Debunking Flat Earth

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm always baffled by these basic notions about the bible from intelligent people. 'It's this - or it's that' or 'no, it's this other thing'. Few people seem to actually read it to find out what is actually true about it. It's not even difficult.

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

 

[Freodin]

That notion is so dumb, I’m not sure if it’s worth trying to explain why.

Oh, explaining things is always worth it. Especially if you call something "dumb" or "silly" or "ridiculous" or something along that line.

Doing that, and then not explaining, could lead to the conclusion that you are simply trying to evade.

So, for some explaining.
The paraphrased Clarke quote gives two possible options: either X, or Not-X. Exclusive and complementary. There is no other option. So the given statement is correct.
Now I can understand that you disagree with one of these options... but they must necessarily mean that you agree with the complementary option.

So there. Now it's your turn.

 

[fwGod]

Look, I really don't want to defend the biblical flat earth view. But you should be aware that the texts are at best ambiguous and do allow both interpretations... even tending towards the "flat" version.

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

The flat earth idea has shown up less than a decade ago.

Strange that I can recall interviews with members of the UK Flat Earth Society back in the 1960s. Do you think I should consult a psychologist to help me deal with this potentially dangerous false memory?

 

[coffee4u]

have no idea what your views are since I am not going to click on some random video nor read through every response. When you make a post you can, I don't know.... use words?

The earth is round, God says himself that it's a sphere and it's observable fact that it's round. If he had wanted it to be flat he could have done so, but he didn't and there is no need for it to be flat. I am a 6 day literal creationist, and I believe the world is a sphere.

 

[Freodin]

The Bible does not allow both interpretations. The Bible is truth therefore only one can be right. Reading all scriptures that speak on the topic, the only conclusion allows that the earth is spherical.

That's what I hinted at in my last paragraph. Your reasoning is... backwards.
You think that: the Bible is always true, the earth is round, therefore the Bible must talk about a globular earth.
But that is inconclusive. A Flat Earther can use the same logic to support his position.

Yes. Jesus did talk in line with the Bible. Genesis in which God separated the day from the night. Which can only be done with a spherical earth. Jesus teaches about the coming of the Son of Man (Him) in Lk.17:30, 34-36. According to the same separated day and night in Genesis.. At His Coming there will be those where it's night will be asleep and those where it's day will be awake that shall be taken while others are left.

(Emphasis mine)
Well, that is incorrect.
There is a valid and simple explanation of how day and night works on a spherical earth.
But you have to understand that Flat Earthers do not accept the standard cosmological model... and using their versions, they have explanations for day and night on a flat earth.
You don't have to accept that they are correct, but you have to admit that they are possible.

If you aren't sure then you apparently didn't read what I'd posted.

You didn't post a Psalm. So if you were referring to one, I do not have any means to know which one you meant.

It's preposterous that you don't see that the words "globe", "sphere" "round" all indicate the same shape. The circuit and/or circle also indicate the concept of "surround" or "surrounding". Even as the ozone layer surrounds the spherical earth.

Yes, that is more or less correct. But a circle also "surrounds" a two-dimensional shape.
See, that is the problem. The hebrew term does not distinguish between a two- and a three-dimensional shape.

According to Genesis, the separation of day and night can only occur with a spherical earth. Therefore every other scripture carries in it the truth of the Genesis verse. Not in any way deviating from that.

Nothing in Genesis states that day and night can only occur with a spherical earth. You are reading ideas into the text that aren't there.

Look at the text. It doesn't make any mention of either spherical or flat.

So your attempt at confusing the issue by saying that it can be interpreted differently, is futile. The idea is based on your false belief that the world is flat.

Oh, I do believe the world is flat? That's strange. If you did read what I wrote - both in my response to you as well as in previous posts - you would know that I argue against a flat earth.
But it seems you have a habit of jumping to conclusions that are not justified.

That does not make valid your false belief. The earth being spherical also has another four. They are height and depth, length and width.

That is both irrelevant as well as false.
First, in geographical descriptions, we talk about a two-dimensional object. The surface of the earth is two-dimensional. On a two-dimensional surface, you only need four directions to define every possible point. Regardless of the shape of this surface.
That has nothing to do with flat or spherical earth... that's simple geometry.

And in the same way: in a three-dimensional realm, you would need only need six directions... not eight.

But that was not the point. We were talking about the literal words used in a specific bible verse... and I pointed out that these words cannot be used to exclude either version: flat or spherical.

Your flat earth can't measure or fill out to that same amount. It's like comparing a pancake with a meatball.

But not the surface of a meatball. Basic geometry. The reason why we can map the earth on paper at all.

Four corners most closely refers to a cube, whereas a tetrahedron most closely resembles a triangle, or two of them together is six.

Wrong. And quite obvious. Take a cube. A pair of dice. Or a cereal box. Count the corners. You will notice that there are eight of those. Not four, not six. Eight. Basic geometry.
And in the same way, a three dimensional object with only four corners will be a tetrahedron.
Yes, it is made up of triangles. So?

