Questions for Flat Earthers

[Jimmy D]

Sydney to Santiago 12 hours 45 minutes
Sydney to London 22 hours 40 minutes with 1 stop

How does that work?


Well blow me down, who would have thought?

I took that from a post a made a while back, I should probably have included the 'flat earth map'......

 

[Strathos]

Without any relation to the topic or the thread,
just a footnote you might say,
yes. And yes.

It turns out that every single person who ever lived, except the flat earthers, is in on the conspiracy.

Which technically means it isn't fooling anyone, but they still keep it up for some reason...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It turns out that every single person who ever lived, except the flat earthers, is in on the conspiracy.

Which technically means it isn't fooling anyone, but they still keep it up for some reason...

Without supporting the flat earth, nor even considering it,

God's Word says that much much much worse is true for basically everyone on earth!

Thus the AMAZING GRACE , even more amazing,
seeing what anyone can be or has been saved from.

As God says "the whole world will be deceived (not a small part of it), by pharmakeia", and so it has been.

So if the flat-earthers can find truth anywhere, they are welcome to ,
and likewise the round ones too ! At all costs, find truth !
(I don't think flat or round will matter to anyone very soon - I don't think anyone will care, very soon) ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Which technically means it isn't fooling anyone, but they still keep it up for some reason...

Ya ... you guys remind us over and over and over and over and over how the Bible speaks of a flat earth.

Then when some Bible believer actually believes it, you guys scratch your heads and act surprised.

Let me give you educatees a sound piece of advice: Be careful how you interpret the Bible; someone just might believe it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me give you educatees a sound piece of advice: Be careful how you interpret the Bible; someone just might believe it.

Indeed, someone might believe in a literal six day creation, or that bats are all one "kind", and that poodles are a different species from cocker spaniels, or that there's a water dome over a flat earth, or any host of false and silly things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Demons and humans have come up with many devices ....

YHWH'S Word and YHWH'S Way remains pure and unchanged.

 

[USincognito]

3) Planes do not take into account curvature (This is confirmed by a leveler tool, an experiment anyone can do). NASA takes into account the curvature during rocket launches. You CANNOT have it both ways.

Planes don't take the curvature of the earth into account because they fly at a constant altitude and their flight path is inherently parabolic.
Does a jet aircraft need to constantly adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth?

 

[Strathos]

Ya ... you guys remind us over and over and over and over and over how the Bible speaks of a flat earth.

Then when some Bible believer actually believes it, you guys scratch your heads and act surprised.

Let me give you educatees a sound piece of advice: Be careful how you interpret the Bible; someone just might believe it.

Except I never claim the Bible says that, except via flawed interpretations.

 

[Jimmy D]

Planes don't take the curvature of the earth into account because they fly at a constant altitude and their flight path is inherently parabolic.
Does a jet aircraft need to constantly adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth?

Don't confuse him with facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except I never claim the Bible says that, except via flawed interpretations.

Okay.

My apologies.

 

[Oldmantook]

Herein lies the crux of the failure of your argument.
As an academic with advanced degrees in multiple subjects, you no doubt understand the concept of verification am I right?
If a claim is made, it must be tested in order to determine if the claim being made is a verified fact.
As an advanced degree holder is the underlined sentence true or false?

I hope the answer is "true" because this will illustrate that you are able to distinguish between fact and faith. (I want to acknowledge that for many, their faith is as unshakable as if it were fact and that is commendable)

When a claim, thesis, or untested statement of fact is made it it must be tested if it is to be proven true or false. If a claim is tested and it is proven false, the next step is to either test further (again) or eliminate the claim as it has been proven false. One of the least productive and most destructive things to do in the search for truth is to eliminate or alter the test and reassert the original claim as true.

What you have said (above) is a perfect example of that. Let's go right to the heart of the argument:

This is what I was talking about. You don't make the satellites conform to his statements. You judge his statements by the data received from the satellites. That is the same thing as changing the question to fit the answer you already have instead of accepting you have the wrong answer but below you seem to acknowledge that you know this:

I beg to differ, there are many reasons to doubt the claim you are citing. One big reason is that ever since 1956 The US Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station has been established and has been continuously staffed since then by research and support personnel. The operations to establish that and other bases at that time were commanded by Richard Byrd. So people are living on the South Pole right now that have not confirmed a story of a separate land beyond the South Pole other than the remainder of the island of Antarctica. Mr. Byrd's statement again when compared to geological survey and other first hand accounts of the conditions at the South Pole falls short of verifiable.


