A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

dlamberth · Dec 3, 2018

JohnClay said:
The author seemed to believe there was a distinct area that was "above" the earth, and God's presence was there. On the other hand if the earth is a globe, "above" has no clear meaning - to some people the same position is "below".

That God is "above the earth", makes more sense as a spiritual place of dwelling and not a physical location.

Radagast · Dec 4, 2018

SeventyOne said:
If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof. The whole time I'm met with ridicule, dismissive behavior, and insults.

Well, that might be because everybody else is fully aware that the earth is round. I look up at the stars at night, and they are totally different from the stars you see, because I'm on the other side of the globe.

People like you always wind up telling people like me that the things we have seen and experienced aren't real. It's hard to take that in a friendly way.

JohnClay · Dec 4, 2018

dlamberth said:
That God is "above the earth", makes more sense as a spiritual place of dwelling and not a physical location.

Assuming that the earth is flat, above it is a physical area. There are passages where God's presence is in a physical location. e.g. Mount Sinai, the Holy of Holies. Maybe Isaiah is saying God's presence is above the earth watching people as if they are grasshoppers. If it isn't saying that then what "truth" is it communicating?

JohnClay · Dec 4, 2018

devolved said:
Why would head be "the boss" if the heart is the most important thing?

In a constitutional monarchy the head of state is the Queen. Perhaps the "heart" is the parliament or the people. In that example the "head" means they are the boss.

You seem to shift the context to normalize your hypothesis here,

The whole time I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say that the head is associated with thoughts and feelings - though it does say that when talking about the heart, liver, belly and bowels.

So, while you do have Aristotle's view on brain, you also have Hippocratic one, and he wasn't alone in thinking that. So, there were always a wide variety of competing schools of thought that sparked and died, and some were embedded and propagated into cultural linguistics a method of speaking conceptual reality as opposed to actual one.

Jesus could have used "head" or "mind" when talking about understanding rather than using "heart". Why did he say "heart"? Just because he wanted to go along with the popular (incorrect) belief of the time?

So just like today, if you ask an average person about quantum physics based on nominal linguistic descriptions that they've heard, they will likely tell you a vastly different story than the one quantum physicists are telling.

In my high school physics class they didn't even teach quantum physics. But kids are familiar with what it means to use your head or brain and so were the authors of the Bible (except they thought it was the heart, bowels, etc)

...Hence, you absurdly expect the linguistic metaphors of that culture to conform to scientific reality that we have today... when even in our culture that's not the case.

You said the linguistic metaphors in our culture don't conform to scientific reality?
What about:
"two heads are better than one"
"use your head"
"it went over my head"
"air head"
"thick head"
"messing with your head"
"get your head around something"
"a good head on your shoulders"
"got your head screwed on"
"a head for figures"
"head in the clouds"
"level headed"
"off the top of my head"
"you need your head examined"
"off your head"
"sleepy head"
We do talk about the "heart" incorrectly though but maybe it is based on earlier cultures (like in the Bible) who literally thought the heart was involved. Or it can mean "the central or innermost part of something" (similar to the position of our hearts)

So, there's multiple levels of "true", and you have chosen to focus on one of the most primitive ones.

My point is there is no evidence the authors of the Bible (and Jesus) had knowledge of where thoughts and feelings actually come from. Using the "metaphor" excuse assumes that they actually know the truth. If they didn't know the truth it means they had false beliefs (yet some of their contemporaries [like Hippocrates] had correct beliefs in some cases)

JohnClay · Dec 4, 2018

A_Thinker said:
I am saying that the writers of the scriptures DIDN"T CARE about the shape of the Earth. They NEVER focused upon it. The shape of the Earth is simply not the point of the writings in the Bible. If you could show me ONE PASSAGE where communicating the shape of the Earth is the INTENDED COMMUNICATION, ... your thesis would be more likely, but, having read through the scriptures twice now in a lifetime, I can verify that there is not such a passage.

I think the Bible implies that the earth is flat e.g. "to the ends of the earth". But it focuses on the heart (and bowels, belly and liver) though. And the movement of the sun and the lack of movement of the earth (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 104:5)

A_Thinker · Dec 4, 2018

JohnClay said:
Assuming that the earth is flat, above it is a physical area. There are passages where God's presence is in a physical location. e.g. Mount Sinai, the Holy of Holies. Maybe Isaiah is saying God's presence is above the earth watching people as if they are grasshoppers. If it isn't saying that then what "truth" is it communicating?

That God is above all ...

Norbert L · Dec 4, 2018

SeventyOne said:
It's the only description He gives of the nature of the earth, flat and enclosed. I know you haven't done any real study into the topic from a biblical perspective because you asked that question. Usually the 'study' done is a quick internet copy/paste which results in a response like, "circle and hangs on nothing, therefore, a ball".

