Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

[Apple Sky]

All he did was calculate the size of the globe. They already knew it was a globe long before

And you know this because ????????? How did they know it was a globe because of one man & his stick

 

[prodromos]

The ancient Greeks didn't discover the earth was spherical... they modeled it by transforming observations.

This is nothing more than your empty claim

They took divergent 'local' sun rays hitting the flat earth at different angles (producing different shadow angles)... then they essentially "flattened" the sun rays into one parallel direction (assuming it is very far away)... This transferred the 'curvature' of the cast sunlight and instead modeled that curvature onto the earth itself.

That only appears to work if you measure the angle to the sun from only two locations. Once you start adding more and more concurrent observations from multiple different locations it ceases to work on the flat model and confirms completely the globe model.

It appears a lot of globe evidence is based on this style of mathematical inversion - transferring the celestial curvature to the earth. The spherical model "works", but it's false to claim it is the only way to interpret the observation. Either flat or sphere model works based on your starting assumptions.

One of the best demonstrations of how false your claim is, is plotting the lines of view to the lunar eclipse from multiple locations around the earth. The short period when the moon moved into the earth's shadow was visible at the same instant from every continent that that was in night. People from different countries recorded the direction and elevation angle of their view of the lunar eclipse
If the earth was flat, all of those views would intersect at one point, the position of the moon above the flat earth. In reality, not one of those views intersected, but appeared to be pointing past each other. On a globe, however, the lines are almost parallel, all pointing in the same direction to the very distant moon.

If the shadow poles are placed equidistant from the equator, moving North or South, on a globe the angle formed by the shadow of each subsequent pole would be an equal difference from the previous one. For example, if seven poles were equally spaced from the equator to the North Pole, the difference between the angles formed by the shadows of each adjacent pole would be 15 degrees. On a flat earth, the further you get from the pole with no shadow (the equator), the smaller the difference gets between the angle of the shadow cast by each subsequent pole. Your image above suggests that the three angles shown on the 'flat earth' will be the same as the three angles shown on the 'globe earth'. This is completely untrue, and it is why three or more observations only works on the globe model.

 

[prodromos]

And you know this because ?????????

History records it

How did they know it was a globe because of one man & his stick

 

[lifepsyop]

This is nothing more than your empty claim

It's not a claim, it's what happened. They took an observation and modeled the concept of a spherical earth from it. Maybe the model is correct, maybe it isn't.

If the shadow poles are placed equidistant from the equator, moving North or South, on a globe the angle formed by the shadow of each subsequent pole would be an equal difference from the previous one. For example, if seven poles were equally spaced from the equator to the North Pole, the difference between the angles formed by the shadows of each adjacent pole would be 15 degrees. On a flat earth, the further you get from the pole with no shadow (the equator), the smaller the difference gets between the angle of the shadow cast by each subsequent pole. Your image above suggests that the three angles shown on the 'flat earth' will be the same as the three angles shown on the 'globe earth'. This is completely untrue, and it is why three or more observations only works on the globe model.

A visual demonstration would be helpful to know what assumptions you're packing in here

 

[prodromos]

It's not a claim, it's what happened.

Another empty claim
Or perhaps it should be described as a baseless assertion.

 

[prodromos]

A visual demonstration would be helpful to know what assumptions you're packing in here

There are no assumptions. This is basic geometry. Its how we came up with Latitude and Longitude.
If you want a visual demonstration, I quoted one of the images you posted before. You can use it as the basis for your own examination of the facts.

 

[lifepsyop]

I would rather say its "the definition" of poetry.

Why can't divinely inspired poetry, (when repeatedly describing the movements of the heavens and earth as scripture does), ever hint at a heliocentric system or a moving globe?

Shakespeare could do it, why not the inspired words of the Creator himself? (Unless of course, the sun really does move around an earth at rest, as is portrayed in scripture)

For what purpose?

The same purpose from which all revelation of God's creation stems from. He wants the glory for his creation. He wants his people to praise him for his works, which is for our own good.

When humanity reached the technological level for that, it revealed itself. Like bacteria, atoms, gravity laws, Pythagorean theorem and similar. Science is not the point of Scriptures.

The point of scripture is Authority. It is not meant to be exhaustive on any subject, including Jesus. There is always so much more to say. However, the things that scripture *does* speak on, are from a position of ultimate authority. And scripture speaks on Creation and Cosmology quite often. These are meant to be authoritative in what they *do* say, not exhaustive in their minutia.

The same reason why he did not want to tell the ancient Jews "the truth" about virology, mathematics, geology, anatomy, economy, physics, chemistry or about China or South America. Its not the point of Scriptures.

