The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[Parsimony]

I suspect that what we have here is a non-Christian pretending to be a fundamentalist in an attempt to show "this is what the Bible really says, so if you believe the Bible is literally true, you have to believe what I'm telling you!". Perhaps they are hoping that it would challenge some of the Christians and/or Jews on here to re-evaluate the Bible and then to reject it. That's just my guess at their intentions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Guys, do the original texts say the earth is flat or does it say it was made with a leveled ground for use to to go thru with ease? I think there is a difference. Leveled ground means it is simplified for use that when we walk on it, we don't turn upside down when we go to the other side, not that the shape of the planet is flat.

There is a lot about the edges of the earth, the corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, and being elevated high enough to see all of the Earth, even all the Kingdoms of the Earth. There is also a lot about the Earth being "fixed," meaning it doesn't move and that the sun revolves around the Earth.

You have provided much circumstantial evidence. The flat-earth side also has circumstantial evidence.

The flat Earth side has no evidence. Even the ancient Mayans, Greeks, and others new the Earth was round and traveled around the sun based on their observations of where the stuff in the sky appears and when. The Greeks were even came up with a number for the circumference of the Earth that was pretty close.

Wait, if the earth is (almost) round, why don't people walk upside down on the other side? Err... what if this side is the other side?!?! Okay, we need to experiment on this then... This is Saudi Arabia and I'm standing right up ahead. People on the other side, are you you standing upside down? What is on the other side anyways? Who are you people?

The simplest answer is that, for one there is no real "up" or "down" on a sphere, and because gravity pulls objects towards the center of a mass. We all walk upright because we are all being pulled towards the center of the Earth due to the gravitational pull the Earth is exerting on us.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Scripture is replete with a multitude of clear references to the Earth being not a globe suspended in space, but a flat surface. Just a few of these descriptions would be:

1.) In Matthew 4:8-9 Idiot Satan taking Jesus up on a very high mountain to show Him "All the kingdoms of the Earth." A globe Earth would not permit such a perspective, but a flat Earth would.

2.) Genesis 1:6-8 has the original Hebrew Text word for "dome," which is the shape of the firmament above the flat Earth.

3.) 1 Samuel 2:8 and Job 9:6 speak of the "pillars" of the Earth, which would not be within a solid sphere.

These three points should be enough for this little introductory discussion, just to get your sensitive and heretofore gullible hearts started onto the path of Biblical Cosmology. There is much more Scripture to know about regarding the Earth, none of which speak of a spheroid Earth.

Some science to be given for those here who like the idea of science helping them figure things out in life would be:

1.) Gyroscopic navigation successfully used for decades would not be possible upon a spinning globe Earth. The reference gyros would continuously precess and move as the globe Earth spins. Planes, ships, and missles would crash.

2.) A globe Earth would not continuously spin around the Polaris star, as the Earth hurtles in three axis motion through space in the Solar System, Galaxy, and Galaxy Cluster, all moving at millions of miles per hour.

3.) There exist no actual photos of the Earth taken from space vehicles. All NASA Earth images from them are admitted by them to be "composite images" artificially produced. As well, those images never show sky blue atmosphere around the Earth as we see it from the Earth.

4.) A thousand mph surface speed at the spinning equator of a globe Earth would have long ago forced all of the crustally mobile continents to move to the equator. But, this has not happened.

5.) There is no physical mechanism to cause the Earth's atmosphere to spin at the same rate as the surface of a spheroid Earth. The wind at the equator of a globe Earth should be supersonic, but it is not.

It will serve no purpose for yourself or any purpose within this discussion for you to become emotionally upset, attitudinally snarky, or full of ad hominem when you try to post your thoughts. Try to honor The Lord and His Bible with manly and efficacious statements. Thanks for your cooperation.

Isaiah 40:22 -- (Douay-Rheims)
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

Job 26:7...."hanging the Earth upon nothing."

The other language is poetic, most denoting permanence or beauty. Even now, poets will write of the 'distant corners of the Earth.' You think the Earth literally has corners?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, it boils down to this question: Have you directly seen the spherical earth with your own eyes?

My guess is you'll dismiss this also - but I have seen the spherical moon. Looking directly upon it, it is at least round - and the shadows on the moon during its various phases indicate that the light-source illuminating it is hitting a spherical object - hence the reason you see a crescent moon at any given time. If you were to observe one of the planets beyond ours you could also witness that planet spinning, and, seeing as how any given planet is round when viewed directly at any given moment, seeing a rotation of the content of the face of that planet one could only conclude that it was a spinning sphere. Observing any of the moons of those various planets, you would witness the same - they are spheres, orbiting a larger sphere, and themselves subject to the circular face with rotating visual content.

To take all that in, and then assume that our planet is a special-snowflake adhering to some completely separate set of physical rules (especially given the so-called "circumstantial" evidence that has been provided in this thread otherwise) is asinine. If you can't see that... well... I guess just go on enjoying your ignorance?

 

[Kemble]

To be perfectly honest Stokely, the myth of a round Earth has been championed and upheld for centuries by the scientific community after an agreement to add a contradictory piece of evidence against the Bible's authority. The reasoning behind that is after getting enough people to believe it, those with unwavering faith in the Word of God, the true followers of Jesus Christ, will see the contradiction and attempt to prove it wrong. In the process, it is hoped, they will get too close and drive off the edge.

