Round 3D Earth - flat Maps - sphere

[The Liturgist]

More like incomprehension that any sort of Christian can be so distrusting of physics and astronomy and geography and geology as to put non-systematic statements of the Bible over what we ought to know of our planet.

Well that’s what I had meant by bemused, in that I myself feel the way you do, which I think is a correct use of the verb bemused (which does not mean amused - there is nothing delightful or funny about this, but there is much which is baffling and bewildering, that people would deny such a fundamental reality and then attempt to impugn the Christian faith of those who do not agree with them).

 

[The Liturgist]

It is a fundamental betrayal of truth while thinking one is committed to it.

I agree, which is why along with @prodromos and @Jipsah and other users, including now our Adventist friend @BobRyan , I have been seeking to point this out.

 

[Edwin Wright]

I'm not sure it's bemusement. More like incomprehension that any sort of Christian can be so distrusting of physics and astronomy and geography and geology as to put non-systematic statements of the Bible over what we ought to know of our planet. It is a fundamental betrayal of truth while thinking one is committed to it. We know that people have walked across Antarctica. We know that people have flown over Antarctica. We know people have observed the apparent path of the sun in Antarctica observing what can only be possible from a spheroid. We can predict eclipses. We can measure the radius of the earth. We can observe the earth from space. I have a picture taken by the Apollo astronauts showing a LEM descending to the surface of the moon with the earth in the background. The earth IS spheroid. Maintaining that it is not is incomprehensible. The mental gymnastics involved in maintaining the earth is flat are breathtaking. I get it that a Fundamentalist might be tempted to engage in that endeavor. After all, if the Bible says the earth is flat then it's a done deal. Except in Job the earth is a sphere hanging from a string. For a Catholic to fall into the same cognitive trap because such and such Church Father said something like that, or some pope said something like that, is an infalliblism that is astounding. We may as well go out and bless all homosexual partnerships, have to bless them even, because pope Francis approved of it. Argh.

The issue at hand is Challoner's mistranslation of the word compass (from the original Douay-Rheims) or gyrum (from the Latin Vulgate) as globe (in his revision). You are obviously not equipped to address that issue.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Indeed: unlike the original Douai-Rheims, it is actually a complete translation.

As you may know, the original Douay-Rheims Holy Bible was heavily suppressed in seventeenth England, leading to the martyrdom of many Catholic Englishmen. By the time the suppression was lifted, the only revision required was that of modernizing the spelling, not changing the words. Challoner would have known Latin well enough to have read gyrum terrae as compass of the earth. But he chose to revise the phrase as globe. The link that I provided explains the logical impossibility of Challoner's revision. Moreover, he eliminated probably a thousand pages of notes and annotations from the original Douay-Rheims. You don't call that corruption or malice? I do.

But, yes, your responses are strawman because you have not dealt with the fact of Challoner's mistranslation of the phrase, an obviously verifiable fact, but instead have cast dispersions on the sources and have introduced new arguments that in your view are subsumed under the heliocentric model. Focus on the fact of the argument at hand and avoid tangential arguments. Do you agree that Challoner's globe of the earth is a corruption of the original Douay-Rheims' compass of the earth? YES or NO?

 

[Edwin Wright]

Indeed: unlike the original Douai-Rheims, it is actually a complete translation.

E

Indeed: unlike the original Douai-Rheims, it is actually a complete translation.



The Catholic Encyclopedia does not have “a 1909 edition”. It has a first edition, published in 1905-1912, and a slightly enlarged second edition published 1913-14 with some later supplements in 1918 and 1922. Furthermore, you should be aware that it is not an official publication of the Roman Catholic Church (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and is known to be obsolete on several key issues.

Also, I am sure my traditional Catholic friend @chevyontheriver would share my bemusement at a Roman Catholic arguing for a flat Earth. I’m pretty sure that contradicts the writings of several known Catholic saints, since there was, you know, the whole evangelization of Africa, South America and the South Pacific, which would have been impossible on a flat Earth for reasons relating to distance.

Indeed: unlike the original Douai-Rheims, it is actually a complete translation.

Evidence please.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The issue at hand is Challoner's mistranslation of the word compass (from the original Douay-Rheims) or gyrum (from the Latin Vulgate) as globe (in his revision). You are obviously not equipped to address that issue.

Thank you very much for telling me what I am obviously not equipped to address. Spoken as if you were somehow equipped to know what I am equipped or not equipped to address or not address.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Thank you very much for telling me what I am obviously not equipped to address. Spoken as if you were somehow equipped to know what I am equipped or not equipped to address or not address.

Your response confirms my point.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Your response confirms my point.

And yours mine.

 

[Edwin Wright]

And yours mine.

Again, you have not addressed the issue at hand.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Again, you have not addressed the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is found in the OP. Literally it is "The large number of observed lunar eclipses at every position all over the sky -- proves the earth is round -- and in fact is a sphere."

You only showed up in post 29 of this thread and then tried to make it about your take on it. Care to address post one? Or are you not concerned to address the actual issue at hand as found in the OP?

 

[Edwin Wright]

The issue at hand is found in the OP. Literally it is "The large number of observed lunar eclipses at every position all over the sky -- proves the earth is round -- and in fact is a sphere."

You only showed up in post 29 of this thread and then tried to make it about your take on it. Care to address post one? Or are you not concerned to address the actual issue at hand as found in the OP?

Here we go again, and so I'll say it again: You are not equipped to address the issue with the Challoner revision error or you would have addressed it by now. If you are not able to speak to the matter, fine, just exit the thread.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Here we go again, and so I'll say it again: You are not equipped to address the issue with the Challoner revision error or you would have addressed it by now. If you are not able to speak to the matter, fine, just exit the thread.

And you are not equipped to answer the OP or you would have addressed that by now. If you are not able to speak to the matter, fine, just exit the thread.

 

[prodromos]

And you are not equipped to answer the OP or you would have addressed that by now. If you are not able to speak to the matter, fine, just exit the thread.

I've come to realise that the centre of the flat earth universe is not the Earth, it is the flat earther. Everything 'has' to revolve around them and their arguments.

 

[Edwin Wright]

And you are not equipped to answer the OP or you would have addressed that by now. If you are not able to speak to the matter, fine, just exit the thread.

You're confused. I entered this discussion at post #29 in response to @BobRyan quoting Isaiah 40:22 from the corrupted Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible. My response addressed that specific issue, the issue being Challoner's mistranslation of gyrum terrae. Neither you nor anyone else on this forum has added anything relevant to that specific issue, so I consider the matter closed.

 

[Edwin Wright]

I've come to realise that the centre of the flat earth universe is not the Earth, it is the flat earther. Everything 'has' to revolve around them and their arguments.

Your comment is obviously irrelevant to this discussion. But I am not surprised.

 

[chevyontheriver]

... so I consider the matter closed.

Cool.