FLAT EARTH.

[Joshua_5]

Not sure about biblical stuff but if the earth were really flat you could easily see Africa from Florida...but you can't.
You can't even see Canada across lake Erie. Why? Because of the curvature of the earth. We can see stars millions of miles away but we can't see a hundred miles over water!

By the same logic, if Earth were a globe, you couldn't see beyond several miles at sea level (due to the curvature), but as you can, therefore the Earth is flat.

 

[Joshua_5]

If you can't see that those images are fake, then you haven't seen actual footage from the stratosphere. Especially the latter time-lapse videos with the ridiculous aurora borealis, etc. lol

If anyone cannot see that those images are fake, they obviously have never been in a plane at night. The contrast of the lights, oceans etc. is far too sharp given the pupported altitude.

Either they (i.e. NASA) have taken low altitude images and doctored in a curve, or faked the colours and contrast, or faked something altogether different, but the fakery of the images should be easily discernable to any adult. The fact that it is not just shows how far we have fallen.

 

[Joshua_5]

1. The sun *is* a star by the dictionary definition of the word:

If the sun is a star, why do the two greater lights get a special and separate mention to the stars in Genesis 1? The sun and the moon are not stars, according to the One who designed them. If scientists want to make up their own definitions like they want to for marriage, they can try, but they'll always be incorrect.

 

[Joshua_5]

How are you coming on the math? Have you chosen a particular distance for the sun yet, and have you confirmed that no distance that you choose will actually match the positions of the sun in the sky over the course of the day?

I haven't come across a model yet that adequately explains how the heavenly bodies work on a flat Earth model. Your mathematical questions highlight what I consider to be the biggest gap here. This said, the fact doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere. There are other observations heliocentric theory is unable to account for - the fact that Polaris can be seen South of the equator, the fact that the Earth's pupported acceleration toward the sun is large enough to be felt and measured (yet can't be). Sure, excuses can be made (the same as Flat Earthers can make excuses for why the maths doesn't seem to work for the heavenly bodies). But this is all they are, and all they'll ever be - excuses.

Like the creation/evolution debate, it depends on what evidence you accept, whether you trust God at His word.

 

[Armoured]

If the sun is a star, why do the two greater lights get a special and separate mention to the stars in Genesis 1? The sun and the moon are not stars, according to the One who designed them. If scientists want to make up their own definitions like they want to for marriage, they can try, but they'll always be incorrect.

Because the Sun and the Moon are the most obvious lights from our vantage point?

And who are these scientists wanting to define marriage? Name three?

 

[CrystalDragon]

If the sun is a star, why do the two greater lights get a special and separate mention to the stars in Genesis 1? The sun and the moon are not stars, according to the One who designed them. If scientists want to make up their own definitions like they want to for marriage, they can try, but they'll always be incorrect.

The moon reflects the light of the sun, not give off its own light (if it did we wouldn't have moon phases). The moon obviously isn't a star, and the other heavenly bodies were just called "stars" not counting the sun because the sun is the most important and is the only star to have a day-to-day effect on our lives.

 

[juvenissun]

The bible favours a flat earth,

Width…
Psalm 103 WTT
Look how wide the east is from the west,
So far has he set our sins from us.

Width, right now east has no end, it goes for ever and the same for the west. The globe West is eternal, a constant clockwise.
Here in the Tyndale translation God has clearly set a width from East to West.

Take it one at a time. I will show you that all them do not indicate a flat earth.
Start from the first one. There is no better description to compare the quantity of our sin to the distance from east to west. We can not measure either. If the earth is flat, then we do not need Lord Jesus to wash our sin away.

Next one?

 

[juvenissun]

You can't be serious! Do you also believe the earth has four corners?

Yes, a map has four corners. Ancient people did put the whole earth on a map. Now we know we can glue the corners together.

 

[Joshua_5]

The moon reflects the light of the sun, not give off its own light (if it did we wouldn't have moon phases). The moon obviously isn't a star, and the other heavenly bodies were just called "stars" not counting the sun because the sun is the most important and is the only star to have a day-to-day effect on our lives.

