Did the apostles and the early Church believe the Earth was flat?

[Shrewd Manager]

Exactly ... the sun RISES up from behind the horizon ... progressing from being fully obscured ... slowly revealing more of the sun's full disk (starting from the uppermost tip) ... until the sun's disk is fully revealed.

One of the most obvious arguments for a globe earth ...

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes smh.

 

[prodromos]

... or just watched any sunrise. Actually, sunset might be easier to catch ...

I've specified an east facing coastal region with a large peak to the west near where he lives, so he can witness what is impossible according to the flat earth model, the more distant peak being bathed in sunlight before the closer beach at sunrise.

 

[prodromos]

Earth's atmosphere (i.e. air) is held to the earth by GRAVITY, ... which 100% of humanity experiences every day ... and 95+ percent of humanity assents to recognize the effects of, ... whether they understand the mechanism or not.

Oh, he has been told this, and the reason there is a pressure gradient. He has not explained how there is a pressure gradient if the atmosphere is enclosed in a dome.

 

[fwGod]

Nobody else made that 'translation choice'.

If it was the right choice then it would have been repeated in subsequent printings.

It's a 1537 edition, in the wake of Cristobal Colon's grand opening tour of 1492. I daresay it speaks volumes as to the controversy in the minds of the truly saved. Forget the others you mention, they're all merely stage actors steeped in pagan traditions and convention.

The use of the words "flat earth" has no evidence that only those who cling to it for proof are truly saved.

You'll find that cartography did not become 3D until around that time, the first Mercator projection appearing 1569. Strange days indeed. Of course, no navigator or surveyor ever allows for curvature in charting practice to this day. It's just another bogus 'transform equation'.

The boatsmen and ship's captains used the sextant to find the latitude on the spherical earth. The shipsmen better than any knew by sailing great distances that the earth did not abruptly stop with a waterfall over a flat earth edge.
Bartholomew Gosnold (1571–1607) indicates the use of a sextant for nautical navigation predates Hadley's implementation.
The principle of the instrument was first implemented around 1731 by John Hadley (1682–1744)

 

[A_Thinker]

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes smh.

Is "Thou shalt believe in the Flat Earth model." a command ???

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If it was the right choice then it would have been repeated in subsequent printings.

So it's truth by consent now is it? Guess that would make Jesus wrong on all counts.

The use of the words "flat earth" has no evidence that only those who cling to it for proof are truly saved.

Who's saying it does? But it is about faith after all. And it's what the Bible teaches.

The boatsmen and ship's captains used the sextant to find the latitude on the spherical earth. The shipsmen better than any knew by sailing great distances that the earth did not abruptly stop with a waterfall over a flat earth edge.
Bartholomew Gosnold (1571–1607) indicates the use of a sextant for nautical navigation predates Hadley's implementation.
The principle of the instrument was first implemented around 1731 by John Hadley (1682–1744)

Astrolabe came first. Flat nonrotating earth assumption as I understand it - just like the most sophisticated flight and weapons guidance systems of today.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Is "Thou shalt believe in the Flat Earth model." a command ???

It's not an article of faith, but may well be an article of reason.

 

[A_Thinker]

It's not an article of faith, but may well be an article of reason.

Yeaahh ...

 

[fwGod]

So it's truth by consent now is it?

It makes it truth by context, and by comparing scripture with scripture.

Guess that would make Jesus wrong on all counts.

It makes the translator wrong. And such as yourself wrong because all you've got is an outdated and poorly translated rendering to attempt to make your point. It's not even the more common authoritative Bible version, the KJV.

Then you put out your trump card of using Jesus as your authority .. thinking that I will surely acquiesce at that.

That is not happening.

Who's saying it does?

You said it does.

But it is about faith after all. And it's what the Bible teaches.

You are advocating a blind faith to accept a poor translation rather than the subsequent Bible scholars that have since provided the correct translation.

Astrolabe came first.

Any celestial body that has a horizon requires it to be spherical. There is no horizon created by the flat earth model of the sun shining down on a limited a.o.e. as it circles along the equator. While the model indicates the suns rays to be so weak that outside that a.o.e. it's dark.
But in observable reality the brightness of the sun is too great to limit itself to such a small range. The rays extend beyond earth to light up every planet in the solar system as well as the moon and stars at night.
The Bible says "Nothing can be hidden from it's heat." or I would exchange it with, 'light'. "Nothing (planets, stars, the rays shine on one entire side of the earth with the horizon marks the night side) can be hidden from it's light."

