Is the Earth Flat?

[oikonomia]

​

...No, it is believing God at His (word) written creation descriptions given in The Bible (for me).

..Just like God has give the one requirement to receive His free gift of Eternal Life that is to believe in Jesus.

..So in both examples i believe God at His given word in The Bible. I do not look to some other area to define God's word, The Bible perfectly fills this need.

We as believers must consult other portions of the Bible.
For everything concerning even creation is not solely contained in Genesis chapter one.

There are things about creation important to know which He tells us elsewhere in Scripture.
His word to us is here a little and there a little - line upon line, precept upon precept.

For his words are: Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; / Line upon line, line upon line; / Here a little, there a little. (Isa. 28:10)

Therefore Jehovah’s word to them will be: / Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; / Line upon line, line upon line; / Here a little, there a little; (vs. 13a)

Do not boast that you only pay attention to Genesis 1.
With Genesis 1 do you not love and pay attention to Zechariah ?

The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zech. 2:1)

That too is God's word on His creation of the universe.
He 1.) stretched forth heavens.
He 2.) laid the foundation of the earth
He 3.) formed the spirit of man within man in order to receive God and contact God the eternal Spirit.

On the night and day of the rapture of watching and vigilant believers - SOME will be in bed at night while others at the same moment are working in the day. This implies night on one side of the globe while day on the other side.

Luke 17:34-36 -

I tell you, In that night there will be two on one bed; the one will be taken and the other will be left.
There will be two women grinding together; the one will be taken but the other will be left.
Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Surely that agrees with modern science that the spherical globe has day for working on one side while night for sleeping on the other side. Would you have corrected the Lord that the earth is flat?
Would you have educated Him that all parts of the surface of the earth should be either in the light of day or the dark of night?

I suspect you have a clever pushback for this.

Why not with Genesis chapter 1's we take Zechariah and Luke? Our Father has given us both words. We trust our Father in each and all that He says. Every word out from the mouth of God we are to live by.

At any rate before the examinating judgment seat of Christ, I do not think He will be asking us of we had a geocentric or heliocentric view of the solar system. And I do not think His priorities will be to judge us on the shape of the planet we believed.

How we lived out Christ, this will be His priorities for the saved. Notice Paul says "we" including himself. Surely he was a saved Christian.

For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body according to what he has practiced, whether good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

 

[pgp_protector]

How does that work exactly? I don't know much about the sciences as they are Satanic, but how is one a "physicist"? Like, you have a degree in it or is that your actual job title?

All Sciences?
Including computer sciences ? Like what was used to create the servers that this forum runs on?
Or only sciences you don't care for?

 

[oikonomia]

I haven’t read the thread (and I don’t think the Earth is flat) but by questioning someone’s training, are you essentially saying that average people can’t read up on something and have a valid point? Only experts? If so, that’s a logical fallacy. I imagine as a physicist you might know a thing or two about other areas of knowledge.

I think as a modern day physicist there is more reason rather than less, to consider the statements of the Bible about God.

I mean, Einstien wants us to imagine that gravity is related to the curvature of space / time around mass.
Say what ?!? The curvature of SPACE? The curvature of TIME ??

If you can make yourself believe in the curvature of space around matter, you can imagine God is three-one, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

If a physicist of today can understand or at least believe in quantum entanglement, he can also consider Christ can live in Heaven at the right hand of God and also live in those who receive Him.

If a scientist of the modern age can believe in worm holes or channels connecting different points in the universe why can he not consider
there is a dimension in which God is - Heaven in some "dimension". God can transcend our realm of time and space and also freely enter and enteract with it.

My opinion is that the encrease in scientific knowledge can give more reason to believe formerly encredible things so spoken to us in God's word.

If we can understand radio waves why can we not consider God can convey to us His Spirit to be picked up by us with a kind of inner "antenaa" through prayer and fellowship?

The is a spirit in man. And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding. (Job 32:8)

God told us that in the end times knowledge will encrease. (Dan. 12:4)
I believe this encrease in technological knowledge and scientific discovery leaves us more reason to consider the Bible though ancient, contains the spiritual truth about our nature and destiny and God.

 

[oikonomia]

I have a few more fundamental questions.

Is it always wrong for Christians to be informed by scientific knowledge?

I say there is nothing intrisically wrong if a Christians changes his view about something because of scientific knowledge.
A long as it does not cause him to doubt the most important tenets of Christian faith. - Christ as God incarnate, died and risen from the dead for eternal redemption.

