Is the Earth flat or round???

[Justified112]

Are you kidding or just making all this up?

1. There are 6 000 Greek copies, not 25 000

Well, that tells me that you don't really read what I write. I explained that to you. I said there were 5,000 Greek copies and 20,000 Greek quotations of the NT by the early church fathers. Those quotations are so numerous that we could actually re-assemble almost the entire NT from just the quotations.

2. Not even two copies agree totally. Name two.
There are thousands of changes betwen them, there are collations online you can study, if you want to be honest.

All of the Greek copies agree. That's why we know that the Bible was not tampered with and changed. We have enough copies over nearly 4 centuries and the later copies agree completely with the early copies.

 

[trophy33]

Wrong. They are completely historical.

You are one of few who have this opinion.

I didn't say that inspiration was dictation.

If you belive that evey word is inspired, then you must belive in a dictation. If you are saying that human authors were allowed to use their own words, then we are again in what you do not want to accept, that they used their vocabulary and their worldview.

And the Bbile doesn't say the earth was flat

"For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them"
1 Sam 2:8 NASB

"And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Lk 4:5

"Have you [even] considered how wide the earth is? Tell me, if you know all of this!"
Jb 38:18

"and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth"
Rev 20:8

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"
Job 38:13

nor does it say that kidneys are one's center of thinking.

Job 19:27, Ps 16:7

Also look at: Ps 7:10, Jer 11:20, Jer 17:10, Jer 20:12, Rev 2:23

 

[trophy33]

All of the Greek copies agree. That's why we know that the Bible was not tampered with and changed. We have enough copies over nearly 4 centuries and the later copies agree completely with the early copies.

This is not true, at all.
Name two (longer texts) copies that completely agree with each other.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, Christians believe in apostolic/nicean creeds.
The belief that every word in Bible is inspired and that there is no error sounds more like the KJV only camp than Christianity.

That's right. Well said.

 

[Justified112]

You are one of few who have this opinion.

No, I am not one of the few. There are many who know it is historical because the grammar and structure is that of a historical narrative. That's just basic fact.

If you belive that evey word is inspired, then you must belive in a dictation.

No, because that is not what inspiration means.

If you are saying that human authors were allowed to use their own words, then we are again in what you do not want to accept, that they used their vocabulary and their worldview.

God did not circumvent their personalities or anything else. I am saying that the information contained in the Bible does not find its origin in man. They used their own words, but those words communicated what God inspired them to write.

 

[Justified112]

This is not true, at all.
Name two (longer texts) copies that completely agree with each other.

Yes it is true. You can test what I said.

 

[Justified112]

This is not true, at all.
Name two (longer texts) copies that completely agree with each other.

To be honest, I am not going keep debating someone who doesn't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. We have no common ground on that and frankly, there is no reason to continue an unfruitful conversation with you. I can find more profitable ways to use my time. Consider yourself on ignore from here on out.

 

[JacksBratt]

They say, pictures don't lie but that doesn't apply to the FE crowd. Some say black is white and others say we don't really exist and everything is a grand illusion.

Who say's pictures don't lie?

We are lied to every time we watch a movie. One judge, even ten years ago, stated, in reference to digital photography... "a photograph will no longer be admissible in a court of law"....

What kind of proof would convince you, apart from asking me to pay $250,000 for your trip into space on Richard Branson's mini shuttle.

What would convince me? How about an unedited, one continual video of a rocket, going from the ground... straight up into space... with cameras pointing up, sideways and down... without fish eye lenses up until they are in space..

Every NASA video is multi edited, multi cameras, fish eye lenses and no continuation.. it always shows the rocket going up... then curves out over the sea.. goes parallel to the earth and then POOF... their in space. And.. they always use a fish eye lens....Fish eye lenses are for close ups... not landscape type photography.. you would use a fish eye, or "macro" lens for insects or flowers.. not mountain ranges and prairies......

As for seeking, God decides who will find it and who won't. The scriptures are very clear about this, so some seek and go to their grave never finding it.


The problem is, people don't know what they're actually looking for. So how will they know if they've found it. Can I ask what it is you're seeking.

