The Bible & Science on a Spherical Earth (Flat Earth Refuted)

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Flat earthers claim that we never see stars from space, but they are forgetting things taught to us about cameras and exposure. When the sun is above the horizon it's light is too bright, overexposing the sky, so we only see darkness.

This video shows the flight of a weather balloon to the stratosphere at night. Capturing light of the earth and stars from high altitude and the supposed flat earth sun is nowhere to be seen from 27 km altitude. The reason we don't see the sun is because it's below the horizon, illuminating the other half of our spherical Earth.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
White Sands Missile Range 1950. The body of the film goes on to scenes of an early-day V-2 missile tests. Following brief sequences of technological "firsts" achieved at White Sands, e.g., missile-borne camera shots of the Earth. Before the time of the GoPro Fisheye lens, scientists were mounting mainly rectilinear lens cameras as the one used in this video. The viewers can clearly see that at ground level the horizon is straight, not until the rocket rises above 50 000 feet we begin to see the curvature of Earth.

 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hopefully, I'm answering what your getting at.
I read Josh McDowell's More Than A Carpenter while in college, long ago.

Umm not really. I am very familiar with his work though. Great brother in Christ. I have his books "Evidence Which Demands a Verdict" and "A Ready Defense." Very good reading. These are what solidified my faith, but they are not what specifically proved to me there was a God. What did that was discovering that the claims by evolutionists could not be substantiated with the actual fossil evidence. I was taught that there were all these chains of fossils that show we evolved and were not created. When I discovered that the actual evidence doesn't show this at all but rather that fully formed life sprang up suddenly... well it was a real epiphany for me. I realized that the claims of the Bible were in fact substantiated by what we observe in the world. As a Christian I later read Romans 1:20 which told me this was what God said we would observe in science. That the created "things" would prove beyond a doubt that He is, so much so that we are without excuse. So I expect what I observe in science to agree with what the scriptures teach us. When we study the text of the Bible we must do everything in our power to interpret it just as it was originally intended to be interpreted. When it says God created the heavens and earth is six days we must ask did it mean 6 literal 24 hour days? I think scripture makes it clear that He did. So if we were to have actual observable science that proves this could not have happened it would in fact prove the Bible was not the infallible word of an all knowing God. Luckily we have no such evidence despite those that try and say we do. What scientists who say this base it on, is primarily the notions that because we observe stars 14 billion light years away then the universe must be at least 14 billion years old. However scripture says that God caused the light to shine upon the earth. Which means He would have created out of necessity a mature universe and earth the same way He would have out of necessity created a mature man and woman not infants. So I think what I am asking you is do you know that God exists because of what you physically observe? Or is it just a blind leap into a dark chasm? The problem is that if you do read a passage of text inadvertently the wrong way and then make that your hill to die on, what happens when what is easily observed conflicts with it?

I think I have a little more understanding than most here because I have had Christians who think that evolution is a proven fact say the same things to me. But there's a big difference between rejecting evolution and rejecting a spherical earth. The difference? One we can easily and plainly observe and the other requires millions of years which no one can observe. So I get the motive. You think that somehow by claiming the earth to be a ball it will discredit God's word. But one thing I have learned is that God's word doesn't need defending. It stands up all on its own without me. I think God wants us to have a "prove it God" type of attitude. That's why He left us with so much physical evidence. The Hebrew word for circle is (chuwg) which you can see clearly means circle, vault, or sphere. That means that interpreting scripture with this word it, could very well and correctly be interpreted as sphere. God sits upon the sphere of the earth etc... etc... But to claim the Bible says the earth is flat just makes Christians look foolish and gives the gospel a black eye my friend.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St. Helens
Upvote 0

Netgear

A Dog On A Mission
Feb 23, 2018
230
155
Pontliw
✟6,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
The source of the quote is clearly beside the quote itself.
No, he was experienced what is known a confirmation bias. He believed that the earth is round but saw differently upon going up. No where in his experience does he confirm a round earth; instead the opposite.

Lol, he said:

"Rather than the globe that it 'really' is"

This to me shows he knew the earth was round. It was confirmed when he was up in the ballon.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
People have been to space tons of times and brought back photos and video footage. Private companies not a part of NASA have also captured photos and footage of a round Earth. But there is no footage or photos of this supposed edges (or drop off points) of the Earth.

img_2244.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is not always written in chronological order. It's very possible that the narrative of the Ethiopian Eunuch (the latter of half of Acts 8) happens before the narrative of Simon the Sorcerer (the former half of Acts 8). How so? See my commentary below.