The scriptures themselves do not exist in a vacuum. God didn't create the cannon of scripture out of nothingness. God did not pen the scriptures. I think we can agree on these points. The scriptures were written by men. Inspired by God I will concede however like I said, not directly and literally written by God. They were penned by man. Man, (even more specifically men) as I'm sure we can agree is/are imperfect. While God's message to his followers can be found in story, poem, song, parable, and various other means of communicating a message of divine revelation, that message did not include a large amount of scientific revelation. We don't look to the Bible for medical knowledge let we put all our epileptics and schizophrenics through an endless amount of exorcisms. We don't look to it for physics or chemistry because they weren't a thing. We mostly look to the Bible to learn how to be moral people,how to treat each other, poor people, old people, and learn what Jesus did for us and learn about what a great God we have. We have other books to look to for astrology. The Bible just isn't the best source for that. Some humans got that part wrong.

If you want to believe otherwise that's your business but be honest and say something like "I believe in a flat Earth because of my faith" I think it's just not quite telling the truth to say you believe it because of evidence.

God bless your faith though. I think it's great to believe in something whole heartedly

Let's start with your last statement first because it goes to the heart of the matter - "I believe in a flat Earth because of my faith" I think it's just not quite telling the truth to say you believe it because of evidence."
You have misrepresented my position. I stated that the Bible describes the earth as being flat and the sun rotates around it. I cited scriptures that point to that but I find it peculiar that you have not even addressed those specific scriptures. Why is that? If the scriptures don't mean what they say, how do you interpret them otherwise? You must deal with the scriptural text and not ignore it. I think I've exegeted the scriptures properly. My thoughts are that you don't believe the scriptures say what they say because it contradicts your view of our solar system being heliocentric. Therefore you would need to eisegete those scriptures in order to support your view. To assert that "some humans got that part wrong" leads to a slippery slope argument inviting the obvious question as to where else in the Bible did humans get it wrong. If all Scripture is inspired by God according to 2 Tim 3:16 it is impossible for me to believe that they "got it wrong." Rather it is possible that our interpretation of what they wrote is wrong and therein lies our difference.

In terms of satellites vs. Byrd, you have simply assumed the satellite data given to the public is correct and not subject to error or even falsification. Your argument is known as an a priori fallacy. Properly done, one must test both "hypotheses" to draw a valid conclusion. One cannot simply assume that satellite data is correct and therefore Byrd is mistaken if one has never bothered to examine the satellite data. Yet, that is what you have done. I on the other hand, am willing to disagree with Byrd (and agree with you) if it can be demonstrated that the satellite data is accurate. Instead of assuming your satellite view, have you even bothered to to examine it further? That would be the responsible thing to do in my opinion. I have attempted to do just that and immediately came upon conflicting information from NASA itself. Just a cursory search on the internet reveals that NASA has repeatedly admitted that they have never gone beyond low earth orbit. How is that possible? Did we not send men to the moon? Do we not have satellites in geosynchronous orbit above LEO? We are told that we have geostationary satellites which operate at higher altitudes beyond low earth orbit and mid-earth orbit, yet NASA has admitted that they have not gone higher than LEO. These are obviously contradicting statements made by NASA with huge ramifications and this along with other contradictions I've come upon is why I think something is amiss and question the status quo. All you need to do is do your own research and confirm whether my the statements about NASA are verifiable and correct.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I on the other hand, am willing to disagree with Byrd

The problem here, as I pointed out in a previous post, is that you are misquoting Byrd. He never made the claim you think he did. I verified the evidence for his supposed claim, then presented it for others to do the same. Perhaps you should examine the evidence yourself then come back and tell us what he really said in the interview.

 

[dad]

Indeed, someone might believe in a literal six day creation, or that bats are all one "kind", and that poodles are a different species from cocker spaniels, or that there's a water dome over a flat earth, or any host of false and silly things.

-CryptoLutheran

Let's test your claims here and now then. We will see if there is truth or value to them.

Show us where the bible claims some water dome over the earth?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's test your claims here and now then. We will see if there is truth or value to them.

Show us where the bible claims some water dome over the earth?