As I explained above, this is just a bad argument. The point is not what scripture does not talk about. We have little idea what Jesus even looked like and all of scripture centers around Jesus. The point is that what scripture does talk about, is coming from a place of ultimate authority.

And Scriptures are also not about "us", we live quite a long time after them. The audience were the ancient Jews (and later the Roman world, in the New Testament).

The audience is anyone that descended from the first man Adam. Why do you think the disciples were risking their lives to spread the Gospel to the furthest reaches they could travel? It is inherently worldwide and total in scope.

Of course they are about us, and all people until the end of this age and the final resurrection and restoration of creation.

 

[lifepsyop]

There are no assumptions. This is basic geometry. Its how we came up with Latitude and Longitude.
If you want a visual demonstration, I quoted one of the images you posted before. You can use it as the basis for your own examination of the facts.

The image you quoted gives a direct example of how basic geometry can be interpreted differently based on starting assumptions (e.g. the size of and distance from the light casting shadow)

 

[trophy33]

Why can't divinely inspired poetry, (when repeatedly describing the movements of the heavens and earth as scripture does), ever hint at a heliocentric system or a moving globe?

Because the inspired ancient Mesopotamian people did not have such images in their minds. Inspiration is not dictation and they used their own words, knowledge and concepts to communicate the inspired theological message.

The point of scripture is Authority.

No, the point of Scriptures is godly life. Theologically its monotheism and the salvation in Christ.

However, the things that scripture *does* speak on, are from a position of ultimate authority.

Only the ultimate theological authority. Not the ultimate scientific, historical etc. authority.

As I explained above, this is just a bad argument. The point is not what scripture does not talk about. We have little idea what Jesus even looked like and all of scripture centers around Jesus. The point is that what scripture does talk about, is coming from a place of ultimate authority.

You just do not seem to understand the argument. Its meaning is that Scriptures are not for scientific revelation - cosmology, anatomy, history, geology, zoology, botany, mathematics, chemistry etc. Its not the point of Scriptures and therefore they are not inspired in such areas and therefore they are not the ultimate authority in it.

Why do you think the disciples were risking their lives to spread the Gospel to the furthest reaches they could travel?

To preach Christ. Not to preach the ancient Mesopotamian cosmology - this was not even worthy to be mentioned in any New Testament preaching or in any first Christian creed.

 

[lifepsyop]

Because the inspired ancient Mesopotamian people did not have such images in their minds. Inspiration is not dictation and they used their own words, knowledge and concepts to communicate the inspired theological message.

Your interpretation is just wrong. Scripture is full of direct revelation from God that is totally alien to the imagery of mundane experience.

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

- Isaiah ch.6

No, the point of Scriptures is godly life. Theologically its monotheism and the salvation in Christ.

Theology is useless unless it is based on authority. Salvations in Christ doesn't even make sense unless it is rooted in the historical reality of the first Adam who brought on the curse of sin.

Only the ultimate theological authority. Not the ultimate scientific, historical etc. authority.

That distinction doesn't even make sense when the theology contains the command to remember and praise God for the specific works he did on the earth. (e.g. the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea) It either really happened, establishing God's authority, or it did not and does not.

"...For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
- John ch.5

To preach Christ. Not to preach the ancient Mesopotamian cosmology - this was not even worthy to be mentioned in any New Testament preaching or in any first Christian creed.

Peter makes direct reference to both the historical Creation and the worldwide flood while emphasizing the sureness of God's word.

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. - 2 Peter ch.3

If Peter is referencing only poetry and symbolism, does this mean that God's judgment is purely symbolic as well?



Paul's very first message to the gentiles is to implore them to consider the created world and the cosmos around them, the things that have been made. (Romans 1:20) Was this a foolish error on his part? Straying out of his lane?



'Flat earth' Christians are not "preaching cosmology". It is the world that has been preaching the religion of Carl Sagan and the 'gospel of science', using a cosmological model to overthrow the authority of scripture. This overthrow is routinely celebrated in the modern age. "We don't need to follow Jesus because science proved the Bible is a book of ancient myths and superstition." This is basically the bumper sticker of modernity, is it not?

The only reason for such a Christian focus on cosmology today is in restoring authority to God's word where it belongs. That's what all the fuss about a flat earth is about.

 

[trophy33]

Your interpretation is just wrong. Scripture is full of direct revelation from God that is totally alien to the imagery of mundane experience.

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

- Isaiah ch.6

You misunderstood. Its not about "mundane experience", but about concepts and imagination. They could imagine wings and similar, but they could not imagine for example atoms or viruses, it was a too foreign concept for them.

Theology is useless unless it is based on authority. Salvations in Christ doesn't even make sense unless it is rooted in the historical reality of the first Adam who brought on the curse of sin.

