The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Dionysios on November 02, 2018, 01:46:19 AM
-
Is anyone here going to this?
I bought a VIP ticket early in the year and looking forward to it.
http://fe2018.com/schedule/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1mM2-5b2MIF-Ir2DY68WZx_Isj7Bl-5EojE7fhJuTKip-OxevNbh_nSnc&v=h7Tnq1GT9kI
-
I am not going. However, make sure to inform them that The Flat Earth Society is not a "government-run shill operation".
-
Where's the ticket money going to? Legit question because if someone is making a profit from having you all believe the earth is flat, it is pretty much the same as peoples belief that the government profit from making us believe the world is a globe. What's stopping FET from being a conspiracy of it's own?
-
Where's the ticket money going to? Legit question because if someone is making a profit from having you all believe the earth is flat, it is pretty much the same as peoples belief that the government profit from making us believe the world is a globe. What's stopping FET from being a conspiracy of it's own?
You should probably ask the organizers, as tfes.org is not affiliated with the conference. Nothing here at tfes.org is for-profit. Parsifal hosts this place with his own money and time; we don't serve ads, and we are all volunteers. Even the items in the Cafe Press shop are zero markup.
-
One of the vendors listed for the conference uses the TFES logo for their shop and advert.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/flatearthshop?section_id=22388520
You may have authorized it. Don't know.
-
I'm interested that there are sessions called:
Biblical Cosmology
The topic: Defending your cosmological worldview from the Bible: What do the Scriptures have to say about the Earth and its place in the cosmos?
14+ Ways the Bible Says Flat Earth
Where Are We? Earth According to the Bible
Flat Earth & The Bible Panel Q&A
-
I'm interested that there are sessions called:
Biblical Cosmology
The topic: Defending your cosmological worldview from the Bible: What do the Scriptures have to say about the Earth and its place in the cosmos?
14+ Ways the Bible Says Flat Earth
Where Are We? Earth According to the Bible
Flat Earth & The Bible Panel Q&A
If you have an interest then you should sign up and go to them. Alternatively, there is an online streaming pass which is of a cheaper cost.
-
If you have an interest then you should sign up and go to them. Alternatively, there is an online streaming pass which is of a cheaper cost.
I live in the UK so it's not really practical to attend.
The online pass is more doable but $40 dollars is a bit steep to see the same sort of thing I can see on YouTube for free.
My annual round earth research budget is 0.
It's just interesting to see that their agenda and motivation is much the same as Rowbotham's, to promote Scripture
-
I'm interested that there are sessions called:
Biblical Cosmology
The topic: Defending your cosmological worldview from the Bible: What do the Scriptures have to say about the Earth and its place in the cosmos?
14+ Ways the Bible Says Flat Earth
Where Are We? Earth According to the Bible
Flat Earth & The Bible Panel Q&A
If you have an interest then you should sign up and go to them. Alternatively, there is an online streaming pass which is of a cheaper cost.
Robbie Davidson, the organiser, says 80% will be viewable on YouTube for free - apparently live. In any case, the one he put on a year ago in Raleigh, NC was viewable online for free shortly after the conference.
-
I am not going. However, make sure to inform them that The Flat Earth Society is not a "government-run shill operation".
copy
I state the difference between this and Daniel’s forum when the subject arises and that the online libraries on both are fine sources of information.
Actually, that last part is well worth mentioning to folks there looking for sources of info. I used to think Daniel’s forum had the best library, but Tom Bishop has supplemented so much material here that both are worth knowing.
Significantly, I perceive their collective hostility to the “flat earth society” is based on a lot of the same causes which motivated this forum’s separation from Daniel’s old forum in the first place. I don’t recall exactly which year this forum began, but if memory serves it was fairly shortly (a year or two) before their YouTube movement took off in 2014.
If you’re suggesting that they get a bit too tied up in conspiracy theory, then I would agree.
Incidentally, Robert Sungenis (Galileo Was Wrong) will debate a flat earther at the event.
-
I know two of the presenters already. I drove up to Seattle in 2017 and met both Darryle Marble and Mark Sargent at my first meetup. I’ve met Darryle a few times since and corresponded with Mark, but this conference will be my first time meeting the others.
I have to say. Although they’ve done well, their leaders have been flat earth believers only three and a half or four years.
Even Robert Sungenis the spherical geocentrist said he began believing that way in 2003. I first read Rowbotham’s book and believed in 1996, but I first believed in geocentrism like Sungenis back in 1994. I got him by a decade.
I’ve still got a letter that Robert Schadewald sent to me back in 1997. Maybe I should dig it up and bring it along.
-
R. Sungenis will be very difficult to deal with, more so than any RE (by comparison).
Here are his views on the UA/3000 mile Sun:
http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf
-
I've been avoiding these conferences for a number of reasons, mostly the profit-motivation, the Biblical literalism, and the small matter of them repeatedly calling me a government agent (I might be confrontational, but I don't really want to deal with that). Of course, all publicity is good publicity, so I wish them all the best nonetheless.
Last time they held one of these I was contacted by a journalist writing for the Canadian Geographic. When I realised that he was writing a hit-piece and withdrew consent, he tried blackmailing me by saying he'll write super-mean stuff about the society if I don't comply. Strangely, no article was published in the end - I wonder why.
-
I've been avoiding these conferences for a number of reasons, mostly the profit-motivation, the Biblical literalism, and the small matter of them repeatedly calling me a government agent (I might be confrontational, but I don't really want to deal with that). Of course, all publicity is good publicity, so I wish them all the best nonetheless.
Last time they held one of these I was contacted by a journalist writing for the Canadian Geographic. When I realised that he was writing a hit-piece and withdrew consent, he tried blackmailing me by saying he'll write super-mean stuff about the society if I don't comply. Strangely, no article was published in the end - I wonder why.
I’d say that hostile media is the common enemy of both. What that incident brings to my mind is finding a civil rights commission with jurisdiction, perhaps contacting his employer, and even his employer’s advertisers. Hit them where it hurts. Research and hit ‘em hard.
As to that growing strata of the flat earth community, I would say it’s perhaps similar to these forums in one sense which is that their leadership can be more mature than some of the rank and file - just like on these forums. I’ve seen a couple of I’ll advised comments against wasting time with Sungenis, but Rob Skiba told event organiser Robbie Davidson earlier this week that he’d like to eat with him the night before they spar.
For what it’s worth, I’ll try to make the leadership’s understanding of the history of these forums a bit more nuanced.
As far as the preponderance of biblical literalists in that crowd (which is far from complete vis a vis agnostics like Jeran is one of them), I cannot help. It seems that niche is theirs in the same way these many on these forums have an inclination towards agnosticism.
-
After the debate between the Protestant flat earther Rob Skiba and the catholic geocentrist Robert Sungenis, I thanked Rob Skiba for mentioning Saint Jerome of Bethlehem’s commentary on Isaiah which I actually ordered through amazon before he had even finished that segment. I later discovered that commentary on the oft contested passage in Isaiah 40:22 did not say what Skiba claimed during the debate (that Jerome therein rejected the globe theory) Jerome objectively stated how both sides used the passage.
Skiba in person actually responded to my appreciation by saying that Jerome believed the earth is a globe (which is opposite of what he said in the debate). I angrily responded stating that I have a whole flat earth cosmography book written by Saint Jerome which was translated from Latin to English and published within the past decade. I then asked where he gets his information, and he sheepishly responded that he relied upon Robert Sungenis’s book ‘Flat Earth, Flat Wrong’.
For this and several other things he said, Rob Skiba was for me the biggest disappointment of the conference - more than Logan Paul.
That said, the conference was a blast. From several conversations and from what I knew of him already, I would say Bob Knodel is perhaps the most competent of the speakers. Bob Knodel’s colleague Jeran Campanella gave me a ride to the billboard meetup. I also thought all of his output was great. Dave Marsh from the UK and Rich Hopkins gave notably outstanding presentations on the moon.
Had great times and conversations with all of them. Paul on the Plane is such a down to earth guy. Bought Patricia Steere a drink (non-alcoholic) and had a couple of good conversations. Had a conversation with Darryle Marble about a video he did with Australians and Britons simultaneously in daylight while Russia was in nighttime which seems to me to confirm the ancient Christian view of the elevated height of the arctic ice making a shadow from the sun over Rowbotham’s diagram’s of diminishing sunlight lucidity because it was bright enough to reach Britain and Australia simultaneously.
I actually learned some useful history from the spherical geocentrist Robert Sungenis who quoted a book entitled ‘Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography’ by Wayne Horowitz of Hebrew University.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Mesopotamian_Cosmic_Geography.html?id=P8fl8BXpR0MC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
The book surveys all the known cosmographies of ancient Babylon and Assyria. While the most ancient ones are flat earth, the author says the vast majority throughout their history were global earth even in pre-Christian times. The book purports to give original language passages side-by-side with English language translations.
While Rob Skiba ignorantly dismissed this evidence out of hand sight unseen, it caught my attention especially because I remember Cosmas Indicopleustes stating that the Greeks got their spherical ideas from the Babylonians. To a Christian it makes utter sense as Babylon is derided in scripture as a source of error.
