Earth is Flat

[46AND2]

......of the who "big blue marble"

Oh, you mean the "whole" big blue marble.

Where do you propose we shoot that from?

Why do you need to see the whole thing? You can clearly see the curve in the live stream.

 

[Paul4JC]

Huh?

Whole like this but turning.....

 

[46AND2]

Whole like this but turning.....

Yeah, got it, now...what would a whole globe video image (really just half, though, innit?) prove to you what the one I posted couldn't?

 

[Kinable]

His response - responses even - to the argument that Flat Earthers' proposed arguments of showing how "water sticks to a ball due to gravity" was rather dismissive, mocking and did demonstrate that he didn't understand some fundamental facts of the model that his is dismissing

I know how it works, I'm saying it's never been proven here on Earth that water can stick to a ball due to the mass of the ball. This is not observable or testable, if your only example is the earth itself then you're going on the assumption that a theory is fact. Remember what I said, don't lump pseudoscience with real science.

You need evidence that this is the property of gravity, claiming you can't prove this because "earth is too big" is not an excuse.

 

[topher694]

thanks, I'm back. I'd like to start by saying that earlier I was on this forum for about 3-4 hours and that I hardly have the energy for a debate anymore. I gave most of my energy to the person that was here before you arrived on the post, going back and forth. I also must add, that I have had this belief for a long time now, and am not as sensational about it as when I first learned about it. Such beliefs does make a person passionate, for they go against very deeply ingrained fundamental beliefs, and can be quite shocking. I say this to say, that my mind is mostly made up on the subject, and that it doesn't really bother me if you never come around mainly because in the grand scheme of things, i think it is inconsequential. The gospel to me, is the only thing that truly matters out of all this--flat earth being a very minor debate if people are open-minded enough to hear it. I don't see it as an essential doctrine in any way. I just simply believe that it is true biblical cosmology, and that God's word, being God's, is correct. I don't go around screaming at the rooftops flat earth stuff, I know that it sounds crazy to just about everyone because I would think the same if I didn't believe it. In fact, I keep it to myself because I don't really ever see the need to go there, and have big fusses--unless I know someone more intimately. If you see my first post here, you will actually see that I came merely in the defense of the original poster. To give them encouragement, and to let them know that I agree with them.

But since I said I'd come back and give some more time to this, I will keep my word for a few more posts and then depart. Like you I think there are greater things than to accomplish than what is in this forum.

So firstly, I'd like to see the list of your 200 verse rebutalls so that I can properly see your positions on verses.

And so going back to Isaiah 40, you mention this common adage of 'circle of earth', but haven't yet defined the other earthly characteristics within the same verse, such as the stretching out of the heavens as curtains, and the tents to dwell in part. When it relates back to Genesis 1:6-10, of a physical firmament holding up waters, acting as a barrier, like a curtain or a tent. And as well, can a tent be hitched up on a ball? It sure can on a flat piece of land. Analogies are used to explain reality. Why claim that God would say something so incorrect about the earth that He made? Such as us being like grasshoppers, to Him. It is true, that we are small compared to Him, from His habitation. And as well, where do you believe is His habitation? I believe it to be above the firmament, above the waters, in the highest heaven. In Isaiah 40 the verse that we are using, He is stated as being over the earth as well. In Deutoronomy 26:15 He is also stated as being just above us, "Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey". In Psalms 33:14 "From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth". Why say this same thing so many times, to have people today say it is all just lyrical prose? That whenever God does say something about the earth, it's "oh, he's just kidding". Another, "Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where [is] thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?" Isaiah 63:15. And this verse again, just shows such consistency that I just can't bring myself to not see the same pattern here, "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens" Psalm 148:4. Why would a man of God, inspired by Him, say something so untrue, even if it were to be merely poetic, and have it also line up with everything else not even mentioning the creation account? I would need the best explanation from you you have ever conceived, because I just cannot unwrap my mind around those verses. You can claim that I am pulling from context, re-contextualize all that you want, but with all of these verses the truth is that the author is talking about God's habitation, and he is clearly stating that it is above him. Not beneath Him, not in some other dimension, or a trillion miles cubed away, but above Him. And this is what I see time and time again, everywhere.

