FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[d taylor]

-​

The astronaut does not know that God call the dry land (yabbashah), Earth (erets).
The Bible does not state that God called the dry land and the seas Earth, just the dry land.

So he makes this incorrect statement about the earth being a spherical circle. But sciences earth is made up of water and land. Unlike The Bibles Earth which is only dry land, no seas

yabbashah: dry land, dry ground
Original Word: יַבָּשָׂה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: yabbashah
Phonetic Spelling: (yab-baw-shaw')
Definition: dry land, dry ground

erets: earth, land
Original Word: אֶרֶץ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Definition: earth, land

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into 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 He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

 

[prodromos]

-​

The astronaut does not know that God call the dry land (yabbashah), Earth (erets).
The Bible does not state that God called the dry land and the seas Earth, just the dry land.

So he makes this incorrect statement about the earth being a spherical circle. But sciences earth is made up of water and land. Unlike The Bibles Earth which is only dry land, no seas

yabbashah: dry land, dry ground
Original Word: יַבָּשָׂה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: yabbashah
Phonetic Spelling: (yab-baw-shaw')
Definition: dry land, dry ground

erets: earth, land
Original Word: אֶרֶץ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Definition: earth, land

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into 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 He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

You quibble about his interpretation of Scripture in order to justify your denial of his eyewitness testimony.

 

[Lost4words]

-
​

...No Biblical support for his story, just like the people who state they have died and went to heaven (or hell).

No Biblical support for your belief in a flat earth you mean! Just bad interpretation of scripture!

 

[Edwin Wright]

Charlie Duke witnessed the earth from space and it led to him becoming a Christian. You sit there in your comfortable armchair and mock his testimony. I imagine you don't believe that he really became a Christian but simply claimed to be so that he could undermine 'Biblical truth'™ from the inside as part of some great conspiracy.

‍ NASA LIES & OTHER SPACE DECEPTIONS | Flat Earth 24/7

GET THE DVDs & THE BOOK! http://CelebrateTruth.org Celebrate Truth LIVE 24/7 featuring great Biblical YouTube Channels. If you are interested in discussing enclosed cosmology, Biblical earth, #scienti

rumble.com

 

[prodromos]

‍ NASA LIES & OTHER SPACE DECEPTIONS | Flat Earth 24/7

GET THE DVDs & THE BOOK! http://CelebrateTruth.org Celebrate Truth LIVE 24/7 featuring great Biblical YouTube Channels. If you are interested in discussing enclosed cosmology, Biblical earth, #scienti

rumble.com

So are you calling Charlie Duke a liar?

 

[Edwin Wright]

So are you calling Charlie Duke a liar?

Goading is in violation of the rules of these forums.

 

[Edwin Wright]

‍ NASA LIES & OTHER SPACE DECEPTIONS | Flat Earth 24/7

GET THE DVDs & THE BOOK! http://CelebrateTruth.org Celebrate Truth LIVE 24/7 featuring great Biblical YouTube Channels. If you are interested in discussing enclosed cosmology, Biblical earth, #scienti

rumble.com

I am glad you enjoyed the video.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Charlie Duke witnessed the earth from space and it led to him becoming a Christian. You sit there in your comfortable armchair and mock his testimony. I imagine you don't believe that he really became a Christian but simply claimed to be so that he could undermine 'Biblical truth'™ from the inside as part of some great conspiracy.

Another presumptuous ad hominem in violation of the rules of these forums.

 

[dwb001]

Another presumptuous ad hominem in violation of the rules of these forums.

I see no as hominem violation.

 

[prodromos]

Goading is in violation of the rules of these forums.

It's a legitimate question. Charlie Duke is a Christian. He testifies that he has seen the globe earth from space. Since you claim that the earth is not a globe, it follows that you deny his testimony. Thus, you believe he is lying. I am simply asking for confirmation.

 

[d taylor]

You quibble about his interpretation of Scripture in order to justify your denial of his eyewitness testimony.

-
​

Sure do, just as if this person was up there saying a person must repent of sin, be baptized, live an obedient life to receive The Life of God, I oppose any Biblical errors spoken by people.

 

[prodromos]

-
​

Sure do, just as if this person was up there saying a person must repent of sin, be baptized, live an obedient life to receive The Life of God, I oppose any Biblical errors spoken by people.

So just to clarify, if he hadn't quoted the Scriptures in his testimony, you would no have reason to reject the whole of his testimony, or would you still dismiss it?

 

[Edwin Wright]

It's a legitimate question. Charlie Duke is a Christian. He testifies that he has seen the globe earth from space. Since you claim that the earth is not a globe, it follows that you deny his testimony. Thus, you believe he is lying. I am simply asking for confirmation.