Anyways, this may be the possible route Philip took starting at Jerusalem:

Samaria_New.png


1. From Jerusalem:
Philip heads down south to Gaza & encounters the Ethiopian Eunuch
(Acts of the Apostles 8:26-39).
2. Philip is transported by the Holy Spirit to Azotus (Acts of the Apostles 8:40)
3. Philip then heads to Caesarea just North of Samaria (Acts of the Apostles 8:40).
4. Philip heads down South (South East) to Samaria (Acts of the Apostles 8:4-5).​

Commentary on Acts 8:

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).

Believers were scattered abroad in the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the apostles. This does not mean that the apostles were in Jerusalem. It merely says that all were scattered in the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the apostles. This means that the apostles (Including Philip) could be anywhere but these two locations at the point in time mentioned in Acts of the Apostles 8:1.

In fact, Acts of the Apostles 8:4-5 says,
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

Verse 4 proceeds verse 5. They that were scattered abroad is the context of verse 5 that talks about Philip and how he went down to the city of Samaria. Philip is a part of "they that were scattered abroad." So Philip was not in Jerusalem because verse 4 says that "they that were scattered abroad" is mentioned before the name Philip in verse 5. Also, nowhere does Acts of the Apostles 8 mention how Philip left Jerusalem and went down to Samaria. That is merely an assumption on your part. It is highly probable that Philip traveled only once near Samaria and not twice; Especially seeing Samaria was a long distance away from Jerusalem and that Christians were under heavy persecution in the area. In fact, Philip may have been transported by the Spirit to Azotus because getting there would have been impossible by foot under normal conditions (seeing it may have been heavily guarded by Christian persecutors). But am I claiming this as fact? No. But there is no dispute about God's Word meaning South in relation to going down on a map in regards to Acts of the Apostles 8:26. God is not the author of confusion. If God is talking about down and South, that means a direction on the map and or reality itself!



Yes, it appears that the previous footage I shown you is with the fish eye lens. I deeply apologize about that (And did not catch it). I re-watched the previous video (that I have now removed) and I could see the horizon bounce and move when the balloon breaks.

However, I have now corrected that mistake or error by providing another video of a weather balloon with no fish eye lens used. You will notice that the horizon line of the Earth is not bent out of shape when it falls back down to the Earth and yet the Earth is clearly curved.


I have now removed the video in post #156 and replaced it (with the one above).

Anyways, I believe some Flat Earthers are manipulating the images so that the Earth appears flat when it is not. Here is a video showing how they manipulate images.

When the plain meaning of the verse makes sense seek no other sense is the golden rule of hermeneutics. In attempting to explain away Acts 8 you have done the opposite. Verse 5 plainly states that and all except the apostles were scattered. For you to claim that the apostle were also scattered at that time betrays the clear meaning of that verse. Various commentaries also disagree with your view Acts 8:1 Commentaries: Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

The video that you uploaded proposing a round earth is sketchy at best as clouds and atmospheric conditions do not clearly show a round earth. And yes anyone including round earthers can manipulate videos. In fact the first example given in that video is from a GoPro camera which in normally fitted with a fish eye lens to promote a wide angle view. That is why I included the quote from Auguste Piccard who personally thought the earth looked like a flat disc.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
First, it is not irrelevant that the Scripture mentions three heavens. Paul says very clearly that there is a "third heaven." (See 2 Corinthians 12:2).

Second, the word firmament is in reference to "sky" in Genesis 1:6.

God calls the sky or atmosphere (firmament) as "heaven." (See Genesis 1:8).

"And God called the firmament Heaven." (Genesis 1:8).

So firmament = Heaven.

But we read in Genesis 1:14 the following,
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven..." (Genesis 1:14).

Okay. Stop right here. Firmament means Heaven according to Genesis 1:8.

So if firmament means Heaven or sky, then Genesis 1:14 would read as:

"And God said, Let there be lights in the heaven of the heaven..."

It would be illogical to say there are lights within the sky of the sky.

This means God had set lights in the heaven, or firmament (sky) of the heaven (outerspace where even the third Heaven resides).

In fact, we see a different Hebrews words used for "firmament" vs. the Hebrew word used for "Heaven." If what you say is true, then the same Hebrew word should have been used for "firmament" as for "Heaven."

