Earth is Flat

[sjastro]

Still waiting on that explanation. The fact of the matter is we don't know the true nature of the sun, all we know is it's not 93 million miles away. Sunlight rays diverging is impossible at that distance, the only way that can happen is if the sun is close above the clouds. This has nothing to do with the exact distances, we're talking about it being very close or very far and it's obviously not very far.

Subduction Zone has explained it.
If you want to continue with this ludicrous idea the Sun is just above the clouds where on Earth (pardon the pun) are Venus and Mercury located?
Since these planets exhibit full planetary phases and are inferior planets their orbits sit between the Earth's orbit and the Sun.
Sorry but I haven't seen Venus and Mercury swoosh past my nose below the clouds as they travel in their orbits.
IF this develops into one of those geocentric model discussions don't bother as the observed parallax of stars contradicts it.

 

[46AND2]

You guys aren't even trying anymore lol. Lets get back to observable reality and not some "satellite" image from the same liars at NASA or Google who is also in the satanic agenda. Explain sunlight divergence from the ground perspective.

Now that we've established that I was right about you rejecting the explanation for the sunrays, can we get back to you explaining why the south pole is not 178000 miles away from the equator?

And why it measures exactly what it should measure using spherical geometry?

Would you like to see the actual math?

We know the sun cannot be about 3000 miles high because the angle of observation from the south pole is WAY wrong.

 

[Kinable]

No, it wouldn't. Crepuscular rays only occur when the Sun is at a rather low angle. Crepuscular rays do not form when the Sun is overhead. That should tell you something.

In fact in your failed test you used the Sun straight overhead. That is not where the Sun is when crepuscular rays are formed.

I get what you're trying to say but that's not what's happening here. Look I even found a satellite image of sun rays diverging. Light divergence is not possible if the sun were really 93 million miles away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get what you're trying to say but that's not what's happening here. Look I even found a satellite image of sun rays diverging. Light divergence is not possible if the sun were really 93 million miles away.

If that is divergence, and it may be, it is very small. On this scale the curvature of the Earth is going to be a factor. All that shows is that your experiment is still a failed experiment. You are taking a flat picture of a curved surface. It only supports the globe model.

 

[sjastro]

Hey, look at this:

Turns out that you're both wrong. The sun is really under the ground!

Or maybe it's just an optical illusion...

This is very strong evidence of a flat earth.
The Sun is on the underside and since it is very close its rays are strong enough to break through.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And @Kinable , one experiment does not cut it. You have to be able to explain all observations with testable models. You still cannot explain sunrise and sunset. An artificially place lens in a model is not an explanation. You would have to explain the sunset of why there would be such refraction. When we see a mirage that can be explained using optics. You would need much more than handwaving.

Also you need to explain the rotation of the stars in the Southern Hemisphere.

Coming up an experiment for you.

 

[Kinable]

If that is divergence, and it may be, it is very small. On this scale the curvature of the Earth is going to be a factor. All that shows is that your experiment is still a failed experiment. You are taking a flat picture of a curved surface. It only supports the globe model.

"Oh no, this disproves my point. Wait, of course, the divergence is the curvature of the earth! Even though there's no visible curve at this altitude, I know for a fact the Earth is a sphere so I'll believe that's what this is even without evidence because I know I'm right"

Confirmation bias is a terrible thing, please try to get over that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Oh no, this disproves my point. Wait, of course, the divergence is the curvature of the earth! Even though there's no visible curve at this altitude, I know for a fact the Earth is a sphere so I'll believe that's what this is even without evidence because I know I'm right"

Confirmation bias is a terrible thing, please try to get over that.

LOL!! Please, no projection allowed. You lost this one. Moving on.

 

[topher694]

This is as far as I read, or will read.

You are no longer addressing scripture with scripture, only flat out rejecting every single verse I've laid out--which have been plenteous, exactly exemplifying what I've been saying.

I found it rude, unnecessary and untrue

Note:

I don't have time to devote to this, something much more important has come up.

YOU did not directly address the scripture I used (which you originally brought up) and the meaning of it that I outlined. You mostly ignored it and completely ignored what I said about it. You did what I outlined earlier and "spammed" a bunch of scriptures, then when I don't respond to each and every one you pull this? That is flat our dishonest behavior. Exactly exemplifying what I've been saying.

