The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: xenotolerance on September 12, 2017, 01:09:35 AM
-
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/ (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 (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/ (http://time.com/world-trade-center/)), and ...
c - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/ (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.
-
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 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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Bellingshausen-fr.svg/503px-Bellingshausen-fr.svg.png)
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
1) The religious basis for flat earth is not well supported in the Bible:
My old Minister sent me that thread :D
( 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)
-
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/ (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 (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/ (http://time.com/world-trade-center/)), and ...
c - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/ (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
-
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.
-
To J-Man
If the man is wrong, why do you call him good Dr.?
-
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.
-
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????
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos. I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)
Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media. Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt? Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule. ha ha
For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration
-
hello Psychotropic :)
Your geometry teacher would agree with me.
You are CORRECT - If you hold up a basketball in a room without added lighting which showed shadows and reflections - the Basketball would project the shape of a circle at a reasonable distance. But projection of an image is not a true representation of the object in this case. If you come up closer, you will reach the point where you recognize that it is a sphere. :o
-
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos. I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)
Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media. Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt? Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule. ha ha
For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration
Thanks for the link, I will read through it in a moment. As for the Van Allen belts, I do recall reading some time ago that the scientists performing that experiment stated that the damage and destruction that mission incurred was similar, maybe the same, as what space craft and statsions are designed to mitigate. I can't find that link right this second. That does make me wonder something though - do you then believe that there is no dome and that space is accessible to humans? I have read many threads here and that doesn't seem to be the consensus, although I've also found that different FE "societies" somtimes have rather conflicting views.
-
hello Psychotropic :)
Your geometry teacher would agree with me.
You are CORRECT - If you hold up a basketball in a room without added lighting which showed shadows and reflections - the Basketball would project the shape of a circle at a reasonable distance. But projection of an image is not a true representation of the object in this case. If you come up closer, you will reach the point where you recognize that it is a sphere. :o
Absolutely agree, which is why I edited my post and added the whole "higher/closer" line. When God gets closer to the Earth, it should then also look like a sphere though right?
-
Hi Psychotropic
I'm trying to send an attachment with a picture.
It's not working.
-
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos. I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)
Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media. Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt? Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule. ha ha
For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration
Thanks for the link, I will read through it in a moment. As for the Van Allen belts, I do recall reading some time ago that the scientists performing that experiment stated that the damage and destruction that mission incurred was similar, maybe the same, as what space craft and statsions are designed to mitigate. I can't find that link right this second. That does make me wonder something though - do you then believe that there is no dome and that space is accessible to humans? I have read many threads here and that doesn't seem to be the consensus, although I've also found that different FE "societies" somtimes have rather conflicting views.
Hello again,
I read through each reply in that link and they all say there is no military presence in Antarctica preventing civilians from exploring it. I'm kind of disappointed as I was looking forward to what the thread had to say about it.
-
I made the pic smaller
-
Hello Psychotropic
You know there is water above the firmament.
There is water beneath also.
Concerning your military not allowing exploration --- If you can't find anything, they are doing a great job keeping it secret. You know Google owns you tube and they are writing computer programs which automatically delete secret things. Of course the government agency is going to say it can be explored. But first is the application, who, what you believe in, only allowed certain areas.
Watch the Admiral Byrd explorations. (1948) After the first year approximately, he wasn't allowed to talk about it anymore.
-
Can someone point to a single like of scripture that says the Earth is flat? Not something you try to twist to fit your ideas, but an line of scripture that simply state the Earth is flat. I mean there are plenty of lines of scripture about other important topics, so there should be something that says the Earth is flat.
Terry50 - getting your info off of youtube is embarrassing. Anyone can post anything. It doesn't make it true. Also, with video being so easy to manipulate, you can't trust what you see.
If NASA is in league with the devil, does that mean the dozens of other orgs launching into space are also devil worshiping beasts? Also, where is the scripture about aerospace companies being evil or did you make that up, too??
-
To J-Man
If the man is wrong, why do you call him good Dr.?
A lot of Christians mean well but have lost their way.
-
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.
Even on a round Earth, you will not be able to see the curvature of Earth at that height. It's not yet high enough. I've also yet to see you provide these maps you claim exist.
-
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper; it is flat..... unless you draw a 3D sphere. So circles by definition are flat. I gave 2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle. If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is. But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real --- we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat. But it isn't a sphere. The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move. The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
-
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper; it is flat..... unless you draw a 3D sphere. So circles by definition are flat. I gave 2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle. If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is. But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real --- we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat. But it isn't a sphere. The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move. The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
The geocentric globe model could very likely still work with some more current adjustments.