 

[Kemble]

I suspect that what we have here is a non-Christian pretending to be a fundamentalist in an attempt to show "this is what the Bible really says, so if you believe the Bible is literally true, you have to believe what I'm telling you!". Perhaps they are hoping that it would challenge some of the Christians and/or Jews on here to re-evaluate the Bible and then to reject it. That's just my guess at their intentions.

Quotes in the OP indeed reveal the knowledge of the writers and their societies, which fall short of today's standards.

 

[buddhist]

What you lack is the ability to discern what constitutes valid evidence and the wisdom to discern the validity of sources.

I'd be more than happy to continue our conversation, but I do not respond to personal attacks. Otherwise, have a good day.

 

[buddhist]

My guess is you'll dismiss this also - but I have seen the spherical moon. Looking directly upon it, it is at least round - and the shadows on the moon during its various phases indicate that the light-source illuminating it is hitting a spherical object - hence the reason you see a crescent moon at any given time. If you were to observe one of the planets beyond ours you could also witness that planet spinning, and, seeing as how any given planet is round when viewed directly at any given moment, seeing a rotation of the content of the face of that planet one could only conclude that it was a spinning sphere. Observing any of the moons of those various planets, you would witness the same - they are spheres, orbiting a larger sphere, and themselves subject to the circular face with rotating visual content. To take all that in, and then assume that our planet is a special-snowflake adhering to some completely separate set of physical rules (especially given the so-called "circumstantial" evidence that has been provided in this thread otherwise) is asinine.

Yes, again, this is all circumstancial evidence. Seeing a spherical moon or spherical planets does not tell me that the Earth is either a planet or spherical.

If you can't see that... well... I guess just go on enjoying your ignorance?

I'd be more than happy to continue our conversation, but I will not indulge in personal attacks. Otherwise, have a good day.

 

[Kemble]

Seeing the spherical moon or spherical planets does not tell me that the Earth is either a planet or spherical.

You're being facetious.

 

[buddhist]

You're being facetious.

No, I am not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here are a couple of videos from amateur scientists featuring unaltered footage of the curvature of the earth:

There are dozens of these types of videos all over the internet. Why is it that I cannot find any similar experiments which show an entirely flat earth?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'd be more than happy to continue our conversation, but I will not indulge in personal attacks. Otherwise, have a good day.

I don't understand how positing that you'd possibly like to go on "enjoying your ignorance" is a personal attack. I personally, truly believe that you are being ignorant of the evidence and facts in this issue. Is there a word other than "ignorant" (with its root in the word "ignore") that you'd rather have me use to describe this particular belief I hold? The other options are:

disregard
blindness
crudeness
denseness
incapacity
naiveté
obtuseness

I really can't find a "flattering" alternative, if that's what you expect of me.

 

[buddhist]

Here are a couple of videos from amateur scientists featuring unaltered footage of the curvature of the earth:

There are dozens of these types of videos all over the internet. Why is it that I cannot find any similar experiments which show an entirely flat earth?

On these videos, it is evident to me that the horizon is constantly fluctuating from a convex to a concave shape (especially at the far left and right of the frame), even at low altitudes. I see it beginning at 48 seconds in the first video, and at around the same point in the last video. As a part-time photographer, this is evident to me that a fish-eye lens is being used; in my personal experience a fish-eye lens will always distort what is captured, and things will appear curved. It appears that the GoPro cameras and lenses were used, and the manufacturer even has instructions on how to minimize the curvature effect while using their equipment.

This circumstantial evidence fails my criteria for validity.

 

[buddhist]

I don't understand how positing that you'd possibly like to go on "enjoying your ignorance" is a personal attack. I personally, truly believe that you are being ignorant of the evidence and facts in this issue. Is there a word other than "ignorant" (with its root in the word "ignore") that you'd rather have me use to describe this particular belief I hold? The other options are:

disregard
blindness
crudeness
denseness
incapacity
naiveté
obtuseness

I really can't find a "flattering" alternative, if that's what you expect of me.

Why not refrain from such words at all, in the first place? Would you like it if I called round-Earthers, and yourself, ignorant, with a crude denseness?

 

[buddhist]

Why is it that I cannot find any similar experiments which show an entirely flat earth?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why not refrain from such words at all, in the first place? Would you like it if I called round-Earthers, and yourself, ignorant, with a crude denseness?

Considering I know you to be wrong? It wouldn't insult me in the least. So say anything you want. Your insult fails my criteria for offense.

 

[buddhist]

Considering I know you to be wrong? It wouldn't insult me in the least. So say anything you want. Your insult fails my criteria for offense.

Goodbye.

 

[Parsimony]

Are human beings competent enough to suppress the truth of a flat Earth by covering up evidence on a world-wide basis 24/7 for hundreds, if not thousands of years? I have my doubts...

 

[buddhist]

Are human beings competent enough to suppress the truth of a flat Earth by covering up evidence on a world-wide basis 24/7 for hundreds, if not thousands of years? I have my doubts...

Few possess the financial resources for high-altitude exploration. Otherwise, there is plenty of circumstancial evidence on both sides from ground observations - yes, even the flat earth side.

 

[Parsimony]

Few possess the financial resources for high-altitude exploration. Otherwise, there is plenty of circumstancial evidence on both sides from ground observations - yes, even the flat earth side.

My statement still stands. A world-wide conspiracy between governments (without slip-ups) would be required in order for the flat Earth to even be a possibility. Every space program and every airline worldwide would have to be in on it (since anyone who had ever sent a craft into space would find out about the Earth's flatness and every airline would discover discrepancies between flight times predicted for a flat Earth and that of a round Earth). I don't have that kind of faith in humanity's ability to deceive.