-
I gave Nathan Thompson an approximately 15 minute interview concerning how I personally came into Flat Earth. Apologise that his phone died before I got much into the internet era and these forums. FYI, although not captured on camera which focused upon myself, Robbie Davidson was sitting silently on the other side of Nathan throughout this interview including the part where I described Rowbotham and the modern flat earth movement he founded as the dumbed down version of Cosmas Indicopleustes. This interview took place the first night of the conference late at night (well past midnight) after the debate.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1276465849031989?view=permalink&id=2724540654224494
-
Earlier this year I bought a hard bound facsimile reprint of the 1897 edition of the ‘Christian Topography’ by Cosmas Indicopleustes published by the Hakluyt Society which is likely the best way to have it in English.
During the conference I discovered an awesome full colour book which collected the drawings from the three chief manuscripts of this book. I immediately decided to order it the next day, but I noticed a few hours later that Dave Marsh made a post publicising this very same book which only had two copies still available on amazon. I told him that same night over a beer that he endangered my chances of obtaining the book!
Actually only one copy sold that night, and I did order it. It was in my mailbox when I returned from the conference.
‘The World of Kosmas’
By Maja Kominko
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_World_of_Kosmas.html?id=iZx7AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
-
I wanted to add that by “dumbed down version” a couple of posts above that there are no concepts in Rowbotham’s book which are absent in that of Indicopleustes except only for those needed to confute the stupidity which has arisen during the intervening centuries.
Concepts such as the daily orbit of sun, moon, and stars around the arctic north expanding and contracting with the seasons and others are all to be found in the ancient Christian model, but there are important aspects of the ancient Christian model which are absent in Rowbotham’s book.
This interview I gave was not exhaustive, but I’d like to mention a difference I noticed.
While both Sam Rowbotham and Cosmas Indicopleustes respect scripture, it is not as integral to Rowbotham’s argument as it is with Cosmas who constantly mentions scriptural passages to make his points throughout the book. By contrast, Rowbotham saves most of his scriptural quotations for a special chapter towards the end of the book. This difference is manifested in their two flat earth models. Cosmas’s model is more biblical than Rowbotham’s which is a bit more simplistic. The chief differences in their two models stem mainly from scriptural points that perhaps Rowbotham overlooked or in any case omitted. They do not disagree on science with the possible exception of the size of the sun which is perhaps the only instance in which Rowbotham outshines Cosmas who was evidently a closer student of the bible than Rowbotham or dwelt in the company of such. Perhaps Rowbotham focused a bit more upon scientific measurements.
That said, I would fault Rowbotham in this field I’m only one instance that I can currently think of: when the moon (or sun) appears larger than usual, Rowbotham argues that this is due to refraction which it seems to me is essentially the same argument his opponents use to explain away the clear visibility of objects at an impossible distance over an alleged curve. It seems to me that it is unnecessary for Rowbotham to use such reasoning. It seems to me the real reason the sun or moon appear larger than usual is simply because they are actually physically closer to the observer on such occasions.
At any rate, I didn’t mean to diminish the utility of Rowbotham and his book which are credits to the flat earth movement.
-
Thank you for the recap, Dionysios. That was really interesting to read about.
-
Thank you, Dionysios. Perhaps I will go to next year's.
I do not have any problem with scripture being used as evidence myself, since scripture, whether you believe the spiritual nature or not, represents our previous knowledge of the world. It is the handed-down knowledge of the ancients; of how many civilizations before ours believed the world worked. That they deduced that the earth was flat and that the sun moved is of importance, and should not be discarded. Of interest is that we can point out that all of humanity empirically deduced one thing, as it was the most readily and apparent, while later researchers went to great lengths to provide "proofs" for their alternate theory (which do not stand up to scrutiny), apparently under the knowledge that they were trying to convince others against the empirical nature of our world.
-
Thank you, Dionysios. Perhaps I will go to next year's.
I do not have any problem with scripture being used as evidence myself, since scripture, whether you believe the spiritual nature or not, represents our previous knowledge of the world. It is the handed-down knowledge of the ancients; of how many civilizations before ours believed the world worked. That they deduced that the earth was flat and that the sun moved is of importance, and should not be discarded. Of interest is that we can point out that all of humanity empirically deduced one thing, as it was the most readily and apparent, while later researchers went to great lengths to provide "proofs" for their alternate theory (which do not stand up to scrutiny), apparently under the knowledge that they were trying to convince others against the empirical nature of our world.
The simple task of determining the shape of the earth using measured distances, path of the sun, etc. stands up to full scrutiny.
-
I do not have any problem with scripture being used as evidence myself
I do. Well. It depends of what you're using it as evidence of. If it's of scientific concepts then that is misguided. That is not what Scripture is trying to teach us.
since scripture, whether you believe the spiritual nature or not, represents our previous knowledge of the world. It is the handed-down knowledge of the ancients; of how many civilizations before ours believed the world worked.
No, that is not what Scripture is. Scripture itself tells you what it is and what it is for:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
It is not a scientific textbook, it is revealing deeper truths and teaching me different things than the stuff like the shape of the earth or how far the sun is.
Even if you don't believe Scripture is true, it's still clear what it's purpose is. Conversely, no-one should look in a science book and think they'll find the meaning of life in there.
That they deduced that the earth was flat and that the sun moved is of importance, and should not be discarded.
It neither should be discarded nor should it be held up as evidence of veracity. The ancients believed lots of things, some right, some wrong. They believed everything was made of 4 elements: water, fire, air and earth. We now know better. Anyone using that ancient belief as evidence that it's true because the ancients believed it would be laughed out of the room.
Of interest is that we can point out that all of humanity empirically deduced one thing, as it was the most readily and apparent
Yes, if you knew nothing about science at all and just walked around and looked around then the obvious conclusion would be that you're living on a flat plane and that the sun and stars go around that. Note, you would obviously believe that the sun goes under the plane of the earth at night and the stars go under it during the day. That would be the natural conclusion from a local perspective with no knowledge of science or ability to quickly travel or communicate across long distances, you'd think that night would be night everywhere and day would be day everywhere. The idea of time-zones and other places being in light when you're in the dark would be hard to fathom without ways of travelling or communicating across large distances quickly.
As I've said in other threads, your senses are not sufficient for determining reality.
while later researchers went to great lengths to provide "proofs" for their alternate theory (which do not stand up to scrutiny), apparently under the knowledge that they were trying to convince others against the empirical nature of our world.
We will have to agree to disagree about whether they stand up under scrutiny, but most of the "scrutiny" I see from your posts on here is you simply not understanding scientific ideas and thus concluding they are wrong. If there was any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth (which there wasn't, frankly) then it ended when the space race started and we started getting real pictures of the globe earth. To dig your heels in and call all that fake and still claim the earth is flat is cognitive dissonance writ large.
-
Thank you for the recap, Dionysios. That was really interesting to read about.
Much appreciate. There are more worthwhile and interesting aspects I can mention, but I’d first like to mention an idea I’ve got because of its potential.
-
Thank you, Dionysios. Perhaps I will go to next year's.
Next year’s major USA conference will be in Dallas. The Canadian FE 2019 conference will be in Toronto. FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).
I’ve got an idea. Tom, I have to say if it becomes feasible even if it means the 2020 conference, then you should be a speaker - especially on Rowbotham and on anything else you saw fit. You’ve got the quality of information & Robbie Davidson has the platform. If that connection was made, then we all benefit.
As far as that goes, I wouldn’t mind speaking myself about Cosmas Indicopleustes. I plan to do a follow-up tape recorded lecture in Oregon focusing on Cosmas Indicopleustes in two parts:
1) history of ancient flat earth belief
2) the ancient Christian model characteristics and their continuance through Middle Ages and contrast with Rowbotham model
-
FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).
Depending on the price of admission, I'll go to that.
-
FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).
Depending on the price of admission, I'll go to that
Judging by the lineup of speakers, the Yorba Linda, CA conference will be bible heavy compared to the big one in Denver which had a more even distribution. Especially, Jeran Campanella from California (Bay area) and David Weiss of NYC (both agnostic) were in Denver but will be absent from this one. Just FYI.
Yorba Linda, CA FE Conference
Speaker Roster
http://www.qe2019.com/speakers1
http://www.qe2019.com
-
The "bible heavy" thing doesn't bother me. I'm evangelical non-denominational Christian (Calvary Chapel) though not fundamentalist and a little bit of a progressive renegade among the congregation. So I'm comfortable with Young Earth Creationists and literalists even if I don't subscribe to that brand of Christianity and scripture interpretation myself. I just would like to lurk.
But this looks to be much more than a flat earth conference. They're scheduled to cover quite a litany of subjects. I don't think I want to wade through the whole Question Everything slate. We'll see.
Edit: Nope. Too expensive for the merely curious.
-
I’ve got an idea. Tom, I have to say if it becomes feasible even if it means the 2020 conference, then you should be a speaker - especially on Rowbotham and on anything else you saw fit. You’ve got the quality of information & Robbie Davidson has the platform. If that connection was made, then we all benefit.
