Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology

[gnostic]

One may like to read further my post
#74 in another thread, please.

How does it any of that demonstrated the Qur'an accept sphere-like Earth instead of the Flat Earth?

Verse 20:53 compared the Earth with a "bed" or a "carpet", which implied the author think the Earth is flat, not spherical.

 

[gnostic]

I believe that Earth is round.

Being “round”, doesn’t necessarily mean sphere or spheroid.

There are many shapes that may have some roundness, that are not spherical. The term round is any shape that have curve.

A circle is a 2D shape that is round, but so is oval. An arch can have rounded curve. When draw a pie chart, and you cut a piece of that circle, you get a segment, which include straight line as well as rounded shape together.

Above are examples of 2D shapes that have rounded edges.

Even a square or rectangle can have rounded corners, instead of usual right-angled corners.

There are a number of 3D shapes, that have rounded surface but are not spheres, such as the cylinder (that can sometimes be referred to as a disk), the cone, a dome, etc.

My points are that there are many shapes that are round, but not necessarily a sphere.

Many ancient civilizations and cultures, people thought the Earth was disk in shape, so the world was flat, but if go to the edge, you could fall off.

So unless the Qur’an give a better description than “round”, the Quran doesn’t mean spheres.

 

[cladking]

So unless the Qur’an give a better description than “round”, the Quran doesn’t mean spheres.

Saying a sphere isn't round is a far more difficult argument to make than that the earth is flat.

 

[gnostic]

Saying a sphere isn't round is a far more difficult argument to make than that the earth is flat.

Any shape can be “round”.

If the Qur’an, the bible or any other scriptures want to describe sphere than they should call it specifically sphere, or like ball or orb. I am saying the scriptures need to be more specific.

Saying “round” is rather vague and therefore open to interpretation.

You are the one with the silly conspiracy theory that modern science isn’t specific enough with precise language and meaning.

Are you now going to tell me the scriptures don’t have to be specific with language and description?

 

[ChristineM]

I believe that Earth is round.

Round like this?

This is a spheroid (more precisely an oblate spheroid)

 

[cladking]

Any shape can be “round”.

If the Qur’an, the bible or any other scriptures want to describe sphere than they should call it specifically sphere, or like ball or orb. I am saying the scriptures need to be more specific.

Saying “round” is rather vague and therefore open to interpretation.

You are the one with the silly conspiracy theory that modern science isn’t specific enough with precise language and meaning.

Are you now going to tell me the scriptures don’t have to be specific with language and description?

You just butcher language.

I'm a "conspiracy nut" and a "sphere" isn't "round".

Somehow you think if the Koran isn't specific then it must be wrong but you have no problem with "gravity" not being defined in terms of its causations and relationship with other "knowns". You are grasping at straws because you want to believe in a concrete reality known by scioence in a world where nothing can be known but merely defined. We "defined" the world as "spherical" because it makes the math easier, not because it is represented by a "sphere" or an "oblate spheroid". The world has a core, mantle, crust, and magnetic field and none of them are "spherical". Its mountains are not a sphere. Very little would lie in a sphere no matter what diameter is defined. Even what might lie in a sphere would be constantly changing as the moon passes over and the tides follow it.

We have all this knowledge but you see it in only the terms you've chosen and you've chosen to simply dismiss what all the sun addled bumpkins of the past and all religious people, and all knowledge that can't be gleaned from an experiment shows. And then you never notice that the nature of gravity, the very nature of reality are not reproducible in any experiment and nothing that truly matters ever will be.

 

[cladking]

If I treated languiage like most people I'd argue that only a circle or arc can be 'round". i could argue that "round" only means "a set of points in the same plane and equidistant from a point".

But this would just be another semantical argument and semantical arguments are the province of those who believe in science. They must force reality to look like a reflection of whatever experiment or extrapolation is in the forefront of their minds at the moment.

 

[ChristineM]

If I treated languiage like most people I'd argue that only a circle or arc can be 'round". i could argue that "round" only means "a set of points in the same plane and equidistant from a point".

But this would just be another semantical argument and semantical arguments are the province of those who believe in science. They must force reality to look like a reflection of whatever experiment or extrapolation is in the forefront of their minds at the moment.

