FE Theory and the Bible

  • 31 Replies
  • 3803 Views
FE Theory and the Bible
« on: August 16, 2012, 09:12:55 PM »
It's my understanding that the FES exists because its members believe the Bible (and perhaps other ancient religious texts as well) teaches that the world is flat.  My guess is the logic goes something like this:

1) The Bible is God's inerrant Word.
2) The Bible teaches that the world is flat.
3) The world is flat, and all scientific claims to the contrary must be false.

This is the only way that I can make sense of the claims I've read on this site, which seem to fly in the face of both science and common sense--wavy light, an accelerating earth, an antimoon, and the like.  Now please don't get me wrong.  If 1) and 2) above are correct, then I don't dispute that the logical and scientific gymnastics found on this site are necessary.  Perhaps I have mischaracterized the members of this society, and if so I apologize, and please explain so I can understand better.  I'm guessing beyond this is a commitment to a strictly literal hermeneutic, so the earth must have "ends" like the terminology found in the Bible.

But here's my question/issue.  If you're committed to a strictly literal hermeneutic, then it would seem to me that the earth you describe here (whether a finite or infinite plane), does not fit at all the Biblical picture of the earth.  After all, God's word says that the earth has been laid on a foundation (Psalm 102:25), and it even has a cornerstone (Job 38:6). The earth with its foundations is laid above the waters (Psalm 24:3; 136:6). These waters are bounded by doors and bars (Job 38:8-10). These waters are under the earth too, since God broke up the fountains of the deep to allow water to come to the surface of the earth at the beginning of the flood (Gen. 7:11). Above the earth is a solid firmament (Gen. 1:6; Psalm 19:1), which is like a curtain or a tent (Isaiah 44:22), and inside this tent is where you can find the sun (Ps 19:4). Above the firmament are waters (Gen 1:6). In this solid firmament there are doors (Psalm 78:23) to allow rain and clouds to enter. This solid firmament is suspended over the earth and held in place by pillars (Job 26:11; Psalm 75:3). The Bible clearly describes the earth created by God as a giant building, and heaven is the place of God's "upper chambers" (Psalm 104:3) above the solid firmament of the earth in the upper waters.  This picture does not square at all with what I've seen on this site so I wonder if someone could comment on how FES members interpret the Bible?  It would seem to me, if you're committed to a strictly literal hermeneutic, you should have to picture the earth as giant, flat building. But if you allow the architectural language of Scripture to be a metaphorical, phenomenological description of the world, then why insist on the world being flat?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 08:08:53 AM by BibleBeliever »

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2012, 09:21:42 PM »
FET is not based in Biblical literalism.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2012, 11:11:32 PM »
FET is not based in Biblical literalism.

But FEers do behave just like religious people.

They make claims that have no scientific base, and refuse to accept scientifically based concepts that challenge the FET lore.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2012, 12:58:41 AM »
FET is not based in Biblical literalism.

But FEers do behave just like religious people.

They make claims that have no scientific base, and refuse to accept scientifically based concepts that challenge the FET lore.

Incorrect.  We are free thinkers, not religious zealots.  Some of us are religious, some are not, but we all question the information that we have been spoon fed.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2012, 06:17:54 AM »
I don't want to sound belligerent at all, but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone who doesn't have a prior commitment to believe that the earth is flat would choose to do so.  Here's what I mean.  If I believe the Bible (or Quran, etc) to be inerrantly true, and if I believe that it teaches a flat earth, then I understand the need to do the kinds of things that are found in this site.  If, however, I have no inerrant authority telling me to believe that the world is flat, why would I do so?

Almost everything I've read here amounts to theories (scientific and conspiracy) designed to prove RE'ers wrong; they are apologetic in nature.  For instance, if the world is flat, and there is no gravity, how do we explain what people call gravity?  It must be that the earth is accelerating to simulate what we call gravity. Why do we perceive a horizon when we look out across the ocean?  It's because light bends.  Why do we every once in a while see a lunar eclipse?  It's because of an "antimoon." And so on.  These theories all designed to overcome the reality that the earth appears to be round so that people can believe it is flat despite the way it appears.  What can't be explained away by these kinds of theories is dismissed as a huge conspiracy theory.