I believe the word "heaven" is a broad term or use that can refer to either the "sky" or "outer space." or to "God's dwelling place."

The fact that there are more than one 'heaven' can be shown by Psalm 115:16, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S." There are obviously two different 'heavens' being addressed in this one verse.

In 1 Kings 8, we see three Heavens mentioned.

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kings 8:27).

So there are three different Heavens and yet they can all be referred to as Heaven (singular).

This makes sense because God is three persons and yet He is one God.

For He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26).

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7).

Side Note:


You claim that the stars are IN the firmament (sky or atmosphere).
I have conclusive proof that this is not the case. You are either forgetting or you are unaware of things taught to us about cameras and exposure. For when the sun is above the horizon it's light is too bright, overexposing the sky, so we only see darkness.

This video on YouTube (which I also posted in Post #181) shows the flight of a weather balloon to the stratosphere at Night. In a high altitude: We see the capturing of the light of stars away from the earth. Also, the supposed flat earth sun is nowhere to be seen from 27 km altitude. The reason we don't see the sun is because it's below the horizon, illuminating the other half of our spherical Earth.
Your reference to the firmament meaning sky is unjustified. Raqia refers to a solid structure - not sky.
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם;
You cannot just substitute your own English definitions for Hebrew words.

The reason we don't see the sun on the flat earth is that it is smaller and closer to the earth and since the sun moves around the earth, night time occurs when the sun moves away from our area.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Umm not really. I am very familiar with his work though. Great brother in Christ. I have his books "Evidence Which Demands a Verdict" and "A Ready Defense." Very good reading. These are what solidified my faith, but they are not what specifically proved to me there was a God. What did that was discovering that the claims by evolutionists could not be substantiated with the actual fossil evidence. I was taught that there were all these chains of fossils that show we evolved and were not created. When I discovered that the actual evidence doesn't show this at all but rather that fully formed life sprang up suddenly... well it was a real epiphany for me. I realized that the claims of the Bible were in fact substantiated by what we observe in the world. As a Christian I later read Romans 1:20 which told me this was what God said we would observe in science. That the created "things" would prove beyond a doubt that He is, so much so that we are without excuse. So I expect what I observe in science to agree with what the scriptures teach us. When we study the text of the Bible we must do everything in our power to interpret it just as it was originally intended to be interpreted. When it says God created the heavens and earth is six days we must ask did it mean 6 literal 24 hour days? I think scripture makes it clear that He did. So if we were to have actual observable science that proves this could not have happened it would in fact prove the Bible was not the infallible word of an all knowing God. Luckily we have no such evidence despite those that try and say we do. What scientists who say this base it on, is primarily the notions that because we observe stars 14 billion light years away then the universe must be at least 14 billion years old. However scripture says that God caused the light to shine upon the earth. Which means He would have created out of necessity a mature universe and earth the same way He would have out of necessity created a mature man and woman not infants. So I think what I am asking you is do you know that God exists because of what you physically observe? Or is it just a blind leap into a dark chasm? The problem is that if you do read a passage of text inadvertently the wrong way and then make that your hill to die on, what happens when what is easily observed conflicts with it?

I think I have a little more understanding than most here because I have had Christians who think that evolution is a proven fact say the same things to me. But there's a big difference between rejecting evolution and rejecting a spherical earth. The difference? One we can easily and plainly observe and the other requires millions of years which no one can observe. So I get the motive. You think that somehow by claiming the earth to be a ball it will discredit God's word. But one thing I have learned is that God's word doesn't need defending. It stands up all on its own without me. I think God wants us to have a "prove it God" type of attitude. That's why He left us with so much physical evidence. The Hebrew word for circle is (chuwg) which you can see clearly means circle, vault, or sphere. That means that interpreting scripture with this word it, could very well and correctly be interpreted as sphere. God sits upon the sphere of the earth etc... etc... But to claim the Bible says the earth is flat just makes Christians look foolish and gives the gospel a black eye my friend.
Your response is scripturally inadequate. If you're going to quote Isaiah 40:22 at least also reference Isaiah 22:18. Chug in Isaiah 40:22 does indeed mean circle. Do you realize that a circle by definition is only a two-dimensional object and not a three-dimensional sphere? A circle by definition is on a flat plane with an inner area bounded by it's outer circumference. If Isaiah wanted to describe the earth as a sphere as you want to believe why did he then choose to describe it as a two-dimensional circle?? Did Isaiah not know the difference between a circle and a sphere? Hardly, as in Isaiah 22:18 he employs the word dur to describe the shape of a ball: He will roll you up tightly like a ball [dur] and throw you into a large country.
If the earth is a shaped like a round ball, he would have chosen to use the word "dur" in Isaiah 40:22. Under the leading of the Holy Spirit he instead used the word chug which is a flat circle. Instead of calling Christians who believe in a flat earth foolish, I suggest you study the scriptures more.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Lol, he said:

