Debunking Flat Earth

[the iconoclast]

The Bible doesn't explicitly state what shape the earth is. It also doesn't explicitly state how old it is, or how many continents there are, or what the boiling point of water is.

My point: Expecting to find detailed, scientifically accurate descriptions of nature in the Bible is like expecting to find pasta recipes in a computer manual. You're completely missing the point of the book.

Hey hey

Spoken like a true poet

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey 46and2

Im not a flat earther but perhaps i can be of service. Ive been truth seeking and reading your history to get a sense of you. Our previous discussion had been shut down, so we should continue here.

46and 2 - "My argument was that according to the scientific method, nothing can be absolutely proven; that this is what makes the scientific method work."

Could you elaborate as to why this statement is an absolute?

Cheers

My comment was largely tongue in cheek. Certainly not appropriate to purposely derail this thread.

If you can decide on a theme that you'd like to discuss based on previous comments I have made, and can find the appropriate forum to post it in (that I'm allowed to post in, of course), start a topic and we can discuss it there.

 

[the iconoclast]

My comment was largely tongue in cheek. Certainly not appropriate to purposely derail this thread.

If you can decide on a theme that you'd like to discuss based on previous comments I have made, and can find the appropriate forum to post it in (that I'm allowed to post in, of course), start a topic and we can discuss it there.

Hey hey

No derailment intended. I assume the Scientific method was applied to any argument you have re flat earth and round earth.

So would it be far better to change your statement to

46and2 - "My argument was that according to the scientific method, things can be absolutely proven; that this is what makes the scientific method work."

Cheers. Dont duck and run, right?

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey

No derailment intended. I assume the Scientific method was applied to any argument you have re flat earth and round earth.

So would it be far better to change your statement to

46and2 - "My argument was that according to the scientific method, things can be absolutely proven; that this is what makes the scientific method work."

Cheers. Dont duck and run, right?

quit goading and start a new thread. You can even ask the same question in it if you want.

 

[the iconoclast]

quit goading and start a new thread. You can even ask the same question in it if you want.

Hey hey

I would call it stimulating rather than goading.

I like your idea. I will start a thread shortly and we will put your position under a microscope and see how it holds up.

Cheers

 

[Freodin]

I appologize.. I didn't look closely enough at your designation of being an atheist.

You have your source that you're confident in and I have the Bible.. plus the scientific examples given by those who have studied it out.

I would not want to be in the position as you have chosen.Of trying to build a house out of sand.. and think that it would stand against challenges of nature itself.

Look up. See that tiny dot? Hear that whooshing sound?

That was my point as it went right over your head.

Yes, I am an atheist. That is irrelevant.
The sources that I am "confident in"? The only source I used for this discussion is the bible.
Scientific examples? We are talking about a text here. What kind of "scientific examples" do you have to present for textual analysis?

You don't want to be in my position? House out of sand? I think my position is rock solid... and it is backed up by several Christians, right here.

Don't believe it? Look here!

The Bible doesn't explicitly state what shape the earth is. It also doesn't explicitly state how old it is, or how many continents there are, or what the boiling point of water is.

My point: Expecting to find detailed, scientifically accurate descriptions of nature in the Bible is like expecting to find pasta recipes in a computer manual. You're completely missing the point of the book.

Did you read that? "The Bible doesn't explicitly state what shape the earth is."

So, please, just for a second... drop that "I have the Bible and your position is build on sand" rhetoric, and listen to what I say, instead of what you think I have said.

 

[Tom 1]

The only relevant point is that scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood. People disagree about what it means.

Well those are some points, that people have different understandings about the bible (as about anything else I can think of with any degree of complexity), that it is often misunderstood, wrongly interpreted through the use of an overlay of modern ideas, or sometimes deliberately misinterpreted for various reasons.

Those aren't the points made here however, the points being made are that God 'wrote' the bible, in the post you were responding to, and that either he 'meant' it to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or he didn't, and either version is bad.

 

[Freodin]

Please use your vast knowledge of the book of Genesis, beliefs at the time it was written, and ancient literature in general to explain your notion that ‘God wrote it’ and why you think the idea you have all expressed is valid. Given that you’ve all stated this so confidently, I’m sure you can do better than ‘just because’.

That smells a lot like evasion. I already explained my reasoning... I asked for yours, and I don't see any explanation from you, except "That notion is so dumb."... without even mentioning what "notion" you are referring to.

I have that nagging feeling that, like fwGod, you don't even understand the point people were trying to make.

But because I am a friendly and helpful person, I will explain in detail... again.

What we see presented by some Christians, in this thread and in others, is the position "The Bible is True!"
It is not a position that all Christians hold... but a lot of them do. Why?
"Because the Bible is God's Word!"
Whatever that means. Whether he "wrote" it, or "inspired" it, or "dictated" it. Some Christians believe that it is "God speaking" when they read the texts of the bible.
An example, right here:

... God says himself that it's a sphere...

Not: "Isaiah says..." Not "the author of Job says...". No, "God says himself..."

So, don't act as if we, the critics, the unbelievers, the atheists think that "God wrote the Bible". We are only adressing Christians who think that, in some way.

