Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2018, 10:18:35 PM »
Thank you, Dionysios. Perhaps I will go to next year's.

I do not have any problem with scripture being used as evidence myself, since scripture, whether you believe the spiritual nature or not, represents our previous knowledge of the world. It is the handed-down knowledge of the ancients; of how many civilizations before ours believed the world worked. That they deduced that the earth was flat and that the sun moved is of importance, and should not be discarded. Of interest is that we can point out that all of humanity empirically deduced one thing, as it was the most readily and apparent, while later researchers went to great lengths to provide "proofs" for their alternate theory (which do not stand up to scrutiny), apparently under the knowledge that they were trying to convince others against the empirical nature of our world.
The simple task of determining the shape of the earth using measured distances, path of the sun, etc. stands up to full scrutiny.

Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2018, 11:42:18 AM »
I do not have any problem with scripture being used as evidence myself
I do. Well. It depends of what you're using it as evidence of. If it's of scientific concepts then that is misguided. That is not what Scripture is trying to teach us.

Quote
since scripture, whether you believe the spiritual nature or not, represents our previous knowledge of the world. It is the handed-down knowledge of the ancients; of how many civilizations before ours believed the world worked.

No, that is not what Scripture is. Scripture itself tells you what it is and what it is for:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

It is not a scientific textbook, it is revealing deeper truths and teaching me different things than the stuff like the shape of the earth or how far the sun is.
Even if you don't believe Scripture is true, it's still clear what it's purpose is. Conversely, no-one should look in a science book and think they'll find the meaning of life in there.

Quote
That they deduced that the earth was flat and that the sun moved is of importance, and should not be discarded.

It neither should be discarded nor should it be held up as evidence of veracity. The ancients believed lots of things, some right, some wrong. They believed everything was made of 4 elements: water, fire, air and earth. We now know better. Anyone using that ancient belief as evidence that it's true because the ancients believed it would be laughed out of the room.

Quote
Of interest is that we can point out that all of humanity empirically deduced one thing, as it was the most readily and apparent
Yes, if you knew nothing about science at all and just walked around and looked around then the obvious conclusion would be that you're living on a flat plane and that the sun and stars go around that. Note, you would obviously believe that the sun goes under the plane of the earth at night and the stars go under it during the day. That would be the natural conclusion from a local perspective with no knowledge of science or ability to quickly travel or communicate across long distances, you'd think that night would be night everywhere and day would be day everywhere. The idea of time-zones and other places being in light when you're in the dark would be hard to fathom without ways of travelling or communicating across large distances quickly.
As I've said in other threads, your senses are not sufficient for determining reality.

Quote
while later researchers went to great lengths to provide "proofs" for their alternate theory (which do not stand up to scrutiny), apparently under the knowledge that they were trying to convince others against the empirical nature of our world.
We will have to agree to disagree about whether they stand up under scrutiny, but most of the "scrutiny" I see from your posts on here is you simply not understanding scientific ideas and thus concluding they are wrong. If there was any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth (which there wasn't, frankly) then it ended when the space race started and we started getting real pictures of the globe earth. To dig your heels in and call all that fake and still claim the earth is flat is cognitive dissonance writ large.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 11:44:33 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2018, 11:31:11 PM »
Thank you for the recap, Dionysios. That was really interesting to read about.

Much appreciate. There are more worthwhile and interesting aspects I can mention, but I’d first like to mention an idea I’ve got because of its potential.

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2018, 11:44:45 PM »
Thank you, Dionysios. Perhaps I will go to next year's.

Next year’s major USA conference will be in Dallas. The Canadian FE 2019 conference will be in Toronto. FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).

I’ve got an idea. Tom, I have to say if it becomes feasible even if it means the 2020 conference, then you should be a speaker - especially on Rowbotham and on anything else you saw fit. You’ve got the quality of information & Robbie Davidson has the platform. If that connection was made, then we all benefit.

As far as that goes, I wouldn’t mind speaking myself about Cosmas Indicopleustes. I plan to do a follow-up tape recorded lecture in Oregon focusing on Cosmas Indicopleustes in two parts:
1) history of ancient flat earth belief
2) the ancient Christian model characteristics and their continuance through Middle Ages and contrast with Rowbotham model

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1382
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2018, 11:46:20 PM »
FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).

