Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[RaceRunner]

81. Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round the Earth from west to east. But observation—man’s most certain mode of gaining knowledge—shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite direction—from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time, it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





82. Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round, every day, if we make use of our eyes—and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one—as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of reasoning to show that we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





83. It has been shown that meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word “degree,”—the 360th part of a circle—meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





84. If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a large one; and travelling away from an elevated [22]object, no matter how high, over a level surface, no matter how far, will cause the appearance in question—the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But, as it is clear that an appearance which is fully accounted for on the basis of known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south—that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth’s surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an “up” and a “down” in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





86. If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through “space” at the rate of “a hundred miles in five seconds of time,” the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface—the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth—that is, the habitable world of dry land—is found to be “standing out of the water and in the water” of the “mighty deep,” whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with—a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





87. The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands a theory to keep the water on its surface; but, as the theory which is given for this purpose is as much opposed to all human experience as the one which it is intended to uphold, it is an illustration of the miserable makeshifts to which astronomers are compelled to resort, and affords a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





88. If we could—after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth—conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power—no matter by what name it be called—that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





89. It is well known that the law regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: “his apparent size does not change,”—far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently, that, if [23]the traveller goes so far south that the North Star appears on the horizon, “the Sun should therefore look much larger”—if the Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, “the path followed cannot have been the straight course,”—but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector—to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the “English Mechanic” for Oct. 20, 1871, boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic philosophy by telling him that his arguments were all very good, but that “it seems as though [mark the language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer.” And Mr. Proctor concludes thus: “He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in ‘Parallax,’ he had ‘written himself down an ass.’ ”) Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit—a fraud—no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which its advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, would crush if they could find a weapon to use—the Zetetic philosophy of “Parallax”—is destined to live! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





90. “Is water level, or is it not?” was a question once asked of an astronomer. “Practically, yes; theoretically, no,” was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now, to say “So much the worse for the facts!”) To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done—sooner or later,—it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

91. “By actual observation,” says Schœdler, in his “Book of Nature,” “we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also.” This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst “other” things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schœdler to tell us that “heavenly bodies” are spherical, but “the greatest astronomer of the age” will not, now, dare to tell us that The Earth is—and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature—unscientific—false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.





92. “There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun,” says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the “motion” of the Earth is supposition only—since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all—it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since “mobility” and “sphericity” stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.





93. We have seen that astronomers—to give us a level surface on [24]which to live—have cut off one-half of the “globe” in a certain picture in their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance of their “spherical theory” is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





94. In “Cornell’s Geography” there is an “Illustrated proof of the Form of the Earth.” A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the “globe”—about 5,000 miles. Ten such ships as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the “arc,” making 500 miles as the length of the ship. The man, in the picture, who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 500 miles high. These are the proportions, then, of men, towers, and ships which are necessary in order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she “rounds the curve” of the “great hill of water” over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it must be remembered that this supposed “proof” depends upon lines and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be—a proof of rotundity—but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





95. In “Cornell’s Intermediate Geography,” (1881) page 12, is an “Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water.” This illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.





96. If we refer to the diagram in “Cornell’s Geography,” page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This is an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says: “The simplicity with which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive proof of the correctness”—of the Newtonian theory; “for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for.” But, as true philosophy has no “suppositions” at all—and has nothing to do with “suppositions”—and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the “presumptive proof” falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it so richly deserves; and out of the dust of Mr. Hind’s “rational suppositions” we see standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

98. Mr. Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is [25]“carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth.” Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star “millions of millions” of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, “the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift.” Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair’s-breadth, if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor’s mass of “six thousand million million million tons” is “rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever” with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a “very slow coach,” with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair’s-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of “Zadkeil’s Almanac,” says: “We declare that this ‘motion’ is all mere ‘bosh’; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity.” Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a “strong presumptive proof”—as Mr. Hind would say—that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.