"Rather than the globe that it 'really' is"

This to me shows he knew the earth was round. It was confirmed when he was up in the ballon.
The globe as it really is was his preconceived notion of the earth's shape as that is what he was taught - as well as all of us. His own eyes however indicated to him a disc with upturned edge as his quote indicates.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Netgear

A Dog On A Mission
Feb 23, 2018
230
155
Pontliw
✟6,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
The globe as it really is was his preconceived notion of the earth's shape as that is what he was taught - as well as all of us. His own eyes however indicated to him a disc with upturned edge as his quote indicates.

No, he saw it was a globe. His belief was confirmed when he went up that high.

You are just reading it in error
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When the plain meaning of the verse makes sense seek no other sense is the golden rule of hermeneutics. In attempting to explain away Acts 8 you have done the opposite. Verse 5 plainly states that and all except the apostles were scattered. For you to claim that the apostle were also scattered at that time betrays the clear meaning of that verse. Various commentaries also disagree with your view Acts 8:1 Commentaries: Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

I am not going to debate what I do not know for sure is fact. Right now it is an unknown for me on whether the "Story of the Ethiopian Eunuch" happened before the "Story of Simon the Sorcerer." I also do not care what some commentator says. Commentators have been known to be wrong. They are infallible men like you and me. Again, Acts of the Apostles 8:1 is absolutely true in what it says and is not in conflict with Phillip being in Caesarea. For Caesarea is not in Judea or Samaria.

Let's look at the verse.

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).

The key focus of our verse is:

"...and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).

Let me swap out these things for talking about something else so as to help to illustrate.

"...and the Easter eggs were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of the house and the garden except the red Easter eggs."

This does not mean that red Easter eggs could not be next to the house or next to the garden. The same is true with what Acts of the Apostles 8:1 is saying. Philip was not in the regions of Judaea and Samaria at the point in time Acts 8:1 mentions such a truth. But we later see the subsequent verses in Acts 8 talk about he went South to Samaria.

Side Note:

Please take note that I do not believe in the bunny version of Easter. So please do not go out and buy Easter baskets and Easter eggs and have Easter egg hunts and stuff. I believe that aspect of Easter is pagan. So if you see a bunny in a store or an Easter egg and you have the urge to buy it, please resist the urge in buying such things.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that regardless of what you think other verses say about going up, Acts of the Apostles 8:26 is in reference to direction like South with the added word "down" in context. This to me is God's Word saying that the direction of South is down indeed. For God's Word is a book that is ahead of it's time involving Science.

You said:
The video that you uploaded proposing a round earth is sketchy at best as clouds and atmospheric conditions do not clearly show a round earth. And yes anyone including round earthers can manipulate videos. In fact the first example given in that video is from a GoPro camera which in normally fitted with a fish eye lens to promote a wide angle view. That is why I included the quote from Auguste Piccard who personally thought the earth looked like a flat disc.

You only see what you want to see. The Earth is clearly round from many videos like these. You can slow down this video and measure it to see if the horizon line is curved if you like. I am sure you will find that it is curved if you do that. But we both know that is not going to happen because you simply want to believe the Earth is flat contrary to many evidences. Again, stop and think. Millions have been spent on NASA. For what? As a part of a lie? That is a very expensive lie. Then there are satellites. Satellite phones work on remote islands. Nobody had put cables under the ocean. That is just silly. Do you know how expensive it would be to put cables in the ocean and then try to maintain them? Clearly this is just not within the realm of reality. Again, all you have to do is look at the horizon line and look to see how buildings and ships disappear in the distance as you move farther away from them. If the Earth was flat, they would not disappear behind the horizon line. You can do simple experiments in your own home to even prove this. Basic Science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your reference to the firmament meaning sky is unjustified. Raqia refers to a solid structure - not sky.
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם;
You cannot just substitute your own English definitions for Hebrew words.

Right and you grew up in the time of Paul to truly know that is what the word meant?

