The Flat Earth Bible

[Astrophile]

Okay ... let's look at the first one.

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

If this is speaking of a flat earth, is drawing a circle on a globe, then standing over that circle and looking down, the same thing as saying that globe is flat? of course not.

And as far as what is specifically meant by "the circle of the earth" isn't clear.

Was it the Article circle, before the Arctic circle was drawn (i.e., an anachronism)?

Was it a line of latitude before latitudes were lined (i.e., an anachronism)?

Was it some circle on a map known to Isaiah and his generation?

To say it is referencing a flat earth is overlooking too many other explanations.

Isaiah 40 was written around 530 BC, at about the same time that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (ca. 580-500 BC) was saying that the Earth is a sphere floating freely in space. Pythagoras may have got the idea from the Babylonians. If Isaiah was saying that the Earth is spherical, he may have got the idea from the same source.

 

[Astrophile]

Need to get off this topic, it is off topic!

Now you're being......... Of course there is no such date in the bible!! It is listed as a sign that occurs before the 2nd coming of Jesus!! That just happens to be the most heavy, display of falling stars, (meteors)

Its hourly rate is an impressive 50 to 60 meteors per hour. A few Arieotds may be seen each year just before sunrise. Because of the effects of perspective, the meteors from meteor showers appear to radiate from one point in the sk.
Here's what to expect. On their peak night, which occurs overnight on Tuesday (April 21) and into the early hours of Wednesday (April 22), as many as 10 to 20 meteors per hour may be visible under dark, clear skies. ... The peak usually lasts for just a few hours.
The Leonid meteor storm was seen across the United States in the night and early morning of November 12th and 13th, 1833. Those who were awake to witness the storm were in awe as between 50,000 and 150,000 meteors fell each hour.

This is not date setting for the 2nd coming. It is one of the signs of His 2nd coming. That date is the heaviest display of falling meteors---I was not saying that this is THE one that the bible is talking about----it is certainly the heaviest display. Something that possibly occurred 4 billions years ago certainly doesn't qualify for a sign that is to occur before the return of Jesus.

This is more than enough time spend on this---it happened, it is documented, it is one of the signs not THE SIGN. Will there be a heavier one? maybe. I will make no further comments on this!! I do not wish to be accused of being responsible for this thread shutting down!!

The greatest meteor storm ever observed was the Leonid storm of 17th November 1966, which was visible from the western United States. The storm reached a rate of about 60,000 meteors per hour over a period of 40 minutes. The Leonids are associated with Periodic Comet Tempel-Tuttle, which has an orbital period of 33 years. There is nothing supernatural about these events.

 

[JohnEmmett]

There is nothing supernatural about these events.

the comet that killed off the dinosaurs…

also stripped off the atmosphere of Mars…

that was a bad day…

~

 

[TatiG]

As I dive deeper into the Bible I have noticed that it is quite poetic in a sense as well as having an abundance of parables.

We have to keep in mind that a lot of the labels we have on things like how rain is produced for example, came after scientists discovered how it all worked.

2Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
Genesis 8:2​

Metaphorically speaking, the rains coming down were like from a floodgate of the heavens. We all know now how rain actually and literally works.

As a previous member had written, the Bible isn’t a science book. A lot of people take this very literally and I don’t blame them.
And if it weren’t for actually seeing a curvature of the earth with my very own eyes on an airplane (which many people have witnessed as well), I wouldn’t be so quick to put down any theory such as flat earth, because yes, anything is possible.

 

[d taylor]

Okay ... let's look at the first one.

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

If this is speaking of a flat earth, is drawing a circle on a globe, then standing over that circle and looking down, the same thing as saying that globe is flat? of course not.

And as far as what is specifically meant by "the circle of the earth" isn't clear.

Was it the Article circle, before the Arctic circle was drawn (i.e., an anachronism)?

Was it a line of latitude before latitudes were lined (i.e., an anachronism)?

Was it some circle on a map known to Isaiah and his generation?

To say it is referencing a flat earth is overlooking too many other explanations.

When Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth.
The earth in The Bible means land/ground, it is not a reference to a sphere covered in water, with areas of land scattered around it.

The Bible never uses earth in meaning a water covered sphere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the comet that killed off the dinosaurs…

also stripped off the atmosphere of Mars…

that was a bad day…

~

There is no reason to believe that. Mars is much smaller than the Earth. It cooled much faster. The core almost certainly froze. Which is why Mars has almost no magnetic field and therefore is not protected from the Solar Wind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth.
The earth in The Bible means land/ground, it is not a reference to a sphere covered in water, with areas of land scattered around it.

The Bible never uses earth in meaning a water covered sphere.

I will agree with you that a literal reading of the Bible does support a Flat Earth, but since the evidence tells us that the Earth is clearly not flat that only means that it is highly likely that the writers of the Bible did not know the spherical nature of the Earth. How does the fact that the Earth is a globe change God's message at all?

 

[JohnEmmett]

There is no reason to believe that.

the reason to believe is remote viewing


the viewer did not know the target yet described it

 

[Subduction Zone]

the reason to believe is remote viewing


the viewer did not know the target yet described it

If you want to claim that you need to supply proper evidence that remove viewing is a real thing. You cannot build an argument on nothing. And what "viewer" are you talking about? There were no people here at that time. That was long before man evolved.

 

[JohnEmmett]

If you want to claim that you need to supply proper evidence that remove viewing is a real thing.

CIA :
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900760001-9.pdf

And what "viewer" are you talking about?

the best…

 

[Subduction Zone]

CIA :
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900760001-9.pdf



the best…

You mean the worst. That project was found to have no value. How would you test his supposed visions?

You still have nothing but wishful thinking and cherry picking.

 

[JohnEmmett]

You mean the worst. That project was found to have no value. How would you test his supposed visions?

You still have nothing but wishful thinking and cherry picking.

you are wishfully saying it is worst and false

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are wishfully saying it is worst and false

No, the CIA themselves admitted that it was not reliable. That is why it was declassified. If something works and the other side does not have it it never gets declassified.

 

[JohnEmmett]

No, the CIA themselves admitted that it was not reliable. That is why it was declassified.

that's not exactly why

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's not exactly why

Really? Then tell us why. You should see if you can find a valid source. Your one source was a supposed remote viewer of Mars. What claims of his have been verified? How would you refute his claims? If you cannot answer those questions you do not have evidence. You only have a tall tale from a failed project.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Really? Then tell us why.

… it matters not

 

[Subduction Zone]

… it matters not

It does too. If you want to claim to have "evidence" you need to be able to show how the evidence is reliable. You failed at doing that you therefore do not have any evidence.

 

[JohnEmmett]

It does too. If you want to claim to have "evidence" you need to be able to show how the evidence is reliable. You failed at doing that you therefore do not have any evidence.

for the sake of debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

for the sake of debate?

For your own sake as well.

 

[JohnEmmett]

For your own sake as well.

actually these topics are trivial


they're merely interesting…


nor does it matter to convince anyone