I don't just think the earth is flat, my argument isn't only about shapes. It is about the whole creation account of our 'universe', there being a whole lot of water above us, and a firmament over our heads, keeping it from spilling in, like it did Noah. God living in the highest of heavens. Sheol being beneath us. The whole of this creation hanging over nothing. This is what I see very plainly, when I dropped all of the science I knew before and honestly asked myself what the scriptures were saying about the creation account of the earth. Do I believe and trust Him when I read it, or do I go with the facts of man, and chop up what God says to nil?

I'm sure you are set on you're doctrine, but I'd like to ask, where do you think God is? Do you think we're on a big ball moving through an endless space, heading towards a black hole in the center of a barred spiral galaxy, like the rest of what science says? capable of being pelted by asteroids every 5-10 years, or in danger of a catastrophic weather meltdown, at the complete whim of nature? or do you believe something in the middle? and lastly, is their biblical evidence, for the things that you believe, like there is for me? (of which I know you do not agree, but I've yet to be convinced)

I don't have time to devote to this, something much more important has come up. But I'll say these few things:

You are selectively applying literal and figurative meanings. Why is circle of the Earth literal, and curtains in the same sentence figurative? And, why if it (curtains) is figurative does it mean the Earth is flat? That's a wild leap and it would have nothing to do with what God is saying to Jerusalem in this chapter... nothing. That is not the way the prophetic works, not at all. I don't have time to explain what the "curtain" really means. What I outlined earlier goes perfectly with the situation, with God's nature and was prophetically consistent with the eventual outcome. FE ignores all of that.

You keep projecting your thought process on others. I have said repeatedly I don't think the Bible says ANYTHING about the shape of the Earth, one way or another. But I don't believe God is a deceiver. I believe that His truth is more powerful than any lies man or the devil. I see nothing but bad fruit from FE and the necessity to change the meaning of many scriptures that are supposed to bring glory to God and encouragement to His people. All of that is without diving into the scientific proof (yes proof) that FE is wrong.

Every single "FE scripture" I have ever seen, has much deeper and, frankly, more important spiritual meaning behind it that FE ignores. To apply shape of the Earth to these scriptures requires dishonest, selective and inconsistent interpretation of them.

The truth is the shape of the Earth is mostly unimportant to the main point of the Bible: Jesus and salvation. I have seen time and time again that FE discussions take the focus away from what is truly important (heck if you read my first few comments on this thread, that's exactly what I was trying to do, put the focus on what IS important). If something is of God it will NOT take focus and glory away from Jesus... FE does.

 

[Freodin]

I know how it works, I'm saying it's never been proven here on Earth that water can stick to a ball due to the mass of the ball. This is not observable or testable, if your only example is the earth itself then you're going on the assumption that a theory is fact. Remember what I said, don't lump pseudoscience with real science.

You need evidence that this is the property of gravity, claiming you can't prove this because "earth is too big" is not an excuse.

No, very obviously you do not understand how this works, else you wouldn't keep repeating this absolutely stupid phrase "earth is too big".

There is a force that attracts objects towards the earth. This is obvious, and the Flat Earther attempts to connect that to "density" or "magnetism" are easy to disprove.
This force can be shown to be proportional to the mass of an object, and nothing else. There is something about the earth that attracts mass.
It can also be experimentally demonstrated that two masses attract each other... Henry Cavendish demonstrated that back in 1798, and this experiment has been repeated many times since then.

So... there is definitly a force between masses. The earth undeniable has mass... a lot of it. Objects are attracted to the earth... so it is valid to conclude that this is because of this force of attraction. What you call it is irrelevant.

Now wanting to see "water stick to a ball". In order for that to even make sense you would have to ask yourself: if the water did not "stick to a ball (earth)"... where would it go, and why?

The only possible Flat Earth option is that there is general directionality in the world. There is general "down", and for some obscure reason, things want to be there.
And for an even more obscure reason, this "downward trend" fits perfectly into the rest of the physical model, using all the other physical calculations.

So it fits perfectly with the "round earth" model... but it isn't. It must not be. It has to be something else, something completely different, something that appears in a certain way, but is something other. Something that you have no idea, no clue about.

