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

[BNR32FAN]

This is a common mistake people make about the nature of symbolism in the Bible. Of course, there is lots of symbolism, but the symbols always point towards the truth about the thing they are symbolizing. Symbolism is never deceptive in nature.

In your example, yes people really are similar to a field of grass and flowers, where they appear beautiful in their youth but then get old and whither as they age. That is accurate symbolism.

In Psalm 19, when the psalmist is praising God's handiwork with the sun, in how it comes out like a bridegroom and runs its circuit around the earth. To say this is really symbolism for an earth spinning and wobbling through space as it orbits the sun. That would be deceptive symbolism that does not reflect the true nature of something at all.




A sphere is isotropic, with uniformity in all directions. It actually has no face at all. It's a reflection of Copernican philosophy, no special orientation, all points relative to each other. No Up, no Down. It's confusion.

And there are dozens if not hundreds of verses that all consistently point towards a fixed enclosed circle of earth that rests on foundations, with the waters above and below... The Bible paints a very clear and distinct earth model. (and it's definitely not flying through outer space)

No you’re wrong because the Bible specifically says that people are grass so that means that people are literally grass not that they’re are similar to grass. That’s what your argument boils down to. You’re interpreting verses that support your flat earth theory literally but not the verses that aren’t related to a flat earth in the same manner therefore your interpretation method is inconsistent.

 

[Larniavc]

The meta-narrative of the modern world is that "Science has disproven the Bible", and replaced it as an authority on the nature of the creation. This is the #1 attack used against the authority of Jesus. "Science has proven that the Bible is just a fairytale"... It is the #1 excuse used by unbelievers on why we don't need to follow the Gospel.

Most non Christians have little knowledge of the Gospels. So they don't need an excuse. The Gospel are just irrelevant to non Christians.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Spherical earth is a model that is mostly believed because of fisheye camera lenses.

View attachment 352134

"flat earth" is basically just what we see and experience every day. It is self-evident.

It's also why we don't take airplane flights over the south pole, because there is no south pole to fly over.

Wrong because there’s no fisheye lens being used when watching ships disappear from bottom to top as they go over the horizon. The earth being a sphere is precisely why NOBODY can actually create a flat map of the earth that is to scale. If anyone could actually do that, then I would become a flat earth believer but because of the FACT that it is IMPOSSIBLE that will NEVER happen.

 

[lifepsyop]

No you’re wrong because the Bible specifically says that people are grass so that means that people are literally grass not that they’re are similar to grass. That’s what your argument boils down to.

No, the whole point of symbolism is that you're using different objects in order to highlight similar qualities. That means people are not literally grass, but they share the same quality of degradation over time as grass.

When God's word says that the sun runs circuits around the earth like a chariot, this means the sun shares the quality of speed with the chariot, both of which run courses upon the stationary ground.

There's no reason God couldn't have inspired a heliocentric model in his words, by referring to a majestic central axis of the sun, that the earth runs and bounds around, like a calf skipping around her mother, etc. etc. something like that... But there is nothing remotely like that in scripture. All the various symbolism points in the same consistent direction. That's not a coincidence.

You’re interpreting verses that support your flat earth theory literally but not the verses that aren’t related to a flat earth in the same manner therefore your interpretation method is inconsistent.

There aren't any verses about either a moving earth or a spherical or ball-shaped earth. (The ancient Israelites knew what balls were and how to describe them, but that's simply not the revelation they were given by God.)

All of scripture unifies around the same "ancient" view of geocentric cosmology, with a face of the earth that is contained by outer edges, and rests on stationary foundations. That's not my interpretation, that's just what the word says. Our choice is whether to accept it or reject it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is a common mistake people make about the nature of symbolism in the Bible. Of course, there is lots of symbolism, but the symbols always point towards the truth about the thing they are symbolizing. Symbolism is never deceptive in nature.

In your example, yes people really are similar to a field of grass and flowers, where they appear beautiful in their youth but then get old and whither as they age. That is accurate symbolism.

In Psalm 19, when the psalmist is praising God's handiwork with the sun, in how it comes out like a bridegroom and runs its circuit around the earth. To say this is really symbolism for an earth spinning and wobbling through space as it orbits the sun. That would be deceptive symbolism that does not reflect the true nature of something at all.




A sphere is isotropic, with uniformity in all directions. It actually has no face at all. It's a reflection of Copernican philosophy, no special orientation, all points relative to each other. No Up, no Down. It's confusion.

And there are dozens if not hundreds of verses that all consistently point towards a fixed enclosed circle of earth that rests on foundations, with the waters above and below... The Bible paints a very clear and distinct earth model. (and it's definitely not flying through outer space)

An isotropic sphere has one face, but the earth isn’t an isotropic sphere because it has huge mountains and valleys and it’s wider at the equator. So you might want to take another look at the definition of an isoptropic sphere because it does have a face.

 

[trophy33]

You are both right in a way.

