Flat Earthers

[Husar]

The word "day" (as many others in Bible) may be considered to be used metaphorically denoting an epoch of an indefinite duration. For instance, when we say "In his day he was strikingly handsome" we don't mean he was handsome 24 hours. Or "in Shakespeare's day" doesn't mean that he lived 24 hours, or that a particular day of his life is meant. If Bible has an explicit indication that Genesis "day" contains 24 hours, I would like a quote.

That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon

How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.

[Gilrandir]

That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon

How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.

Perhaps there were other sources of light:

And as they watched, upon the mound there came forth two slender shoots; and silence was over all the world in that hour, nor was there any other sound save the chanting of Yavanna. Under her song the saplings grew and became fair and tail, and came to flower; and thus there awoke in the world the Two Trees of Valinor. Of all things which Yavanna made they have most renown, and about their fate all the tales of the Elder Days are woven.
The one had leaves of dark green that beneath were as shining silver, and from each of his countless flowers a dew of silver light was ever falling, and the earth beneath was dappled with the shadow of his fluttering leaves. The other bore leaves of a young green like the new-opened beech; their edges were of glittering gold. Flowers swung upon her branches in clusters of yellow flame, formed each to a glowing horn that spilled a golden rain upon the ground; and from the blossom of that tree there came forth warmth and a great light. Telperion the one was called in Valinor, and Silpion, and Ninquelótё, and many other names; but Laurelin the other was, and Malinalda, and Culúrien, and many names in song beside.
In seven hours the glory of each tree waxed to full and waned again to naught; and each awoke once more to life an hour before the other ceased to shine. Thus in Valinor twice every day there came a gentle hour of softer light when both trees were faint and their gold and silver beams were mingled. Telperion was the elder of the trees and came first to full stature and to bloom; and that first hour in which he shone, the white glimmer of a silver dawn, the Valar reckoned not into the tale of hours, but named it the Opening Hour, and counted from it the ages of their reign in Valinor. Therefore at the sixth hour of the First Day, and of all the joyful days thereafter, until the Darkening of Valinor, Telperion ceased his time of flower; and at the twelfth hour Laurelin her blossoming. And each day of the Valar in Aman contained twelve hours, and ended with the second mingling of the lights, in which Laurelin was waning but Telperion was waxing. But the light that was spilled from the trees endured long, ere it was taken up into the airs or sank down into the earth; and the dews of Telperion and the rain that fell from Laurelin Varda hoarded in great vats like shining lakes, that were to all the land of the Valar as wells of water and of light. Thus began the Days of the Bliss of Valinor; and thus began also the Count of Time.

(Tolkien J. R. R. The Silmarillion. – Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977. – 365 p.)

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.

[Fragony]

That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon

How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.

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

[Sigurd]

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

What can you do? Creationists believe what they do - and nothing will change their mind. They are following an already throdden path and wont step off it. This is of course a brainchild of some religious leader(s) in the past.
Even if you throw Psalm 40:4 or 2 Peter 3:8 at them - someone on their path has already been there and answered that.

It is the same mindset the flat earhters employ.

[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?

[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.

[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.