99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth’s diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get “round numbers!” This is like splitting a hair on one side of the head and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, “science!” Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy—not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based—as we have a thousand times proved it to be—on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the “science” which tolerates it is a false—instead of being an “exact”—science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings “noon” to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun’s position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the [26]Sun’s position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where “time” is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be “put on,” or we may be said to “gain time.” If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still “morning,” the watch has to be “put back,” and it may be said that we “lose time.” But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth’s “rotundity,” as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.





“And what then?” What then! No intelligent man will ask the question; and he who may be called an intellectual man will know that the demonstration of the fact that the Earth is not a globe is the grandest snapping of the chains of slavery that ever took place in the world of literature or science. The floodgates of human knowledge are opened afresh and an impetus is given to investigation and discovery where all was stagnation, bewilderment and dreams! Is it nothing to know that infidelity cannot stand against the mighty rush of the living water of Truth that must flow on and on until the world shall look “up” once more “to Him that stretched out the earth above the waters”—“to Him that made great lights:—the Sun to rule by day—the Moon and Stars to rule by night?” Is it nothing to know and to feel that the heavenly bodies were made for man, and that the monstrous dogma of an infinity of worlds is overthrown for ever? The old-time English “Family Herald,” for July 25, 1885, says, in its editorial, that “The earth’s revolution on its own axis was denied, against Galileo and Copernicus, by the whole weight of the Church of Rome.” And, in an article on “The Pride of Ignorance,” too!—the editor not knowing that if the Earth had an axis to call its “own”—which the Church well knew it had not, and, therefore, could not admit—it would not “revolve” on it; and that the theoretical motion on an axis is that of rotation, and not revolution! Is it nothing to know that “the whole weight of the Church of Rome” was thrown in the right direction, although it has swayed back again like a gigantic pendulum that will regain its old position before long? Is it nothing to know that the “pride of ignorance” is on the other side? Is it nothing to know that, with all the Bradlaughs and Ingersolls of the world telling us to the contrary—Biblical science is true? Is it nothing to know that we are living on a body at rest, and not upon a heavenly body whirling and dashing through space in every conceivable way and with a velocity utterly inconceivable? Is it nothing to know that we can look stedfastly up to Heaven instead of having no heaven to look up to at all? Is it nothing, indeed, to be in the broad daylight of Truth and to be able to go on towards a possible perfection, instead of being wrapped in the darkness of error on the rough ocean of Life, and finding ourselves stranded at last—God alone knows where?

 

[VARob]

98. Mr. Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is [25]“carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth.” Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star “millions of millions” of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, “the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift.” Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair’s-breadth, if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor’s mass of “six thousand million million million tons” is “rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever” with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a “very slow coach,” with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair’s-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of “Zadkeil’s Almanac,” says: “We declare that this ‘motion’ is all mere ‘bosh’; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity.” Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a “strong presumptive proof”—as Mr. Hind would say—that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.





99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth’s diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get “round numbers!” This is like splitting a hair on one side of the head and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, “science!” Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy—not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based—as we have a thousand times proved it to be—on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the “science” which tolerates it is a false—instead of being an “exact”—science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.





100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings “noon” to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun’s position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the [26]Sun’s position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where “time” is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be “put on,” or we may be said to “gain time.” If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still “morning,” the watch has to be “put back,” and it may be said that we “lose time.” But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth’s “rotundity,” as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.





