Earth is Flat

[coffee4u]

The part were you claim to believe sola scriptura is all that I needed to hear. Please explain what you think, sola scriptura, of Genesis 1:6-10

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good".

The world was covered by water. God took some of the water above the earth to form a water vapour canopy or firmament which I believe went all around the world keeping it damp and tropical. This caused some animals to grow to large sizes and it protected both man and animals from harmful space radiation and UV rays enabling longer life. The rest of the water he drew together to form one large ocean and one large landmass.

Heaven can refer to God's heaven where the soul and spirit go to after death but it can also refer to sky or outer space as in Genesis 17 He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
In this case in genesis 1:6 I believe the heaven here to be the sky, where we now see clouds.

And to further show the consistency of these verses I've highlighted in Genesis, please keep in mind this verse as well in close proximity, Genesis 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

The water canopy came down during the flood which is why there was enough rain for 40 days and nights non stop. I don't believe it had rained before this point in time but the ground had been kept damp from under the ground.
Genesis 2:6
but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

And in case you bring up the canopy theory, I will highlight this verse as well. Paying close attention to the waters returning. Genesis 8:3

"And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated."

And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.
Water returned to the sky the same way as it does now through evaporation. Clouds provide some warming and cooling but compared to the canopy the water in the sky now is sparse and thin providing much less protection. People live shorter lives and no animals grow huge.

Not all of the water during the flood came from the canopy, it also came from the earth itself. on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth.
So the water returned or receded to both. We can see with our own eyes that there is no longer a thick vapour canopy.

My claims aren't based only on the shape of the earth. It is the entire cosmology of the bible. This is the main part of text in the bible, that splits from the rest of what people believe today and sets up the rest of the outlying verses that I have stated. It is the firmament, the structure that was built to separate waters from waters. And from what the windows were opened, and water came through, in Noah's time. I'd like to see how you handle such a verse if you believe the Bible is inerrant, without changing the definitions of the words. Primarily, firmament, translated from raqiya. Raqiya meaning expanse(mind you, limited), or something beaten into place. In Hebrew it is commonly used to refer to a blacksmith with metal. It is referenced many times throughout the bible as a molten looking glass, curtain, etc.

Do you believe in the firmament as it is written? To me, honestly, even if you just believe in the firmament and nothing else, then I really do not care what shape you believe the earth is. I do not find that to be essential, necessarily.

I believe God created the firmament around the earth during creation week, I believe it came down and was destroyed during the flood and that what we have now is only a thin one made of cloud. I believe the sky looked quite different to Adam and all those who lived before the flood compared to how it looks now. Making the firmament was a one time act and I do not believe it went back to exactly how it all was. I think the very fact that God kept the ground watered by a mist coming up versus the rain we have now shows how much things changed from before to after the flood. Directly after the flood I believe there was an ice age from ash in the atmosphere and this is why God told man he could now eat meat, he was going to need it in the new harsh climate.

Sin always has long-lasting effects and lack of a thick firmament is a reminder of that just as the rainbow is a reminder of God's love. I think evaporation, clouds and precipitation work well enough but are not nearly as good as what they had.

 

[prodromos]

FE: Water doesn't stick to a ball due to it's mass

Water does stick to a rotating ball. The average depth of the oceans is 3.7km, which is less than 0.06% of the radius of the earth. On a rotating basketball that is less than 0.1mm of water which easily sticks to the surface.

Why don't you book a ticket on the vomit comet so you can do the experiment without the influence of the mass of the earth?

 

[prodromos]

If there is nothing figurative about it, then you must believe it then, correct? Then I'd assume you are Catholic, which is fine.

I am Eastern Orthodox.
Since you claim the passage in question is figurative then you must believe Christ is saying that unless we slander or destroy Him, we have no life in Him. That is the figurative understanding of "eat my flesh" in Hebrew culture.

 

[prodromos]

I get what you're trying to say but that's not what's happening here. Look I even found a satellite image of sun rays diverging. Light divergence is not possible if the sun were really 93 million miles away.

Perspective again.You obviously have no comprehension of the distance involved between the observer and the top and bottom of the photograph.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Hey, just to let you know myself and my husband came to the realization that the earth is as the bible claims it, flat, about 2 years ago. You are not alone despite how you may feel on this forum. Do not despair over how people treat you, instead pray for them and show them love. It is a hard thing to talk about, because the world has been made "obvious" to facts. But from what I've seen in you're post, even though you are the one with the "crazy" beliefs, you also were the only one to offer scripture instead of men's words and equations. And scripture is the basis of our belief, let God be true and every man a liar Romans 3:4. My husband and I strive to talk of Jesus instead of our different beliefs, to keep from arguing, and to focus on the gospel. If we come into opening up more to people we do share this belief with them, because it is simple and so evident in the bible.

