Flat Earth.... flame free, please.

[essentialsaltes]

What do you have?

Observations of reality.

 

[SeventyOne]

Observations of reality.

Ditto.

 

[Speedwell]

And yet, it went out of it's way to describe in detail our surroundings as flat stationary and motionless. If God took the time to put that in there, it's important enough to believe.

Or he just let the authors indulge in phenomenological language as doing no harm to His literary intentions. No, the Bible does not teach about the shape of the Earth.

 

[A_Thinker]

What do you have?

A Bible which has a more important purpose than teaching us whether the Earth is flat or round.

Absolutely ...

 

[A_Thinker]

And yet, it went out of it's way to describe in detail our surroundings as flat stationary and motionless. If God took the time to put that in there, it's important enough to believe.

There's not one verse in the Bible which says that the Earth is "flat", ... and it also says this ...

Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. (KJV)

 

[SeventyOne]

Absolutely ...

That's nice of you two placing yourselves as judges over the intentions of God when He inspired His word to be written down.

You have any proof of those intentions, or are you just a group like Job's 'friends', assigning things to God He didn't do or say?

 

[SeventyOne]

There's not one verse in the Bible which says that the Earth is "flat", ... and it also says this ...

Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. (KJV)

I never said it doesn't shake, I said it's fixed and immovable on a foundation. Do a little deeper research than a quick work search.

 

[SeventyOne]

Or he just let the authors indulge in phenomenological language as doing no harm to His literary intentions. No, the Bible does not teach about the shape of the Earth.

Well, it does. But I literally cannot make you see or understand it.

 

[SkyWriting]

It does, and evidence supports it.

Well, it does. But I literally cannot make you see or understand it.

This model of the earth(Image1) supports
these past and predicted events in the future (image 2):

Compare these past and predicted events with the flat earth model.
Please visit the area of the total eclipse predicted events just to
insure they are not fake news created by media, or Trump.

 

[A_Thinker]

I literally cannot make you see or understand it.

More like ...

"I cannot make you see or understand it literally."

Which is appropriate ... since the majority of that language is figurative ...

 

[Freodin]

This model of the earth(Image1) supports
these past and predicted events in the future (image 2):

Compare these past and predicted events with the flat earth model.
Please visit the area of the total eclipse predicted events just to
insure they are not fake news created by media, or Trump.

If you argue from a point of Biblical interpretation and the inerrancy of this specific interpretation, none of that counts.

The Globe and the Heliocentric Model (which are not the same, as I must point out for Flat Earthers) include a testable, if not completely understood, mechanism on which it's function is based.
The mathematics behind this mechanism are derived from observations, past and future.

But it is not the only possible model. Basically every model can work on can be used to correctly describe and predict the observations. One of the problems with the early, copernician and galilean heliocentric models was that it described the observations worse than the existing geocentric models.

The advantage that the heliocentric model developed in the later versions was the inclusion of an explanatory mechanism. The heliocentric model works because of Gravity. Gravity can indeed be experimentally shown to work in the way the heliocentric model uses.

But if can you can basically just ignore a need for an explanation, make up any mechanisms you want... there is nothing to distinguish these models. Even an Flat Earth model would work... you just have to claim the existence of unevidenced mechanisms that make it work in this way.

 

[Halbhh]

Good luck convincing me that these sciences are boring and not complex enough.

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE / SCIENTIST

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

It's wonderful to see how many great scientists believed. Always good. Thanks! What made you think I'd want to convince even one person ever, anywhere, otherwise? I believe in Genesis chapter 1 literally (but don't impose added forced meanings....), and don't take just some verses here and there to prove some extra-biblical idea (like no time passing during verse one, an added idea not in the Bible), but believe all the entire text fully. Hope that helps! (even if it doesn't help at all, I still love ya though!)

 

[SeventyOne]

This model of the earth(Image1) supports
these past and predicted events in the future (image 2):



Compare these past and predicted events with the flat earth model.
Please visit the area of the total eclipse predicted events just to
insure they are not fake news created by media, or Trump.

They used to be predicted using an astroblade, a flat representation of the earth. That seemed to work as well.

 

[Halbhh]

And I want one that teaches the earth is a ball hurling through space.

What I do have are verses that describe an immovable earth, inscribed into the foundation as a seal to wax, and with a firmament overhead, attached to the earth, in which the sun, moon and stars are contained, and an earth that sits on pillars.

What do you have?

The Bible doesn't tell us the boiling point of water, nor what energy source makes the sun shine.

But the sun shines because God made all that is -- including His perfect design of nature, physics.

We learn instead in the Bible things that are profound. Adding science to the text would have caused at least 2 very significant harms, a medium-large harm and a huge harm.

