The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: kachowabunga 17 on September 25, 2019, 01:06:00 PM

Title: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kachowabunga 17 on September 25, 2019, 01:06:00 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
 The FAQ says that the government lies about the Earth's shape,"To hide the truth of the Bible." This country was founded on Christian principles. Hiding the truth of the Bible wouldn't make sense because the majority of the population (73.7% of adults in 2016) is Christian. Most Christians (myself included) don't believe the Earth is flat. So why exactly does a (at least partially) Christian-founded government want to hide the truth of the Bible from Christians, even though we have easy access to a Bible?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: SomeDutchGuy on September 25, 2019, 01:35:05 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
 The FAQ says that the government lies about the Earth's shape,"To hide the truth of the Bible." This country was founded on Christian principles. Hiding the truth of the Bible wouldn't make sense because the majority of the population (73.7% of adults in 2016) is Christian. Most Christians (myself included) don't believe the Earth is flat. So why exactly does a (at least partially) Christian-founded government want to hide the truth of the Bible from Christians, even though we have easy access to a Bible?

I'm sorry but to believe anything people might have written down that someone else said this and that in ancient history is kinda far-fetched.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on September 25, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
Yes, you have easy access to the Bible, but so many people ignore what it says, if they even bother to read it.

There are a few main ways to try and get people to stop following/believing what the Bible says.
One is a direct approach to try to get people to recognise the Bible is wrong and discard it. But with religious beliefs that isn't always the best. People will often try to cling to their beliefs regardless of how you try to show they are wrong.

The other way is much more successful (based upon how people have been in the passed). You don't oppose the religion, you embrace it and give teachings which manipulate what it says. You lead people away from the religion from the inside so they still think they are following the religion, even though they have massively distanced themselves from it. So many people claim to be religious, while almost completely discarding the religion they claim to follow. Christianity is based upon this, with so many Christians discarding the commands of God because of what Jesus allegedly said or did.

If you gave these religious texts to people with no preachers corrupting them into what it thinks, and preferably also no knowledge of reality and asked them what they thought it taught, they would provide answers vastly different from what so many religious people say it teaches today.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 26, 2019, 01:30:25 AM
The bible isn't proof of anything, let alone the shape of the earth.

Most of the bible was written at a time when flat earth was common belief, it's not a surprise that some passages can be interpreted as indicating a flat earth, although they could also be interpreted as figurative speech or other ways.

It's a question of interpretation, but the key is to realize that the bible is a theological work, not a work of science. The authors are trying to convey religious ideas, not  scientific facts. This is well understood by most Christians.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 26, 2019, 07:09:13 AM
Another one who doesn't know the difference between evidence and proof.

There are biblical FE, and there are atheist FE. A few of the biblical FE post here, but not very often.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on September 26, 2019, 07:44:17 AM
The bible doesn't prove anything. It's not meant to. Religion is about faith and a way of living. Some of the text and events date back over 3000 years. Words and definition of words change. To apply 21st century meanings of words to text written thousands of years ago and thus translated (clumsily) into English is stupid however there are some things in the bible which were thousands of years ahead of science

eg the existence of germs. The Jews knew 3000 years ago to wash your hands etc when touching anything unclean or dead animal. Doctors in the 17th-18th century would not wash their hands after handling diseased or dead people and thus spread infection and death. The concept of germs escaped them. All they had to do was open a very well known book (the bible) and read about what the ancient Jews used to do and why
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 26, 2019, 10:44:25 AM
The Old Testament contains evidence that ancient Hebrews had a flat earth cosmology. Christian RE tend to get mad when anyone talks about it.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on September 26, 2019, 01:30:57 PM
The Old Testament contains evidence that ancient Hebrews had a flat earth cosmology. Christian RE tend to get mad when anyone talks about it.

Ha. The Bible says that we were brought to earth on Вайтмарах. I do not think that the pantheon of the gods would have flown to flat land. Ha ha
*I am not a Christian.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on September 26, 2019, 05:31:08 PM
The Old Testament contains evidence that ancient Hebrews had a flat earth cosmology. Christian RE tend to get mad when anyone talks about it.
Who "gets mad"? You may not be interested in the following but a few might.

The Scriptures were presented to a people who believed the earth flat and would probably have been quite confused had the Scriptures presented "Modern Science".
But what is "Modern Science"? "Modern Science" changed through the millennia so the Scriptures do not try to teach any "Modern Science".

You might read, Does scripture teach a Flat Earth Cosmology? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78804.msg2127518#msg2127518)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But what I do not agree with is that Scripture is intended to spoon-feed us with the "Theory of Everything".
Mankind has been given the ability to find this knowledge from studying "Nature".

Galileo was, of course, referring to Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism issue but on this issue he argued that God wrote two books:
Quote from: Kelly James Clark
Science and Religion: Two Books (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/science-and-religion-two-_b_5588326.html)
Galileo argued that God has written two books — the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture — and that these two books do not, because they cannot, contradict. That means that if one has a well-established scientific explanation of the physical world that seems to contradict a passage of Scripture, one has good reason to reconsider one’s interpretation of Scripture. The surface meaning of the Bible may not be its true meaning.
<< see the rest for more detail >>
Galileo's letter can be found at: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615) (abridged) by Galileo Galilei (https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf)

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 26, 2019, 06:08:15 PM
Did you not read my post? "Christian RE tend to get mad when anyone talks about it". That was right there in the short post you quoted and replied to.  I am certain I have read a lot more about biblical FE cosmology than you have. I don't need to read one of your old posts on it, I have read papers about it. I linked to one just the other day, this one seemed to upset SpaceCadet for some reason http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf  I don't know why, maybe he is Christian, the paper is written by an RE.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on September 26, 2019, 08:42:44 PM
Did you not read my post? "Christian RE tend to get mad when anyone talks about it". That was right there in the short post you quoted and replied to.
Yes, I read your post and what I wanted answered was who says "Christian RE tend to get mad"?
Who is "getting mad"? Debating and discussing a matter is not "getting mad".

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
I am certain I have read a lot more about biblical FE cosmology than you have. I don't need to read one of your old posts on it, I have read papers about it. I linked to one just the other day, this one seemed to upset SpaceCadet for some reason http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf  I don't know why, maybe he is Christian, the paper is written by an RE.
Maybe you "have read a lot more about biblical FE cosmology than" I but I'm not questioning that Biblical cosmology is of a flat stationary earth.

What I was questioning was whether Scripture is intended to teach a "FE cosmology" or science at all.

And that seems to have been the usual Christian view with few dissenters since around the 5 th century AD though though not all agree.

The early Church seems to have taken that view as to the shape of the earth though it insisted on the earth being stationary and at the centre of the Universe.

Copernicus and Galileo went further.

I've read your reference and have no issue with it and it seems to say what I've been trying to get over.
Quote
Certainly the historical-grammatical meaning of raqia  is "the ordinary opinion of the writer's day." Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky. Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the scope of the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true.

So while the writers of Scripture might have believed the earth to be flat with a solid dome they were simply reflecting "the ordinary opinion of the writer's day."
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 07:24:29 AM
Dude, I said Christian RE tend to get mad about it. How many times do you need that question answered? Do you need me to go back over the history of this forum and give you specific names, or can you be satisfied that it happens? Here, I will give you one name Luke 22:35-38. He's a YEC, he believes the bible is literally true. It upsets him to think the bible might not be totally inerrant.

If you agree with me, I have no idea why you decided to disagree with me. The main part of my post was that the Old Testament contains evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a flat earth cosmology. Instead you decide to get your undies in a bunch because I mentioned how this makes some Christians mad. It does make some of them mad.

Who cares if the Christian bible is meant to teach cosmology or science? There are lots of Christians who believe Jesus walked on water because it's in the bible. Christians believe the entire earth flooded and two of every animal were saved on Noah's ark because it is in the bible. Of course there will be Christians who believe the earth is flat because it's in the bible.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 27, 2019, 08:05:43 AM
I think the bible has indeed a flat earth cosmology, which is what you would expect given the period when it was written. That's IMHO the rational conclusion from looking at it objectively, as one would look at any other ancient religious document.

Sure you can find some contradicting verses, which is also not surprising considering it was written by many different people over a long period of time. But as a whole biblical cosmology is FE.

Rowbotham's FE is pretty much based on literal interpretation of biblical cosmology, so it matches it very well.

I think most modern Christians don't have a problem with the bible not being factually correct and are OK with interpreting the bible in the light of scientific fact. The shape of the earth isn't the central point of the bible.

Other Christians however think the bible is inerrant and should be read literally. For those it's much more difficult to get around ancient biblical cosmology. It requires some rather difficult interpretation acrobatics.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 09:24:14 AM
Yes! That is it. Christian RE have to reinterpret the meaning of words to make them fit their beliefs. Christian FE do not reinterpret the meaning of the words.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: mak3m on September 27, 2019, 09:42:38 AM
Yes! That is it. Christian RE have to reinterpret the meaning of words to make them fit their beliefs. Christian FE do not reinterpret the meaning of the words.

Problem with the bible it is all interpretation, whether you are RE or FE, you cant take any of it literally.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 09:52:12 AM
A lot of people do take it literally, which is their right in a free society. You don't have to agree with them, obviously.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: mak3m on September 27, 2019, 09:58:59 AM
A lot of people do take it literally, which is their right in a free society. You don't have to agree with them, obviously.

Oh ya fully agree, love free speech and free thought and free society, the only downside with it is that everyone gets a go, even ,would you believe, those with opinions I disagree with  ;D

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 10:23:04 AM
A lot of people do take it literally, which is their right in a free society. You don't have to agree with them, obviously.

Oh ya fully agree, love free speech and free thought and free society, the only downside with it is that everyone gets a go, even ,would you believe, those with opinions I disagree with  ;D

That's the spirit!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kachowabunga 17 on September 27, 2019, 12:44:16 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
The point of this thread was to combat the "the Bible says the Earth is flat" argument. No one has said the Bible does prove the Earth's shape as flat, or that it accurately describes Earth. Unless someone says anything, I will consider my original statement in the subject to be correct.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 27, 2019, 01:12:18 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
A circle is an equilateral polygon with infinite corners.

Quote
The FAQ says that the government lies about the Earth's shape,"To hide the truth of the Bible." This country was founded on Christian principles. Hiding the truth of the Bible wouldn't make sense because the majority of the population (73.7% of adults in 2016) is Christian. Most Christians (myself included) don't believe the Earth is flat. So why exactly does a (at least partially) Christian-founded government want to hide the truth of the Bible from Christians, even though we have easy access to a Bible?
If you think the government acts based on their Christian foundations, you haven't been paying attention.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 27, 2019, 01:13:51 PM
Do you have justification that the Bible should not be taken literally?

If you are truly interested in this subject, David Wardlaw Scott talks in depth about supposed proofs in the Holy Bible of a flat earth.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
The point of this thread was to combat the "the Bible says the Earth is flat" argument. No one has said the Bible does prove the Earth's shape as flat, or that it accurately describes Earth. Unless someone says anything, I will consider my original statement in the subject to be correct.

What? You are not making any sense. Lots of people believe the bible describes a flat earth.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on September 27, 2019, 02:22:40 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
The point of this thread was to combat the "the Bible says the Earth is flat" argument. No one has said the Bible does prove the Earth's shape as flat, or that it accurately describes Earth. Unless someone says anything, I will consider my original statement in the subject to be correct.

What? You are not making any sense. Lots of people believe the bible describes a flat earth.

The topic is, "The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat" not "The Bible doesn't describe a flat earth".

There is a huge difference which you seem unable to grasp.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 27, 2019, 02:27:34 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
A circle is an equilateral polygon with infinite corners.

Isaiah 11:12 speaks of four corners or "ends" in other translations, not an infinite number. The Hebrew word used is "kanaph", which from what I found means edge or extremity. I don't think the meaning here is a geometrical corner or angle.

The use of the word "corner" could be an English translation thing. I looked some Spanish and German translation and the word used is "ends" or similar.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 27, 2019, 03:57:15 PM
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
The point of this thread was to combat the "the Bible says the Earth is flat" argument. No one has said the Bible does prove the Earth's shape as flat, or that it accurately describes Earth. Unless someone says anything, I will consider my original statement in the subject to be correct.

What? You are not making any sense. Lots of people believe the bible describes a flat earth.

The topic is, "The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat" not "The Bible doesn't describe a flat earth".

There is a huge difference which you seem unable to grasp.

What exactly do you think you can prove with the bible? It's not math. How is it that you are unable to grasp this?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on September 27, 2019, 04:40:00 PM
The topic is, "The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat" not "The Bible doesn't describe a flat earth".
With Christians claiming the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and thus using it to "prove" whatever it describes.

From the OP it seems more akin to the topic being if the Bible indicates Earth is flat.

After all, the Bible can prove basically nothing about the world.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on September 28, 2019, 02:58:42 AM
After all, the Bible can prove basically nothing about the world.

It's not designed to
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2019, 12:02:16 PM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 30, 2019, 08:13:47 AM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.

The topic is, "The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat" not "The Bible doesn't describe a flat earth".
With Christians claiming the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and thus using it to "prove" whatever it describes.

From the OP it seems more akin to the topic being if the Bible indicates Earth is flat.

After all, the Bible can prove basically nothing about the world.
Science can also prove basically nothing about the world. Seems like its on even footing. Why are you for circular logic when its used to justify science, but not the bible?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2019, 08:35:08 AM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.
How so?  It seems to me that the biblical claim of "fixed and immovable" is pretty much the exact opposite of the FE "constant acceleration" claim.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 30, 2019, 09:23:03 AM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.
How so?  It seems to me that the biblical claim of "fixed and immovable" is pretty much the exact opposite of the FE "constant acceleration" claim.
As far as those on the surface are concerned, it is fixed and immovable - meaning they can choose their preferred frame of reference. In so much as it does move from other frames of reference, it's fixed and immovable from its path and its jerk is 0. You see a similar argument in biblical literalists that are round earthers who claim it is fixed and immovable within its orbit. The passage is talking about the permanence of God's work, most notably the Earth itself.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 30, 2019, 10:01:03 AM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.
How so?  It seems to me that the biblical claim of "fixed and immovable" is pretty much the exact opposite of the FE "constant acceleration" claim.
As far as those on the surface are concerned, it is fixed and immovable - meaning they can choose their preferred frame of reference. In so much as it does move from other frames of reference, it's fixed and immovable from its path and its jerk is 0. You see a similar argument in biblical literalists that are round earthers who claim it is fixed and immovable within its orbit. The passage is talking about the permanence of God's work, most notably the Earth itself.

If you start making interpretations then you are not reading the bible literally anymore. The bible says that the earth is immovable and fixed on its foundation. That goes for both FE and RE bible "literalist".
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 30, 2019, 10:19:59 AM
The foundation is also accelerating in UA.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2019, 11:05:41 AM
That stationary earth Bible verse translates differently in different versions of the Bible.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Chronicles/16/30

Quote
1 Chronicles 16:30

New American Standard Bible

"Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

King James Version

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Holman Bible

"tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken."

It is arguable that the Bible more closely aligns with the idea that the earth is rising upwards than the stationary earth theory: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 30, 2019, 11:30:17 AM
To me biblical cosmology is that of a static flat earth. Not rotating, not orbiting ad not rising upwards, just not moving.

Nothing in the bible indicates that the earth is a rotating sphere.Biblical apologist started interpreting some verses of the bible as suggesting a rotating sphere only after it had been discovered the the earth is a rotating sphere.

Likewise nothing in the bible suggest that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards. This interpretation  came about only after UA was developed. FES is interpreting the bible to fit UA theory.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2019, 12:12:48 PM
So did the stationary earth concept exist before those very few phrases in the Bible were interpreted to mean that, or after?

The clear thing to do would be to compile the interpretations together, the associated concordance definitions which show how the words are used elsewhere, and see which ones fit better with the context of the Bible.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 30, 2019, 12:27:10 PM
If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.  However I think the verse by verse approach is wrong. In order to understand biblical cosmology you have to look at the whole picture. Then you get something like this:

(https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/hebrew-cosmology.png)

This cosmology seems to me fundamentally incompatible with UA. Maybe it's just me, or maybe not: Did any of the scholars researching biblical cosmology pointed at an upwards accelerating earth? I haven't found any.