How about instead of constantly shifting the goal posts you stick with one or two scriptures and actually dig deep into them and discuss them? Which is exactly what I asked for in the beginning of this particular conversation. Isaiah 40:22 is about God seeing things we cannot see, having understanding we don't have, and having our best interests in mind even if we can't see it ourselves. You want more scriptures? I can easily give you a half a dozen more that are consistent with that, but you've shown time and time again now that you have no interest in actually hearing what I have to say, but rather gaining a platform to say what you want to say. Remember, you asked me. I don't waste my time teaching people that don't want to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is another experiment. You know three people. One is in Adelaide, Australia, his name is Andrew. Another is in Montevideo, Uruguay, his name is Monty. The third is in Capetown, South Africa, his name is Barnaby (heck, no experiment is perfect). One night they decide to get together and compare what they see. Early on at the same time Andy and Barnaby look due South and at about 35 degrees from the horizon they see the Southern Cross. A bit later Barnaby and and Monty look due south and 35 degrees up from the horizon and they both see the Southern Cross. Later than night (and early morning for Andy) both Andy and Monty look due south and at 35 degrees up from the horizon and yet they both see the same Southern Cross. If you look on a Flat Earth model the three are looking in extremely different directions and yet they see the same thing. It does not make much sense. Yet it is perfectly explainable on the globe Earth model.

How do you explain this with the Flat Earth model?

 

[tryphena rose]

For something to be Biblical doctrine, you need clear supporting scripture and I do not see them. Since I believe in Sola Scriptura I would be the first to seriously look and consider them. All I have been shown previously were verses about circles, pillars and corners. You cannot build an entire doctrine about a flat earth covered by a dome based on that. Poetry can certainly be used as a supporting scripture but we can't build doctrine from poetry alone because if we could I could say that trees have hands when we know that is only poetic language about leaves.

Now the same can be said of the globe model, again there is no direct supporting scripture. The verses we do have mention a circle, but both flat disks and globes look like a circle from a distance as post #384 shows.

As for science, I believe that should fit the Biblical framework and should be observable and repeatable. If science goes outside of the Biblical framework I believe it is coming to the wrong conclusions because the creation of the earth was a miraculous event and missing variables will skew results.

Since the earth being a globe does not contradict scripture, does not affect any doctrine, since science experiments on it can be observed and repeated and since I can't see any reason for space pictures to be some kind of hoax (that would be very expensive for what purpose?) Governments don't spend that amount of cash for giggles. Then yes I do believe the world is a globe. This is not something I spend much time thinking on because it doesn't affect my life or my faith. God could have made the world a triangular prism is he had so wanted.

"where do you think God is"
God is spirit, he is everywhere. His realm is the spiritual. I do not believe we can understand this until we get there.

Do you think we're on a big ball moving through an endless space, heading towards a black hole in the center of a barred spiral galaxy, like the rest of what science says?

A ball suspended and moving in space, yes. "he suspends the earth over nothing." Towards a black hole, no. God holds all things together and scripture indicates the end will be by fire not by a black hole. I'm a creationist not an evolutionist.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

"in danger of a catastrophic weather meltdown, at the complete whim of nature?"

The world is both cursed, and groaning from man's sin.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
This can only get worse, especially as mankind has failed in being the earths caretaker. Just like this virus has been linked to man's misuse of nature so pollution also affects the earth. Sin always has repercussions. How exactly God plans to burn it up I don't know, only that it will be remade into the New Heaven and New World.
21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
Then I think we will know all things.

The part were you claim to believe sola scriptura is all that I needed to hear. Please explain what you think, sola scriptura, of Genesis 1:6-10

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good".

And to further show the consistency of these verses I've highlighted in Genesis, please keep in mind this verse as well in close proximity, Genesis 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

And in case you bring up the canopy theory, I will highlight this verse as well. Paying close attention to the waters returning. Genesis 8:3

"And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated."

My claims aren't based only on the shape of the earth. It is the entire cosmology of the bible. This is the main part of text in the bible, that splits from the rest of what people believe today and sets up the rest of the outlying verses that I have stated. It is the firmament, the structure that was built to separate waters from waters. And from what the windows were opened, and water came through, in Noah's time. I'd like to see how you handle such a verse if you believe the Bible is inerrant, without changing the definitions of the words. Primarily, firmament, translated from raqiya. Raqiya meaning expanse(mind you, limited), or something beaten into place. In Hebrew it is commonly used to refer to a blacksmith with metal. It is referenced many times throughout the bible as a molten looking glass, curtain, etc.

Do you believe in the firmament as it is written? To me, honestly, even if you just believe in the firmament and nothing else, then I really do not care what shape you believe the earth is. I do not find that to be essential, necessarily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The part were you claim to believe sola scriptura is all that I needed to hear. Please explain what you think, sola scriptura, of Genesis 1:6-10

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good".