This is why we have definitions, to prevent confusion, misunderstanding and misrepresentation

 

[paarsurrey]

Saying a sphere isn't round is a far more difficult argument to make than that the earth is flat.

One would agree that the realm of the truthful Religion is ethical, moral and spiritual irrespective of the form of Earth. Right, please?
Why the truthful Religion is supposed to interfere with Science by some people here? Isn't it a weird approach?

Regards

 

[cladking]

This is why we have definitions, to prevent confusion, misunderstanding and misrepresentation

ROFL.

"Definitions" are exactly why modern language is so confused. Even the simplest words (especially the simplest words) will be mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Imagine to to relay the simple message "Measure twice and cut once is an old saw that will reduce wood waste" through several people like "chinese telephone". It would immediately be twisted out of shape and contorted to something entirely alien to its meaning. In no time the very subject of the concept will be changed completely.

This is caused by the simple fact that definitions are composed of words which also have different meanings to every person. Utterances by their very nature are parsed differently by every individual.

There are numerous reasons that ideas get mangled but most people don't argue concepts and ideas but instead choose to argue words. Communication is the only means to prevent meaning drift but rather than trying to communicate people want to argue about how to communicate.

 

[cladking]

One would agree that the realm of the truthful Religion is ethical, moral and spiritual irrespective of the form of Earth. Right, please?
Why the truthful Religion is supposed to interfere with Science by some people here? Isn't it a weird approach?

"Truth" is always contingent on perspective and some things don't appear to exist at all from some perspectives. There is no such thing as religious truth from the perspective of a complete understanding of "science" just as complete faith can or will obscure scientific knowledge. Even when we can state truth with comprehensible perspective and definitions anybody might not be able to see it. Even tautologies and illogical constructions can seem to make perfect sense or no sense at all.

I believe religion is a confusion of ancient science and the way people undertsand science is a confusion of experiment. We each must tweeze for grains of truth wherever we might find it.

 

[ChristineM]

ROFL.

"Definitions" are exactly why modern language is so confused. Even the simplest words (especially the simplest words) will be mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Imagine to to relay the simple message "Measure twice and cut once is an old saw that will reduce wood waste" through several people like "chinese telephone". It would immediately be twisted out of shape and contorted to something entirely alien to its meaning. In no time the very subject of the concept will be changed completely.

This is caused by the simple fact that definitions are composed of words which also have different meanings to every person. Utterances by their very nature are parsed differently by every individual.

There are numerous reasons that ideas get mangled but most people don't argue concepts and ideas but instead choose to argue words. Communication is the only means to prevent meaning drift but rather than trying to communicate people want to argue about how to communicate.

Say what? That is garbage, the confusion is causes by people making bullpoop up to suite their ego. Yes words are misrepresented, at least a definition is accepted and fairly stable.

If its twisted out of shape that is down to people not the definition. If those people use different meanings for defined words that is down to their ignorance. Not the definition of the words.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Truth" is always contingent on perspective and some things don't appear to exist at all from some perspectives. There is no such thing as religious truth from the perspective of a complete understanding of "science" just as complete faith can or will obscure scientific knowledge. Even when we can state truth with comprehensible perspective and definitions anybody might not be able to see it. Even tautologies and illogical constructions can seem to make perfect sense or no sense at all.

I believe religion is a confusion of ancient science and the way people undertsand science is a confusion of experiment. We each must tweeze for grains of truth wherever we might find it.

I hold that the truthful Religion is based on certainty of Word of Revelation, there is nothing in Quran (the pristine, secure and preserved Word of G-d) that specifically interferes with the ancient , present or future science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Say what? That is garbage, the confusion is causes by people making bullpoop up to suite their ego. Yes words are misrepresented, at least a definition is accepted and fairly stable.

If its twisted out of shape that is down to people not the definition. If those people use different meanings for defined words that is down to their ignorance. Not the definition of the words.

So you focused on the word "definition" and ignored every single idea I presented.

Typical.

Even more typical is that before you fixated on the word "definition" you didn't bother to look it up and see what Funk or Wagnall believes it means.

And people wonder why there are seven billion different languages and continual war.

 

[ChristineM]

So you focused on the word "definition" and ignored every single idea I presented.

Typical.

Even more typical is that before you fixated on the word "definition" you didn't bother to look it up and see what Funk or Wagnall believes it means.