 

[Freodin]

Isaiah 40 it talks about how God sits above the circle of the earth and how it is hung like a sphere. Only I don't have time now to go look it up. Maybe also in psalms.

So... Isaiah says something... that is "God himself saying".
So... Isaiah says something about a "circle". That means he's talking about a sphere.
So... something something mumble "hung like a sphere" (That's Job, not Isaiah.) And the verse doesn't say anything about spheres.
(Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.)
So... maybe something in the psalms. (Hint: nothing in the psalms that talks about the shape of the earth.)

Sorry... but I think you should read your own holy book a little better.

 

[Freodin]

I must caution you, Freodin. If you continue to point out the ideas held by the FE'ers and how they are "possible", when explaining to globe supporters.. You may run the risk of being labeled as a "flat earther".

It is possible that this will even carry over to other, unrelated, threads as an attempt to discredit anything that you say.

You see... some people here are incapable of understanding that simple fact that there are strong FE believers... then there are not so strong FE believers... then there are those that understand the model of both FE and globe but don't hold to either... or are questioning points of both..people investigating both but still believe in the globe.. and then there are strong globe believers..

These people that cannot grasp the concept that others may believe that the earth is flat... or that some may be searching for a solid answer for either...

These people are indignant towards anyone who would entertain the thought..

So, be careful when you point out things that the globe camp use and explain how the FE camp also have an explanation or plausible counter to their point.

In this one regard, Flat Earthers do have a point: a lot of people "believe" in the spherical earth, because they have been told that.
They are lacking the scientific background, knowledge and understanding to explain it. They are arguing from ignorance, or, in many cases, from falsehoods.

It's human nature. But I believe that this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve on that.

The word "Chug" means "circle"
The word "Dur" means a "sphere"

And here you are getting too simplistic. Both terms are not exclusive to a specific and clearly defined geometrical form.
This assumes a precision and an intent that isn't in the texts.

The bible is not a geometry textbook.

 

[Tom 1]

That smells a lot like evasion. I already explained my reasoning... I asked for yours, and I don't see any explanation from you, except "That notion is so dumb."... without even mentioning what "notion" you are referring to.

I have that nagging feeling that, like fwGod, you don't even understand the point people were trying to make.

But because I am a friendly and helpful person, I will explain in detail... again.

What we see presented by some Christians, in this thread and in others, is the position "The Bible is True!"
It is not a position that all Christians hold... but a lot of them do. Why?
"Because the Bible is God's Word!"
Whatever that means. Whether he "wrote" it, or "inspired" it, or "dictated" it. Some Christians believe that it is "God speaking" when they read the texts of the bible.
An example, right here:

Not: "Isaiah says..." Not "the author of Job says...". No, "God says himself..."

So, don't act as if we, the critics, the unbelievers, the atheists think that "God wrote the Bible". We are only adressing Christians who think that, in some way.

To me, this response seems evasive.

You expressed your support for the quote you responded to.

The quote and your support of it are:

Two possibilities exist. Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or He did not. Both are equally damning

In the case of the quote, it offers two complementary options. There is no room for a further one.

The original post in this particular side thread asserts that God wrote the bible, an idea on which the Arthur C Clarke quote appears to be based. You appear to be saying there that there is no difference between ‘wrote’ and ‘inspired’.

So, getting back to the original point -

Why exactly do you think that God intended the bible to be misunderstood (please use your knowledge of the bible to support your answer):

OR

Why do you think he didn’t, and, if so, this is a bad thing:

Why you believe that other options are simply not able to exist.

Why you think that inspiration for a writer is the same as a second person actually doing the writing.

 

[coffee4u]

So... Isaiah says something... that is "God himself saying".
So... Isaiah says something about a "circle". That means he's talking about a sphere.
So... something something mumble "hung like a sphere" (That's Job, not Isaiah.) And the verse doesn't say anything about spheres.
(Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.)
So... maybe something in the psalms. (Hint: nothing in the psalms that talks about the shape of the earth.)

Sorry... but I think you should read your own holy book a little better.

You think we all recall every chapter and verse out of the 66 books that make up the Bible?
I said I didn't have time then to go look it up, nor did I know I was trying to prove anything to you.

Anyway, I was correct in saying Isaiah 40:22 (NKJ). When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word "khug" to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere."

 

[Freodin]

Why you believe that other options are simply not able to exist.

Going back on the posts, I see that is even irrelevant if God wrote, inspired or in any other way is responsible for the bible.

This question I quoted here is the only relevant point. And the answer is "formal logic".

Perhaps you can now answer one of my questions, for a change. A simple one.

What other option could there be?

 

[Freodin]

You think we all recall every chapter and verse out of the 66 books that make up the Bible?
I said I didn't have time then to go look it up, nor did I know I was trying to prove anything to you.

I don't compel you to memorize the complete bible. But if you make a definitive statement, you should be able to back it up. Especially when you are faced with people already engaged in a discussion, who most likely would have looked up the relevant passages.

Anyway, I was correct in saying Isaiah 40:22 (NKJ). When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word "khug" to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere."