That, my friend, is pseudoscience.

You are not using the "scientific method". You do not testing, you do no measuring... you eyeball and declare "that's so, this is different."

That, my friend, is pseudoscience.

These "proofs" you cited, with the suns reflection on a "flat" surface? Have you measured the size of the reflections in relation to the amount of curvature? Have you tested how this reflection changes when the curvature changes? Have you considered the scales involved?
No. You post two pictures and declare "that proves it".

That, my friend, is pseudoscience.

 

[lordjeff]

I think we already have a lot of those called Hubble, Space Station, etc.

 

[lordjeff]

Laws of physics tends to pull & clump matter into a ball via gravitational forces & they round out more when rotating & revolving.

 

[tryphena rose]

I don't have time to devote to this, something much more important has come up. But I'll say these few things:

You are selectively applying literal and figurative meanings. Why is circle of the Earth literal, and curtains in the same sentence figurative? And, why if it (curtains) is figurative does it mean the Earth is flat? That's a wild leap and it would have nothing to do with what God is saying to Jerusalem in this chapter... nothing. That is not the way the prophetic works, not at all. I don't have time to explain what the "curtain" really means. What I outlined earlier goes perfectly with the situation, with God's nature and was prophetically consistent with the eventual outcome. FE ignores all of that.

You keep projecting your thought process on others. I have said repeatedly I don't think the Bible says ANYTHING about the shape of the Earth, one way or another. But I don't believe God is a deceiver. I believe that His truth is more powerful than any lies man or the devil. I see nothing but bad fruit from FE and the necessity to change the meaning of many scriptures that are supposed to bring glory to God and encouragement to His people. All of that is without diving into the scientific proof (yes proof) that FE is wrong.

Every single "FE scripture" I have ever seen, has much deeper and, frankly, more important spiritual meaning behind it that FE ignores. To apply shape of the Earth to these scriptures requires dishonest, selective and inconsistent interpretation of them.

The truth is the shape of the Earth is mostly unimportant to the main point of the Bible: Jesus and salvation. I have seen time and time again that FE discussions take the focus away from what is truly important (heck if you read my first few comments on this thread, that's exactly what I was trying to do, put the focus on what IS important). If something is of God it will NOT take focus and glory away from Jesus... FE does.

You are no longer addressing scripture with scripture, only flat out rejecting every single verse I've laid out--which have been plenteous, exactly exemplifying what I've been saying. Even the one where it claims that the waters are above the heavens, a very plain verse. please, in complete intellectual honesty explain by your scientific paradigm how this is possible. And as well, you haven't provided this list that you have of refuted 'flat earth' verses. All that I require is a link to this source, it can even be a page, if you will. I'd love to see your take on the verses.

There's this constant framing, a narrative if you will, of myself "taking away meaning and adding a whole new message". What is more easier to see in the bible, when God stops the sun and moon midsky in order to lengthen the day, even saying that the sun is over Gibeon and the moon is over the valley of Aijalon, two technical places on this earth(in the book of Joshua): That the earth is a ball rotating around them or that we are stationary, and they are rotating around us? Why stop the two celestial bodies, if it is us who are revolving around the sun(what science claims)? shouldn't we be made to stop instead if we are truly revolving? You seem to think that a person can't stop and think about what God means about the earth when he talks about it in scripture because there is a meaningful message to be heard. It's a little silly. I'm sure you have thought about what heaven may look like, possibly taking your eye off of a specific verse, to be in wonder, no? The meaningful message isn't negated, just because I have wonder for what God means. I yearn to find the truth in His word, that is why I seek it out.

If you hadn't a man to tell you the earth was a globe, you would have to believe the bible for what it says. That there is indeed a firmament over our heads, and that there is no way we are flying through space on a spinning ball, because it is written that it is still and steadfast. The word earth has a very clear definition, and so does the two words still and steadfast. How can there be any projection there? I assume you'd say, "well you're taking it out of context ... this can't be taken literally". Aren't those projections on a very clear and plain statement?