And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2019, 12:50:19 PM
So did the stationary earth concept exist before those very few phrases in the Bible were interpreted to mean that, or after?
I'm guessing that they didn't really put too much thought into it back then, but if they did then I would say probably yes.  As I recall, back then they believed that things fell to the ground because it was the intrinsic nature of things to do so.

So, did the upwards accelerating earth concept exist before Einstein and his equivalence principle?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on September 30, 2019, 01:07:59 PM
Science can also prove basically nothing about the world. Seems like its on even footing. Why are you for circular logic when its used to justify science, but not the bible?
No, it is on vastly different footings.
So far science has been shown to be the best tool available to determine the truth. This is due to it actually working rather than just appealing to what is written down in some ancient book.
It using inductive reasoning doesn't make it any more circular than any other form of reasoning.
So if you want to dismiss everything as circular reasoning go ahead.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2019, 02:26:40 PM
If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.

It appears to me that they did:

Isaiah 24:

The earth is broken asunder,
The earth is split through,
The earth is shaken violently.
The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard
And it totters like a shack,
For its transgression is heavy upon it,
And it will fall, never to rise again

1 Kings 2:

"As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, 'I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.'"

Hebrews 1:3 AMP

"The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. "

NAH 1:5 YLT

"Mountains have shaken because of Him, And the hills have been melted; And lifted up is the earth at His presence, And the world and all dwelling in it. "

Quote
And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.

Yes, it does. It says that the Earth is being pushed up by winds:

https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-18/

"3. I also beheld the four winds, which bear up the earth, and the firmament of heaven."
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on September 30, 2019, 04:20:47 PM
If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.

It appears to me that they did:

Isaiah 24:

The earth is broken asunder,
The earth is split through,
The earth is shaken violently.
The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard
And it totters like a shack,
For its transgression is heavy upon it,
And it will fall, never to rise again

1 Kings 2:

"As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, 'I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.'"

Hebrews 1:3 AMP

"The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. "

NAH 1:5 YLT

"Mountains have shaken because of Him, And the hills have been melted; And lifted up is the earth at His presence, And the world and all dwelling in it. "

Quote
And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.

Yes, it does. It says that the Earth is being pushed up by winds:

https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-18/

"3. I also beheld the four winds, which bear up the earth, and the firmament of heaven."

Isn't Isaiah 24 a prophecy of the destruction of the earth. How does a prophecy of earthquakes and other catastrophes relate to UA?

For 1 Kings 2, I don't get what is the relationship with UA.

Hebrews 1:3 is very far fetched and I'm not sure which translation you are using. This is the one I found:
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"
To uphold is not to accelerate upwards. Isn't that to hold something in place?

NAH 1:5 Again destruction prophecy concerning Niniveh, hardly anything to do with upwards accelerating earth.

The bible also speaks of waters above the heaven and under the earth. In the biblical cosmology the earth is surrounded by waters. Just like in Babylonian or other ancient middle east cosmologies, the Hebrews didn't have the concept of empty space we have today. Can UA push on  təhôm, the great deep?

There also bible verses which would indicate the sun rises from a gate at the eastern edge of the world and sets at another gate on the west, as opposed to FE model with only south edge. The book of Enoch further confirms the portals and northern edges of the world are cited as well.  All in all the book of Enoch seems to have a lot of things which contradict modern FE.

Of Enoch 18 I found different translations, winds are said to support or bear the earth and heaven, as in carrying its weight, not to lift it, or accelerate it. The winds are also said to be released from storehouses and then be placed between heaven and earth. Again I don't see any support for UA, but I guess one should look at the Hebrew word used.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 30, 2019, 05:28:55 PM
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.
How so?  It seems to me that the biblical claim of "fixed and immovable" is pretty much the exact opposite of the FE "constant acceleration" claim.
As far as those on the surface are concerned, it is fixed and immovable - meaning they can choose their preferred frame of reference. In so much as it does move from other frames of reference, it's fixed and immovable from its path and its jerk is 0. You see a similar argument in biblical literalists that are round earthers who claim it is fixed and immovable within its orbit. The passage is talking about the permanence of God's work, most notably the Earth itself.

If you start making interpretations then you are not reading the bible literally anymore. The bible says that the earth is immovable and fixed on its foundation. That goes for both FE and RE bible "literalist".
All reading requires interpretation, whether or not it is the results of an experiment or the take on the most widely spread source of knowledge ever. Really, any history does. I am reminded of Foucault when he relays this experience:
Quote
“This book first arose out of a passage in [Jorge Luis] Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought—our thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography—breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a ‘certain Chinese encyclopaedia’ in which it is written that ‘animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) suckling pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies’. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.”
If an encyclopedia is so hard to parse, what then of the musings of our physical philosophers?

So did the stationary earth concept exist before those very few phrases in the Bible were interpreted to mean that, or after?
As you know Scott went at this a bit; I'm not sure he was successful and we only have its own ouvre to consider making the task difficult. I'm open to more details.

If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.

It appears to me that they did:

Isaiah 24:

The earth is broken asunder,
The earth is split through,
The earth is shaken violently.
The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard
And it totters like a shack,
For its transgression is heavy upon it,
And it will fall, never to rise again

1 Kings 2:

"As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, 'I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.'"

Hebrews 1:3 AMP

"The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. "

NAH 1:5 YLT

"Mountains have shaken because of Him, And the hills have been melted; And lifted up is the earth at His presence, And the world and all dwelling in it. "

Quote
And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.

Yes, it does. It says that the Earth is being pushed up by winds:

https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-18/

"3. I also beheld the four winds, which bear up the earth, and the firmament of heaven."

Nevermind - well met. I must spend some time ruminating again on this.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2019, 06:26:16 PM
@kopfverderber In the Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0) thread I run those verses, including Hebrews 1:3, through the concordance indexes and find that the words in the verses mean lifting and carrying.

I don't see what the "that's about the upcoming destruction of the earth, so it doesn't count" argument is about. When the Earth is destroyed God is depicting that the earth will shake, be broken asunder, and fall, 'never to rise again'. Seems to imply that the earth is normally rising.

"Going the way of all the earth" is an interesting coin-of-phrase for people who believe that they are going to heaven when they die.

In regards to the Book of Enoch and the winds which "bear up the earth", are you now saying that the Earth is wind-hovering in place, perfectly stationary on winds? Interesting that God would create such complexity to do that, rather than to use the winds to push the Earth for a purpose. We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on September 30, 2019, 07:17:04 PM
We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.

Probably showing my ignorance on the subject, but isn’t a concordance in regard to a specific translation, eg., KJV? If so, I don’t see how a concordance elucidates a deeper, wider meaning. When it’s specific to a ‘version’.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 30, 2019, 07:21:28 PM
Come now Bishop, surely you wouldn't hang your hat on a "god wouldn't make a lamp ten thousands miles away to light his desk" argument. Obviously, there is enough complexity to go around. Yes - some analytical take on common words might be wise. I fear we are dealing with an inexorability of language between what might be said as 'sacred' and what we as man can so called "proved" (not 'proven').  After all, it is ineffable, and beyond us and Job. There is a circularity to what we speak, that retains its possibilities and truthfulness as new facts come to light.

More than that, we have the situation where again and again the scripture presented us with the truth - and the apologists had to define it to be palatable. I won't bury those that bring us to the light.

Also, I realize this must be odd.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on September 30, 2019, 07:22:06 PM
But also: let's feed all versions of the bible into our shakespeare engine.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: MouseWalker on September 30, 2019, 10:09:28 PM
That stationary earth Bible verse translates differently in different versions of the Bible.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Chronicles/16/30

Quote
1 Chronicles 16:30

New American Standard Bible

"Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

King James Version

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Holman Bible

"tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken."

It is arguable that the Bible more closely aligns with the idea that the earth is rising upwards than the stationary earth theory: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0
For that to be true, earthquakes have to be a myth.
Have you experienced an earthquake?
And what does that say?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 12:51:45 AM
@kopfverderber In the Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0) thread I run those verses, including Hebrews 1:3, through the concordance indexes and find that the words in the verses mean lifting and carrying.

I don't see what the "that's about the upcoming destruction of the earth, so it doesn't count" argument is about. When the Earth is destroyed God is depicting that the earth will shake, be broken asunder, and fall, 'never to rise again'. Seems to imply that the earth is normally rising.

"Going the way of all the earth" is an interesting coin-of-phrase for people who believe that they are going to heaven when they die.

In regards to the Book of Enoch and the winds which "bear up the earth", are you now saying that the Earth is wind-hovering in place, perfectly stationary on winds? Interesting that God would create such complexity to do that, rather than to use the winds to push the Earth for a purpose. We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.

I think reading a few verses in isolation is the wrong approach. If we approach the bible from a scholar perspective in order to study the biblical cosmology we need to look at it as a whole  in its ancient middle east context.

In doing so scholars are trying to answer the question: what did ancient Hebrews believe? Our current scientific understanding be it RE or UA is not really relevant to answer that question.

Did ancient Hebrews believe that the earth is flat? Yes. Did they believe that the earth is moving upwards? No, I don't think this is a tenable position. You might find a verse or two which could be interpreted in such a way, but such proposition would not be consistent with many other verses. The goal is to arrive to consistent cosmology.

A different approach is that of a bible literalist trying to make biblical cosmology fit their own world view. This is an almost impossible task for RE literalists. FE literalists on the other hand have a much easier time doing this, but it's not completely free of issues and certainly adding UA to the mix creates more issues. 

Regarding Hebrews 1:3. Biblical scholar tend to interpret  upholding (Φερων) as sustaining or preserving.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/1-3.htm

This interpretation is based not only on this particular verse, but considering other verses where the word Φερων is used.

On Isaiah 24:20.  If I fall not rise again, does it mean that I'm normally rising? I don't think so. The dead fall not to rise again.

The hebrew word used is qūm
Verb - Qal - Infinitive construct
Strong's Hebrew 6965: To arise, stand up, stand
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/24-20.htm

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 02:20:01 AM
@kopfverderber In the

"Going the way of all the earth" is an interesting coin-of-phrase for people who believe that they are going to heaven when they die.

In regards to the Book of Enoch and the winds which "bear up the earth", are you now saying that the Earth is wind-hovering in place, perfectly stationary on winds? Interesting that God would create such complexity to do that, rather than to use the winds to push the Earth for a purpose. We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.
 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0)

To continue with the other citations. "Going the way of all the earth"  seems  just an expression, meaning he is dying so he going to the same place all people go when they die.
https://biblehub.com/1_kings/2-2.htm
the way
בְּדֶ֖רֶךְ (bə·ḏe·reḵ)
Preposition-b | Noun - common singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1870: A road, a course of life, mode of action

For King David that place would be Sheol (underground), not heaven. We are reading David's words. Why would David  think he's going to heaven? If we are to interpret it in such a way, the obvious answer is David thinks he is going underground to Sheol.

For the book of Enoch I think you are focusing a lot on the use of "bear up" in some English translations. If you read the whole chapter:
- The winds contribute to preserve the foundation of the earth.
- The winds bear up the earth and the firmament
- The winds occupy the sky between heaven and earth.
- The winds turn the sky, cause sun and stars to set, support the clouds.

To me it doesn't look like the wind is a force lifting the earth from underneath, and that's just looking at this section. If we take Enoch as whole would all of it be consistent with UA? Or we need to pick a single sentence and forget all the rest?

Other versions of Enoch 18:3 go like this:
En. 18:3 And I saw how the winds stretch out the height of heaven. They stand between earth and heaven; they are the pillars of heaven.

It looks like Enoch is addressing Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke. He's trying to explain what those pillars are.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 03:06:47 AM
We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.

Probably showing my ignorance on the subject, but isn’t a concordance in regard to a specific translation, eg., KJV? If so, I don’t see how a concordance elucidates a deeper, wider meaning. When it’s specific to a ‘version’.

Strong's Concordance aggregates meaning for how a word is used elsewhere throughout the bible. We can see that it's not merely a word-by-word translation by comparing the verses to the concordance definitions. For example, Isiah 11:12 in the KJV says four 'corners' of the earth whereas Strong's Concordance defines that word as more generally to 'extremities' or 'wings', even though Strong's is based on KJV and that word appeared elsewhere in KJV as 'corners'.

Isaiah 11:12 King James Version (KJV)

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

BibleHub Lexicon

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/11-12.htm

(https://i.imgur.com/WZhoc5Q.png)

Clicking on the concordance link:

Quote
Strong's Concordance
kanaph: wing, extremity
Original Word: כָּנָף
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: kanaph
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-nawf')
Definition: wing, extremity

~

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

bird, border, corner, end, feathered, flying, one another, overspreading,
From kanaph; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle -- + bird, border, corner, end, feather(-ed), X flying, + (one an-)other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing((-ed)).

see HEBREW kanaph

Someone might have interpreted a certain word in a certain verse in a certain context to mean 'corners' depending on their own state of mind and what they thought the Bible was trying to convey, or perhaps a particular cosmology they thought the Bible had, but Strong's provides an independent check to show us how else the word is used and how it is most generally used.

From the exhaustive definitions it could mean 'corners' (perhaps from the same verse in question), but we see that it is used in other contexts and that corners isn't the main way it is used.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 03:35:34 AM
Quote
I think reading a few verses in isolation is the wrong approach

And yet the stationary earth position is to present us with a singular 'will not be moved' verse which Strong's translates as 'will not be tottered'.

Quote
Did ancient Hebrews believe that the earth is flat? Yes. Did they believe that the earth is moving upwards? No, I don't think this is a tenable position.

Then why do they say that the earth is rising?

Young's Literal Translation told us

NAH 1:5

"Mountains have shaken because of Him, And the hills have been melted; And lifted up is the earth at His presence, And the world and all dwelling in it."

It certainly sounds like the earth is being lifted up as long as God is present (always). Strong's verifies the word as lift: https://biblehub.com/lexicon/nahum/1-5.htm

Quote
Regarding Hebrews 1:3. Biblical scholar tend to interpret  upholding (Φερων) as sustaining or preserving.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/1-3.htm

The word "upholds" is Strong's G5342 - pherō or pherōn, which means to bring and carry.

From: https://biblehub.com/lexicon/hebrews/1-3.htm

(https://i.imgur.com/wy1OePg.png)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5342&t=NASB

Quote
Outline of Biblical Usage:

I. to carry

Strong’s Definitions:

φέρω phérō, fer'-o; a primary verb (for which other, and apparently not cognate ones are used in certain tenses only; namely, οἴω oíō oy'-o; and ἐνέγκω enénkō en-eng'-ko; to "bear" or carry (in a very wide application, literally and figuratively, as follows):—be, bear, bring (forth), carry, come, + let her drive, be driven, endure, go on, lay, lead, move, reach, rushing, uphold.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

1. to carry

Examples of Strong's G5342 from the Bible shows that the word is used in the context of bringing and carrying:

Mar 11:2 NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/mar/11/2/t_conc_968002)

" and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring [G5342] it here. "

Luk 5:18c NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/luk/5/18/t_conc_978018)

" And some men were carrying [G5342] on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. "

Luk 24:1  NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/luk/24/1/t_conc_997001)

" But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing [G5342] the spices which they had prepared. "

Jhn 21:10 NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/jhn/21/10/t_conc_1018010)

" Jesus *said to them, “Bring [G5342] some of the fish which you have now caught.” "

It seems that this verse could be interpreted as the earth being taken somewhere.

Quote
On Isaiah 24:20.  If I fall not rise again, does it mean that I'm normally rising? I don't think so. The dead fall not to rise again.

So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?

Seems like you have stopped taking the Bible literally at some point to satisfy your own cosmology.

Quote
For the book of Enoch I think you are focusing a lot on the use of "bear up" in some English translations. If you read the whole chapter:
- The winds contribute to preserve the foundation of the earth.
- The winds bear up the earth and the firmament
- The winds occupy the sky between heaven and earth.
- The winds turn the sky, cause sun and stars to set, support the clouds.

I would suggest looking it up in a concordance index to see how the term is used elsewhere in the Bible.

Quote
Other versions of Enoch 18:3 go like this:
En. 18:3 And I saw how the winds stretch out the height of heaven. They stand between earth and heaven; they are the pillars of heaven.

It looks like Enoch is addressing Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke. He's trying to explain what those pillars are.