Job 26:7 is not quoting God giving a description about the nature of the Earth being flat and enclosed. It's a response Job is giving Job 26:1. To state it's the only description He gives of the nature of the Earth, flat and enclosed, is misunderstanding what this text in the Bible is relaying. Basically that verse only shows how Job describes the nature of the Earth, it's not God giving him or mankind a science lesson.

A_Thinker · Dec 4, 2018

JohnClay said:
I think the Bible implies that the earth is flat e.g. "to the ends of the earth". But it focuses on the heart (and bowels, belly and liver) though. And the movement of the sun and the lack of movement of the earth (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 104:5)

That's akin to saying that people using such phrasing today are implying that the earth is flat ... or that the heart is the physical seat of emotions ... or that the sun travels across the sky (rises in the East ... sets in the West) ... or that the Earth is steady as a rock ...

devolved · Dec 4, 2018

JohnClay said:
The whole time I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say that the head is associated with thoughts and feelings - though it does say that when talking about the heart, liver, belly and bowels.

And I've already explained why your perception of Biblical semantics is problematic in a sense that you don't really know what these people where thinking, and you seem to be assuming that the nature of perception as it's localized "in our head" isn't an obvious first assumption that people generally make purely based on personal experience.

You have to at least understand that you are attempting to force the language of that specific cultural setting to have continuum with ours in a way that relates to literal understanding of reality.

Today we also say "Go with your gut feeling", and "follow your heart". as you yourself say...

JohnClay said:
Or it can mean "the central or innermost part of something" (similar to the position of our hearts)

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner

JohnClay said:
Jesus could have used "head" or "mind" when talking about understanding rather than using "heart". Why did he say "heart"? Just because he wanted to go along with the popular (incorrect) belief of the time?

No, because language encapsulates semantics. For example, we say can you "turn the lights off", when we are not turning anything, and off is not what we actually doing to the light. That's not proper scientific relationships between the light and the electric circuit.

Thus, you can't say that we are living in a scientifically illiterate culture because we think we can literally "turn the light on", whatever that would mean.

So we have all sorts of these. "Take a picture", "Start a car", "Rewind a movie", "play a song" .... there are tons of verbal cues that we use that have nothing to do with how things actually work, but we understand these ok.

So, if you can't assume that simply because you read some linguistic phrase out of cultural context, it necessitates that such culture understood that phrase literally. We can only assume what these cultures understood by these phrases, because in some cases, Biblical narrative itself is one of the very few surviving literary works of that era.

devolved · Dec 4, 2018

JohnClay said:
In my high school physics class they didn't even teach quantum physics. But kids are familiar with what it means to use your head or brain and so were the authors of the Bible (except they thought it was the heart, bowels, etc)

Again, you are projecting linguistic semantics on someone's literal understanding of what they would be referring to when it comes to conceptual relationships.

There were plenty of false conceptual understanding of natural processes, but you can't run off and derive that from bits and pieces of idiomatic expressions. You would have to actually show passages where these are explicitly described and diagrammed, like Aristotle would.

There are quite a few of these in the Bible, but these serve as narrative vehicles more than scientific literature.

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

cvanwey said:
If such merits are warranted, why not instead collaborate with the 'scientists' which have such evidence, and present them for peer review? I think we all want to know the truth. Presenting evidence here isn't going to change anything. Get the powers-that-be to investigate. I would hate for people in school to continue to be purposefully taught lies.

A little research by yourself will reveal there are scientists out there doing their own curvature and movement tests and concluding there is no curve or movement.

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
So... hi... butting in here. The Greeks not only proved that the earth is a globe, but they calculated the radius to reasonable accuracy.

Their scientific tools:

1. a stick

Do you have these tools?

That experiment was crap because it was inconclusive. Anyone with any thought effort realizes that. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointed out that the Eratosthenes test wasn't helpful in determining the shape of anything, and he's hardly a flat earth proponent.

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

Radagast said:
Well, that might be because everybody else is fully aware that the earth is round. I look up at the stars at night, and they are totally different from the stars you see, because I'm on the other side of the globe.

People like you always wind up telling people like me that the things we have seen and experienced aren't real. It's hard to take that in a friendly way.

They are quite real, it's just your understanding of them is flawed. As for 'friendly', I'm not trying to be friendly or unfriendly. You are free to take it any way you choose.

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

Norbert L said:
Job 26:7 is not quoting God giving a description about the nature of the Earth being flat and enclosed. It's a response Job is giving Job 26:1. To state it's the only description He gives of the nature of the Earth, flat and enclosed, is misunderstanding what this text in the Bible is relaying. Basically that verse only shows how Job describes the nature of the Earth, it's not God giving him or mankind a science lesson.