The reach of light from the sun goes a great distance beyond our solar system to the surrounding stars. And you flat earthers think that it's possible for night to exist on a flat earth?

There's no validity whatsoever in your flat earth models.

They do. There are several explanations they use. As I said, the validity of these explanations is debatable... but they do exist.
You have to stop assuming that your model needs to apply to their worldview.

Well I'll use here what you said earlier.

So?

Day and night are the result of the form, position and motion of the earth in the "spherical, heliocentric" system. Correct?
Day and night exist, because there is one lightsource... the sun... and the spinning earth can only present one side towards this lightsource, while the other half is in shadows. Correct?

So, how does day and night exists without the sun?

Truth is singular. Only one is right. Any other answer is wrong. The spherical earth is evident from Genesis. The flat earth idea has shown up less than a decade ago.

The spherical earth is not evident from Genesis. That's the whole point. There is nothing in Genesis that would lead you to conclude a spherical earth without the prior assumption of a spherical earth in a heliocentric system. And that knowledge you do not get from Genesis, or any other part of the Bible, but from science.

And the "flat earth idea" is rather ancient. A lot of cultures in antiquity held to that cosmological model... though the "modern" flat earthers had to adapt these models to bring it in line with undeniable observations.

Not only that but the flat earth idea is not supportable by various scientific examples and facts. Research that yourself.

But as long as you give yourself wiggle room to hang onto the false claims of a flat earth, I doubt that you will.

Thank you for that hint... but it is unnecessary. I am well aware of the scientific examples and facts that support the spherical model and refute the flat earth.

But, again, that is not the point. All I am trying to point out is that the claim that the Bible clearly presents a spherical earth is wrong. It doesn't.

That makes it sound as though they had no absolutes about it.

No. What I am trying to point out is that you cannot with certainty decide which "absolute" they used.

Let us, just as a hypothetical, say that the earth is flat. It is covered by a dome, and somewhere above this flat plane are sun, moon and the stars. By some mechanism, the sun lights up parts of the earth while the rest stays in relative darkness.
Let us say that this is fact. The truth. Let's not debate how this is or how it works and what kind of observations support or contradict it. Let us just set it as the premise.

And now the question that I am asking is: could you read the bible, the verses you mentioned, and still say: yes, they words of the bible align with that view of the world.

I would say: yes, they do. Genesis just describes land and water, a sun, moon and star in the sky. This description fits both a spherical as well as a flat earth.
The term from the Isaiah verse... it can mean both a flat circle as well as a spherical earth.

So that's the whole point: you cannot conclude either spherical nor flat from the biblical texts alone.

But, if you want to have only that for your argument, then you have nothing valid as to why you disagree with the Biblical certainties that I provide.

But you don't provide "certainties". You use your extra-biblical understanding to make the bible say things that it doesn't.

And, you'd have no point of agreement with anyone, not even with those in your little flat earth group.

Again I have to point out your misconception that I am arguing for a flat earth.

That is getting away from the topic.

I wouldn't say that. You can find verses in the bible that seem to support the idea that the authors held to a view of a spherical earth. But there are also a lot of verses that seem to contradict the idea of a spherical, spinning and orbiting earth, and support the view of a flat and stationary one.
Considering the predominant cosmological view of the time when many of the books of the bible were written - the babylonian model - this should be no surprise.

That is an attempt and self-deception of making your views more true than the Bible.

Jesus Himself said to God "Your Word is truth." When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness by the liar and the father of lies.. Jesus countered those lies by quoting what is written. And thereby defeated the devil.

Then it should be no problem for you to do the same. Quote what is written. That, and only that.
And you will see that it isn't as clear-cut as you think it is.

As long as you entertain the thought that Jesus was assuming or could only assume that the Bible is always true in every case, while at the same time according to you and your little flat earth group.. you think that you know better.. you think that you have a certain validity in your arguments..

I have no idea what Jesus assumed or not assumed. I am talking about you. Go back to the start of this post. I pointed out your "assumption" there.
You assume that the Bible is always true. You understand that the earth is spherical. Thus you conclude that the Bible says the earth is spherical.
And, again, this conclusion is invalid.

I can see that since I am interested only in the Truth of the Bible and you are not.. therefore, it would be pointless to continue this discussion any further.

Stop relying on your preconcieved ideas and your invalid conclusions... and you might learn something. At least how to listen to what others say, and not only to the echoes of your own thoughts.

 

[Freodin]

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

Does he? Where?

 

[Freodin]

Strange that I can recall interviews with members of the UK Flat Earth Society back in the 1960s. Do you think I should consult a psychologist to help me deal with this potentially dangerous false memory?

A lot of the "modern" flat earthers rely on the works of an englishman named Samual Rowbotham, who published his idea about a flat earth in 1849. He even did some experiments and got into legal arguments with renowned scientists over it.