To start, the word firmament being used in genesis 1 KJV, is raqiya in hebrew. It means to be beaten into place, or expanse(yet not an endless one). Which is why King James decided to use the word firmament, because it was evident to his translators that the old testament was speaking of a firm and durable structure. And it says that all of the heavenly bodies are within the firmament. And that over the firmament is water, which must further imply its strength to hold the water--thus firm. So the firmament is along the lines of a dome. The firmament is right over our heads, this has always been what the Bible has said, and the hebrews, before the advent of the geocentric model, have always observed it.

Moving on to the other stand-out parts in the bible: From Jesus being taken to a mountain and seeing all of the kingdoms of the earth from where he stood, to the sun being made still instead of the earth in the book of joshua(showing a geocentric sun orbiting model), even the fact that Jesus rose up after ressurection, where would he had gone? through an endless space? a different dimension? most Christians probably believe through a portal. but to sit at the right hand of God, and none of that is even mentioned? When his habitation is stated to be over the firmament of which we live. And what about the bible saying the firmament is like a molten looking glass? or that the earth is a circle, which is flat? Hebrew is chug, meaning circle, or to draw like a compass. When the bible could of used the word ball, being Hebrew dur, if He truly meant to call the earth a sphere.

People have many presuppositions, and belief in science over God's word.

and also all of Noah's waters that came half through the fountains of the deep and the other half through the windows of heaven(firmament) and returned there in genesis 8. where is all of that water now when people look at Nasa's photos? who are they calling the liar here? what about the bible saying in many verses, that the earth is stable, steadfast, has foundations, cannot be moved, etc. and yet people think we're moving millions of miles through space in all different directions.

Really it is indisputable if they were to look at the evidence and be honest with themselves. The bible surely and undoubtedly claims the earth to be flat, the dilemma is whether people want to believe Him. Even atheists try to poke holes at our theology, by pointing out flat earth verses to Christians that believe in globes.

We're told prove things for its goodness, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" mainly by His word, but not to just flat out deny like most people here. God can be proven whether the universe is limited or limitless, because He is God, and he made us to know that He is real, but the truth is that the world is very limited(being bound by His firmament), which speaks even greater to all people that there is most definitely a creator that loves us to give us complete dominion over this domed earth, and that also, the evil ones that have fallen, are in our midst(making it all the more real), when a globe earth makes them out to be other-dimensional and benign.

we see the need for these plain and simple scriptural truths to be said, like you, and we commend you for your courage. don't focus too much on it, but definitely, share your beliefs without shame. let them berate you, you do see it plainly what it does say in God's word.

I disagree that the earth being flat is a clear teaching of scripture. I suggest you read this article:
Refuting flat earth - creation.com
the first section shows that the Bible does not teach a flat earth, and the rest is the evidence that it is spherical. The article is written by Christians who are scientists, and who are clear in their beliefs that the Bible is infallible.

 

[Freodin]

I disagree that the earth being flat is a clear teaching of scripture. I suggest you read this article:
Refuting flat earth - creation.com
the first section shows that the Bible does not teach a flat earth, and the rest is the evidence that it is spherical. The article is written by Christians who are scientists, and who are clear in their beliefs that the Bible is infallible.

I'm sorry... this is just comedy gold.

I agree that the Bible does not "teach" a flat earth. Neither does it "teach" a globe earth. It doesn't "teach" anything about the shape of the earth at all... this is not its intent, anywhere. Neither does it teach architecture, even when it describes the measurements of Solomon's temple or advise people to build houses on rock instead of sand.

But there's tiny problem: the language the Bible uses, in many of the referenced verses, is that of the simple, limited view of the "trust your own senses" that the Flat Earthers take literally. It's a language that we all know, because it fits our instincts and direct observations. We "see" the land spread out around us, we "see" the sky touch the ground at the horizon, we "see" the sun rise and set. We "see" the sun move, not the earth.
It is advanced knowledge that we use to detect the greater reality behind these observations.
Nowhere in the Bible is there a hint at this advanced knowledge. If the people who wrote these texts knew that there language didn't decribe this "greater reality"... they didn't leave a hint.

Thus, even if the Bible doesn't "teach" a flat earth, it is still valid to say that is "uses" a flat earth in its language.