Usually the Stationary Earth theorists tell us that the pillars are solid structures that the earth rests upon. If the pillars are winds then it makes less sense that the earth is stationary.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 01, 2019, 04:24:22 AM
So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?
It doesn't need to be figurative.
The falling of the dead and them not rising again from the metaphor comes from physical reality. People when killed/when they die can fall down, i.e. literally fall. When people are alive, if they fall, they can rise again, i.e. stand up.

As a simple comparison, if you put a plate on a table, such that it is being held up firmly by the table, then I come and knock it down, making it fall to the floor and have smashed into many tiny pieces, and have it never to rise again (back onto the table), does that mean it was moving upwards? No.
Not rising again just means the affect of the fall wont be negated.

As for the initial time it "rose" that would be when God first made it and placed it.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 04:26:53 AM
So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?
It doesn't need to be figurative.
The falling of the dead and them not rising again from the metaphor comes from physical reality. People when killed/when they die can fall down, i.e. literally fall. When people are alive, if they fall, they can rise again, i.e. stand up.

Sounds like motion to me.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 04:34:28 AM
" and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring [G5342] it here. "

Luk 5:18c NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/luk/5/18/t_conc_978018)

" And some men were carrying [G5342] on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. "

Luk 24:1  NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/luk/24/1/t_conc_997001)

" But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing [G5342] the spices which they had prepared. "

Jhn 21:10 NASB (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/jhn/21/10/t_conc_1018010)

" Jesus *said to them, “Bring [G5342] some of the fish which you have now caught.” "

It seems that this verse could be interpreted as the earth being taken somewhere.

I don't think the meaning in Heb 1:3 is "bring" or implies movement, it's sounds more like the third option in your link "to bear up i.e. uphold (keep from falling)".

A basic difference with the other verses is that a destination is provided when the meaning is "bring", otherwise it makes no sense. Where is the earth being brought to in Heb 1:3? There is nothing to indicate that the earth is being lifted.

Quote
So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?

Seems like you have stopped taking the bible literally at some point to satisfy your own cosmology.
My own cosmology is RE, which is not present in the bible.

The verse can be read literally as the earth falling. As if the earth breaks and the foundations break and stay broken for ever. When you are staying and you fall, then you rise to your staying position. The verse doesn't imply that the earth was rising before falling.

The Hebrew word used for "rise"  qūm literally means to arise, stand up or to stand:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm.

Quote
I would suggest looking it up in a concordance index to see how the term is used elsewhere in the Bible.

That's more difficult to do for non-canonical books. Enoch is thought to be written originally in Hebrew, but no copy has survived. There are some bits in Aramaic, Greek and Latin and then you have the Ethiopian manuscripts.

In this link I found some discussion of Enoch 18:3
https://archive.org/details/cu31924067146773/page/n155

Quote
Usually the Stationary Earth theorists tell us that the pillars are solid structures that the earth rests upon. If the pillars are winds then it makes less sense that the earth is stationary.
I think those might be  different pillars, here's about pillars sustaining the heavens, not the earth. I think Enoch is just trying to make sense out of Job's verse.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 04:46:24 AM
Quote
The Hebrew word used for "rise"  qūm literally means to arise, stand up or to stand:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm.

Top NASB definitions seem to be rising-related.

(https://i.imgur.com/4Mu5wgx.png)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 01, 2019, 04:55:27 AM
Top NASB definitions seem to be rising-related.
Yes, but not in the continuous sense.
Rise in the sense of standing up, or putting on a table.

As if God has placed the world in its place.
And when he decides to destroy it (again/more), he will knock it down and it will not rise again to its current location, it will stay down.

Arise does not mean continually move up.

When you rise from a seated position, you end up in a standing position, you don't keep going up and up and up.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 05:04:30 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arise

Quote
Definition of arise
intransitive verb

1a: to begin to occur or to exist : to come into being or to attention
Problems arise when people try to avoid responsibility.
A conflict arose because of a misunderstanding.
Questions have arisen concerning the company's financial records.
He can defend himself should the need arise. [=if it becomes necessary to do so]
b: to originate from a source
arteries that arise from the aorta
a river that arises from two main sources

2: to get up or stand up : RISE
He arose from his chair.
especially : to get up from sleep or after lying down
He arose (from bed) refreshed after a good night's sleep.

3: to move upward : ASCEND
A mist arose from the valley.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arises

Quote
arise[ uh-rahyz ]
verb (used without object), a·rose, a·ris·en  [uh-riz-uhn] , a·ris·ing.

to get up from sitting, lying, or kneeling; rise:
He arose from his chair when she entered the room.

to awaken; wake up:
He arose at sunrise to get an early start to the beach.

to move upward; mount; ascend:
A thin curl of smoke arose lazily from the cabin.

to come into being, action, or notice; originate; appear; spring up:
New problems arise daily.

to result or proceed; spring or issue (sometimes followed by from):
It is difficult to foresee the consequences that may arise from this action. After such destruction many problems in resettlement often arise.

Seems pretty vague. The natural phenomena examples in the above definitions involve mist and smoke, which are given in the context of ascending. A UFO which rises out of a ditch into outer space could also be described as "arising"

The word 'rise' and 'rose' are also ranked highly in the NASB definitions.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 05:04:45 AM
Quote
The Hebrew word used for "rise"  qūm literally means to arise, stand up or to stand:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm.

Top NASB definitions seem to be rising-related.

(https://i.imgur.com/4Mu5wgx.png)

Most uses seem be about arising after lying down or kneeling, rising against something (violently)  and so on. I don't really see much support of UA here.

I think you are just projecting UA on bronze age and iron age texts.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 05:16:07 AM
Most uses seem be about arising after lying down or kneeling, rising against something (violently)  and so on. I don't really see much support of UA here.

I think you are just projecting UA on bronze age and iron age texts.

It could be a bronze age text attempting to describe something advanced as UA.

Einstein thought that it was pretty weird that bodies fell without inertial resistance, as if the Earth were accelerating upwards. That's why he came up with the Equivalence Principle. If the Bible has phrases about the earth rising and being lifted, then it seems to be scriptural confirmation of a widely-held principle of physics.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 06:05:35 AM
Most uses seem be about arising after lying down or kneeling, rising against something (violently)  and so on. I don't really see much support of UA here.

I think you are just projecting UA on bronze age and iron age texts.

It could be a bronze age text attempting to describe something advanced as UA.

Einstein thought that it was pretty weird that bodies fell without inertial resistance, as if the Earth were accelerating upwards. That's why he came up with the Equivalence Principle. If the Bible has phrases about the earth rising and being lifted, then it seems to be scriptural confirmation of a widely-held principle of physics.

I guess with enough imagination and creative interpretation you can make the bible ascribe to any theory. Muslims are specially good at this, some claim the quran predicts  space travel.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 04:18:12 PM
Funny that the interpretation that agrees with the concordance indexes is "creative interpretation" and the one which does not agree with them is the correct interpretation.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Unconvinced on October 01, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?
It doesn't need to be figurative.
The falling of the dead and them not rising again from the metaphor comes from physical reality. People when killed/when they die can fall down, i.e. literally fall. When people are alive, if they fall, they can rise again, i.e. stand up.

Sounds like motion to me.

You're really trying to shoehorn the use of the words falling and rising into supporting universal acceleration ideas?

So what went on here?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/514wTiUZY3L._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

Or here?

(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1331223772l/767171.jpg)

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 05:40:47 PM
Looks like the figurative usage of 'fall'. Once again, it appears that this is an appeal to the argument of a figurative interpretation of the Bible -- "The Bible is only figurative, it doesn't really mean rise. Yes, it means that the earth will literally shake, and literally be broken apart during its destruction, but the fall and never rise again part which comes immediately after is purely figurative because we know by intuition that the bible has a stationary earth!"
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 11:01:12 PM
Looks like the figurative usage of 'fall'. Once again, it appears that this is an appeal to the argument of a figurative interpretation of the Bible -- "The Bible is only figurative, it doesn't really mean rise. Yes, it means that the earth will literally shake, and literally be broken apart during its destruction, but the fall and never rise again part which comes immediately after is purely figurative because we know by intuition that the bible has a stationary earth!"

I find your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct very odd, I don't think you will find a biblical scholar who agrees with you. Fall to never rise again doesn't imply that it was rising before. In English there can be some confusion about this, but the bible was written in Hebrew.

As explained earlier Qūm means to stand up, to arise. Could you please show the verses that support your interpretation of the Hebrew word "qūm" as something constantly rising?

The exact same word is employed 38 times in the Bible: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kum_6965.htm
Here are some examples. The meaning in nearly all cases is arising from a lying or sitting position, to get up.
Genesis 19:15
Lot saying Arise take your wife
Genesis 35:1
said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel
Numbers 22:20
have come the men rise up go but
Psalm 36:12
See how the evildoers lie fallen-- thrown down, not able to rise!

This one is the most similar to Isaiah 24:20
Amos 5:2
Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again, deserted in her own land, with no one to lift her up.

So according to Amos 5:2 UA stopped applying to Israel, what is your interpretation?

Here's some verses with "never rise again" or similar:

Jeremiah 8:4
So you are to tell them this is what the LORD says: ‘Do men fall and not get up again? Does one turn away and not return?
What is your interpretaion Tom? Are men constantly rising until they fall?

Amos 8:14
Those who swear by the sin of Samaria-- who say, 'As surely as your god lives, Dan,' or, 'As surely as the god of Beersheba lives'-- they will fall, never to rise again."
What is you interpretation Tom?  Are those who swear in sin constantly accelerating upwards until the fall?

Jeremiah 51:64
hen say, ‘In this same way Babylon and her people will sink, never again to rise, because of the disasters I will bring upon her.’” This is the end of Jeremiah’s messages.
Tom, does it mean UA will stop applying to Babylon but the rest of the earth will continue rising?

Deuteronomy 33:11
Bless the ministry of the Levites, O LORD, and accept all the work of their hands. Hit their enemies where it hurts the most; strike down their foes so they never rise again.”
Tom, are those enemies in a state of constantly rising?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 01, 2019, 11:25:12 PM

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?









Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 01, 2019, 11:50:48 PM

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?

You are right, I should have worded it in a different way. My bad.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 02, 2019, 12:34:38 AM

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?

You are right, I should have worded it in a different way. My bad.

It's just when I hear, "MY GOD, MY WAY", it makes me think it's all about you
instead of about the shit you profess to believe.

So, go ahead and word it your own way, opposed to what is written.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 01:23:35 AM

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?

You are right, I should have worded it in a different way. My bad.

It's just when I hear, "MY GOD, MY WAY", it makes me think it's all about you
instead of about the shit you profess to believe.

So, go ahead and word it your own way, opposed to what is written.

I'm an atheist. The dispute with Tom is not about what I believe or what he believes. The way I see it it's a technical dispute on what is the literal meaning of those words in Hebrew and in English, it's a question of language, not of theology.

I'm not willing to dispute anyone's faith and right to interpret the scriptures. My wording was bad and this was not clear.

A "literal interpretation" is based on what the words means literally. Of course Tom has every right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. But when he says his interpretation is a literal interpretation, that can be disputed.

In English "Fall to never rise again" doesn't imply that it was rising before. The dead fall never to rise again. It doesn't imply a natural state of constant rising.

The Hebrew word qum means standing up, arising, getting up. The same word is used 38 times in the bible and the same verb with different form more than 600 times.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 02, 2019, 01:36:29 AM
Ever read a time share contract?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 02, 2019, 01:40:49 AM
Funny that the interpretation that agrees with the concordance indexes is "creative interpretation" and the one which does not agree with them is the correct interpretation.
No, it doesn't.
The concordance you listed is still quite ambiguous. If anything it seems to lend support to the idea that Earth isn't moving upwards.

Rise doesn't require it to be continuous.
Having something fall to never rise again does not mean it is continually rising before it falls.
All it means is that it was up, and it was made to be down.

If you didn't already want it to be saying Earth is accelerating upwards there would be no reason to think this passage means that Earth is currently rising upwards. That is where the creative interpretation comes in.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on October 02, 2019, 02:00:03 AM
At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this, except a flat earth with the Sun and all of the other celestial bodies revolving above it instead of swirling around the sun?

(https://i.imgur.com/moKw98d.gif)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 02:03:41 AM
Funny that the interpretation that agrees with the concordance indexes is "creative interpretation" and the one which does not agree with them is the correct interpretation.

(https://i.imgur.com/nJVvVYb.jpg)

https://books.google.ch/books?id=k8GgQqUxPgMC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Q%C5%ABm+hebrew++dictionary&source=bl&ots=EQzemE3lLV&sig=ACfU3U0842838IeTYu97QzYyw-ErsIRVYQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8zqzmmf3kAhXRCuwKHUvLDOMQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 02:15:21 AM
@Tom And these are the words used in the OT for rise in the sense of ascending, rising up, lifting... As you can see not the same word as in Isaiah 24:20

(https://i.imgur.com/wlYe9l5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 07:32:12 AM
@Tom

I raised the question in a Hebrew language forum, so that people who actually speak Hebrew can shed some light on the issue.

https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/

Quote
No, that's not the meaning of לָקוּם lāqûm. Rather, לָקוּם means "to get up" as in the sense of getting up in the morning or standing up when you've been sitting.

The idea of rising up in the sense of going higher is לִגְבֹּהַּ liḡbōah [H1361], לָרוּם lārûm [H7311], לַעֲלוֹת laʿălôṯ [H5927], among others that become more popular in the post-biblical language.

This is simply not how the verb לָקוּם is used.

In this case, the land (that is, הָאָ֫רֶץ hāʾā́reṣ, probably referring to the Land of Israel and not to the planet Earth) "rising" meaning that it cannot be established as good ever again. It has fallen - in sin or in defeat. This has nothing to do with the earth wandering around like a drunkard.

Are you convinced now?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 02, 2019, 01:07:03 PM
I think it's pretty humorous you wish to claim knowledge of what the word meant in ancient hebrew by consulting a web forum of modern hebrew language. This has all so far shown very little either way, and the matter actually requires a lot more research than has been done here.




Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 01:56:19 PM
I think it's pretty humorous you wish to claim knowledge of what the word meant in ancient hebrew by consulting a web forum of modern hebrew language. This has all so far shown very little either way, and the matter actually requires a lot more research than has been done here.
I looked at the other cases where the word is used, I looked at a dictionary, I asked a Hebrew speaking person. What else do you need? Are you arguing against the dictionary? Do you know more Hebrew than the person who answered the question at the Jewish Forums? At this point it's be very clear what the word means in Hebrew.

Rise can mean different things in English, but what is relevant is the meaning in the original language, Hebrew. I showed a lot of evidence that the word doesn't mean what Tom wants it to mean.

Do you speak other languages apart from English? When the same verse is translated to German or Spanish the word "stand up" is used. Why? because that's what it means. Tom's whole interpretation is based on the alternative meanings of the word rise in English. But even in English the interpretation makes no sense, because falling to never rise again doesn't imply a previous state of constantly rising.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 02, 2019, 02:56:38 PM
Rise can mean different things in English, but what is relevant is the meaning in the original language, Hebrew.
And John's point is that it isn't simply "Hebrew". Languages are not static. They evolve as people use them.
Only once a language is dead will it remain static.
Modern Hebrew is different to the ancient Hebrew the Bible was written in.
The same happens to all languages.

The meaning of words will change as people use them.
This is especially true when new words are invented.

As a hypothetical example related to rise.
Lets assume that before the only word connected to this issue was rise.
This word would then be used for all kinds, regardless of it meant to rise for a short period and then stop (e.g. stand), or if it meant to continually rise.
But then someone comes along and invents a new word/phrase "continuous ascent". Now, people will start to use this new word/phrase more for continually rising upwards, and start using the old word less.
After enough time, the old word in common usage would no longer refer to a continuous ascent, but just to a short period.

While modern Hebrew may get you in the range of meanings, it is very far from definitive.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 04:09:50 PM
Rise can mean different things in English, but what is relevant is the meaning in the original language, Hebrew.
And John's point is that it isn't simply "Hebrew". Languages are not static. They evolve as people use them.
Only once a language is dead will it remain static.
Modern Hebrew is different to the ancient Hebrew the Bible was written in.
The same happens to all languages.

The meaning of words will change as people use them.
This is especially true when new words are invented.