Does God in any way regulate what man can find out?

I would say most likely yes as it says God watches over all knowledge. (Proverbs 22:12a)
The eyes of Jehovah preserve knowledge,

Does God ever enable man to learn new scientific information?
I believe He does. Perhaps not by revelation. But He does at times enable the wise to discover new things about the way the universe works.
What do you think?

Do you think science will EVER come to a point in which we must discard of the very concept of a Creator God?

I believe with some people this will be true because they want nothing to do with God or His authority.
I believe that Pauls words of over two thousand years ago are still relevant.
The creation testifies of the existence of a divine Creator - His eternal power and divine characteristics.
I do not believe that any amount of knowledge man gains about the universe (with many) will ever change this.

Man is without excuse, says the Apostle Paul, to not believe in a creator God because of the things which are seen.
This I believe was true at ANY age of man's culture.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness, Because that which is known of God is manifest within them, for God manifested it to them.
For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without excuse; (Romans 1:18-20)

What do you think?
Here is says all men are without excuse to disbelieve in an poweful and intelligent Creator of some kind.
It is clearly seen then, clearly seen in every century of man on earth. It will be clearly seen no matter HOW much we learn about
the cosmos macro or micro. There must be a wise and knowlegeable and eternally powerful Creator.

"Without excuse" guys, says the Bible.

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Hawking, Lawrence Krouse, Sean Carroll . . .
Sorry guys. The Bible says you will be without excuse not to at least believe that God exists.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, that is because the sun is so far distant. Flat earthers argue that the not insignificantly small difference in angle is because the sun is much, much closer. That is why two locations on the same longitude are insufficient to prove the earth is a globe. Eratosthenes already knew the earth was a globe and used the difference in the angle of the two location's shadows to calculate its size.

If, as the flat earthers claim, the sun is close to the earth and the earth is flat, then the angle of shadows at different locations on the same longitude would have a linear relationship to the distance from the location where the sun is directly overhead. The truth of the matter is that the relationship is not linear, but perfectly matches that of a distant sun and a globe earth.

If the earth was flat, then based on Eratosthenes' observations (angle of 7.2°, distance of 800km between Alexandria and Syene) then the height of the sun above Syene would be 800/Tan(7.2) = 6332.65km. The problem flat earthers have with this is that when observations are made at latitudes both closer to the equator and further away, the calculations yield greatly different heights, whereas if the earth was flat then they should get the same height calculated regardless of where they make their observations. Ergo, the earth is not flat. When the observed angles are corrected for a globe, they all end up pretty much parallel.

There was a nice little animation someone did where they displayed vectors from various locations around the world showing the direction and angle of their respective view of a lunar eclipse. If the earth was flat then they all should have intersected at some point above the earth's surface, since they were all looking at the same object at the same time. The problem was that none of them intersected but all pointed in different directions. The flat earth model with all the different vectors was then wrapped around a globe, after which all the vectors ended up almost parallel, all pointing in the same direction.

While Eratosthenes' method provided an airtight example for the earth not being flat, as a scientific experiment for determining its circumference it would fail the requirements for repeatability and reproducibility because of the difficulty of accurately determining the Sun's zenith angle.
He basically fluked it, if he repeated the experiment he could easily have calculated the angle as 6° or 8° instead of 7.2° which would result in an over and under estimation of the circumference respectively.

Islamic scholars preserved Greek philosophy and mathematics while western Europe descended into the the dark ages with the fall of the Roman Empire.
Like the ancient Greeks they believed the earth was spherical and in the nineth century AD, the Muslim mathematician Al-Khwarizmi made the next serious attempt by measuring the distance required to change the zenith angle of the star Polaris by 1°.
By measuring the distance and multiplying by 360° gave the earth's circumference.
Al-Khwarizmi did this by sending observers from a base camp first to the north and then back to the south, the average of the two distances was around 182 km which was gave a circumference value of 65,520 km well above the modern value of 40,070 km .
It highlights the difficulties in making such measurements and Al-Khwarizmi probably used a quadrant which was introduced in the second century AD by Ptolemy.

 

[d taylor]

We as believers must consult other portions of the Bible.
For everything concerning even creation is not solely contained in Genesis chapter one.

There are things about creation important to know which He tells us elsewhere in Scripture.
His word to us is here a little and there a little - line upon line, precept upon precept.