“And what then?” What then! No intelligent man will ask the question; and he who may be called an intellectual man will know that the demonstration of the fact that the Earth is not a globe is the grandest snapping of the chains of slavery that ever took place in the world of literature or science. The floodgates of human knowledge are opened afresh and an impetus is given to investigation and discovery where all was stagnation, bewilderment and dreams! Is it nothing to know that infidelity cannot stand against the mighty rush of the living water of Truth that must flow on and on until the world shall look “up” once more “to Him that stretched out the earth above the waters”—“to Him that made great lights:—the Sun to rule by day—the Moon and Stars to rule by night?” Is it nothing to know and to feel that the heavenly bodies were made for man, and that the monstrous dogma of an infinity of worlds is overthrown for ever? The old-time English “Family Herald,” for July 25, 1885, says, in its editorial, that “The earth’s revolution on its own axis was denied, against Galileo and Copernicus, by the whole weight of the Church of Rome.” And, in an article on “The Pride of Ignorance,” too!—the editor not knowing that if the Earth had an axis to call its “own”—which the Church well knew it had not, and, therefore, could not admit—it would not “revolve” on it; and that the theoretical motion on an axis is that of rotation, and not revolution! Is it nothing to know that “the whole weight of the Church of Rome” was thrown in the right direction, although it has swayed back again like a gigantic pendulum that will regain its old position before long? Is it nothing to know that the “pride of ignorance” is on the other side? Is it nothing to know that, with all the Bradlaughs and Ingersolls of the world telling us to the contrary—Biblical science is true? Is it nothing to know that we are living on a body at rest, and not upon a heavenly body whirling and dashing through space in every conceivable way and with a velocity utterly inconceivable? Is it nothing to know that we can look stedfastly up to Heaven instead of having no heaven to look up to at all? Is it nothing, indeed, to be in the broad daylight of Truth and to be able to go on towards a possible perfection, instead of being wrapped in the darkness of error on the rough ocean of Life, and finding ourselves stranded at last—God alone knows where?

Post after post of spam.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
I think Mr. RaceRunner might be getting frustrated, and desperate to find
a silver bullet.
_

 

[GaryA]

I think he needs to realize that 'cognitive dissonance is king' on this site and not get his hopes up too much...

 

[GaryA]

Strong’s is not a standard dictionary. It only gives definitions of words as they are used in the KJV.

Which means it has reliable definitions for words found in the KJV within the context of the KJV.

Yes. There is only one problem with that: it offers nothing in the way of objective meaning of words not previously found in English. I don't know offhand whether "firmament" existed outside of English translations of Scripture. If not, we cannot take Strong's as being objective. Or to put it more succinctly, "firmament" means whatever the translators thought it meant.

No problem at all.

Strong's Concordance was first published in 1890.

I have an 1828 English language dictionary - a reprint of a NOAH WEBSTER original published in 1828.

The word 'firmament' is defined in it - based on the language-of-the-day back when it was published.

It defines it in terms of it being an 'expanse' rather than being something 'solid'.

An excerpt:

"The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension;"

('NOAH WEBSTER'S FIRST EDITION OF AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE')

So... what do you do with that? It undermines your position that the dome is solid.

Nope - not at all...

It is very highly likely that the dome is solid.

The 'firmament' is not the dome; rather, it is the 'expanse' under the dome.

"Very highly likely" is not evidence. You are positing a "dome" about which Scripture is silent.

I will have to address the dome/scripture statement later ...

The idea of the dome in scripture comes from the verses which indicate/suggest that there is a barrier between 'our atmosphere' and 'the third heaven'.

 

[EliB]

Happy Thanksgiving Ya'll!!!!
I hope this finds everybody well!
Tourist and me noticed that on this thread there doesn't seem to have been a proper explanation of what the "Flat Earth" even is. so as one of your crazy resident Flerthers I figured the duty fell to me to illuminate.

this is just going to be a quick explanation for the sake of unified understanding for all of us here so we can get over the miscommunication of using or talking about different models or a flat asteroid flying through space (this is nonsense).

If and when I reference Flat Earth it will be in specific reference to this basic model. we can bicker about what the Model gets right or wrong if you like, but if we are going to argue about what it is or is not, this model should help us in a basic understanding of our beliefs. The reason I believe this is important is because it is, actually, an argument about veracity of scripture. this argument we are having is not about Cosmology, it is about Theology.

- First - if you haven't watched the Truman show, that would be a good place to start. we live in a Truman show like structure, thousands of miles wide and possibly just as high. No idea how deep. easiest personal visual for us may be to compare it to either an Imax theater, planetarium, or a roofed Sports Stadium. we basically live in a massive Terrarium.

- Secondly - There is a Roof it is called the Firmament in the KJV and many other bible translations
This roof has several purposes.
The Sun, Moon and stars are placed in it. Kinda like those glow in the dark stars we all used to have on our bedroom ceilings.
It holds the waters above and separates them from the earth beneath.
It binds the Earth to the Heavens
It is the place, on which, Gods Throne sits.
These are just a few of its purposes that scripture talks about.