As far as that goes, I wouldn’t mind speaking myself about Cosmas Indicopleustes. I plan to do a follow-up tape recorded lecture in Oregon focusing on Cosmas Indicopleustes in two parts:
1) history of ancient flat earth belief
2) the ancient Christian model characteristics and their continuance through Middle Ages and contrast with Rowbotham model
That sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind speaking to them. However, the main barrier I have noticed is that Robbie seems to disparage the Flat Earth Society. His openings tend to include the "we are not the FES, they try to discredit FET with their accelerating earth theory" stump speech. And I've heard things along the lines of "we all hate the FES" from some of those speakers on a couple of occasions. I believe that those claims are unfounded, and some sort of reconciliation and better understanding needs to take place.
You may have seen that I am working on improving some of the Universal Accelerator content, to better communicate its strengths. Aside from that, having met them, is there anything else that you see should be done?
-
I could mention the idea to a few of the speakers and friends most likely to be sympathetic. I’ll also mention if I come upon other avenues which is entirely possible.
Just a thought is I’d say that their opposition to the “flat earth society” does share some common ground with why you guys departed from Daniel Shenton’s website in the first place which their movement followed after 3 to 4 years. In other words, there is some common ground there which could be exploited in facilitating reconciliation. As far as the universal accelerator goes, I don’t think there is any getting around that because it’s a genuine disagreement.
As far as content of a future presentation to that community, I could suggest emphasis on what drives success knowing the audience. Of course, never to hide what one believes, but I think any significant emphasis upon the universal accelerator to that particular audience would take off like a lead balloon. That would scuttle it rather than facilitate it. I’d say a mutually respectful agree to disagree would have to reign for that aspect of it for the reconcilement to occur.
Among other things, a much more thorough (and long standing) familiarity with ‘Earth Not a Globe’ and other flat earth literature than an audience who came into it through YouTube videos of Mark Sargent, Eric Dubay, and ODD is what brought the whole idea to mind. I’m sure there is plenty you could educate them about.
-
I recall that the last time Pete went onto the Globebusters show, he was mostly razzled about the Universal Accelerator. Globebusters was not hostile, but they were expecting him to defend his views, perhaps more out of curiosity than hostile disagreement. I would expect the same questions if I were to intermingle with the wider Flat Earth community, even if it is not brought up.
My main interest in this would be public relations with the wider community. I really don't know what the disinfo shill stuff is about.
Rowbotham is still the best way to learn about Flat Earth Theory. When I first learned of FE there was not much information online and I purchased a copy of Earth Not a Globe and read it with avid interest, which encouraged me to find all that I could on the matter. It is unfortunate that people no longer start from it, especially since all other works, books, articles, and YouTube videos, all build on top of its elements, whether those authors know it or not. Major parts of the Wiki probably should be rewritten or added onto under the knowledge that most people will probably never read ENAG.
I agree that a modern exposition of Rowbotham, especially of the Zetetic philosophy, would be beneficial, for both the FES and the wider community. The empirical tenets of proceeding only by inquiry, taking nothing for granted, and tracing phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes should be championed by all. This philosophy is of such great importance to science and the credibility of knowledge that, for me at least, it even surpasses the importance of the earth's shape.
-
One thing I'd really like to do, and which I'm struggling to get much support with from the non-FES FE community, is to actually document the alternatives to UA. I've had some conversations with Globebusters and Ben Long to that effect, and while both said they'd contribute something, they've been fairly quiet so far.
There's a disagreement within the community, and that's fine. Much like how we showcase different maps, we could successfully portray multiple (non-)gravitational models while simply stating that one of them is preferred by the Society. I think it would go a long way towards alleviating some points of contention. After all, part of our mission statement is to document FET
-
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.
In my opinion this is not what scripture states, however.
Chronicles 16:30 says: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Usually this is interpreted to mean that the earth is not moving.
Other sections clarify what that means:
Psalm 104:5 clarifies: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Another translation of Psalm 104:5 states "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever."
I read the above as the purpose and function of the foundation being for bringing stability to the earth. It is immovable and fixed in the sense that it can't wobble or totter. In Job, in fact, we read that the earth isn't actually resting on a foundational plane or entity.
Job 26:7 ESV: "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."
The earth is over a void. Further, the earth is being hung. What do you do when you hang things? You lift them up. The above word "hangs" is a verb, an action word, something that is happening. If you hang something on nothing you will have to continue to hang it on nothing. Hanging also implies being pulled in the opposite direction from "gravity".
Scripture also says that the earth rests upon pillars:
Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them."
Usually this is interpreted to mean solid and unmovable pillars.
Yet, in other areas of scripture, we see that pillars tend to move up and down:
Exodus 33:9 says "And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses."
Numbers 12:5 relates "And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth"
We see that pillars can move vertically in scripture, and are not necessarily solid in nature.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the bible on this subject is how the earth's creation is portrayed. The following is the account of Genesis from the New American Standard Bible, which I have read is a more direct translation than others:
https://www.biblica.com/bible/nasb/genesis/1/
The Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
On the second day of creation God created the expanse. What is "the expanse"? Usually it has been interpreted, under the Round Earth mindset, to mean the firmament and the expanse of the heavens (as they believe in a large universe). But this does not make sense. On the first day of creation the heavens were already created. On day one of creation God created the heavens, and then on day two of creation God created the heavens again?
I am not alone in this confusion:
https://ichthys.com/mail-Waters-Above-Firmament-Genesis-Gap.htm
understanding Genesis 1:6-8 as being an ex nihilo creation of space which was not there before does not jibe with the overall context of the seven days (the heavens are now created on day two while the earth existed before day one), makes no logical sense (for it requires light and the earth to exist outside of space), and, much more importantly, is completely inconsistent with Genesis 1:1 which tells us that God had already previously created the heavens (mentioned first) and the earth instantaneously:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 NIV
How can this verse be consistent with earth existing before day one but with the heavens not created until day two?
Even creationscience.com says that there are multiple interpretations for this section of Genesis (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ36.html) on what is meant by "the expanse," and what is meant by heaven and heavens.
The definition of an expanse is the distance to which something can grow or expand, or a vast open surface.
We read a definition at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/expanse
ex·panse (ĭk-spăns′)
n.
1. A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.
2.
a. Expansion.
b. The distance or amount of expansion.
expanse (ɪkˈspæns)
n
1. an uninterrupted surface of something that spreads or extends, esp over a wide area; stretch: an expanse of water.
2. expansion or extension
Day Two of creation depicts the Creator as dividing something vertically to create the expanse. Could the Universal Accelerator have been created on the Second Day?
It would be interesting if a biblical scholar looked at these interpretations under the Flat Earth mindset. The concepts of inertia and acceleration may have not been in use at the time of writing, or were known differently than today.
Would the wider Flat Earth community be interested in any of this? I have previously written on how the Universal Accelerator makes sense in other ways (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration).
-
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.
In my opinion this is not necessarily what scripture states, however...[snip]
That's interesting.
However, I could also make a similar exegesis regarding the shape of earth.
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth? I honestly don't know. I'm only familiar with Young Earth Creationism from a segment of my congregation. A flat earth model has never come up as far as I know, much less a UA-version of such a model.
-
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth?
I would ask, what is the definition of immovable? According to Google Dictionary (https://www.google.com/search?num=30&client=firefox-b-1&ei=MO0SXMajLc_e0wLA9YyYCQ&q=define+immovable&oq=define+immovable&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4j0i22i30l6.325735.327692..327864...0.0..0.134.1545.12j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i10.MF545cW2Wg4) the main definition of immovable is "not able to be moved."
If something is immovable, it means that you can't move it. God, however, is not man, and can and does move the earth in scripture. There are several passages in scripture where God moves the earth.
Psalm 99 says "The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake."
Isaiah 24-19 (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/24-19.htm): "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken."
From the above passage the earth can move, if God chooses it to do so. It can be shaken. It can be split asunder. It can be broken up. Reading the bible very literally, we can conclude that God can move the earth if God wishes to do so. It is man who cannot move the earth. Nor can the earth move to other causes. Further, we saw quotes that clarify that immovable may be in the context that it cannot wobble.
Would you agree that a heavy and powerful train is (generally) immovable from its track? Would you also agree that such a heavy and powerful train would be entirely immovable to an infant? Man is that infant.
If God is saying that something is immovable, we can see that it is clear that the implication is that it is immovable to man or the elements, not God. If God were moving the earth or the universe as a whole, He would still tell you that you cannot move it. The literal definition of immovable is true (to you).
If it is asserted that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, the question becomes: "Immovable to what and to whom?" Certainly not to God. And if it does not apply to God, then the Bible therefore tells us that the earth is movable -- through God.
-
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth?
I would ask, what is the definition of immovable? According to Google Dictionary (https://www.google.com/search?num=30&client=firefox-b-1&ei=MO0SXMajLc_e0wLA9YyYCQ&q=define+immovable&oq=define+immovable&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4j0i22i30l6.325735.327692..327864...0.0..0.134.1545.12j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i10.MF545cW2Wg4) the main definition of immovable is "not able to be moved."
