Flat Earthers

[Husar]

Perhaps there were other sources of light:
[...]

On a more serious note, the light referred to in Genesis might have been sourceless (just like when it it arleady light in the early morning but there's no dawn yet), and later it was embodied into a special container aka the Sun.

That is an enormous stretch given that the sun is the light that defines what a day and a night are since humans invented the term. There is absolutely zero mention of another light/energy source and then you have the earth basically having been created before the star that it orbits, so there must have been a lot of changes and fine-tuning going on when it says for every day that "it was good" as in no further changes required.

How can it be time if that's different on another planet when it's dark or light because they can be further away or closer, and have their own rules that don't comply with our 24 hour system we call time. We already know that planets move at different speeds depending on their mass and distance, time is an earth-thingie that says abolutily nothing

Sorry, but that is a non-argument, you are confusing the concept of time with our reference system for the measurement of time.
Of course there is time on other planets, the same time even. Unless you are talking about the minuscule differences in time measurement the closer one gets to the speed of light, in which case you might as well say time doesn't exit anywhere.

One of the basic foundations of astrophysics or physics in general is the idea that the physical rules we can observe are valid everywhere and at any point in time in the known universe. If a different planet had completely different physics then you'd have to prove that first, so far everything points to that not being the case. The reason we know other planets have different speeds and sizes is that we apply these universal rules to our observations.
If you seriously want to say other planets can have different physical rules and different rules of time, then we can't even know that extra-solar planets exist.

[Fragony]

Ir's really easy to descredit the idea of time and making it relative really. Take a straight line from the norrthpole to to the southpole without considering anything at all, are you travelling time if you do, l. The distance would be nearly a fraction. I don't like thsese idiots but it's fun.

[Husar]

Ir's really easy to descredit the idea of time and making it relative really. Take a straight line from the norrthpole to to the southpole without considering anything at all, are you travelling time if you do, l. The distance would be nearly a fraction. I don't like thsese idiots but it's fun.

What does a straight line between the planet's poles have to do with time anyway?
Also define travel in time, don't we travel forwards in time all the time?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yes they are...christmas comes early this year, it's panto time already.

Take history as far back as you like, humans are idiots, its proved again and again.
Since its a bibical topic go right back to the begining, Adam, he only had one rule and was too much of an idiot to even follow that.

Is it misanthopy though?

It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.

Read what was written and what it responded to , then try again.


Ah so you do get it, the same as in the bible then isn't it.

I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves". I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.

not from a literalists perspective.

It's still inferred, or interpreted. The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth. It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.

Can you describe a hammered out dish? Can you describe hammering a dish that isn't made of a solid?
Read Husars link, or even better read the full one it is taken from.

In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.

The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand and that it appears to be permeable.

The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.

If you read the full link you will see how widespread the view was not only with other middle eastern societies in bilical times, but also with completely different societies spread across the continents and oceans.

I'm aware the view was quite widespread. The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.

Well lets not say the bible isn't covering all angles there, remember I mentioned doors and windows to let in rain and snow...it's in the bible

Please - chapter and verse.

[Fragony]

What does a straight line between the planet's poles have to do with time anyway?
Also define travel in time, don't we travel forwards in time all the time?

Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter

[Husar]

Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter

Lol, no.

[Legs]

It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.

















.

Do you even understand the words you use?

I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves".

Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?

I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.

Follow the link already posted.

It's still inferred, or interpreted.

Follow the link already posted.

The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth.

Follow the link already posted.

It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.

Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?

In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.

If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?

The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand

Naive is the word you want.

and that it appears to be permeable.

Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?

The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.

Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?
Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?

I'm aware the view was quite widespread.

Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?

The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.

How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do

Please - chapter and verse

Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.

[Sigurd]

Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter

I am not sure what you are saying - but it is shorter between the poles if you go straight through the earth - about 12 000 km while a straight line on the surface (doesn't really matter which longitude you choose) is about 20k (18.5k).
The earth is also not completely spherical, so it is shorter to circumnavigate from pole to pole than from east to west (37k vs 40k km). So we shall give the flat earth at least this point. The earth is slightly flatter than a perfect sphere.

[Fragony]

I am not sure what you are saying - but it is shorter between the poles if you go straight through the earth - about 12 000 km while a straight line on the surface (doesn't really matter which longitude you choose) is about 20k (18.5k).
The earth is also not completely spherical, so it is shorter to circumnavigate from pole to pole than from east to west (37k vs 40k km). So we shall give the flat earth at least this point. The earth is slightly flatter than a perfect sphere.

Only because it's fun. Take your pencil and just forget that the earth is actually round. Draw a circle. Try to you can proof it. A direct line is going to make it very difficult as you must aplply it to a sphere

[Sigurd]

Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I has written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.

