The Earth Is Not Flat

[April_Rose]

Here's a couple:

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Psalm 33:8-9 Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

And what proof do you have that that is a literal translation?

 

[Strathos]

So the flat earther argument is that God isn't powerful enough to make the sun stop on a round earth...

 

[April_Rose]

So the flat earther argument is that God isn't powerful enough to make the sun stop on a round earth...

I'm still very confused about the whole entire thing myself. :/

 

[d taylor]

And what proof do you have that that is a literal translation?

Do you have proof from the Bible that these verses should not be taken as given in the Bible.

Dr David L Cooper.
When The Plain Sense of Scripture Makes Common Sense, Seek no Other Sense; Therefore, Take Every Word at its Primary, Ordinary, Usual, Literal Meaning Unless the Facts of the Immediate Context, Studied in the Light of Related Passages and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths Indicate Clearly Otherwise.

 

[April_Rose]

Do you have proof from the Bible that these verses should not be taken as given in the Bible.

Dr David L Cooper.
When The Plain Sense of Scripture Makes Common Sense, Seek no Other Sense; Therefore, Take Every Word at its Primary, Ordinary, Usual, Literal Meaning Unless the Facts of the Immediate Context, Studied in the Light of Related Passages and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths Indicate Clearly Otherwise.

That does not answer my question yet again. Do you have any proof that it's to be taken literally? Did Jesus not speak in parables?

 

[Strathos]

If you were to take everything in the Bible literally, you would have to believe that Jesus is a lion. Then again, flat earthers already might as well live in Narnia.

 

[d taylor]

That does not answer my question yet again. Do you have any proof that it's to be taken literally? Did Jesus not speak in parables?

like the quote i posted, any part of the Bible should be taken as given in the Bible unless there is reason from the Bible and the context that part of the Bible is found in should state other wise.

Example Jesus states he is the door if anyone enters, etc..
It is known from the Bible that Jesus is a man born of woman. So the Bible tells us that in John 10 this is not to be taken literately that Jesus is an actual door.

The burden is on you to prove from the Bible, that these verses about the earth not moving should not be taken as given. Psalms 19:4,5 and 6 state the sun moves. So prove from the Bible the earth is rotating.

What does Jesus speaking in parables have to do with verses in The Tanakh.

 

[April_Rose]

I give up.

 

[Timtofly]

This is what you claimed:

Then you say:

Now take whatever map you have fitting your initial claim and draw a line from the Ronne ice shelf (60°W) to the Ross ice shelf (175°W) and tell me how that is in any way consistent with their actual journey. If Antarctica was as you claimed above, their journey would have been many, many thousands of miles and would have taken years to accomplish, quite aside from the fact that it would have been completely impossible to drag the supplies needed behind them.

Are you saying Argentina and New Zealand are close, or on a flat earth further away than a map shows? I posted one map with their trek. Another posted another map. Which one do you think is correct? The consensus was they took a shorter route than any other trek across that section. They did not cross the south pole. Unless they do it again and walked the actual edge, would it be even shorter? You say it was shorter because the closer they got to the south pole, the shorter their route would be. Except we see that those who actually went on a more direct route and did get closer and stayed closer to an actual "crossing" did take much longer and not shorter time, nor length. Is the trek between Argentina and New Zealand the shortest Antarctica distance? What would happen if you went east instead of west? Oh wait, people still want to go south. Is there not a base camp close to Africa, or do you have to sail to Argentina first?

 

[April_Rose]

Me personally I just don't think it's worth it anymore since either way it seems to be an argument that I can't win. :/

 

[Strathos]

Me personally I just don't think it's worth it anymore since either way it seems to be an argument that I can't win. :/

You can win, it's just that they never acknowledge it.

 

[prodromos]

The ISS is not stationary, nor were the moon missions. How can you say the earth was moving and they were not. They are moving and the earth is not.

The moon takes 27.5 days to orbit the earth while the earth spins on its axis once every day.