As a hypothetical example related to rise.
Lets assume that before the only word connected to this issue was rise.
This word would then be used for all kinds, regardless of it meant to rise for a short period and then stop (e.g. stand), or if it meant to continually rise.
But then someone comes along and invents a new word/phrase "continuous ascent". Now, people will start to use this new word/phrase more for continually rising upwards, and start using the old word less.
After enough time, the old word in common usage would no longer refer to a continuous ascent, but just to a short period.

While modern Hebrew may get you in the range of meanings, it is very far from definitive.

I understand that, but the fact that it's ancient Hebrew doesn't mean that the meaning is not known today.

The dictionary entry I posted is not modern Hebrew, it's biblical Hebrew an it explains the uses of the word in the bible, it's made by bible scholars. The person answering in the Jewish Forums specified the uses of the word in the bible in ancient Hebrew, not the modern uses if there is any.

It's also possible to check the other 600 bible entries where the word is used and confirm that it's consistent with the biblical dictionary. I checked many of them. The word just doesn't have the meaning of something going up.

In English the same word rise might be used for stand up and go up, but in other languages that doesn't necessarily happen. If Tom had read the bible in Spanish he would have never have this confusion, because in Spanish we have different word for rising from the ground (levantarse) and for something going up (subir). Or in German the word in the verse is translated as "stehenbleiben", which also can't be confused with something going up.

In ancient Hebrew they also had a different word for getting up and for going up, so this confusion is not possible.  The only way to have this confusion is if you read the verse in English or other language where the same word is used for these two things.

I'm trying to access a more specialized hebrew biblical forum, but I couldn't register yet. This is the biblical Hebrew dictionary entry. I think it explains it quite well:
(https://i.imgur.com/nJVvVYb.jpg)

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:

ּ

qûm

1) to rise, arise, stand, rise up, stand up

1a) (Qal)

1a1) to arise

1a2) to arise (hostile sense)

1a3) to arise, become powerful

1a4) to arise, come on the scene

1a5) to stand

1a5a) to maintain oneself

1a5b) to be established, be confirmed

1a5c) to stand, endure

1a5d) to be fixed

1a5e) to be valid

1a5f) to be proven

1a5g) to be fulfilled

1a5h) to persist

1a5i) to be set, be fixed

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to fulfil

1b2) to confirm, ratify, establish, impose

1c) (Polel) to raise up

1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up

1e) (Hiphil)

1e1) to cause to arise, raise

1e2) to raise, set up, erect, build

1e3) to raise up, bring on the scene

1e4) to raise up, rouse, stir up, investigate

1e5) to raise up, constitute

1e6) to cause to stand, set, station, establish

1e7) to make binding

1e8) to carry out, give effect to

1f) (Hophal) to be raised up

Part of Speech: verb

Relation: a primitive root
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: TomInAustin on October 11, 2019, 12:31:43 PM
Yes! That is it. Christian RE have to reinterpret the meaning of words to make them fit their beliefs. Christian FE do not reinterpret the meaning of the words.

LOL, every single person that believes in that book of myths reinterprets the meaning of words to make them fit their beliefs.  That or lazily just believing what some preacher tells them.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 08:16:26 AM
Its a good thing we aren't talking about a book of myth, but instead a clearly historical account - albeit one that is easily contested.

To kopfverderber response, obviously biblical scholars will choose the translations that suit their worldview best, and ignore those that seem ludicrous to them -- especially as they are for the most part not taking the work literally.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 17, 2019, 02:08:37 AM
Its a good thing we aren't talking about a book of myth, but instead a clearly historical account - albeit one that is easily contested.

To kopfverderber response, obviously biblical scholars will choose the translations that suit their worldview best, and ignore those that seem ludicrous to them -- especially as they are for the most part not taking the work literally.

It has nothing to do with world views. The verb in question literally means to stand or arise from seated position. Its used like this in more than 600 places in the bible, just go and have a look, I already did. The same word exists in aramaic with the exact same meaning.

When the meaning is "go up" different words are used. There are plenty of examples in the bible as well. I suggest have a look at the bible, I already did.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 05:46:30 AM
Okay, so listen guys I actually speak Hebrew.  I can tell you that לקום (lkoom or qum) or however you want to transliterate it means to get up;  Like to get out of bed in the morning or to get out of a chair and stand.  That is what it means.  There are other words that indicate upward.  The word לעלות Laalot is used literally and figuratively to mean to rise.  It is used very often to describe spiritual concepts of rising.  For instance if you are called to read from the Torah, you are making an aliah, which is a form of laalot.  These are everyday words, not something used rarely. 
The long and short of this is that trying to translate a word from a language you don't know to another to prove a point is foolish.  There are so many nuances and meanings in languages that you can't get if you don't know the language.  But, I guess if you are trying to prove that the Earth is flat, we are already pretty far beyond "foolish".
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 17, 2019, 07:55:15 AM
Where did you study ancient hebrew stan?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 08:27:26 AM
Ancient Hebrew is pretty much the same as modern Hebrew.  It is not like old English.  The language went dormant as a daily spoken language for thousands of years so it did not evolve.   In the late 1800's when Jews started immigrating to Israel, a common language was needed so that immigrants  from different places in the world could communicate.   Hebrew was used for religious purposes so it still survived and was universal to Jews from everywhere.  Words that did not exist had to be added, and scholars worked to come up with words for things based on the 3 letter root system that was the basis and still is the basis of the language.  Modern Hebrew speakers can go to a synagogue and listen to ancient Hebrew prayers and understand them  (I am not religious so I rarely go) .   Of course there are words in Hebrew that I do not know, but we are not talking about exotic words here.  The verb  לקום  (lKoom or qum or whatever way you want to write it in English) is a basic word that means to get up.
It is pointless to argue with you.  You do not have to take my word for it.  Go to any Hebrew speaker or Hebrew scholar and ask them.  I am quite confident they will give you the same meaning for לקום as I did.   You of course will go on believing whatever you want to believe no matter what.  That is fundamental for someone that thinks the world is flat.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 17, 2019, 12:39:56 PM
My point being, which Foucault puts beautifully in his work 'The Order of Things', is that it is impossible to draw the lines you are drawing - even with a (mostly) dead language.

Quote
This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought — our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography — breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a “certain Chinese encyclopedia” in which it is written that “animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off” look like flies”. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.

This exampkle is so foreign that we cannot possibly know what was meant by this categorization without having a complete knowledge of the ouvre of the time, including having lived there. I would contend - to a far lesser extent - that this is true of Hewbrew, especially that of the bible, as well. There is an impossibility of thinking like the ancient hebrews and that impossibility extends to their language.

As such, it makes sense to use concordance indexes like Bishop suggests.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 17, 2019, 02:56:46 PM
My point being, which Foucault puts beautifully in his work 'The Order of Things', is that it is impossible to draw the lines you are drawing - even with a (mostly) dead language.

Quote
This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought — our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography — breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a “certain Chinese encyclopedia” in which it is written that “animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off” look like flies”. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.

This exampkle is so foreign that we cannot possibly know what was meant by this categorization without having a complete knowledge of the ouvre of the time, including having lived there. I would contend - to a far lesser extent - that this is true of Hewbrew, especially that of the bible, as well. There is an impossibility of thinking like the ancient hebrews and that impossibility extends to their language.

As such, it makes sense to use concordance indexes like Bishop suggests.

Qum means to stand up and it's sometimes translated to English as  'to rise'. Rise in English has also the meaning of something going up, but the bible wasn't written in english so why is that relevant?

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 08:27:36 PM
To John Davis.
I just want to say something else that I thought about. 
There is a song I learned as a kid.  Here is the transliteration.  Henai ma tov oo ma nayim, shevit aHim gam yachad.  Very simple.  We used to sing it in rounds.  It's really very pretty.  The meaning is simple too.  Things never translate exactly but this is roughly it.  "Here is what's good and what's nice.  Sitting  brothers (friends) together. 
I thought it was a campfire fire song written by early kibbutznicks in Israel.   I loved the song so much, I  actually would sing it to my mother when she was on her death bed.
A few years ago, a rabbi told me that it is one of the psalms of David.  My point is that the ancient language is essentially the same as the modern.   An ancient psalm of David can easily be mistaken for a modern campfire song. 
And my bigger point is this.  You are willing to argue with me that the verb לקום means something different than it actually means, when you have never used the word in a sentence, or probably can't even pronounce the word that you are arguing about.  This kind of stubborn intransigent thinking, where you are not  willing to learn something new, or be corrected about a misunderstood belief that you have when you are so clearly wrong, is how you can believe that the world is flat. 

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 18, 2019, 07:47:41 AM
There is no way you can know what those that sung that song meant by those words at the time, or when it was originally written. I have no real stake in whether or not the bible literally says the earth is flat. Your argument just doesn't hold its weight.

Show me that that camp song *meant* the same thing at its conception and you will have at least supported your point. This, however, is not possible.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 18, 2019, 08:47:58 AM
There is no way you can know what those that sung that song meant by those words at the time, or when it was originally written. I have no real stake in whether or not the bible literally says the earth is flat. Your argument just doesn't hold its weight.

Show me that that camp song *meant* the same thing at its conception and you will have at least supported your point. This, however, is not possible.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand what the author of a bible verse exactly meant and the bible is certanly open to interpretation. However the meaning of most of the words used in the bible is known fairly well, specially common words as the one in question. Just check a biblical dictionary if you dont want to believe random people.

Maybe you can explain why you think Isaiah's author meant "go up"  when he wrote "stand up"?

Maybe you also think when the bible says "up" it means "down"? or "right" means "left"?  since it was written so long ago we cannot know... is that what you mean?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2019, 09:47:30 AM
Maybe you can explain why you think Isaiah's author meant "go up"  when he wrote "stand up"?

Perhaps because the earth does not have legs? 'Rise up' is one of the definitions in the list you posted.

Quote
1c) (Polel) to raise up

1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up

1e) (Hiphil)

1e1) to cause to arise, raise

Recall, too, that word 'arise' in dictionaries like dictionary.com was in the context of rising when it came to natural phenomena:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arises

Quote
arise[ uh-rahyz ]
verb (used without object), a·rose, a·ris·en  [uh-riz-uhn] , a·ris·ing.

to get up from sitting, lying, or kneeling; rise:
He arose from his chair when she entered the room.

to awaken; wake up:
He arose at sunrise to get an early start to the beach.

to move upward; mount; ascend:
A thin curl of smoke arose lazily from the cabin
.

to come into being, action, or notice; originate; appear; spring up:
New problems arise daily.

to result or proceed; spring or issue (sometimes followed by from):
It is difficult to foresee the consequences that may arise from this action. After such destruction many problems in resettlement often arise.

If one says that the smoke aroze, it clearly does not mean that the smoke 'stood up'.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 18, 2019, 01:06:56 PM
Perhaps because the earth does not have legs? 'Rise up' is one of the definitions in the list you posted.

That's actually funny, how do you know the earth doesn't have legs? Have you looked at the under side of the earth?

I think there are other ways to make sense of the verse without inventing new meanings for Hebrew words or adding legs to the earth.

Quote
1c) (Polel) to raise up

1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up

1e) (Hiphil)

1e1) to cause to arise, raise

1c) Polel is a rare stem formation. I don't think this is the form used in verse in question, maybe Stankann can confirm this.

1d) Hithpaelis  the reflexive form, which doesn't seem to be the form used in the verse in question.

1e) Hiphil is the causative form, which neither seem to be the form used in the verse in question.

If you look at the biblical dictionary entry, you will see the verb is also used for rising up in violence or rising up  in order to do something important, for example:

Psalm 17:7 (KJV)
Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.

Psalm 139:21-22  (KJV)
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

Translation "Raise up" is used in the sense of building something...
Isaiah 44:26
Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Who says to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be inhabited,’ To the cities of Judah, ‘You shall be built,’ And I will raise up her waste places;

Isaiah 61:4 (KJV)
And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

...or bring on the scene

Genesis 38:8
Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother."

Zechariah 11:16
For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their hooves.

Quote
Recall, too, that word 'arise' in dictionaries like dictionary.com was in the context of rising when it came to natural phenomena:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arises
...

This is just the meaning of a word in English, but Isaiah was written in Hebrew, so it isn't relevant.

The fact that Strong-6965 is translated as Arise in many cases, doesn't mean that all English uses of Arise can be attributed to the Hebrew word. Do you speak other languages other than English? This is easier to understand if you are familiar with more than one language.

Instead of looking at English dictionaries maybe you could have a look at biblical Hebrew dictionary entry I posted earlier or at this link: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a bible expert, but I was able to find all this information just using google. What will happen when you debate someone who speaks Hebrew and knows the Bible? If you are serious about this I think you need to do more research and maybe learn some Hebrew and Greek.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 18, 2019, 01:29:13 PM
You have yet to show why we can trust that the word didn't have a different meaning in the culture in question.

Moving on from your unsupported argument:

There are several places where the accepted translations are incorrect. Take for instance Gen i 20 when they said that "waters brought forth the fowl"; This has been admitted to be a false interpretation and has been rendered better as such:
ve ojup youpep ol he arets ol-peni reqio he-shemim
Or: and fowl let fly above the earth on the face of the firmament of the heavens.

Spheres do not have a face, let me remind you. More than this, there were clearly not two adamic creations.

Another example shows up here and there in the bible - belimeh is often wrongly translated as "nothing" - appearing to derive from blee and meh. Far more reasonable,, of course, is that it is derived from belem - to confine and restrain and so belimeh would then be fastenings or supports. This is coherent with later statements in Job: "whereupon are the foundations (ademeh, ie sockets) made to sink, or who laid the corner-stone thereof.

And so I ask you again - quo warranto?

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kopfverderber on October 18, 2019, 02:03:43 PM
You have yet to show why we can trust that the word didn't have a different meaning in the culture in question.

John, maybe you can show why we should trust you instead of trusting biblical Hebrew dictionaries and Hebrew speakers. You are the one discovering the new meaning for the word, you should be the one proving your point.

If the word could have different meanings in the past, then how do you know what those meanings were? Can you just invent anything? Maybe the verse says that the earth is spinning  around the sun, because who knows it could also have this meaning in the culture in question, right?  according to your logic why not?

I showed you what scholars say. A Hebrew speaker also told you what the word actually means.  It's a common word, nothing fancy. I suggest looking at the other 600 appearances of strong-6965 and make your decision.

Quote
There are several places where the accepted translations are incorrect.
Yes translations can be misleading, so forget about the translation and look at the meaning of the Hebrews word, that's been like my whole point all along.

Quote
Spheres do not have a face, let me remind you. More than this, there were clearly not two adamic creations.
The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but I think the flat earth cosmology is quite clear  in the bible. I'm pretty sure Hebrews in biblical times believed the earth was flat, so it's not a surprise.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Unconvinced on October 19, 2019, 07:26:00 AM
You have yet to show why we can trust that the word didn't have a different meaning in the culture in question.

And no one needs to.

The whole silly argument over the use of the Hebrew word for rise started with bizarre suggestion that it somehow showed the Bible describes a UA flat earth.

To reach that conclusion, requires:

A) To believe the Bible is actually the word of God.  This is entirely a matter of faith to start with, but given the thread title, I’ll not argue.

B) That the Bible should be be taken literally word for word, which is getting very tenuous.

C) Apparently now that the word might have had a different meaning in past cultures, that we have no way to confirm. 

Quote
Moving on from your unsupported argument:

The argument is support by passages using same word being used elsewhere that can’t be in relation to the movement of the earth, and by testimony of someone who actually speaks Hebrew.  That’s s lot more supported than the original daft claim.

Quote
There are several places where the accepted translations are incorrect. Take for instance Gen i 20 when they said that "waters brought forth the fowl"; This has been admitted to be a false interpretation and has been rendered better as such:
ve ojup youpep ol he arets ol-peni reqio he-shemim
Or: and fowl let fly above the earth on the face of the firmament of the heavens.

Spheres do not have a face, let me remind you. More than this, there were clearly not two adamic creations.

Domes don’t have a flat face either.  Or do you propose the firmament is cuboid?  Tetrahedral?  Any other polyhedron? 

