The Flat Earth myth and the Bible.

[Joseph shall add]

34

 

[TCassidy]

Same thing as calling me a fool. Would that make you a hypocrite?

Ah! I see. Except I didn't call you a fool. I said that your posting absolute nonsense, faulty math, faulty science, and ignoring the scriptures I posted, indicated you were making a fool of yourself. I did not post that faulty math. I did not post the faulty science. I did not ignore scripture. You did all that.

 

[Joseph shall add]

No. Less distance traveled in the same time means less speed. Remember the formula s=d/t (speed equals distance divided by time). At the equator (d) 24000 miles / (t) 24 hours = (s) 1000 mph.

Your math skills are less well developed than my 8 year old grandson's. And because you don't seem to understand how little you actually know, you insist on making a public fool of yourself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Of course the authors of the Bible believed that the earth was flat.

The Author of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. I suggest that you read the link in the O.P.

 

[Deacon]

The link in the opening post chiefly concerned how people interpreted the evidences in the Middle Ages and later.

I would agree with FollowTheWay that the evidence shows that during the time the OT was composed the theory was a solid firmament over a flat earth.
Egyptian and Babylonian writing confirm this.

Revelation did not necessitate the recipients add, change or modify any scientific theory they held.

Rob

 

[HankD]

According to the bible (and probably you newspaper or online weather report) the sun "rises" and "sets" even while of course science tells us (and I believe it) that the earth rotates on its axis and causes the appearance of the "rising" and "setting" of the sun.

I decided long ago that I shouldn't criticize God for creating a universe with many "appearances" and no scientific explanation as to the "scientific truth" so-called.

Look, we don't even actually see what is out there.
Light waves (photons) travel via the optic nerve to the brain where the data is interpreted into something to which we respond.

Same with sound... atmospheric vibrations are processed via the auditory nerve system.
The cochlear nerve carries auditory sensory information from the cochlea of the inner ear to the brain and not the actual vibrations and we get a human interpretation of what happened.

That's just the way it is and I trust Him.

Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would agree with FollowTheWay that the evidence shows that during the time the OT was composed the theory was a solid firmament over a flat earth.
Egyptian and Babylonian writing confirm this.

Why would we be concerned about what Egyptians or Babylonians wrote? Are we following their gods?

 

[Deacon]

Why would we be concerned about what Egyptians or Babylonians wrote? Are we following their gods?

Good question!

When you study an ancient language, you cannot make the words mean whatever you want them to or assume they mean the same thing now that they meant then. You need to study them in the context of their original audience.

The same thing applies to scientific concepts or worldviews. Knowing how the ancients viewed the world helps us to adjust our frame of reference and begin to enter into the mind of the original audience.

You see, although the bible was written for us, the bible wasn’t written to us.

We can’t impose the basic scientific knowledge which we been taught since we were knee-high, upon the ancient recipients of the texts.

Although the message of scripture transcends culture, it’s form is bound by the culture of its recipients.

For example, the ancient idea that a person thinks or feels with one’s kidneys or liver was basic science in the ancient world. God accommodated this ancient belief within the pages of scripture. You can “prove” it scripturally.

Understanding that God communicated his message while accommodating the ancient worldviews of his communicators, lets us separate their beliefs from God’s message.

You ask, "Are we following their gods?"
The obvious answer is NO!
HOWEVER... we can see that they incorporated the idea that there are many god's into their ancient worldview.

“God stands in the divine assembly; he pronounces judgment among the gods:” (Psalm 82:1, CSB)

“Lord, there is no one like you among the gods, and there are no works like yours.” (Psalm 86:8, CSB)​

This is something totally foreign to our own worldview.

Being familiar with the literature of the ancient world helps us to more fully understand the common worldviews of the times and how God accommodated their pre-scientific beliefs when communicating through his messengers to his people.