And to further show the consistency of these verses I've highlighted in Genesis, please keep in mind this verse as well in close proximity, Genesis 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

And in case you bring up the canopy theory, I will highlight this verse as well. Paying close attention to the waters returning. Genesis 8:3

"And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated."

My claims aren't based only on the shape of the earth. It is the entire cosmology of the bible. This is the main part of text in the bible, that splits from the rest of what people believe today and sets up the rest of the outlying verses that I have stated. It is the firmament, the structure that was built to separate waters from waters. And from what the windows were opened, and water came through, in Noah's time. I'd like to see how you handle such a verse if you believe the Bible is inerrant, without changing the definitions of the words. Primarily, firmament, translated from raqiya. Raqiya meaning expanse(mind you, limited), or something beaten into place. In Hebrew it is commonly used to refer to a blacksmith with metal. It is referenced many times throughout the bible as a molten looking glass, curtain, etc.

Do you believe in the firmament as it is written? To me, honestly, even if you just believe in the firmament and nothing else, then I really do not care what shape you believe the earth is. I do not find that to be essential, necessarily.

The problem is that we do not observe a firmament. None is needed.

 

[tryphena rose]

This is as far as I read, or will read.

I found it rude, unnecessary and untrue

Note:



YOU did not directly address the scripture I used (which you originally brought up) and the meaning of it that I outlined. You mostly ignored it and completely ignored what I said about it. You did what I outlined earlier and "spammed" a bunch of scriptures, then when I don't respond to each and every one you pull this? That is flat our dishonest behavior. Exactly exemplifying what I've been saying.

How about instead of constantly shifting the goal posts you stick with one or two scriptures and actually dig deep into them and discuss them? Which is exactly what I asked for in the beginning of this particular conversation. Isaiah 40:22 is about God seeing things we cannot see, having understanding we don't have, and having our best interests in mind even if we can't see it ourselves. You want more scriptures? I can easily give you a half a dozen more that are consistent with that, but you've shown time and time again now that you have no interest in actually hearing what I have to say, but rather gaining a platform to say what you want to say. Remember, you asked me. I don't waste my time teaching people that don't want to learn.

Ok, calm down you seem a little preturbed. We are no longer debating. I am calling it off due to fulfilling my word on giving you a few more posts, you not fulfilling my wish to provide your list of 200 verses rebuttal, and as well, we aren't really getting anywhere.

Have a good day. And since we are done debating, I will be departing shortly and return this account back to my wife. God bless you. Stay strong in your faith in Jesus brother! No hard feelings. Forgive me, if you feel that I have wronged you.

 

[46AND2]

I get what you're trying to say but that's not what's happening here. Look I even found a satellite image of sun rays diverging. Light divergence is not possible if the sun were really 93 million miles away.

178,000 miles. Simple math. Busts flat earth.

 

[tryphena rose]

For something to be Biblical doctrine, you need clear supporting scripture and I do not see them. Since I believe in Sola Scriptura I would be the first to seriously look and consider them. All I have been shown previously were verses about circles, pillars and corners. You cannot build an entire doctrine about a flat earth covered by a dome based on that. Poetry can certainly be used as a supporting scripture but we can't build doctrine from poetry alone because if we could I could say that trees have hands when we know that is only poetic language about leaves.

Now the same can be said of the globe model, again there is no direct supporting scripture. The verses we do have mention a circle, but both flat disks and globes look like a circle from a distance as post #384 shows.

As for science, I believe that should fit the Biblical framework and should be observable and repeatable. If science goes outside of the Biblical framework I believe it is coming to the wrong conclusions because the creation of the earth was a miraculous event and missing variables will skew results.

Since the earth being a globe does not contradict scripture, does not affect any doctrine, since science experiments on it can be observed and repeated and since I can't see any reason for space pictures to be some kind of hoax (that would be very expensive for what purpose?) Governments don't spend that amount of cash for giggles. Then yes I do believe the world is a globe. This is not something I spend much time thinking on because it doesn't affect my life or my faith. God could have made the world a triangular prism is he had so wanted.

"where do you think God is"
God is spirit, he is everywhere. His realm is the spiritual. I do not believe we can understand this until we get there.

Do you think we're on a big ball moving through an endless space, heading towards a black hole in the center of a barred spiral galaxy, like the rest of what science says?