Obviously, most people these days don’t believe in a physical structure to “the firmament” anyway, spherical or otherwise.  But if you think this passage should be taken literally, then maybe you need to tell us what shape the firmament should be.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on October 19, 2019, 07:28:26 AM
To kopfverderber:

לקום is a פעל (pa-al) verb.   This tells us the form of the verb conjugations. For instance, from looking at the infinitive of the verb, I can determine that it is פעל and I know that the past tense 1st person will be קמתי (kamti) or in English "I got up" (that's right, a complete sentence in one word).  Anyone who knows Hebrew would know this immediately from the form of the word, whether they are King David or Natalie Portman.   I could not even follow the discussion of "binyanim" here.  I just kind of shuddered and sighed.   The Flat Earthers think they are experts on subjects they know nothing about.  That is how they can maintain their belief that the Earth is flat.  There is no point in arguing with them, but it is good to point out how wrong they are so they are challenged when people who are exploring ways of looking at things come to this site.   
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on October 19, 2019, 10:13:36 AM
If you wish to debate various aspects of FET, go right ahead. Knock off the attacks on flat earthers. If you think there's no point arguing with flat earthers, you shouldn't even be here.

I can't help that some of you get upset by the fact that the ancient Hebrews were FE, try to control yourselves.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 19, 2019, 12:15:52 PM
If I am correct in my unassailed assertion that one cannot understand a text without knowing the entire ouvre that it was written within, and you are correct in your assertion that the ancient hebrews were flat earthers - then it seems clear to follow that since their 'flat eartherness' is within said ouvre, that the Bible must then literally describe a flat earth, and where it doesn't is a mistake in translation due to our inability to see said body of knowledge / culture / etc.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Unconvinced on October 20, 2019, 01:14:47 AM
If I am correct in my unassailed assertion that one cannot understand a text without knowing the entire ouvre that it was written within, and you are correct in your assertion that the ancient hebrews were flat earthers - then it seems clear to follow that since their 'flat eartherness' is within said ouvre, that the Bible must then literally describe a flat earth, and where it doesn't is a mistake in translation due to our inability to see said body of knowledge / culture / etc.

Probably.

And I think that’s a good example of why most religious people don’t think their respective holy books should be taken too literally.  The argument being that whatever devine truth in them was either interpreted by ancient people  according to their understanding or deliberately tailored by God to fit their culture.

Try to reconcile a literal reading of the Bible with what we learn through science can lead to some funny conclusions, such as my all time favorite:  Teenage dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/were-dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark/

Sorry, Flat Earthers.  You still haven’t topped this one.

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on October 30, 2019, 04:16:28 PM
Yes apologetics can be funny; I don't feel this is the case here though. It seems very clear the Bible then states the earth is flat; from there we need to bridge the gap to whether or not it 'proves' the earth is flat.

I contend it does as much so as science can prove anything. They are just two separate traditions of knowledge, and each has equal merit and truth. Neither can logically prove anything better than the other.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 30, 2019, 10:10:12 PM
I contend it does as much so as science can prove anything. They are just two separate traditions of knowledge, and each has equal merit and truth. Neither can logically prove anything better than the other.
This comes down to what you mean by "prove".
If you mean "prove" in the strictest sense, then nothing can be proven.

If you mean it in the more common sense, then science can and does prove things, while religion just asserts it.

Science and religion have vastly different merit and truth. Science is vastly superior to determining the truth.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on October 31, 2019, 03:37:00 AM
I contend it does as much so as science can prove anything. They are just two separate traditions of knowledge, and each has equal merit and truth. Neither can logically prove anything better than the other.
This comes down to what you mean by "prove".
If you mean "prove" in the strictest sense, then nothing can be proven.

If you mean it in the more common sense, then science can and does prove things, while religion just asserts it.

Science and religion have vastly different merit and truth. Science is vastly superior to determining the truth.

Where was science for the almost 5000 years that Jews knew about the concept of hygiene and the value of washing your hands after touching something 'unclean'? Oh that's right. They couldn't see a germ so it didn't exist. Never mind the people getting sick and dying when "doctors" would be handling non sick people after touching diseased/dead ones  ??? ::)

The plague may not have been as devastating had science adopted the religious assertion about things that were 'unclean'
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kachowabunga 17 on October 31, 2019, 06:32:24 AM
It seems very clear the Bible then states the earth is flat;

You do realize that the Bible describes the Earth as having multiple shapes, being both round and having corners. The Bible only says this to be understandable by an audience that largely believed the Earth was flat.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 31, 2019, 01:10:24 PM
Where was science for the almost 5000 years that Jews knew about the concept of hygiene and the value of washing your hands after touching something 'unclean'?
And on what basis did they determine if something was clean or unclean?

The plague may not have been as devastating had science adopted the religious assertion about things that were 'unclean'
That would require them to also accept that the plague victims were unclean.
There are plenty of diseases that don't match that. And also plenty were simply washing your hands wont help.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on October 31, 2019, 02:27:48 PM
Where was science for the almost 5000 years that Jews knew about the concept of hygiene and the value of washing your hands after touching something 'unclean'?
And on what basis did they determine if something was clean or unclean?

The plague may not have been as devastating had science adopted the religious assertion about things that were 'unclean'
That would require them to also accept that the plague victims were unclean.
There are plenty of diseases that don't match that. And also plenty were simply washing your hands wont help.

OK. Let's get rid of the hand washing stations in hospitals, toilets etc. JackBlack says it won't help  ::)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on October 31, 2019, 02:58:56 PM
OK. Let's get rid of the hand washing stations in hospitals, toilets etc. JackBlack says it won't help  ::)
And just where did I say that?

I said that for some diseases it wont help.
That doesn't mean it wont help for others.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on October 31, 2019, 04:24:35 PM
OK. Let's get rid of the hand washing stations in hospitals, toilets etc. JackBlack says it won't help  ::)
And just where did I say that?

I said that for some diseases it wont help.
That doesn't mean it wont help for others.

Back in the olden days, say you had a nasty and open ulcer in your mouth. Your doctor would have put ungloved hands in your mouth after using ungloved hands delivering a baby where woman has a major outbreak of herpes and genital warts. Nice.

Why wash hands the doctor would laugh at the thought? I can't see any of these invisible germs, don't be silly.

In fact the doctor who put 2 and 2 together in the 1800s was laughed at for suggesting that germs exist. When he noticed doctors treating sick patients move on to healthy patients who then got sick he dared ask questions.

Although had he turned to the holy bible the protocol for dealing with dead or unclean animals was already there.

Touching a dead body, faeces or blood was unclean. Likewise for the sick.

It only took 'science' 5000 years to catch on
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on November 01, 2019, 01:13:24 AM
Back in the olden days, say you had a nasty and open ulcer in your mouth. Your doctor would have put ungloved hands in your mouth after using ungloved hands delivering a baby where woman has a major outbreak of herpes and genital warts. Nice.
And all the Bible would have demanded they do is to wash their hands with some water between the 2 patients.
Nice.

Now with science, they use gloves, and dispose of those gloves.

Touching a dead body, faeces or blood was unclean. Likewise for the sick.
As already pointed out, that depends on what you mean by "sick."
For the most part, if it doesn't appear visually on the skin, and spread, or include a "discharge" (does vomit count? what about diarrhoea?), it doesn't count as sick.

And of course, after the person has gotten over their illness, in order to be clean the priest needs to kill a bird over water, then take another bird along with a few other items, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and sprinkle that blood on the person 7 times.
Because that is just a wonderful way to clean people isn't it? Intentionally putting blood on them?
Then after that they shave and bathe (in water) and wash their clothes.
Then they shave again.
Then MORE BLOOD. This time it is the blood of a lamb, put on the right ear, thumb and big toe, with the left ones getting oil instead.

And more insanity with being unclean (where you magically remain unclean until evening, and then magically become clean).
Have sex, unclean.
Ejaculate, unclean.
Have a period, unclean.
Touch anyone on their period, unclean.

Science asserts it is as much as religion
No, science asserts a process for finding truth. Religion asserts statements as true.
They are vastly different.

And so you come here, and when you do - we at least we have the will to say we are wrong and know it. You know as well as I do, the earth could as easily be flat or trapezoid or just some nonsense shape.
No. That depends upon what you mean by "know". If you mean it in the common sense of the word, then I know it is round, because that is what all the evidence indicates.
If you mean it in the more technical sense then I don't even know that Earth exists, as you cannot know anything.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on November 01, 2019, 01:21:21 AM
Back in the olden days, say you had a nasty and open ulcer in your mouth. Your doctor would have put ungloved hands in your mouth after using ungloved hands delivering a baby where woman has a major outbreak of herpes and genital warts. Nice.
And all the Bible would have demanded they do is to wash their hands with some water between the 2 patients.
Nice.

Now with science, they use gloves, and dispose of those gloves.

Touching a dead body, faeces or blood was unclean. Likewise for the sick.
As already pointed out, that depends on what you mean by "sick."
For the most part, if it doesn't appear visually on the skin, and spread, or include a "discharge" (does vomit count? what about diarrhoea?), it doesn't count as sick.

And of course, after the person has gotten over their illness, in order to be clean the priest needs to kill a bird over water, then take another bird along with a few other items, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and sprinkle that blood on the person 7 times.
Because that is just a wonderful way to clean people isn't it? Intentionally putting blood on them?
Then after that they shave and bathe (in water) and wash their clothes.
Then they shave again.
Then MORE BLOOD. This time it is the blood of a lamb, put on the right ear, thumb and big toe, with the left ones getting oil instead.

And more insanity with being unclean (where you magically remain unclean until evening, and then magically become clean).
Have sex, unclean.
Ejaculate, unclean.
Have a period, unclean.
Touch anyone on their period, unclean.

What do you suppose was the science behind a woman being 'unclean' for 33 days after having a boy and 66 days after having a girl. Why does having a girl take twice the amount of days to become clean?

Of course there are some screwed up myths and ideas about the practices of people thousands of years ago. Point is, science was floundering to come up with answers to seemingly obvious questions regarding a link between sickness and hygiene.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on November 01, 2019, 01:50:31 AM
Back in the olden days, say you had a nasty and open ulcer in your mouth. Your doctor would have put ungloved hands in your mouth after using ungloved hands delivering a baby where woman has a major outbreak of herpes and genital warts. Nice.
And all the Bible would have demanded they do is to wash their hands with some water between the 2 patients.
Nice.

Now with science, they use gloves, and dispose of those gloves.

Touching a dead body, faeces or blood was unclean. Likewise for the sick.
As already pointed out, that depends on what you mean by "sick."
For the most part, if it doesn't appear visually on the skin, and spread, or include a "discharge" (does vomit count? what about diarrhoea?), it doesn't count as sick.

And of course, after the person has gotten over their illness, in order to be clean the priest needs to kill a bird over water, then take another bird along with a few other items, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and sprinkle that blood on the person 7 times.
Because that is just a wonderful way to clean people isn't it? Intentionally putting blood on them?
Then after that they shave and bathe (in water) and wash their clothes.
Then they shave again.
Then MORE BLOOD. This time it is the blood of a lamb, put on the right ear, thumb and big toe, with the left ones getting oil instead.

And more insanity with being unclean (where you magically remain unclean until evening, and then magically become clean).
Have sex, unclean.
Ejaculate, unclean.
Have a period, unclean.
Touch anyone on their period, unclean.

What do you suppose was the science behind a woman being 'unclean' for 33 days after having a boy and 66 days after having a girl. Why does having a girl take twice the amount of days to become clean?

Of course there are some screwed up myths and ideas about the practices of people thousands of years ago. Point is, science was floundering to come up with answers to seemingly obvious questions regarding a link between sickness and hygiene.

Bacon. Why no bacon? What omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing, loving God would forsake us bacon? Because cloven hoofed, non-cud eating creatures like our pig are considered 'unclean'? For our germ safety? Did s/he not get the memo that bacon rocks!? On and with just about everything? Even standalone?

I reject the argument that 5000 years ago elders knew better about hygiene and germs, etc., as evidenced by the fact that they rejected the holiest of holy tasting; side of bacon.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Shifter on November 01, 2019, 02:25:46 AM
Back in the olden days, say you had a nasty and open ulcer in your mouth. Your doctor would have put ungloved hands in your mouth after using ungloved hands delivering a baby where woman has a major outbreak of herpes and genital warts. Nice.
And all the Bible would have demanded they do is to wash their hands with some water between the 2 patients.
Nice.

Now with science, they use gloves, and dispose of those gloves.

Touching a dead body, faeces or blood was unclean. Likewise for the sick.
As already pointed out, that depends on what you mean by "sick."
For the most part, if it doesn't appear visually on the skin, and spread, or include a "discharge" (does vomit count? what about diarrhoea?), it doesn't count as sick.

And of course, after the person has gotten over their illness, in order to be clean the priest needs to kill a bird over water, then take another bird along with a few other items, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and sprinkle that blood on the person 7 times.
Because that is just a wonderful way to clean people isn't it? Intentionally putting blood on them?
Then after that they shave and bathe (in water) and wash their clothes.
Then they shave again.
Then MORE BLOOD. This time it is the blood of a lamb, put on the right ear, thumb and big toe, with the left ones getting oil instead.

And more insanity with being unclean (where you magically remain unclean until evening, and then magically become clean).
Have sex, unclean.
Ejaculate, unclean.
Have a period, unclean.
Touch anyone on their period, unclean.

What do you suppose was the science behind a woman being 'unclean' for 33 days after having a boy and 66 days after having a girl. Why does having a girl take twice the amount of days to become clean?

Of course there are some screwed up myths and ideas about the practices of people thousands of years ago. Point is, science was floundering to come up with answers to seemingly obvious questions regarding a link between sickness and hygiene.

Bacon. Why no bacon? What omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing, loving God would forsake us bacon? Because cloven hoofed, non-cud eating creatures like our pig are considered 'unclean'? For our germ safety? Did s/he not get the memo that bacon rocks!? On and with just about everything? Even standalone?

I reject the argument that 5000 years ago elders knew better about hygiene and germs, etc., as evidenced by the fact that they rejected the holiest of holy tasting; side of bacon.

Pork is still a shitty source of nutrition compared to other available meats such as beef, lamb, fish or chicken. That said, I found a open packet of short cut bacon in my fridge nearly a week after the expiry. I still cooked an ate it. Afterwards I figured I could have washed it incase there was slime first but hey, I'm still here

 
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on November 01, 2019, 03:04:44 AM
Of course there are some screwed up myths and ideas about the practices of people thousands of years ago. Point is, science was floundering to come up with answers to seemingly obvious questions regarding a link between sickness and hygiene.

Bacon. Why no bacon? What omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing, loving God would forsake us bacon? Because cloven hoofed, non-cud eating creatures like our pig are considered 'unclean'? For our germ safety? Did s/he not get the memo that bacon rocks!? On and with just about everything? Even standalone?

I reject the argument that 5000 years ago elders knew better about hygiene and germs, etc., as evidenced by the fact that they rejected the holiest of holy tasting; side of bacon.
Maybe they didn't, maybe they found out by bitter experience or by other means.
But there are diseases that carnivores and omnivores are susceptible to that can infect humans when the raw or under-cooked flesh is eaten.
One example is kuru from funerary cannibalism ::) practised by the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea. "The epidemic likely started when a villager developed sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and died. When villagers ate the brain, they contracted the disease, and it was then spread to other villagers who ate their infected brains." Ugh :(!

Another is Trichinosis from eating undercooked flesh of carnivores and omnivores, including domestic pigs.

But the flesh of herbivores poses little such risk.
:
Quote
MAYO CLINIC: Trichinosis (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/trichinosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20378583)
Overview
Trichinosis (trik-ih-NO-sis), sometimes called trichinellosis (trik-ih-nuh-LOW-sis), is a type of roundworm infection. Roundworm parasites use a host body to live and reproduce. Infection occurs primarily among meat-eating animals (carnivores) such as bears and foxes, or meat- and plant-eating animals (omnivores) such as domestic pigs and wild boar. The infection is acquired by eating roundworm larvae in raw or undercooked meat.

When humans eat undercooked meat containing trichinella larvae, the larvae mature into adult worms in the intestine over several weeks. The adult worms then produce larvae that travel through various tissues, including muscle. Trichinosis is most widespread in rural areas throughout the world.
Even today trichinosis is a risk which is minimised by good management, which is one reason why restaurant scraps can no longer be fed to pigs.

So avoiding the flesh of carnivores and omnivores by certain religious groups does have a solid basis.

