Did the apostles and the early Church believe the Earth was flat?

[prodromos]

It certainly does change your argument as makes you point moot and totally irrelevant as in apples and oranges. Enjoy your fruit.

I went back over my posts and realise I have not mixed up the terms as I did not even use them in any of my posts. You were the only one using the terms.

 

[Oldmantook]

I went back over my posts and realise I have not mixed up the terms as I did not even use them in any of my posts. You were the only one using the terms.

Let's review shall we? You claimed the Bible is written from the perspective of man since the authors were human. I pointed out to you that that is an anthropocentric (man-centered) view of scripture. I countered your explanation by writing that the Bible is instead theocentric (God-centered) as it is written by God. Men were inspired to pen the words of Scripture under the inspiration/teaching of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Bible cannot be man-centered and written from man's point of view as you allege.
You then compared God to a man by claiming that the Bible describes God in "anthropocentric" terms. I again pointed out your faux pas as that is called anthropomorphic - not anthropocentric. Two totally different words thereby rendering your argument totally irrelevant. Do you deny that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore written from God's perspective? Yes or No?

 

[prodromos]

Let's review shall we? You claimed the Bible is written from the perspective of man since the authors were human. I pointed out to you that that is an anthropocentric (man-centered) view of scripture. I countered your explanation by writing that the Bible is instead theocentric (God-centered) as it is written by God. Men were inspired to pen the words of Scripture under the inspiration/teaching of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Bible cannot be man-centered and written from man's point of view as you allege.
You then compared God to a man by claiming that the Bible describes God in "anthropocentric" terms. I again pointed out your faux pas as that is called anthropomorphic - not anthropocentric. Two totally different words thereby rendering your argument totally irrelevant. Do you deny that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore written from God's perspective? Yes or No?

How about you respond to my argument that God's revelation condescends to our human weakness, instead of labels you've applied.

 

[Oldmantook]

How about you respond to my argument that God's revelation condescends to our human weakness, instead of labels you've applied.

Are you kidding?? God does not condescend to our human weakness. God wrote ALL OF SCRIPTURE from HIS point of view. I suggest you look up 2 Tim 3:16-17. You can either choose to accept that fact or ignore it. Your choice.

 

[prodromos]

Are you kidding?? God does not condescend to our human weakness.

He absolutely does.

God wrote ALL OF SCRIPTURE from HIS point of view. I suggest you look up 2 Tim 3:16-17. You can either choose to accept that fact or ignore it. Your choice.

2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say anything remotely close to what you claimed above.

 

[Oldmantook]

He absolutely does.

Really? Cite me one verse in either the OT or NT that condescends to our human human understanding that God created a spherical earth that rotates around the sun. I look forward to your response.

2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say anything remotely close to what you claimed above.

Really? How so pray tell?

 

[Jipsah]

The Bible is theocentric in derivation written for the benefit of us sheep.

Just so. And thus if the intended reader said "the sun rose" rather than "the earth rotated to the point where the sun was visible above the horizon", then that's what the BIble says, too. And to think that "the sun rose" is setting forth an astronomical truth is simply silly.

 

[Jipsah]

Just as in the rules of perspective as in the vanishing point. Shazam!

Which "rules" apparently only obtain for things moving on the surface. Aerial objects reach the "vanishing point" wholly intact. Reckon why that is? Sounds a lot like "rubber science:, doesn't it?

 

[Jipsah]

Have you ever observed it for yourself?

Many times.

I have. Just look down a long stretch of flat road. As you observe a vehicle travel away from you, the bottom of the vehicle disappears first, followed by the top of the vehicle.

Assuming it's not disappearing over the top of a hill, then it dropped below the horizon, just like the ships we've been talking about. Shazam!

It certainly does not vanish at the same time as you allege.

Try an airplne, then. No horizon to hide behind. As the whole thing gets smaller and smaller until you can't see it any more. No pieces disappearing, at all. Same with birds, or rockets, or flying saucers, or whatever aerial thingums you'd care to watch.

When a vehicle approaches your direction from afar, the opposite happens as the top of the vehicle appears first, followed by the bottom half.

As it comes over the horizon, as we said. Thanks for the illustration.

 

[Jipsah]

It certainly does change your argument as makes you point moot and totally irrelevant as in apples and oranges. Enjoy your fruit.

And the earth is still spherical, just as God made it. Enjoy your silly theorizing.

 

[prodromos]

Really? Cite me one verse in either the OT or NT that condescends to our human human understanding that God created a spherical earth that rotates around the sun. I look forward to your response.

You've got that completely backwards. The Jews were living in a small area of land NE of Egypt and were not seafarers, so their experience of their environment did not readily lend itself to a globe understanding, thus God's revelation to them regarding creation condescended to the understanding they had of their environment at that time and also protected them from their propensity to see the heavenly bodies and angelic beings as gods. That is why the devil is described as a serpent in the garden of Eden. We don't learn until much later that he is a fallen angel.

Really? How so pray tell?

"Inspired by God" does not equal theocentric.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Perhaps you have never heard of the survey of the USA/Canadian border along the 49th parallel? Or the survey of the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border? Or just about any major land survey. You are blowing smoke and you know it.