-
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper; it is flat..... unless you draw a 3D sphere. So circles by definition are flat. I gave 2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle. If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is. But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real --- we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat. But it isn't a sphere. The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move. The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
Observations and measurements, including satellite operation and the path of the sun, prove the earth is a sphere
-
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper; it is flat..... unless you draw a 3D sphere. So circles by definition are flat. I gave 2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle. If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is. But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real --- we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat. But it isn't a sphere. The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move. The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
The picture you posted isn't real. Anyone can draw up something like that. It has no basis in observed reality. As for the circle thing, the Earth's outline is a circle. (more or less) It never says FLAT. If you ask people the shape of the Earth, many would say it is round or circular. No major church teaches the Earth is flat. Why should someone believe you over the vast conclusion of other Christians?
-
I included the religious argument because ultimately, flat earth is about an exactly literal interpretation of specific scripture. Just for example, here (http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/articles/Does%20the%20Bible%20Teach%20a%20Spherical%20Earth.pdf) is one example of a different, similarly literal interpretation of some different lines, with the author taking the position that they teach a spherical earth.
Something to remember is that the debates we're having are old. Very, very old, older than the new testament. And as with all things old and religious, there is only persuasion and interpretation of the text; observation and experiment don't really influence religious thought. And that's fine! Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is not really a matter of experiment; the book says so, and you believe it or you don't.
The shape of the earth is a different story. Humans can in fact use considerable cognitive abilities to learn about the natural world around them, and at every turn, new discoveries about the world have divided the devout. One can wonder at the magnificence of God's creation and the elegance of galactic orbits, the mathematics of quantum physics, the complexity of space-time, etc., or one can insist that these discoveries are wrong, that the old way was right, that Feynman, Einstein, Faraday, Newton, Copernicus, and Democritus were all wrong or liars or worse, that the earth is flat and the universe is geocentric and that heaven is an actual, physical place above the dome of the sky. But in this case it is not old; that is, we can see for ourselves today if these interpretations are correct.
After all, the book never does explicitly say "The Earth is flat," though it does say things that can be interpreted to support this conclusion. These same things also hold if the Earth is understood to be a sphere. And because we can observe, all over the world and in all manner of ways, that the Earth is a globe, that the Earth orbits the sun, that it has an axial tilt that causes the seasons, etc., the only correct interpretation is that the book is referring to a round Earth...
because, for the nth time, the Earth IS round. I know just saying as much doesn't change any minds, and I actually couldn't care less. Saying it's flat does not make it flat, and saying it's round doesn't make it round; its observable nature shows that it is round.
If one thinks the book says the Earth is flat, while the Earth obviously is round, and the book is by definition correct, what must be true is that the thinking is incorrect, and the book says the earth is round.
-
...because ultimately, flat earth is about an exactly literal interpretation of specific scripture.
False.
-
Well, okay. Here's a couple of references pointing to a close relationship between flat earth theory and literal interpretation of scripture:
"The truth should be the first aim of the Christian; and more especially the truth of the Holy Bible; and it is the Christian's duty to examine into and uphold the Divine Cosmogony revealed to Moses by the Creator, and recorded by Moses and all the inspired servants of God (http://library.tfes.org/library/Flat%20or%20Spherical%20-%2000%20-%20Intro.pdf)
"The Bible is a Flat Earth book; to reject the Flat Earth is to reject the Bible…and the God of the Bible." (http://library.tfes.org/library/Flat_Earth_Society_Newsletter_-_1977_July.pdf)
"Johnson's beliefs are firmly grounded in the Bible. Many verses of the Old Testament imply that the earth is flat, but there's more to it than that. According to the New Testament, Jesus ascended up into heaven. 'The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down,' declares Johnson. 'The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke.'" (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)
But how about points 2, 3, and 4, eh
-
to Inquisitive:
Did you see the movie where they put the satellites up with big balloons in Antartica?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK_kWN0BsKs
there are truckloads of misinformation out there. They never went to the moon. There is no space station. The federal reserve does not have the money to loan; the Rockerfellers and such bankers have been ripping off the USA for generations. The IRS and the FED were never constitutionally started. etc. etc. The Bushes were involved with 9/11 which was 100% a demolition according to 1500 professionals.
-
:P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luiTlYy0KZk
-
wow watch this ;D
at 3:30 there is a giant man floating in space... No, it is a man which got caught by the camera who was working the minature spacecraft. It is an official NASA film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9i8tMzxIn0
-
:P
video
Two things. First, there is no reason to post this video in multiple threads at the same time. Second, just posting a video without any useful context is considered low-content. If you want to post a video, at least include context conducive to a discussion. Consider this a warning.
-
Higher quality video of the same footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx8Ew1V_1tM
Look out a window, and see if your face is reflected in it!
-
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
Try to use the quote feature. It helps