Another scripture says "From the rising of the sun to it's setting, the Name of the Lord is praised." (3 other scriptures describe sun rise and sun set).
In contrast, the flat earth model has no sun rise or sun set.

Flat nonrotating earth assumption as I understand it - just like the most sophisticated flight and weapons guidance systems of today.

The technology of today uses the spherical earth scientific information. NASA certainly didn't use flat earth notions in sending astronauts to the moon or send the voyager spacecraft out to gather cosmological information. The scientists that built airplanes used the the spherical earth information. As well as figure out how to put satellites in synchronous orbit around the earth.

Your flat earth model is fiction.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

... The technology of today uses the spherical earth scientific information. NASA certainly didn't use flat earth notions in sending astronauts to the moon or send the voyager spacecraft out to gather cosmological information. The scientists that built airplanes used the the spherical earth information. As well as figure out how to put satellites in synchronous orbit around the earth.

Your flat earth model is fiction.


...

Indeed, and even more, NASA uses the geocentric earth model to calculate the paths of all it sends into space, to anywhere.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Indeed, and even more, NASA uses the geocentric earth model to calculate the paths of all it sends into space, to anywhere.

No, it depends on the mission which central body is used in mission planning. This is because when in orbit around a central body, the central body's gravity exerts the greatest influence on the orbital characteristics mission planners are interested in. Calculating orbits can be somewhat simplified to a modified two-body problem with orbital perturbations. So for example, flight engineers with Parker Solar Probe will use the sun as it's central body (and one of the various sun centered reference frames - HCI, HEEQ, HGI, etc, etc...)

Multi-Mission Orbit Plotter | Parker Solar Probe Science Gateway
Parker Solar Probe

MAVEN's flight engineers will use an areocentric frame since it's in orbit around Mars (and so it may be MARSIAU intertial reference frame).

Flight engineers for spacecraft in earth's orbit, such as the ISS, will use an earth-centered reference frame (probably ECI or ECEF) since earth is the central body and the orbital characteristics around earth that are of interest.

When doing trans-orbits (going from say Earth to Mars) obit trajectories must take into account all the relevant bodies when calculating delta-V's for transfer orbits. So when calculating a flight from Kennedy Space Center to orbiting around Mars, one will have to account for the injection into earth's orbit, orbit around the earth, transfer to Mars, injection into Martian orbit.

When considering spacecraft attitude or instrument specifications, a flight engineer may need to use a spacecraft-body-centered or instrument centered reference frame and coordinate system.

Basics of Space Flight - Solar System Exploration: NASA Science

The decision of a central body and reference frames to use depends on mission specifications. In all cases though, a heliocentric solar system is true because the laws of Kepler and Newton are true and it's Keplarian and Newtonian rules that must be used when calculating orbits, budgeting for fuel, calculating thruster burns, etc... All celestial objects, whether it be Parker Solar Probe, the ISS, the Earth, the Moon, or the star Sirius, follow the rules described by celestial mechanics and astrodynamics. And it's these laws that describe the earth's orbit around the sun.

So no, it's not true that NASA uses a geocentric model for spaceflight. NASA uses Keplarian and Newtonian dynamics. Missions will select reference frames based on mission needs, but a choice of reference frame does not change the underlying physics (in fact, the opposite is the case). To argue for a geocentric solar system where the earth is the central body with the sun and planets in it's orbit, you need to change the underlying physics, not merely change reference frames.

https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/...ual_docs/17_frames_and_coordinate_systems.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PA8XBOLBWG8S&keywords=fundamentals+of+astrodynamics&qid=1571249994&sprefix=fundamentals+of+astro,aps,196&sr=8-1

 

[fwGod]

Indeed, and even more, NASA uses the geocentric earth model to calculate the paths of all it sends into space, to anywhere.

That is restating in your own words what I posted concerning sending spacecraft like Voyagers 1 &2 out there.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

No, it depends on the mission which central body is used in mission planning. This is because when in orbit around a central body, the central body's gravity exerts the greatest influence on the orbital characteristics mission planners are interested in....]

I don't think that is absolute truth. I read once, that the geocentric model is easier, and is used for outer space....but that is something that one will have to follow up on themselves, to see what is the truth of the matter.


