What was the piece of evidence that convinced you that the Earth was flat?

The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.

I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.

Quote from: JohnBreckman007 on September 04, 2008, 02:53:22 PM

The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.

I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.

Here you go: Source

Quote from: JohnBreckman007 on September 04, 2008, 02:53:22 PM

The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.

I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.

Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"

The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat. If the Earth was a sphere, no matter how tall you made the tree, there would be people on the other side who could not see it.

Here you go: Source

Some of those quotes show a total lack of understanding of metaphors. Either that, or it suits their interpretation better to ignore what are likely metaphors.

Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"

The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat.

Not only that but the earth has to be about a dozen square miles in size. And heaven has to be really close to the ground.

Adding to Steve's post, any bible texts that aren't obvious metaphors?

Quote from: zeroply on September 04, 2008, 09:26:14 PM

Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"

The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat.

Not only that but the earth has to be about a dozen square miles in size. And heaven has to be really close to the ground.

Adding to Steve's post, any bible texts that aren't obvious metaphors?

No, there was less atmospheric pollution back then and people had better eye sight. Come on, they lived to be hundreds of years old, why couldn't they have had good eyes?

Four corners has been used in other literature to describe an entire area, so I'll give Steve that. That's why I restricted myself to Daniel. If the Earth were really round, how come Jesus didn't know that? He wouldn't have used that metaphor knowing that in a few thousand years it would be used by websites to discredit his words.

So any Bible text that agrees with my viewpoint is an obvious metaphor, but anything that agrees with yours is to be taken literally? You'd make a wonderful addition to the John Birch society.

Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.

 

Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.

It says the tree reached the heavens. How tall do you think they grew back then? And do you really think people could see thousands of miles then, but it's not possible now?

Jesus told parables. Are they meant to be taken literally or were they story telling used to illustrate a point? I'm not using them to discredit his words, just to say that it doesn't mean the earth was literally flat.

Quote from: zeroply on September 05, 2008, 06:36:12 AM

Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.

It says the tree reached the heavens. How tall do you think they grew back then? And do you really think people could see thousands of miles then, but it's not possible now?

Jesus told parables. Are they meant to be taken literally or were they story telling used to illustrate a point? I'm not using them to discredit his words, just to say that it doesn't mean the earth was literally flat.

It's God we're talking about dude. I'm sure that if God can make a quasar then a really tall tree isn't that hard to do. Obviously a NATURALLY growing tree wouldn't be sufficient, they wouldn't be talking about that 2000 years later, would they? It would have to be something so tall anyone on the planet would immediately recognize that only God could have created it.

Why wouldn't people be able to see thousands of miles? How else could they see the tree? I mean, if they lived hundreds of years without MRI machines and antibiotics, they must have had fundamentally different bodies than we do now.

As to parables, I'm sure Jesus told many. This is from Daniel, which is Old Testament. Jesus wasn't around then.

The earth is flat =Nonsense
The bible=Nonsense

You can see what we are dealing with here!!

It's God we're talking about dude. I'm sure that if God can make a quasar then a really tall tree isn't that hard to do. Obviously a NATURALLY growing tree wouldn't be sufficient, they wouldn't be talking about that 2000 years later, would they? It would have to be something so tall anyone on the planet would immediately recognize that only God could have created it.

Why wouldn't people be able to see thousands of miles? How else could they see the tree? I mean, if they lived hundreds of years without MRI machines and antibiotics, they must have had fundamentally different bodies than we do now.

As to parables, I'm sure Jesus told many. This is from Daniel, which is Old Testament. Jesus wasn't around then.

I'm sure God can make a big tree. You know what's easier that that? This is the verse before which you didn't include in your quote:
4:10  Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

Easier than making a big tree is to make someone "dream/have a vision" of a big tree. That is not a bible quote which suggests the earth is flat. Do you have any more?

The earth is flat =Nonsense
The bible=Nonsense

You can see what we are dealing with here!!

If you don't want to be a part of this conversation, than please stay out of it.

Uhm, who started this thread, idiot!

You're all forgetting the verse right at the start of the whole thing:
0:1 - And lo, let it be known that this is all metaphorical, with pieces of history thrown in for good measure!

Hopefully that clears some of this up.

Gee.......this thread stayedon topic.

Gee.......this thread stayedon topic.

No it didn't.

Uhm, who started this thread, idiot!

Apparently you did. I'm sure your parents are very proud.

And I think we're still on topic. The question was what convinced you the Earth was flat, and bible quotes came into it.

Quote from: zeroply on September 05, 2008, 02:56:06 PM

It's God we're talking about dude. I'm sure that if God can make a quasar then a really tall tree isn't that hard to do. Obviously a NATURALLY growing tree wouldn't be sufficient, they wouldn't be talking about that 2000 years later, would they? It would have to be something so tall anyone on the planet would immediately recognize that only God could have created it.

Why wouldn't people be able to see thousands of miles? How else could they see the tree? I mean, if they lived hundreds of years without MRI machines and antibiotics, they must have had fundamentally different bodies than we do now.

As to parables, I'm sure Jesus told many. This is from Daniel, which is Old Testament. Jesus wasn't around then.

I'm sure God can make a big tree. You know what's easier that that? This is the verse before which you didn't include in your quote:
4:10  Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

Easier than making a big tree is to make someone "dream/have a vision" of a big tree. That is not a bible quote which suggests the earth is flat. Do you have any more?

So you're saying God made this poor dude dream that the Earth was flat?

What kind of deceitful manipulative God are you worshipping? I feel sorry for you...

So you're saying God made this poor dude dream that the Earth was flat?

What kind of deceitful manipulative God are you worshipping? I feel sorry for you...

What?

I'm quoting the source you quoted that said the earth was flat. I pointed out that the full quote showed it was vision in a persons head.

Gen 37:09 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

Does this mean Joseph was actually going to get the sun, moon and stars to obey him? No it was a dream with a meaning.

I still don't know what you are getting at in your last post.

Quote from: zeroply on September 07, 2008, 08:56:09 PM

So you're saying God made this poor dude dream that the Earth was flat?

What kind of deceitful manipulative God are you worshipping? I feel sorry for you...

What?

I'm quoting the source you quoted that said the earth was flat. I pointed out that the full quote showed it was vision in a persons head.

Gen 37:09 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

Does this mean Joseph was actually going to get the sun, moon and stars to obey him? No it was a dream with a meaning.

I still don't know what you are getting at in your last post.

I'm just saying that this was a vision inspired directly by God, so it was a "constructed dream". It would have been pointless for God to include the part about being able to see the tree from the whole Earth, when he could have just as easily tweaked the dream so that the tree was visible from "all of X" where X actually makes sense.

Now Gen 37 is actually about a dream, but Daniel specifically mentions "vision", so you can't compare the two.

To all FEer's

At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'

What was that?

It was probably because it would attract attention to the site. (They do say that the Round Earth Conspiracy is probably for money)

I'm just saying that this was a vision inspired directly by God, so it was a "constructed dream". It would have been pointless for God to include the part about being able to see the tree from the whole Earth, when he could have just as easily tweaked the dream so that the tree was visible from "all of X" where X actually makes sense.

Now Gen 37 is actually about a dream, but Daniel specifically mentions "vision", so you can't compare the two.

Firstly how do you know it was inspired by God? Secondly, the specifics are that a man says he has a vision of a tree that reached into the heavens and could be seen by all the earth. What exactly do you think his vision was of? What was his frame of reference that allowed him to know all the earth could see the tree? Was he seeing this from space so he could see the entire earth? Was he atop the tree? How big do you think he thought the earth was?

I move that any appeal to authority based on Biblical evidence is invalid based on the corruption of the collected works that contributed to the Bible's original text during the intervening translations and transliterations. Only the very broadest of messages can be relied upon, with the (lost/destroyed) original texts being required to allow any sort of reliable argument to be made.

The Bible is more like a sketch map than Google Earth - the landmarks are all there but don't expect to get the street names all right.

I move that any appeal to authority based on Biblical evidence is invalid based on the corruption of the collected works that contributed to the Bible's original text during the intervening translations and transliterations. Only the very broadest of messages can be relied upon, with the (lost/destroyed) original texts being required to allow any sort of reliable argument to be made.

Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.

Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.

That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.

And which side are you on?

I move that any appeal to authority based on Biblical evidence is invalid based on the corruption of the collected works that contributed to the Bible's original text during the intervening translations and transliterations. Only the very broadest of messages can be relied upon, with the (lost/destroyed) original texts being required to allow any sort of reliable argument to be made.

The Bible is more like a sketch map than Google Earth - the landmarks are all there but don't expect to get the street names all right.

Amen to that!

Thanks to those who gave relevant answers to this post and did not turn it into a theological debate.

Quote from: zeroply on September 09, 2008, 06:45:53 AM

Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.

That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.

And which side are you on?

Like most Christians, I don't believe 100% of the Bible. I don't believe the parts about the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being sent by God, most of Revelation, and other things. I believe in the flat earth parts though.

I know for a fact that the earth is NOT flat, because Jesus told me so, yesterday as we had afternoon tea. You should listen to that guy. He's a genius.

Like most Christians, I don't believe 100% of the Bible. I don't believe the parts about the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being sent by God, most of Revelation, and other things. I believe in the flat earth parts though.

This just got a lot more interesting. Do you believe God created ... well, everything? Do you believe he has the power to make anything happen? Apart from the flat earth parts (and are there that many of those?) what other parts do you believe in?

Quote from: Fletch on September 09, 2008, 03:33:46 PM

Quote from: zeroply on September 09, 2008, 06:45:53 AM

Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.

That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.

And which side are you on?

Like most Christians, I don't believe 100% of the Bible. I don't believe the parts about the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being sent by God, most of Revelation, and other things. I believe in the flat earth parts though.

If the earth was flat the moon would be a new moon for about 15 days and 15 days it would be a full moon.