Oh me and Philip see eye to eye on many things but I am not as confrontational as he is. And I have a slight issue with evangelists (except Rhy - I think he is okay). I will rarely take their position.

I know we have discussed this recently... oh wait

This was not the thread I was looking for though....
Once I showed that the Bible actually teaches (see what I did there?) today's theory on how our solar system was made and here it is: Arguments for an against Creationism... (I think I misused the c vs C words in there somewhere).

Gems found when searching: Evolution and the soul.

[Sigurd]

Only because it's fun. Take your pencil and just forget that the earth is actually round. Draw a circle. Try to you can proof it. A direct line is going to make it very difficult as you must aplply it to a sphere

Yes, basic math.
If a circle is 1 in diameter (a line through the circle) the circumference is Pi : 3,14... half the circumference would be from pole to pole (where the diameter line is drawn) Pi/2 or Pi rad.

Problem though - the flat earthers doesn't have a south pole. Their Antarctica circumnavigates the earth, so from their point of view the distance from the North Pole to the south pole is one radiusian. Using our model from above the distance between pole to "pole" is 0,5 ... so you can measure this in real life by travelling from our pole (North of Spitsbergen) and go directly south over Europe, Africa and end up at the ice cap of the south. This distance should be multiplied by 2 and then you plant a flag and start walking along the ice cap and for reference you should be able to walk a distance which is approximately 2Pi rad where rad would be the distance from the Arctic to the ice cap of Antarctica.
Say the distance measured was around 10 000 km. To account for the whole circumference you need this formula 2Pi x 10 000 km = 62 831,85 km

So you shouldn't encounter your planted flag until you have walked (traveled) 62k+ km. certainly not only after about 18k km

[Gilrandir]

Explore the link in post #63. It has all the answers from the Capital C perspective you could possibly wish for.
The whole pont with those creationsts is that day can only mean a day, just like bowl can only mean a bowl.

"All the answers" are given by modern interpretationists. They have as much authority to make conclusions about the texts written eons ago as you and me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you even understand the words you use?

I hope so, or the Senate that conferred my degrees will have egg on their faces.

Also - congratulations, you moved from attacking the entire human race to just me. Now that we have focused your anger let's talk about what really makes you angry. I doubt it's the Bible or flat-Earthers.

Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?

Why don't you just skip ahead to talking about how God abandoned Saul because he offered some of his enemies' livestock and women up to God instead of killing everyone and everything, as instructed. We are not discussing the moral lessons of the Bible, or the Koran. We are discussing whether the Bible requires you to believe in a Flat Earth.

Follow the link already posted.

Follow the link already posted.

Follow the link already posted.

No - give me book, chapter and verse that you believe supports your point. I will copy the chapter out and perform a line by line exegesis. That way I don't have to slog through someone else's less learned or more partisan exegesis and have you try to refute them instead of refuting me.

You are making a claim about the message of the Bible, it is incumbent upon you to cite the passages that support your point. I can then examine those passages in context and determine whether or not I believe you are correct that the Bible requires one to believe in a Flat Earth. Don't refer me to someone on the Internet who tries to fashion an argument out of a line from one book and three words from another. That's how you construct an argument that Jesus was in favour of the Right to Bear Arms.

Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?

You mean Heresy? It's a bit hard to be accused of Heterodoxy when the Church can't even decide Orthodoxy in that period. More pregnantly, Bede's interpretation of the Bible, given the evidence he had, is not at issue because he did not write what you described as "the word of God".

If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?

Naive is the word you want.

Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?

Again, you need to demonstrate this is scripture.

Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?

It does not, that is not the point. The point is that the people recording Genesis during the late Bronze Age would have had an idea how a hollow sphere might be constructed.

Ever heard of a bronze bowl with hatches in?

Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?

Does it not?

Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?

The fact that the view was widespread does not mean it was held by the person who wrote the Creation story, nor does it mean it was written into the Creation story. Saying, "Greeks and the Chinese believe in a solid hemispherical sky" does not mean the Bible describes the Sky in exactly those terms.

How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do

The Bible requires the belief in One God - that's quite explicit. You've been saying it also requires a belief in a Flat Earth.

Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.

Post your scriptural citations for exegesis or concede you're just parroting other people's arguments without understanding them.

[Gilrandir]

There is absolutely zero mention of another light/energy source and then you have the earth basically having been created before the star that it orbits, so there must have been a lot of changes and fine-tuning going on when it says for every day that "it was good" as in no further changes required.

When there is no mentioning of something (other sources of light of fine-tuning of the initial model) it doesn't mean there weren't any. Just like there is no mentioning in the Bible that the newly created earth circuted the sun or that the day-and-night cycle was 24 hours, but it doesn't mean it was otherwise.

As for calling something good and then modding it: Look at Playstation or iphone or even the game that brought you here (MTW).