The medium-large harm would have been to divert attention from what really matters.
Genesis chapters 1 through 3 are about profound things that deeply matter for our souls, not mere numbers like theories about 144 or 156 hours (trivial stuff). So, only profound things are being given here.

The huge harm that presenting mere science stuff in the Bible would have caused: It would have prevented faith.

Because faith is believing in things you cannot yet see.
(oh, remembering a verse on this too:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.)

If God said something in scripture like: "and the Earth was very old, it was in fact over 4 thousands of thousands of thousands of years old" (Which He did not say)

Then even people that didn't care for God at all could simply see the confirmation and repent, cynically, without love or humility.

If you can already see it, that's not the 'faith' God wants us to have right now, here and now.

He wants us to believe in Him with trust. There will never be an easy proof of God until Christ returns, because faith is what God wants from us.

 

[SeventyOne]

Perhaps I should start defining your words and intentions the same way you seem to treat scriptures in many matters. Let's try it out...

More like ...

"I cannot make you see or understand it literally."

Yes. I am quite handsome. Thanks for noticing. Didn't know you could see me from there.

Which is appropriate ... since the majority of that language is figurative ...

You wish to send me money? Well, who am I to disappoint? I have PayPal, is that good?

 

[SeventyOne]

The Bible doesn't tell us the boiling point of water, nor what energy source makes the sun shine.

But the sun shines because God made all that is -- including His perfect design of nature, physics.

We learn instead in the Bible things that are profound. Adding science to the text would have caused at least 2 very significant harms, a medium-large harm and a huge harm.

The medium-large harm would have been to divert attention from what really matters.
Genesis chapters 1 through 3 are about profound things that deeply matter for our souls, not mere numbers like theories about 144 or 156 hours (trivial stuff). So, only profound things are being given here.

The huge harm that presenting mere science stuff in the Bible would have caused: It would have prevented faith.

Because faith is believing in things you cannot yet see.
(oh, remembering a verse on this too:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.
)

If you can already see it, that's not the 'faith' God wants us to have right now, here and now.

I get it. I see this a lot more than I care to. In a nutshell...

"God lied. Primitive people were too dumb to understand more than two things at once, and one of those had to be breathing."

This kind of crap I understand from unbelievers, but not from those who claim to be believers. Just can't wrap my head around it.

 

[Halbhh]

I get it. I see this a lot more than I care to. In a nutshell...

"God lied. Primitive people were too dumb to understand more than two things at once, and one of those had to be breathing."

This kind of crap I understand from unbelievers, but not from those who claim to be believers. Just can't wrap my head around it.

It would be lying would be if someone consciously, knowingly asserted what is really only a theory about how much time passed during Genesis chapter 1, as if their theory was God's word, instead of only their theory, because the Bible doesn't say how much time passed during verse 1, before verse 2 and 3 happened. Asserting it was little or no time see is an added idea or added assumption. It's not in scripture (though I know some try to take the wording in Exodus about the Sabbath day of rest to somehow mean no time passed during verse 1 of Genesis before verse 2 and the first special day of creation on Earth). We can only say "I think during verse 1 that ___ time passed, though we are not told", or "My guess is____". Those would be honest ways of talking about verse 1.

The worse problem though is that it's possible to get caught up in defending a mere theory about Genesis chapter 1 details not in scripture (such as a mere numerical detail about numbers of hours or years), instead of truly listening with humility and openess. If you really listen, it changes you, and alters you, and you are transformed.

 

[Freodin]

They used to be predicted using an astroblade, a flat representation of the earth. That seemed to work as well.

Sorry, do you mean an astrolabe? I couldn't find anything relevant for "astroblade".

But an astrolabe is not a "flat representation of the earth". It is a flat representation of the ecliptic of the solar systen... which is more or less flat.

 

[Halbhh]

There's a very helpful thing to know, which I found because I read through entire books, and which you will find if you do, in the Book 1rst Samuel. And in the Book of Acts, again, the same way. Listening without having a goal except to listen and gain, you the student/humble/listener, and the Word the only one doing all of the talking. Instead of using the scripture to prove a doctrine or preferred idea I'd like for myself selfishly, I want to be truly humble and truly listen, so that I'm the one doing the listening, and the Word is the Teacher, instead of me trying to be the Teacher. Then because we are really listening, thus reading through fully entire books, we hear and learn what what is there for us, and not just our own ideas we have already.
When we listen/read this way, suddenly we learn so much we did not expect, did not already think.

 

[Speedwell]

That's nice of you two placing yourselves as judges over the intentions of God when He inspired His word to be written down.

Which is exactly what you do yourself in assuming that God's intention was to write literal history.