A ball suspended and moving in space, yes. "he suspends the earth over nothing." Towards a black hole, no. God holds all things together and scripture indicates the end will be by fire not by a black hole. I'm a creationist not an evolutionist.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

"in danger of a catastrophic weather meltdown, at the complete whim of nature?"

The world is both cursed, and groaning from man's sin.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
This can only get worse, especially as mankind has failed in being the earths caretaker. Just like this virus has been linked to man's misuse of nature so pollution also affects the earth. Sin always has repercussions. How exactly God plans to burn it up I don't know, only that it will be remade into the New Heaven and New World.
21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
Then I think we will know all things.

I know you haven't responded yet, as of now. But I just wanted you to know that I fulfilled my obligations to topher now and will be leaving the forum shortly. Please still address the verses i've left for you. Either I will see it on my way out, or my wife will tell me what you've said later. I will not respond to what you say, but I will ponder over it. Thank you!

 

[prodromos]

There are figurative things in the bible, i never said that there weren't.

There is nothing figurative about the language used by Christ in John 6 unless you believe Jesus is telling His disciples to slander or destroy him, since that is the figurative meaning of "eating someone's flesh" in the Scriptures (see Psalm 27:2 & Micah 3:3)
If you still claim that Christ's words cannot mean what the plain meaning is, then you are applying a double standard.

 

[prodromos]

Someone doesn't understand context

Agreed, you don't understand context.

 

[tryphena rose]

There is nothing figurative about the language used by Christ in John 6 unless you believe Jesus is telling His disciples to slander or destroy him, since that is the figurative meaning of "eating someone's flesh" in the Scriptures (see Psalm 27:2 & Micah 3:3)
If you still claim that Christ's words cannot mean what the plain meaning is, then you are applying a double standard.

If there is nothing figurative about it, then you must believe it then, correct? Then I'd assume you are Catholic, which is fine.

I do not claim Catholicism, and do see that as figurative. As I've said before, I do think some things are figurative and also that figurative things still mean something. No logical incosistency, I already stated this. The difference between your argument and mine, is that I am not just using one verse to prove my point, as you are, I am pulling many throughout the whole bible including the creation account. By doing that, I am claiming that the verses I have used are not figurative. That has been the main argument between myself and the people that I've argued with here. They think that all of the verses I am using are not saying what they're saying, or that they're figurative. And I am here saying that they are saying what they saying, because they are all saying the same thing.

If you had more verses to offer yourself, I would hear you out too on your premise.

But, just so you know, I have fulfilled my obligation with topher and will be leaving this forum now. My wife will regain her profile, in case you see this account somewhere else thinking it is me. Have a good night, and God bless you! Whatever you respond to me I will either see or hear about, and ponder over.

 

[topher694]

Ok, calm down you seem a little preturbed. We are no longer debating. I am calling it off due to fulfilling my word on giving you a few more posts, you not fulfilling my wish to provide your list of 200 verses rebuttal, and as well, we aren't really getting anywhere.

Have a good day. And since we are done debating, I will be departing shortly and return this account back to my wife. God bless you. Stay strong in your faith in Jesus brother! No hard feelings. Forgive me, if you feel that I have wronged you.

You misunderstand about the 200 verses. I was directed to a website that listed the verses. I went there and as I stated I spent a good long time reviewing and studying each and every verse to my satisfaction and it was pretty easy to discover the true, non-FE meanings of each verse. There is no post to direct you to. I originally mentioned it to show that (counter to previous accusations) I spent a considerable amount of time studying scriptures on the subject. Further, you talk of not fulfilling your wish to provide a list of verses when you failed to provide me one to discuss after repeated requests and ultimately I had to grab one that someone else re-posted.

As to your "obligations". You choose see it how you like, but as I see it, you fulfilled nothing. I was looking to discuss one or two scriptures in detail and examine what each of us thought of them. I provided my take, you changed the subject, deflected, spammed and then threw out more accusations. Exactly what I outlined FEers do before you and I even began this exchange.

I'm not trying to be harsh and I'm not angry. However, experience has shown me that directly and plainly exposing the behaviors behind these things is the only way that has even a remote chance of actually getting through. You can argue science and scripture all day long and get nowhere. But, dishonest tactics and poor treatment of others speaks volumes and if that behavior is what is required to "prove" a point then that calls the entire argument into question and is worth taking time reflect upon.

 

[prodromos]

Explain the sunlight rays I was talking about in post #420

That is perspective. The clouds are much, much further away from the observer than the sea surface. It is exactly like the photo of the parallel railway tracks in the post immediately following yours.