The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22

 

[Tom 1]

Going back on the posts, I see that is even irrelevant if God wrote, inspired or in any other way is responsible for the bible.

This question I quoted here is the only relevant point. And the answer is "formal logic".

Perhaps you can now answer one of my questions, for a change. A simple one.

What other option could there be?

Do you mean that your only point is that within it’s own terms and taking the underlying premise to be true, the argument as stated is correct? There seemed to be a broader point being made, several points in fact about the nature of the bible. My question is why you think the argument is true in relation to reality, not in relation to itself. As you appear to strongly support it, surely you can explain why.

Another option would start with understanding the bible, or Genesis in this case, in relation to the OP. What is the bible? What is the book of Genesis? What was it written for, by who, what were their ideas and intentions? Without an understanding of answers to those questions, you don’t have a basis for an opinion about it.

 

[Freodin]

Do you mean that your only point is that within it’s own terms and taking the underlying premise to be true, the argument as stated is correct? There seemed to be a broader point being made, several points in fact about the nature of the bible. My question is why you think the argument is true in relation to reality, not in relation to itself. As you appear to strongly support it, surely you can explain why.

Another option would start with understanding the bible, or Genesis in this case, in relation to the OP. What is the bible? What is the book of Genesis? What was it written for, by who, what were their ideas and intentions? Without an understanding of answers to those questions, you don’t have a basis for an opinion about it.

Irrelevant.
Which all those questions and their potential answers and understanding, you can after that always ask: "Did God intend that to be misunderstood?" The answer to that question is either yes or no. There is no linguistic leeway for dependent meaning, like in the famous "have you stopped beating your wife?" conundrum.

It should be quite simple.
Let's just take one of the verses that are used in connection to this topic: Isaiah 40:22.
The author wrote that with a specific intention. We don't know just what this specific intention was, but we can make educated guesses.
This verse obviously gets misinterpreted. Some people say it definitly states that the earth is spherical. Some say that it definitly states that the earth is flat. Some say that it does say neither and isn't meant to define the shape of the earth at all.
As these interpretations are mutually exclusive, some of these interpretations must be false.

Now the question is: did the author of this verse intend to be specific about the shape of the earth... or did he not intend that?
And again: because these two options are complete and complementary, there cannot be a third option.

 

[coffee4u]

I don't compel you to memorize the complete bible. But if you make a definitive statement, you should be able to back it up. Especially when you are faced with people already engaged in a discussion, who most likely would have looked up the relevant passages.


The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22

I had no time to look up relevant passages, it was morning over her when I posted -day and night cycle thanks to a spinning earth. So you are arguing for a flat earth? Because I'm confused, I've never met a flat earth atheist before. I disagree with that article that the verse doesn't say sphere, but let's say for argument sake that it is only saying a circle, a circle is still round, round can be applied to a sphere.
A flat earth would have all kind of troubles with a day night cycle, seasons and other issues. It's also been seen from space to be a sphere, or don't you believe in space travel either?
If this isn't what you mean then I don't know what you are after.

 

[Tom 1]

Irrelevant.
Which all those questions and their potential answers and understanding, you can after that always ask: "Did God intend that to be misunderstood?" The answer to that question is either yes or no. There is no linguistic leeway for dependent meaning, like in the famous "have you stopped beating your wife?" conundrum.

It should be quite simple.
Let's just take one of the verses that are used in connection to this topic: Isaiah 40:22.
The author wrote that with a specific intention. We don't know just what this specific intention was, but we can make educated guesses.
This verse obviously gets misinterpreted. Some people say it definitly states that the earth is spherical. Some say that it definitly states that the earth is flat. Some say that it does say neither and isn't meant to define the shape of the earth at all.
As these interpretations are mutually exclusive, some of these interpretations must be false.

Now the question is: did the author of this verse intend to be specific about the shape of the earth... or did he not intend that?
And again: because these two options are complete and complementary, there cannot be a third option.

Uh, yes. Knowing something about the cosmogony of early civilisations and the related symbolism of shapes in how this was expressed can give you some insight into what may have influenced the writer’s choice of words.

Options - what is an opinion?
1 Knowing about something gives you a basis for building an opinion

2 Expressing random notions about something you know little about is often referred to as an opinion. Maybe common usage makes it so?

What would be a third option?

 

[Tom 1]

"Did God intend that to be misunderstood?"

Misunderstood in relation to what? In relation to a 21st C understanding of the universe? In what way is that relevant to the text?

 

[46AND2]

I had no time to look up relevant passages, it was morning over her when I posted -day and night cycle thanks to a spinning earth. So you are arguing for a flat earth? Because I'm confused, I've never met a flat earth atheist before. I disagree with that article that the verse doesn't say sphere, but let's say for argument sake that it is only saying a circle, a circle is still round, round can be applied to a sphere.
A flat earth would have all kind of troubles with a day night cycle, seasons and other issues. It's also been seen from space to be a sphere, or don't you believe in space travel either?
If this isn't what you mean then I don't know what you are after.

If you think he is a flat-earth atheist, you are completely missing his point.