[xenotolerance]

A few points, in part just summarizing 3DGeek's threads:

1) The religious basis for flat earth is not well supported in the Bible: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

2) There does not exist a testable map or model of a flat earth that is consistent with observation
a - examples include hurricanes, clouds being lit from underneath during sunrise and sunset, mountains being lit from the side, distances between cities requiring a curved surface, and other observations that are impossible on a flat earth
b - without a working model of flat earth, making experimental predictions is impossible

3) There is overwhelming photographic and experimental evidence of the earth's curvature
a - not just NASA's photo collections (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html) ...
b - but all the high-altitude photos that show a horizon distance consistent with a spherical earth (http://time.com/world-trade-center/), and ...
c - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/

4) The Zetetic method leads to a conclusion of a round earth
a - keeping an open mind, gather observations to a form a conclusion; the above constitutes sufficient observation to conclude the earth is round
b - flat earth requires immense unsupported assumptions, including folded space time or universal acceleration or faulty laws of perspective, and relying on unobserved or even unobservable phenomena is incompatible with Zetetics

//

All that said, while I'm happy to discuss with whoever wants to chime in, I am not here to try and change anyone's mind, but to provide good information to anyone who wanders to this forum not knowing for sure which model is more accurate.

[Terry50]

1)  It is very well supported in the bible.    Plain English.   People read the bible all the time and never believe it.
**** Many many seminary teachers don't even believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead.   Explain that.
2)  Of course there is a testable map.    It was already tested in the 1800's.    A captain decided to sail around the southern continent; but by the time he got to his starting point he had *****gone 6.5 times  as many miles as expected --  proving that he sailed around the entire earth on it's outer perimeter   - not around a southern continent.
3)  You Tube is chock full of balloons showing the flat surface with GO cameras  30,000 feet up.    Fish eye lenses used by NASA and  globalists  cause curvature.
4)   The earth is round.  It is just not a globe.   Maybe you can understand if I tell you  - the earth is more like an apple pie rather than a basketball.
TRUE......

[Curious Squirrel]

1)  It is very well supported in the bible.    Plain English.   People read the bible all the time and never believe it.
**** Many many seminary teachers don't even believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead.   Explain that.
2)  Of course there is a testable map.    It was already tested in the 1800's.    A captain decided to sail around the southern continent; but by the time he got to his starting point he had *****gone 6.5 times  as many miles as expected --  proving that he sailed around the entire earth on it's outer perimeter   - not around a southern continent.
3)  You Tube is chock full of balloons showing the flat surface with GO cameras  30,000 feet up.    Fish eye lenses used by NASA and  globalists  cause curvature.
4)   The earth is round.  It is just not a globe.   Maybe you can understand if I tell you  - the earth is more like an apple pie rather than a basketball.
TRUE......

1) Explain and provide evidence as OP did if you wish to refute please.
2) Evidence? Source? Anything beyond just your word? The monopole model fails in more than just the shape of Antarctica btw.
3) Wouldn't see curvature at that height anyway, that's well understood. Try clicking through his link.
4) This isn't arguing or refuting his point, it's just babbling.

Please try again with actual sources and evidence. "A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Rational]

1)  It is very well supported in the bible.    Plain English.   People read the bible all the time and never believe it.
**** Many many seminary teachers don't even believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead.   Explain that.
2)  Of course there is a testable map.    It was already tested in the 1800's.    A captain decided to sail around the southern continent; but by the time he got to his starting point he had *****gone 6.5 times  as many miles as expected --  proving that he sailed around the entire earth on it's outer perimeter   - not around a southern continent.
3)  You Tube is chock full of balloons showing the flat surface with GO cameras  30,000 feet up.    Fish eye lenses used by NASA and  globalists  cause curvature.
4)   The earth is round.  It is just not a globe.   Maybe you can understand if I tell you  - the earth is more like an apple pie rather than a basketball.
TRUE......

1) it is not supported in the Bible. That may be your interpretation of Scripture but it is not shared by the vast majority of Christians. Even when done carefully with the purest of intentions, exegesis of Scripture can lead to multiple interpretation – Arminianism vs Calvinism is one such example. To trivialize the devotion of hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe in the power of the resurrection, who seek to know God through Scripture; then to stand up and declare yours as the "correct" position is the height of pharisaic arrogance.

2) Good! If you really believe that, post it here. Yes, PLEEEAZE post it here! Let's see how well it holds up true scrutiny, not the puffballs that you lob up to validate your own theories.

3) This is tiring… why is that every picture with a flat horizon is unequivocal proof that the world is flat and every picture with a curved horizon is counterfeit? Anyone familiar with photography understands how simple it is to manipulate any image with focal length and camera tilt. Use a tilt shift lens and you have even more control of perspective. Yes, you can easily make a straight horizon look curved. Just as easily as you can make a curved horizon look flat. This is a textbook example of confirmational bias.

4) Nice sounding statement, but it means nothing. Tell me what map you believe is true and we can start from there.