"Robert Sungenis: Unfortunately such comments, such as those from Mr. Prothero, are made by people who do not do “editorial fact-checking or scientific peer review” before they state them. If he had done his fact-checking, he would know that NASA, for example, uses either a geocentric model, technically known as the Earth Centered Inertial Frame (ECIF), or a heliocentric model, known as the Solar-barycentric frame (SBF). They can do so because the geometry, distances and even the dynamical forces for the geocentric and heliocentric systems are all convertible...."
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Interview_by_Wesley_Hunt.pdf

 

[Shrewd Manager]

sending astronauts to the moon

Forget it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

https://qr.ae/TWCH0f

 

[Yekcidmij]

"Robert Sungenis: Unfortunately such comments, such as those from Mr. Prothero, are made by people who do not do “editorial fact-checking or scientific peer review” before they state them. If he had done his fact-checking, he would know that NASA, for example, uses either a geocentric model, technically known as the Earth Centered Inertial Frame (ECIF), or a heliocentric model, known as the Solar-barycentric frame (SBF). They can do so because the geometry, distances and even the dynamical forces for the geocentric and heliocentric systems are all convertible...."
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Interview_by_Wesley_Hunt.pdf

I think this shows that Robert Sungenis doesn't understand what an inertial reference frame is. The choice of an ECI reference frame is not a "geocentric model" of the solar system.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I think you should do a study

I think this shows that Robert Sungenis doesn't understand what an inertial reference frame is. The choice of an ECI reference frame is not a "geocentric model" of the solar system.

I think Sungenis is informed far beyond what you are on what he writes about.
He agrees with the Word of God on the geocentric earth and did have proof of the NASA models used for launching spacecraft into outer space, just as I wrote.
I'm not going back to research the lectures he has given, but at the time I did, he fully satisfied with proofs, the reasons he made the statements.

 

[Jipsah]

He agrees with the Word of God on the geocentric earth and did have proof of the NASA models used for launching spacecraft into outer space, just as I wrote.

If y0u'fre orbiting the earth, then geocentric is appropriate, since the earth is your orbital barycenter. That doesn't mean that you looking at rhe solar system as geocentric, which is ridiculous. The barycenter of the solar system is in the sun.

The idea of a geocentric universe is nonsense, and is supported neither in science nor in Scripture.

Worse than that, people who falsely proclaim that a geocentric universe, and a flat earth, are supported by Scripture accomplish nothing but persuading unbelievers that Scripture is false.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I have many

If y0u'fre orbiting the earth, then geocentric is appropriate, since the earth is your orbital barycenter. That doesn't mean that you looking at rhe solar system as geocentric, which is ridiculous. The barycenter of the solar system is in the sun.

The idea of a geocentric universe is nonsense, and is supported neither in science nor in Scripture.

Worse than that, people who falsely proclaim that a geocentric universe, and a flat earth, are supported by Scripture accomplish nothing but persuading unbelievers that Scripture is false.

I have asked you many times in the past to stop accusing me of being a flat earth believer.
That is a lie against everything I write or believe.
Hebrew OT word translated to English “world” means “globe”.
I have repeated that with back up Scripture proof dozens of times.
So just stop.
Otherwise, you err, as you always have on this subject, believing neither the Word of God from Genesis 1 and on through the entire sacred Scriptures.
there was no outer space when God created the heavens and the earth, just a globe of primal waters and the “firmament of His powers”, which He stretched out on day 2 of creation between the cut in two waters, and which stretched out firmament He named “two waters/ sha mayim”.
So it is not possible that anything but this very globe is the center of His stretched out heavens.
They all came from here.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think you should do a study

So I haven't done a study on astrodynamics?

I think Sungenis is informed far beyond what you are on what he writes about.

On at least this particular subject, no, he's not.

He agrees with the Word of God on the geocentric earth and did have proof of the NASA models used for launching spacecraft into outer space, just as I wrote.

Proof of what exactly? That LEO missions can use an ECI reference frame?

I'm not going back to research the lectures he has given, but at the time I did, he fully satisfied with proofs, the reasons he made the statements.

Well, either he doesn't understand what he's talking about, you don't understand it, or neither of you do. An ECI reference frame is not a "geocentric model" of the solar system. There is no inertial reference frame in which the earth is stationary at the center and the sun moves around it (and ECI is an inertial reference frame).