If something is immovable, it means that you can't move it. God, however, is not man, and can and does move the earth in scripture. There are several passages in scripture where God moves the earth.
Psalm 99 says "The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake."
Isaiah 24-19 (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/24-19.htm): "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken."
From the above passage the earth can move, if God chooses it to do so. It can be shaken. It can be split asunder. It can be broken up. Reading the bible very literally, we can conclude that God can move the earth if God wishes to do so. It is man who cannot move the earth. Nor can the earth move to other causes. Further, we saw quotes that clarify that fixed and immovable may be in the context that it cannot wobble.
Would you agree that a heavy and powerful train is (generally) immovable from its track? Would you also agree that such a heavy and powerful train would be entirely immovable to an infant? Man is that infant.
If God is saying that something is immovable, we can see that it is clear that the implication is that it is immovable to man or the elements, not God. If God were moving the earth or the universe as a whole, He would still tell you that you cannot move it. The literal definition of immovable is true (to you).
If it is asserted that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, the question becomes: "Immovable to what and to whom?" Certainly not to God. And if it does not apply to God, then the Bible therefore tells us that the earth is movable -- through God.
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion. First off, Pete, great job. I thought you handled the talk extremely well. It seemed their objections to TFES, at least on the surface, can be distilled down to:
A) Rumor has it that both societies are shills
B) The societies allow too much dissent (which is kind of a part of A)
C) Competition
D) UA puts the earth in motion
A/B: Dubay had that vid a few years back about how the "society(s)" was a shill organization and somehow linked to Ferrari's parody/anti-establishment society. Whether he started the false rumor, I don't know, but it seems to have permeated through the FE community and as the main Globebusters guy said, that was the first thing he heard when he got into this so steered clear. One guy, I think Jeran, did the math on example post counts from RE members and thought that they must be paid b/c who would spend the time, etc. Which kind of leads into B. A globebuster said he deletes a lot of comments from REr's and Pete defended TFES's free speech stance and explained moderation policies and such as to why there are so many contrary views allowed here. Unfortunately, it felt like what Pete was trying to explain about debate, amassing knowledge, understanding the arguments, challenging notions, seemed to be lost on them.
It was unanimous, however, that Dubay is way too far the other way and bans everyone and is basically an egomaniac.
C) About 30 minutes in, Pete was talking about TFES growth across the forum, FB and Twitter, and it seemed to get a little tense. I don't remember the specific words, but GB's seemed to be kind of like, "That's great and all, but what we're doing is what's really driving all this growth." Have a listen again and see if you agree with my vibe sensing. Point being, perhaps, besides A/B, I think there is definite competition within the community and maybe the more they stay away from here, the better it is for growing their subs, kind of a circle the wagons approach. Where as Pete was way more open, saying, "Hey, yeah, come on over, partake, add to our wiki, this is a platform for the entirety of the FE community..."
D) First, until listening to this, I didn't realize that UA was a society "position". I always assumed it was one of several gravity-esque FE hypotheses. The discussion made it seem like it's officially endorsed by TFES. That aside, I think you can make a scriptural argument for a movable earth to support UA. But literally zero people have ever walked away from a scriptural interpretation debate having changed their mind. However, I think the issue is larger than scriptural interpretation, if such a thing is possible. A UA moving earth, scriptural or otherwise, is anathema to the wider FE community as much so as a spinning earth. The second you put a youtube FEr's earth into any sort of motion you might as well have just run over their puppy. But, it's worth a shot and a TB/Skiba debate on the subject would definitely be entertaining.
Kind of back to A/B, I threw together sort of society timeline. It's not altogether accurate or thorough, but I was thinking that presenting things like this and maybe getting the mission of TFES out to the YT audience may help in at least removing some of the shill stigma.
(https://i.imgur.com/YwynvMy.png)
-
There may not necessarily be any debate to be had. The information can simply be provided as catalyst with a question mark, and the community can decide on what is meant by these things. I am more interested in asking them if it is possible. And if so, and if there is enough scriptural support on the matter, then the rising earth can be their own idea.
We find an extract from God's Impending Judgement of the Earth:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+24&version=HCSB
For the windows are opened from heaven,
and the foundations of the earth are shaken.
The earth is completely devastated;
the earth is split open;
the earth is violently shaken.
The earth staggers like a drunkard
and sways like a hut.
Earth’s rebellion weighs it down,
and it falls, never to rise again.
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
Earth's rebellion weighs it down. The earth will fall, never to rise again. Again? Again appears to say that the earth is normally rising, or at least that it has risen before. That sentence could have been written without the "again," but it was not. Falling, rising, both contradict the supposed absolute rule for the immovability of the earth. All other versions of this passage, selectable through the top drop-down menu on that page, have the same "never to rise again" statement.
Will those who champion literal interpretation of scripture accuse me of taking the scripture too literally? Or, could it be that this information is new, and was discarded in importance by geocentric Round Earth interpretation long ago?
-
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion.
Where is this?
-
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.
-
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion.
Where is this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKm5BgCVJwE
-
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict. What is the foundation? How can the earth both be over a void and on a foundation? The most explicit description of the foundation is found in Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 3:11 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/3-11.htm): "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
It says directly above that the foundation is Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 48:13 tells us: "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together."
Isaiah tells us that God founded the earth with His left hand, and the heavens are spread with His right hand, and that when He calls to them (presumably His hands), they stand together. This reads as verification of what the foundation is.
-
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict.
This is one of the reasons why I personally don't like using the Bible as evidence for the shape of the earth either way. As a book of faith, such contradictions don't really matter. However, such contradictions are not desirable in a book of science.
-
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict.
This is one of the reasons why I personally don't like using the Bible as evidence for the shape of the earth either way. As a book of faith, such contradictions don't really matter. However, such contradictions are not desirable in a book of science.
The passages I quoted suggest that it is not a contradiction. The Corinthians passages comes from a section called "Christ Our Foundation." The foundation appears to be God, or the hand of God. The foundation is, apparently, not a plane or object that the earth rests on. The earth exists over a void, just as stated in Job.
I have looked for other descriptions of the foundation, and that is all that could be found. An eternal plane or cosmic body is not described.
If we want to talk about a literal interpretation of the bible, we should take it all literally, not some. Long ago the Round Earth geocentrists chose their own selected quotes, which the wider Flat Earth community has accepted. However, those RE geocentrists don't like passages of the earth shaking, passages of the earth falling, the earth rising, being hung, or God dividing the waters vertically to make the expanse. Not only do they put the earth into motion, they suggest that the earth is flat. So they were ignored. They were ignored, just as all of the other Flat Earth passages, not discussed here, which suggest a Flat Earth were ignored. When the bible is looked at as a whole, we see that those immovable quotes do not add up.
One would practically have to argue that the earth is immovable to God Himself as to make such an absolutist declaration. And it is difficult to see how this is maintainable.
The Flat Earth community should see that there was a lot of bias in the selection of those quotes. Unlike the geocentrists, who basically ignore half of the bible to get their immobile Round Earth, not once have I ignored a quote I that came across in researching this matter. And that should not be too much to ask of the Flat Earth community, or any student of the bible, that they should research for themselves.
-
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict. What is the foundation? How can the earth both be over a void and on a foundation? The most explicit description of the foundation is found in Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 3:11 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/3-11.htm): "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
It says directly above that the foundation is Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 48:13 tells us: "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together."
Isaiah tells us that God founded the earth with His left hand, and the heavens are spread with His right hand, and that when He calls to them (presumably His hands), they stand together. This reads as verification of what the foundation is.
I think you have your work cut out for you. For example, in your interpretation of scripture you find no contradiction in your reasoning. Yet another, for example, Skiba, interprets the same passage differently and finds no contradiction in his reasoning. Yet yours and his contradict each other. And never the twain shall meet.
In a Skiba document, "The Bible and the Still Flat Earth", (http://www.testingtheglobe.com/PDFs/The_Bible_and_the_Still_Flat_Earth.pdf) he writes,
"What about seeming contradictions such as:
Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.
Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.
Those are just a few examples of this nature. There are others, which clearly show the earth being knocked around in various ways. I think there is a difference between YHWH being able to shake, rattle and roll the earth at His pleasure or in His anger and the earth being removed altogether from its pillared foundation, so personally, I see no contradiction here. It appears to me that YHWH has set this place up to be permanent, and though He may knock it around from time to time, its still not going to leave its firmly established foundation. Yes, earthquakes and catastrophe are permissible, but utter destruction will never come."
I'm not arguing one side of the other. Scriptural interpretation is just such a hard row to sow.
If you haven't already, you might want to check out the Skiba/Sungenis Biblical Cosmology debate from the conference. I'm only 20 minutes into it, but interesting so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqbiwtRKrtg
-
Who knows? Perhaps these interpretations have not been fully considered.
What is the foundation? God or the hand of God. What are pillars? Things in the Bible that often move vertically and are non-solid.
Some of the ancient holy books even make extensive use of invisible pillars that move the celestial bodies up and down. I'll collect a few more examples of these things and send it out to some of them.
My interest is not to debate them at all, only to bring it to attention and ask them whether this is possible.
-
Who knows? Perhaps these interpretations have not been fully considered.
What is the foundation? God or the hand of God. What are pillars? Things in the Bible that often move vertically and are non-solid.
Some of the ancient holy books even make extensive use of invisible pillars that move the celestial bodies up and down. I'll collect a few more examples of these things and send it out to some of them.
My interest is not to debate them at all, only to bring it to attention and ask them whether this is possible.
I agree, it's not a debate. And your attitude is best in that considerations can be brought to be examined. I definitely think you can amass interpretation that allows for movement.
-
Interestingly, despite the fame and the insistance, the words "motionless," "stationary," and "immovable," appear nowhere in the bible in regards to the earth.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com searches across over 30 different versions/translations of the bible.
Motionless - 4 instances, unrelated to earth (https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Motionless)
Stationary - 1 instance, unrelated to earth (https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Stationary)
Immovable - 7 instances, unrelated to earth (https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Immovable)
...
The New American Standard Bible
The NASB is touted by scholarship as the most literal. From the NASB Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible): "The New American Standard Bible is considered by some sources as the most literally translated of major 20th-century English Bible translations."
0 NASB references for "stationary" (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=stationary&qs_version=NASB)
1 unrelated NASB reference for "motionless" (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=motionless&qs_version=NASB)
The relevant "immovable" quotes from the New American Standard Bible:
Psalm 93:1 NASB
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
Psalm 96:10 NASB
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”
1 Chronicles 16:30 NASB
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved
Psalm 104:5 NASB
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.
All four of these quotes seem to be saying the same thing about its establishment, the last one the most specific. This is all that I could find when cross-correlating from the standard "the earth is immovable" scripture lists of passages that speak of immobility. All are talking about its establishment, with one being more specific about the matter of movement than others.
The NASB does not use the word "immovable" for the earth anywhere in its pages. There are three unrelated references for "immovable" in the NASB (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=immovable&qs_version=NASB). Nor could any other related references be found for "not moved" or "not moving" or "still".
The ancients certainly knew the words for "motionless" and "immovable," as they use them in other areas of the bible, but it is not used for the earth.
The earth being established so that it will not totter, does not equal motionless, stationary or immovable. Those were words attributed and popularized by a geocentrist somewhere. The earth being fixed in establishment so that it will not move from it (which seems to be clarified as totter) also does not directly equal 'is not moving' or 'can not move'. Especially when we look up what the foundation is.
When assessing these passages one sees that it does not appear to literally say that at all. We also see that the ancients certainly could have specifically said motionless if they wanted to. There was language available to specifically declare the earth as motionless or still. Those words appear in other areas, of other things. In the case of "still," (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=still&qs_version=NASB) a great many times. They could have said it, but did not.
And, even if we ignore all else, which we shouldn't, and focus on four words, "will not be moved," with no other context at all, as the geocentrists have us selectively interpret; Will not be moved to what and to whom? Whatever that answer, it is certainly not something which would apply as a limit to God and His will for the world. For God is the Almighty, and also, there are numerous instances of God moving the earth.
I am collecting items to submit and will be curious to see whether this interpretation is possible at all.
-
The fundamental problem is you’re using Scripture to assess scientific ideas. If anything it should be the other way around, scientific ideas can help us understand Scripture in a different way. I don’t believe the days of Genesis are literal 24 hour days because science has shown pretty conclusively that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. I don’t see this as a problem simply because I don’t believe the Bible is trying to teach me scientific ideas. It contains much deeper truths. Scripture can be true without being scientifically accurate.
“The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
- Gallileo
-
We are discussing literal interpretation of the bible. What does the bible say and describe? Is the earth in motion? It seems to me that the earth is rising upwards in the bible.
Let us read Joshua's Farewell Address from the NASB:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+23&version=NASB
Joshua’s Farewell Address
Now it came about after many days, when the Lord had given rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side, and Joshua was old, advanced in years, that Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders and their heads and their judges and their officers, and said to them, “I am old, advanced in years. And you have seen all that the Lord your God has done to all these nations because of you, for the Lord your God is He who has been fighting for you. See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations which I have cut off, from the Jordan even to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun..."
"Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed."
Joshua is a major figure in the book of Exodus, and an associate of Moses. Joshua was appointed by God to succeed Moses as leader of the Israelites, and has a book in scripture. The Book of Joshua is a book of the Bible. In this passage Joshua is very old and is giving his farewell address. Joshua tells us that today he will be going the way of all the earth. For Joshua, presumably that way is up, not down, and definitely not around the sun. A statement which, when taken literally, tells us that the earth is going the way of somewhere; that the earth is rising upwards.
-
"Go the way of all earth" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "to die."
-
We are discussing literal interpretation of the bible. What does the bible say and describe? Is the earth in motion? It seems to me that the earth is rising upwards in the bible.
And I am asking why you are doing that.
What makes you think that Scripture is intended to or trying to teach us scientific truths?
You can interpret certain verses in different ways and your confirmation bias is making you interpret them in ways which fit your world view. But, again, Scripture should not be anyone’s go to place to learn about science. Some of the language is clearly poetic and it’s teaching us deeper truths about why we are here, Who created us and what for.
This is a different thread so I’ll start that separately
-
"Go the way of all earth" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "to die."
You are right. The phrase is found elsewhere in the bible of another good and righteous figure who was going to die. King David also says it in 1 Kings 2:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+2&version=NASB
David’s Charge to Solomon
As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, “I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the Lord may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’
I do find it interesting that a group of people who believed that they were going to heaven when they died, and who wrote the bible through God, would say that they were "going the way of all of the earth" when they died. The bible says that language is a gift to man by God (Tower of Babel), which was a gift given to a period closer to Joshua than to today.
And I am asking why you are doing that.
What makes you think that Scripture is intended to or trying to teach us scientific truths?
The ancients who wrote the bible did hold that they were transcribing scientific truth. Why would they write a bunch of things which suggest that the earth is flat if they believed that the earth was round? Why would God tell us lies or false things, if they held that it was the word of God?
Our previous knowledge of the world is important for a number of reasons. Some hold, as Rowbotham did, that this previous science was never legitimately replaced. This matter is not even an argument of whether the spiritual nature is true or not. What does our previous science say about the earth? What did we believe before? That should be of interest to all people, religious or not.
You can interpret certain verses in different ways and your confirmation bias is making you interpret them in ways which fit your world view.
Whose interpretation am I supposed to give if not my own? I had read the bible, long before I ever thought of a Flat Earth, and the motionless earth never really jumped out at me. Is it possible that I am entirely wrong? Sure.
If passages show that there are a bunch of things that say or suggest that the earth can move, or is moving, then that evidence just needs to be collected and compiled for further assessment and consideration. We have only been looking at this for a little while and already it's a good start.
Other biblical scholars (non-geocentric RE'ers) do believe that the bible allows for movement. It is not as if I am alone in that matter.
-
I would like to return to the creation and the expanse:
https://www.biblica.com/bible/nasb/genesis/1/
The Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
Day 1: God creates the heavens and the earth. The earth is water and devoid of land.
Day 2: God divides the waters vertically and creates the expanse.
Day 3: God says "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"
Reading this literally, from the most literal version of the bible, God created the expanse below the earth that we are on, not above it.
In the FE vs Geocentrism debate that Stack had posted, at one point, Robert Sungenis quotes a scholar who says (https://youtu.be/AqbiwtRKrtg?t=3340) (paraphrased) “God created something on the Second Day. We just don’t know what it is.”
-
The audience for your argument, Tom, is other bible fundamentalists who adhere to a flat earth because of their interpretation of the bible. What I'd be interested in following is a debate amongst that crowd about the biblical pros and cons of UA.
You're making an argument, Tom, but I don't detect anyone from that target audience providing counterpoint. REers playing "devil's advocate" isn't the same.
-
King James Bible
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Me thinks you have it wrong. The North is the center part of the dome, highest point, where God lives just above in heaven. This is the gathering of the largest constellations and the empty place is describing the sky below the dome down to ground level. Not easy to get to the high dome. Dome is connected at the edges of the earth and hangs upon nothing. Call it a construction miracle.
-
King James Bible
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Psalm 104:5
Call it what you must, immobile, fixed, ain't going no where baby and certainly not spinning on an axis of evil flying thru space at how ever many thousands of miles an hour.
-
Don't confuse earthquakes, which is one of God's wake the F... up calls as the earth moving from it's place on da pillars. We ain't going no where.
-
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict. What is the foundation? How can the earth both be over a void and on a foundation? The most explicit description of the foundation is found in Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 3:11 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/3-11.htm): "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
It says directly above that the foundation is Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 48:13 tells us: "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together."
Isaiah tells us that God founded the earth with His left hand, and the heavens are spread with His right hand, and that when He calls to them (presumably His hands), they stand together. This reads as verification of what the foundation is.
I think you have your work cut out for you. For example, in your interpretation of scripture you find no contradiction in your reasoning. Yet another, for example, Skiba, interprets the same passage differently and finds no contradiction in his reasoning. Yet yours and his contradict each other. And never the twain shall meet.
In a Skiba document, "The Bible and the Still Flat Earth", (http://www.testingtheglobe.com/PDFs/The_Bible_and_the_Still_Flat_Earth.pdf) he writes,
"What about seeming contradictions such as:
Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.
Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.
Those are just a few examples of this nature. There are others, which clearly show the earth being knocked around in various ways. I think there is a difference between YHWH being able to shake, rattle and roll the earth at His pleasure or in His anger and the earth being removed altogether from its pillared foundation, so personally, I see no contradiction here. It appears to me that YHWH has set this place up to be permanent, and though He may knock it around from time to time, its still not going to leave its firmly established foundation. Yes, earthquakes and catastrophe are permissible, but utter destruction will never come."
I'm not arguing one side of the other. Scriptural interpretation is just such a hard row to sow.
If you haven't already, you might want to check out the Skiba/Sungenis Biblical Cosmology debate from the conference. I'm only 20 minutes into it, but interesting so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqbiwtRKrtg
Rob Skiba is a true man of God and nails the Flat Earth through biblical writings. I've heard most his arguments so I didn't listened to the entire, but he is always on point and anyone wanting to find truth through scripture should watch his videos.
-
J-Man, I think you’re the best person around these parts to speak of the stationary FE view and how it may coincide or contradict some of the Societies views regarding UA.
Secondly, it took me a few days, but I finally got through the 2 hour debate. Some quick observations.
90 minutes+ of the debate seemed to center around the Hebrew meaning of the words ‘bet’ and ‘raqia’. Whether ‘bet’ means ‘in’ or ‘inside’ the ‘ raqia’ (firmament/dome) and ‘raqia’ meaning firm/unbreakable or that AND flexible/expanse. Literally, that was 3/4 of this. If it takes a couple of hours to cover just two words in the Bible between two scholars who share a stationary world view, I can’t even conceive how a UA model gets into the mix. Interested to find out though.
At 1:49:40 Skiba mentions what to him is an untenable contradiction, "To try and marry scripture to secular science and this is the danger of going outside the written word of God for truth.”
Here in I think lies the issue. What I gather from a Skiba perspective and from the wider FE community going all the way back to Rowbotham, it’s about scriptural literalism and not just scriptural interpretation. What I mean is, there is no wiggle room. The book is the book, and it informs us of what we need to know. No other references are necessary. And for the literalist, there is no interpretation as such. None is needed, because all you need do is read the word of god. My point is, that unless you are a scriptural literalist as described and scripture is the only reference point for your view of the shape of the earth and how it works, there is no need for a conversation, let alone an attempt to impart a theory that marries scripture to secular science.
Lastly, Skiba threw a slide up showing his view of the stationary flat earth and references a bunch of chapters. Thought it my be a good reference to go through and see what all those verses refer to:
(https://i.imgur.com/RV5o4e0.png)
-
The ancients who wrote the bible did hold that they were transcribing scientific truth.
Did they? What is your basis for that claim? Timothy tells us what Scripture is for and it isn't for teaching us scientific truth:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Why would they write a bunch of things which suggest that the earth is flat if they believed that the earth was round? Why would God tell us lies or false things? The truth is that they didn't believe that.
You are interpreting those verses that way, millions of Christians more versed in science like myself do not. Mostly because of our understanding of science.
It isn't Scripture's aim or intention to tell me what the shape of the earth is, or how big the sun is or how far away it is or how old the universe is.
Genesis tells me I'm a creation. It tells me Who I was created by and what I was created for. And it tells me of our rebellion and need for salvation, God's rescue plan is dealt with in the rest of the Bible.
That's what Scripture is about, it should not be your go to place for learning about science.
It's not about God "telling us false things" it's about looking at what Scripture is trying to teach us.
This verse is often used as a basis for flat earth belief:
Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
"Aha!", say the flat earth Bible literalists. See? Circle! But I'd suggest the language is poetic and the subsequent verses, 23 and 24, show that:
Isaiah 40:23-23
"He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff."
Planted? Sown? Take root in the ground? A whirlwind sweeps them away? Does that literally happen?
Come on, dude, this passage is clearly talking about God's sovereignty and power, it's not trying to teach me science or the shape of the earth.
Although, if you were looking down at the earth from above then it would indeed look like a circle - that is true whether the earth is a 2D circle or a 3D globe.
What does our previous science say about the earth? What did we believe before? That should be of interest to all people, religious or not.
I actually agree on this point. As discussed, scripture is not "our previous science", that is not what it's for. But there is previous science elsewhere.
There was the ancient idea that everything was made out of 4 elements
The ancient Greeks believed that there were four elements that everything was made up of: earth, water, air, and fire. This theory was suggested around 450 BC, and it was later supported and added to by Aristotle. (Aristotle also suggested that there was a fifth element, aether, because it seemed strange that the stars would be made out of earthly elements...
The idea that these four elements – earth, water, air, and fire – made up all matter was the cornerstone of philosophy, science, and medicine for two thousand years. The elements were “pure” but could not be found in that state on earth. Every visible thing was made up of some combination of earth, water, air, and fire. The four elements were even used to described the four temperaments a person could have, and Hippocrates used the four elements to describe the four “humors” found in the body. These theories stated that the temperaments and humors needed to be in balance with each other in order for a person to be well both mentally and physically. While we do know now that these previous theories are false, in a way the four elements do align with the four states of matter that modern science has agreed on: solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air), and plasma (fire).
https://learning-center.homesciencetools.com/article/four-elements-science/
That is interesting. But it doesn't have any veracity. Just because an idea is old that doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it wrong either but a lot of ancient beliefs have been superseded.
Yes, if you were living thousands of years ago you probably would believe that the earth was flat and that the sun went round it (as in over it in the day and under it at night). You'd probably think that when it was night it was night everywhere and when it was day it was day everywhere. With your local perspective that would be a reasonable belief. But we don't have that local perspective any more. We have timezones and global travel and communication and spaceflight.
Whose interpretation am I supposed to give if not my own?
Well sure. I'm just suggesting that your enquiries into learning about the shape of the earth should not involve the Bible. I don't think that is an important truth which God is trying to tell us through Scripture.
-
The Pillars
I see mention of the pillars of the earth. Lets talk about the pillars. In the bible there are two types of pillars: Man’s pillars and God’s pillars. There is a difference. Man’s pillars are always made of solid substances such as stone, wood, or rock. God is above utilizing the materials of man for his pillars, however. God’s pillars are always made of cloud, fire, or nothing. God’s pillars are always in motion through space, move up and down, and have a purpose of moving or lifting. They are not static pillars like those of man.
Here is a link to the search term pillars from the NASB (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=pillar&qs_version=NASB) with 140 results. Readers may feel free to read about them for their own selves.
Man's Pillars
God's Instructions to Moses from Exodus 27:17 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+27:17&version=NASB)
All the pillars around the court shall be furnished with silver bands with their hooks of silver and their sockets of bronze.
Genesis 28:18 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+28:18&version=NASB)
So Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on its top.
Exodus 34:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34:13&version=NASB)
But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim
Judges 16:25 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+16:25&version=NASB)
It so happened when they were in high spirits, that they said, “Call for Samson, that he may amuse us.” So they called for Samson from the prison, and he entertained them. And they made him stand between the pillars.
Judges 16:26 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+16:26&version=NASB)
Then Samson said to the boy who was holding his hand, “Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them.”
1 Kings 7:2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=pillars&startnumber=26)
He built the house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was 100 cubits and its width 50 cubits and its height 30 cubits, on four rows of cedar pillars with cedar beams on the pillars.
Man’s pillars are solid and static.
God’s Pillars
Exodus 13:21 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+13:21&version=NASB)
The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.
Exodus 14:24 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+14:24&version=NASB)
At the morning watch, the Lord looked down on the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud and brought the army of the Egyptians into confusion.
Exodus 14:19 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+14:19&version=NASB)
The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them.
Exodus 33:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+33:9&version=NASB)
Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses.
Numbers 12:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+12:5&version=NASB)
Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward,
We can see the nature of God's pillars.
Both heaven and the earth are on pillars:
Job 26:11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+26:11&version=NASB)
The pillars of heaven tremble And are amazed at His rebuke.
1 Samuel 2:8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+2:8&version=NASB)
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He set the world on them.
Now, would God be using man’s pillars for the above, or God’s pillars? Clearly, these type of pillars would have to be be God’s pillars. Not man’s pillars. God’s pillars are not solid, and move around through space for a purpose. The purpose of God’s pillars is not to be static like stone. God always purposes His pillars to move, lift, or to do something.
In light of the above, man's pillars seem out of the question. The question should be what God's pillars are doing.
-
Rob Skiba is not confused by the scriptures and neither am I. Not tooting my own horn but I am proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior, for which true believers, like myself and Rob receive the Holy Ghost, we become Spirit, literally.
John 3:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Punchline being, once you are Spirit like the Father in Heaven, biblical scripture becomes much more understanding as too it's intentions. I would never allow one without true salvation interpret it's meaning for me. Translation is another story.
Tom's waaay off base on Pillars, God is Spirit, all-encompassing, everything is his spiritual works, he is not moving nor his pillars. He is the same yesterday as today.
-
It seems to be fully consistent that we may have gotten the interpretation wrong, and that we were supposed to be confused. God tells us that this matter is a mystery to man. Take a look at what God asks Job in Job 38:18:
Job 38:18 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38%3A18&version=NASB)
Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.
Man is not expected to know what the expanse is. It is an enigma. A mystery to man. And apparently a deep and profound one. God expects Job to not understand the expanse. Perhaps, like Job, we were not expected not to fully know its true nature.
We are given a few clues:
Psalm 150:1 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+150%3A1&version=NASB)
Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
The expanse is mighty.
There is also something "like an expanse" over our heads:
Ezekiel 1:22 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1%3A22&version=NASB)
[ Vision of Divine Glory ] Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads.
Not the expanse, but like an expanse. Could it be that this is where we are going? The endless free space that is above?
In Daniel we are told the following, in relation to the subject of the expanse of heaven and eternal life:
Daniel 12:3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+12%3A3&version=NASB)
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
There seems to be both an expanse of the earth and the expanse of heaven. The expanse of the earth, from where we came, and the expanse of heaven, to where we are going (read as everlasting life).
The bible does seem to be trying to tell us something. One interpretation is that the expanse is the same thing that was discovered by Albert Einstein (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration), and that the matter happens to solve the deepest mysteries of both physics and the bible.
What does the stationary earth solve for us? What does the stationary earth do for us? What is the expanse? The stationary earth seems to be an interpretation of four words only, "Will Not Be Moved", identified and interpreted by geocentrists, ignores all else, and exists as a limit on God and His will for the world.
We can feel God's will pressing up against us, and we can see it when we step off of a chair. It seems, to me, to solve all mysteries.
-
The Earth Stands
The bible contains several curious messages on how the earth stands and is standing.
Psalm 119:90 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+119%3A90&version=NASB) tells us:
Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
Isaiah 48:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+48%3A13&version=NASB) says:
Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.
How can the earth or the heavens "stand"? One one hand stand could mean like "standing water". On the other hand, stand could mean all sorts of things. To find interpretation we can go to the bible to learn what it may mean:
Romans 14:4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14%3A4&version=NASB)
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
1 Corinthians 10:12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+10:12&version=NASB)
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
The opposite of stand appears to be fall. Colloquially, the opposite of fall is rise. Are the heavens and the earth rising, as other passages we have looked at seem to say?
Samuel tells us that the heavens also have foundations:
2 Samuel 22:8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+22%3A8&version=NASB)
Then the earth shook and quaked, The foundations of heaven were trembling And were shaken, because He was angry.
What are the foundations that heaven rests upon? Invisible to us. And apparently not a physical thing, as the earth's foundation is popularized to be. Could they be the hand of God, which stands for Him together with the earth?
The bible contains numerous allusions to rising, and how it is a good and divine thing. If the bible were to tell us that the earth were rising, that should come as absolutely no surprise. We should not be surprised at all with that concept.
-
It seems to be fully consistent that we may have gotten the interpretation wrong, and that we were supposed to be confused. God tells us that this matter is a mystery to man. Take a look at what God asks Job in Job 38:18:
Job 38:18 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38%3A18&version=NASB)
Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.
Man is not expected to know what the expanse is. It is an enigma. A mystery to man. And apparently a deep and profound one. God expects Job to not understand the expanse. Perhaps, like Job, we were not expected not to fully know its true nature.
We are given a few clues:
Psalm 150:1 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+150%3A1&version=NASB)
Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
The expanse is mighty.
There is also something "like an expanse" over our heads:
Ezekiel 1:22 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1%3A22&version=NASB)
[ Vision of Divine Glory ] Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads.
Not the expanse, but like an expanse. Could it be that this is where we are going? The endless free space that is above?
In Daniel we are told the following, in relation to the subject of the expanse of heaven and eternal life:
Daniel 12:3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+12%3A3&version=NASB)
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
There seems to be both an expanse of the earth and the expanse of heaven. The expanse of the earth, from where we came, and the expanse of heaven, to where we are going (everlasting life).
The bible does seem to be trying to tell us something. My interpretation is that the expanse is the same thing that was discovered by Albert Einstein (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration), and that the matter happens to solve the deepest mysteries of both physics and the bible. What does the stationary earth solve for us? What does the stationary earth do for us? What is the expanse? The stationary earth is an interpretation of four words only, by geocentrists, ignores all else, and exists as a limit on God and His will for the world.
We can feel God's will pressing up against us, and we can see it when we step off of a chair. For me, at least, it solves all mysteries.
I can't even continue reading your crap. In Job God is merely asking if Job surveyed the earth, knows it's boundrys, not hammered out the dome. You are deceiving no real believers.
-
Here is that full Job quote from NASB:
https://nasb.literalword.com/?h=18&q=Job+38
I won't quote it all here, but let us all go to that chapter and read it and point out my lies. I do not read much about the dome or surveying in the part about the expanse. But I do read this:
“Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
“On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
A very good point. Where were we when God did all of that?
This chapter pertains directly to this conversation, to this entire matter, and more. It was written for you and I. I encourage you to read every word.
We can't profess to know exactly what God did. One side is only asking a question and pointing out curiosities for consideration, and has admitted that they may be wrong in interpretation. Another side is professing to know all answers because they themselves are true and holy and just. Who is deceiving whom in this scenario?
-
Here is that full Job quote from NASB:
https://nasb.literalword.com/?h=18&q=Job+38
I won't quote it all here, but let us all go to that chapter and read it and point out my lies. I do not read much about the dome or surveying in the part about the expanse. But I do read this:
“Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
“On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
A very good point. Where were we when God did all of that?
This chapter pertains directly to this conversation, to this entire matter, and more. It was written for you and I. I encourage you to read every word.
We can't profess to know exactly what God did. One side is only asking a question and pointing out curiosities for consideration, and has admitted that they may be wrong in interpretation. Another side is professing to know all answers because they are true and holy and just. Who is deceiving whom in this scenario?
Sorry Tommy
KJV is
Job 38:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
God is asking Job if he knows the measurements of the earth, nothing about the Raqia/Firmament
Also the Living Bible which I think many newbies should use as KJV can be a stumbling block to fully understand:
Job 38:18 Living Bible (TLB)
17-18 Has the location of the gates of death been revealed to you? Do you realize the extent of the earth? Tell me about it if you know!
Again no one is talking the firmament.
-
We read:
http://www.preceptministries.ca/blog/esv-or-nasb/
The NASB has always been popular with serious Bible students because the translators tried to “render the grammar and terminology” of the original languages into English. And they worked at being as literal as possible. English Bible students have always wanted to know exactly what the text said so they could be the ones to determine for themselves the meaning. The NASB meets that need.
This may be another word for expanse:
NASB Lexicon from Biblehub:
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/job/38-18.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4JrXKc.png)
We click on the links to the right of the expanse and see (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7338.htm):
Word Origin
from rachab
Definition
breadth, broad expanse
NASB Translation
broad place (1), expanse (1).
...
Brown-Driver-Briggs
רַ֫חַב noun [masculine] not feminine Job 36:16 AlbrZAW xvi (1896), 94 Di Bu] breadth, broad expanse; — absolute ׳ר Job 36:16 (opposed to צָ֑ר); plural construct intensive רַחֲבֵיאָֿ֑רֶץ Job 38:18 the broad expanse of earth.
...
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
breadth, broad place
From rachab; a width -- breadth, broad place.
Link 2, "from rachab": https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7337.htm
Strong's Concordance
rachab: to be or grow wide or large
...
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to be or grow wide or large
NASB Translation
enlarge (6), enlarged (2), enlarges (3), extend (1), extends (1), large (1), made your wide (1), made room (1), makes room (1), open your wide (1), open wide (1), opened their wide (1), rejoice (1), relieved (1), roomy (1), speaks boldly (1), wider (1).
...
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
make room, make open wide
A primitive root; to broaden (intransitive or transitive, literal or figurative) -- be an en-(make) large(-ing), make room, make (open) wide.
Have we understood the "grow wide," "make open wide," or "grow large" of the earth...?
It is of no surprise why there are many translations of the bible. Its interpretation is not simple, and eludes the smartest of us.
Who can professes to understand what the "grow wide" or "grow large" of the earth is? It seems that scripture was correct in its implication of mystery.
The word "grow," as its root, to me, is curious, as that is the most consistent word. And this is all we are doing—Pointing out curiosity.
If, this is unacceptable, is there someone who we should talk to who possesses true knowledge of creation? Should we stop here and never post another word of it? What should we do, or not do, about this matter?
-
Recall that there were four quotes like Psalm 96:10 in NASB:
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”
There were four quotes like this, which we saw earlier. Three which said "will not be moved". One of them was more specific than the others, and which said that it was established so that it would not totter forever and ever. These are the key stationary and immovable passages championed by the geocentrists: "Will not be moved."
