Why People Believe The Earth is Flat

[trophy33]

But the earths not rotating ????

Stop trolling.

 

[Strong in Him]

But the earths not rotating ????

You don't accept the earth's rotating; big difference.

And don't post question marks. You're not puzzled; we've said all this before.

 

[Apple Sky]

You don't accept the earth's rotating; big difference.

And don't post question marks. You're not puzzled; we've said all this before.

Okay ..

 

[tharkun73]

So you think that that rockets go straight up into a vacuum.

Sargent is an idiot who doesn't understand that the atmosphere has a gradient as proven by measurements of air pressure.

 

[tharkun73]

Why do spaceships never go straight up & always arc over ?

Where do you think this spaceship is going cus it ain't space ?

View attachment 362706

That picture is exactly what we would expect on a globe earth. Do you think they go straight up and hang a hard left when they reach space? They taken advantage of the rotational velocity of the earth and arc into orbit (which is parallel to the ground) with their foward velocity. Again, your ignorance of basic science is showing.

 

[Apple Sky]

Mark Sargent - Rocket's, 'they just go over the ocean & ditched'.

 

[didactics]

God's words are not limited to a portion of Scripture. I can't agree with you on that.

My mistake, I just copied and paste that statement from an article from Got Questions. That was careless of me.

In context, Jesus was making a prophecy and yes Jesus’ words will not pass away; the significance of the prophecy highlights the importance of Jesus' words and teachings, which are seen as enduring and timeless.

Googled "my words will not pass away prophecy of destruction of temple 70 ad"
AI Overview

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus prophesied that "this generation" would not pass away until all the events he described, including the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, would occur. Catholic Answers explains that Jesus' words, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away," (Matthew 24:35) are a testament to the enduring nature of his teachings.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

The Prophecy:
In Matthew 24, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD during the Roman siege.

"This Generation":
The phrase "this generation" has been interpreted in different ways, but a common understanding is that it refers to the people who were alive during Jesus' time and who would witness the destruction of the Temple.

Matthew 24:34:
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

Matthew 24:35:
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Historical Context:
The destruction of the Temple was a pivotal event in Jewish history, and Jesus' prophecy provides a historical context for understanding the events of that time.

However, my point was to say that it’s not wrong to make application of this verse to speak of the inspiration of scripture. Our understanding of the doctrine of inspiration may differ but on the face of it we should all agree that God’s Word is all of scripture. Am I right on that or am I missing something? Now, how we work that out or what we mean by that needs to be explained. There are two views on this in particular.

Some say that inspiration is only with reference to spiritual and moral teaching. This is called partial inspiration: The scientific part, you don’t have to worry about (doesn’t have to be accurate in all categories and this may include the history or geography; just has to be accurate when it talks about spiritual and moral things).

The other view is this (googled “full plenary teaching of scripture”)
AI Overview

"Full plenary" in the context of scripture means that all parts of the Bible, including every word, are divinely inspired and authoritative, with no part being more or less inspired than another.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

"Plenary" meaning:
The term "plenary" signifies "full" or "complete".

Inspiration:
In the context of scripture, "inspiration" refers to the belief that the Bible is God-breathed and that God used human authors to write it.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration:
This concept, often associated with the Bible, asserts that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative.

Implications:
This view implies that the Bible is without error, and that all parts of it are equally authoritative and true.

Scripture as God's Word:
The belief in verbal plenary inspiration suggests that the Bible is not just a collection of human writings, but the very word of God.

No Contradictions:
The idea of verbal plenary inspiration also suggests that there are no contradictions within the Bible, as every word is divinely inspired and therefore accurate.

Examples:
Some verses used to support this view include 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") and 2 Peter 1:21 ("prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit").

 

[prodromos]

Mark Sargent - Rocket's, 'they just go over the ocean & ditched'.

You don't need to provide any more proof of Mark Sargent's stupidity. We already know he's an idiot.

 

[tharkun73]

Mark Sargent - Rocket's, 'they just go over the ocean & ditched'.

Sargent has no evidence that the rockets are ditched, he just has to believe that to support his ideas. Ask him to provide video evidence of any rocket being ditched in the ocean.

 

[Apple Sky]

Sargent has no evidence that the rockets are ditched, he just has to believe that to support his ideas. Ask him to provide video evidence of any rocket being ditched in the ocean.

He doesn't need any evidence every flat earther knows that the earth is an enclosed system & there's no way rockets can get through the firmament, God didn't make the firmament just for show he made it for the earths protection.

 

[prodromos]

He doesn't need any evidence every flat earther knows that the earth is an enclosed system & there's no way rockets can get through the firmament, God didn't make the firmament just for show he made it for the earths protection.