- Next - THERE IS NO SPACE
outer space is not real. as far as we are concerned, we cannot leave our Earth system. it was made for us to inhabit, and God did not make us for outside of it.

- Next - God set the Sun and Moon as the Great Lights to give light upon the Earth. not anything else. we are center stage and, according to the scripture, the place holding the entirety of God's attentions.

- Finally - God does not describe any other World that he created. does that mean He didn't? No. but that doesn't mean He did and that is beyond our ability to discover from scripture.

again, in gesture of good humor, we are not on a flat asteroid flying through space. space does not exist, we are in a terrarium created by God to be inhabited by mankind.

As far as the basic model goes, this is it. There is a lot more we can argue about and talk about from here, but scripture-wise, this is how I see Earth described in the Word. I will work on providing a clear and simple list and explanation from scripture as to why I believe this and also hopefully expand on this model. But this should hopefully at least give us a baseline understanding so we aren't arguing about completely different things. if we are going to argue let us at least argue over the same thing and from a point of understanding each other's point of reference.

I was hoping to get this out this past weekend, sorry for the delay there, I was home sick with the Kids and wife and I am just now getting to this explanation. I hope to have a basic scriptural layout of "Why" I believe this for ya'll to read hopefully this weekend or maybe next. idk. hopefully shouldn't take me very long. I hope my fellows can Help expand as necessary and we can all just enjoy discussing this together.

God bless Ya'll and Happy thanksgiving again!

 

[Dino246]

The idea of the dome in scripture comes from the verses which indicate/suggest that there is a barrier between 'our atmosphere' and 'the third heaven'.

Genesis 1:6-8a And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made[b] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. (ESV)

The word "expanse" here is the Hebrew raqia, which is translated "firmament" in the KJV. It separates the waters below from the waters above, but I'm not familiar with any verse suggesting that it separates the third heaven from anything.

 

[EliB]

Please provide the source by which you claim the ‘firmament’ is solid. If it’s Strong’s as in the image, then you have more homework. Strong’s is not a standard dictionary. It only gives definitions of words as they are used in the KJV. In other words, you’re using circular reasoning.

that's why I showed the Hebrew word Raqia and not the Latin Word Firmament
Besides this, the Raqia is Firm and solid and holds back the waters above. there is an Open heaven, but that is where the Birds fly. the Raqia is Solid. and no, I am not using circular reasoning. a dictionary provides clear definitions for the sake of understanding. if the Strong's is not, at least, reliable, then no dictionary is. it is also important to understand what the use of a Word is so we can understand what it means.

 

[Dino246]

If and when I reference Flat Earth it will be in specific reference to this basic model. we can bicker about what the Model gets right or wrong if you like, but if we are going to argue about what it is or is not, this model should help us in a basic understanding of our beliefs. The reason I believe this is important is because it is, actually, an argument about veracity of scripture. this argument we are having is not about Cosmology, it is about Theology.

No, it's about cosmology, the creation we inhabit. If it were about God, it would be a discussion of theology.

- Secondly - There is a Roof it is called the Firmament in the KJV and many other bible translations
This roof has several purposes.
The Sun, Moon and stars are placed in it. Kinda like those glow in the dark stars we all used to have on our bedroom ceilings.
It holds the waters above and separates them from the earth beneath.
It binds the Earth to the Heavens
It is the place, on which, Gods Throne sits.
These are just a few of its purposes that scripture talks about.
...
God bless Ya'll and Happy thanksgiving again!

I trust you're enjoying your American Thanksgiving. We Canucks had ours over a month ago.

Your purpose may be to standardize terms for the purpose of communication, and I can accept that the FE model has a "roof" but I won't accept that the model is correct. The Scripture declares that the raqia separates the waters below it from the waters above it. In other words, your "roof" has something above it, outside it. That means your model is, at best, incomplete.

