Is there something wrong with teaching children the Earth is flat?

[theIdi0t]

Let's say I was a fiery literalist, and I took the numerous portions of scripture that speak of a flat-earth, and then claim the earth is flat, that is what the Word of God proclaims. Those pictures that indicate otherwise, are all works of the devil, to lead believers astray, by creating doubts in them on the inerrancy of the bible.

Would a YEC object to me teaching my children that there is a large conspiracy by the scientific community and unbelievers to undermine the Word, and that the earth is really flat?

Is there something wrong, in raising my children with such ideas?

I would like to hear the YEC responses.

 

[Mallon]

"As long as it brings people closer to God..."

 

[HypnoToad]

Let's say I was a fiery literalist, and I took the numerous portions of scripture that speak of a flat-earth, and then claim the earth is flat, that is what the Word of God proclaims. Those pictures that indicate otherwise, are all works of the devil, to lead believers astray, by creating doubts in them on the inerrancy of the bible.

Would a YEC object to me teaching my children that there is a large conspiracy by the scientific community and unbelievers to undermine the Word, and that the earth is really flat?

Is there something wrong, in raising my children with such ideas?

I would like to hear the YEC responses.

First provide all these Scriptures that say the earth is, in fact, flat.

 

[gluadys]

First provide all these Scriptures that say the earth is, in fact, flat.

So, are you agreeing that if scripture teaches the earth is flat, this is what we should teach our children, in spite of all the evidence (including pictures taken from space) that says the opposite?

It really is a matter of what scripture says, no matter what creation says?

 

[theIdi0t]

First provide all these Scriptures that say the earth is, in fact, flat.

Here's few verses:

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

Clay under a seal is not round it's flat.

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)"

"The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, even if it was only a dream, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth, unless the earth was flat.

Revelations 7:1 states the Earth has four corners,

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges.

For those interested in literal interpretation, these few verse alone give you enough room to say the "earth" is flat, the only way around it, I see, is by assuming the verses are "allegorical" interpretations of the earth.

Here an extensive list of verses, that support geocentrism, and a flat-earth:

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

Believers who hold a flat-earth position are literalist, and that is the only reason they hold that position, the only difference is that they are a more fiery-breed of literalist, than the luke-warm YEC type, there is no doubt about this, if they were not literalist then the shape of earth, would be a question of no consequence. They see verses as those mentioned above as literal, and these verses can only be interpreted in one way from a literal perspective. Any scientific "theory" and natural evidence that disputes this is false, or forged by naturalist scientist who want to discredit the word of god.

We must teach our children to take the verses as literal, if we teach them otherwise, we are setting them up to follow false doctrines, because it will not be long, before they say the resurrection was allegorical, or God forbid they become democrats!

We must teach them the majority of scientist have either been deceived, or are deceivers, and that there is a large conspiracy to replace the word of God, with a naturalistic religion!

Did I make my point yet?

now, i'll wait for the YEC responses.

 

[crawfish]

 

[Scotishfury09]

Gluadys, those pictures are fake. We've never even made it to the moon. NASA stands for the National Association of Satan Appeasers.

I joke, but seriously I think there's a good point to theidiot's OP. The fight between flat-earthers and round-earthers back then was the same thing that is going on now between YEC and TE, the only difference is that we can prove without a doubt that the earth is round.

 

[ContentInHim]

Have another bag?

 

[theIdi0t]

I joke, but seriously I think there's a good point to theidiot's OP. The fight between flat-earthers and round-earthers back then was the same thing that is going on now between YEC and TE, the only difference is that we can prove without a doubt that the earth is round.

Who are you calling an idiot!

I see no proof without a doubt that the earth is round!

Have you traveled outside the earth to observe that it is round?

What makes you think these naturalistic scientist that support evolution, even when they know it's just conjecture and speculation, who support it only because it undermines the existence of God, do not also computer generate these pictures, which you go off and claim, as "proof without a doubt"! This is heresy! You are telling me that I should tell my children that they should take man's pictures, over the word of God??

A thousand years ago, and you would be stoned! You'd be hard pressed to find me even shedding a tear!



Apparently proof without a doubt, is only proof without a doubt for you, not I the temporary flat-earther or my brothers.

But the million dollar question is, are you saying that when one feels the evidence for something is proof without a doubt, for this something, that we should expect this something over what is written in the Word?

Kurt Wise says, that even if evolution was proven without a doubt , he would still believe in Young Earth Creation, but it seems you'll sell your soul for much less? Am i correct?

 

[pgp_protector]

Grabs a bag & joins the show

 

[theIdi0t]

I thought I would add a portion of the actual FAQ found on the flat earth society website:

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

.....

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

 

[busterdog]

Is there something wrong with teaching children that Darwin is god?

No. As long as they understand what a red herring is.

 

[theIdi0t]

Is there something wrong with teaching children that Darwin is god?

No. As long as they understand what a red herring is.

If you are accusing me of using a red herring that is fine, but please define how I did so?

I say that I am proving my point by a relevant argument, but if you say it is an irrelevant argument, then please define how so.

To your question is it wrong to teach children that Darwin is God, the answer is of course it is wrong.

and I am still awaiting a response from a YEC on the question from the original post, so far the only responses have been from those who avoid the question.

 

[busterdog]

If you are accusing me of using a red herring that is fine, but please define how I did so?