The bible doesn't speak of any of the things that science does, because it lays out a whole different cosmology, from Genesis all the way to Revelations. And there are plenty of well-documented, even christian theologians stating this, that usually choose to just rather adopt science's outlook on the cosmos anyway, in fear of being seen as crazy by their peers. So if you want to believe in what the scientific authorities say, then go on ahead.

You call this doctrine a path leading to 'bad fruit' when this is likely to have been the overwhelmingly general belief of a Christian and an Israellite centuries ago, probably even of the authors of the Bible itself. Isn't it us in this age that have changed, with our newfound knowledge and extensive fields of philosophies, projecting on the Bible what we learn from the world?

In fact, in my last post I said that I do not believe it is essential to believe that the earth is flat, but to believe in Jesus, for He is the truth that all things point back to. And yet, I was not the one claiming to have refuted over 200 verses, initiating this challenge. You are definitively debating at this present time; we are speaking on the matter of whether this topic is true or not. We have mutually consented. So it isn't fair to go and start shaming the belief in a flat earth. That is not the point of the debate. Either you have some answers or you don't. It is simple.

Towards the end of my last post, I asked a small handful of questions that have yet to be answered by you. I don't want to run in circles any longer. So if you'd please answer those questions, at least, and address what I've said here? Especially the verses. My last post should be a page or 2 behind this one. Don't worry, I'll be out of your hair soon. I don't want to keep you from what you want to do either. I would like to get down to what your explanations are on comsology, and if you truly think it lines up biblically.

 

[Paul4JC]

"Globe vs Flat Earth" Court Case.... Who won???

 

[Kinable]

If you can't prove this works then it's pseudoscience

 

[pitabread]

Laws of physics tends to pull & clump matter into a ball via gravitational forces & they round out more when rotating & revolving.

Flat Earthers don't believe in physics.

 

[sjastro]

"Globe vs Flat Earth" Court Case.... Who won???

I can prove the Earth is spherical using the equatorial mount example.
If the Earth is flat the polar axis angle of the mount will be 90 degrees anywhere on the surface.

If the Earth is spherical the polar axis angle is equivalent to the angle of the celestial pole from the horizon.
At the north or south pole, the polar axis angle is found to be 90 degrees, at the equator it is 0 degrees, Melbourne Australia 38 degrees above the southern horizon, Los Angeles 34 degrees above the northern horizon.
Note the polar axis angle is equivalent to latitude which incidentally is a spherical coordinate.

 

[sjastro]

If you can't prove this works then it's pseudoscience

Instead of engaging in the false dichotomy fallacy why don't you address the problems in your own examples as shown here.

 

[Paul4JC]

You seem to think that a person can't stop and think about what God means about the earth when he talks about it in scripture because there is a meaningful message to be heard.

This is what many Christians believe, That the Bible does not teach FE. (I guess the mods at this site believe this too, since they keep moving these threads to controversial science.)


Dr Michael Heiser, is a scholar in the fields of biblical studies and the ancient Near East, Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages. (He used to work at Logos Bible Software). Even though he acknowledges and shows the Bible teaches flat disk, yet says these are “outdated descriptions."

Then there others like Rob Skiba and Zen Garcia, who both teach that the Bible teaches Flat disk cosmology and also embrace the view.


Then I guess there may be Flat Earthers who don’t believe in the Bible.


Unfortunately, the latter two get thrown into the same group.

 

[Kinable]

Your post doesn’t take atmospheric refraction into account

Because I'm seeing the Earth from a Flat Earth perspective not the big bang/solar system model of Earth. This is how you guys think we see Flat Earth or what comes to your mind when you see flat earth.

We see the sun as being close and we have proven that it is by the fact that there is a sun spot under the sun and the fact that sunlight isn't parallel.

So why would I take atmospheric refraction into account if the sun and earth don't work that way?

 

[sjastro]

Because I'm seeing the Earth from a Flat Earth perspective not the big bang/solar system model of Earth. This is how you guys think we see Flat Earth or what comes to your mind when you see flat earth.

We see the sun as being close and we have proven that it is by the fact that there is a sun spot under the sun and the fact that sunlight isn't parallel.

So why would I take atmospheric refraction into account if the sun and earth don't work that way?