Rob

 

[Joseph shall add]

There are people on this earth that are so sensitive to movement that they get very ill when they earth quakes. Some people in here have experienced sea sickness and that is just stepping on a ship for a small amount of time. I was in the Navy this earth is flat as can be. Always was and has been. There is only one sea level world wide. No civil engineer has ever made any adjustments for the globe earth, And some projects are thousands of miles long. Any person on the earth can do one simple experiment and prove the earth is not a sphere. Take a plumb- bob set it up. And if it is point straight down. Then you are not spinning on a pear shaped globe spinning at 60,000 miles per-hour on a planet spinning at 1000 MPH. And if you think you are i recommend that you seek medical help.
First off you are rejecting Gods word on the subject. Which is a indication of being deceived.
Second no common since.
Third you seem to think your logic is important. According to God you logic is that of fallen sinners.
Science has never proven Gods word in error. And by the amount of blatant lies that NASA tells they can't disprove the flat earth either.
Some of you will say they put a man on the moon, i will assure you that never happened. I have been working with electronics and computers for a long time. I remember working on computers that weighted 40,000 lbs. The technology did not exist to put a man on the moon in 1969. It was all smoke and mirrors. This is a fallen world and that is just a fact.
Just because you were told something on TV or in school does not make it truth. Gods word is truth. Every single word of it. And if you can't understand the King James bible you might want to check out the Hebrew and the Aramaic they same the same thing, FLAT.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The link in the opening post chiefly concerned how people interpreted the evidences in the Middle Ages and later.

I would agree with FollowTheWay that the evidence shows that during the time the OT was composed the theory was a solid firmament over a flat earth.
Egyptian and Babylonian writing confirm this.

Revelation did not necessitate the recipients add, change or modify any scientific theory they held.

Rob

And actually the answer is not straightforward. Since Aristotle, some people conjectured that the earth was spherical. During the period of the writing of the Old Testament, the prevailing view was that it was flat. Likewise, the idea of a spherical earth was not held by everyone even through the Middle Ages which represented in many ways a dark period in which the earth's philosophical and scientific knowledge gained earlier was lost. I will say that I do not agree with the author of:

A flat earth, and other nonsense
Debunking ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet

Refuting flat earth - creation.com

He makes the argument that was the same as the OP of this thread. "It perplexes us to see that belief in a “flat earth” is gaining traction, despite being thoroughly debunked for thousands of years. This idea was almost non-existent until recently," This is simply not true. He then goes on to prove this statement using our current knowledge about the shape of the earth.

One poster here said that Newton's Laws of Motion have been proved to be incorrect. That's not exactly true since they still hold at speeds that don't approach the speed of light. Einstein picked up at that point. That's the nature of science. It changes over time based on new theories and discoveries. Einstein never accepted the strange notion of Quantum Mechanics that Max Planck put forward. We still cannot reconcile the theory about large things (relativity) with the theory of sub-atomic things (quantum mechanics). But from my perspective, which is very juvenile compared to these giants (Einstein was named by Time Magazine as the greatest man of the 20th century) it's very interesting to think about and speculate about these ideas.

The only source of absolute truth is the Lord God Almighty and He has not yet revealed all of that to us. For all we know we have only scratched the surface of absolute truth. But that's OK. The electric light, the automobile, the airplane, transistors, computers, spacecraft, etc.. etc. etc. have been built using our incomplete knowledge. This is why I say that science and religion are not comparable. One is incomplete and maybe very sketchy while the other (the perfect wisdom of God) is perfect and complete. Many scientists are led by their discoveries to gain a sence of awe in the grandeur and majesty of God. That's certainly true for me. Others still reject Him but that's the case with mankind as a whole.

 

[rsr]

Any person on the earth can do one simple experiment and prove the earth is not a sphere. Take a plumb- bob set it up. And if it is point straight down. Then you are not spinning on a pear shaped globe spinning at 60,000 miles per-hour on a planet spinning at 1000 MPH. And if you think you are i recommend that you seek medical help..

Foucault pendulum — Geophysics Homepage

 

[TCassidy]

There is only one sea level world wide.

Sorry, but wrong again. Sea levels vary by as much as 300 feet. Why do you think ships have to go through locks when traversing the Panama Canal?

Take a plumb- bob set it up. And if it is point straight down. Then you are not spinning on a pear shaped globe spinning at 60,000 miles per-hour on a planet spinning at 1000 MPH.

Again, you have it exactly backward. The plumb bob points straight down, toward the center of mass. And that would ONLY occur on a globe with the center of mass at the center of the globe.

On a flat earth the plumb bob would point toward the greatest concentration of mass. Near the edge it would point toward the other edge (greatest distance = greatest mass). At the center it would point toward the edge but would tend to precess around the edge.

Here is a question for you. Explain time zones on a flat earth. How can the sun be directly overhead at different times at different places on the earth?

PS: Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does the bible teach a flat earth. Nowhere.

 

[InTheLight]

No, 1/3 of the way from either pole to the equator has a circumference 1/2 of the total circumference of the equator.