 

[Dino246]

that's why I showed the Hebrew word Raqia and not the Latin Word Firmament
Besides this, the Raqia is Firm and solid and holds back the waters above. there is an Open heaven, but that is where the Birds fly. the Raqia is Solid. and no, I am not using circular reasoning. a dictionary provides clear definitions for the sake of understanding. if the Strong's is not, at least, reliable, then no dictionary is. it is also important to understand what the use of a Word is so we can understand what it means.

You're making assumptions not supported by the text. Nothing in the text suggests that the raqia is "firm and solid". Strong's is a dictionary of words as used in the KJV, not as used in 16th-century English, or any other version of English. It may give a general idea of a word's meaning in the KJV, but does not provide an objective meaning. Its reliability is limited in scope.

 

[VARob]

Happy Thanksgiving Ya'll!!!!
I hope this finds everybody well!
Tourist and me noticed that on this thread there doesn't seem to have been a proper explanation of what the "Flat Earth" even is. so as one of your crazy resident Flerthers I figured the duty fell to me to illuminate.

this is just going to be a quick explanation for the sake of unified understanding for all of us here so we can get over the miscommunication of using or talking about different models or a flat asteroid flying through space (this is nonsense).

If and when I reference Flat Earth it will be in specific reference to this basic model. we can bicker about what the Model gets right or wrong if you like, but if we are going to argue about what it is or is not, this model should help us in a basic understanding of our beliefs. The reason I believe this is important is because it is, actually, an argument about veracity of scripture. this argument we are having is not about Cosmology, it is about Theology.

- First - if you haven't watched the Truman show, that would be a good place to start. we live in a Truman show like structure, thousands of miles wide and possibly just as high. No idea how deep. easiest personal visual for us may be to compare it to either an Imax theater, planetarium, or a roofed Sports Stadium. we basically live in a massive Terrarium.

- Secondly - There is a Roof it is called the Firmament in the KJV and many other bible translations
This roof has several purposes.
The Sun, Moon and stars are placed in it. Kinda like those glow in the dark stars we all used to have on our bedroom ceilings.
It holds the waters above and separates them from the earth beneath.
It binds the Earth to the Heavens
It is the place, on which, Gods Throne sits.
These are just a few of its purposes that scripture talks about.

- Next - THERE IS NO SPACE
outer space is not real. as far as we are concerned, we cannot leave our Earth system. it was made for us to inhabit, and God did not make us for outside of it.

- Next - God set the Sun and Moon as the Great Lights to give light upon the Earth. not anything else. we are center stage and, according to the scripture, the place holding the entirety of God's attentions.

- Finally - God does not describe any other World that he created. does that mean He didn't? No. but that doesn't mean He did and that is beyond our ability to discover from scripture.

again, in gesture of good humor, we are not on a flat asteroid flying through space. space does not exist, we are in a terrarium created by God to be inhabited by mankind.

As far as the basic model goes, this is it. There is a lot more we can argue about and talk about from here, but scripture-wise, this is how I see Earth described in the Word. I will work on providing a clear and simple list and explanation from scripture as to why I believe this and also hopefully expand on this model. But this should hopefully at least give us a baseline understanding so we aren't arguing about completely different things. if we are going to argue let us at least argue over the same thing and from a point of understanding each other's point of reference.

I was hoping to get this out this past weekend, sorry for the delay there, I was home sick with the Kids and wife and I am just now getting to this explanation. I hope to have a basic scriptural layout of "Why" I believe this for ya'll to read hopefully this weekend or maybe next. idk. hopefully shouldn't take me very long. I hope my fellows can Help expand as necessary and we can all just enjoy discussing this together.

God bless Ya'll and Happy thanksgiving again!

Thanks, but this is not new information. I think it's pretty common knowledge what flat earthers believe.

While I don't believe it, I understand why you do. I probably know the scriptures you're going to provide.

The Bible DOES portray the earth as flat, supported on pillars, with a firmanent over it with the stars, sun, and moon stuck to it, and God's dwelling-place in the third heaven above the waters that are on top of the firmament. That's how the ancients saw things, and God frequently works with people according to their understanding. We understand more now. A lot more.