The entire English railroad, the Great Pacific Railway, the Great Canal of China, the Suez Canal etc etc...

J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded as level. The 1862 British Parliament Session which approved its construction, recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”

“In a long line, like that of the Great Pacific Railway, extending across North America, the supposed curvature would, of course, be proportionately great, extending to many miles in height, but not one inch was allowed by the engineers for curvature during the whole course of the construction of that vast line of Railway. And, if we think of it, how could it be otherwise? All Railway metals must, of necessity, be straight, for how could any engine or carriage run with safety on a convex surface?” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (125)

Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for ‘curvature’ ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) ‘It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (23)

The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature. -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (134)

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance.

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

 

[prodromos]

The entire English railroad, the Great Pacific Railway, the Great Canal of China, the Suez Canal etc etc...

J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded as level. The 1862 British Parliament Session which approved its construction, recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”

“In a long line, like that of the Great Pacific Railway, extending across North America, the supposed curvature would, of course, be proportionately great, extending to many miles in height, but not one inch was allowed by the engineers for curvature during the whole course of the construction of that vast line of Railway. And, if we think of it, how could it be otherwise? All Railway metals must, of necessity, be straight, for how could any engine or carriage run with safety on a convex surface?” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (125)

Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for ‘curvature’ ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) ‘It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (23)

The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature. -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (134)

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance.

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

I don't think you understand how stupid this argument is.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I don't think you understand how stupid this argument is.

Well I don't understand how it can be planned and implemented flat, yet somehow there's a ton of invisible undetectable curvature. Perhaps you'd care to address the final quote there from Engineer W. Winkler?

 

[prodromos]

Well I don't understand how it can be planned and implemented flat, yet somehow there's a ton of invisible undetectable curvature.

It's planned and implemented level, where level is perpendicular to the radius of the earth at each point, plus the curvature is indeed detectable, just not with the naked eye, unless you can perceive a drop of 11mm every 100m.
What is nonsense about what you quoted above is referring to this curvature as a change in elevation which it most emphatically is not. A level railway line will be at the same distance from the centre of the earth for its length so there is no rise or drop that a locomotive has to overcome due to a change in potential energy. An incline would be a gradual increase in the railway line's distance from the centre of the earth, which would require increased energy output from a locomotive to overcome.
The towers of wide span suspension bridges are not parallel despite each tower being perpendicular to the surface of the earth. The tops of the towers are further apart than the bottoms due to the curvature of the earth.

 

[Oldmantook]

And the earth is still spherical, just as God made it. Enjoy your silly theorizing.

We can always agree to disagree regarding observing said phenomena. However, one thing is clear. Scripture never describes the earth as spherical and moving as you claim "God made it." Show me any verse which supports your silly theorizing why don't you? You won't find it. I look forward to you citation!

 

[Oldmantook]

You've got that completely backwards. The Jews were living in a small area of land NE of Egypt and were not seafarers, so their experience of their environment did not readily lend itself to a globe understanding, thus God's revelation to them regarding creation condescended to the understanding they had of their environment at that time and also protected them from their propensity to see the heavenly bodies and angelic beings as gods. That is why the devil is described as a serpent in the garden of Eden. We don't learn until much later that he is a fallen angel.

"Inspired by God" does not equal theocentric.

Bogus explanation as you don't have to be a "seafarer" to understand what shape God created the earth. If I live in area surrounded by water and Scripture states the earth is flat, my observation of the flat surface of the ocean confirms Scripture. If I live in the flat lands of the midwest, my observation of the flat farm land confirms Scripture. You have failed to give me just one verse of scripture which describes the earth as spherical and moving. Why is that? Having a difficult time finding one?
Inspired by God means deriving from God which does indeed mean God-centered. It certainly isn't man-centered.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It's planned and implemented level, where level is perpendicular to the radius of the earth at each point, plus the curvature is indeed detectable, just not with the naked eye, unless you can perceive a drop of 11mm every 100m.
What is nonsense about what you quoted above is referring to this curvature as a change in elevation which it most emphatically is not. A level railway line will be at the same distance from the centre of the earth for its length so there is no rise or drop that a locomotive has to overcome due to a change in potential energy. An incline would be a gradual increase in the railway line's distance from the centre of the earth, which would require increased energy output from a locomotive to overcome.
The towers of wide span suspension bridges are not parallel despite each tower being perpendicular to the surface of the earth. The tops of the towers are further apart than the bottoms due to the curvature of the earth.

Sorry but that's bunk. They don't square the circle. Are you actually suggesting that because each point on a circle is equidistant from the centre, there's no measurable arc?

If you're correct about the design of suspension bridges allowing for curvature, then all the more reason these major railroads and canals (which are far longer range) should reveal the truth. And so they do...F L A T!

 

[prodromos]

Sorry but that's bunk. They don't square the circle. Are you actually suggesting that because each point on a circle is equidistant from the centre, there's no measurable arc?

If you're correct about the design of suspension bridges allowing for curvature, then all the more reason these major railroads and canals (which are far longer range) should reveal the truth. And so they do...F L A T!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Come on prodromos, this has been soundly deunked by the simple fact we can regularly see objects at distances which globe maths predicts should be hidden behind a ton of curve.

'What you're seeing here...is reality'