Each circumference is divided into 360 degrees.

Every section of a sphere made by a plane is a circle.

All circles which pass through the geometric center of the sphere are of equal size/circumference (this is usually called the "great circle" or the "great circumference").

All circles which do not pass through the geometric center of the sphere are smaller.

The farther from the center of the sphere these smaller circles pass, the smaller they are.

Look at the parallels of longitude. As you leave the equator and approach the pole the distance between the parallels gets smaller until they all touch at the pole.

So, 1/2 the equatorial circumference at 1/3 of the way from either pole would be 12,000 miles (24,000 / 2 = 12,000), and thus 1/2 the speed (distance/time) would be 500 miles per hour.

This is 8th grade geometry. Not at all that difficult.

If it's 8th grade stuff, why did you get some things wrong?


1. Circumferences parallel to the equator are latitudes, not longitudes.

2. The point where the Earth's circumference is one-half the circumference as it is at the equator is at 60 degrees latitude, or 2/3's the distance from the equator to the pole, not 1/3 the distance.





Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

On a flat earth the plumb bob would point toward the greatest concentration of mass. Near the edge it would point toward the other edge (greatest distance = greatest mass). At the center it would point toward the edge but would tend to precess around the edge.

This is wrong. Greatest distance does not equal greatest mass. (I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.)

A plumb bob will point to the center of the largest mass in its vicinity. On our spherical Earth this is almost always toward the center of the Earth.

A plumb bob near the edge of a flat Earth would not point to the distance edge since the attractive force between two objects diminishes with the distance between the objects. It would point to wherever the center of mass would be, and that would depend on the composition and density of mass of that hypothetical flat Earth.









Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

If it's 8th grade stuff, why did you get some things wrong?

I didn't.

1. Circumferences parallel to the equator are latitudes, not longitudes.

I know. That's what I said. "[L]ongitude. As you leave the equator and approach the pole the distance between the parallels gets smaller until they all touch at the pole." Parallels of latitude never converge.

2. The point where the Earth's circumference is one-half the circumference as it is at the equator is at 60 degrees latitude, or 2/3's the distance from the equator to the pole, not 1/3 the distance.

Yes, 1/3 of the distance from the pole is 2/3 of the distance from the equator.

[Edited to add: I went back and re-read my post and I worded it very badly. I have edited it to reflect what I meant rather than what I said.]

This is wrong. Greatest distance does not equal greatest mass. (I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.)

You fail to understand it but still know it is wrong? And on a flat earth, with the plum bob at the very extreme edge, the greatest mass would be on a line to the other edge going through the center of the flat circle. Greatest mass would equal greatest gravitational attraction.

A plumb bob will point to the center of the largest mass in its vicinity. On our spherical Earth this is almost always toward the center of the Earth.

Yeah, that's what I said.

A plumb bob near the edge of a flat Earth would not point to the distance edge since the attractive force between two objects diminishes with the distance between the objects. It would point to wherever the center of mass would be, and that would depend on the composition and density of mass of that hypothetical flat Earth.

Yeah, and the center of mass would be along that line to the most distant place on the opposite edge. His flat earth is of uniform thickness and density.

 

[InTheLight]

I didn't.

I know. That's what I said. "[L]ongitude. As you leave the equator and approach the pole the distance between the parallels gets smaller until they all touch at the pole." Parallels of latitude never converge.

Longitudonal lines are called meridians, and they are not called parallels. By definition lines that are parallel never meet. Stating as you did, that "the distance between the parallels gets smaller until they all touch" is oxymoronic.

Yes, 1/3 of the distance from the pole is 2/3 of the distance from the equator.

Except you said:

No, 1/3 of the way to either pole from the equator has a circumference 1/2 of the total circumference of the equator.

...which is wrong.

Yeah, and the center of mass would be along that line to the most distant place on the opposite edge.

Not necessarily. There could be deposits and veins of dense elements, like lead in random locations on this flat Earth that could draw the plumb bob.

His flat earth is of uniform thickness and density.

Where was uniform thickness and density ever stipulated? So how thick is this Earth? What elements comprise it?

Please. Try to follow along. If you are confused, just ask. I will be happy to explain it to you.

Uh-huh.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Aaron]

I don't think any sailor would assert the earth is flat.

 

[Aaron]

...which is wrong.