 

[Magenta]

PROFESSOR PROCTOR’S PROOFS.

“A proof, a proof!” cries Student Brown; says Proctor, “Very well,
If that is all you want, indeed, I’ve plenty I can tell:
But really I have scarcely time, or patience, now, to do it;
You ought to know the earth’s a globe, then, as a globe you’d view it.
I knew it long ago: in truth, ’twas taught me in my cot,
And, then, too old was I to doubt—too young to say ’twas not!”
“And you have never questioned it?” “Why should I, now, friend Brown?
I took it all for granted, just as daddy laid it down.
And as my duty clearly was,—no other way I saw it—
And that’s the reason why, of course, a globe I always draw it.
And so you want a proof! Ah ha: just cross the broad Atlantic,
And then a proof so strong you’ll have, with joy ’twill send you frantic!”
“You mean, that I shall see the ships come round the old earth’s side—
And up—and o’er the ‘watery hill’—as into view they glide!
No, Proctor, no: you say, yourself, the earth so vast in size is,
The surface seems a level one—indeed, to sight, it rises.
And ships, when coming into view, seem ‘bearing down upon us.’
No, Proctor, let us have a proof—no, no, come—mercy on us!”
“Well, Brown, I’ve proofs that serve to show that earth, indeed, a ball ‘tis;
But if you won’t believe them—well, not mine but yours the fault is.
Why, everybody, surely, knows a planet must be round,
And, since the earth a planet is, its shape at once is found.
We know it travels round the sun, a thousand miles a minute,
And, therefore, it must be a globe: a flat earth couldn’t spin it.
We know it on its axis turns with motion unperceived;
And therefore, surely, plain it is, its shape must be believed.
We know its weight put down in tons exactly as we weigh’d it;
And, therefore, what could clearer be, if we ourselves had made it?
We know its age—can figures lie?—its size—its weight—its motion;
And then to say, ‘’tis all my eye,’ shows madness in the notion.
Besides, the other worlds and suns—some cooling down—some hot!—
How can you say, you want a proof, with all these in the pot?
No, Brown: just let us go ahead; don’t interfere at all;
Some other day I’ll come and bring proof that earth’s a ball!”
“No, Proctor, no:” said Mr. Brown; “’tis now too late to try it:—
A hundred proofs are now put down (and you cannot deny it)
That earth is not a globe at all, and does not move through space:
And your philosophy I call a shame and a disgrace.
We have to interfere, and do the best that we are able
To crush your theories and to lay the facts upon the table.
God’s Truth is what the people need, and men will strive to preach it;
And all your efforts are in vain, though you should dare impeach it.
You’ve given half your theory up; the people have to know it:—
You smile, but, then, your book’s enough: for that will plainly show it.
One-half your theory’s gone, and, soon, the other half goes, too:
So, better turn about, at once, and show what you can do.
Own up (as people have to do, when they have been deceived),
And help the searcher after Truth of doubt to be relieved.
‘The only amaranthine flower is virtue;’—don’t forget it—
‘The only lasting treasure, Truth:’—and never strive to let it.”

Clever I like this as well ~

 

[RaceRunner]

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

 

[VARob]

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.

 

[VARob]

Thanks, but this is not new information. I think it's pretty common knowledge what flat earthers believe.

While I don't believe it, I understand why you do. I probably know the scriptures you're going to provide.

The Bible DOES portray the earth as flat, supported on pillars, with a firmanent over it with the stars, sun, and moon stuck to it, and God's dwelling-place in the third heaven above the waters that are on top of the firmament. That's how the ancients saw things, and God frequently works with people according to their understanding. We understand more now. A lot more.

Who deleted the image I posted with this ^^^ post?

 

[tourist]

I think he needs to realize that 'cognitive dissonance is king' on this site and not get his hopes up too much...

I think that I may have a case of that 'cognitive dissonance'.

 

[tourist]

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

What makes you believe that all of these photos/videos are fake? Where are all of the fake/genuine photos that show the entire flat earth?

 

[tourist]

Who deleted the image I posted with this ^^^ post?

Probably a glitch of some sort.