I think not.
You are only guessing.
Your best bet is to look at the context in our own language and to compare it with cross references.

You said:
The reason we don't see the sun on the flat earth is that it is smaller and closer to the earth and since the sun moves around the earth, night time occurs when the sun moves away from our area.

But the Flat Earth model of the sun does not fit the reality of what we see in the real world.
Antartica has 24 hours of daylight sometimes. This is not possible on a flat Earth. We see a round shadow on the surface of the moon and we do not see a shadow of a disk like shape on the moon or a shadowy edge of a Frisbee on the moon. We also see folks have sent up a weather balloon with a camera at night time and they did not see this Flat Earth sun. It should be observable from up in space because the Earth is flat, right? But if the Earth is a sphere, then the sun would be on the other side of the sphere.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So far we already know Flat Earthers are making things up. Some of them have used round Earth footage from NASA and they have distorted it to prove their point. Some Flat Earthers have said there are gunships preventing people from going to Antarctica (Which is clearly false because scientists and tourists go there). Men have sent up a weather balloon with a camera on it at night time and they seen the stars off into space (and these stars were not imbedded in the atmosphere as Flat Eathers claim). There was also no flat Earth sun visible, either. If the Earth were flat then we be able to see this sun in the atmosphere at night. But this did not happen. So the concept of a Flat Earth is false.

Right now you can send your own weather balloon into space at night time and see there is no sun that acts like a flash light or spot light. You can see stars in outer-space.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your response is scripturally inadequate. If you're going to quote Isaiah 40:22 at least also reference Isaiah 22:18. Chug in Isaiah 40:22 does indeed mean circle. Do you realize that a circle by definition is only a two-dimensional object and not a three-dimensional sphere? A circle by definition is on a flat plane with an inner area bounded by it's outer circumference. If Isaiah wanted to describe the earth as a sphere as you want to believe why did he then choose to describe it as a two-dimensional circle?? Did Isaiah not know the difference between a circle and a sphere? Hardly, as in Isaiah 22:18 he employs the word dur to describe the shape of a ball: He will roll you up tightly like a ball [dur] and throw you into a large country.
If the earth is a shaped like a round ball, he would have chosen to use the word "dur" in Isaiah 40:22. Under the leading of the Holy Spirit he instead used the word chug which is a flat circle. Instead of calling Christians who believe in a flat earth foolish, I suggest you study the scriptures more.

Do you think Joel meant that the moon will literally turn into a giant pool of blood floating around in the sky? Or could he have been just giving us strong creative descriptors of its color at that time? Will the stars which are much larger than the earth literally fall from the sky as figs? For that matter if you think Isaiah 40:22 is talking about a literal circle on a flat plane why stop there? I mean verse six says all flesh IS grass. So are biologists conspiring to lie to us and tell us flesh is not grass? Verse 7 goes on to tell us that all people ARE grass. Are we literal grass? Obviously these passages expect us to take them as analogies and not so literal that it makes our God look like an imbecile. When interpreting the scriptures we don't get to pick and choose what is literal and what is allegorical. But when the text shows us they are allegories we need to take them as such. Someone wise once said "the best sense is the obvious sense, any other sense... is nonsense." Since Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (which I linked to) shows the Hebrew word chuwg means circle, vault, or sphere, the best "sense" is that Isaiah is telling us God abides above the curvature of the Earth. That makes more sense then claiming he is saying "God abides above the flat Earth that is the best kept secret in all of human history." As for expecting me to quote the verse for you, I would point out that Jesus was never expected by His worst enemies to do such a thing. He always said things like "Have you not read..." or "It is written..." or "As Isaiah said..." So please excuse me if I try to be like my Lord in even the little ways.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St. Helens
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, he saw it was a globe. His belief was confirmed when he went up that high.

You are just reading it in error
Do you deny that he stated that he saw the earth as huge disk with an upturned edge? A disc by definition is on a flat plane; not spherical. So he believed the earth is round "as it really is" but his eyes conveyed otherwise once he went up. That is the plain meaning of the English sentence. If you choose to believe otherwise - your choice.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am not going to debate what I do not know for sure is fact. Right now it is an unknown for me on whether the "Story of the Ethiopian Eunuch" happened before the "Story of Simon the Sorcerer." I also do not care what some commentator says. Commentators have been known to be wrong. They are infallible men like you and me. Again, Acts of the Apostles 8:1 is absolutely true in what it says and is not in conflict with Phillip being in Caesarea. For Caesarea is not in Judea or Samaria.