[Husar]

When there is no mentioning of something (other sources of light of fine-tuning of the initial model) it doesn't mean there weren't any. Just like there is no mentioning in the Bible that the newly created earth circuted the sun or that the day-and-night cycle was 24 hours, but it doesn't mean it was otherwise.

As for calling something good and then modding it: Look at Playstation or iphone or even the game that brought you here (MTW).

These are all created by humans, not a perfect god.
I've always been taught that these stories are there, and indeed the point of a Christian's life is, to serve the glory of God.
Now you come and tell me he was tweaking it for ages because he couldn't get it right the first time even though he, all-knowing and omnipotent, called it good when he finished it for the first time?

[Gilrandir]

These are all created by humans, not a perfect god.

If God created something, it doesn't mean it is/was perfect.

I've always been taught that these stories are there, and indeed the point of a Christian's life is, to serve the glory of God.

It would be indeed a selfish God if all he needs humans for is to prove something (to who?) or serve somebody.

Now you come and tell me he was tweaking it for ages because he couldn't get it right the first time even though he, all-knowing and omnipotent, called it good when he finished it for the first time?

All-knowing and omnipotent as he ostensibly was, he couldn't prevent the Fall of man nor subsequent calamities. So it is quite possible he was the First Modder ever.

[Legs]

I hope so, or the Senate that conferred my degrees will have egg on their faces.

Looks like egg is the flavour of the day then.

Also - congratulations, you moved from attacking the entire human race to just me. Now that we have focused your anger let's talk about what really makes you angry. I doubt it's the Bible or flat-Earthers.

Definately egg.

Why don't you just skip ahead to talking about how God abandoned Saul because he offered some of his enemies' livestock and women up to God instead of killing everyone and everything, as instructed. We are not discussing the moral lessons of the Bible, or the Koran.

If its raised in the topic its raised in the topic.
Who raised it?
Who attempted to defend it?
Who doesn't want to play that tune anymore since their moralising backfired?

We are discussing whether the Bible requires you to believe in a Flat Earth.

Are we?
I have the distinct impression that you don't know what you are discussing and don't understand the words you use.
I also get the impression that you are a very angry young man.

No - give me book, chapter and verse that you believe supports your point. I will copy the chapter out and perform a line by line exegesis. That way I don't have to slog through someone else's less learned or more partisan exegesis and have you try to refute them instead of refuting me.

Read the bloody link.
How can you perform an exegisis when you are having such difficulty with words and scripture?

You are making a claim about the message of the Bible, it is incumbent upon you to cite the passages that support your point.

Read the bloody link

I can then examine those passages in context and determine whether or not I believe you are correct that the Bible requires one to believe in a Flat Earth. Don't refer me to someone on the Internet who tries to fashion an argument out of a line from one book and three words from another. That's how you construct an argument that Jesus was in favour of the Right to Bear Arms.

Yeah right

You mean Heresy? It's a bit hard to be accused of Heterodoxy when the Church can't even decide Orthodoxy in that period. More pregnantly, Bede's interpretation of the Bible, given the evidence he had, is not at issue because he did not write what you described as "the word of God".

More words you don't understand.
All he had to do was come up with a date that was at odds with an earlier date that had been accepted.
The fact that they kept changing their minds about the dates is irrelevant, whichever was the last accepted one was what he was against.

It does not, that is not the point.

No, that is the point.

The point is that the people recording Genesis during the late Bronze Age would have had an idea how a hollow sphere might be constructed

So they would have written hollow sphere not bowl if they meant hollow sphere not bowl.
Not very good at this are you.

Again, you need to demonstrate this is scripture.

Read the link, its got all the verses you need.

Ever heard of a bronze bowl with hatches in?

Would that be like an adjustable sieve?

Does it not?

I know of no verse that says two bowls stuck together to make a sphere.
Do you know of any?Or are you just waffling.

The fact that the view was widespread does not mean it was held by the person who wrote the Creation story, nor does it mean it was written into the Creation story. Saying, "Greeks and the Chinese believe in a solid hemispherical sky" does not mean the Bible describes the Sky in exactly those terms.

Unless you can provide any scripture that is contrary to the biblical solid dome then you are clearly on a losing streak.
If the solid dome wasn't written into the creation story then why is it in the bible?

The Bible requires the belief in One God - that's quite explicit. You've been saying it also requires a belief in a Flat Earth.

Reading problems again?

Post your scriptural citations for exegesis or concede you're just parroting other people's arguments without understanding them

Come back when you have read the link, or when you learn what words mean.
After all it took you long enough to learn what a bowl was called , but I am patient so I will give you plenty of time.
Going by present progress I can see it taking you about a week or maybe a month to come up with some level of decent arguement. And by the way thats a young earth week or month not an old earth one.

[Hooahguy]

Well this topic has gotten out of hand.