The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mr. Flat Earth on September 06, 2019, 05:39:06 PM
-
If you look in the bible, in multiple verses, it says "to the four corners of the earth." If the Earth is round it would not have any corners whatsoever. If you don't believe me that the bible says that, go to this link and you will see all the verses. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=four+corners+of+the+earth&qs_version=ESV
-
'Four corners of the Earth' I thought was a term that is used more as a figure of speech rather than something which is intended to be taken literally as a description of the Earths physical form.
-
'Four corners of the Earth' I thought was a term that is used more as a figure of speech rather than something which is intended to be taken literally as a description of the Earths physical form.
If we are going to play that game, it was merely a figure of speech when Magellan said he was going to circumnavigate the globe. He actually meant he was going to the Philippines to get up close and personal with the native boys.
-
What year would that have been and how much was truly known about the shape of the Earth at the time?
-
Does that mean the earth is square?
-
Of course, we run into the problem of 'why should we accept anything that the bible says is true?'
-
If you look in the bible, in multiple verses, it says "to the four corners of the earth." If the Earth is round it would not have any corners whatsoever. If you don't believe me that the bible says that, go to this link and you will see all the verses. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=four+corners+of+the+earth&qs_version=ESV
And yet in Isaiah 40:22 it says God sits above the circle of the earth
https://christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html#22
Does a circle have corners?
This is another verse I’ve seen used as defence of a Flat Earth. Aha! Circle, you see! Flat!
Although if you’re looking down at a sphere, what shape do you see...?
The four corners of the earth was and remains a turn of phrase. The Bible is not a science book
“The Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
- Galileo
-
AATW is a Christian who thinks that the Bible is true and the word of God, but that God repeatedly lied about the nature of the earth, with numerous quotes and references suggesting a Flat Earth.
-
It is easy to be influenced and convinced by things we believe in isn't it Tom. AATW thinks the bible is true and the word of God. You think the Earth is flat. Neither does anybody any harm and if thinking what he thinks makes AATW happy then what's the problem? I'm curious to know how God can lie though... did God write the bible?
We all have our reasons for our own beliefs and we all get on with our lives just fine on that.
-
AATW is a Christian who thinks that the Bible is true and the word of God, but that God repeatedly lied about the nature of the earth, with numerous quotes and references suggesting a Flat Earth.
Nice straw man argument but no, that is not what I believe. I believe your interpretation of the Bible to be incorrect. As does every branch of the church, I don’t know any mainstream church that teaches a flat earth. Do you? Does your church teach that, if you have a church?
Yes, the Bible is true but that doesn’t mean it’s a science book and we should use it to determine the nature of reality. We have 2 verses, one talking about the circle of the earth, another talking about 4 corners of the earth. If you’re going to take both those verses literally then you are literally trying to square a circle - circles don’t have corners...
I believe Genesis is true but I believe it is teaching us deeper truths than the age of the universe or the exact process of creation. Were I born a few hundred years ago I’d probably believe the earth to have been created in 6 literal days a few thousand years ago. Now we know different so instead of denying all modern science I choose to think about how that Scripture should be understood. I don’t think God is lying, I just think He is trying to teach me deeper truths in early Genesis than the age of the universe.
Genesis teaches me that I and the earth and the universe are creations. It teaches me I was created by God. It teaches me that I was created separately from the rest of creation, in the image of God. And it teaches me of my rebellion from Him, the consequences of that and my need for Salvation. These are the important truths of Genesis, the exact timeline really isn’t that important.
As science progresses we have a choice as Christians. Do we deny all the science or, if science contradicts our understanding of scripture, do we think about how our interpretation of those scriptures may need to change. The Catholic Church did the former when they put Galileo under house arrest for promoting the Copernican heliocentric model. There are verses in the Bible which imply the earth is stationary. But, in the end, the scientific evidence won out and the Pope finally apologised to Galileo (in the 1990s,
embarrassingly). Again, there is no mainstream church I know of that promotes a geocentric model with a stationary earth. Science has changed our understanding of Scripture here too.
I don’t believe God is lying about the nature of the earth, I don’t think He’s trying to teach me about that through Scripture. That’s for science to work out. God teaches me about the nature of Himself through Scripture, not the earth. And Scripture itself tells us what else it’s for:
2 Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousnes”
-
I see the bible as being a description or an interpretation of how people believed the Earth was created at the time. They would have had to rely on only the information their senses gave them and nothing more. They would have bore witness to many of the same events and phenomenon that are familiar to us today but they would have no understanding of what they were or what caused them. So the bible is probably a true account of what people thought at the time when it was written.
I imagine that during an eclipse of the Sun for example they would have been frightened and startled by the apparent disappearance of the Sun so they would have performed rituals and such like in an effort to ward off whatever it was that was stealing the Sun. When the Sun did reappear they would have attributed it as their rituals/prayers or whatever you want to call them being answered.
