[Mysfit]

Did they really say that nothing was there, or did they say that it was undiscovered?

That's an odd question. I would have to prove that no one back then said anything about the Americas without resorting to hearsay, which is impossible.
My history on opinions back in them times is spotty (i'm not that old), and I will base my answer on opinion back then on the many books that describe the attempt to find a more direct route to Asia. A quicker silk and spice route.
I know Christopher Columbus was not the first to travel the distance (Native Americans and Vikings were), but he is the most famous one.

I am not religiously versed, but if you can quote scripture to the effect of "and west of Europe/east of Asia is a new continent" then colour me impressed.
Me quoting blank scripture of no reference to America would be infinite, so this seems quicker.
I would be surprised if either of those continents are in scripture...  *sigh* religious debate.

[Tom Bishop]

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

He obviously doesn't say that Flat Earth proves Christ, that would be stupid. He says that his Flat Earth theory is made for Christians to reconcile their beliefs in the Scriptures with modern science. Including the belief in Christ and his Redemption. Many quotes have been cited in this thread already, that are taken directly from "Earth not a globe", stating that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong. And Flat Earth is supposed to make things right. It's absolutely contingent with the theory.

He does not say any of that.

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

[stack]

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You first wrote:

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

When the word is mentioned. And you proceeded to imply he is a liar in saying "Christ" is mentioned. And are now further implying it. That's not a very christian thing to do.

And the weak rebuttal was to do a search and find Rowbotham's comments about

- statement about Scripture that was from a period of about "4000 years before the birth of Christ" -- factual statement
- a mention of " the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures," -- a factual statement
- a third statement more along the lines of "the bible says that that the earth is 'the' world... did these religious events such as the death of Christ happen on all of the worlds astronomy imagines?" -- more of an allegory

That some words were found, without interpretation of the meaning, still makes it either a mistake or a lie. None of it is about using Flat Earth to prove Christ. None of it at all. Rowbotham does not devote any effort to talk about Christ at all. You are blindly referencing something to 'win' your case without context.

Hey, I'm just saying you implied he was liar for stating that the word "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all" (Your words) in ENAG. You were wrong, it is. Therefore he is not a liar.

I'm not sure this, "...using Flat Earth to prove Christ...." is the argument here at all. The argument is that the founders of modern FET state that believing in the rotundity of earth is going against the scriptures, therefore, going against the word of God.

I mean this basically says it all here - He closes, ends, ENAG with this:

"To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono."

[Tom Bishop]

Hey, I'm just saying you implied he was liar for stating that the word "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all" (Your words) in ENAG. You were wrong, it is. Therefore he is not a liar.

From the OP: "the book explain how his work supposedly reinstate the belief in Christ and the Bible."

No, the quotes given do not "reinstate the belief in Christ".

Rowbotham mentioning that scripture was written 4000 years before Christ is not a reinstatement of belief in Christ. He is pointing out fact.

Rowbotham mentioning that the death of Christ is written in scripture is not a reinstatement of belief in Christ. He is pointing out fact.

Rowbotham pointing out that the beliefs of multiple-worlds theory of astronomy contradicts the events in the bible, such as the death of Christ, which all occurred on "the" world, is not a reinstatement of the belief in Christ. He is actually pointing out a contradiction between science and religion. Christ is only involved indirectly.

None of the quotes about Christ are even really opinions by Rowbotham. I don't see any religious tracts there. He refers to Christ in a factual and plain manner, making indirect references about things Before Christ and After Christ, like many authors, in a chapter about how religions and scriptures reflect a Flat Earth. It is not really about the Christ character and a push for his validity at all.

[stack]

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

He obviously doesn't say that Flat Earth proves Christ, that would be stupid. He says that his Flat Earth theory is made for Christians to reconcile their beliefs in the Scriptures with modern science. Including the belief in Christ and his Redemption. Many quotes have been cited in this thread already, that are taken directly from "Earth not a globe", stating that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong. And Flat Earth is supposed to make things right. It's absolutely contingent with the theory.

He does not say any of that.

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

For starters, here:

"Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

[titidam]

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

"Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted, and if he fails in this respect, his impious vanity, self-conceit, and utter disregard of truth and justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theories must be put aside, and the question at issue decided by independent practical evidence. This has now been done. The process--the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true. If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true."

Why do you ask me to read the book for you, the one that is cited on the wiki and by all Flat Earthers?

[Tom Bishop]

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

"Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted, and if he fails in this respect, his impious vanity, self-conceit, and utter disregard of truth and justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theories must be put aside, and the question at issue decided by independent practical evidence. This has now been done. The process--the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true. If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true.
"

Why do you ask me to read the book for you, the one that is cited on the wiki and by all Flat Earthers?

None of that reflects the statement that all beliefs contrary to scripture are wrong. Those are statements that Flat Earth shows that scripture was right about the world.

For starters, here:

"Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary which does nothing to support your argument.

[stack]

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

[titidam]

None of that reflects the statement that all beliefs contrary to scripture are wrong. Those are statements that Flat Earth shows that scripture was right about the world.

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary which does nothing to support your argument.

I'm very satisfied that everybody can see your disingenuity.

[Tom Bishop]

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

[stack]

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

[Tom Bishop]

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn't say that at all. It is a criticism that science has not built up the necessary foundation to tell us the true nature of the world. Rowbotham assesses elsewhere that what was taught in Scripture was science at the time. Rowbotham believes that the science is not at the level to totally discard everything that came before it.

