Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The issue is that we've been lied to about everything, and many people over the last decade or so have been starting to realise it. From the age of the Earth and how it was formed (Big Bang theory), how life came about (Evolution), history (it was all a series of coincidences, not intentially driven along a particular course), medicine (vaccines are safe and effective, cancer is caused by DNA damage, viruses have been properly isolated and cause disease, health issues are mostly genetic), politics (convenient deaths of political figures aren't calculated assassinations, economic hit men don't exist, wars are fought for freedom and justice) etc. Most everything you learned in school was a lie.
People are systematically reviewing what they have been taught and accepted as fact, and finding that science and history doesn't support most of it. Heliocentrism is an example. The science actually supports a stationary Earth. This automatically refutes Heliocentrism. And then the more you examine, the more you realise that the evidence does not support Geocentrism (Heliocentrism's close cousin) over the Earth being flat. As the simplest and most straightforward reading of scripture implies the Earth is flat, why should we as Christians believe different?
People are systematically reviewing what they have been taught and accepted as fact, and finding that science and history doesn't support most of it. Heliocentrism is an example. The science actually supports a stationary Earth. This automatically refutes Heliocentrism. And then the more you examine, the more you realise that the evidence does not support Geocentrism (Heliocentrism's close cousin) over the Earth being flat. As the simplest and most straightforward reading of scripture implies the Earth is flat, why should we as Christians believe different?
-
1
- Show all
You also end up with men who have breasts that produce milk. It's quite irresponsible to take everything literally.
Genesis describes some things in the creation week that make a flat, stationary earth impossible.
Flerthers ignore those things and take 'literally' the things that fit their worldview.
-
1
- Show all
There is one passage that describes what you state. In the context, the breasts being spoken of could indeed be a woman's, but if they are not, then the passage still makes sense metaphorically. Job 21:24 His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.
Remember in English, man and his are default descriptors that can refer to both man and woman, his and hers, although they can also be used to designate the masculine gender (just as dog can be used to designate a male dog or a bitch, and similarly for many creatures).
The passages that speak of Earth being flat are consistent, and more than one. If they were metaphorical, it would make more sense to use a metaphor more consistent with heliocentricity. There is nothing spoken of in the Creation week that is inconsistent with Flat Earth, but certainly there are key things missing were heliocentricity true (e.g. God putting the Earth in orbit around the sun, God spinning the Earth, where the waters above went once God had separated them from the waters below, etc.)
Remember in English, man and his are default descriptors that can refer to both man and woman, his and hers, although they can also be used to designate the masculine gender (just as dog can be used to designate a male dog or a bitch, and similarly for many creatures).
The passages that speak of Earth being flat are consistent, and more than one. If they were metaphorical, it would make more sense to use a metaphor more consistent with heliocentricity. There is nothing spoken of in the Creation week that is inconsistent with Flat Earth, but certainly there are key things missing were heliocentricity true (e.g. God putting the Earth in orbit around the sun, God spinning the Earth, where the waters above went once God had separated them from the waters below, etc.)
Because God inspired the intellect in humans to reach for the stars , and achieve their goal. Because the Earth is not flat and this is God's way of proving it when some of us first ignore his words that refer to the circle of the earth.
Ignoring evidence sustaining proof of a globe earth doesn't make the Earth flat. It makes that occur for the argument that insists contrary to all proof it is not, fall flat.
Ignoring evidence sustaining proof of a globe earth doesn't make the Earth flat. It makes that occur for the argument that insists contrary to all proof it is not, fall flat.
The evidence for globe Earth doesn't exist, unless you accept NASA's contradictory photographs. That is my argument - people are not reverting their intellects to the 13th century - they are using their intellects to demonstrate that what many believe to be the foundations of so-called "modern science" is nothing more than a house of cards supporting by demonstrable fraud, blind faith and antiscience dogma, crashing down even as we discuss.
-
1
- Show all
God separated dark from light, day from night. Stationary flat earth models don't account for that.
Sunrises, sunsets, day/night, monthly & annual cycles. No flat earth zealot has ever managed to produce one creation model.
They make illustrations for one component at a time but have no complete model.
FE is not Biblical.
Sunrises, sunsets, day/night, monthly & annual cycles. No flat earth zealot has ever managed to produce one creation model.
They make illustrations for one component at a time but have no complete model.
FE is not Biblical.
-
1
- Show all
.
I have seen movies and photos of the A-bombs that went off on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, but I didn't see either one of them go off for myself, i.e. I
wasn't an eye witness to those detonations.
When I was a kid in California back in the decade of the 1950s, my dad took
me outside to watch an A-bomb test in New Mexico. We lived too far away to
actually see the bomb go off, but I did a glow in the eastern sky that my dad
said was the bomb.
So to this day, I have never actually seen an A-bomb go off. Is that
sufficient reason for me to believe the bombs are a hoax?
I served on several juries. In none of those cases was I an eye-witness to
the facts, yet I was required to pass judgment on them based upon the
testimony of witnesses whom I'd never met. Is that sufficient reason for me
to believe those cases were groundless?
I have seen lots of movies and photos of the Earth from space. I have
never seen the Earth from space for myself, i.e. I am not an eye-witness of
the Earth's shape. Is that sufficient reason for me to believe those movies
and photos are fake?
