FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 24, 2018 11:17:34 GMT
I want to know just so that when I come across another flat-earther, I can say "WELL THE BIBLE SAYS ITS A GLOBE, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE" and win automatically.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Aug 24, 2018 11:25:43 GMT
The Bible speaks primarily of the spiritual. Some "scientists" are trying to find there about the earthly, it speaks of their materialism.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 24, 2018 11:38:08 GMT
So you are saying there is no evidence in the bible for the shape of the earth?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 24, 2018 20:38:21 GMT
So you are saying there is no evidence in the bible for the shape of the earth? This is what I would say. In Isaiah 40:22, it says "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth". Flat earthers will use this to say the earth is a flat circle, and the other argument will be that the earth is a circle in all directions. There is no actual verse that says the earth is flat or round. What I did is looked at the origins of the idea of a flat earth and turns out it came from ancient egyptian and mesopotamian mythology, not from the Bible. Regardless, a round earth can be proven with observation, not from satellites, but just simple observation. Like this example here. Flat earthers can't explain this. They can't explain apparent retrograde motion either.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 24, 2018 22:38:11 GMT
Alright thanks, but I heavily doubt that flat-earthers would listen to the evidence you provided.
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on Aug 24, 2018 23:00:16 GMT
I understand what you mean, in fact if you bring up The Bible, they will say that there are 33 references of flat Earth in Genesis alone. Four corners of the Earth, etc
Hinduism knew the Earth was round, The Quran speaks of the Earth being round, some Egyptians knew the Earth was round.
But no there is no direct reference to round earth in The Bible.
There is however a ton of astrology!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 24, 2018 23:42:26 GMT
I know the verse that dk provided but I will post verses in the 3 languages that I read in to show my stuff. I believe remembering reading that it's round.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 25, 2018 6:40:07 GMT
Alright thanks, but I heavily doubt that flat-earthers would listen to the evidence you provided. I know they wouldn't, I've tried
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 27, 2018 5:31:55 GMT
Ok so here are ones I read in.
English one that Dktrav88 already stated. Isaiah 40:22 22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...
Russian... Исаия 40:22 22 Он есть Тот, Который восседает над кругом земли, и живущие на ней – как саранча пред Ним...
Ukrainian.... Ісая 40:22 22 Він Той, Хто сидить понад кругом землі, а мешканці її немов та сарана....
All 3 bolden words mean "circle". So all 3 verses say the earth is a circle.
And...earth does appear as a circle. Not an oval or a square or a triangle...Shrug
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 2:35:51 GMT
I want to know just so that when I come across another flat-earther, I can say "WELL THE BIBLE SAYS ITS A GLOBE, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE" and win automatically.
Most flat-earthers are fundamentalists who have no choice but to believe their Bible. That is why they are flat-earthers. The Old Testament clearly tells them that the Earth is a flat disc of land (and water) ringed by mountains (the pillars of heaven) upon which rests a solid translucent dome (the firmament) which holds back the waters above. The Sun and Moon are lights and travel on tracks across the firmament and the tiny stars are embedded in it (occasionally falling off and becoming shooting stars). There are numerous references to these features of Hebrew cosmology in Genesis and the other books of the OT.
Here is the picture that the Bible paints about the nature of the world:
The Bible never says that the Earth is round. The passage often quoted is this:
The problem is that the word used is "circle" not "sphere". Some argue that there was no word for sphere in Hebrew, but this is not true. They had a word for ball and it was used in other Bible verses (including Isaiah). Therefore the meaning is quite deliberately a two-dimensional circle. The context of the verse verifies this. You can't sit enthroned above a sphere because there is no single "above". There are an infinity of them. Similarly you can't spread a tent over a sphere. You need a flat surface to sit a tent (the heavens or firmament) over. Everything in that verse serves to confirm the picture of Hebrew cosmology depicted in the rest of the Old Testament.