And that is the problem in this approach: you cannot cite any Bible verse that unequivocally states: "The earth is a great big ball. The sky is not an object above is, but the air around us. The sun is immense and really far away. The moon is only reflecting sunlight."
You cannot derive a globe earth or the heliocentric model from the Bible. On the other hand, you can do that for a flat, domed earth with a small sun, moon and stars as "light" floating around somewhere above.

So the first part of this websites approach is basically: "If you read it in this way, it doesn't say the earth is flat". Yes, that is correct. But it doesn't provide reasons that are enough for the Flat Earther to deny that, if you read it in THAT way... it does say the earth is flat.

The second part I would agree with. I didn't go through it all in depth, but it seems to encompass all the standard evidence for a globe earth.
Here, the problem is a different one... and you have run into it on this very thread: Flat Earthers deny the validity of these arguments. They are untrue, pseudoscience, or flat-out "lies". Satanic lies!

And then I found this little gem:
"We must read these biblical passages the way they were intended or we fall into a pit of hyper-literalistic mumbo jumbo within which all logical discussion breaks down."

These people are young earth creationists. They use "hyper-literalistic mumbo jumbo" quite fine when it suits them. They argue against science with similarly vague and invalid arguments quite fine when it suits them. They make the same accusations of "pseudoscience" against old earth geology or evolution. The denigrate their opponents in the same way... I found a reference to the "Bible hating atheists"... and I am quite certain I could find some references to "satanic lies" if I dug deeper.

In that special case, the defense of a globe earth, their "science" might be accurate... but overall, they are an even bigger bunch of hypocrits than the Flat Earthers.

 

[Kaon]

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

No solar system has been created in the lab to test and reproduce the same evolution of our solar system - along with forces, dynamics and field interactions. Yet, laypersons are all but positive about the science of planetary motion.

No scientist has been able to reproduce the origin of the universe, but that doesn't stop us from calling people who don't believe In the big bang idiots.


Academia is just as religious as Catholicism, or any other faith. That's why the "clergy" are always preaching intellectual hellfire if one doesn't accept their faith school of thought. Of course, just like religious folk they will say it isn't a religion but a real practice that is verifiable - and if you can't see it, you are damned.

Want to know why humans can only reach a certain level of advancement before everything falls? The idea of enlightenment in such a ridiculous vessel (human body) should be ludicrous, but not to the religious, layperson or academics. So all purposefully mislead their flock/followers/acolytes
so as to keep their power - when they had neither power nor understanding from the beginning. And, humans fall for it every paradigm.

Flat vs. Globe earth is another exploitation of our ignorance of this plane of existence. How can humans entertain something so important but, generally, we scoff at anything we find unbelievable (as if we have lived and seen all life possible)? What makes people believe they aren't being exploited by the clergy academics for money for example? The clergymen of science are humans...

We will always repeat the same ignorant mistakes because we allow people to use us, and we curse the people who try to warn us. That is why people are fighting about The plane of existence in which they reside.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since people have known the earth is spherical for 2500 years, I guess it's no surprise that flat earthers have not made it to the laws of perspective developed in the Renaissance.

 

[Kaon]

Since people have known the earth is spherical for 2500 years, I guess it's no surprise that flat earthers have not made it to the laws of perspective developed in the Renaissance.

Religion had the largest role in claiming spherical and heliocentric world - which is the irony of the vigor of those who defend a globe earth (especially if they are atheist). Copernicus was a Catholic cleric.

Galileo studies phases - which is fine, but he didn't know if he was seeing phases of Venus, or a mothership eclipsing the luminary. He extrapolated what he observed and interpolated a scenario we have accepted. Of course an academic wouldn't consider such a thing anyway (mothership) which is why knowledge within humans is, at best, lacking. When we can seriously entertain the alleged impossible without worry of social or academic demerit, then we will stop using combustion for travel (for example), and we will generally revolutionize our understanding of existence.

More ancients "knew" the earth was a plane of existence until it became politically and religiously profitable to have one model we all agree on.

This is also ignoring thebspiritual information people may have - because neither religion nor academia are equipped to deal with that facet of reality.

I suspect in another 500 years the paradigm will change again, and the new idiots will be academics of today. We as humans seem to have no choice but to stay ignorant and lap up whatever our authorities tell us. You need money and resources to actively test and reproduce claims of science, so it's good that only a few groups have access to that money and those resources - and especially convenient the language of mathematics has been made so convoluted the layperson cannot understand it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

which is the irony of the vigor of those who defend a globe earth (especially if they are atheist). Copernicus was a Catholic cleric.