For his words are: Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; / Line upon line, line upon line; / Here a little, there a little. (Isa. 28:10)

Therefore Jehovah’s word to them will be: / Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; / Line upon line, line upon line; / Here a little, there a little; (vs. 13a)

Do not boast that you only pay attention to Genesis 1.
With Genesis 1 do you not love and pay attention to Zechariah ?

The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zech. 2:1)

That too is God's word on His creation of the universe.
He 1.) stretched forth heavens.
He 2.) laid the foundation of the earth
He 3.) formed the spirit of man within man in order to receive God and contact God the eternal Spirit.

On the night and day of the rapture of watching and vigilant believers - SOME will be in bed at night while others at the same moment are working in the day. This implies night on one side of the globe while day on the other side.

Luke 17:34-36 -

I tell you, In that night there will be two on one bed; the one will be taken and the other will be left.
There will be two women grinding together; the one will be taken but the other will be left.
Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Surely that agrees with modern science that the spherical globe has day for working on one side while night for sleeping on the other side. Would you have corrected the Lord that the earth is flat?
Would you have educated Him that all parts of the surface of the earth should be either in the light of day or the dark of night?

I suspect you have a clever pushback for this.

Why not with Genesis chapter 1's we take Zechariah and Luke? Our Father has given us both words. We trust our Father in each and all that He says. Every word out from the mouth of God we are to live by.

At any rate before the examinating judgment seat of Christ, I do not think He will be asking us of we had a geocentric or heliocentric view of the solar system. And I do not think His priorities will be to judge us on the shape of the planet we believed.

How we lived out Christ, this will be His priorities for the saved. Notice Paul says "we" including himself. Surely he was a saved Christian.

For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body according to what he has practiced, whether good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

I never said creation descriptions were only in Genesis. I mean you even posted a verse that states, God laid the earths foundation, a globe has no foundations.

Your verse about the rapture is read the way you read it because you have been influenced by science and you bring the idea of a rotating sphere into this verse. There is no place in The Bible that supports a rotating earth.

I mean even the word earth in The Bible does not mean a rotating water covered sphere. Earth simply means land/ground.

Joshua 10:12-15

 

[Jipsah]

The Flat-Earth Society boasts a membership all around the Globe.

Which proves the the US has no monopoly on nincompoops

 

[Hans Blaster]

How does that work exactly? I don't know much about the sciences as they are Satanic,

No science cares one bit if there is a satan or not. Satans are irrelevant to science.

but how is one a "physicist"? Like, you have a degree in it or is that your actual job title?

I do physics. Professionally.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I haven’t read the thread (and I don’t think the Earth is flat) but by questioning someone’s training, are you essentially saying that average people can’t read up on something and have a valid point?

Nope. Read the post I was replying to. Someone asked me a question about myself and I answered.

Only experts? If so, that’s a logical fallacy.

It would not be. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority is to arbitrary or improper authority. (Again no one has appealed to authority here.)

I imagine as a physicist you might know a thing or two about other areas of knowledge.

I do. For example, geography: the Earth is a spheroid.

 

[JSRG]

Science was suppressed in Christian Europe for about a millennium.

This statement is, as far as I can tell, about as accurate as the Flat Earth claims. I suppose it's more popular than Flat Earth, but that doesn't make it more accurate.

Now, you do make a follow up on this and explain things in a little more detail:

Any complete argument would require some detailed examination of things I am not expert in, but there is a correlation, that if mere coincidence is quite striking.

Roman science was doing pretty well in the imperial period, then science went largely into abeyance throughout the empire (it wasn't much of a thing in the rest of Europe at the time). It only returns and recovers in the late medieval period/Renaissance when revived by outside influences. Perhaps this is just due to the economic collapse of the Roman empire, but is sure looks suspicious.

Before getting into the particulars, one is struck by what seems an obvious issue with this idea that, for about a thousand years, science was being suppressed in Europe. Namely, if this is the case, then why didn't the rest of the world surge ahead markedly with this thousand-year head start? The Church did absolutely no suppression in North and South America or most of Africa (it had absolutely no contact with those areas, in fact). With an extra thousand years of scientific development, you'd think they would have gone to the moon, or at least invented steam ships.

