Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[RaceRunner]

It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second of time, “from west to east,” it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy, the “Ipswich Lectures,” says: “Jupiter is a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?” Of course, the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course round the central North. The only north point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is—a planet; and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the sea-shore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth’s “convexity,” to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his “Lessons,” gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, “as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;” and there—of a truth—is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the “hill” from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts—and it is outrageously false in several—it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the “hill” shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

In Mr. Proctor’s “Lessons in Astronomy,” page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer’s line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear—to anyone with his vision undistorted—as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then, the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions—yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time—from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called The Bible, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity. But, since every one of many, many allusions to the Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the Earth being “stretched out” “above the waters,” as “standing in the water and out of the water,” of its being “established that it cannot be moved,” we have a store from which to take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof—the Scriptural proof—that Earth is not a globe.

 

[Moses_Young]

The correct rendering is not necessarily the one that best fits a particular theological viewpoint (right or wrong), but rather the one that best renders the original-language text into English. Theology is a derivation from the text, not the other way around.

And yet all the changes made by the NIV seem to be in favour of taking away the deity of Christ. I didn't believe it was a coincidence when all the vote counting "mistakes" were in favour of Biden. I don't believe it's a coincidence that all changes in the NIV (and to a degere other versions) are biased toward hiding/denying the divinity of Christ.

 

[tourist]

Please answer how a satellite that circles around the pizza-shaped earth taking pictures, has never photographed the bottom.

...'cause there ain't no bottom to photograph.

 

[Dino246]

And yet all the changes made by the NIV seem to be in favour of taking away the deity of Christ. I didn't believe it was a coincidence when all the vote counting "mistakes" were in favour of Biden. I don't believe it's a coincidence that all changes in the NIV (and to a degere other versions) are biased toward hiding/denying the divinity of Christ.

You can make any assertions you like, but until you back them up with EVIDENCE, you are only spouting hot air. Don't bother merely presenting the KJV and the NIV; show the underlying Greek text and demonstrate where the NIV fails to present the deity of Christ where it is presented in the Greek.

 

[Dino246]

We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called The Bible, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet

Nor do we read anything about it being flat.

... from beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity.

Wrong; the fall of Adam is the groundwork of modern infidelity.

 

[lonelysummer]

Steve must, for a specified amount of time, live in another country at his fathers side; therefore, he cannot come to you himself to personally give you the message he would like for you to hear. So, he sends his word to you through a message service...

Moses is a man in your neighborhood - who tells you the orginal message service was intercepted by the message service that you have been receiving messages from directly - and, that it is a corrupt message service - that has, in fact, edited the messages and changed them to alter or [even] leave out parts of the message.

Steve sent Moses to inform you of the situation and give you the uncorrupted message that you should ignore that message service and seek to receive messages from Steve from a different message service that is not corrupt like the other one.

Moses receives messages from Steve through the recommended message service and knows about the corruption of other message services.

Because you have gotten comfortable with the message service that you have long believed has been giving you personal messages from Steve - but, not realizing that the messages were corrupted before you received them - you send Moses away, telling him:

~ any message service is just as good as any other

~ no message service could/would possibly be corrupt enough to alter the message before giving it to you

~ you are less interested in the accuracy of the messages from Steve than you are in the "good feeling" belief that you have received a message from Steve

As Moses leaves, he tells you that - if you would [only] accept the messages from the recommended message service - and, study them at length - you would discover the truth about the corrupt message service and the altered messages they have been giving you.

The recommended message service is the long-time most-stable most-trustworthy service available that handles messages in your language.

But, [some] are not willing to believe that. So, instead of accepting the advice of Moses, [some] choose to ignore the recommended message service - even going so far as to criticize it out of ignorance - not realizing the special historical significance it has in preserving intact the messages from Steve.

So I should put my faith in Moses?
Sorry, but I would rather get my message directly from Steve..er...Jesus.

 

[GaryA]

So I should put my faith in Moses?
Sorry, but I would rather get my message directly from Steve..er...Jesus.

You should put your faith in God/Jesus - always.

A part of this is to follow His admonition to "be sober" - meaning - to not let the worldly 'cocktail' get you "drunk" and rob you of your spiritual discernment of things in the world.