And this is the hubris of the flat earth argument. No amount of evidence will convince them they're wrong. If you took them into space they would claim the window was actually a screen displaying cgi.

 

[tharkun73]

He doesn't need any evidence every flat earther knows that the earth is an enclosed system & there's no way rockets can get through the firmament, God didn't make the firmament just for show he made it for the earths protection.

"He doesn't need evidence..." speaks for itself. Flat eathers just "know" stuff, they don't need evidence.

 

[didactics]

1. It is not "mine interpretation" vs "you all". You try to shift the positions. If you read Genesis 1 literally, you are the minority - it is basically nonexistent in the mainstream scholarship and it is a minority view in the Christendom globally.

Why do you feel the need to correct me on this? I am not making a statement about who holds the minority view, I simply said it is your interpretation. Now that I think of it I did say, 'even if "we" assume you are right'. But let me ask you, what proof do you have that the minority view among scholarship holds that the fall led to human physical and spiritual death? Are two-thirds of bible scholars theistic evolutionists?

Now I'd like to quote from this book on the topic of inspiration of the Bible because I think it's relevant.

"Nothing but the truth" pages 140-141

The first five hundred years

Clement of Rome, writing to the church at Corinth in the first century, reminded them: 'You have studied Scripture [he was referring to the Old Testament] which contains the truth and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. You realize that there is nothing wrong or misleading in it.' In a similar way Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew he was seeking to win for Christ, claimed, 'I am entirely convinced that no
Scripture contradicts another.'

Tertullian led the church in Carthage, North Africa, in the second century and argued that whatever the Scripture teaches is true and​

binding upon us, and Clement of Alexandria called it the first principle of instruction because in it we hear the voice of the Lord. Irenaeus represented the Greek church in the second century and wrote, 'The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit.' Expressing his confidence in Luke as a historian, Irenaeus continued: 'No person of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside as if he had not known the truth.'

John Chrysostom, the 'golden-mouthed' preacher from Antioch in the fourth century, declared that even the most trivial statement in the
Bible has more than superficial value since it all came from God, and he urged his congregations to obtain and read a copy of the Scriptures. In the same way Athanasius, the fourth century champion for the truth, recorded that 'The sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the exposition of the truth.' He spoke also of 'the plain authority of the Scriptures' and 'the divine Scriptures'.

Augustine represented the western church one hundred years later and claimed that the Bible books are 'free from error'; while he​

acknowledged some difficult places in Scripture, he allowed 'variations but not contradictions; diversities but not contrarieties'.

If anything, the conclusion must be that the early church leaders, in their desire to lay full emphasis upon the divine inspiration and​

infallibility of the Scriptures, fell into the danger of overlooking the importance of the human authors and of leaning at times towards a 'dictation' view of inspiration. If they did not use the word 'inerrancy' or the phrase 'without error', it is because they were not confronting the issue of those who call Scripture 'the word of God' and then proceed to demolish its authority by debating its accuracy. In the first five centuries at least, for Jews and Christians alike, if the Scriptures were the word of God they must be true and free from error. Today we have been forced to fine-tune our definitions because of the views of modern critics both inside and outside the ranks of evangelical belief.

2. It is not a moral or theological error, it is a cosmological, "scientific" error. It proves that the Bible is not some kind of an idol in which every word is from God, but that it had human authors who used their vocabulary, their limited knowledge, their cultural views etc.

It's considered an idol to believe that all of the Bible is God's Word? That doesn't sound right to me.

googled "is it fair to say god says in his word"
AI Overview

God's Word as a Primary Means of Communication:
Christians believe that God has revealed himself and his will through the Bible, which they consider his "word".



Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone):
Some Christian denominations, particularly those within the Protestant tradition, adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which means that the Bible is the ultimate and sufficient authority for faith and practice.

God's Word is Sufficient:
The doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture asserts that the Bible, with its sixty-six canonical books, is all that a Christian needs to be prepared for a life of faith and service to God.


No Need for Additional Revelation:
This means that we don't need any other texts or experiences to supplement the Bible to know God, understand His will, or live a godly life.

Sufficiency is a hallmark of Reformation theology

It does not refer to the firmament in a polemic way (a polemics against the firmament). It refers to it as to something created by Yahweh, because they believed it exists. The polemics is in something else (which god/God created everything, for what purpose, with what means etc.).

How do you know that this amounts to a scientific error if they were simply describing things the best they knew how? You say that they were not teaching that the earth has a solid firmament because the focus of the text is to teach a spiritual lesson.

Also I thought it was relevant to point this out because you were questioning @Apple Sky about where rain falls:

Ecclesiastes 11:3:
"If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it lies".

This verse acknowledges the natural cycle of rain and the inevitability of certain events, but it doesn't offer a scientific explanation for how rain is formed.