And people wonder why there are seven billion different languages and continual war.

Definition is what we are discussing, not your ideas.

 

[gnostic]

Somehow you think if the Koran isn't specific then it must be wrong but you have no problem with "gravity" not being defined in terms of its causations and relationship with other "knowns".

You don’t know what you are talking about, because you clearly haven’t read the Qur’an.

The author of Qur’an describe nature often in terms of similes, because the Qur’an is written like poetic verses, so it often compare one reality with unrelated reality.

For instances, the Qur’an will describe like the light from the sun, moon, stars, was like light from oil lamp (Qur’an 24:35). While it is poetic, it isn’t accurate.

The Qur’an frequently described the Earth being “spread” out like a “carpet” and sometimes as spread out as “bed”, depending on the translations. Let me put up that verse again:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
[It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants.

YUSUF ALI
"He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others.

PICKTHALL
Who hath appointed the earth as a bed and hath threaded roads for you therein and hath sent down water from the sky and thereby We have brought forth divers kinds of vegetation,

There are more verses which describe the Earth being spread out like “carpet” or “bed” in other chapters of the Qur’an.

Neither “bed”, nor “carpet” describes a sphere or sphere-like shape, cladking, so of course the Qur’an is describing a Earth that is “flat”.

Does a bed or carpet sounds like the Earth is “spherical” in shape, cladking?

In one verse (79:30), the words “bed” and “carpet” were omitted in the passage, and instead just describe the Earth being “spread” or “extended” like the “wide expanse”:

YUSUF ALI
And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

PICKTHALL
And after that He spread the earth,

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And after that He spread the earth.

This is fine, and I wouldn’t think much of it, but then I found on modern translation I have not of before, added “egg”.

Khalifa
He made the earth egg-shaped.

There is really no “egg” in the original language, but clearly some apologists try to add word that not in the passage, in order to counter the frequent bed or carpet descriptions. The person or people responsible for this Khalifa translation, are clearly, cannot be trusted.

 

[paarsurrey]

Definition is what we are discussing, not your ideas.

Who authors the definitions and on what authority, please? There are different definitions given by different lexicons and by different disciplines. Are these binding on an individual?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Who authors the definitions and on what authority, please? There are different definitions given by different lexicons and by different disciplines. Are these binding on an individual?

Regards

Different definitions closely related, you don't have a section at the end of a definition that says, "fill in your version here __________"

Of course some words have multiple definitions, these to are recorded and accepted by the people who catalogue language.

If you want to change a definition to suite yourself you are chsnging a language... Good luck with that

 

[cladking]

Definition is what we are discussing, not your ideas.

You aren't re

You don’t know what you are talking about, because you clearly haven’t read the Qur’an.

The author of Qur’an describe nature often in terms of similes, because the Qur’an is written like poetic verses, so it often compare one reality with unrelated reality.

For instances, the Qur’an will describe like the light from the sun, moon, stars, was like light from oil lamp (Qur’an 24:35). While it is poetic, it isn’t accurate.

The Qur’an frequently described the Earth being “spread” out like a “carpet” and sometimes as spread out as “bed”, depending on the translations. Let me put up that verse again:



There are more verses which describe the Earth being spread out like “carpet” or “bed” in other chapters of the Qur’an.

Neither “bed”, nor “carpet” describes a sphere or sphere-like shape, cladking, so of course the Qur’an is describing a Earth that is “flat”.

Does a bed or carpet sounds like the Earth is “spherical” in shape, cladking?

In one verse (79:30), the words “bed” and “carpet” were omitted in the passage, and instead just describe the Earth being “spread” or “extended” like the “wide expanse”:



This is fine, and I wouldn’t think much of it, but then I found on modern translation I have not of before, added “egg”.


There is really no “egg” in the original language, but clearly some apologists try to add word that not in the passage, in order to counter the frequent bed or carpet descriptions. The person or people responsible for this Khalifa translation, are clearly, cannot be trusted.

Have you ever looked up words like "carpet" or "bed" in a dictionary?

You do realize these are not the same words in which they were originally written and are English? You do realize EVERY definition of EVERY word in EVERY language is used by DEFINITION. While you're busy looking up these words check on "definition" too. Look up the words in the definition of "definition". Look those up too until you understand my damn point.

 

[ChristineM]

You aren't re

What?