[Rounder]

2)  Of course there is a testable map.    It was already tested in the 1800's.    A captain decided to sail around the southern continent; but by the time he got to his starting point he had *****gone 6.5 times  as many miles as expected --  proving that he sailed around the entire earth on it's outer perimeter   - not around a southern continent.

Please tell us more about this voyage.  Who sailed it?  Name of his vessel?  Starting port and date?

[3DGeek]

2)  Of course there is a testable map.    It was already tested in the 1800's.    A captain decided to sail around the southern continent; but by the time he got to his starting point he had *****gone 6.5 times  as many miles as expected --  proving that he sailed around the entire earth on it's outer perimeter   - not around a southern continent.

Please tell us more about this voyage.  Who sailed it?  Name of his vessel?  Starting port and date?

Well, the first recorded continuous circumnavigation of Antarctica was by Jon Sanders in 1989...so I don't think you have your facts straight here!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Sanders

A Russian guy named Von Bellinhausen used two ships to map out the outline of the continent around 1820 - but they didn't send a single ship all the way around it without stopping off in Australia halfway around:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Gottlieb_von_Bellingshausen

Before that, Captain Cook did sail around Antarctica - but not close enough to see land as he did so - he made many detours (eg to New Zealand) to be sure that he hadn't missed some land connection - and it did take him much longer than expected because he couldn't get close enough to the continent because of all of the intervening ice.

So he sailed around most of the antarctic ocean - which is a considerably longer journey than Von Bellingshausen undertook...because he was sailing in a bigger circle - and because of the detours.

Von Bellingshausen was an expert map maker - and his voyage around Antarctica covered about 11,000 miles - if he'd sailed around the "ice wall" on the FE map, he'd have had to sail over 100,000 miles - and unless his ship was "accidentally" travelling at 150 mph - there is no way he could have done that.   We must therefore conclude that the "unipolar" FE map is not possible - although this information does not rule out Tom's "bipolar" map which has a "reasonable" size for Antarctica as a continent separate from the Ice Wall.

Bottom line - Terry50's claim is bullshit.

Put up or shut up!

[Terry50]

to the curious squirrel
For #1 1Chronicles 16:30;  Psalm 93:1;   Psalm 96:10;  Psalm 104:5;   Isaiah 45:18
#2, look it up on you tube.
For #3,    If you hold up a basketball all the way at the other side of the court,   I am sorry to tell you but it doesn't look Flat.    It would be very hard to bounce if it did.
#4    For people with little understanding,  plain geometry can seem like babbling.  I accept your disability.   (since you claim you see no difference between a globe and a circle.)


To Rational:   There are millions of people who used their logic about the scripture who are right now saying  -  "OOWWW,  my arm is on fire, my whole body is on fire.   I wish I would have believed Jesus instead of making stories up that sounded logical to me."
#4....    So you don't know the difference between a circle and a globe (sphere) also.  Call up your old geometry teacher to get it straight.

[Curious Squirrel]

to the curious squirrel
For #1 1Chronicles 16:30;  Psalm 93:1;   Psalm 96:10;  Psalm 104:5;   Isaiah 45:18
#2, look it up on you tube.
For #3,    If you hold up a basketball all the way at the other side of the court,   I am sorry to tell you but it doesn't look Flat.    It would be very hard to bounce if it did.
#4    For people with little understanding,  plain geometry can seem like babbling.  I accept your disability.   (since you claim you see no difference between a globe and a circle.)


To Rational:   There are millions of people who used their logic about the scripture who are right now saying  -  "OOWWW,  my arm is on fire, my whole body is on fire.   I wish I would have believed Jesus instead of making stories up that sounded logical to me."
#4....    So you don't know the difference between a circle and a globe (sphere) also.  Call up your old geometry teacher to get it straight.

1) Will look at these later.
2) You made the claim, you provide the proof.
3) What? This doesn't discuss the point at all. You will not see curvature of the Earth at 30,000 feet. Period. This is well understood as the curvature will result in a change of a pixel or less even at those heights.
4) Once again, your statement meant nothing in regards to the point presented in the OP. If you don't understand what that means, I can't help you. You don't appear to have taken an English class in order to know the difference, and for that I sincerely apologize.

[StinkyOne]

to the curious squirrel
For #1 1Chronicles 16:30;  Psalm 93:1;   Psalm 96:10;  Psalm 104:5;   Isaiah 45:18
#2, look it up on you tube.
For #3,    If you hold up a basketball all the way at the other side of the court,   I am sorry to tell you but it doesn't look Flat.    It would be very hard to bounce if it did.
#4    For people with little understanding,  plain geometry can seem like babbling.  I accept your disability.   (since you claim you see no difference between a globe and a circle.)


To Rational:   There are millions of people who used their logic about the scripture who are right now saying  -  "OOWWW,  my arm is on fire, my whole body is on fire.   I wish I would have believed Jesus instead of making stories up that sounded logical to me."
#4....    So you don't know the difference between a circle and a globe (sphere) also.  Call up your old geometry teacher to get it straight.