But I do like my bacon and pork too :)!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on November 01, 2019, 05:29:45 AM
Of course there are some screwed up myths and ideas about the practices of people thousands of years ago. Point is, science was floundering to come up with answers to seemingly obvious questions regarding a link between sickness and hygiene.
And the point is that religion did far worse.
Science has now advanced and actually understands sickness fairly well.
Religion still has the same outdated nonsense of unclean/clean.
The religious weren't massively ahead.
They had a collection of things they considered to be unclean, some of which matched some infectious disease.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on January 23, 2020, 09:08:47 AM
I just saw this on Facebook. I think it exemplifies my frustration with this thread. (http://optzia.com/hebrew.png)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: mbogo on February 06, 2020, 01:20:56 AM
why would anyone even care what it says in the bible, its mostly poorly interpreted, plagiarized versions of older texts anyway.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Solarwind on February 06, 2020, 02:17:58 AM
I would just be grateful if someone could give me a single, definitive explanation as to when, why and how this whole flat Earth idea came from in the first place.  So far no one seems to be able to or willing to.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 06, 2020, 03:45:43 AM
I would just be grateful if someone could give me a single, definitive explanation as to when, why and how this whole flat Earth idea came from in the first place.  So far no one seems to be able to or willing to.
Almost without exception all ancient people believed the Earth to be flat.
I say "almost" because some modern Indians claim that the ancients Veda taught even that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun:

India Knew That Earth Was Round, Even Before Galileo! | Amazing India | Art Of Living By The Art of Living

The Greeks from around 550 BC started to see than was a Globe.

But, I believe that the modern flat-Earth "movement" started in the early 1800s as a counter to the perceived secularisation of society by the teachings of Darwin etc.
Why a flat-Earth and not simply a reversion to the pre-Copernican Geocentric Cosmology l do not know.

This "modern" flat-Earthism was firmed up by Rowbotham's leaflets, books and lectures.
Rather than go into detail you could read Modern flat Earth societies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies).
Though the writers of that may not have a good understanding of all that Rowbotham wrote.
There is a long slow growth till the social media permitted the rapid spread of "different" ideas.
This paper describes some of the history of the flat-Earth The Flat Earth by Donald E. Simanek (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm).
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: stankann on February 10, 2020, 03:06:46 PM
why would anyone even care what it says in the bible, its mostly poorly interpreted, plagiarized versions of older texts anyway.

But the point is that the texts are not interpreted.  The Hebrew texts are written in Hebrew.  The same language that is spoken today.  The Dead Sea scrolls, from over 2 thousand years ago had portions of the Old Testament; they were the same as the ones that are read today. 
Now, I am not a religious person, nor am I into any kind of proselytizing.  Whether you believe the Bible or not is not the point.  The point is that the Hebrew is the Hebrew.  It is not some lost language.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 18, 2020, 02:20:52 PM
I would just be grateful if someone could give me a single, definitive explanation as to when, why and how this whole flat Earth idea came from in the first place.  So far no one seems to be able to or willing to.
And like many great ideas, it came around as a reaction against its predecessors whose view was shown to be patently false again and again.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2020, 07:00:54 PM
I would just be grateful if someone could give me a single, definitive explanation as to when, why and how this whole flat Earth idea came from in the first place.  So far no one seems to be able to or willing to.
And like many great ideas, it came around as a reaction against its predecessors whose view was shown to be patently false again and again.
They were? Would you care to show this "view was shown to be patently false again and again."?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 03:02:57 PM
You can start with Earth: Not A Globe. It presents plenty of evidence that earth is not a globe; have you read it, given how long you've been here? The Zeteticist is another great source.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2020, 11:22:03 PM
You can start with Earth: Not A Globe.
Why?
It presents no evidence that Earth is flat.
It blatantly misrepresents physics, appeals to wilful ignorance and uses quite dishonest wording to pretend there is a problem where there is none.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2020, 04:57:20 AM
You can start with Earth: Not A Globe. It presents plenty of evidence that earth is not a globe; have you read it, given how long you've been here? The Zeteticist is another great source.
Really? Have you read his "so-called" proofs that prove nothing?

For example, consider his Biot and Arago observation in
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881] (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm)
EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

Apart from other little things, he states "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same". But if you read the real account of Biot and Arago work you will find that:
    "Camprey" is really "Campvey",
    "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" refers to Mt Bartolo with height 729 meters, or 2390 feet and
    research shows that "Camprey" (really "Campvey") is now "Camp Vell" on the NW corner of Ibiza at an altitude of about 1266 feet (about 386 metres).
The only place that could fit the Camp Vell is Camp Vell Mountain, 386 m at 39° 3'27.51"N, 1°21'14.26"E (Google Earth). Shown here on a segment of an Ibiza map:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghu5ttz2s5b31ml/ibiza%20map%20NW%20section.jpg?dl=1)

So Rowbotham's "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same" is totally fabricated, though the distance of "nearly 100 miles" is correct.

So rather than "the light on the rock in Spain" being "more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight" that light was not hidden by the curve at all.
From Camp Vell at an altitude of 1266 feet, even with no refraction at all, 2123 feet of Mt Bartolo's 2390 feet would be hidden - no problem seeing that light for that reason.

With typical refraction, only 1602 feet would be hidden.

So, not only did Rowbotham make numerical errors in his description but with the correct heights, he simply has no case!

But this is just one example of a number of quite unforgivable bungles he made.

I readily admit that I had not studied all of Zetetic Astronomy in detail but I've read enough to know that one could not abse ones "Worldview" of a book so riddled with factual errors!

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 09:23:02 AM
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source (https://books.google.com/books?id=xe1FAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=Mémorial+du+Dépôt+Général+de+la+Guerre,+Volume+7+Desierto&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix7aKWkePnAhWLc98KHSTGAwIQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Mémorial%20du%20Dépôt%20Général%20de%20la%20Guerre%2C%20Volume%207%20Desierto&f=false) after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 01:37:51 PM
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source (https://books.google.com/books?id=xe1FAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=Mémorial+du+Dépôt+Général+de+la+Guerre,+Volume+7+Desierto&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix7aKWkePnAhWLc98KHSTGAwIQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Mémorial%20du%20Dépôt%20Général%20de%20la%20Guerre%2C%20Volume%207%20Desierto&f=false) after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.

The numbers are fairly close. 400 vs 386 and 725 vs 729.
But it is definitely your treatment that is wrong.
You are pulling the same dishonest BS that the high prophet of FE Row Boat did.

Who cares what the drop is. That doesn't determine what you can or cannot see.
What you need to consider is how far away is the horizon and then what is the drop BEYOND the horizon, as the horizon is what is obstructing your view.
If you completely ignore refraction, and use the simple 8 inches per mile squared, starting at an altitude of 1312.34 feet, you have the horizon at 44.37 miles away. That means the drop you should actually care about is for 55.6 miles.
That drop is 2063 feet. Now, I might not be a math genius, but last time I checked 2378 is bigger than 2063. In fact it is bigger by roughly 315 feet.
That would mean that there is no problem seeing the light.

So this observation is not a problem for the RE. It in no way demonstrates that Earth is not a globe.
Pretending it does is extreme dishonesty, a blatant misrepresentation of what obscures what on the globe.
It completely ignores the height of the observer, pretending that instead of being at 400 m high, that they are at sea level.

Here is a simple diagram to show that.
It uses 2 scales, one for x and one for y.
To make it use a single scale, squish the y axis, it wont change anything that actually matters. The line of sight to the top will still go above the horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/z6R9F4t.png)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 01:48:11 PM
If I get some time later I'll plug it all into matlab. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong on this point. Of course, this says nothing to any other legitimate evidence in EnaG.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 02:07:33 PM
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before. Not everyone who says that they are on Mt. Everest are on its peak.

Nor does it say that the other location that the light was on was El Bartolo. It just says that it was a "rocky summit" in a mountain range. It's also referred to as "the rock" in the quote and not a mountain.

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat those lies to us.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 02:15:05 PM
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source (https://books.google.com/books?id=xe1FAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=Mémorial+du+Dépôt+Général+de+la+Guerre,+Volume+7+Desierto&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix7aKWkePnAhWLc98KHSTGAwIQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Mémorial%20du%20Dépôt%20Général%20de%20la%20Guerre%2C%20Volume%207%20Desierto&f=false) after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.
I suggest that you think again and if you can find errors in the "debunking site" (other than a few irrelevant feet) please point them out.


This might be worth reading:
Quote from: Mick West
Earth's Curve Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/)

To use the Metabunk curve calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) you just put in the distance to the object in miles and your height above the surface in feet.

The Metabunk curve calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) was written to provide a simple answer to the question: "how much of a distant object is hidden by the curve of the earth from a certain distance and view position". The following diagram is an exaggerated look at the numbers involved.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/metabunk-2018-04-20-09-09-54-jpg.32634/)
There's a version of this diagram on the calculator page (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) that you can move around.

Notice there are two sets of results given, "Results ignoring refraction" and "With Standard Refraction".

The results ignoring refraction are the results if we ignore the effects of the air (the atmosphere) between the viewer (the eye position) and the target object.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 02:16:48 PM
Where does it say in the quote that the observation point was the peak of Camp Vey?

Where in the quote does it say that the light was was on the top of El Bartolo? It's referred to as a rocky summit and "the rock", not a mountain.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 02:23:16 PM
If I get some time later I'll plug it all into matlab. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong on this point. Of course, this says nothing to any other legitimate evidence in EnaG.
It is an example of how EnaG using extremely dishonest claims (or just outright lies) to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
Yes, it isn't conclusive, but to go through them all just turns it into gish-gallop, where it is just a collection of nonsense which takes far more time to go through and refute piece by piece.

But based upon that, and other similar issues, EnaG is not a book any well informed, sane person would use as evidence against a RE.

Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before.
We have been over this before, IT DOESN'T! It does not provide enough details to critically examine the claim.
Row Boat is intentionally vague to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat those lies to us.
Yes, we see an intentional effort by Row Boat to lie to us, to pretend there is a problem with the RE when there is none.
What is quite clear is that the number he provided makes no sense at all, unless both the light and observer were at sea level.
It is nothing more than dishonest garbage.

What source did Row Boat use for this dishonest garbage?
What was the actual height of these 2 locations?
Do you have any hard numbers at all, or just vague nonsense to pretend there is a problem when there is none?

If you would like more examples of such dishonesty/outright lies/pure nonsense in the book, there are plenty there.
For example:
In Experiment 11 he admits that a theodolite shows that the horizon is below eye level, and that only by removing the magnification can you get it to appear at (or "close to") eye level.

In chapter 3 he describes how an object should allegedly move when thrown upwards from a moving object.
He claims it should follow a diagonal path up to the peak, and then drop directly down. Something never observed by anyone and repeatedly shown to be wrong by so many observations it isn't funny.

In Chapter 9, for the "cause" of sunrise and sunset, he appeals to perspective, and then completely ignores just how far away the sun would need to be to get it close to the horizon.

In Chapter 14 he tries to use limits of angular resolution to explain why objects disappear, clearly starting out with small objects disappearing before larger objects, and then just jumps to pretending that means lower down objects disappear before higher objects, ignoring the fact that quite often, the higher objects are smaller and harder to resolve than the sections of boat which are missing.
He then tries to back this up with circular reasoning, where he assumes Earth is flat to try and show that perspective magically hides the bottom of distant objects as is observed on the round Earth.

He also dismisses arguments against Earth being flat and for showing Earth is round as "premature and illogical", even though he has no actual refutation and again appeals to circular reasoning where he assumes Earth is flat to argue that the evidence/argument which shows Earth isn't flat isn't actually a problem for a FE.

Any "legitimate evidence" in EnaG is spoilt by the extreme dishonesty displayed elsewhere in it.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 02:25:03 PM
Quote
Quote
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before.

 IT DOESN'T!

It doesn't say that. That's right. So we see that you admit that you chose to lie to us about the location, instead. Such dishonesty.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 02:27:57 PM
It doesn't say that. That's right. So we see that you admit that you chose to lie to us about the location, instead. Such dishonesty.
No, we see Row Boat chooses to lie and pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Such dishonesty from FEers is typical.

Instead of lying to you, I demonstrated how this observation can be entirely consistent with a RE.

If you would like to provide a better source, which clearly shows the height of the observer and the lamp, to try and demonstrate there is a problem for the RE, feel free to do so.

Until then, this quote from your dishonest high prophet Row Boat in no way shows a problem for the RE.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Experiment 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.

There is nothing wrong with that section at all. Rowbotham gives us a lead on where to find more observations like the observations he saw, and naturally not a full rundown account, as the section is not dedicated to that. Once again, the section is about Experiment 14.

There is nothing wrong with Rowbotham. What is wrong here is your blatant and admitted lies in your effort of dishonest portrayal.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 02:58:47 PM
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before. Not everyone who says that they are on Mt. Everest are on its peak.

Nor does it say that the other location was El Bartolo. It just says that it was a "rocky summet" in a mountain range. It's also referred to as "a rock".

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat your lies to us.
I could not care less what you claim! But anyone who has to accuse their opponent of lying has lost the argument! Bye Tom!

I am pointing out that Rowbotham was obviously wrong in his reporting of Biot and Arago's survey.

One point that you cannot deny is that Rowbotham erred greatly in claiming that "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same" - that is quite impossible!

Look at Rowbotham's "quote" again, thank you.
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881] (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm)
EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

The highest point on Ibiza is Sa Talaiassa at 475 m (1312 feet) andBut from an elevation of 400 m (1312 feet) the amount could not possibly be 6600 feet as Rowbotham claims.
That 6600 feet is only for an observer right on sea-level - quite impossible.
From a viewing height of 1312 feet the hidden height is no more than 2064.5 feet or 629 m and that is lower than any of the summits in the region of Desierto las Palmas, let alone on almost exactly 100 miles (about 160 km) from Camp Vell.

So Rowbotham is grossly wrong on quite a number of points - your idol has feet of clay!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Chapter 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.

There is nothing wrong with that section at all. Rowbotham gives us a lead on where to find more observations like the observations he saw, and naturally not a full rundown account, as the section is not dedicated to that. Once again, the section is about Experiment 14.

There is nothing wrong with Rowbotham. What is wrong here is your blatant and admitted lies in your effort of dishonest portrayal.
Rubbish! Rowbotham refers explicitly to Biot and Arago, the two relevant points and the distance!
What other survey could he be referring to?

But, in any case, the hidden amount could not possibly be 6660 feet! You struggle valiantly to support your idol but he is simply wrong there and in other places that I could list!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 03:05:57 PM
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Chapter 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.
So what you are saying is you cannot defend his blatant dishonesty so you will now try and flee from it.

It seems when people do research to show there is no problem, you just accuse them of lying, because your high prophet left out the details which shows his claims to be garbage.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2020, 03:17:43 PM
Where does it say in the quote that the observation point was the peak of Camp Vey?

One can only assume right here, "...and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza."

This from the actual original account Rowbotham cites:
"6. At Campvey, the horizon of the sea was also observed on April 14, 1807, and we had ten repetitions 3 = 100 °, 6609.62; which gives the coefficient n = 0.08, the absolute height of the center of the instrument or lamps, of 400 "2, which is only 2", 5 of more than reciprocal zenith distances; but will with the result that the value of n is a bit low."

Where in the quote does it say that the light was was on the top of El Bartolo? It's referred to as a rocky summit and "the rock", not a mountain.

One can only assume right here, "...with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas..." El Bartolo is the peak, or summit, of the range.

All that being said, this part of ENAG Experiment 14 should be completely disregarded as it it useless. If the vagaries of where the observer and the target was are as ambiguous as you claim, then there is nothing to examine and the whole section and its claims are moot.

(https://i.imgur.com/eKq01gX.png)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 21, 2020, 03:37:20 PM
I'm late to this thread. Just to address the thread title:

Why would anyone base their belief about the shape of the Earth on an inconsistent collection of writings by Bronze-Age people who didn't know anything about physics and didn't even know what was beyond their own small chunk of the world? Not only that, but nothing remains of these books in their original form. They were copied, and copies were made from the copies, and so on for a thousand years, and then translated, and the translations were copied, and copies made of those, and that's what we have today. And we read those copies of copies of translations of copies of copies in translation.