Depending on the price of admission, I'll go to that.

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2018, 02:02:18 AM »
FYI, there will also be a California flat earth conference in Yorba Linda (L.A. area) in late February 2019 (around the corner).

Depending on the price of admission, I'll go to that

Judging by the lineup of speakers, the Yorba Linda, CA conference will be bible heavy compared to the big one in Denver which had a more even distribution.  Especially, Jeran Campanella from California (Bay area) and David Weiss of NYC (both agnostic) were in Denver but will be absent from this one. Just FYI.

Yorba Linda, CA FE Conference
Speaker Roster
http://www.qe2019.com/speakers1

http://www.qe2019.com
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 02:09:20 AM by Dionysios »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1382
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2018, 02:37:21 AM »
The "bible heavy" thing doesn't bother me. I'm evangelical non-denominational Christian (Calvary Chapel) though not fundamentalist and a little bit of a progressive renegade among the congregation. So I'm comfortable with Young Earth Creationists and literalists even if I don't subscribe to that brand of Christianity and scripture interpretation myself. I just would like to lurk.

But this looks to be much more than a flat earth conference. They're scheduled to cover quite a litany of subjects. I don't think I want to wade through the whole Question Everything slate. We'll see.

Edit: Nope. Too expensive for the merely curious.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 02:41:27 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2018, 06:13:17 PM »
I’ve got an idea. Tom, I have to say if it becomes feasible even if it means the 2020 conference, then you should be a speaker - especially on Rowbotham and on anything else you saw fit. You’ve got the quality of information & Robbie Davidson has the platform. If that connection was made, then we all benefit.

As far as that goes, I wouldn’t mind speaking myself about Cosmas Indicopleustes. I plan to do a follow-up tape recorded lecture in Oregon focusing on Cosmas Indicopleustes in two parts:
1) history of ancient flat earth belief
2) the ancient Christian model characteristics and their continuance through Middle Ages and contrast with Rowbotham model

That sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind speaking to them. However, the main barrier I have noticed is that Robbie seems to disparage the Flat Earth Society. His openings tend to include the "we are not the FES, they try to discredit FET with their accelerating earth theory" stump speech. And I've heard things along the lines of "we all hate the FES" from some of those speakers on a couple of occasions. I believe that those claims are unfounded, and some sort of reconciliation and better understanding needs to take place.

You may have seen that I am working on improving some of the Universal Accelerator content, to better communicate its strengths. Aside from that, having met them, is there anything else that you see should be done?

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2018, 05:45:18 AM »
I could mention the idea to a few of the speakers and friends most likely to be sympathetic.  I’ll also mention if I come upon other avenues which is entirely possible.

Just a thought is I’d say that their opposition to the “flat earth society” does share some common ground with why you guys departed from Daniel Shenton’s website in the first place which their movement followed after 3 to 4 years. In other words, there is some common ground there which could be exploited in facilitating reconciliation. As far as the universal accelerator goes, I don’t think there is any getting around that because it’s a genuine disagreement.

As far as content of a future presentation to that community, I could suggest emphasis on what drives success knowing the audience. Of course, never to hide what one believes, but I think any significant emphasis upon the universal accelerator to that particular audience would take off like a lead balloon. That would scuttle it rather than facilitate it. I’d say a mutually respectful agree to disagree would have to reign for that aspect of it for the reconcilement to occur.

Among other things, a much more thorough (and long standing) familiarity with ‘Earth Not a Globe’ and other flat earth literature than an audience who came into it through YouTube videos of Mark Sargent, Eric Dubay, and ODD is what brought the whole idea to mind. I’m sure there is plenty you could educate them about.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2018, 09:31:59 AM »
I recall that the last time Pete went onto the Globebusters show, he was mostly razzled about the Universal Accelerator. Globebusters was not hostile, but they were expecting him to defend his views, perhaps more out of curiosity than hostile disagreement. I would expect the same questions if I were to intermingle with the wider Flat Earth community, even if it is not brought up.