There is no irony in accepting good evidence regardless of the source. To dismiss good evidence because of the source is a fallacy.

 

[Kaon]

There is no irony in accepting good evidence regardless of the source. To dismiss good evidence because of the source is a fallacy.

I agree. But "good evidence" is highly subjective - especially in a time when laypersons were with iron rods by the Church, government or a combination of both.

Entities like businesses, religious institutions and governments conjure up controlled opposition all of the time in order the smoothly transition between paradigms that have already been elected. The result is a general public that believes they made the choice to believe something - that it comes from good sourced material (not that they were being socially, spiritually and intellectually exploited for a new paradigm).

So it is, in fact, ironic given geocentricism and heliocentrism differ by several hundreds of years (dark ages) - coinciding with the Enlightenment Paradigm, where gods are no longer needed - suggested by a cleric of the Church. Remember, the East wasn't doing as badly in the Dark Ages; technology, commerce and government were thriving. Europe was suffering the most, as they did not even know practices for proper bathing and sewage disposal. It was controlled opposition to move the collective consciousness to an idea of a plane of existence in which chaos and darkness rule (not an order and a centrally located focal point by which other heavenly bodies respect.)

A bunch of poor god-fearing people aren't scared of government, dying or any authority except their god. The idea of a central deity needed to be "re-imagined" in order to make way for the current paradigm in which we live (Babylon). The kernel of enlightenment we believe is paramount to progress and understanding is a drop of acid rain in a metal bucket.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry... this is just comedy gold.

I agree that the Bible does not "teach" a flat earth. Neither does it "teach" a globe earth. It doesn't "teach" anything about the shape of the earth at all... this is not its intent, anywhere. Neither does it teach architecture, even when it describes the measurements of Solomon's temple or advise people to build houses on rock instead of sand.

But there's tiny problem: the language the Bible uses, in many of the referenced verses, is that of the simple, limited view of the "trust your own senses" that the Flat Earthers take literally. It's a language that we all know, because it fits our instincts and direct observations. We "see" the land spread out around us, we "see" the sky touch the ground at the horizon, we "see" the sun rise and set. We "see" the sun move, not the earth.
It is advanced knowledge that we use to detect the greater reality behind these observations.
Nowhere in the Bible is there a hint at this advanced knowledge. If the people who wrote these texts knew that there language didn't decribe this "greater reality"... they didn't leave a hint.

Thus, even if the Bible doesn't "teach" a flat earth, it is still valid to say that is "uses" a flat earth in its language.

And that is the problem in this approach: you cannot cite any Bible verse that unequivocally states: "The earth is a great big ball. The sky is not an object above is, but the air around us. The sun is immense and really far away. The moon is only reflecting sunlight."
You cannot derive a globe earth or the heliocentric model from the Bible. On the other hand, you can do that for a flat, domed earth with a small sun, moon and stars as "light" floating around somewhere above.

So the first part of this websites approach is basically: "If you read it in this way, it doesn't say the earth is flat". Yes, that is correct. But it doesn't provide reasons that are enough for the Flat Earther to deny that, if you read it in THAT way... it does say the earth is flat.

The second part I would agree with. I didn't go through it all in depth, but it seems to encompass all the standard evidence for a globe earth.
Here, the problem is a different one... and you have run into it on this very thread: Flat Earthers deny the validity of these arguments. They are untrue, pseudoscience, or flat-out "lies". Satanic lies!

And then I found this little gem:
"We must read these biblical passages the way they were intended or we fall into a pit of hyper-literalistic mumbo jumbo within which all logical discussion breaks down."

These people are young earth creationists. They use "hyper-literalistic mumbo jumbo" quite fine when it suits them. They argue against science with similarly vague and invalid arguments quite fine when it suits them. They make the same accusations of "pseudoscience" against old earth geology or evolution. The denigrate their opponents in the same way... I found a reference to the "Bible hating atheists"... and I am quite certain I could find some references to "satanic lies" if I dug deeper.

In that special case, the defense of a globe earth, their "science" might be accurate... but overall, they are an even bigger bunch of hypocrits than the Flat Earthers.

YEC's are more apt to take the Flerfers seriously than other Christians because of what you pointed out. YEC's have to reject all of the sciences and they are threatened by the similarity between their rejection of science and the rejection of science by Flat Earthers. Nothing seems to irritate a YEC more than the fact that the difference between them and Flerfer is only a small matter of degree.