I disagree. The theology of Christ is independent on the literal reading of Genesis. Read Christian creeds, these represent what the first churches thought is necessary for Christians to believe in.

That distinction doesn't even make sense when the theology contains the command to remember and praise God for the specific works he did on the earth. (e.g. the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea) It either really happened, establishing God's authority, or it did not and does not.

"...For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
- John ch.5

The command to the ancient Jews in Babylon to remember the miracles is not theology. Regarding the quotation you stick to it, the context is not about historicity of Genesis or something like that. Its about theology - Moses wrote about Christ, but not on the surface. Its the deeper meaning behind all the stories.

Peter makes direct reference to both the historical Creation and the worldwide flood while emphasizing the sureness of God's word.

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. - 2 Peter ch.3

If Peter is referencing only poetry and symbolism, does this mean that God's judgment is purely symbolic as well?

Peter did not claim to have some supernatural scientific revelation about cosmogony or cosmology. And he had no such mandate even if he would claim that. Referring to Jewish Scriptures was common for apostles, they were Jews.

Paul's very first message to the gentiles is to implore them to consider the created world and the cosmos around them, the things that have been made. (Romans 1:20) Was this a foolish error on his part? Straying out of his lane?

Paul makes no claims regarding flat earth or anything like that, he simply says that we can see God's hand and wisdom in the creation. All Christians agree about that.

'Flat earth' Christians are not "preaching cosmology". It is the world that has been preaching the religion of Carl Sagan and the 'gospel of science', using a cosmological model to overthrow the authority of scripture. This overthrow is routinely celebrated in the modern age. "We don't need to follow Jesus because science proved the Bible is a book of ancient myths and superstition." This is basically the bumper sticker of modernity, is it not?

The only reason for such a Christian focus on cosmology today is in restoring authority to God's word where it belongs. That's what all the fuss about a flat earth is about.

Flat earth Christians are confused both about the Scriptures and about reality.

 

[prodromos]

The image you quoted gives a direct example of how basic geometry can be interpreted differently based on starting assumptions (e.g. the size of and distance from the light casting shadow)

The image falsely implies that the three angle measurements are identical and that either a flat earth or globe earth can be derived from the same data. In reality the angles cannot be equal and only the globe can be derived from the data.

 

[lifepsyop]

The image falsely implies that the three angle measurements are identical and that either a flat earth or globe earth can be derived from the same data. In reality the angles cannot be equal and only the globe can be derived from the data.

The sun is of a completely different nature in either model. One is distant casting parallel rays. The other is local casting divergent rays.

You said it's really basic so I'll wait for your demonstration, or a link to one.

 

[prodromos]

The sun is of a completely different nature in either model. One is distant casting parallel rays. The other is local casting divergent rays.

And the observed angles only match the globe when there are 3 or more observations

You said it's really basic so I'll wait for your demonstration, or a link to one.

I've already explained it and you provided the pictures, but if necessary I'll break out my leet MS Paint skillz after I get home from work.

 

[lifepsyop]

I disagree. The theology of Christ is independent on the literal reading of Genesis. Read Christian creeds, these represent what the first churches thought is necessary for Christians to believe in.

Oh, I wonder what those early chuches would have thought of modern cosmology. What do you think?

Paul makes no claims regarding flat earth or anything like that, he simply says that we can see God's hand and wisdom in the creation. All Christians agree about that.

Paul was also writing at a time when it was taken for granted that a god or gods presided over and judged the world, even if only an "unknown god". (though he did also meet with Epicureans who, like their modern counterparts, assumed he was crazy)

Paul encouraged the pagan world that they had a feeling of the truth, though felt for in the dark, and Paul had come to announce the actual identity of their true God through the testimony of His Son.

There are actually a lot of great video testimonies coming out of people who were former atheists/agnostics because of the modern cosmology they were taught in school. It was not until they encountered the geocentric / flat earth that they finally believed that God was true in a real tangible way. The fear and reverence of God hit them for the first time because he wasn't just a spiritual concept anymore but a real person, reigning over His creation.

Modern heliocentric / Big-Bang cosmology as state education is an engine for the mass production of atheism and agnosticism... 'hey man maybe we're just the universe becoming aware of itself'. It renders God optional at best.

 

[trophy33]

Oh, I wonder what those early chuches would have thought of modern cosmology. What do you think?

Hard to guess, but its not relevant. What is relevant is if it works or not. And it does, while the flat earth does not work.

The church has no mandate nor purpose to teach science.

Paul was also writing at a time when it was taken for granted that a god or gods presided over and judged the world, even if only an "unknown god". (though he did also meet with Epicureans who, like their modern counterparts, assumed he was crazy)

Paul encouraged the pagan world that they had a feeling of the truth, though felt for in the dark, and Paul had come to announce the actual identity of their true God through the testimony of His Son.

