign the belief to the Christian Church. Instead — Christian Topography agrees with the historical narrative that the spherical earth had pagan origins that the Church was warring against.

Faulkner’s sophistry would have us believe that Cosmas only claimed that the origins of the spherical earth were pagan — and that Christians who hold to Biblical Cosmology probably got the idea from him — when Faulkner himself tells us earlier that we should look to the pagans (Greeks) to understand cosmology.

How he spins the truth!

May God wrest the false ideals of pagan teachings from the mouths and hearts of His people and restore True Cosmology to the Church for our good and His glory. Amen.

If you appreciate my work, consider supporting me with a one-time gift.

Thank you to all my free and paid subscribers. You make all the difference. I especially appreciate those who support my work financially.

Comments are behind a paywall to keep away trolls. Workarounds: Restack with a note or send me a message.

Help spread the word by sharing this post.

1. See Episode 195 of the Flat Earth Files Podcast

2. Falling Flat, Page 17

3. Ibid., Page 30

4. Ibid., Page 16

5. See: Danny Faulkner Straw Mans Augustine's View on the Shape of the Earth

6. Christian Topography, Prologue II, Page 3

7. Ibid., Book II, Page 23

8. Notice also that Pamphilus was well-loved and accepted in the Christian community.

9. Ibid., Page 2

10. One thing that’s grabbed my attention in this study is that there is genuinely a ton of missing FE history. Cosmas and other writers name names, cite books, and refer to works that I cannot find in my research. Indeed, there seems to be MUCH missing history of Flat Earth in the Church.

11. Ibid., Book II, Page 24

12. See Pages 4, 26-27.

13. “Much of Western science and philosophy traces back to the ancient Greeks. Therefore, if we want to know the history of cosmology, such as beliefs about earth’s shape, we ought to start with them.” Falling Flat, Page 18

14. Ibid., Page 31

15. Christian Topography, Book II, page 76.