If the moon reflects the light of the sun, why is the moon's light pale and cold, and the sun's light bright and hot? The greater lights are readily distinguishable.

I hold that the sun is not a star - the stars are considerably smaller, and their light has a quality more similar to that of the moon than the sun.

 

[Joshua_5]

Anyone who has 'ever' been in the ocean far enough out to lose sight of land KNOW this: If there are tall structures on the coast, when they come into view, they don't merely get bigger and bigger, the TOP of the structure becomes visible FIRST. That is WHY there are 'lighthouses' built to warn ships at sea. The TOP can be seen 'first' from the furthest distance.

Lighthouses can be seen from beyond where they should be seen, if the Earth is curved (using simple trigonometry). These are proof the Earth is flat.

This makes it perfectly clear that the Earth is 'curved'. The tips of the tops of structures become visible over the horizon 'first'.

This is simply just a characteristic of perspective. The same visual phenomena would apply to upside-down objects suspended from a vast, flat ceiling. The further the object, the more the upper part of it would (to the eye) blend with the ceiling, and only the lower part would be visible. This doesn't prove the ceiling is concave, anymore than the phenomena observed on Earth proves Earth to be concave.

If the earth were 'flat', we would simply see objects getting 'bigger and bigger'. The whole object. But the fact that we see the very 'tops' of objects 'first' is indicative of the curvature of the Earth.

You're mistaking perspective with curvature. The same visual phenomena would apply to a vast flat surface, with objects suspended from it.

Pictures taken from space, (even the space station), clearly show the curvature of the Earth.

NASA moon landing hoax? Can they be trusted with anything after that?

And then there is this: if you sail in either a westerly or easterly direction for 'enough time' you will end up back where you started from. If you fly east, west, north or south LONG enough, you will end up back where you started from. The only way that this is possible is if the planet is spherical. If it were 'flat', there would be edges. There are no edges.

Take a clock, and lie it flat. Whether the hour hand travels East or West, it will return to its initial position. Your claim that if you travel North or South long enough, that you will end up in the same position, has never been proven.

So, Joshua, where are the edges? If the Earth is 'flat', where are the edges of this Earth?

Antarctica is the edge. This is why there are prohibitions from normal people (i.e. you and I) exploring it.

And where does the Sun go at night?

The sun basically is too far to be seen at night - it is over the horizon, due to perspective. As explained by another member, the maths around this has still to be determined. I have yet to come across a Flat Earth explanation that well explains the Heavenly bodies. This doesn't make it false - there are a number of things Heliocentricity can't explain, either, but non-verifiable excuses are made for these.

We can 'see' the moon on many 'days'.

The moon is one of the greater lights God created in Genesis, and hence can be seen during the day.

And explain how the sun doesn't set at the poles for months at a time? Or how there are days of darkness at the poles?

Again, not sure you have proof here. At the North pole, certainly, there are long periods of day, and long periods of night. This is because the sun is closer to the North pole in (Northern) Summer, and never travels far enough on its circuit to be out of sight. In (Northern) Winter, its path is increased so far from the North that it cannot be seen for significant lengths of time. The same does not apply for Antarctica, hence the requirement by authorities to prevent ordinary folk from exploring it, and discovering this truth for themselves.

How about eclipses? Explain how a flat Earth produces Lunar eclipses.

Explain how a heliocentric Earth produces lunar eclipses, with the sun still above the horizon.

You can't. Not in any manner that is rational.

The same applies to my question to you.

Even in a jet at cruising altitude, the curvature of the earth is perceivable.

Its not. Pilots never need to correct for curvature of the Earth, yet never go into space.

The only people the idea of a 'flat' earth appeal to are those that have NO experience with any tools that make it perfectly clear to everyone else that we live on a spherical shaped planet.

I've noticed it appeals to those with high IQs, and those who seem to have an above average sense of discernment. Certainly not those who care to please men.