This view was so pervasive that it persisted right up until the 19th century as in this famous 1888 engraving (the Flammarion):
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 2, 2018 2:42:57 GMT
I want to know just so that when I come across another flat-earther, I can say "WELL THE BIBLE SAYS ITS A GLOBE, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE" and win automatically. Most flat-earthers are fundamentalists who have no choice but to believe their Bible. That is why they are flat-earthers. The Old Testament clearly tells them that the Earth is a flat disc of land (and water) ringed by mountains (the pillars of heaven) upon which rests a solid translucent dome (the firmament) which holds back the waters above. The Sun and Moon are lights and travel on tracks across the firmament and the tiny stars are embedded in it (occasionally falling off and becoming shooting stars). There are numerous references to these features of Hebrew cosmology in Genesis and the other books of the OT. Here is the picture that the Bible paints about the nature of the world: The Bible never says that the Earth is round. The passage often quoted is this: The problem is that the word used is "circle" not "sphere". Some argue that there was no word for sphere in Hebrew, but this is not true. They had a word for ball and it was used in other Bible verses (including Isaiah). Therefore the meaning is quite deliberately a two-dimensional circle. The context of the verse verifies this. You can't sit enthroned above a sphere because there is no single "above". There are an infinity of them. Similarly you can't spread a tent over a sphere. You need a flat surface to sit a tent (the heavens or firmament) over. Everything in that verse serves to confirm the picture of Hebrew cosmology depicted in the rest of the Old Testament. This view was so pervasive that it persisted right up until the 19th century as in this famous 1888 engraving (the Flammarion): Isn't a sphere round like a circle? Plus neither earth nor the moon are perfectly round. The moon is an egg shape. We only see a circle because the back side is longer giving it the oval shape.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 2, 2018 3:58:33 GMT
I want to know just so that when I come across another flat-earther, I can say "WELL THE BIBLE SAYS ITS A GLOBE, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE" and win automatically. Most flat-earthers are fundamentalists who have no choice but to believe their Bible. That is why they are flat-earthers. The Old Testament clearly tells them that the Earth is a flat disc of land (and water) ringed by mountains (the pillars of heaven) upon which rests a solid translucent dome (the firmament) which holds back the waters above. The Sun and Moon are lights and travel on tracks across the firmament and the tiny stars are embedded in it (occasionally falling off and becoming shooting stars). There are numerous references to these features of Hebrew cosmology in Genesis and the other books of the OT. Here is the picture that the Bible paints about the nature of the world: The Bible never says that the Earth is round. The passage often quoted is this: The problem is that the word used is "circle" not "sphere". Some argue that there was no word for sphere in Hebrew, but this is not true. They had a word for ball and it was used in other Bible verses (including Isaiah). Therefore the meaning is quite deliberately a two-dimensional circle. The context of the verse verifies this. You can't sit enthroned above a sphere because there is no single "above". There are an infinity of them. Similarly you can't spread a tent over a sphere. You need a flat surface to sit a tent (the heavens or firmament) over. Everything in that verse serves to confirm the picture of Hebrew cosmology depicted in the rest of the Old Testament. This view was so pervasive that it persisted right up until the 19th century as in this famous 1888 engraving (the Flammarion): From my experience.. all flat-earthers care to talk about is the flat earth theory. They don't try to preach the gospel to anyone(if they are Christian), their priority is to tell the world that the world is flat and that NASA is lying to them shrug This isn't what the Bible commands them to do, so, I wouldn't say they are fundamentalist at all. The word in Hebrew for ball, which is "dūr"(דּוּר), also means "circle" and "encircling". With that said, I'd like to point out that all of the planets and their moons, the sun, and the earth's moon, are roughly spheres or balls(if you will) but look like circles no matter which direction you look at them from. Why would the earth be any different? From our perspective here on earth, it looks flat, it really does. And it looks like a dome is over our heads, but that's because the earth is so massive. The verse in Isaiah even says we are like grasshoppers(very small) in comparison, and when you put that into perspective then yes it makes sense that we would see the earth as described in Isaiah. It says God sits on the circle of the earth because no matter which part of the earth God sits on, looking at the earth from any angle, it is going to look like a circle, just as the heavens look like curtains stretched out over our heads, spread out like a tent for us to dwell in, because we are like grasshoppers in comparison to the size of the earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 4:54:59 GMT
From my experience.. all flat-earthers care to talk about is the flat earth theory. They don't try to preach the gospel to anyone(if they are Christian), their priority is to tell the world that the world is flat and that NASA is lying to them This isn't what the Bible commands them to do, so, I wouldn't say they are fundamentalist at all. The word in Hebrew for ball, which is "dūr"(דּוּר), also means "circle" and "encircling". With that said, I'd like to point out that all of the planets and their moons, the sun, and the earth's moon, are roughly spheres or balls(if you will) but look like circles no matter which direction you look at them from. Why would the earth be any different? From our perspective here on earth, it looks flat, it really does. And it looks like a dome is over our heads, but that's because the earth is so massive. The verse in Isaiah even says we are like grasshoppers(very small) in comparison, and when you put that into perspective then yes it makes sense that we would see the earth as described in Isaiah. It says God sits on the circle of the earth because no matter which part of the earth God sits on, looking at the earth from any angle, it is going to look like a circle, just as the heavens look like curtains stretched out over our heads, spread out like a tent for us to dwell in, because we are like grasshoppers in comparison to the size of the earth.