My main interest in this would be public relations with the wider community. I really don't know what the disinfo shill stuff is about.

Rowbotham is still the best way to learn about Flat Earth Theory. When I first learned of FE there was not much information online and I purchased a copy of Earth Not a Globe and read it with avid interest, which encouraged me to find all that I could on the matter. It is unfortunate that people no longer start from it, especially since all other works, books, articles, and YouTube videos, all build on top of its elements, whether those authors know it or not. Major parts of the Wiki probably should be rewritten or added onto under the knowledge that most people will probably never read ENAG.

I agree that a modern exposition of Rowbotham, especially of the Zetetic philosophy, would be beneficial, for both the FES and the wider community. The empirical tenets of proceeding only by inquiry, taking nothing for granted, and tracing phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes should be championed by all. This philosophy is of such great importance to science and the credibility of knowledge that, for me at least, it even surpasses the importance of the earth's shape.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 11:34:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8746
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2018, 02:44:54 PM »
One thing I'd really like to do, and which I'm struggling to get much support with from the non-FES FE community, is to actually document the alternatives to UA. I've had some conversations with Globebusters and Ben Long to that effect, and while both said they'd contribute something, they've been fairly quiet so far.

There's a disagreement within the community, and that's fine. Much like how we showcase different maps, we could successfully portray multiple (non-)gravitational models while simply stating that one of them is preferred by the Society. I think it would go a long way towards alleviating some points of contention. After all, part of our mission statement is to document FET
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2018, 07:17:25 PM »
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.

In my opinion this is not what scripture states, however.

Chronicles 16:30 says: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Usually this is interpreted to mean that the earth is not moving.

Other sections clarify what that means:

Psalm 104:5 clarifies: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Another translation of Psalm 104:5 states "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever."

I read the above as the purpose and function of the foundation being for bringing stability to the earth. It is immovable and fixed in the sense that it can't wobble or totter. In Job, in fact, we read that the earth isn't actually resting on a foundational plane or entity.

Job 26:7 ESV: "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."

The earth is over a void. Further, the earth is being hung. What do you do when you hang things? You lift them up. The above word "hangs" is a verb, an action word, something that is happening. If you hang something on nothing you will have to continue to hang it on nothing. Hanging also implies being pulled in the opposite direction from "gravity".

Scripture also says that the earth rests upon pillars:

Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them."

Usually this is interpreted to mean solid and unmovable pillars.

Yet, in other areas of scripture, we see that pillars tend to move up and down:

Exodus 33:9 says "And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses."

Numbers 12:5 relates "And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth"

We see that pillars can move vertically in scripture, and are not necessarily solid in nature.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the bible on this subject is how the earth's creation is portrayed. The following is the account of Genesis from the New American Standard Bible, which I have read is a more direct translation than others:

https://www.biblica.com/bible/nasb/genesis/1/

Quote
The Creation

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

On the second day of creation God created the expanse. What is "the expanse"? Usually it has been interpreted, under the Round Earth mindset, to mean the firmament and the expanse of the heavens (as they believe in a large universe). But this does not make sense. On the first day of creation the heavens were already created. On day one of creation God created the heavens, and then on day two of creation God created the heavens again?

I am not alone in this confusion:

https://ichthys.com/mail-Waters-Above-Firmament-Genesis-Gap.htm

Quote
understanding Genesis 1:6-8 as being an ex nihilo creation of space which was not there before does not jibe with the overall context of the seven days (the heavens are now created on day two while the earth existed before day one), makes no logical sense (for it requires light and the earth to exist outside of space), and, much more importantly, is completely inconsistent with Genesis 1:1 which tells us that God had already previously created the heavens (mentioned first) and the earth instantaneously:

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    Genesis 1:1 NIV

How can this verse be consistent with earth existing before day one but with the heavens not created until day two?

Even creationscience.com says that there are multiple interpretations for this section of Genesis on what is meant by "the expanse," and what is meant by heaven and heavens.

The definition of an expanse is the distance to which something can grow or expand, or a vast open surface.