As for the more specific things, I don't like to just repeat what others have said better than I have. Some fairly good, if long, essays on the subject by Tim O'Neil (an atheist, so no pro-church bias there) can be found here:

"The Dark Ages" the Middle Ages andPeriodisation

“When the Pope ruled England, them was called the Dark Ages!”(East London street orator, reported by Herbert Butterfield, 1931) The concept of “the Dark Ages” is central to several key elements in New Atheist Bad History. One of the primary myths most beloved by many New Atheists is the one...

historyforatheists.com

The Great Myths 13: The Renaissance Myth - History for Atheists

Many of my fellow atheists operate with a simplistic children’s picture book view of the past. This is one where the glories of Greece and Rome are destroyed and suppressed by the Medieval Church, but civilisation is saved by the geniuses of the Renaissance, whose revival of ancient thought...

historyforatheists.com

(he has as number of articles on topics like this, but the above are the two most pertinent)

The first one is, admittedly, meant more specifically as a response to something that someone else wrote, but it nevertheless covers the important factors concerning the supposed suppression of science. The second one is more standalone and addresses more specifically the idea of the Renaissance as being some kind of waking up from the previous suppression (or, as you wrote it, that science only "returns and recovers in the late medieval period/Renaissance when revived by outside influences").

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think as a modern day physicist there is more reason rather than less, to consider the statements of the Bible about God.

Physics has no impact on my consideration of the bible. (And in the practice of the science of physics, the bible and god are irrelevant.)

I mean, Einstien wants us to imagine that gravity is related to the curvature of space / time around mass.
Say what ?!? The curvature of SPACE? The curvature of TIME ??

If you can make yourself believe in the curvature of space around matter, you can imagine God is three-one, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Nope. No amount of understanding of general relativity makes it easier to find that 3=1.

If a physicist of today can understand or at least believe in quantum entanglement, he can also consider Christ can live in Heaven at the right hand of God and also live in those who receive Him.

If you want Christ to be a quantum waveform, I'll need a Hamiltonian operator.

If a scientist of the modern age can believe in worm holes or channels connecting different points in the universe why can he not consider
there is a dimension in which God is - Heaven in some "dimension". God can transcend our realm of time and space and also freely enter and enteract with it.

Wormholes are sci-fi fantasy.

My opinion is that the encrease in scientific knowledge can give more reason to believe formerly encredible things so spoken to us in God's word.

If we can understand radio waves why can we not consider God can convey to us His Spirit to be picked up by us with a kind of inner "antenaa" through prayer and fellowship?

And by what mechanism does this antenna work? It isn't EM waves.

The is a spirit in man. And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding. (Job 32:8)

God told us that in the end times knowledge will encrease. (Dan. 12:4)
I believe this encrease in technological knowledge and scientific discovery leaves us more reason to consider the Bible though ancient, contains the spiritual truth about our nature and destiny and God.

So far all you have are weak analogies and suppositions for this "more reason to consider" claim. Sorry.

 

[JohnEmmett]

(And in the practice of the science of physics, the bible and god are irrelevant.)

what about… afterlife physics

 

[sjastro]

No science cares one bit if there is a satan or not. Satans are irrelevant to science.

I do physics. Professionally.

You were by implication labeled as being a Satanist.
Welcome to this exclusive club now having two members as I was accused of being a Satanist amongst other things for practicing science.
Once again it is anti-intellectualism at work but I'll have to refer this to my sister who a clinical psychologist (do psychologists qualify as Satanists?) as to why some individuals particularly conservative Christians can't simply argue that scientists are wrong as in this in thread without labeling them as frauds, Satanists, liars and the like.

 

[d taylor]

Nope...i dont interpret God's word to say the earth is flat! Thats for sure my friend!!

Nowhere does it say the earth is flat.

You do not believe many verses of The Bible as they are given in The Bible. Example in Genesis 1, the verses state God created two great lights. But because of science you believe the moon is not a created light but instead a light reflector.

 

[Lost4words]

You do not believe many verses of The Bible as they are given in The Bible. Example in Genesis 1, the verses state God created two great lights. But because of science you believe the moon is not a created light but instead a light reflector.

Its not a case of not believing in many verses. No. I truly believe every verse.

Its just that you misinterpret those verses to claim something that is extremely far fetched and beyond all reason my friend.

You mention science all the time. The main point is, its not science that is the issue. Its YOUR interpretation of scripture that is completely wrong!

Science is secondary to interpretation. But, science confirms God's creation of a round earth, of a moon that reflects the suns rays.

You just need to face the fact that your interpretation of God's word about these things is complete wrong!

God bless you my friend.