Unless God draws you to Himself and reveals the truth to you, you will never find it.

Matt. 13:10-16

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

The above scripture does tell us that there are some to whom God has given the gift of understanding so they can receive the truth.
While others to whom it has not been given cannot receive the truth or salvation.
So that's what I was trying to say, how can a person know what the truth is unless they have it within them in the first palce. God must first give the person the gift of the truth, then they will recognize it when they hear it.

Are you telling me with the assumption that I'm wrong... you're wrong... or we are both searching and the truth is still to be found?

The problem is... the one stating this assumes that they are right.

 

[JacksBratt]

So part of NASA is operating under the assumption that the earth is a sphere and the part is operating under the assumption that the earth is flat? So how would NASA function?

Isn't everyone functioning under the assumption that the earth is a globe?

Only a few in NASA know the truth....

And yes, we made it to the moon. And we put reflector devices up on the moon that can be hit with lasers and data sent back to earth as proof of our previous trip to the moon.

OH... please.. they were bouncing light beams off the moon before that... remember, the moon is a reflective surface... right..

This thread is not about the moon hoax.. that is well covered in others.

 

[Justified112]

Isn't everyone functioning under the assumption that the earth is a globe?

Only a few in NASA know the truth....

And anyone who has been to the top of the Empire State Building. I have and you can see the curvature of the earth from up there.

OH... please.. they were bouncing light beams off the moon before that... remember, the moon is a reflective surface... right..

This thread is not about the moon hoax.. that is well covered in others.

No, these are lunar laser reflector arrays . You cannot bounce lasers off of the moon surface.

 

[The Barbarian]

Every NASA video is multi edited, multi cameras, fish eye lenses and no continuation.. it always shows the rocket going up... then curves out over the sea.. goes parallel to the earth and then POOF... their in space. And.. they always use a fish eye lens....Fish eye lenses are for close ups... not landscape type photography..

Guess how I know you're not a photographer?

The term fisheye was coined in 1906 by American physicist and inventor Robert W. Wood based on how a fish would see an ultrawide hemispherical view from beneath the water (a phenomenon known as Snell's window).[1][5]:145 Their first practical use was in the 1920s for use in meteorology[3][6] to study cloud formation giving them the name "whole-sky lenses". The angle of view of a fisheye lens is usually between 100 and 180 degrees[4] while the focal lengths depend on the film format they are designed for.
Fisheye lens - Wikipedia

you would use a fish eye, or "macro" lens for insects or flowers.. not mountain ranges and prairies......

No. And a fisheye is not the same thing as a macro lens. A macro lens is optimized for very close work; if it took in a wide angle, it would be less useful for typical macro subjects:

 

[JacksBratt]

And anyone who has been to the top of the Empire State Building. I have and you can see the curvature of the earth from up there.

Actually, not even airliners fly high enough.. according to NASA and Neil DeGrass..

Well, they used to say you could see it from 35000ft.. but now, for some reason, you cannot...according to NASA.

No, these are lunar laser reflector arrays . You cannot bounce lasers off of the moon surface.

Actually, they did it before we faked the moon landing..

Here: from wiki.Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia


The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length

 

[JacksBratt]

Guess how I know you're not a photographer?

The term fisheye was coined in 1906 by American physicist and inventor Robert W. Wood based on how a fish would see an ultrawide hemispherical view from beneath the water (a phenomenon known as Snell's window).[1][5]:145 Their first practical use was in the 1920s for use in meteorology[3][6] to study cloud formation giving them the name "whole-sky lenses". The angle of view of a fisheye lens is usually between 100 and 180 degrees[4] while the focal lengths depend on the film format they are designed for.
Fisheye lens - Wikipedia



No. And a fisheye is not the same thing as a macro lens. A macro lens is optimized for very close work; if it took in a wide angle, it would be less useful for typical macro subjects:

You are right. I stand corrected.. fish eye and macro are not the same. My error.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And we've sent multiple expeditions to Antarctica, and there's no "edge" there.

Yes, "Close to the Edge" classic album.