Quite frankly, you can continue to entertain yourself and others with your shallow and boyish inferences aimed at eliciting a pejorative and contemptible slur against someone who has presented their experience. Your efforts in that regard add absolutely nothing to the content of this forum. You know my position on the shape of the earth. Please comment (if possible) on the video that I provided and stop trying to achieve a "gotcha" victory of such ilk.

 

[d taylor]

So just to clarify, if he hadn't quoted the Scriptures in his testimony, you would no have reason to reject the whole of his testimony, or would you still dismiss it?

-
​

The rejection of his testimony does not rest in that he quotes scripture. It rest in that The Bible gives creation descriptions/accounts. The Bible would have had to have been silent on God's creation. But since The Bible is not, i test all testimonies, personal accounts, history, etc.. against The Bible.

 

[prodromos]

But since The Bible is not, i test all testimonies, personal accounts, history, etc.. against The Bible.

Against the infallible interpretation of Scripture by Pope D Taylor.

 

[Edwin Wright]

And you have resorted to ad hominems, in violation of the rules of these forums.

It's a simple observation, not an ad hominem. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ... wonders never cease ...

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your assumption is unnecessarily presumptuous. Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) is referenced on my website (see Aristarchus of Samos).

Our flat earth, geocentric reality was known widely in the ancient world long, before Ptolemy. Aristotle, for example, was a geocentrist (although he believed the earth to be spherical). Heliocentrism is the aberration, generally believed to have been brought to the West by Pythagoras, but not historically documented until Aristarchus (again, see the webpage titled, Aristarchus of Samos. But the reality of flat earth, geocentrism is clearly manifested in the Holy Bible (see my webpage title, BIBLE VERSES CONFIRMING PLANAR EARTH GEOCENTRISM). Moreover, many of the early fathers of the Church were dyed-in-the-wool flat earth geocentrists as pointed out by the late Robert Schadewald (see Appendix C < Schadewald, Plane Truth). The following excerpt is from Schadewald’s page on the matter:

"Under “Antiochene Theology,” the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explicitly lists Paul of Samosata (3rd century), Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), Marcellus of Ancyra (d. c. 374), John Chrysostom (347–407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350–428), Nestorius (d. c. 451), and Theodoret (c.393–c.458). Elsewhere, it also identifies Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) and Severianus of Gabala (fl. 400–408) as Antiochene theologians. Of the nine so identified, at least four—Theodore, Diodorus, Chrysostom, and Severianus—were dyed-in-the-wool flat-earthers, and I am not aware that any Antiochene explicitly endorsed a spherical earth. It seems that flat-earthism may have been a de facto doctrine of the Antiochene school."

You made the charge that heliocentrism was "pagan", as though geocentrism was not. Attempting, it seemed to me, to present a contrast between a "pagan heliocentrism" and, presumably, a "Christian geocentrism". That dichotomy is false--and nothing you've presented changes the falseness of that dichotomy.

The ancient world, with very few exceptions, held to a geocentric position. Jews, Christians, and Pagans alike operated from geocentric assumptions. There were outliers, a handful who challenged geocentrism in antiquity, but who were never taken very seriously. We don't get a serious challenge to geocentrism until the time of Copernicus. And even Copernicus was largely ridiculed by religious contemporaries--not all, but many. And it would take the work of later astronomers such as Galileo.

Today, that the earth spins about its axis (this accounts for our day-night cycle here on earth) and orbits around the sun (this accounts for the yearly cycle of seasons) is well documented fact.

St. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the phoenix--he uses the phoenix as a symbol of the resurrected Jesus--but the way he speaks of the phoenix is as though it were a real bird that exists. My respect for St. Clement does not depend on his abilities as an ornithologist, and his mistaken belief that that there really was a bird that could reconstitute itself from its own ashes plays absolutely zero influence in my views of him as a theologian, pastor, and leader in the ancient sub-apostolic Church period.

Likewise, if any of the ancient Fathers held to flat-earthism is entirely meaningless to me. In the same way that that their geocentrism is entirely meaningless to me.

I'm a Lutheran, Dr. Luther ridiculed what he called "Copernicanism"--as Luther was a geocentrist and viewed the heliocentrism of Copernicus ridiculous. That said, what Luther thought about Copernican heliocentrism is meaningless to me--that's not what concerns me when it comes to what Luther had to say on theological subjects. Luther said and believed a lot of things I disagree with, some of the things he said I disagree with on moral grounds--such as his vile antisemitic views which should be rejected and condemned outright by any sensible person. In the same way, the emerging antisemitic sentiments of some of the ancient Fathers (such as St. John Chrysostom) should likewise be rejected. That does not, in my mind, make Chrysostom less important as a theologian and one of the greatest homilists in the history of the Church, but simply because I agree with a person's views in one area does not necessitate that I must agree with them in all areas.