God speaks to us by/through/with His Holy Spirit; however, His 'word' for us is a message given in the form of an inspired written record of the things He wants us to know. Until His Second Coming, Jesus does not come to us personally (bodily) to tell us things; rather, it comes to us from His 'word' and the Holy Spirit. And, it is not that He could not do it differently if He chose - it is the way He chose.

What happens if the 'word' that He intends to teach you how to have spiritual discernment becomes corrupted?

How will you learn how to have enough spiritual discernment to recognize and realize that it has been corrupted?

A part of spiritual discernment is having the spiritual discernment to recognize and realize when it has been corrupted.

A person who has grown up studying the KJV is able to 'see' - "in spades" - the corruption that exists in the modern bibles.

Moses is just a brother who cares enough to try to warn you that you should be careful not to let the corrupted worldly cocktail rob you of good solid spiritual discernment - which will be corrupted if you attempt to obtain it from a corrupted bible.

It is not about putting your faith in Moses; rather, it is about "being sober" [enough] to discern the information you are given.

We all have to discern whatever we are given - whatever we are told - whatever we experience - etc.

We even have to discern whether or not the source of information is a good source of information.

Yes - it is complex.

Nonetheless, we have to do it.

What ultimately matters is - what you do with the information.

If the mere mention of the KJV agitates you, makes you angry, etc. - this is a CLUE!

That is just the devil (or a demon) standing next to you with a "cattle prod" - poking you with it in order to provoke you so that you might 'dismiss' the KJV. That is just how badly the devil does not want you to pay any attention to the KJV.

It happens all the time... (The mere mention of the KJV seems to instantly make certain members of CC absolutely livid!)

Corrupted bibles will have you drinking the worldly cocktail without recognizing it or realizing it - robbing you of good solid spiritual discernment.

So - pray about it - ask the Lord to help you discern the truth...

 

[GaryA]

Please answer how a satellite that circles around the pizza-shaped earth taking pictures, has never photographed the bottom.

That is not the pattern in which it would circle if it actually existed and did circle the earth.

Satellites do not exist in the Flat Earth model.

(Unless, of course, you want to consider the 'satellites' they are hanging off of big balloons floating around above the earth...)

 

[GaryA]

The KJV has been the most commonly available translation; that does not make it the standard against which others should be judged. There are two meanings of "standard" in use here; don't conflate them.

Not everyone agrees with you...

In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythm has had a profound influence on the literature of the past 400 years. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing. The KJV is public domain in the United States.

From: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/king-james-version-kjv-bible

Oh well - to each his own - believe what you will - it's okay...

 

[GaryA]

The correct rendering is not necessarily the one that best fits a particular theological viewpoint (right or wrong), but rather the one that best renders the original-language text into English. Theology is a derivation from the text, not the other way around.

It goes without saying that the original-language text is the 'true' text - and that - translations are just that - translations.

I agree with your 'render' statement, too. However, I challenge you to find a more correctly rendered English translation - from uncorrupted 'original' manuscripts - than the KJV. (translated after the KJV)

 

[Dino246]

It goes without saying that the original-language text is the 'true' text - and that - translations are just that - translations.

I agree with your 'render' statement, too. However, I challenge you to find a more correctly rendered English translation - from uncorrupted 'original' manuscripts - than the KJV. (translated after the KJV)

Let’s agree first on which are the “uncorrupted original manuscripts”.

 

[Sipsey]

That is not the pattern in which it would circle if it actually existed and did circle the earth.

Satellites do not exist in the Flat Earth model.

(Unless, of course, you want to consider the 'satellites' they are hanging off of big balloons floating around above the earth...)

That’s really convenient to simply declare satellites as non-existent.

 

[kinda]

As far as Bible translations go, I found a good website the could bring some insight.

The site put translations in this order, as far as accuracy. My comments are on the side.

https://lavendervines.com/bible-translation-comparison/


1. Interlinear Bible (This would make a good reference Bible.)
2. New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3. Amplified Bible (AMP)
4. English Standard Version (ESV)
5. King James Version (KJV) (oh no!)
6. New King James Version (NKJV)
7. New English Translation (NET)
8. Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
9. New International Version (NIV)
10. New Living Translation (NLT) (My favorite made in the top 10, not to shabby. Might be the most understandable version.)

 

[Cameron143]

That’s really convenient to simply declare satellites as non-existent.

It is probably easier than explaining a rather large man traveling at incredibly high speeds wearing an alloy suit intercepting random radio transmissions and sending them to their intended destinations. But what do I know?