I still maintain that most flat-earthers are fundamentalists. They may hide the religious nature of their belief but it is the only possible reason why they could be so irrational about something so blatantly false (that the Earth is flat). If you are a Bible inerrantist then you have no choice but to accept that the Earth is a flat disc, evidence be damned.
The Hebrew word for ball may have other meanings but the point is that it wasn't used in the Isaiah 40 verse so the meaning can only be "circle" as written. I dispute that the Earth, Moon and Sun look like circles from space. The latter two may do so from Earth but that is not God's vantage point. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then God, from his perspective, must know that they are spheres. That is the issue. It's not how they appear to humans from the surface of the Earth. If that is the position taken then that is a tacit admission that the Bible is entirely the work of fallible men. We know that it is exactly that of course because of all the other references to the Hebrew cosmology which I outlined in my first post above. When examined in that context, the use of "circle" over "sphere" becomes a trivial and moot point. You can't have a domed firmament resting on the Earth (the pillars of heaven) unless the Earth is flat. This should be obvious.
I agree with what you say about how the world might have looked to the ancients. They weren't idiots but they lacked the science and instrumentation to investigate the world properly. They can't be faulted for thinking that there was a solid dome over their heads and that the blue colour of the sky came from water sitting above it. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw just by looking up with the naked eye. They also imagined what it must have looked like peering down from above that dome. The reality is very different. The spherical nature of our planet is obvious once you get high enough. As I said, and you have not refuted, there is no single place above for God to sit on his throne and look down on all the Earth. That is because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat disc. You can't spread a tent over a spherical surface. It makes no sense. These words cannot have come from an all-knowing God. They can only have come from faulty human guesswork. I don't think that you are disputing this. Are you?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 2, 2018 5:25:06 GMT
From my experience.. all flat-earthers care to talk about is the flat earth theory. They don't try to preach the gospel to anyone(if they are Christian), their priority is to tell the world that the world is flat and that NASA is lying to them This isn't what the Bible commands them to do, so, I wouldn't say they are fundamentalist at all. The word in Hebrew for ball, which is "dūr"(דּוּר), also means "circle" and "encircling". With that said, I'd like to point out that all of the planets and their moons, the sun, and the earth's moon, are roughly spheres or balls(if you will) but look like circles no matter which direction you look at them from. Why would the earth be any different? From our perspective here on earth, it looks flat, it really does. And it looks like a dome is over our heads, but that's because the earth is so massive. The verse in Isaiah even says we are like grasshoppers(very small) in comparison, and when you put that into perspective then yes it makes sense that we would see the earth as described in Isaiah. It says God sits on the circle of the earth because no matter which part of the earth God sits on, looking at the earth from any angle, it is going to look like a circle, just as the heavens look like curtains stretched out over our heads, spread out like a tent for us to dwell in, because we are like grasshoppers in comparison to the size of the earth. I still maintain that most flat-earthers are fundamentalists. They may hide the religious nature of their belief but it is the only possible reason why they could be so irrational about something so blatantly false (that the Earth is flat). If you are a Bible inerrantist then you have no choice but to accept that the Earth is a flat disc, evidence be damned. The Hebrew word for ball may have other meanings but the point is that it wasn't used in the Isaiah 40 verse so the meaning can only be "circle" as written. I dispute that the Earth, Moon and Sun look like circles from space. The latter two may do so from Earth but that is not God's vantage point. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then God, from his perspective, must know that they are spheres. That is the issue. It's not how they appear to humans from the surface of the Earth. If that is the position taken then that is a tacit admission that the Bible is entirely the work of fallible men. We know that it is exactly that of course because of all the other references to the Hebrew cosmology which I outlined in my first post above. When examined in that context, the use of "circle" over "sphere" becomes a trivial and moot point. You can't have a domed firmament resting on the Earth (the pillars of heaven) unless the Earth is flat. This should be obvious.