If you would like to point to all those passages where God tells us His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space, I'd be most appreciative.

A_Thinker · Dec 4, 2018

SeventyOne said:
If you would like to point to all those passages where God tells us His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space, I'd be most appreciative.

WHY ... would God tell us that His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space ?

WHY ... would God tell us the molecular formulation of water, of salt, of sugar ???

WHY ... would God tell us about the phenomenon of electricity ?

Do you believe that God has told us EVERYTHING about His creation ?

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

A_Thinker said:
WHY ... would God tell us that His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space ?

WHY ... would God tell us the molecular formulation of water, of salt, of sugar ???

WHY ... would God tell us about phenomenon of electricity ?

Do you believe that God has told us EVERYTHING about His creation ?

As for WHY, you'd have to ask Him. I don't presume to speak for God. All I know is that he does reveal a lot about the nature of His creation, and heliocentrism isn't part of that.

And do I believe everything He's told us. Yes, even when I don't understand it.

For example, when we are told in scriptures that Joshua commanded both the sun and moon to stop and the Lord heeded his words and stopped them, I had always been told it was the earth that stopped and the sun and moon stopping were just observations from earth. A little thought in that and one realizes that is completely stupid. In a heliocentric model (which I believed at the time) the distance to the sun would make it seem there was no movement with the sun if the earth did stop, but the stoppage of the earth wouldn't do anything relating to the observational movement of the moon. So, I'd put a little mental asterisk at that point as a passage I didn't understand, and seemingly no one else did either, although they pretended to do so.

Now that I understand that cosmic model is garbage, I know when it says the sun and moon stopped, it means the sun and moon stopped. Mental asterisk erased.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 4, 2018

SeventyOne said:
That experiment was crap because it was inconclusive. Anyone with any thought effort realizes that. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointed out that the Eratosthenes test wasn't helpful in determining the shape of anything, and he's hardly a flat earth proponent.

The experiment wasn't crap. It happened. The data was accurate. The problem from your perspective is the initial assumption or the conclusion. That's got nothing to do with the experiment.

Anyway, the flat earth position has it so that the sun's rays are not coming in parallel. This means that the sun is nearest at high noon and farther away otherwise. However its size does not change, indicating it's far away. The great distance makes it so the rays are coming in parallel, and in that case a curved earth is the best explanation of the data from the experiment.

It's clear you have looked into this. I'm sure you have seen this before. What's the reason for the apparent size of the sun being absolute? Optical illusion... the sun actually changing size... fairies?

SeventyOne · Dec 4, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
The experiment wasn't crap. It happened. The data was accurate. The problem from your perspective is the initial assumption or the conclusion. That's got nothing to do with the experiment.

Anyway, the flat earth position has it so that the sun's rays are not coming in parallel. This means that the sun is nearest at high noon and farther away otherwise. However its size does not change, indicating it's far away. The great distance makes it so the rays are coming in parallel, and in that case a curved earth is the best explanation of the data from the experiment.

It's clear you have looked into this. I'm sure you have seen this before. What's the reason for the apparent size of the sun being absolute? Optical illusion... the sun actually changing size... fairies?

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm no longer getting into the detailed debates about this on the forum. It's a completely hostile and non-receptive environment.

If you are actually interested, there are great FE sources that cover this and many other things in great detail. While that's just about all I'll be telling people here from here on out, I don't mind providing direction for anyone who may be actually curious.

The experiment doesn't work, not conceptually or in actuality. What it has done is provided people with what they think is a great 8-second Internet 'gotcha' for Flat Earth. While you are researching such things as perception and atmospheric refraction to help clear things up a bit, take a look at the hundreds of curvature tests showing zero curve. You'll discover flat earth has hundreds of observable and repeatable experiments to fall back on, while the globe has pictures they are told are real.

Also, since you are sold on parallel rays, try finding actual time lapse footage of the horizon at 'sunset' from both low and high altitudes and watch the behavior of the light itself as it doesn't stretch the entire horizon as required in a heliocentric model and by the ISS CGI we're fed. It's quite localized.

Or don't. It's up to you how deep you want to dig or if you want to actually look at a FE perspective objectively. I know the overwhelming majority don't and it's evident by what they are citing as 'proof'.

dlamberth · Dec 4, 2018

SeventyOne said:
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm no longer getting into the detailed debates about this on the forum.

I hope that this isn't getting into to much detail, but just out of curiosity, and I do apologize if this was asked already, but what are satellites circling in a Flat Earth scenario? And why do the the videos' coming down from the International Space Station show a round earth as that platform moves around the Earth?

Space Cam - watch live video from the International Space Station | Explore.org

A_Thinker · Dec 4, 2018

A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

Senior Contributor

comes and goes

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads