Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

Sorry to hear about Rob Skiba, one of the more crazy, yet defenders of the Concave Earth model died recently. Youtube than took his channel down, so I feel your pain. Astronomy gets very complicated and it's great when people devote their lives to finding the secrets of the universe. It's a huge loss when these people have their lives shortened prematurely.

Kent Hovind really specializes in defending creation in Genesis, he sadly mistaken on the Heliocentric model belief, but absolutely love watching him pick a part the Macro-evolution lie in the debates. I don't think there is a bigger hero for defending Genesis than Kent Hovind in our time period, but he also suffered some question able jail time for taxes. His son supposedly ripped him off while he was in jail, and his wife left him.

It would be great if there was a staged event between the different models of earth and space with the top people defending their position. I would love to see that. I can only think of one person, that could defend the Concave Hollow Earth, and he would absolutely demolish both flat earth, and a sun centered universe.

Who is the leading flat earth pizza maker now? Eric Dubay? I want to know, so I will contact who I think the head Concave Hollow Earth, and have a debate. Maybe have a NASA astronomer defend the sun centered universe and have a battle royal. That would be awesome!

Solomon was considered one of the wisest persons ever, probably one of the richest as well. This wisdom came from God, so I find your comments of his limited ability, to be rather insulting. Really insulting to be honest, but if you can't defend your Heliocentric beliefs in the Bible, might as well insult Solomon right? Disgusting!

Solomon wasn't the best at following his own advice.

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done. ~1 Kings 11

Sorry to read of Mr. Skiba's passing.

.

Hillary Clinton says I'm deplorable, and Dr. Anthony Fauci says I'm an
epidemic of the unvaccinated and a danger to us all. I don't know which
label is worse: yours or theirs.
_

.
Side Note:

Solomon was a very wise man; in point of fact, the brightest intellectual of
his day. But Solomon's knowledge and experience were limited. He didn't
know everything there is to know, nor had he seen everything there is to
see, nor been everywhere there is to go. Whereas Christ's knowledge is
extremely vast.

• Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and
of knowledge.

Christ, in his capacity as the Word, created everything existing in the current
cosmos.

• John 1:3 . . All things came into existence through him, and apart from
him not even one thing came into existence.

So then, it only stands to reason that Christ would know more about the
afterlife than Solomon because the Word has actually seen it for himself,
whereas Solomon hadn't seen anything beyond the grave when he penned
Ecclesiastes.

A good rule of thumb to apply when the teachings of Solomon and Jesus
collide, is to keep in mind that Jesus is Solomon's superior, viz: Jesus'
teachings trump Solomon's.

• Matt 12:42 . .The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment
with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of
the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than
Solomon is here.

• John 3:31 . . He that comes from above is over all others.

And Jesus comes highly recommended too.

• Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to
him.

So then, when encountering remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes that are out
of step with Jesus' teachings in the New Testament; my unsolicited spiritual
counseling is to ignore Solomon's worldly view of the afterlife and go with
the wisdom of "my Son".

• John 8:12 . . I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no
means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.
_

.
This might be fun for somebody out there.

The radius of a circle of latitude is equal to the cosine of the latitude times
the radius of the Equator.

And then to get the diameter of a circle of latitude, simply double its radius.

From thence can be derived the circumference of a circle of latitude by
multiplying its diameter times pi.

This used to be somewhat laborious back in the days of slide rules and trig
tables; but with an electronic calculator, it's a piece of cake.
_

Sorry, my apologies... I associated the idea of the Earth being on pillars with your assertion that it was in a fixed position.

Anyway, yeah... good to meet you too!

Well, your assertion was in error. lol Try asserting again.

Can you assert Bible verses that support the Heliocentric model, or you just like asserting incorrectly?

I will put your question in my concave hollow earth thread and answer it more directly.


You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, Psalm 104:5

Job 26:7

7 He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

That's both confusing and rude... seek peace and pursue it.

I asserted nothing, I provide a verse that says that the Earth hangs on nothing.
While I don't consider the Bible to be a book on sciences, there are observable truths in it...

As to cosmology, I just don't see much there so I consider it a non-issue in regard to Salvation.
Have a nice day.

associated - joined together in sequence; linked coherently:
assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason

Well, you may have a point with linguistics, but it was far from rude. It was a little direct, but I'm used to people just assuming things, that I didn't say, which I think is the case with you associating a stationary earth with the earth being on pillars. I mean how does one conclude to that? Beyond my understanding! Has anyone ever said that the earth is on pillars?!?!




You associated the fixed earth being on pillars to try to discredit concave hollow earth, than I asked you to use the Bible to defend the Heliocentric model. That is all that happened. Maybe you didn't like my answer, but it was far from rude in my opinion.

Have a nice day also.

.

I'm curious. Why, especially, do Copernicus' ideas have to be in the Bible?

BTW: To my knowledge: the Bible doesn't describe a lunar eclipse as the Earth passing
between the Moon and the Sun.
_

God’s Truth never—no, never—requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in his “Lessons,” says: Men “have been able to go round and round the Earth in several directions.” Now, in this case, the word “several” will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and—a proof that Earth is not a globe.

If astronomical works be searched through and through, there will not be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly statement respecting a proof of the Earth’s “rotundity.” Proctor speaks of “proofs which serve to show … that the Earth is not flat,” and says that man “finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat,” and speaks of certain matters being “explained by supposing” that the Earth is a globe; and says that people have “assured themselves that it is a globe;” but he says, also, that there is a “most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:” just as though anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a proof—a proof that proves and settles the whole question. This, however, all the money in the United States Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich that they don’t want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is not a globe.

When a man speaks of a “most complete” thing amongst several other things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall short of something which the “most complete” thing possesses. And when it is known that the “most complete” thing is an entire failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry, are worthless. Proctor’s “most complete proof that the Earth is a globe” lies in what he calls “the fact” that distances from place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the Earth at 45 “degrees” south of the equator is twice the distance it would be on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of the age calls “a fact” is NOT a fact; that his “most complete proof” is a most complete failure; and that he might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe, there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us, it follows that when astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out—to say nothing about picking one up—that they give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

The surveyor’s plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles—from Valentia, Ireland, to St. John’s, Newfoundland—the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface—not the astronomers’ “level,” either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so—the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors,—it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which—if anything were needed to do so—would show its utter absurdity. It is this:—If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well “curvate” downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface—the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all:—an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast “hill”—of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a “hill of water” more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics—no matter its size—as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one—no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is “supposed” to be a large globe, has no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.