Yes, monotheism and salvation in Christ are the main points of Christianity. Monotheism in the meaning of "only one, highest Creator", not in the meaning "there are no other lesser gods".

There are actually a lot of great video testimonies coming out of people who were former atheists/agnostics because of the modern cosmology they were taught in school.

Modern cosmology, biology etc. can lead to atheism/agnosticism only if Christianity or God was presented to people as being necessarily connected to a flat earth, young earth, literal reading of the Old Testament or with a wrong view of the biblical inspiration.

If they were, for example, presented Christianity only in the form of basic teachings (like presented in Christian creeds) and the rest was left to discoveries, they would have no problem. And they could focus on repentance, morals and good deeds.

Therefore, you are the one producing the problem, for you and possibly also for others who would accept your version of Christianity.

 

[Apple Sky]

There are actually a lot of great video testimonies coming out of people who were former atheists/agnostics because of the modern cosmology they were taught in school. It was not until they encountered the geocentric / flat earth that they finally believed that God was true in a real tangible way. The fear and reverence of God hit them for the first time because he wasn't just a spiritual concept anymore but a real person, reigning over His creation.

This is absolutely true, geocentricism has bought many to the truth of God's word & his creation and has opened the eyes of many.

To hide or ridicule God's word has always been Satan's plan & I must say he's done a pretty good job of it through the likes of Copernicus & NASA etc.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is absolutely true, geocentricism has bought many to the truth of God's word & his creation and has opened the eyes of many.

This is true, whether or not people want to believe it. Many are turning to Christ through being exposed to and accepting geocentric cosmology.

You would think the mainstream Christian community would be more excited about it? Instead, passions seem to be devoted to protecting Science, as if not wanting to be found a heretic or blasphemer of Science.

And there really is a great deal about modern cosmology that inspires atheism, a sense that reality is nothing more than meaningless stardust drifting through a void. And on the other hand it pushes people towards a kind of gnostic humanistic utopianism, that we can live in Star Trek land if we continue to evolve scientifically and spiritually.

 

[lifepsyop]

Hard to guess, but its not relevant. What is relevant is if it works or not. And it does, while the flat earth does not work.

Flat earth works at least as well as globe earth does.

Remember, the modern consensus ""empirical"" view of the cosmos holds that 90% of its matter is unknowable and undetectable, and only there to rescue the cosmological model from falling apart... Does that 'work', in your opinion?

The church has no mandate nor purpose to teach science.

Why does the Bible teach about cosmology and creation?

Yes, monotheism and salvation in Christ are the main points of Christianity. Monotheism in the meaning of "only one, highest Creator", not in the meaning "there are no other lesser gods".

Yes, and salvation in Christ is an event rooted deeply in historical, flesh and blood reality of the cross and resurrection.

Is it wrong to believe that Biblical history is also rooted in flesh and blood reality, even if the modern scientific consensus says otherwise?

Modern cosmology, biology etc. can lead to atheism/agnosticism only if Christianity or God was presented to people as being necessarily connected to a flat earth, young earth, literal reading of the Old Testament or with a wrong view of the biblical inspiration.

Firstly, I've listened to a lot of flat earth Christians and not once did any of them suggest that salvation is Christ depends on one's cosmological beliefs. On the other hand I've seen several globe believers come close to charging Flat earth Christians with heresy for doubting Science... as if to doubt modern scientific consensus is to follow the whispers of the devil.

Christians with geocentric beliefs do not have a "wrong view of biblical inspiration"... It was the literal belief of those who inscribed the scriptures, that is, the belief that God really did these things in history, whether it be the flood in the days of Noah, or the day Joshua commanded the Sun and Moon to stand still, etc. They even worked hard to record and preserve a lineage for us, going back to Adam.

If they were, for example, presented Christianity only in the form of basic teachings (like presented in Christian creeds) and the rest was left to discoveries, they would have no problem. And they could focus on repentance, morals and good deeds.

Why isn't the whole Bible like this? Why did we need all of that cumbersome unhelpful history in the Old Testament? God could have just told us to remain faithful and seek our learned philosophers and high priests of natural science for the true answers to where we came from.

Therefore, you are the one producing the problem, for you and possibly also for others who would accept your version of Christianity.

Really... generations of people spinning off into Cosmic Carl Sagan-land.. (is the spiritual fruit of this not self-evident by now?) but it is the Christians who are holding fast to believing what the Bible says... they are the real problem. Because, why? They question the modern scientific consensus?

 

[lifepsyop]

I thought this was a nice summary of the Christian Flat Earth position by Rich Tidwell. Answers some common questions.

The idea of the stars being Sonoluminescence is very exciting to me.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

- Job 38