 

[d taylor]

Its not a case of not believing in many verses. No. I truly believe every verse.

Its just that you misinterpret those verses to claim something that is extremely far fetched and beyond all reason my friend.

You mention science all the time. The main point is, its not science that is the issue. Its YOUR interpretation of scripture that is completely wrong!

Science is secondary to interpretation. But, science confirms God's creation of a round earth, of a moon that reflects the suns rays.

You just need to face the fact that your interpretation of God's word about these things is complete wrong!

God bless you my friend.

-
​

Prove from other verses in The Bible that the moon reflects the suns light.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Prove from other verses in The Bible that the moon reflects the suns light.​

You are making a case against The Bible

 

[Lost4words]

You are making a case against The Bible

Exactly...

 

[oikonomia]

Physics has no impact on my consideration of the bible. (And in the practice of the science of physics, the bible and god are irrelevant.)

Since you spend time on a basically Christian Forum, you must see some relevance to the Bible, God, and the things talked about here.
Are you dedicated to proving Bible and God are not relevant?

Nope. No amount of understanding of general relativity makes it easier to find that 3=1.

I think when we come across God we are bound to touch some things which are wonderfully profound.
The more I am a Christian the more it makes sense to me that this Person of God involves some nearly incomprensible aspects.

Some might say "Define God. Give two or three examples." But a point is that God is Someone unique of which there IS no other example.
He is holy. He is like nothing else that exists. Some have used the example of people in a two dimensional world encountering a being of the three dimensional world. There is bound to be aspects of the latter that the former find hard to understand.

God is Father - Son - Holy Spirit. Each lives within the other - "coinherance."
I believe "eternal life" is not just endless in duration. I it also infinite in quality - a life supreme of infinite quality which had no beginning and no end. The Triune God makes sense to me.

I don't find it easier to believe the universe created itself. Then it would have to exist before it existed, which makes no sense to me.

And we have Someone in history who both spoke and acted like a totally unique person - Jesus.

If you want Christ to be a quantum waveform, I'll need a Hamiltonian operator.

Whoever designed the interactions of quantum phenomenon must be a Master of the extremely small.
The same Creator would be the Master of the extremely large.

I was once musing aloud to my then teenage son saying " I wonder what is a million times smaller than the smallest quark." He dryly remarked "My allowance."

Getting back to the matter. I have no choice but to believe the largest as well as the smallest systems were designed by the same Creator.
Do I want Christ to be a quantum wave form?

My experience is that His help reaches me on a "quantum" level. I have had experiences where I needed Him to get from one day to the next. I have also enjoyed His help getting from one troubled hour to the next. I have also receive His supporting peace getting from one second to the next. And I have learned He is able to supply me with peace getting from one microsecond to the next.

So I would call Him "the Quantum Christ."

Wormholes are sci-fi fantasy.

Maybe so, like a self creating universe or an accidently arranging DNA molecule. Science fiction fantasy.

And by what mechanism does this antenna work? It isn't EM waves.


So far all you have are weak analogies and suppositions for this "more reason to consider" claim. Sorry.

No need to apologise to me.
I have already had my period in life getting a dubious rush from thinking God could not be.
It was kind of fun for awhile. "Just think of it! I don't believe there is God."

It is the dubious thrill of taking "Question Authority" to its ultimate point.
But this 800 pound golden gorilla in the living room of history - Jesus Christ, is hard to ignore.

Talking about weak reasonings and weak conspiracy theories, trying to rationalize away Christ's words and life is weak.
And as for science, I think man is reading [out] the mechanics of the universe what a creating mind put into it.
He is way, way ahead of us.

I also think God placed us in the place in time and space where we have the greatest opportunity to observe the priviledged position
we occupy. I mean the right just right universe, with the just right galaxy, the right solar system, the just right star, the just right planet.

The Privileged Planet

 

[Hans Blaster]

You were by implication labeled as being a Satanist.
Welcome to this exclusive club now having two members as I was accused of being a Satanist amongst other things for practicing science.

Sigh. I'm not sure how I could be a satanist. I don't even believe in Satan.

Once again it is anti-intellectualism at work but I'll have to refer this to my sister who a clinical psychologist (do psychologists qualify as Satanists?) as to why some individuals particularly conservative Christians can't simply argue that scientists are wrong as in this in thread without labeling them as frauds, Satanists, liars and the like.

And they wonder why I don't find the "science needed Christianity" argument.