You may not take atmospheric refraction into account but your fellow flat earthers do when trying to explain the disappearing ship over the horizon which was the point of my post.
Why don't you explain to us how a ship disappears below the horizon without atmospheric refraction in a flat Earth model.

 

[coffee4u]

You are no longer addressing scripture with scripture, only flat out rejecting every single verse I've laid out--which have been plenteous, exactly exemplifying what I've been saying. Even the one where it claims that the waters are above the heavens, a very plain verse. please, in complete intellectual honesty explain by your scientific paradigm how this is possible. And as well, you haven't provided this list that you have of refuted 'flat earth' verses. All that I require is a link to this source, it can even be a page, if you will. I'd love to see your take on the verses.

There's this constant framing, a narrative if you will, of myself "taking away meaning and adding a whole new message". What is more easier to see in the bible, when God stops the sun and moon midsky in order to lengthen the day, even saying that the sun is over Gibeon and the moon is over the valley of Aijalon, two technical places on this earth(in the book of Joshua): That the earth is a ball rotating around them or that we are stationary, and they are rotating around us? Why stop the two celestial bodies, if it is us who are revolving around the sun(what science claims)? shouldn't we be made to stop instead if we are truly revolving? You seem to think that a person can't stop and think about what God means about the earth when he talks about it in scripture because there is a meaningful message to be heard. It's a little silly. I'm sure you have thought about what heaven may look like, possibly taking your eye off of a specific verse, to be in wonder, no? The meaningful message isn't negated, just because I have wonder for what God means. I yearn to find the truth in His word, that is why I seek it out.

If you hadn't a man to tell you the earth was a globe, you would have to believe the bible for what it says. That there is indeed a firmament over our heads, and that there is no way we are flying through space on a spinning ball, because it is written that it is still and steadfast. The word earth has a very clear definition, and so does the two words still and steadfast. How can there be any projection there? I assume you'd say, "well you're taking it out of context ... this can't be taken literally". Aren't those projections on a very clear and plain statement?

The bible doesn't speak of any of the things that science does, because it lays out a whole different cosmology, from Genesis all the way to Revelations. And there are plenty of well-documented, even christian theologians stating this, that usually choose to just rather adopt science's outlook on the cosmos anyway, in fear of being seen as crazy by their peers. So if you want to believe in what the scientific authorities say, then go on ahead.

You call this doctrine a path leading to 'bad fruit' when this is likely to have been the overwhelmingly general belief of a Christian and an Israellite centuries ago, probably even of the authors of the Bible itself. Isn't it us in this age that have changed, with our newfound knowledge and extensive fields of philosophies, projecting on the Bible what we learn from the world?

In fact, in my last post I said that I do not believe it is essential to believe that the earth is flat, but to believe in Jesus, for He is the truth that all things point back to. And yet, I was not the one claiming to have refuted over 200 verses, initiating this challenge. You are definitively debating at this present time; we are speaking on the matter of whether this topic is true or not. We have mutually consented. So it isn't fair to go and start shaming the belief in a flat earth. That is not the point of the debate. Either you have some answers or you don't. It is simple.

Towards the end of my last post, I asked a small handful of questions that have yet to be answered by you. I don't want to run in circles any longer. So if you'd please answer those questions, at least, and address what I've said here? Especially the verses. My last post should be a page or 2 behind this one. Don't worry, I'll be out of your hair soon. I don't want to keep you from what you want to do either. I would like to get down to what your explanations are on comsology, and if you truly think it lines up biblically.

I looked over the page to find your last two posts and see no questions at the bottom. I also must have missed the scripture that you posted.

If you would like to post them again I will look at them. I do not believe the Bible teaches either flat or globe earth.

 

[IceJad]

So I wonder how deep is a flat Earth and what is on the flip side another set of land? All models of a flat Earth is always showing only the top part.

In a spherical Earth it's about 6300KM.

 

[Kinable]

You may not take atmospheric refraction into account but your fellow flat earthers do when trying to explain the disappearing ship over the horizon which was the point of my post.
Why don't you explain to us how a ship disappears below the horizon without atmospheric refraction in a flat Earth model.

It's called linear perspective