We read a definition at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/expanse

Quote
ex·panse  (ĭk-spăns′)
n.
1. A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.
2.
a. Expansion.
b. The distance or amount of expansion.

expanse (ɪkˈspæns)
n
1. an uninterrupted surface of something that spreads or extends, esp over a wide area; stretch: an expanse of water.
2. expansion or extension

Day Two of creation depicts the Creator as dividing something vertically to create the expanse. Could the Universal Accelerator have been created on the Second Day?

It would be interesting if a biblical scholar looked at these interpretations under the Flat Earth mindset. The concepts of inertia and acceleration may have not been in use at the time of writing, or were known differently than today.

Would the wider Flat Earth community be interested in any of this? I have previously written on how the Universal Accelerator makes sense in other ways.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 05:40:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1382
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2018, 07:37:30 PM »
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.

In my opinion this is not necessarily what scripture states, however...[snip]

That's interesting.

However, I could also make a similar exegesis regarding the shape of earth.

But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth? I honestly don't know. I'm only familiar with Young Earth Creationism from a segment of my congregation. A flat earth model has never come up as far as I know, much less a UA-version of such a model.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2018, 01:26:18 AM »
Quote from: Bobby
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth?

I would ask, what is the definition of immovable? According to Google Dictionary the main definition of immovable is "not able to be moved."

If something is immovable, it means that you can't move it. God, however, is not man, and can and does move the earth in scripture. There are several passages in scripture where God moves the earth.

Psalm 99 says "The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake."

Isaiah 24-19: "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken."

From the above passage the earth can move, if God chooses it to do so. It can be shaken. It can be split asunder. It can be broken up. Reading the bible very literally, we can conclude that God can move the earth if God wishes to do so. It is man who cannot move the earth. Nor can the earth move to other causes. Further, we saw quotes that clarify that immovable may be in the context that it cannot wobble.

Would you agree that a heavy and powerful train is (generally) immovable from its track? Would you also agree that such a heavy and powerful train would be entirely immovable to an infant? Man is that infant.

If God is saying that something is immovable, we can see that it is clear that the implication is that it is immovable to man or the elements, not God. If God were moving the earth or the universe as a whole, He would still tell you that you cannot move it. The literal definition of immovable is true (to you).

If it is asserted that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, the question becomes: "Immovable to what and to whom?" Certainly not to God. And if it does not apply to God, then the Bible therefore tells us that the earth is movable -- through God.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 11:40:10 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2018, 07:36:09 AM »
Quote from: Bobby
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth?

I would ask, what is the definition of immovable? According to Google Dictionary the main definition of immovable is "not able to be moved."

If something is immovable, it means that you can't move it. God, however, is not man, and can and does move the earth in scripture. There are several passages in scripture where God moves the earth.

Psalm 99 says "The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake."

Isaiah 24-19: "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken."

From the above passage the earth can move, if God chooses it to do so. It can be shaken. It can be split asunder. It can be broken up. Reading the bible very literally, we can conclude that God can move the earth if God wishes to do so. It is man who cannot move the earth. Nor can the earth move to other causes. Further, we saw quotes that clarify that fixed and immovable may be in the context that it cannot wobble.

Would you agree that a heavy and powerful train is (generally) immovable from its track? Would you also agree that such a heavy and powerful train would be entirely immovable to an infant? Man is that infant.

If God is saying that something is immovable, we can see that it is clear that the implication is that it is immovable to man or the elements, not God. If God were moving the earth or the universe as a whole, He would still tell you that you cannot move it. The literal definition of immovable is true (to you).

If it is asserted that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, the question becomes: "Immovable to what and to whom?" Certainly not to God. And if it does not apply to God, then the Bible therefore tells us that the earth is movable -- through God.

