FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[d taylor]

The sky is a dome relative to wherever you stand on the surface of a spherical planet. It is above you regardless of your latitude and longitude. The atmosphere is more worthy of being called a firmament than you probably give it credit for. It blocks a lot of dangerous solar radiation, keeps in breathable air, carries rain that supports life, etc. Look at what happened to a planet like Mars with its weakened atmosphere. Just because we can't cut it into chunks as somebody in the past might have thought doesn't mean it isn't substantial. If anything, it is more important than people knew. The Creator made the heavens and the earth as they are in reality. If reality conflicts with an interpretation of scripture, then that interpretation is wrong.

The only God I recognize as such is the creator of what actually is. Including all natural laws and processes. Not the flat earth misconception.

-

​

The sky is where God placed the sun, moon and stars, not in a made up outer space.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-

​

The sky is where God place the sun, moon and stars, not in a made up outer space.

The "sky" is what you see when you look up from the Earth surface that is not made of things attached to the "ground" (trees, buildings, mountains). In the daylight you see the atmosphere scattered blue light of the Sun glowing everywhere and clouds floating along in the atmosphere (and the occasional bird, flesh or mechanical). In the night the sky is a place to see the distant stars, planets, and moons (and the clouds and birds).

The "sky" is not a place. It is the name for what is seen in the "up" direction. Sometimes you see the atmosphere (the air) and the things in it. Sometimes you can see past the air to the distant celestial objects.

 

[Scoutship]

Food for thought-

 

[Hans Blaster]

Food for thought-

View attachment 363368

The Earth isn't "hanging" on something or nothing. No hanging at all.

 

[d taylor]

The "sky" is what you see when you look up from the Earth surface that is not made of things attached to the "ground" (trees, buildings, mountains). In the daylight you see the atmosphere scattered blue light of the Sun glowing everywhere and clouds floating along in the atmosphere (and the occasional bird, flesh or mechanical). In the night the sky is a place to see the distant stars, planets, and moons (and the clouds and birds).

The "sky" is not a place. It is the name for what is seen in the "up" direction. Sometimes you see the atmosphere (the air) and the things in it. Sometimes you can see past the air to the distant celestial objects.

-
​

Sure it is, it is where God placed the sun, moon and stars, above the sky heaven is a massive body of water. That the sky is separating form the massive water (seas.oceans) below it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

Sure it is, it is where God place the sun, moon and stars, above the sky heaven is a massive body of water. That the sky is separating form the massive water (seas.oceans) below it.

Sky isn't a place.

 

[Jipsah]

Amen!
The incredible vastness of God's creation leaves me in absolute awe of His power and majesty, unlike the terrarium model put forward by pagans.

Bullseye!

 

[Jipsah]

The earth was round or close to it, but God knew the Tower of Babel was coming. So before that event, God divided up the circular earth, so he could scatter humanly over the face of the earth after confusing their language at Babel​

Ninth chapter of Jude?

 

[Jipsah]

The Earth isn't "hanging" on something or nothing. No hanging at all.

I think that's entirely acceptable from a poetic standpoint.

"Kinda like this:
:I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?"

-- Ballad of the White Horse, G K Chesterton

I don't think GK meant that the "heaven", in this sense, meant literal heaven, not that the sky would actually be iron.

 

[trophy33]

Food for thought-

View attachment 363368

If you showed this picture to Job or to anybody else from that era, they would have no idea what they are looking at. Their idea of the universe was very different. Something like this:

 

[tharkun73]

If you showed this picture to Job or to anybody else from that era, they would have no idea what they are looking at. Their idea of the universe was very different. Something like this:

True, but there's a huge difference between scripture reflecting the belief of the culture it was written to and what the bible actually teaches about the form of the earth, which is nothing.

 

[trophy33]

True, but there's a huge difference between scripture reflecting the belief of the culture it was written to and what the bible actually teaches about the form of the earth, which is nothing.

How do you draw the line between teaching something and mentioning something?

 

[tharkun73]

How do you draw the line between teaching something and mentioning something?

Is it the Lord speaking about something, or is it a human speaking from their POV.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think that's entirely acceptable from a poetic standpoint.

"Kinda like this:
:I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?"

-- Ballad of the White Horse, G K Chesterton

I don't think GK meant that the "heaven", in this sense, meant literal heaven, not that the sky would actually be iron.

Sure, but the author of the text in question did not know the Earth was "floating" in space. Either way, the "hanging" line wasn't a demonstration knowledge about the nature of the Earth. The Earth is in orbit. An orbit that is maintained by the attraction of the Sun's gravity.

 

[trophy33]

Is it the Lord speaking about something, or is it a human speaking from their POV.

Would not this rule disqualify for example the letters to churches, Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes etc. from being the sources of teaching?

 

[tharkun73]

Would not this rule disqualify for example the letters to churches, Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes etc. from being the sources of teaching?

I should have qualified my statement that it concerns matters of science, not all revelation of truth. Scripture is not a science book and was never intended to teach science. A 15c BC culture would not understand 21c AD science and it would totally undermine the point of the communication. We can be confident that because God did not reveal science to their culture, He didn't feel it was an important subject to communicate.

 

[Scoutship]

An interesting verse open to speculation and interpretation is this one-
"God sits on the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)

 

[trophy33]

I should have qualified my statement that it concerns matters of science, not all revelation of truth. Scripture is not a science book and was never intended to teach science. A 15c BC culture would not understand 21c AD science and it would totally undermine the point of the communication. We can be confident that because God did not reveal science to their culture, He didn't feel it was an important subject to communicate.

Even though I agree that Bible cannot teach science, I am afraid that it is not where it ends. What about history, can Bible teach history (which is considered to be a part of science)? And in this way, we could add more and more areas in which Bible relies on the human knowledge, purpose, culture or genre of its authors.

 

[tharkun73]

Even though I agree that Bible cannot teach science, I am afraid that it is not where it ends. What about history, can Bible teach history (which is considered to be a part of science)?

History isn't a hard science. And the history in scripture needs to be read from within the cultural context it was written in and to and not with modern conceptions of what history is as a 'soft' science.

 

[trophy33]

History isn't a hard science. And the history in scripture needs to be read from within the cultural context it was written in and to and not with modern conceptions of what history is as a 'soft' science.

The distinction between soft and hard science is not too relevant, here. Both is simply about the human authors limitation. This would lead us to a need to define what is inspiration, what the Bible is actually authority on, and even what is Scripture, which could be disturbing for some people.