Today we may know more about what causes many of these events but we still don't know fully the answers to some of the most fundamental questions. It is easy to simply attribute the unknowns to the 'power of God' and that may be enough for some. We would not be human though if we suddenly decided to stop searching for the true answers to these questions.
-
What year would that have been and how much was truly known about the shape of the Earth at the time?
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God. God put the words into the writers' head to write down in the Bible.
-
Fair enough.. that is an aspect of religion that I cannot personally get on with but I respect Christians for their views.
-
Fair enough.. that is an aspect of religion that I cannot personally get on with but I respect Christians for their views.
And that's fine but it's in that verse I quoted, all Scripture is God-breathed.
Christians believe that Scripture is inspired - written by humans but inspired by God.
Tom believes that means that verses should be taken as literally true and descriptive of nature, any other interpretation makes God a liar.
But he's going to get into problems when he tries to understand "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" both literally.
Is the earth a square or a circle?
My view is it's neither. I don't believe the Bible is trying to teach me about nature, it's trying to teach me about God's nature and early Genesis teaches me much deeper truths than the age of the universe.
It's perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that science is our best way of understand nature. What science will never tell us though is why we are here. Is there a reason? Do we have a purpose? What happens after we die? These are the questions that philosophies and religions down the ages have tried to answer.
I see science and religion as complementary, not contradictory. They're asking different questions or when they ask the same questions they ask them in different ways.
Christianity's answer to how the universe started is "God did it", science's (current) answer is the Big Bang. I don't see those answers as contradictory, science's answer is about physical processes, Christianity's answer hints at a purpose behind it.
-
And yet in Isaiah 40:22 it says God sits above the circle of the earth
https://christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html#22
Does a circle have corners?
This is another verse I’ve seen used as defence of a Flat Earth. Aha! Circle, you see! Flat!
Although if you’re looking down at a sphere, what shape do you see...?
The four corners of the earth was and remains a turn of phrase. The Bible is not a science book
“The Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
- Galileo
This is why anyone who thinks the earth has "corners" should join a bible study group and do some biblical research.
-
Tom believes that means that verses should be taken as literally true and descriptive of nature, any other interpretation makes God a liar.
Tom also believes that the Earth is flat but having a belief in something doesn't make it true.
What science will never tell us though is why we are here. Is there a reason? Do we have a purpose? What happens after we die?
I wouldn't say science will never have the answers to these questions. I agree that we don't currently have the answers but that is not to say we never will. Do you means why the Universe exists, why the Earth exists or why life exists? We can work out what happens physically after we die by examining the bodies of the deceased. As for the matter of re-incarnation and such like that is not a field I have extensively researched and don't intend to as it is not a subject that interests me greatly.
-
I wouldn't say science will never have the answers to these questions.
The reason I say never is I can’t think how you would design an experiment that can determine whether we have a purpose.
You could look at whether people believing they have a purpose has an affect on them, but whether we do have a purpose. How would you determine that scientifically?
And yes, by we that includes whether there is a reason or purpose behind the universe existing.
Same with an afterlife. Sure, we know what happens to our bodies but if there’s an afterlife then that’s not a physical thing. Science is about understanding the natural world, not the supernatural - if that exists at all of course.
I just don’t see it’s in the scope of science to investigate these things.
-
Obviously different religions have their own and individual versions of what they define as afterlife. That is not a subject for me so I will let others comment on that.
I understand there is a philosophical side to science where people debate questions such as what is our purpose and such like. There was something called the anthropic principle which seemed to introduce a kind of human centric theory about the existence of the Universe. Purpose is more interpretation driven than it is scientific. Is it the responsibility of science to determine whether we have a purpose and if so what that purpose is? I look at it this way; The age of the Universe is currently calculated as 13.8 billion years. The Sun and solar system came into existence about 4.6 billion years ago with life first appearing about a billion years later. Our earliest human ancestors evolved just over 300,000 years ago.
So on that basis I would personally contend that religion is a human creation. What we could call religion today has then grown out of how our earliest ancestors used their imagination to set out explanations for natural events and phenomenon they witnessed. The spiritual side of religion is not something that I have delved into in any great detail but I do understand the reasoning behind it. People believe in miracles, divine intervention and such like and if people become Christians because they believe that God has spoken to them or they have had some sort of 'calling' then that is all fine.
Religious groups also do amazing and essential work for humanitarian disasters across the world.
-
Fair enough.. that is an aspect of religion that I cannot personally get on with but I respect Christians for their views.
And that's fine but it's in that verse I quoted, all Scripture is God-breathed.
Christians believe that Scripture is inspired - written by humans but inspired by God.