I say that I am proving my point by a relevant argument, but if you say it is an irrelevant argument, then please define how so.

To your question is it wrong to teach children that Darwin is God, the answer is of course it is wrong.

and I am still awaiting a response from a YEC on the question from the original post, so far the only responses have been from those who avoid the question.

Sorry to be so toucht about it. I am just really sick of the geocentrism argument based on past experience, not your OP per se.

A flat earth position has nothing to do with any biblical position, except position that attempts to use it to discredit the inerrant view, if not the young earth view.

However, the exaggeration of the "circle of the earth" idiom is equivalent to accusing evolutionists of worshipping Darwin.

PUshing "literalism" this hard to get an absurd result is also of no logical benefit. Using the idiom as mere metaphor is a simple hermeneutic permitted by the four corners of the text.

It is also not impossible that the idiom is similar to the medeival conundrums about God. Since the circle of the earth, geometrically exists everywhere (every point on the globe is someone's horizon), then God is being described literarlly as being everywhere.

 

[Galle]

A flat earth position has nothing to do with any biblical position, except position that attempts to use it to discredit the inerrant view, if not the young earth view.

Why should flat-earthism be any less valid than creationism? It's not like it's any less scientific.

However, the exaggeration of the "circle of the earth" idiom is equivalent to accusing evolutionists of worshipping Darwin.

Not really. Not at all, in fact. Evolutionists don't have a holy book which they interpret nor do they regularly use idioms that imply they worship Darwin. Creationists, by contrast, insist on interpreting some parts of the Bible literally, even though this interpretation has been thoroughly disproved by science. Moreover, they insist on holding onto a Bronze-age cosmogony, even though that cosmogony was formulated long before science. So why should they not accept a flat Earth as well? A flat Earth is implied by a literal reading of the Bible, and it fits right in with the rest of the Bronze age cosmogony. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject one and accept the other.

PUshing "literalism" this hard to get an absurd result is also of no logical benefit.

So why do creationists insist on pushing literalism so hard?!

 

[shernren]

I'm wary of taking the flat earth as an argument against creationism. There are certainly passages in the Bible which make marginally more sense from a flat earth perspective than from a modern scientific perspective. No creationist can deny that. However, they only make marginally more sense. And this is reflected in the hermeneutic traditions of the Church as the interpretive community of the Bible in the world: if I am not mistaken, at no time has flat-earth ever been a majority position in the church's theology of creation. Of course, some theologians held to a flat earth. There was also some dispute about whether or not the antipodes of a spherical earth would have been inhabited, but that was not often (again, if I am not mistaken) used as an argument against the sphericity of the earth.

Having said that, geocentrism was indeed a majority position in the interpretive community of the church for a while, both among Catholics and Protestants, with numerous supporting documents demonstrating how the theologians derived their geocentric convictions straight from Scripture, culminating of course in the brouhaha concerning Galileo. As such I consider that a very valid and pertinent criticism of creationism.

 

[busterdog]

Why should flat-earthism be any less valid than creationism? It's not like it's any less scientific.


Not really. Not at all, in fact. Evolutionists don't have a holy book which they interpret nor do they regularly use idioms that imply they worship Darwin. Creationists, by contrast, insist on interpreting some parts of the Bible literally, even though this interpretation has been thoroughly disproved by science. Moreover, they insist on holding onto a Bronze-age cosmogony, even though that cosmogony was formulated long before science. So why should they not accept a flat Earth as well? A flat Earth is implied by a literal reading of the Bible, and it fits right in with the rest of the Bronze age cosmogony. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject one and accept the other.


So why do creationists insist on pushing literalism so hard?!

If creationism is so patently absurd, then we can just ask whether it is right to teach our kids creationism.

Geocentrism, etc. needn't come into it.

 

[theIdi0t]

If creationism is so patently absurd, then we can just ask whether it is right to teach our kids creationism.

Geocentrism, etc. needn't come into it.

I'll like to address this, but I still need an answer to my original question?

Is their something wrong with teaching children that there is a large conspiracy by the scientific community and unbelievers to undermine the Word, and that the earth is really flat?

Is there something wrong, in raising my children with such ideas?

I think you do believe there is something, wrong with this position, and I am trying to understand what it is, you find wrong with this, then we can continue to other points.

 

[Galle]

If creationism is so patently absurd, then we can just ask whether it is right to teach our kids creationism.

OK, then. The answer is: no, obviously we shouldn't.

Debate's over guys. Let's all clear out.

Geocentrism, etc. needn't come into it.

More consistently literalist positions come into play when the apologetics used to support creationism also support geocentrism, flat-Earthism, etc. equally well. That is to say, if you think that such an argument is sound when applied to creationism, it must also be sound when applied to a more literalist position. On the other hand, if you think that such an argument is not sound when applied to these more literalist positions, then obviously you cannot use it to support creationism.

 

[busterdog]

I'll like to address this, but I still need an answer to my original question?

Is their something wrong with teaching children that there is a large conspiracy by the scientific community and unbelievers to undermine the Word, and that the earth is really flat?

Is there something wrong, in raising my children with such ideas?

I think you do believe there is something, wrong with this position, and I am trying to understand what it is, you find wrong with this, then we can continue to other points.

Since geocentrism is wrong (or flat earth) it would be wrong to teach kids.

Since evolution is wrong, that is the worst thing you can teach a kid.

What do you want me to say?