So appealing to the ancient Fathers for either a geocentric and/or flat-earth model of the universe is, as far as I'm concerned, an exercise in futility--it doesn't mean anything. I would also add, that I would prefer actual primary sourcing to confirm the claim that any of the ancient Fathers were flat-earthers. I'd like to see it from their own pen.

The sphericity of the earth, and its orbit around the sun are established and observed facts that can't be undermined simply because ancient people--even respectable ancient people--were ignorant of those facts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Edwin Wright]

You made the charge that heliocentrism was "pagan", as though geocentrism was not. Attempting, it seemed to me, to present a contrast between a "pagan heliocentrism" and, presumably, a "Christian geocentrism". That dichotomy is false--and nothing you've presented changes the falseness of that dichotomy.

The ancient world, with very few exceptions, held to a geocentric position. Jews, Christians, and Pagans alike operated from geocentric assumptions. There were outliers, a handful who challenged geocentrism in antiquity, but who were never taken very seriously. We don't get a serious challenge to geocentrism until the time of Copernicus. And even Copernicus was largely ridiculed by religious contemporaries--not all, but many. And it would take the work of later astronomers such as Galileo.

Today, that the earth spins about its axis (this accounts for our day-night cycle here on earth) and orbits around the sun (this accounts for the yearly cycle of seasons) is well documented fact.

St. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the phoenix--he uses the phoenix as a symbol of the resurrected Jesus--but the way he speaks of the phoenix is as though it were a real bird that exists. My respect for St. Clement does not depend on his abilities as an ornithologist, and his mistaken belief that that there really was a bird that could reconstitute itself from its own ashes plays absolutely zero influence in my views of him as a theologian, pastor, and leader in the ancient sub-apostolic Church period.

Likewise, if any of the ancient Fathers held to flat-earthism is entirely meaningless to me. In the same way that that their geocentrism is entirely meaningless to me.

I'm a Lutheran, Dr. Luther ridiculed what he called "Copernicanism"--as Luther was a geocentrist and viewed the heliocentrism of Copernicus ridiculous. That said, what Luther thought about Copernican heliocentrism is meaningless to me--that's not what concerns me when it comes to what Luther had to say on theological subjects. Luther said and believed a lot of things I disagree with, some of the things he said I disagree with on moral grounds--such as his vile antisemitic views which should be rejected and condemned outright by any sensible person. In the same way, the emerging antisemitic sentiments of some of the ancient Fathers (such as St. John Chrysostom) should likewise be rejected. That does not, in my mind, make Chrysostom less important as a theologian and one of the greatest homilists in the history of the Church, but simply because I agree with a person's views in one area does not necessitate that I must agree with them in all areas.

So appealing to the ancient Fathers for either a geocentric and/or flat-earth model of the universe is, as far as I'm concerned, an exercise in futility--it doesn't mean anything. I would also add, that I would prefer actual primary sourcing to confirm the claim that any of the ancient Fathers were flat-earthers. I'd like to see it from their own pen.

The sphericity of the earth, and its orbit around the sun are established and observed facts that can't be undermined simply because ancient people--even respectable ancient people--were ignorant of those facts.

-CryptoLutheran

That many heliocentrists are Christians and many geocentrists are pagans does not obviate the fact that the Holy Bible is inherently geocentric while heliocentrism has its origins in the pagan world. But I agree with you that further to Shadewald's commentary on the early Church fathers, prime sources should be consulted; perhaps some of us on these forums have extensive collections in that regard. Concerning Catholic theologians, I previously posted on my website, a comment concerning a remark from Saint Thomas Aquinas from his review of Aristotle's Heavens: SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS’ COMMENT ON A STATIONARY EARTH BEING NECESSARILY PLANAR.

Heliocentrism, like evolutionism, is a bill of goods. The following page is absolute proof that the earth is stationary: Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth. Eclipses of the sun and moon were calculated long before heliocentrism became popular.

 

[prodromos]

The following page is absolute proof that the earth is stationary: Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

LOL, not remotely.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The following page is absolute proof that the earth is stationary: Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

There's no complex equations here, just some basic facts:

Why Does It Take Longer To Fly West?

Looking at the cause of this phenomenon.

simpleflying.com

The earth is not stationary, it is rotating around its axis.

-CryptoLutheran