Tom believes that means that verses should be taken as literally true and descriptive of nature, any other interpretation makes God a liar.
But he's going to get into problems when he tries to understand "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" both literally.
Is the earth a square or a circle?
My view is it's neither. I don't believe the Bible is trying to teach me about nature, it's trying to teach me about God's nature and early Genesis teaches me much deeper truths than the age of the universe.
It's perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that science is our best way of understand nature. What science will never tell us though is why we are here. Is there a reason? Do we have a purpose? What happens after we die? These are the questions that philosophies and religions down the ages have tried to answer.
I see science and religion as complementary, not contradictory. They're asking different questions or when they ask the same questions they ask them in different ways.
Christianity's answer to how the universe started is "God did it", science's (current) answer is the Big Bang. I don't see those answers as contradictory, science's answer is about physical processes, Christianity's answer hints at a purpose behind it.
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.
-
Fair enough.. that is an aspect of religion that I cannot personally get on with but I respect Christians for their views.
And that's fine but it's in that verse I quoted, all Scripture is God-breathed.
Christians believe that Scripture is inspired - written by humans but inspired by God.
Tom believes that means that verses should be taken as literally true and descriptive of nature, any other interpretation makes God a liar.
But he's going to get into problems when he tries to understand "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" both literally.
Is the earth a square or a circle?
My view is it's neither. I don't believe the Bible is trying to teach me about nature, it's trying to teach me about God's nature and early Genesis teaches me much deeper truths than the age of the universe.
It's perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that science is our best way of understand nature. What science will never tell us though is why we are here. Is there a reason? Do we have a purpose? What happens after we die? These are the questions that philosophies and religions down the ages have tried to answer.
I see science and religion as complementary, not contradictory. They're asking different questions or when they ask the same questions they ask them in different ways.
Christianity's answer to how the universe started is "God did it", science's (current) answer is the Big Bang. I don't see those answers as contradictory, science's answer is about physical processes, Christianity's answer hints at a purpose behind it.
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit.
I'm sure proving that would be easy.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
-
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.
This is a very interesting interpretation. The problem that I have with this is that it says the corners of the earth not the corners of the spirit of God. When we had these sort of debates in a bible group we would always look at the ancient Hebrew. Many times this give clarification to exactly what the words were most likely to have meant.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:
Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
Paioh means “a geometric corner”
Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”
Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
-
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.
This is a very interesting interpretation. The problem that I have with this is that it says the corners of the earth not the corners of the spirit of God. When we had these sort of debates in a bible group we would always look at the ancient Hebrew. Many times this give clarification to exactly what the words were most likely to have meant.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:
Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
Paioh means “a geometric corner”
Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”
Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
You may be correct. Strong's Concordance index says that it primarily means 'extremity':
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/11-12.htm
Not all of the versions of the Bible translate it as corners. New Living Translation translates Isaiah 11:12 as:
"He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth."
-
You may be correct. Strong's Concordance index says that it primarily means 'extremity':
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/11-12.htm
Not all of the versions of the Bible translate it as corners. New Living Translation translates Isaiah 11:12 as:
"He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth."
When looking into an ancient book written in an ancient foreign language with the added complexity of it being considered the word of God it gives us humans a lot of room for personal interpretation in these kinds of things.
To add further confusion the ancient texts have been translated dozens of different ways by various people, kings, organizations throughout the years.
-
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.
This is a very interesting interpretation. The problem that I have with this is that it says the corners of the earth not the corners of the spirit of God. When we had these sort of debates in a bible group we would always look at the ancient Hebrew. Many times this give clarification to exactly what the words were most likely to have meant.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:
Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
Paioh means “a geometric corner”
Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”
Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
You may be correct. Strong's Concordance index says that it primarily means 'extremity':
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/11-12.htm
Not all of the versions of the Bible translate it as corners. New Living Translation translates Isaiah 11:12 as:
"He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth."
How is relying on someone else's interpreted translations any different from relying on scientists and their experiments? Why would you be ok taking someones translation of a religious book as acceptable information or reliable evidence of a flat earth?
-
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.
From the Strong's Concordance 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.
-
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.
From the Strong's Concordance 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.
Isn't Strong's Concordance still based on a translation, in this case, KJV? Perhaps I don't fully understand the breadth and depth of a concordance.
-
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.
From the Strong's Concordance 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.
Isn't Strong's Concordance still based on a translation, in this case, KJV? Perhaps I don't fully understand the breadth and depth of a concordance.
Stack,
The bible was written in ancient hebrew/greek. Much like our language words could be spelled the same but have different definitions like the word "dove". It could be to jump into something head first like he dove into the bushes. It could also be a bird. Look at the dove flying above.
Our translations are peoples attempts and looking at these ancient Hebrew/greek words and looking at how they are used in verse/chapter they are in as well as how they have been used in other parts of the bible.