The Bible doesn't prove anything except that the last copyist of the last translation believed in a God.

By the time of the New Testament, every educated person knew the Earth is round and knew approximately how big it is, thanks to the Greeks, who figured it all out a couple of hundred years before Jesus.

What's there to argue about? The Bible doesn't prove anything. It's not even evidence of anything except that people believed in God a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Themightykabool on February 21, 2020, 03:46:57 PM
It doesnt prove.
But hints can be taken either figuratively or literally.

Heres the nephillm!
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/02/earliest-interbreeding-event-between-ancient-human-populations-discovered/125816

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 03:57:49 PM
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2020, 04:05:44 PM
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 04:10:38 PM
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that.
Again, it says basically nothing.
There is not information there to show that there is any problem at all for a RE.
The drop stated and the way it is stated only works if the observer was at sea level.
A total lie for deceitful purposes.

It is your high prophet trying to pretend there is a problem for the RE when none exists.


If you wish to claim it isn't blatant dishonesty on the part of Row Boat, then tell us what the elevations where. Stop just appealing to his dishonest statement and provide the original source.

John provided a potential original source, which shows no problem for the RE.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 04:11:04 PM
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.

Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment. The quote you are talking about is an unrelated aside that Rowbotham mentions, that we should look into if we want to read about other similar observations. It is not about Experiment 14 at all. A full rundown is not given on that little mention, which is inserted along with other mentions, because the section is not about that. The section is primarily about Experiment 14, which is a different experiment. How can Experiment 14 be toast?

You either have poor reading comprehension or are unable express yourself honestly. We must discard whatever it is you have to contribute.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 04:12:52 PM
Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment.
Which other than the unsubstantiated claim regarding a hypothetical theodolite, it appears to just use the elevation of the objects and pretend that means they are on a straight line.

So quite useless to show Earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2020, 04:24:26 PM
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.

Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment. The quote you are talking about is an unrelated aside that Rowbotham mentions, that we should look into if we want to read about other similar observations. It is not about Experiment 14 at all. A full rundown is not given on that little mention, which is inserted between other mentions, because the section is not about that. The section is primarily about Experiment 14, which is a different experiment. How can Experiment 14 be toast?

You either have poor reading comprehension or are unable express yourself honestly. We must discard whatever it is you have to contribute.

I'm not sure where or by what means you determined that Rowbotham's mention of a sighting that was done was merely an aside. If merely an aside, why mention it? Rowbotham is pretty clear in his assessment of what you consider and 'aside':

"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Yet, according to you, we have no idea where the observer was, nor where the target was. If we don't know that, then what's this claimed business about 6600'? You're trying to have it both ways. You can't.

Sorry, Experiment 14, null and void.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 04:38:15 PM
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2020, 04:53:18 PM
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 04:58:27 PM
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.
True "It does not say El Bartolo" but Rowbotham does say "the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
I am not lying!
If by drop you mean how much the light was hidden by then the drop over 100 miles mentioned is definitely NOT possible!

Rowbotham's words are "If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Even if Rowbotham were correct (and he could not have been) and the two heights were the same at 400 m or 1312 feet that could not possibly be true.

Wriggle, squirm all you like Rowbotham was wrong!

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 04:59:35 PM
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void

So, now you do admit that Experiment 14 is a different experiment. Did you stop relying on rabinoz-quotes and just only barely click on the link to find that you are dead wrong, that Experiment 14 is different than what is being discussed?

I have no idea why you post on these forums, when you turn out to be wrong every time.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2020, 05:06:38 PM
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.
True "It does not say El Bartolo" but Rowbotham does say "the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza".
  • There seems no doubt that his "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza" refers to Camp Vell on the island of Ibiza.
    The "Iviza/Ibiza" is simply a change of spelling - there are possibly 4 languages involved, Catalan, French, English and possibly Spanish.
    And the "Camprey/Camp Vell" is partly a transcription error but no big deal - the modern "Camp Vell" at 400 m fits perfectly.

  • And Rowbotham's "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas can hardly be other than el Bartolo..
    But let's suppose it's not, then what "rocky summit, in the Desierto las Palmas Range could it be? I already all the nearby peaks that I could find - these:
    Quote

    Serra d’En Galceran – 1078 metres in height
    Montegordo 837 metres in height
    Serra d’Esparreguera 1087 metres in height
    Serra d’En Celler 1147 metres in height
    Serra d’Espadà 1106 metres in height
    Tossal d’Orenga 1144 metres in height
    None are less than TWICE the height of Camp Vell on Ibiza so Rowbotham was provably incorrect with his claim that: The elevation of the two points was nearly the same

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
I am not lying!
If by drop you mean how much the light was hidden by then the drop over 100 miles mentioned is definitely NOT possible!

Rowbotham's words are "If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Even if Rowbotham were correct (and he could not have been) and the two heights were the same at 400 m or 1312 feet that could not possibly be true.

Wriggle, squirm all you like Rowbotham was wrong!

Nope. It does not say that it's a mountain at all. Along with "rocky summit" it is referred as "the rock". It does not say mountain. Ever been to a mountain range? There are lots of rocks and small summits.

Nor does it say that it's the top of Camp Vey for the observing location.

Further assumptions by rabinoz, in the vain effort to make his case.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2020, 05:08:28 PM
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void

So, now you do admit that Experiment 14 is a different experiment. Did you stop relying on rabinoz-quotes and just only barely click on the link to find that you are dead wrong, that Experiment 14 is different than what is being discussed?

How so? The only mention of the Spain observation is in Experiment 14:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 06:03:41 PM
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.
Only losers resort to the Ad hominem logical fallacy!
Maybe you should read this Why Gaslighters Accuse You of Gaslighting, Accusing you of their own behavior is a classic gaslighter's tactic (https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201702/why-gaslighters-accuse-you-gaslighting)

Don't forget yhat you, yourself asserted that Rowbotham was wrong in his claims about Antarctica!

No, Tom, it is you who are negligent! The Biot and Arago survey is obviously intended to be part of Rowbotham's Experiment 14.
Read "EXPERIMENT 14" in it's entirety and remember that I said "For example, consider his Biot and Arago observation in EXPERIMENT 14".
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881] (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm)
EXPERIMENT 14
If a good theodolite is placed on the summit of Shooter's Hill, in Kent, and levelled, the line of sight, on being directed to Hampstead Hill, will cut the cross on St. Paul's Cathedral, and fall upon a part of Hampstead Hill, the altitude of which is the same as that of Shooter's Hill. The altitude of each of these points is 412 feet above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. The distance from Shooter's Hill to St. Paul's Cathedral is 7 statute miles, and from St. Paul's to Hampstead Hill, 5 miles. If the earth is a globe, the line of sight from the

p. 58

"levelled" theodolite would be a tangent, below which St. Paul's cross would be 32 feet, and Hampstead Hill 96 feet. The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill; whereas, according to the Ordnance Survey, and as may be proved by experiment, the three points are in the same direct line; again demonstrating that the earth is a plane.

The diagrams, figs. 42 and 43, will show the difference

(https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig42.jpg)
                                                   FIG. 42.

between the theory of rotundity and the results of actual survey. A, represents Hampstead Hill; C, St. Paul's cross; B, Shooter's Hill; and D, D, the datum line--the Trinity high water mark. In fig. 43, A, B, C, and D, D, represent the same points respectively as in fig. 42.

(https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig43.jpg)
                                                   FIG. 43.
p. 59

In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

"The length of some of the sides of the great triangles (in the English survey) is upwards of 100 miles; and many means were employed to render the stations visible from each other at such great distances. The oxy-hydrogen, or Drummond's Light, was employed in some instances; but a heliostat, for reflecting the sun's rays in the direction of the distant observer, was more generally and successfully employed. Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock, R.E., who observed the station on Precelly, a mountain in South Wales, from the station on Kippure, a mountain about 10 miles south-west of Dublin--the distance between the stations being 108 miles--says: 'For five weeks I watched in vain; when, to my joy, the heliostat blazed out in the early beams of the rising sun, and continued visible as a bright star the whole day.'" [1]

Many other very long "sights" have been taken by surveyors of different countries, which upon a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference, would have been quite impossible; but with the demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, are practical and consistent.

Footnotes:
59:1 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm#fr_6) Handbook to the Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851.

Next: Experiment 15 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm)

But in none of those does Rowbotham present any real evidence supporting his assertions.
He just states "which upon a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference, would have been quite impossible" with little mention of the relevant heights. Without these heights his claims are totally worthless.

Now, Tom, if you are able please start debating the points raised that seem to show that Rowbotham was simply incorrect in a couple of quite provable instances.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 06:21:30 PM
So, now you do admit that Experiment 14 is a different experiment.
No, it seems to be reported as a single "experiment."

But why do you keep deflecting away from the dishonesty of Row Boat?

Where is the problem for a RE?

Further assumptions by rabinoz, in the vain effort to make his case.
No, not assumptions by us. Demonstrations that there is nothing wrong the account provided for a RE.
Once again, it is dishonesty on the part of your high prophet to pretend there is a problem for the RE.

Row Boat is clearly trying to indicate that these sightings would be impossible for a RE.
But he intentionally leaves out crucial information.
There is no problem for a RE there, just dishonesty from the High Prophet of FE.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2020, 05:45:18 AM
What willful misrepresentation. Experiment 14 is clearly one experiment that Rowbotham performed, like the others are. Experiment 14 is not three experiments which with entirely different methods, some not performed by Rowbotham. Experiments 1 through 13 are single experiments. The other content like the Spain reference are references of somewhat related and similar observations.

Rowbotham doesn't give elevations to the Spain observation, the heliostat observation, or any other surveyor reference. He tells us that if we are interested in more, to look at the work of surveyors. The elevations which are actually given are for the main experiment of the section, which, surprise surprise, is a single experiment, Experiment 14.

E X P E R I M E N T - obviously indicative of a single experiment.

Yet, you sit here and attempt to make a false argument; basically lying, in either desperation or deception, to make some kind of argument.

Rowbotham does give us elevations to his experiments. What you picked out is not his experiment, and basically a SUMMARY of something that you should look into if interested further. All of this is quite obvious.

Rowbotham's work is entirely fine. We find that he does give sufficient information on his experiments. Beyond this he tells us what to look for and where to look for it in the brief mention of the other surveyor work.

Does anyone list out out Bedford level elevation information when giving brief mentions of Rowbotham's work? I think not. Only if doing a full rundown on the subject, would that come up. If the main subject content was about that third party work, it would obviously actually quote those works directly and go into detail. It's not, so it isn't. You have plucked out a few sentences and are screaming nonsense.

Your mindset is clearly "how can I twist this...." and "If I can at least claim to assume..." on this and many other topics. This is why I see this as dishonesty in general.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 22, 2020, 12:14:04 PM
What willful misrepresentation.
Already clearly explained.
On the basis of what John provided, and what Rab has provided, there is no issue with seeing the light. But your high prophet Row Boat wants to pretend there is a problem for the RE. So he leaves out key pieces of information, the actual altitude of the observer and the actual altitude of the light.
This allows him to completely ignore how far away the horizon would be for the observer and then how much would be hidden beyond the horizon and instead just incorrect focus on the drop from the observer as if they were at sea level, to then pretend there is a problem for a RE.

He even follows it up with:
"Many other very long "sights" have been taken by surveyors of different countries, which upon a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference, would have been quite impossible;"
But as clearly shown it isn't impossible at all.

He is blatantly misrepresenting what happened by leaving out key details and then blatantly lying about it.

Quit whining about the rest of what is included in "Experiment 14" and deal with this blatant dishonesty by your high prophet.

Rowbotham doesn't give elevations to the Spain observation, the heliostat observation, or any other surveyor reference.
Yes, he leaves out that key piece of information to pretend there is a problem, providing a completely useless number as a comparison, and quite clearly indicates that such observations would be impossible on a round Earth.
Quite dishonest of him.

Yet, you sit here and attempt to make a false argument; basically lying, in either desperation or deception, to make some kind of argument.
Good job projecting the inadequacies of your high prophet and yourself.

Rowbotham does give us elevations to his experiments.
Which he doesn't even present as an actual experiment that he did and instead seems to do it as a thought experiment. But as he is shown to be quite happy to lie or be blatantly dishonest, his words are worth nothing.
Do you have anything to back the claims of his experiment?
The only thing he seems to appeal to is a survey which shows elevation. But that doesn't mean they lie on a line.

Your mindset is clearly "how can I twist this...." and "If I can at least claim to assume..." on this and many other topics. This is why I see this as dishonesty in general.
Projecting yet again.
Your mind set, throughout these forums seems to be "how can I twist this to pretend there is a problem for the RE and that the FE is fine, using whatever tactics I can, regardless of how dishonest."

Even now, when people were clearly discussing one key part of what is included under "Experiment 14" where your high prophet is pretending there is a problem for the RE, you flee from it and try to bring up other irrelevant bits.

Deal with his dishonesty first.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 22, 2020, 02:02:43 PM
What willful misrepresentation. Experiment 14 is clearly one experiment that Rowbotham performed, like the others are. Experiment 14 is not three experiments which with entirely different methods, some not performed by Rowbotham.
No, it is not one experiment! There are three parts to experiment 14, Read this AGAIN!

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881] (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm)
EXPERIMENT 14
If a good theodolite is placed on the summit of Shooter's Hill, in Kent, and levelled, the line of sight, on being directed to Hampstead Hill, will cut the cross on St. Paul's Cathedral, and fall upon a part of Hampstead Hill, the altitude of which is the same as that of Shooter's Hill. The altitude of each of these points is 412 feet above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. The distance from Shooter's Hill to St. Paul's Cathedral is 7 statute miles, and from St. Paul's to Hampstead Hill, 5 miles. If the earth is a globe, the line of sight from the

p. 58

"levelled" theodolite would be a tangent, below which St. Paul's cross would be 32 feet, and Hampstead Hill 96 feet. The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill; whereas, according to the Ordnance Survey, and as may be proved by experiment, the three points are in the same direct line; again demonstrating that the earth is a plane.

The diagrams, figs. 42 and 43, will show the difference

(https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig42.jpg)
                                                   FIG. 42.

between the theory of rotundity and the results of actual survey. A, represents Hampstead Hill; C, St. Paul's cross; B, Shooter's Hill; and D, D, the datum line--the Trinity high water mark. In fig. 43, A, B, C, and D, D, represent the same points respectively as in fig. 42.

(https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig43.jpg)
                                                   FIG. 43.
p. 59

In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

"The length of some of the sides of the great triangles (in the English survey) is upwards of 100 miles; and many means were employed to render the stations visible from each other at such great distances. The oxy-hydrogen, or Drummond's Light, was employed in some instances; but a heliostat, for reflecting the sun's rays in the direction of the distant observer, was more generally and successfully employed. Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock, R.E., who observed the station on Precelly, a mountain in South Wales, from the station on Kippure, a mountain about 10 miles south-west of Dublin--the distance between the stations being 108 miles--says: 'For five weeks I watched in vain; when, to my joy, the heliostat blazed out in the early beams of the rising sun, and continued visible as a bright star the whole day.'" [1]

Many other very long "sights" have been taken by surveyors of different countries, which upon a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference, would have been quite impossible; but with the demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, are practical and consistent.

Footnotes:
59:1 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm#fr_6) Handbook to the Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851.

Next: Experiment 15 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm)

Surely everything from the "EXPERIMENT 14" heading down to "Next: Experiment 15 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm)" is part of "EXPERIMENT 14"!

But who cares whether or not the "Biot and Arago" observation is or is not part of "EXPERIMENT 14"?

Rowbotham included it and Rowbotham was wrong on a number of provable points:
Rowbotham was incorrect in his claim that the Biot and Arago observation is evidence against a spherical Earth!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: kachowabunga 17 on February 25, 2020, 09:07:17 AM
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 09:53:22 AM
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?

Original topic: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Fact: The Bible doesn't "prove" anything.
Conclusion: Might as well get back to arguing whether the Earth is flat or not.  ;)

Note: The Bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of writings dating from about three thousand years ago to a little less than two thousand years ago. Like any good anthology of fantasy stories, different books within it say different things. None of it proves anything. But if you make the silly assumption that the entire Bible is Revealed Truth™, then you can find a passage to support pretty much any theory you wish to espouse.