And let me ask this: Why would anyone 'fake' photographs of the Earth taken from space? What possible benefits are there in faking something like that? In other words, why the deception? What would be the benefits of fooling people into believing the Earth to be round if it's flat?

Why did Satan lie to Eve?

And explain satellites. How is it that we have global communications?

Satellites aren't required for global communications, especially on a flat Earth. I don't believe they are what NASA claims they are. If satellites are real, why so many computer generated images, and no photographs?

And how does the sun produce energy if it is 'flat'?

That's a secret probably only God knows, although I'm not sure I claimed the sun was flat.

If the Earth is 'flat', how THICK is it? In other words, how deep can we dig before digging 'through' the Earth?

Not sure, although man hasn't dug very deep into the Earth. I believe the deepest dig was performed by the Russians, and it was in the order of kilometers, or tens of kilometers, and they couldn't get further.

I say that it's about 7900 miles in diameter. Because it's ROUND. But those that say that it's flat, how 'thick' it is. In other words, how 'deep' can we dig before digging through this 'flat earth'?

Just because I, or anyone else, state that the Earth is flat, doesn't make me omniscient with respect to all its workings and details. I say its flat because that's what God seems to state in His word, and there is enough evidence to convince me that is what He meant.

Blessings,

To you, from He, also.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I do wonder why they haven't done much circumnavigating the poles, reportedly that's only been done twice, and the reported one in 2014 doesn't have much evidence and it doesn't seem to have recordings. Neither of them do.

By the way, I don't believe the Earth is flat, for the record.

 

[Jadis40]

If the sun is a star, why do the two greater lights get a special and separate mention to the stars in Genesis 1? The sun and the moon are not stars, according to the One who designed them. If scientists want to make up their own definitions like they want to for marriage, they can try, but they'll always be incorrect.

Because the sun we see in the sky *is* a star. It operates the same way all the other stars in the Milky Way galaxy and all across the universe work. From that perspective, there's nothing special or unique about it. We know now that there are other stars, that function the same way our sun does, that have planets as well. More are being discovered every year.

If the moon reflects the light of the sun, why is the moon's light pale and cold, and the sun's light bright and hot? The greater lights are readily distinguishable.

I hold that the sun is not a star - the stars are considerably smaller, and their light has a quality more similar to that of the moon than the sun.

Er...not quite. The stars are *not* smaller, not by a long shot. The largest known star (or the leading candidate at the moment is UY Scuti, in the constellation Scutum. (And then there's VY Canis Majoris, for another.) As for brightest star, apart from our own sun, due to how close we are to it, would be Sirius. Also, Sirius is twice as big as our own sun.

And "Greater lights" is just poetic language, not a statement of fact.

As for why the moon's light isn't as bright, apart from the fact it doesn't generate any of its own but instead reflects the light of the sun is due to what is called albedo.

https://www.esr.org/outreach/glossary/albedo.html

 

[Open Heart]

I hold that the sun is not a star - the stars are considerably smaller

Sure, the other stars are smaller because they are gazillions of light years farther away.

 

[Open Heart]

If the moon reflects the light of the sun, why is the moon's light pale and cold

For the same reason. What aren't you getting? If the moon is not generating its own light, if its not burning gases in thermonuclear reactions, but is only a reflection of the sun's light, then of COURSE its pale and cold. Maybe you are thinking of a mirror like mercury behind glass. That's not what we mean. The moon is rock and dirt. Think of being in a room lying in your bed, and there is a street light outside your window. On your wall is a patch of lit area that reflects the light coming through the window. It's like that.

 

[Joshua_5]

And you can't offer one significant reason other than simple deception. But deception to bring about 'what effect'. How can a belief in a round or flat earth alter one's Salvation? What would be the significance in 'creating' this 'false idea' that the Earth is round instead of 'flat'?

I already answered your other points, so won't repeat those answers again. You can take them or leave them - no skin off my nose, but for your benefit and that of other readers, I wanted people to know there are reasonable answers.