I used this calculator. Earth Radius by Latitude Calculator

The circumference I get at 30 deg N is 12444 miles, which is about half the circumference at the equator.

 

[John of Japan]

Once again, the Bible is not a scientific journal. Of course the authors of the Bible believed that the earth was flat. That was the prevailing scientific view. Look at The Flat Earth..

"The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book. ...While the Bible nowhere states categorically that the earth is flat, numerous Old Testament verses clearly show that the ancient Hebrews were flat-earthers.

That the earth was considered essentially flat is clear from Daniel, who said, "I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." (Daniel 4:10-11) Only on a flat earth could one see a tree reaching the sky (dome?) from "the earth's farthest bounds."

The New Testament also implies a flat earth. For instance, Matthew 4:8 says that "The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory." From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all of the kingdoms of the world “but only if the earth were flat. The same applies to Revelation 1:7, which says that at the second coming, "Every eye shall see him." Finally, Revelation 7:1 refers to "the four corners of the earth," and corners are not generally associated with spheres.

The Biblical cosmos model derives from Egyptian sources, which had a flat earth covered by a rounded sky vault supported at the four corners of the earth by high mountains. The 'waters above and the waters below' in the book of Genesis refer to the Babylonian notion that the waters were divided, and some remained above the sky vault. The vault was like a leaky roof and some of that water falls down as rain.

First of all, have you listened to the video linked to in the OP? It successfully debunks everything in the article you have linked to.

Secondly, you have insufficiently sourced your extended quote. (To everyone: in spite of the weird quotation marks set up, everything in FollowTheWay's post is from the website except the first sentence.) The website itself is run by an anti-Christian physicist, Donald E. Simanek. However, the extended quote is Simanek quoting from Robert J. Schadewald, an anti-creationism science writer who delighted in mis-representing creationism by linking it with the flat earth error.

So essentially, FollowTheWay, you are teaming up with anti-Christian people with your post. Are you comfortable with that?

 

[John of Japan]

What does the bible have to say about it.
4 corners of the earth Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:1 Revelation 20:8
Still earth, 1 chronicles 16:30, Psalms 96:10 Psalm 93:1
Pillars 1 Samuel 2"8, Job 9:6 Psalm 75:3
Firmament Dome Isaiah 24:18, Isaiah 13:13, Genesis 1:6 (Firmament solid expanse )
Isaiah 44:24, Psalms 18:9, 2 Samuel 22:10
Sun 67 scriptures refer to the son and none of them refer to the earth moving. But the sun stood still.
Bible codes matrix Luke 13: 28 to Luke 14. The words found flat, earth, dome, canopy, tent, truth, edge, disc and more.
bible code wisdom .com You can do it for free.
height and depth job 11:8
length and width. Job 11:9
wisdom Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:20 False science, 1 Corinthians 3:19
ice wall / day and night Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with (Ice Wall) bounds, until the day and night come to an end
earth foundations, Job 38:4, Isaiah 48:13
footstool Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35, Acts 7:49 What does a foot stool look like? Pillars and a flat top.
Desktop Globe Exodus 20:4, Isaiah 42:8
Stars, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13 how can a massive star fall to the earth. They are tiny. The star that came before Jesus was not millions of miles away. It was near and directly over his birth place. Just a few miles away.
Suns path Psalms 96:10 the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved. This earth does not go around the sun.
The sun has a path its circuit it travel. Psalms 19:6
Circle Isaiah 40:22 Isaiah 22:18, Psalms 33:14 God looks upon all the inhabitants of the earth from his thrown. At the same time.
are you deceived about the ball earth Matthew 24:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Ephesians 5:6
End of earth Job 37:3, Daniel 4:11, ((Proverbs 30:4))
have you inherited lies Jeremiah 16:19
4 winds Jeremiah 49:36, Daniel 7:2, Matthew 24:32, Revelation 7:1 As in the jet streams there are 4 of them discovered in 1920.
Revelation 7:1 is worth studying greatly.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven (not plural) and the earth.
Luke 8:17 for nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest; nor {anything} secret, that shall not be known and come to light.

You seriously need to take English 101. You apparently have no idea what an idiom is. Almost all of these statements which you think prove the Bible teaches a flat earth are simply idioms, no more. An idiom is a set statement, word or words, used to mean something different that the literal meaning. To this day, many people use the phrase "four corners of the earth" to mean "all regions" without meaning that the earth actually has four corners.

I'm done. There is too much exegetical error in your one post to take time to correct.