It is impossible to stay in one position and watch the earth spin. What is a geo-synchronous orbit? They call it a position. Is the satellite moving? Or is it trying not to move?

A satellite in geosynchronous orbit will orbit the earth once a day, the same rate at which the earth spins, so it stays in approximately the same position relative to the earth's surface.

As for the outline of Antarctica. On Google maps, why is it across the whole bottom. If Antarctica is a round continent like Australia, why not show it as a round continent in opposition to Australia? Does Google go out of the way to stich it on a flat surface to avoid showing it as a continent next to Australia?

Because it is a continent next to Africa and South America as well, so where do you put it? Once you choose which continent you place it under, what do you do with all the empty space under the other continents, because it will give the false impression that there is a massive ocean instead of the continent of Antarctica. Google maps is simply following the solution which has been in use for many decades. You are the first person I have come across who hasn't understood why Antarctica is usually stretched out at the bottom of the map. The arctic isn't because it is not a land mass.

 

[April_Rose]

This topic really has gotten a bit old....

 

[SeventyOne]

So the flat earther argument is that God isn't powerful enough to make the sun stop on a round earth...

Ummm, no. Pay attention. The argument is that the scriptures state the sun and moon stood still and remained stationary in the sky. In a heliocentric model, if the sun and moon stop completely, the earth is still rotating. There would still be the perception of movement, especially between the earth and the moon, but this did not take place.

If you hold on to these scriptures being true, then YOUR HELIOCENTRIC MODEL IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Pick one, heliocentrism or scripture, because you can't have both.

 

[SeventyOne]

If you were to take everything in the Bible literally, you would have to believe that Jesus is a lion. Then again, flat earthers already might as well live in Narnia.

That does not answer my question yet again. Do you have any proof that it's to be taken literally? Did Jesus not speak in parables?

I've found this is the usual refuge when confronted with the nature of the earth in scripture. Unfortunately, it's usually the shameful expectation that scripture must somehow be dismissed or explained away in order to maintain the lies comfortably. It's completely disgusting but occurs all too often.

 

[Strathos]

Ummm, no. Pay attention. The argument is that the scriptures state the sun and moon stood still and remained stationary in the sky. In a heliocentric model, if the sun and moon stop completely, the earth is still rotating. There would still be the perception of movement, especially between the earth and the moon, but this did not take place.

If you hold on to these scriptures being true, then YOUR HELIOCENTRIC MODEL IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Pick one, heliocentrism or scripture, because you can't have both.

Again, you're saying that something is impossible for God to do, so it seems like you're the one contradicting scripture.

 

[Strathos]

I've found this is the usual refuge when confronted with the nature of the earth in scripture. Unfortunately, it's usually the shameful expectation that scripture must somehow be dismissed or explained away in order to maintain the lies comfortably. It's completely disgusting but occurs all too often.

Even though you can provide no scriptural basis for anything you say, nor any scientific basis, nor any logical basis. Flat earth fails by every possible metric.

 

[Jok]

I give up.

Arguments in here never end. Not too long ago I saw a thread that had been dead for 6 years, the OP resurrected it and said that he would rather just start his old thread up again instead of starting a new one. The very first person who replied was the very last person in the thread who was arguing with him 6 years ago, and she said something like “Well are you gonna answer the question or not?” Haha I started cracking up.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The very first person who replied was the very last person in the thread who was arguing with him 6 years ago, and she said something like “Well are you gonna answer the question or not?” Haha I started cracking up.

Well, when you ponder these weighty matters six years of consideration is not unreasonable.

Also since lots of folk here are bit older side there is the chance that annoying poster that exposed your turd arguments for what they were last time might have already died so you clearly win by default.

 

[Jok]

Well, when you ponder these weighty matters six years of consideration is not unreasonable.

Also since lots of folk here are bit older side there is the chance that annoying poster that exposed your turd arguments for what they were last time might have already died so you clearly win by default.

From what I see in here these two definitely have kept interacting between those 6 years, but it just caught me by surprise and made me crack up because after 6 years it was a reply as if 2 days went by lol