 

[Idromos247]

You think satan cares about the shape of the earth? Mankind damns themselves and does not need help from satan. Too much conspiracy and not enough spreading of the good word.

 

[Kaon]

You think satan cares about the shape of the earth? Mankind damns themselves and does not need help from satan. Too much conspiracy and not enough spreading of the good word.

Conspiracy is a crime in the States, and a theory about conspiracy is less about daftness and more about transparency; it isn't idea without reason. History should make everyone suspicious of their government: the "Founding Fathers" knew enough about conspiracy from Europe that they (tried to) create safeguards against it in their own national conception.

In an effort to repeat history and cover up unsavory activity, it has been culturally transformed into a paradigm of incredulity - quite effective for distracting from what may be uncomfortable to see.

The enemy is all a out confusion, and controlling chaos - which is what government has historically done. America is no different, and has been no different than any other empire justifying their existence despite what it took to maintain it. If you don't know where you are in this plane of existence, how could you possibly be prepared to use the equipment you were given to protect yourself against the enemy? If you don't know where you are, you don't know where you come from (fully), which means you can be exploited. Indeed, most all of us are exploited for our ignorance. The conspiracy game is definitely the enemy's business - its activity is categorically conspiratorial against the Most High.

 

[Idromos247]

Conspiracy is a crime in the States, and a theory about conspiracy is less about daftness and more about transparency; it isn't idea without reason. History should make everyone suspicious of their government: the "Founding Fathers" knew enough about conspiracy from Europe that they (tried to) create safeguards against it in their own national conception.

In an effort to repeat history and cover up unsavory activity, it has been culturally transformed into a paradigm of incredulity - quite effective for distracting from what may be uncomfortable to see.

The enemy is all a out confusion, and controlling chaos - which is what government has historically done. America is no different, and has been no different than any other empire justifying their existence despite what it took to maintain it. If you don't know where you are in this plane of existence, how could you possibly be prepared to use the equipment you were given to protect yourself against the enemy? If you don't know where you are, you don't know where you come from (fully), which means you can be exploited. Indeed, most all of us are exploited for our ignorance. The conspiracy game is definitely the enemy's business - its activity is categorically conspiratorial against the Most High.

Reading that made me feel more right than I did before. Wow!

 

[Kaon]

Reading that made me feel more right than I did before. Wow!

Ok.

 

[Ricky M]

Flat earth believers are the ones that have been indoctrinated and sown lies. Fed untruths and unscientific information. They are extremely gullible and naive.

I'd be curious to see how many flat earthers vote for Trump ... seeing as the criteria for believing is the same

 

[Strathos]

I'd be curious to see how many flat earthers vote for Trump ... seeing as the criteria for believing is the same

I'm more curious of what they think about his proposed Space Force.

 

[46AND2]

Distance to the Sun

Something else I just realized about the article you posted here, and your claims that sunrays are not parallel.

In the article, they talk about using Eratosthenes' method of using shadows to triangulate the the height of the sun. If the rays from the sun were not parallel, NO MEANINGFUL measurement could be taken with shadows. The length (and direction) of the shadows would be entirely dependent on the angle of the sunrays that causes them. And if the rays are all caddy wompous like you claim, shadow length and direction would be inconsistent.

Yet we do get consistent results when we measure shadows in such a manner, indicating that the rays are, indeed, parallel.

 

[sjastro]

All you have confirmed is that flat earthers have contradicted themselves.
Is the disappearing ship the result of atmospheric refraction or perspective?
The video is one of the more ludicrous ones I have seen.
Surveyors who have used optical instruments for centuries have had no such difficulties in calculating the height of distant vertical objects which according to the video would be impossible as the ground level reference point cannot be determined due to "perspective".
The video is an excellent example of confirmation bias to the point of self delusion.

A final word on this video which is another nail in the coffin….

The vanishing point occurs on the horizon if the plane is horizontal.
If the plane is declined where the horizon is at a lower elevation than the observer or in this case the camera, the vanishing point is below the horizon.
It’s obvious particularly in the final zoom shots of the video the horizon is at a lower elevation in which case the object does disappear below the horizon.
The author’s argument goes up in smoke if the zoom shots occurred in a horizontal plane in which case perspective alone cannot explain objects disappearing below the horizon.

What I find intriguing from a psychological viewpoint is that individuals who have strong emotional attachments to nonsensical ideas such as the flat earth or electric universe when confronted with refutations based on logic or evidence will invariably ignore them to the point they never existed in the first place and carry on regardless.