Christ's apostles left behind gospels and epistles claiming their leader's
crucified dead body was restored to life. I myself have never seen Christ;
either before or after his death, i.e. I am not an eye-witness to his life and
times. Is that sufficient reason for me to believe those gospels and epistles
are fiction?
It is impossible to go thru life without the element of trust. Sooner or later, if
not all the time, we have to take somebody's word for it that certain things
are true without our actually seeing them true for ourselves. There's just no
getting out of it.
The thing is: there is just too much evidence, and too many witnesses,
verifying that the Earth is a ball rather than a disk; and the witnesses and
the evidence have been corroborating ever since Russia's first Sputnik back
in October of 1957.
In order to convince folks that the Earth is flat, it would be necessary to first
discredit the science and industry of the USA, Russia, China, SpaceX, Blue
Origin, Google Earth, and the European Space Agency, plus all the imaging
teams, all the mission specialists, all the astronauts, all the cartographers,
all the astronomers, and all the folks involved in designing the GPS system
and satellite communications. In other words: flatters had a slim chance of
being right prior to the space age, but now they have no chance at all.
_
I have seen movies and photos of the A-bombs that went off on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, but I didn't see either one of them go off for myself, i.e. I
wasn't an eye witness to those detonations.
When I was a kid in California back in the decade of the 1950s, my dad took
me outside to watch an A-bomb test in New Mexico. We lived too far away to
actually see the bomb go off, but I did a glow in the eastern sky that my dad
said was the bomb.
So to this day, I have never actually seen an A-bomb go off. Is that
sufficient reason for me to believe the bombs are a hoax?
I served on several juries. In none of those cases was I an eye-witness to
the facts, yet I was required to pass judgment on them based upon the
testimony of witnesses whom I'd never met. Is that sufficient reason for me
to believe those cases were groundless?
I have seen lots of movies and photos of the Earth from space. I have
never seen the Earth from space for myself, i.e. I am not an eye-witness of
the Earth's shape. Is that sufficient reason for me to believe those movies
and photos are fake?
Christ's apostles left behind gospels and epistles claiming their leader's
crucified dead body was restored to life. I myself have never seen Christ;
either before or after his death, i.e. I am not an eye-witness to his life and
times. Is that sufficient reason for me to believe those gospels and epistles
are fiction?
It is impossible to go thru life without the element of trust. Sooner or later, if
not all the time, we have to take somebody's word for it that certain things
are true without our actually seeing them true for ourselves. There's just no
getting out of it.
The thing is: there is just too much evidence, and too many witnesses,
verifying that the Earth is a ball rather than a disk; and the witnesses and
the evidence have been corroborating ever since Russia's first Sputnik back
in October of 1957.
In order to convince folks that the Earth is flat, it would be necessary to first
discredit the science and industry of the USA, Russia, China, SpaceX, Blue
Origin, Google Earth, and the European Space Agency, plus all the imaging
teams, all the mission specialists, all the astronauts, all the cartographers,
all the astronomers, and all the folks involved in designing the GPS system
and satellite communications. In other words: flatters had a slim chance of
being right prior to the space age, but now they have no chance at all.
_
-
1
- Show all
If you think that is insane, consider that there are more than 60 ball earthers on this thread... 
True, but both Flat Earth Pizza Makers and Globalist are wrong. Globalist have an excuse though, they have been taught this non-sense, since a young age. Flat Earthers are all fully aware of the errors of their model, but choose to ignore them.
It looks like flat earthers believe the earth is stationary according to a book that sells on amazon. I agree the earth is stationary, but the flat earth has still been proven wrong over and over again. How Flat Earthers get steam rolled by Professor Dave and still believe their right, only shows a faith based cult, not one that can be proven.
Concave Hollow Earth was never mentioned in school, constantly ignored, and silenced. Yet, Edmond Halley, and a U.S. Government Survey have pointed to this model for over a hundred years, either directly, or indirectly. I'm starting to think their is a conspiracy to silence Concave Hollow Earth information, but doubt anyone will agree with me, or listen for that matter. lol
I did find one Ted Talk of a 11 year old girl talk about Concave Hollow Earth on youtube, but come on?!?! The audio was so bad, could barely understand it, and I'm sure there was someone far more qualified to give a presentation on the subject. Plus, I don't think she presented the subject in way that most in the Concave Hollow Earth Community agree with.
To further the point, do you think Ted Talk would allow a 11 year old to introduce a new mainstream talking point about an astronomical talking point?!?! Concave Hollow Earth is hardly ever mention any where and they let elementary school kid introduce it on Ted Talk.
Oh well, maybe they can find a 1st grader next time to really help push that Concave Hollow Earth in the mainstream. lol It's a joke and I feel Cellular Cosmology has grossly under served.
If you want to believe them, you can, but our reasons are more logical than you want to accept. NASA has demonstrably engaged in fraud. Therefore, it is not a reliable witness to base any claims on.
At the risk of upsetting Gary, I post below something for how day/night might work on a flat Earth. This is not a real model, but it demonstrates how light can be diverted by something as simple as a transparent (glass?) dome. I can't post a link to the video, as it requires a login.
At the risk of upsetting Gary, I post below something for how day/night might work on a flat Earth. This is not a real model, but it demonstrates how light can be diverted by something as simple as a transparent (glass?) dome. I can't post a link to the video, as it requires a login.