At the time genesis was written, nobody knew anything about the shape of the Earth. By the time of Jesus and the N.T., educated people knew that the Earth is a ball, and they knew how big it is.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 10:00:33 AM
P.S. It's a myth that at the time of Columbus, people thought you'd fall off the edge if you sailed too far. The shape and size of the Earth were well known. And it was well known that the sailing ships of the day, the caravel, could not make it from Europe to Asia by sailing west.

Columbus was a crackpot who believed the Earth to be only half its true size, which would have put Asia within reach for a caravel. He and his crew would have died if they had not bumped into the Americas. He thought he was in Asia because the Americas are where he had expected to find Asia.

But my point is that opposition to his first voyage was not based on a belief that the Earth is flat. It was based on a correct knowledge of its size, and that fact that nobody in Europe knew that America existed.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 10:15:29 AM
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?

Original topic: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Fact: The Bible doesn't "prove" anything.
Conclusion: Might as well get back to arguing whether the Earth is flat or not.  ;)

Note: The Bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of writings dating from about three thousand years ago to a little less than two thousand years ago. Like any good anthology of fantasy stories, different books within it say different things. None of it proves anything. But if you make the silly assumption that the entire Bible is Revealed Truth™, then you can find a passage to support pretty much any theory you wish to espouse.

At the time genesis was written, nobody knew anything about the shape of the Earth. By the time of Jesus and the N.T., educated people knew that the Earth is a ball, and they knew how big it is.
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 25, 2020, 11:32:20 AM
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.

Things they did not know and had no knowledge of.

- How optics worked
- How telescopes worked
- How Computers worked
- How radio waves and the entire light spectrum worked

All these things are used today to detect the size and shape of our universe.

They had no way to know more than what we know now. Even if they tried really hard.



Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 11:33:13 AM
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?

Original topic: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Fact: The Bible doesn't "prove" anything.
Conclusion: Might as well get back to arguing whether the Earth is flat or not.  ;)

Note: The Bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of writings dating from about three thousand years ago to a little less than two thousand years ago. Like any good anthology of fantasy stories, different books within it say different things. None of it proves anything. But if you make the silly assumption that the entire Bible is Revealed Truth™, then you can find a passage to support pretty much any theory you wish to espouse.

At the time genesis was written, nobody knew anything about the shape of the Earth. By the time of Jesus and the N.T., educated people knew that the Earth is a ball, and they knew how big it is.
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.

I don't think they even had a concept of "the Earth" as we understand it. Their "world" was a very small region we now think of as the Middle East. They had no inkling of anything beyond that. They had neither telescopes nor microscopes, were blissfully unaware of the moons of Jupiter or animals smaller than a pin-point, had no idea what causes lightning, and they thought that if you showed a picture of spots to a pregnant cow, the calf would be born with spots.

And you regard them as authorities on cosmology? Amazing!
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 12:06:52 PM
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.

Things they did not know and had no knowledge of.

- How optics worked
- How telescopes worked
- How Computers worked
- How radio waves and the entire light spectrum worked

All these things are used today to detect the size and shape of our universe.

They had no way to know more than what we know now. Even if they tried really hard.




This might be the case, yet they happened to stumble upon it somehow. If only they had some sort of alternative academic tradition that might have aided in this that could explain why they might know more... one that also tends to be the same reason the mainstream orthodoxy is so successful...

Oh right. Your science is fueled largely by mysticism; their tradition of knowledge. Folks just don't like to admit that bit.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 25, 2020, 12:16:42 PM
Oh right. Your science is fueled largely by mysticism; their tradition of knowledge. Folks just don't like to admit that bit.
types a man somehow completely unaware that the machine in front of him is a creation of his greatest criticism.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: inquisitive on February 25, 2020, 01:00:04 PM
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?

Original topic: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Fact: The Bible doesn't "prove" anything.
Conclusion: Might as well get back to arguing whether the Earth is flat or not.  ;)

Note: The Bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of writings dating from about three thousand years ago to a little less than two thousand years ago. Like any good anthology of fantasy stories, different books within it say different things. None of it proves anything. But if you make the silly assumption that the entire Bible is Revealed Truth™, then you can find a passage to support pretty much any theory you wish to espouse.

At the time genesis was written, nobody knew anything about the shape of the Earth. By the time of Jesus and the N.T., educated people knew that the Earth is a ball, and they knew how big it is.
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.
Seriously, how do you explain measured distances and where is your accurate, definitive map?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 01:28:25 PM
Oh right. Your science is fueled largely by mysticism; their tradition of knowledge. Folks just don't like to admit that bit.
types a man somehow completely unaware that the machine in front of him is a creation of his greatest criticism.
I am well aware that the existence of the computer, and all modern technology for that matter, has mysticism as its origin.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 01:35:43 PM
Oh right. Your science is fueled largely by mysticism; their tradition of knowledge. Folks just don't like to admit that bit.
"Fueled largely by mysticism"? Care to elaborate on that? And what is your "belief" fueled by?

Is seems that most flat Earthers "science" is no more that:And then there's that elusive South Pole and the "forbidden ;D land", Antarctia - but we'll leave that for another day.

And all this seems fueled by nothing more than a necessity to "prove" that the Earth is flat and so ignore all contrary evidence.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 02:09:44 PM
I have long been open that my beliefs are fueled by mysticism.

As far evidence, the invention of the electric motor - revealed by vision to Tesla. Relativity - revealed via dream to Einstein. Otto Loewi, the father of neuroscience, had a dream on Easter Sunday that founded the field. August Keke discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule under the influence of a day dream. Fred Hoyle relates his discovery -  “Rather as the revelation occurred to Paul on the Road to Damascus, mine occurred on the road over Bowes Moor.” No need for citation for Paul Dirac - the mystic of the atom. Kary Mullis made his worth via LSD visions. Richard Feynman used deprivation tanks. Edison? Cocaine infused wine. Penrose talks often of “breaking through to the Platonic Realm.” Godel? experienced with a realm where he could perceive mathematical objects.  David Bohm and Brian Josephson as well had their fair share of mystical experiences via meditation. David Peat talks to his: "A remarkable feeling of intensity that seems to flood the whole world around us with meaning … we sense that we are touching something universal and perhaps eternal so that the particular moment in time takes on a numinous character and seems to expand in time without limit. We sense that all boundaries between ourselves and the outer world vanish, for what we are experiencing lies beyond all categories and all attempts to be captured in logical thought"

 
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 02:11:26 PM
Really, just shake a stick at any notable advance and behind it you by necessity find mysticism or perhaps dumb luck.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 02:22:08 PM
... yet they [the ancient Hebrews?] happened to stumble upon it [a belief in FE?] somehow. ...

First of all, I'm not at all convinced that they did believe the Earth is flat, in large part because they didn't even have any idea that "the Earth" existed as a thing. All they knew was the land around them and that there are lights in the sky. And if they did believe the Earth was flat, that in no way supports your assertion that it is, since they offered no evidence or measurements. What they knew was a piece of land which looks flat to the naked eye. They shared your uneducated belief, so you cite them as an authority.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 02:30:23 PM
... yet they [the ancient Hebrews?] happened to stumble upon it [a belief in FE?] somehow. ...

First of all, I'm not at all convinced that they did believe the Earth is flat, in large part because they didn't even have any idea that "the Earth" existed as a thing. All they knew was the land around them and that there are lights in the sky. And if they did believe the Earth was flat, that in no way supports your assertion that it is, since they offered no evidence or measurements. What they knew was a piece of land which looks flat to the naked eye. They shared your uneducated belief, so you cite them as an authority.
I do not cite them as an authority, I am simply pointing out they were right.

As far as being unconvinced, what happened to believing experts and the like who all state they do? Oh, I take it you didn't bother to read on that before forming an opinion, just like you didn't bother to learn about us before being bigoted towards us or pretending to be one of us? Or is it like how you didn't bother to learn history before gaining your view on that?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 02:30:59 PM
Perhaps your expertise in religious cults can be of use! ::)
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 03:07:11 PM
I have long been open that my beliefs are fueled by mysticism.
Mysticism or simply clearing the mind so as to concentrate on the question at hand?

Quote from: John Davis
As far evidence, the invention of the electric motor - revealed by vision to Tesla.
Tesla did not invent the electric motor, that was Micheal Faraday. Though the "first commutator DC electric motor capable of turning machinery was invented by British scientist William Sturgeon".

Tesla did invent the three-phase induction motor.

Quote from: John Davis
Relativity - revealed via dream to Einstein. Otto Loewi, the father of neuroscience, had a dream on Easter Sunday that founded the field. August Keke discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule under the influence of a day dream.
For example, I would not call this mysticism:
Quote
Kekulé's dream
Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is an ancient symbol known as the ouroboros).
I doubt that Kekulé would have had his "reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail" had he not been puzzlibg of that problem beforehand.

Quote from: John Davis
Fred Hoyle relates his discovery -  “Rather as the revelation occurred to Paul on the Road to Damascus, mine occurred on the road over Bowes Moor.” No need for citation for Paul Dirac - the mystic of the atom. Kary Mullis made his worth via LSD visions. Richard Feynman used deprivation tanks. Edison? Cocaine infused wine. Penrose talks often of “breaking through to the Platonic Realm.” Godel? experienced with a realm where he could perceive mathematical objects.  David Bohm and Brian Josephson as well had their fair share of mystical experiences via meditation. David Peat talks to his: "A remarkable feeling of intensity that seems to flood the whole world around us with meaning … we sense that we are touching something universal and perhaps eternal so that the particular moment in time takes on a numinous character and seems to expand in time without limit. We sense that all boundaries between ourselves and the outer world vanish, for what we are experiencing lies beyond all categories and all attempts to be captured in logical thought"
Just how much of this is mysticism but just one's own "sub-conscious" working on the problem based on already known information.

But what has any of this to do with the shape of the Earth" The topic is "The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat".
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 06:49:37 PM
... yet they [the ancient Hebrews?] happened to stumble upon it [a belief in FE?] somehow. ...

First of all, I'm not at all convinced that they did believe the Earth is flat, in large part because they didn't even have any idea that "the Earth" existed as a thing. All they knew was the land around them and that there are lights in the sky. And if they did believe the Earth was flat, that in no way supports your assertion that it is, since they offered no evidence or measurements. What they knew was a piece of land which looks flat to the naked eye. They shared your uneducated belief, so you cite them as an authority.
I do not cite them as an authority, I am simply pointing out they were right.

As far as being unconvinced, what happened to believing experts and the like who all state they do? Oh, I take it you didn't bother to read on that before forming an opinion, just like you didn't bother to learn about us before being bigoted towards us or pretending to be one of us? Or is it like how you didn't bother to learn history before gaining your view on that?

Oh, I see. So you bring ignorant ancient people into the argument for no actual purpose at all.

And there are no "experts" who thought that anybody after Eratosthenes believed the world was flat. So all you're doing is asserting, with no purpose, that ancient peoples were right because their mythological cosmologies agreed with your ludicrous notion, contrary to all evidence, and contrary to observations you could make yourself if you cared to, that the Earth is flat.

You're simply punking us all. There's no way you could actually believe the stuff you're writing.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 25, 2020, 07:55:00 PM
Did the Hebrews not roam a relatively small desert for a good 40 years?
Based on their history of getting lost, I am not sure you should use them as any authority on cartography, never mind the shape of the earth.
I wonder what modern Jews believe now? Or are only people from thousands of years past reliable?
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2020, 12:18:26 AM
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.
It might be more accurate to say the "Hebrews of the time" believed "that the earth is flat" as did the ancient Chinese, Egyptians, and Babylonians as in:
Quote from: Robert J. Schadewald
The Flat-Earth Bible (https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the enclosing dome.)
I purposely haven't included India on that list because there seems good reason to believe that the Hindu Veda describes a Globe Earth:
Quote from: Vishnu Elayath, Rigvedi
What does Veda say about the Earth being flat or round? (https://www.quora.com/What-does-Veda-say-about-the-Earth-being-flat-or-round)
The flat Earth theory sustained in the West and was to stay till Galileo’s discoveries were agreed upon. It was a different case in the East though.

Indians have, since time immemorial, known that the Earth we live on is a spherical planet. How? I shall elaborate with examples and quotations from ancient scriptures.

The word भू is used to denote Earth. It is famously called भूगोल (Bhoogola) meaning “The sphere that is Earth”.
<< Much more on the linked reference >>
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 26, 2020, 06:21:56 AM
Did the Hebrews not roam a relatively small desert for a good 40 years?
In reality: very unlikely.  But that's the story, and they are sticking to it.

Quote
Based on their history of getting lost, I am not sure you should use them as any authority on cartography, never mind the shape of the earth.
Excellent point though.  :D
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 26, 2020, 06:27:49 AM
Did the Hebrews not roam a relatively small desert for a good 40 years?

Actually, no, they didn't. The Bible describes the 40-years' wandering in detail, and this detailed description has them moving through lands where the local people kept detailed written records that survive to this day. There is absolutely no reference in any of these places to a large tribe of foreigners moving through their lands. The entire story of the Exodus and the Wanderings in the Bible is made up. It never happened. Neither the plagues, the exodus, nor the wanderings ever happened. Surprised? The Bible is not a reliable source of history.

I wonder what modern Jews believe now?

Modern Jews know that the Earth is roughly spherical, as Jews have known ever since Eratosthenes. Hasidic Jews are bonkers, just as all religious fanatics are bonkers, and there may be flat-Earthers among Jews, as there are among Christians and Muslims. But 99.999993% of the world's population know the Earth to be round, and that includes Jews as well as everyone else.

Even the bat-shit crazy hell-fire Baptists and Pentecostalists and Seventh-Day Adventists know the Earth is round. And ALL the mainstream religions know the Earth is round.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 26, 2020, 12:49:44 PM
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.
It might be more accurate to say the "Hebrews of the time" believed "that the earth is flat" as did the ancient Chinese, Egyptians, and Babylonians as in:
Quote from: Robert J. Schadewald
The Flat-Earth Bible (https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the enclosing dome.)
I purposely haven't included India on that list because there seems good reason to believe that the Hindu Veda describes a Globe Earth:
Quote from: Vishnu Elayath, Rigvedi
What does Veda say about the Earth being flat or round? (https://www.quora.com/What-does-Veda-say-about-the-Earth-being-flat-or-round)
The flat Earth theory sustained in the West and was to stay till Galileo’s discoveries were agreed upon. It was a different case in the East though.

Indians have, since time immemorial, known that the Earth we live on is a spherical planet. How? I shall elaborate with examples and quotations from ancient scriptures.

The word भू is used to denote Earth. It is famously called भूगोल (Bhoogola) meaning “The sphere that is Earth”.
<< Much more on the linked reference >>

There is plenty of evidence that the Hindu people believed in a flat earth.

It can be shown that the Flat Earth worldview is consistent with the vast majority of religious texts and worldviews.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61125.0

Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 26, 2020, 12:52:48 PM
In fact, its fairly well established that the majority of worldviews are either horizontal or vertical cosmologies. Both of these are flat earth cosmologies.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 26, 2020, 01:24:31 PM
It can be shown that the Flat Earth worldview is consistent with the vast majority of religious texts ...

Since all religious texts are complete nonsense written by people whose only expertise was in the art of bamboozling people into giving them money, their supposed "consistency" with a flat-Earth worldview is not very convincing evidence for the shape of the Earth.

And least you criticize me for calling all religious texts nonsense, I will point out that the vast majority of religions claim that all other religions are nonsense, or far worse. The only difference between me and most religious believers is that they think that 99.99% of religions are bogus, and I think that 100% of them are bogus. We only disagree by about 0.01%.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: JackBlack on February 26, 2020, 01:41:20 PM
It can be shown that the Flat Earth worldview is consistent with the vast majority of religious texts and worldviews.
Yes, lots of religions, written by people ignorant of the vast majority of the world, indicate Earth is flat.

Unfortunately for you, their FE world view is typically vastly different to what is presented today as the FE model. In many ways their FE model is more consistent with the RE model of today. Like I said before, you can arrive at their model (minus the religious parts like Ra pulling the sun or being the sun) by making approximations from the RE model.

Also unfortunately for you, the FE worldview is not consistent with reality.
Title: Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Post by: John Davis on February 27, 2020, 06:30:06 AM
Were you planning on supporting your argument or just naysaying?