I agree with what you say about how the world might have looked to the ancients. They weren't idiots but they lacked the science and instrumentation to investigate the world properly. They can't be faulted for thinking that there was a solid dome over their heads and that the blue colour of the sky came from water sitting above it. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw just by looking up with the naked eye. They also imagined what it must have looked like peering down from above that dome. The reality is very different. The spherical nature of our planet is obvious once you get high enough. As I said, and you have not refuted, there is no single place above for God to sit on his throne and look down on all the Earth. That is because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat disc. You can't spread a tent over a spherical surface. It makes no sense. These words cannot have come from an all-knowing God. They can only have come from faulty human guesswork. I don't think that you are disputing this. Are you?
“If you are a Bible inerrantist then you have no choice but to accept that the Earth is a flat disc, evidence be damned.” I absolutely disagree. The explanation I gave makes perfect sense with the text as it is written, but you can choose to ignore that if you wish shrug that seems to happen quite a bit unfortunately. “If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then God, from his perspective, must know that they are spheres. That is the issue.” I’m sure God does know, but the verse in Isaiah isn’t describing what God sees, it is describing our point of view. “If that is the position taken then that is a tacit admission that the Bible is entirely the work of fallible men.” No it isn’t, not at all. Do you disagree that ball or sphere looks like a circle no matter which angle you can possibly look at it from? You do realize that the Bible uses metaphor and simile quite a bit, don’t you? “I agree with what you say about how the world might have looked to the ancients. They weren't idiots but they lacked the science and instrumentation to investigate the world properly.” Ummm, that isn’t what I said at all. Did you even read what I said? I said to us it looks that way, today, as in if I walk outside right now and look it looks as it is described in Isaiah. Please reread what I said. “As I said, and you have not refuted, there is no single place above for God to sit on his throne and look down on all the Earth.” I don’t have to refute this. It’s irrelevant. “These words cannot have come from an all-knowing God. They can only have come from faulty human guesswork. I don't think that you are disputing this. Are you?” The words did come from an all-knowing God. The perspective given in Isaiah is a description of how we, man, perceive the earth. That’s obvious when reading the text.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 11:42:57 GMT
“If you are a Bible inerrantist then you have no choice but to accept that the Earth is a flat disc, evidence be damned.” I absolutely disagree. The explanation I gave makes perfect sense with the text as it is written, but you can choose to ignore that if you wish that seems to happen quite a bit unfortunately. My statement wasn't necessarily directed at you. It was directed at flat-earthers and Bible inerrantists. If you are the latter than you can disagree but you would then need to explain dozens and dozens of references in the Bible to the Hebrew cosmology which the Wikipedia article documents. Your "explanation" so far is limited to one minor issue and is basically a denial that circle means circle. I have nothing further to do. Sorry.
Are we reading the same passage? The point of view is definitely from God allegedly sitting on his throne high above the Earth and looking down on "its dwellers like grasshoppers". You do know that aeroplanes had not been invented yet, right? "He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in". Are you seriously claiming that this is from a human point of view?
Yes I do. The outline may be a circle but if you hold a ball in your hand you call it a ball, not a circle. Shadowing gives away that it is a 3D object, as it does for the Earth when viewed from space. A circle, as everyone knows, is a 2D shape. The Earth is not 2D no matter how hard that you try and convince yourself otherwise. If you truly knew the nature of the Earth you would never label it as a circle. The Bible text demonstrates that the authors did not know the true nature of the Earth.
The authors of the Bible do indeed use metaphors and similes at times. "Like a curtain" and "like a tent" are examples. That doesn't change the fact that these similes are there to compare two things and make the visual image more vivid by relating to something in common experience. The visual image in this case is that of the heavens (firmament) draped over a flat Earth "like a tent". You need a flat base for a tent. The meaning is crystal clear.
Yes, it does look that way. And that is a tacit admission that the knowledge on display could not have come from a divine source. Appearances can be deceiving and the ancients were certainly deceived. If you still insist that God supplied this "knowledge" then you would need to explain why God would deliberately hoodwink us with false information. And it's not just this one verse. I could list dozens of verses on Biblical cosmology features which bear no resemblance to actual reality.
It clearly is not irrelevant. That is what the verse states, yet it is an impossible scenario. Ignoring the verse doesn't make the issue magically disappear.
It's not only not obvious, it is diametrically opposite to the actual situation. I have already explained up above why your assertion that "it is how humans perceive the Earth" is not supported by the text which is written from the vantage point of God high "above" the Earth and what humans imagined he might see when he looked down. If God had been dictating that mental picture then he could have supplied something more factual rather than a blatant lie, eg. The Earth is like a ball spinning slowly nearby and the heavens are far, far away surrounding it in all directions with vast expanses of empty space in between.
|
|