Ball Earth was necessary to introduce evolution. Evolution necessary to destroy belief in creation/God. I don't understand the devil's purposes for deception, for God knows who are His before the foundation of the Earth. So no, its not a salvation issue. But then neither is Creation at the same level, or even the infallibility of scripture. Important nonetheless.

And until you can answer this question, there is no actual 'reason' to try and sell this idea that the earth is 'flat' when ALL the evidence is that it is spherical. ALL the evidence. You have provided not one shred of evidence to the contrary. If so, where is it's edge. If something is 'flat' it has edges. Where are the edges of this 'flat earth' you propose. if you cannot offer this information, it's obvious that your premise is utterly false. It cannot even come close to being 'reasonable' if you can offer NO EVIDENCE.

I already showed some evidence the Earth is flat, although it is the scriptures that set my mind on the issue. The edge, as already described, is Antarctica.

Blessings.

 

[Joshua_5]

Because the sun we see in the sky *is* a star. It operates the same way all the other stars in the Milky Way galaxy and all across the universe work. From that perspective, there's nothing special or unique about it. We know now that there are other stars, that function the same way our sun does, that have planets as well. More are being discovered every year.



Er...not quite. The stars are *not* smaller, not by a long shot. The largest known star (or the leading candidate at the moment is UY Scuti, in the constellation Scutum. (And then there's VY Canis Majoris, for another.) As for brightest star, apart from our own sun, due to how close we are to it, would be Sirius. Also, Sirius is twice as big as our own sun.

And "Greater lights" is just poetic language, not a statement of fact.

As for why the moon's light isn't as bright, apart from the fact it doesn't generate any of its own but instead reflects the light of the sun is due to what is called albedo.

https://www.esr.org/outreach/glossary/albedo.html

You're just reciting what you've been taught. There is no proof of any of this that stands up to reasonable scrutiny.

The moon's light is cold. You can magnify the sun's light to cause fire. The moon's light can be magnified to cool water. The nature of the lights is not the same, ergo they do not have the same source, as God describes in Genesis (i.e. 2 lights, not 1 light and a reflector).

 

[Joshua_5]

Sure, the other stars are smaller because they are gazillions of light years farther away.

If they're gazillions of light years away, how can we still see them, given God created Heaven and Earth only ~6000 years ago?

 

[Jadis40]

You're just reciting what you've been taught. There is no proof of any of this that stands up to reasonable scrutiny.

The moon's light is cold. You can magnify the sun's light to cause fire. The moon's light can be magnified to cool water. The nature of the lights is not the same, ergo they do not have the same source, as God describes in Genesis (i.e. 2 lights, not 1 light and a reflector).

Not just what I've been taught. The moon does *not* produce its own light. If if did, as other posters have pointed out, we wouldn't see the different phases of the moon. All of that is due to the amount of light that is reflected off of it from the sun. You can make silly claims like the source of the light isn't the same, but you'd be wrong. And yes, it is 1 light and a reflection. Always has been, just like the sun is a star, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[Ken Rank]

The earth is 99.9% flat. Most our maps are flat.
We currently refer to "sunrise and sunset" which
shows that scientists at Nasa today think the
sun is orbiting earth. Or it's possible that language
and illustrations are useful first, accurate second.

If a boat leaves the shore headed to sea with a helicopter 100' above it... and they travel at the same speed in the same direction the result will be this:

Rounding off... within about 4 miles (depending on your height, wave height, etc.) the boat will have disappeared by the helicopter can still be seen, albeit closer to the water. If the earth was flat and the helicopter could be seen, so would the boat be seen. But that isn't what happens thus the earth is not flat.

 

[SkyWriting]

But that isn't what happens thus the earth is not flat.

I'm aware of it's slight curve.
But 7 inches of variance in the course of a mile is generally considered flat.
It's no surprise that scripture suggests a flat surface since virtually 100%
of people can't create a flatter surface than gravity provides.