Flat Earthers

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.

I... just.

OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.

People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.

Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.

[Legs]

I... just.

OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.

People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.

Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

[Husar]

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

[Legs]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.

[Husar]

You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.

First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?
Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.

As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English.

Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch.
After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...-not-the-point

Links can help, you know.

[Legs]

First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?

Young earth creationists are cretins, they cannot be convinced of anything other than their blind belief because "the bible is right".

Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.

And I took their article which says the opposite, such is the contradictory nature of scripture and their arguements.

As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English.

Those are the sources of biblical passages the use on their website which support the flat earth theory.
Gen-Genesis. Ps-Psalms. Isa-Issaiah. Mal-Malachi

Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch.

Try the word I used, or use the english translation from the english bible.

After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...-not-the-point

See how easy it is.

Links can help, you know.

Links would only be required if Phillipus Flavius wished to push the point.

The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits

So either creationists must accept the earth is flat or they must agree the bible is not an infallible accurate rendition...which would mean they can't be creationists anymore as they reject the basis of their own arguement.

[Gilrandir]

The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits

Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".

[Legs]

Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".

Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.

Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.

Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.

Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly :)

[Legs]

Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.

Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.

Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

[Legs]

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.
Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

[Husar]

You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:

This second issue creates a conflict where they need not be one. The raqia “debate” is not the result of new evidence that has come to light. Our understanding of ancient perceptions of the cosmos has not been overturned by more information. The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the worldaccording to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.
[...]
It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.
[...]
It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith. It is a false expectation of Genesis that contributes to some heated exchanges about things like the description of the cosmos in Genesis.

The debate over the nature of the raqia is not a central issue. It is a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental disagreement over what the Genesis is and what it means to read it well. This is level where the truly important discussion must take place.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th....H0Bqi4GU.dpuf

Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.
It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it.

[Legs]

You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:

I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.

Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.

Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.

It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it

One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.

[Husar]

I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.

Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.

I didn't miss that part, it just doesn't disprove my point.
You said Christians don't believe in the bible if they don't think the earth is flat, let me quote you:

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.

I'm saying there are Christians who believe in the bible and don't believe the earth is flat, and theit view is not entirely schizophrenic just because there is one word in the bible that can be interpreted to support a flat earth world view. That is all.

One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.

Yes, one single word that was written some 4000 years ago or thereabouts, can be interpreted in different ways and can either be seen as strictly literal or more as a figure of speech like "the sun is rising". As the guy says, you don't have to treat genesis like a scientific book where every single word is carefully weighed and chosen. In fact, in that case these words would have to be defined somewhere with a proper scientific definition. The fact they are not is why we have to resort to interpretation, no?
If you just wanted to criticize literalist extremists, well, you threw me off by just calling them "christians", see the quote of yours above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

No, they aren't.

Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support. Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances, which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.

There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.

It rains​.

[Legs]

No, they aren't.







​

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.

Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.

Is it misanthopy though?

You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support.

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

Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances

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

which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.

not from a literalists perspective.

I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.

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.

There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.

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.

It rains

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.

Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.

In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.

[Sigurd]

I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.

Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.

In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.

We have long distinguished between creationism and Creationism, the difference being the capital C. Both groups believe in a creator. The difference is in the timespan and how the creation was done. I believe the last pope, a creationist, believed evolution was one of the methods of creation employed by his Lord.
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.

[Gilrandir]

The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.

What makes you think that 24 hour days are meant?

[Fragony]

We have long distinguished between creationism and Creationism, the difference being the capital C. Both groups believe in a creator. The difference is in the timespan and how the creation was done. I believe the last pope, a creationist, believed evolution was one of the methods of creation employed by his Lord.
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.

Not trying to be a prick, but I am pretty sure you know that, but do you have a particulary good reason to devide time in 24 hours.

Let's take that you have a perfectly fine Rolex. Instead of waiting for 6'aclock you dive straight to twelve and save some hours but that is just perception. Does anything change (except having to buy a new watch) or did you make a shortcut and really skipped 6 hours, or just your percetion of time

[Legs]

What makes you think that 24 hour days are meant?

Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.

[Fragony]

Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.

Most christians know how to take it with a geain of salt, you are being unfair

[Gilrandir]

Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.

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.

[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.

[Legs]

Most christians know how to take it with a geain of salt, you are being unfair

Read post #79 as you appear to be completely lost.

[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.

[Legs]

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.

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.

[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.