Let's look at the verse.

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).

The key focus of our verse is:

"...and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).

Let me swap out these things for talking about something else so as to help to illustrate.

"...and the Easter eggs were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of the house and the garden except the red Easter eggs."

This does not mean that red Easter eggs could not be next to the house or next to the garden. The same is true with what Acts of the Apostles 8:1 is saying. Philip was not in the regions of Judaea and Samaria at the point in time Acts 8:1 mentions such a truth. But we later see the subsequent verses in Acts 8 talk about he went South to Samaria.

Side Note:

Please take note that I do not believe in the bunny version of Easter. So please do not go out and buy Easter baskets and Easter eggs and have Easter egg hunts and stuff. I believe that aspect of Easter is pagan. So if you see a bunny in a store or an Easter egg and you have the urge to buy it, please resist the urge in buying such things.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that regardless of what you think other verses say about going up, Acts of the Apostles 8:26 is in reference to direction like South with the added word "down" in context. This to me is God's Word saying that the direction of South is down indeed. For God's Word is a book that is ahead of it's time involving Science.



You only see what you want to see. The Earth is clearly round from many videos like these. You can slow down this video and measure it to see if the horizon line is curved if you like. I am sure you will find that it is curved if you do that. But we both know that is not going to happen because you simply want to believe the Earth is flat contrary to many evidences. Again, stop and think. Millions have been spent on NASA. For what? As a part of a lie? That is a very expensive lie. Then there are satellites. Satellite phones work on remote islands. Nobody had put cables under the ocean. That is just silly. Do you know how expensive it would be to put cables in the ocean and then try to maintain them? Clearly this is just not within the realm of reality. Again, all you have to do is look at the horizon line and look to see how buildings and ships disappear in the distance as you move farther away from them. If the Earth was flat, they would not disappear behind the horizon line. You can do simple experiments in your own home to even prove this. Basic Science.
In order for our to cling to your belief, the text plainly states that all the believers EXCEPT the apostles were scattered. Plain English dictates that if the apostles were also scattered at that time, the verse would state all INCLUDING the apostles were scattered. It does not state that does it? Furthermore, the text states that Philip went down to the city of Samaria. No where in this entire passage does this the text outline the scenario you posit as you are just imagining a chronology simply in order to fit your belief. I personally find that to be an exceedingly weak argument. If you choose to hold on to your scenario about Acts 8 that is certainly your prerogative but in my opinion it is without any scriptural warrant whatsoever.

Indeed NASA (Never A Straight Answer) is an expensive lie. Perhaps it would thus behoove you to investigate why instead of blindly continuing to believe in a lie wouldn't it? Do you believe in evolution instead of a 7 day creation account? If you don't then why do you believe in a heliocentric model? Anyone can post videos claiming a round or flat earth. It doesn't take much brain power or effort to do that so your "evidence" is questionable at best. I can also do the same thing showing a flat earth as in the link below. Science as you know is founded on empirical evidence. Evidence that is gathered through our personal senses - vision, hearing, touch. Do you dispute Swiss physicist's Auguste Piccard's personal observations?? His preconceived notion that the earth is round was borne out his education (like all of us) but upon going up 10 miles in his balloon, his own eyes confirmed otherwise. That is the heart of scientific methodology.

Your lack of comprehension is apparent in your reference to undersea cables. GPS is ground-based; not satellite-based. And ironically, your point actually proves the opposite of your belief. On a flat earth, undersea cables do not have to account for the curvature of the ocean therefore the expense associated with laying cable on a flat earth is much less expensive than laying cables on an orbed earth. FYI the equation for calculating the curvature of the earth's surface is each mile squared is multiplied by a factor of 8 and divided by 12. Therefore if the distance to lay cable between the West Coast and Hawaii say roughly is about 2,500 miles, 2500 x 2500 x 8 divided by 12 = 4,166,666 feet of undersea cable - an astronomical length of cable! On a flat earth of course the amount of cable is much less. Surveyors do not account for the curvature of the earth. Civil engineers do not account for the curvature of the earth. Why do you suppose that is?

Your reference to ships disappearing at a distance over the horizon shows me that you haven't really taken the time to study the subject. If you did, you would easily find out that ships never disappear "over the horizon" on a curved earth as you were taught. You can easily disprove this lie by taking binoculars or a high-powered zoom camera. When the ship disappears over the horizon with your naked eye, take out your binocs or camera and you will see the ship in your viewfinder. No curve.