When we go to the lexicon website used above, for one of the "will not be moved" passages, we find the following:
Psalm 96:10
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/96-10.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/Vf65Dgc.png)
"Will not be moved" appears to be clarified as "will not totter"
Clicking on the link to the immediate right of "it will not be moved" we find:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4131.htm
Strong's Concordance
mot: to totter, shake, slip
...
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
a prim. root
Definition
to totter, shake, slip
NASB Translation
bring down (1), fall (1), falter (1), gives way (1), immovable* (1), moved (8), shake (1), shaken (11), shaken violently (1), slip (4), slipped (2), slips (1), staggering (1), totter (3), tottered (1), totters (1).
...
Brown-Driver-Briggs
verb totter, shake, slip (usually in poetry) (Late Hebrew id., derived species; Aramaic , מוּט; Arabic (medial י) remove, retire; deviate from right course; repel, push, thrust; Ethiopic turn; Assyrian ma‰û is dwindle, diminish, grow weak DlHWB 405; > denominative from מוט pole, bar DlProl.184 GerberVerb. denominative 195 f., compare Buhl);
...
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, falling down
A primitive root; to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
The other two "will not be moved" quotes appear as the same:
Psalm 93:1
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/93-1.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/U4jdxUP.png)
1 Chronicles 16:30
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_chronicles/16-30.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/Fo2vhHZ.png)
The links to the immediate right of "will not be moved" take us to the same 'tottering' page. (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4131.htm)
Does this clarify what "will not be moved" means?
All appear to be saying totter.
Of the above, I find the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to that word most interesting:
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, falling down
A primitive root; to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
From the Strong's Concordence Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
The purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.
-
Punchline being, once you are Spirit like the Father in Heaven, biblical scripture becomes much more understanding as too it's intentions.
And you genuinely think a book which has the aim I mentioned above in Timothy is trying to teach you about the shape of the earth? OK...
I would never allow one without true salvation interpret it's meaning for me.
So, I don't know if that's aimed at me. Who are you to judge who has salvation? You might want to have a look at that log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in other people's.
I'm pretty secure in my own salvation as are the people at my church, none of us (as far as I know) interpret the Bible the way you do. Do the people in your church agree with you?
Most Christians don't. It's interesting to think that you are the one who has salvation and is spirit filled and understands Scripture. That's a pretty arrogant claim.
I've explained my reasoning pretty clearly above, if you choose to ignore all that and just maintain that you're the one who understands Scripture then fine. I'd suggest a little self-reflection is needed though.
-
Punchline being, once you are Spirit like the Father in Heaven, biblical scripture becomes much more understanding as too it's intentions.
And you genuinely think a book which has the aim I mentioned above in Timothy is trying to teach you about the shape of the earth? OK...
I would never allow one without true salvation interpret it's meaning for me.
So, I don't know if that's aimed at me. Who are you to judge who has salvation? You might want to have a look at that log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in other people's.
I'm pretty secure in my own salvation as are the people at my church, none of us (as far as I know) interpret the Bible the way you do. Do the people in your church agree with you?
Most Christians don't. It's interesting to think that you are the one who has salvation and is spirit filled and understands Scripture. That's a pretty arrogant claim.
I've explained my reasoning pretty clearly above, if you choose to ignore all that and just maintain that you're the one who understands Scripture then fine. I'd suggest a little self-reflection is needed though.
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian. The simple fact is once you accept this gift of salvation, shortly down the line you will receive the Holy Spirit, ie Gods Word. He will answer your questions as to ALL TRUTH. Who better than the creator of everything to give you answers?
I never read what church you attend, maybe you attend a satanist church? I didn't see you proclaim Jesus as God, did I? or the The Fathers Son who gave his life on the cross so we could have eternal life.
The Holy Spirit (God) can give us Gifts and or Fruits, you can look them up, nothing arrogant about it. What is arrogant is I hope he give me a big ass sword to slay some demons when it's payback time :)
-
Punchline being, once you are Spirit like the Father in Heaven, biblical scripture becomes much more understanding as too it's intentions.
And you genuinely think a book which has the aim I mentioned above in Timothy is trying to teach you about the shape of the earth? OK...
I would never allow one without true salvation interpret it's meaning for me.
So, I don't know if that's aimed at me. Who are you to judge who has salvation? You might want to have a look at that log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in other people's.
I'm pretty secure in my own salvation as are the people at my church, none of us (as far as I know) interpret the Bible the way you do. Do the people in your church agree with you?
Most Christians don't. It's interesting to think that you are the one who has salvation and is spirit filled and understands Scripture. That's a pretty arrogant claim.
I've explained my reasoning pretty clearly above, if you choose to ignore all that and just maintain that you're the one who understands Scripture then fine. I'd suggest a little self-reflection is needed though.
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian. The simple fact is once you accept this gift of salvation, shortly down the line you will receive the Holy Spirit, ie Gods Word. He will answer your questions as to ALL TRUTH. Who better than the creator of everything to give you answers?
I never read what church you attend, maybe you attend a satanist church? I didn't see you proclaim Jesus as God, did I? or the The Fathers Son who gave his life on the cross so we could have eternal life.
The Holy Spirit (God) can give us Gifts and or Fruits, you can look them up, nothing arrogant about it. What is arrogant is I hope he give me a big ass sword to slay some demons when it's payback time :)
What is a non-Jesus-believing Christian? Is there such a thing?
"Christianity is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." wikipedia
Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven
You seem very judgy.
-
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian.
You assume wrongly. And the church I go to subscribes to this.
https://yfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Evangelical-Alliance-Statement-of-Faith.pdf
-
Punchline being, once you are Spirit like the Father in Heaven, biblical scripture becomes much more understanding as too it's intentions.
And you genuinely think a book which has the aim I mentioned above in Timothy is trying to teach you about the shape of the earth? OK...
I would never allow one without true salvation interpret it's meaning for me.
So, I don't know if that's aimed at me. Who are you to judge who has salvation? You might want to have a look at that log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in other people's.
I'm pretty secure in my own salvation as are the people at my church, none of us (as far as I know) interpret the Bible the way you do. Do the people in your church agree with you?
Most Christians don't. It's interesting to think that you are the one who has salvation and is spirit filled and understands Scripture. That's a pretty arrogant claim.
I've explained my reasoning pretty clearly above, if you choose to ignore all that and just maintain that you're the one who understands Scripture then fine. I'd suggest a little self-reflection is needed though.
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian. The simple fact is once you accept this gift of salvation, shortly down the line you will receive the Holy Spirit, ie Gods Word. He will answer your questions as to ALL TRUTH. Who better than the creator of everything to give you answers?
I never read what church you attend, maybe you attend a satanist church? I didn't see you proclaim Jesus as God, did I? or the The Fathers Son who gave his life on the cross so we could have eternal life.
The Holy Spirit (God) can give us Gifts and or Fruits, you can look them up, nothing arrogant about it. What is arrogant is I hope he give me a big ass sword to slay some demons when it's payback time :)
What is a non-Jesus-believing Christian? Is there such a thing?
"Christianity is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." wikipedia
Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven
You seem very judgy.
Yes a weakness of mine, although satan is a pretty tricky guy, sheep in wolves clothing thang. Trust everyone but cut the cards I say.....
-
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian.
You assume wrongly. And the church I go to subscribes to this.
https://yfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Evangelical-Alliance-Statement-of-Faith.pdf
I guess the question is, do you believe in those things? It's very nice that your church does. Some people just find it difficult to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'm not one of those with all my faults.
-
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian.
You assume wrongly. And the church I go to subscribes to this.
https://yfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Evangelical-Alliance-Statement-of-Faith.pdf
I guess the question is, do you believe in those things? It's very nice that your church does. Some people just find it difficult to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'm not one of those with all my faults.
I wouldn't go to a church which was promoting things I didn't subscribe to.
Listen, dude, we have different interpretations of Scripture. And that's fine, it happens.
Just stop pretending that you are uniquely Spirit filled and yours is the right interpretation.
-
If you want to quote mine the Bible, then you can find support pretty much anything you want, including genocide, dragons and unicorns.
-
I can only assume you are not a Jesus believing Christian.
You assume wrongly. And the church I go to subscribes to this.
https://yfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Evangelical-Alliance-Statement-of-Faith.pdf
I guess the question is, do you believe in those things? It's very nice that your church does. Some people just find it difficult to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'm not one of those with all my faults.
I wouldn't go to a church which was promoting things I didn't subscribe to.
Listen, dude, we have different interpretations of Scripture. And that's fine, it happens.
Just stop pretending that you are uniquely Spirit filled and yours is the right interpretation.
You mad bro? We should move on from this, earth is flat and scripture proves it. I didn't uniquely claim Spirit filled, in fact I explained all get on salvation in time, each to different degrees. We'll all have different jobs in heaven, some more important than others.
You have said science is the way to truth on this flat. Wrong, no faith bro? If God said come, walk off the boat, you won't sink, you would get your science book out and say no way? Don't be, ye of little faith, have it and don't take pages to proclaim it. This is not Paul writing Timothy from prison about his evangelizing the world. Paul is simply explaining how to win souls not if the earth is flat. So yes, we disagree on interpretation.