Not one of those lines of scripture mentions, even indirectly, the Earth being flat. Most simply talk about it being firm. BTW, you can believe in Jesus, be saved, be a pious Christian, and know that the Earth is a globe. Your misreading of the Bible is the problem. Globalists using fisheye lens, what a dolt. Where is the ice wall, or the moon for that matter?

[Dither]

1) The religious basis for flat earth is not well supported in the Bible:

My old Minister sent me that thread 
( Whoops sorry, that thread is more recent and is dealing with the dome    )

Only an observation but not many Christians involved in the traditional churches are becoming flat earthers.
God seems to be calling the dispossessed and the ostracised ones first, this is in line with Gods character.

The Hebrew view of Cosmology differs from what is believed on this forum, (aka dome)
(I mean that they don't believe in the dome here, I should really learn how to write good)

In time, flat earth among Christians will become common knowledge as God wakes everyone up.
Right now its a great lesson in the Pride of man, also Jesus Himself was not accepted by the church. (John 7:48)

 

[J-Man]

A few points, in part just summarizing 3DGeek's threads:

1) The religious basis for flat earth is not well supported in the Bible: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

2) There does not exist a testable map or model of a flat earth that is consistent with observation
a - examples include hurricanes, clouds being lit from underneath during sunrise and sunset, mountains being lit from the side, distances between cities requiring a curved surface, and other observations that are impossible on a flat earth
b - without a working model of flat earth, making experimental predictions is impossible

3) There is overwhelming photographic and experimental evidence of the earth's curvature
a - not just NASA's photo collections (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html) ...
b - but all the high-altitude photos that show a horizon distance consistent with a spherical earth (http://time.com/world-trade-center/), and ...
c - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/

4) The Zetetic method leads to a conclusion of a round earth
a - keeping an open mind, gather observations to a form a conclusion; the above constitutes sufficient observation to conclude the earth is round
b - flat earth requires immense unsupported assumptions, including folded space time or universal acceleration or faulty laws of perspective, and relying on unobserved or even unobservable phenomena is incompatible with Zetetics

//

All that said, while I'm happy to discuss with whoever wants to chime in, I am not here to try and change anyone's mind, but to provide good information to anyone who wanders to this forum not knowing for sure which model is more accurate.

The good Dr. in your #1 website takes the word of God and twists it to mean what he himself wants it to mean. I'm sorry but I can't use him as evidence of anything.

#2 you will find maps in my link I provide. Hebrew interpretation and more modern day.

#3 NASA is Satans tool and a great deceiver in and of themselves.

#4 Poor Tom, he is waylaid and massacred daily. He should learn the word of God to find truth.

http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06/the-biblical-flat-earth-teaching-from.html

[Psychotropic]

The good Dr. in your #1 website takes the word of God and twists it to mean what he himself wants it to mean. I'm sorry but I can't use him as evidence of anything.

That sounds dangerously hypocritical.

[Terry50]

To  J-Man
If the man is wrong,  why do you call him good Dr.?

[Terry50]

to squirrel -- You said  - You will not see curvature of the Earth at 30,000 feet.

That's very true.   Because there is no curvature.

[Terry50]

to Rational
you said -   your interpretation of Scripture -- is not shared by the vast majority of Christians
Around here, we don't go by general consensus of the sheeple.    Hey,   the fake pope Francis says you can be a good atheist and still go to heaven..... How wrong can you get?

[Terry50]

About Dither:
Dither gave the smartest comment here.    Jesus will bring the truth.   Why is there military personnel keeping explorers out of Antartica?    Why are they sending up satellites by balloons in Antartica.  Watch the video on you tube.

[Psychotropic]

to squirrel -- You said  - You will not see curvature of the Earth at 30,000 feet.

That's very true.   Because there is no curvature.

Can you please provide some evidence for this?

[Psychotropic]

About Dither:
Dither gave the smartest comment here.    Jesus will bring the truth.   Why is there military personnel keeping explorers out of Antartica?    Why are they sending up satellites by balloons in Antartica.  Watch the video on you tube.

Can you point me to documentation of this military presence in Antarctica please?  Preferably not a YouTube video, something that can stand up to any sort of scrutiny outside of the FE vs. RE debate?

Thanks

[Terry50]

to the squirrel-
You were right, those scriptures were referring to the earth not moving and being fixed.   NO 24 hour rotation.  NO annual spin around the sun.

Here are the correct "Circle" scriptures:   
Isaiah  40:22   He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,   (not the globe)
Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3
Circle of the Earth

[Psychotropic]

to the squirrel-
You were right, those scriptures were referring to the earth not moving and being fixed.   NO 24 hour rotation.  NO annual spin around the sun.

Here are the correct "Circle" scriptures:   
Isaiah  40:22   He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,   (not the globe)
Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3
Circle of the Earth

A globe looks like a circle when viewed from any angle, including from above.  To prove my hypothesis I just grabbed my basketball and held it at different angles and from different points of view.  The part of the ball closest to me was higher, well, closer to me, than the edges were, but it still looked like a circle.   If my testing is flawed I am happy to hear why.