A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion. First off, Pete, great job. I thought you handled the talk extremely well. It seemed their objections to TFES, at least on the surface, can be distilled down to:

A) Rumor has it that both societies are shills
B) The societies allow too much dissent (which is kind of a part of A)
C) Competition
D) UA puts the earth in motion

A/B: Dubay had that vid a few years back about how the "society(s)" was a shill organization and somehow linked to Ferrari's parody/anti-establishment society. Whether he started the false rumor, I don't know, but it seems to have permeated through the FE community and as the main Globebusters guy said, that was the first thing he heard when he got into this so steered clear. One guy, I think Jeran, did the math on example post counts from RE members and thought that they must be paid b/c who would spend the time, etc. Which kind of leads into B. A globebuster said he deletes a lot of comments from REr's and Pete defended TFES's free speech stance and explained moderation policies and such as to why there are so many contrary views allowed here. Unfortunately, it felt like what Pete was trying to explain about debate, amassing knowledge, understanding the arguments, challenging notions, seemed to be lost on them.
It was unanimous, however, that Dubay is way too far the other way and bans everyone and is basically an egomaniac.

C) About 30 minutes in, Pete was talking about TFES growth across the forum, FB and Twitter, and it seemed to get a little tense. I don't remember the specific words, but GB's seemed to be kind of like, "That's great and all, but what we're doing is what's really driving all this growth." Have a listen again and see if you agree with my vibe sensing. Point being, perhaps, besides A/B, I think there is definite competition within the community and maybe the more they stay away from here, the better it is for growing their subs, kind of a circle the wagons approach. Where as Pete was way more open, saying, "Hey, yeah, come on over, partake, add to our wiki, this is a platform for the entirety of the FE community..."

D) First, until listening to this, I didn't realize that UA was a society "position". I always assumed it was one of several gravity-esque FE hypotheses. The discussion made it seem like it's officially endorsed by TFES. That aside, I think you can make a scriptural argument for a movable earth to support UA. But literally zero people have ever walked away from a scriptural interpretation debate having changed their mind.  However, I think the issue is larger than scriptural interpretation, if such a thing is possible. A UA moving earth, scriptural or otherwise, is anathema to the wider FE community as much so as a spinning earth. The second you put a youtube FEr's earth into any sort of motion you might as well have just run over their puppy. But, it's worth a shot and a TB/Skiba debate on the subject would definitely be entertaining.

Kind of back to A/B, I threw together sort of society timeline. It's not altogether accurate or thorough, but I was thinking that presenting things like this and maybe getting the mission of TFES out to the YT audience may help in at least removing some of the shill stigma.



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2018, 06:54:47 PM »
There may not necessarily be any debate to be had. The information can simply be provided as catalyst with a question mark, and the community can decide on what is meant by these things. I am more interested in asking them if it is possible. And if so, and if there is enough scriptural support on the matter, then the rising earth can be their own idea.

We find an extract from God's Impending Judgement of the Earth:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+24&version=HCSB

Quote
For the windows are opened from heaven,
and the foundations of the earth are shaken.
The earth is completely devastated;
the earth is split open;
the earth is violently shaken.
The earth staggers like a drunkard
and sways like a hut.
Earth’s rebellion weighs it down,
and it falls, never to rise again.

The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.

Earth's rebellion weighs it down. The earth will fall, never to rise again. Again? Again appears to say that the earth is normally rising, or at least that it has risen before. That sentence could have been written without the "again," but it was not. Falling, rising, both contradict the supposed absolute rule for the immovability of the earth. All other versions of this passage, selectable through the top drop-down menu on that page, have the same "never to rise again" statement.

Will those who champion literal interpretation of scripture accuse me of taking the scripture too literally? Or, could it be that this information is new, and was discarded in importance by geocentric Round Earth interpretation long ago?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 11:58:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1382
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2018, 07:08:23 PM »
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion.

Where is this?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3141
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2018, 07:53:55 PM »
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 08:11:17 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2018, 07:57:35 PM »
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion.

Where is this?


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5883
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Conference Denver
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2018, 10:16:00 PM »
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.

Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict. What is the foundation? How can the earth both be over a void and on a foundation? The most explicit description of the foundation is found in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 3:11: "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

It says directly above that the foundation is Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 48:13 tells us: "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together."

Isaiah tells us that God founded the earth with His left hand, and the heavens are spread with His right hand, and that when He calls to them (presumably His hands), they stand together. This reads as verification of what the foundation is.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 11:59:52 PM by Tom Bishop »