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how 'anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong'. He is asserting that Aristotile and Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

[JCM]

What we are witnessing right now is an illustration of the FE conspiracist mind in action.  To any reasonable person, Rowbotham’s words are self explanatory.  If we had a survey of people, I have no doubt 99/100 would disagree wholeheartedly with Tom Bishop.  Mr. Bishop is using the same exact impossible demands of the Round Earth and applying it to Rowbotham’s own words. 

[titidam]

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Rowbotham says that every single statement in the Scriptures is literally true, which is equivalent to saying that anybody who thinks they're not is wrong.

He says that any irreligious scientist whose findings disagree with the Scriptures in a literal sense is unconditionnally wrong and should be excluded from science.

The goal of his work in "Earth not a globe" is to provide a definitive proof. He comes up with a theory to use as reference and to condemn, once and for all, all non-Christians to be wrong and unscientific.

All of this is in the book. Flat Earth is merely a tool to achieve this goal. You can choose to interpret it another way but it's Rowbotham's words. Hence my question about TFES denying contingency.

[stack]

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn't say that at all. It is a criticism that science has not built up the necessary foundation to tell us the true nature of the world. Rowbotham assets elsewhere that what was taught in Scripture was science at the time. Rowbotham believes that the science is not at the level to totally disregard everything that came before it.

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Aristotile and Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

[Tom Bishop]

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Rowbotham says that every single statement in the Scriptures is literally true, which is equivalent to saying that anybody who thinks they're not is wrong.

You should read closer. He makes sure to disclaim that every statement -- about the material world -- is true.

He says that any irreligious scientist whose findings disagree with the Scriptures in a literal sense is unconditionnally wrong and should be excluded from science.

He merely says that they have not built the proper foundation to overshadow the ancients.

The goal of his work in "Earth not a globe" is to provide a definitive proof. He comes up with a theory to use as reference and to condemn, once and for all, all non-Christians to be wrong and unscientific.

All of this is in the book. Flat Earth is merely a tool to achieve this goal. You can choose to interpret it another way but it's Rowbotham's words. Hence my question about TFES denying contingency.

I'm not "choosing" to believe this. You are, very visibly, inserting your own meaning into what is being said.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

Look. Rowbotham is explaining in that quote that the argument of "Religion and scripture wasn't meant to teach science," an argument many of us have seen in other contexts, is a really dumb argument.

This is equivalent to arguing that the ancients would write things that were false, or that God would teach false things. This shows the "Religion was never meant to teach science" argument to be a really bad argument which is made without much thought. The truth is that it was their science and it was always meant to be a teaching about how the world is.

You are making many assumptions on what Rowbotham is saying, and the meaning behind his statements. He never makes these wild "religion is irrefutably correct and all else is irrefutably wrong" proclemations that you guys are making.

[titidam]

I'm not "choosing" to believe this. You are, very visibly, inserting your own meaning into what is being said.

No, I'm not. I'm merely reading the book to you.

"Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated."

[stack]

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

Look. Rowbotham is explaining in that quote that the argument of "Religion and scripture wasn't meant to teach science," an argument many of us have seen in other contexts, is a really dumb argument.

This is equivalent to arguing that the ancients would write things that were false, or that God's would teach false things. This shows the "Religion was never meant to teach science" argument to be a really bad argument which is made without much thought. The truth is that it was their science and it was always meant to be a teaching about how the world is.

You are making many assumptions on what Rowbotham is saying, and the meaning behind his statements. He never makes these wild "religion is irrefutably correct and all else is irrefutably wrong" proclemations that you guys are making.

He's not saying, 'religion' or 'ancients' in that quote, he says 'scriptures'. And says, 'scriptures' all over the place. Much, as clearly he states without interpretation, that if you deny the 'scriptures' you are wrong b/c you are denying God. All of these quotes are profoundly specific to 'scriptures' and all the while citing dozens and dozens of bible verse in support. It's not just, "Hey, there's science in the good book, check it out."

He is quite clear and I am not assuming, literally just reading what he wrote. And you're right, he's not saying 'religion' is irrefutably correct", he is saying that the 'scriptures' are irrefutably correct. He's very specific about that.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” If anything is contrary to the scriptures, then it can't be true. Simple as that.

[Tom Bishop]

He's not saying, 'religion' or 'ancients' in that quote, he says 'scriptures'

The Scriptures are teachings that were written by the ancients and adopted into various religions.

Much, as clearly he states without interpretation, that if you deny the 'scriptures' you are wrong b/c you are denying God.

He never says that.

You feel that he implies that, but feelings are not facts.

All of these quotes are profoundly specific to 'scriptures' and all the while citing dozens and dozens of bible verse in support. It's not just, "Hey, there's science in the good book, check it out."

He is quite clear and I am not assuming, literally just reading what he wrote. And you're right, he's not saying 'religion' is irrefutably correct", he is saying that the 'scriptures' are irrefutably correct. He's very specific about that.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” If anything is contrary to the scriptures, then it can't be true. Simple as that.

No. "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen” does not imply that anything that is contrary to scripture is untrue.

Firstly, in the quote he disclaims "respecting the material world," not all scripture.

Secondly, he says that it "will readily be seen," meaning that whole quote is about Rowbotham making a prediction that the material world as depicted in Scripture will readily be seen.

Your allegation that Rowbotham is saying that "anything contrary to scripture is untrue" does not hold water at all, is not stated, and is ridiculous. That is only implied in your imagination.