I don't believe there's a water dome over the earth. But a literal reading of the Bible definitely says this:

"And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." - Genesis 1:6-8

You might be more familiar with the term "firmament" which the KJV uses, borrowed from the Latin firmamentum, referring to a firm, strengthening support structure. The LXX uses the word στερέωμα (stereoma), a "supporting foundation"; both are used to translate the original Hebrew raqiya', meaning something like "a beaten" or "stretched surface", in the sense of of a beaten bowl in its shape; here the solid surface, dome, vault of the heavens which separates the waters above from the waters below.

Taking the text literally we find God shaping the earth from its primordial state (a formless waste) into an ordered one; by separating light and dark, day and night; and here on the 2nd day by separating the waters of the primordial ocean (עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום, 'l-pany tĕhowm) to the waters above and the waters below; the waters above vaulted and supported by the raqiya', the firmament, the dome above the earth.

That's what a literal reading of the text says, because that is precisely what the text says as it is written.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

I don't believe there's a water dome over the earth. But a literal reading of the Bible definitely says this:

"And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." - Genesis 1:6-8

You might be more familiar with the term "firmament" which the KJV uses, borrowed from the Latin firmamentum, referring to a firm, strengthening support structure. The LXX uses the word στερέωμα (stereoma), a "supporting foundation"; both are used to translate the original Hebrew raqiya', meaning something like "a beaten" or "stretched surface", in the sense of of a beaten bowl in its shape; here the solid surface, dome, vault of the heavens which separates the waters above from the waters below.

Nope. You might be familiar with the word stars? The sun and stars were IN the firmament. That means it was space. Not some metal nonsense. The waters below space are those on earth. The waters above space were out beyond the stars.
Your attempt at making a literal translation equal a water canopy is blown to smithereens. Be careful next time before slandering scripture eh?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope. You might be familiar with the word stars? The sun and stars were IN the firmament. That means it was space. Not some metal nonsense. The waters below space are those on earth. The waters above space were out beyond the stars.
Your attempt at making a literal translation equal a water canopy is blown to smithereens. Be careful next time before slandering scripture eh?

So your response is basically "nuh-uh!" then? Cool.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

As usual, dad, your rhetorical skills are as elegant as they are coherent, condensing such keen intellect, raw knowledge, and a firm grasp of biblical exegesis into a barrage of words that boil down to "nuh-uh!" It is an artistic, poetic masterpiece. I am truly humbled, and thankful, for providing us all with your eloquence and profound insights. Thank you. Truly.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry, didn't mean to talk over you. Here is the low down. The stars were placed in the firmament. The waters above have to be above the stars...not above earth in some canopy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry, didn't mean to talk over you. Here is the low down. The stars were placed in the firmament. The waters above have to be above the stars...not above earth in some canopy.

And the stars, the sun, and the moon are within the dome. I presented you with what the text says, the plain, literal statement of the words as they are found in the text. Your opposition is because you know that the stars are very far away, and that the sun is outside the earth's atmosphere (that the earth has an atmosphere), etc; you are taking what you know about the natural world and there is a disconnect between that information and the literal wording of the text; that of course creates a conflict, one that you are resolving by simply arguing "nuh uh!". The problem is that the text still says what it says, and that isn't going to change simply because it puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with that.

The text says what it says, there are several ways of responding to it; it seems your way of dealing with this is simply to deny the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

And the stars, the sun, and the moon are within the dome. I presented you with what the text says, the plain, literal statement of the words as they are found in the text. Your opposition is because you know that the stars are very far away, and that the sun is outside the earth's atmosphere (that the earth has an atmosphere), etc; you are taking what you know about the natural world and there is a disconnect between that information and the literal wording of the text; that of course creates a conflict, one that you are resolving by simply arguing "nuh uh!". The problem is that the text still says what it says, and that isn't going to change simply because it puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with that.

The text says what it says, there are several ways of responding to it; it seems your way of dealing with this is simply to deny the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Adam knew the stars were far away actually. The issue is not how far they are, but that they are IN the firmament. To suggest a water canopy over earth fits the bill is screamingly unreasonable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Adam knew the stars were far away actually.

You and Adam had a chat about astronomy recently, and he told you this? Rad, how's he doing by the way? Did you bother to ask if he had a bellybutton or not? Or are you two just acquaintances rather than close friends?

-CryptoLutheran