1. Yes, Bible describes a flat earth with a dome etc.

2. Yes, its not what we have discovered to be in reality

Biblical authors got it wrong. No big deal, it just means some Christians must adjust their view of biblical inspiration a bit and thats all.

There is no need to wage a war against science and also no need to force the Bible to say what it does not say.

 

[Lost4words]

Yea I used to believe that too.

The idea that Science could be fundamentally wrong frightens us.

You used to believe it, then you got sucked into conspiracy theories and utter internet lies and fantasies about the earth being flat...

 

[Lost4words]

Spherical earth is a model that is mostly believed because of fisheye camera lenses.

View attachment 352134

"flat earth" is basically just what we see and experience every day. It is self-evident.

It's also why we don't take airplane flights over the south pole, because there is no south pole to fly over.

Blimey, you have really been duped into believe the flat earth lies my friend..

 

[Lost4words]

The meta-narrative of the modern world is that "Science has disproven the Bible", and replaced it as an authority on the nature of the creation. This is the #1 attack used against the authority of Jesus. "Science has proven that the Bible is just a fairytale"... It is the #1 excuse used by unbelievers on why we don't need to follow the Gospel.

A question Christians should seriously consider... Do you really think God would design the cosmos in a way in which its supposed true discovery by "science" becomes one of the biggest engines and producers of Atheism / Agnosticism the world has ever known?

Why would He create what is essentially a cosmic illusion that would be completely overturned while giving all the glory to the wisdom of men millenia later?

Everything in scripture is there for a reason. God desires to be praised for his handiwork in the heavens and earth. The apostle Paul's first words to the gentile world is that we know God because we know about the Creation. Is He really incapable of accurately describing His creation?

Why can't His word be true, and "Science" be wrong?

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

God's word is very much true and alive. The issue is 'YOUR UNIQUE' interpretation of His Word!!

 

[BNR32FAN]

The traditional interpretation of creation is not a wild belief. It's basically what we all feel and see with our eyes every day.

Earth as a spinning, wobbling ball flying 450,000 MpH through a relative field of gravitational space-time curvature is a wild belief.

This is why you have to do weird things like invent 85% of the universe as dark matter. A lot of what we think of as "Science" is just mathematical modeling and philosophical assumptions of the Copernican principle.

For hundreds of years man has seen with his eyes that ships sailing away will disappear from bottom to top as they cross over the horizon. Anyone can see this, it doesn’t take any special equipment or anything.

And the Jews interpreted the Messiah to be a prophet who would be their king and deliver them from the Roman occupation. Were they correct in this interpretation? Did the Jews know anything about the Trinity or Christ’s involvement in creation? It’s alluded to in the OT. The Hebrew word Elohim is actually a plural form of the word because of the suffix “im”. That’s why it’s translated as “gods” when it’s not used in reference to the God of Israel. Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22 are other clues they missed. The Hebrew word translated to Lord (Adonai) is also plural.

So this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that just because the ancient Hebrews interpreted something in a particular way doesn’t imply that it was the correct interpretation that was intended by the Author. It wasn’t until new information was revealed that we began to understand the reason for these indications of a plural form being used in reference to God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There aren't any verses about either a moving earth or a spherical or ball-shaped earth.

There aren’t any verses about caterpillars turning into butterflies or catfish eating worms, but both of these are still true regardless.

 

[lifepsyop]

For hundreds of heard man has seen with his eyes that ships sailing away will disappear from bottom to top as they cross over the horizon. Anyone can see this, it doesn’t take any special equipment or anything.

That's how perspective works. Everything converges towards a vanishing point on the horizon and objects will seem to disappear at extremely far distances, even on a flat surface.

Also, with a powerful enough camera zoom function, you can bring those ships back into focus that you believe are disappearing over "the curve". There are tons of videos people have made demonstrating this.

So, it's never really been evidence for a curved earth.

And the Jews interpreted the Messiah to be a prophet who would be their king and deliver them from the Roman occupation. Were they correct in this interpretation?

Ultimately, yes, they were correct, just not in their preferred way and timing. Jesus is the King that has come to deliver us from Rome (represented by the iron feet of the statue that is smashed in Daniel's prophecy)

Astonishingly, even pagan Rome officially recognized Jesus as the King of the Jews.

 

[lifepsyop]

There aren’t any verses about caterpillars turning into butterflies or catfish eating worms, but both of these are still true regardless.

Does the Bible have a lot to say about butterflies and catfish?

Because it does have a lot to say about the formation and structure of the Earth.

 

[prodromos]

That's how perspective works. Everything converges towards a vanishing point on the horizon and objects will seem to disappear at extremely far distances, even on a flat surface.

Perspective does not cause the bottom of objects to vanish while the top half remains visible. You lie.

Also, with a powerful enough camera zoom function, you can bring those ships back into focus that you believe are disappearing over "the curve". There are tons of videos people have made demonstrating this.

John 8:44

 

[prodromos]

Spherical earth is a model that is mostly believed because of fisheye camera lenses.