So, nothing about "last decade", even about the modern version of flat-earthism.

 

[coffee4u]

Does he? Where?

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.

 

[JacksBratt]

A lot of the "modern" flat earthers rely on the works of an englishman named Samual Rowbotham, who published his idea about a flat earth in 1849. He even did some experiments and got into legal arguments with renowned scientists over it.

So, nothing about "last decade", even about the modern version of flat-earthism.

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.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

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

Isaiah knew the difference. That argument is not a valid one...

Now let’s look at the words Isaiah used in Hebrew. I know KJV only types hate that, but believe it or not, the Scriptures didn’t originate in English. The “perfect” 1611 scholars, derived their English from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. So, we should be able to do the same. In Isaiah 22:18, we find the first use of the word “dur” (ball) in the Scriptures:

As you can see, the same word shows up 2 more times: once more in Isaiah (29:3), describing someone completely surrounded and again in Ezekiel 24:5, describing something rounded like a pile or a mound set up for burning. The word carries the meaning of something spherical-like in nature (or as in Isaiah 29:3 as something that is all around you).


Whereas, the word in question (“chug”) concerning the Scripture’s description of our world is defined as:

Once again, we have a word that is only used only 3 times in Scripture. But let’s apply the “law of first mention” to see how it was initially introduced to us in the Bible:


Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

Is YHWH walking on a sphere or a “circuit” up there? Well, what is a circuit? The dictionary defines it as:

It is a circular path. I see no mention of anything in that, which would demand a definition of a sphere. YHWH is walking on a circular path.


For the record.. this is taken from this site:

Circle Means CIRCLE – NOT Ball/Sphere/Globe! | Robs Channel

 

[JacksBratt]

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

You are right. People, er... even strong Christians who are well educated in the scriptures and theology argue and debate the translations of them.

However, they will all agree on the basic child-simple message that it contains in regards to the gospel.

If I go to any pro sport party I will get a different theory of how the sport should be played from each veteran fan of the sport. Let's say football.. BUT, they will all agree that the point of the game is to move the ball down the field to score a touch down.

You could say the same about building a house... some would say build a basement with block walls. Others with poured concrete.. then again some would say no basement at all..... However, they all are trying to build a sturdy water and weather tight living space that will stand the test of time.

 

[fwGod]

Strange that I can recall interviews with members of the UK Flat Earth Society back in the 1960s. Do you think I should consult a psychologist to help me deal with this potentially dangerous false memory?

Ha Ha, very funny. I was speaking from my own awareness of it. But you seem to sidestep that possibility that occurred in your mind.. just so you can have your joke.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ha Ha, very funny. I was speaking from my own awareness of it. But you seem to sidestep that possibility that occurred in your mind.. just so you can have your joke.

I was specifically addressing your awareness of the topic. You wrote with a very high confidence level. You wrote in absolute terms. And yet, you were absolutely wrong. That immediately calls into question every other statement in your post. So, no. I wasn't making a joke. I was making a patronising put down of an incompetent element in your post. Hopefully you can learn from this experience.

 

[fwGod]

I was specifically addressing your awareness of the topic. You wrote with a very high confidence level. You wrote in absolute terms. And yet, you were absolutely wrong.
That immediately calls into question every other statement in your post. So, no. I wasn't making a joke.
I was making a patronising put down of an incompetent element in your post. Hopefully you can learn from this experience.

All of your post concerns itself with addressing me personally rather than the topic of the thread.

That is not the purpose of posting.

Your attempt at a form of psychology toward me is a strange thing to use when you don't have some pertinent proof that the flat earth topic is valid.

 

[46AND2]

All of your post concerns itself with addressing me personally rather than the topic of the thread.

That is not the purpose of posting.

Your attempt at a form of psychology toward me is a strange thing to use when you don't have some pertinent proof that the flat earth topic is valid.

Yeah...well...all the flatearthers have seemed to ducked and ran, so we have to do something to entertain ourselves now, right?

 

[Tom 1]

Oh, explaining things is always worth it. Especially if you call something "dumb" or "silly" or "ridiculous" or something along that line.

Doing that, and then not explaining, could lead to the conclusion that you are simply trying to evade.

So, for some explaining.
The paraphrased Clarke quote gives two possible options: either X, or Not-X. Exclusive and complementary. There is no other option. So the given statement is correct.
Now I can understand that you disagree with one of these options... but they must necessarily mean that you agree with the complementary option.

So there. Now it's your turn.

Sure, I’ll go back to the original post and you can use your extensive knowledge of the subject to defend your claim.

 

[Tom 1]

The only thing that one can conclude, given an omniscient author, is that God meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke - "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.

If you aren't going for Zen, your objection is invalid here.

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’.

 

[the iconoclast]

Yeah...well...all the flatearthers have seemed to ducked and ran, so we have to do something to entertain ourselves now, right?

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

 

[Strathos]

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.