Since you choose to post videos attempting to validate your belief, I can easily do likewise.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Netgear
Upvote 0

Netgear

A Dog On A Mission
Feb 23, 2018
230
155
Pontliw
✟6,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Do you deny that he stated that he saw the earth as huge disk with an upturned edge? A disc by definition is on a flat plane; not spherical. So he believed the earth is round "as it really is" but his eyes conveyed otherwise once he went up. That is the plain meaning of the English sentence. If you choose to believe otherwise - your choice.

You are reading it wrong
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Oldmantook
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Right and you grew up in the time of Paul to truly know that is what the word meant?

I think not.
You are only guessing.
Your best bet is to look at the context in our own language and to compare it with cross references.
Are you serious? The Hebrew word means what it means. For you to substitute you own definition is unwarranted if not ridiculous. Context is derived within it's own language - not in our language - that's basic hermeneutics and proper exegesis.

But the Flat Earth model of the sun does not fit the reality of what we see in the real world.
Antartica has 24 hours of daylight sometimes. This is not possible on a flat Earth. We see a round shadow on the surface of the moon and we do not see a shadow of a disk like shape on the moon or a shadowy edge of a Frisbee on the moon. We also see folks have sent up a weather balloon with a camera at night time and they did not see this Flat Earth sun. It should be observable from up in space because the Earth is flat, right? But if the Earth is a sphere, then the sun would be on the other side of the sphere.
A basic question for you is how do you know Antarctica has 24 hours of daylight? Of course it's because what you have been told isn't it? But isn't the scientific method based on personal empirical observation that is verifiable? YES or NO? We may have videos which purportedly show 24 hrs but even those can be manipulated and edited. The only verifiable way is via personal, and repeated observation. But that can't happen because Antarctica is off-limits to the general public by international treaty. I wonder why? If you believe in the scientific method then it needs to be repeated verification by others; otherwise, it cannot be posited as scientific fact.

As for the sun at night on a flat earth, many factors would come into play such as distance, atmospheric conditions and perhaps even vanishing point as the sun is much smaller in a geocentric flat earth model. Heck, on cloudy days you can't even sometimes see the sun so what makes you think that it should automatically be visible at night at altitude?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you think Joel meant that the moon will literally turn into a giant pool of blood floating around in the sky? Or could he have been just giving us strong creative descriptors of its color at that time? Will the stars which are much larger than the earth literally fall from the sky as figs? For that matter if you think Isaiah 40:22 is talking about a literal circle on a flat plane why stop there? I mean verse six says all flesh IS grass. So are biologists conspiring to lie to us and tell us flesh is not grass? Verse 7 goes on to tell us that all people ARE grass. Are we literal grass? Obviously these passages expect us to take them as analogies and not so literal that it makes our God look like an imbecile. When interpreting the scriptures we don't get to pick and choose what is literal and what is allegorical. But when the text shows us they are allegories we need to take them as such. Someone wise once said "the best sense is the obvious sense, any other sense... is nonsense." Since Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (which I linked to) shows the Hebrew word chuwg means circle, vault, or sphere, the best "sense" is that Isaiah is telling us God abides above the curvature of the Earth. That makes more sense then claiming he is saying "God abides above the flat Earth that is the best kept secret in all of human history." As for expecting me to quote the verse for you, I would point out that Jesus was never expected by His worst enemies to do such a thing. He always said things like "Have you not read..." or "It is written..." or "As Isaiah said..." So please excuse me if I try to be like my Lord in even the little ways.
Obviously, you pick and choose what you want to believe. Why don't you then believe that the 7 days of creation are allegorical instead of literal? Your hermeneutic is inconsistent at best. Furthermore, you have avoided explaining away why Isaiah chose to use the word dur which would have described the earth as a ball but instead chose chuwg which refers to a circle. Do you dispute the definition of circle as two-dimensional? If you do, feel free to come up with your own derived definition.

Lastly, if you are going to cite Strong's, at least do so accurately. No where in Strong's does it define chuwg as a "sphere" as you have conveniently added your own definition. You wrote: "Since Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (which I linked to) shows the Hebrew word chuwg means circle, vault, or sphere,..."
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
circle, circuit, compass
From chuwg; a circle -- circle, circuit, compass.

see HEBREW chuwg
Please don't substitute your own word for the definition where no such thing exists.
 
Upvote 0