There are vast numbers of photos of the earth showing it is a globe that did not use fisheye lenses. Your argument has no merit.

"flat earth" is basically just what we see and experience every day. It is self-evident.

Most of The Time The Earth Is Flat.

Science, modern science that is, has engulfed nearly our entire gaze. It has become the transparent self-effacing tableau on which we experience the world, the glasses we wear to judge the truth, t…

orthodoxartsjournal.org

It's also why we don't take airplane flights over the south pole, because there is no south pole to fly over.

There are no great circle routes between major cities in the Southern Hemisphere that would pass over the South Pole, so planes would have to fly longer, more expensive routes to do so. Your argument is moot however, because many people have crossed the South Pole on foot.

 

[lifepsyop]

Perspective does not cause the bottom of objects to vanish while the top half remains visible. You lie.

How do I lie? I said everything converges towards a vanishing point on the horizon. That's just a fact.

Look at the camera zoom-outs on these boats. Eventually you can really only make out the upper masting.

And depending on the atmosphere and temperatures, all sorts of strange image warping can occur on the horizon line. Globe believers use the same types of phenomena to explain why we can see objects on the horizon that should be obscured by "the curve" of the earth.

 

[prodromos]

How do I lie? I said everything converges towards a vanishing point on the horizon. That's just a fact.

As I pointed out, if it was due to perspective then the entire boat would disappear, not just the bottom. That does not happen, thus you are saying something which is not true, aka a lie.

Look at the camera zoom-outs on these boats. Eventually you can really only make out the upper masting.

Perfect! There are several objects shown in the video where the bottom is hidden behind the horizon even when zoomed in. In the cases where the boat is not visible when the camera zooms out, it is the entire boat that is not visible, not just the bottom.

And depending on the atmosphere and temperatures, all sorts of strange image warping can occur on the horizon line.

And when atmospheric conditions are perfect?

Globe believers use the same types of phenomena to explain why we can see objects on the horizon that should be obscured by "the curve" of the earth.

Atmospheric refraction is a very well understood phenomenon. It isn't hand wavy magic like flerfs make it out to be.

In this video they zoom in on the Chicago skyline, yet only the tops of the very tall towers are visible above the horizon and most of the shorter buildings are completely hidden.

With your claim of 'perspective' making things disappear then if the lower parts of the buildings can't be seen, neither should the upper parts be visible. They are the same distance from the viewer.

 

[lifepsyop]

As I pointed out, if it was due to perspective then the entire boat would disappear, not just the bottom. That does not happen, thus you are saying something which is not true, aka a lie.

Perfect! There are several objects shown in the video where the bottom is hidden behind the horizon even when zoomed in. In the cases where the boat is not visible when the camera zooms out, it is the entire boat that is not visible, not just the bottom.

And when atmospheric conditions are perfect?

Atmospheric refraction is a very well understood phenomenon. It isn't hand wavy magic like flerfs make it out to be.

In this video they zoom in on the Chicago skyline, yet only the tops of the very tall towers are visible above the horizon and most of the shorter buildings are completely hidden.

With your claim of 'perspective' making things disappear then if the lower parts of the buildings can't be seen, neither should the upper parts be visible. They are the same distance from the viewer.

I understand your confusion. At great distances on the horizon, the slightest variations in the surface, even just the temperature or thickness of the atmosphere, can cause occlusions like these.

compare these two images (screenshot of timestamps, because it's easier to see in the video)

Notice how even the small toy boat appears to dip below the water horizon, but clearly that could not be from an "earth curve".


I think at the very least, you would have to concede that this is very weak evidence of a "curved earth"... But that's the problem. It will continue to be used as one of the "proofs" that the earth is a sphere. (and most of the "proofs" of a spherical earth follow the same pattern)

 

[lifepsyop]

Here is a good demonstration and explanation of how light bent through the atmosphere can create a "sinking" effect of objects against the horizon.

 

[prodromos]

I understand your confusion.

I understand your need to lie.

At great distances on the horizon, the slightest variations in the surface, even just the temperature or thickness of the atmosphere, can cause occlusions like these.

compare these two images (screenshot of timestamps, because it's easier to see in the video)

View attachment 352183

Notice how even the small toy boat appears to dip below the water horizon, but clearly that could not be from an "earth curve".

The toy boat is tiny in comparison to the variations in the water surface. Not so the actual boat. The eye level is above the waves in the case of the real boat so it is not being hidden by waves, and of course the more distant waves appear much smaller due to perspective, so can't be responsible for hiding the boat.

I think at the very least, you would have to concede that this is very weak evidence of a "curved earth"...

Your arguments have not demonstrated any weakness in the evidence, only the inability of flat earthers to understand the evidence, or their willingness to lie about the evidence.

But that's the problem. It will continue to be used as one of the "proofs" that the earth is a sphere. (and most of the "proofs" of a spherical earth follow the same pattern)

The only problem is you gotta lie to flerf, and that should be a problem for anyone who claims to be a child of God.