There is a documentary on Netflix, "The Curve" about flat earthers. It is really sad. Som epeople cant help themselves.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, "Close to the Edge" classic album.

There is a documentary on Netflix, "The Curve" about flat earthers. It is really sad. Som epeople cant help themselves.

My word... that's quoting an old post.. wow...

However, they must have found something down there..

Admiral Byrd was to go down there and do a thorough expedition. They had a huge amount of supplies and resources.

But, it was cut short.... very short. They rushed back and both Russia and the US started to fire nukes into the high atmosphere... WHY?

I do like the name of that operation too. It was part of the "Dominique" program and was "Operation Fish Bowl".. Now, "Dominique" means "Of the LORD"...

SO.. the whole thing was "Operation Fish Bowl of the Lord"... Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Not only that but after shooting all these nukes up higher and higher.. they began a contest to see who could drill the deepest into the earth...

Let me ask you... if you found that you were in a confined space.. would you not want to find out.. 1/ how high it is (high altitude nukes) and 2/ how deep it is ( drill as deep as you can)?

Anyway, whatever Admiral Byrd found, he came back and stated that there was an area larger than the continental US beyond the south pole... WHat?

And that there were air craft that could fly from pole to pole in no time at all.... hmmmm.

They may not have found the edge.. but what did they find... they certainly found something.. they set up the Antarctic treaty and it has stood since then with no country daring to breach it.

Something smells of fish in Antarctica.

 

[JackRT]

They were employing a knowledge of science, mathematics and physics that were quite advanced, even by our own standards today.

That is quite untrue. They did have a certain understanding of engineering from a basis of trial and error. They did have a good understanding of mathematics but of a
rather cumbersome nature. They were just beginning to get a bit of scientific understanding but were greatly hampered by not yet having the scientific method. To say "even by our own standards today" is quite simply ridiculous. I can certainly appreciate how much they were able to accomplish with what they had.

 

[Justified112]

That is quite untrue. They did have a certain understanding of engineering from a basis of trial and error. They did have a good understanding of mathematics but of a
rather cumbersome nature. They were just beginning to get a bit of scientific understanding but were greatly hampered by not yet having the scientific method. To say "even by our own standards today" is quite simply ridiculous. I can certainly appreciate how much they were able to accomplish with what they had.

Nope. That is not true and ancient Roman engineering displays an incredibly advanced understanding of both physics and engineering. Even the ancient Egyptians were using Pi before the Greeks codified it.

 

[JackRT]

Nope. That is not true and ancient Roman engineering displays an incredibly advanced understanding of both physics and engineering. Even the ancient Egyptians were using Pi before the Greeks codified it.

I agree. Their engineering was superb but it was derived from centuries of trial and error and common sense. The actual scientific principles came very much later.

 

[d taylor]

The flat earth is not biblical. The Bible actually says that God created the earth in six days; so a young earth IS biblical. But you don't even the believe the Bible was inspired by God, so why would that matter to you?

God's creation as the creation is spoken about in the Bible is a flat, stationary creation. There is no outer space/universe, only a heaven and earth is mention as being created by God.
The sun, moon and stars all are said to have different glories. The moon is a created light, not a reflector of the sun's light.

The sun moves over the earth along with the moon and stars. Which all three are placed in the raqia God created that is placed over the earth
The raqia separates waters below from the waters above the earth.

All the above mentioned, is from the Bible and is completely opposite description to sciences lies about God's creation.

So either believe God's creation given in the Bible or believe pagan men and their lies about God's creation.

 

[Justified112]

God's creation as the creation is spoken about in the Bible is a flat, stationary creation. There is no outer space/universe, only a heaven and earth is mention as being created by God.
The sun, moon and stars all are said to have different glories. The moon is a created light, not a reflector of the sun's light.

The sun moves over the earth along with the moon and stars. Which all three are placed in the raqia God created that is placed over the earth
The raqia separates waters below from the waters above the earth.

All the above mentioned, is from the Bible and is completely opposite description to sciences lies about God's creation.

So either believe God's creation given in the Bible or believe pagan men and their lies about God's creation.

None of that is from the Bible; rather, it is the product of a sloppy approach to the Bible.