It's more about observing natural phenomena and accepting their consequences.

 

[Apple Sky]

"He doesn't need evidence..." speaks for itself. Flat eathers just "know" stuff, they don't need evidence.

OK, give me some evidence for a rotating globe, give me some evidence that there isn't a firmament, give me some evidence that rockets actually go into space & not dumped in the ocean.

I don't want CGI or anything that's filmed through a fish eyed lens.

 

[prodromos]

OK, give me some evidence for a rotating globe, give me some evidence that there isn't a firmament, give me some evidence that rockets actually go into space & not dumped in the ocean.

I don't want CGI or anything that's filmed through a fish eyed lens.

You've been given then evidence you ask for many times in the past and you've simply dismissed it since it doesn't agree with your world view. Things like Foucalt's Pendulum and the Coriolis Effect.

 

[tharkun73]

There are known physical, scientific problems with a flat/disk earth that don’t align with what we do know about the nature of our planet – even without having to go into space a take a picture. East to west trips in the southern hemisphere should take longer than in the northern – they don’t. Planes should not travel great circle routes to minimize distance and time – they do. Solar and lunar eclipses should not exist – they do. The sun and moon should get larger the closer they are to perigee – they don’t. Neither should ever be seen to go below the horizon – they both do. The sun and moon should not follow the same arc across the sky that the rest of the universe does – they both do. Gravity cannot cause the circular paths of the sun and moon that flat earth proposes. Curvilinear motion REQUIRES a continual force – flat earth doesn’t have this. Weather patterns and tides would not appear as they do on a flat earth. The sun and moon should always be visible above flat earth – it isn’t. The phases of the moon don’t work in a flat earth. The orbits of Venus and Mercury should not ALWAYS appear in the direction of the sun instead of opposite it as with the other planets – they do. Constellations should not change from north to south – they do. Snipers should not have to account for the curvature of the earth – they do. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[trophy33]

He doesn't need any evidence

It is called either lying or a speculation at best, then.

 

[trophy33]

OK, give me some evidence for a rotating globe, give me some evidence that there isn't a firmament, give me some evidence that rockets actually go into space & not dumped in the ocean.

I don't want CGI or anything that's filmed through a fish eyed lens.

Again? It is like with a troll or with somebody with dementia.

Rotating globe - sunsets.

There is not a firmament - planes, hot-air balloons, space missions, satellites, photos and videos from space missions or even from private individuals who attached cameras to a hot-air balloon.

Rockets actually go into space - there are tons of videos, even real time. Astronauts are spending months in space and even communicating with us from there. You can even monitor them with a suitable equipment - you can capture the ISS even with a good telescope. Sending the huge rockets with astronauts to fall into water would first kill them, second they would notice.

 

[trophy33]

Why do you feel the need to correct me on this? I am not making a statement about who holds the minority view, I simply said it is your interpretation. Now that I think of it I did say, 'even if "we" assume you are right'. But let me ask you, what proof do you have that the minority view among scholarship holds that the fall led to human physical and spiritual death? Are two-thirds of bible scholars theistic evolutionists?

Now I'd like to quote from this book on the topic of inspiration of the Bible because I think it's relevant.

"Nothing but the truth" pages 140-141




It's considered an idol to believe that all of the Bible is God's Word? That doesn't sound right to me.

googled "is it fair to say god says in his word"
AI Overview



How do you know that this amounts to a scientific error if they were simply describing things the best they knew how? You say that they were not teaching that the earth has a solid firmament because the focus of the text is to teach a spiritual lesson.

Also I thought it was relevant to point this out because you were questioning @Apple Sky about where rain falls:

Ecclesiastes 11:3:
"If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it lies".

This verse acknowledges the natural cycle of rain and the inevitability of certain events, but it doesn't offer a scientific explanation for how rain is formed.

It's more about observing natural phenomena and accepting their consequences.

If you are not willing to create sensible replies, I am not willing to answer such mess either. Keep your posts without logical fallacies, straight on point and short.

 

[Strong in Him]

OK, give me some evidence for a rotating globe, give me some evidence that there isn't a firmament, give me some evidence that rockets actually go into space & not dumped in the ocean.

I don't want CGI or anything that's filmed through a fish eyed lens.

You've been given evidence; you won't accept it.

Are you going to answer my question?
You said that "they" film through a "fish-eye" lens to show curvature of the earth where there is none: how can there not be curvature on a circle?
You've been shoving Isaiah 40:22 in our faces and saying, "there; the Bible says that the earth is a circle". You have confirmed separately that the earth is a circle - or sphere. Now you're saying, again, that the photos of the earth were faked - taken through a "fish-eye" lens - to make it appear that the earth is a circle.
So you even realise that you're contradicting yourself?