But where is the positive evidence that would lead you to conclude that the earth is flat and therefore demand the strange theories?  I admit I haven't read everything here, but all I've seen so far is anecdotal evidence, like stories from people who have gone up in hot air balloons, or the story of a guy who claims to be able to see 33 miles from a beach, etc.  There has to be more.  If this is a free thinking society, there has to be more that you can point to that positively shows that the earth is flat, rather than just explains why the earth appears to be round.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2012, 06:38:23 AM »
Switch the argument around and RET will appear apologetic. If the world is round is must not be accelerating upwards, so you magically stick to it like glue. The moon lights up because the Sun hits it at just the right angle at a very predictable clockwork-like rate. You can do this with any two theories, it is not a good reason to put aside either one.

It is also a myth that religions have ever taught a flat Earth. In fact, the Catholic Church embraced RET far before any real evidence was provided. RET in itself is a religion. You were brought up to believe in it. It would be like growing up in a religious household. How can you imagine not believing in God (RET) when all your friends do, too? Wouldn't they think you're weird for not believing?

RE'ers come here to do what the religious do to atheists, burn us at the stake for our stance. It is each and every one of your own little personal vendettas. If you wish to debate facts that is fine, but these threads are ridiculous logical fallacies that attempt to kill an argument based on the people who argue it.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2012, 07:19:44 AM »
First of all, my intention is not to burn anyone at the stake, nor do I have any vendetta against you or any FE'er.  I'm simply asking what is the reason for someone w/o a pre-commitment to an inerrant authority to believe in a flat earth.  All I've see is anecdotal evidence from this site.  There may be something bigger and better that I've missed, and that's what I'm asking for.

And second, you have to admit that whether right or wrong, there's a huge difference between how these two groups prove their beliefs.  Scientists do not have to resort to apologetic tactics for at least two reasons.  1) There simply aren't enough FE'ers offering challenges to be worth the time of scientists.  2) There's a mountain of positive evidence that can be pointed to, like photographs of a round earth, space travel to the moon and mars, even simple plane travel, etc. etc.  When faced with positive evidence like this, the FE response appears to be to dismiss it all as a conspiracy, even though there's no believable explanation for how it could be carried out so consistently across the entire earth.  And apparently nobody has been able to photograph the edge of the earth either.  So there's a huge difference here, as I think would practically go without saying.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2012, 07:30:46 AM »
You obviously haven't spent enough time on the site. Not only did you list things that are not evidence of a round Earth (like plane travel, for instance), you went on to say that FET has no evidence. Its exactly what a religious person such as yourself would do, cling onto misconceptions and myths.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2012, 07:44:22 AM »
I didn't say you have no evidence.  I said all the evidence I found was anecdotal, and I also said there may be more that I'm missing, and I'm asking you to point me to it.  This is the main thrust of what I've been asking.  So if you know of any positive evidence on this site that rises above anecdotal evidence, please let me know.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2012, 07:57:22 AM »
This place is full of the evidence you are looking for.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2012, 08:04:05 AM »
Of course, that's one of the places I've been looking, and so far, I've only found anecdotal evidence.  What else do you have?  Can you be more specific and point me to an actual scientific study that shows the world to be flat?  Thanks.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2012, 08:04:08 AM »
First of all, my intention is not to burn anyone at the stake, nor do I have any vendetta against you or any FE'er.  I'm simply asking what is the reason for someone w/o a pre-commitment to an inerrant authority to believe in a flat earth.  All I've see is anecdotal evidence from this site.  There may be something bigger and better that I've missed, and that's what I'm asking for.

And second, you have to admit that whether right or wrong, there's a huge difference between how these two groups prove their beliefs.  Scientists do not have to resort to apologetic tactics for at least two reasons.  1) There simply aren't enough FE'ers offering challenges to be worth the time of scientists.  2) There's a mountain of positive evidence that can be pointed to, like photographs of a round earth, space travel to the moon and mars, even simple plane travel, etc. etc.  When faced with positive evidence like this, the FE response appears to be to dismiss it all as a conspiracy, even though there's no believable explanation for how it could be carried out so consistently across the entire earth.  And apparently nobody has been able to photograph the edge of the earth either.  So there's a huge difference here, as I think would practically go without saying.
You obviously have spent enough time on the site. Not only did you list things that are evidence of a round Earth (like plane travel, for instance), you went on to say that FET has no evidence. Its exactly what a scientific person such as yourself would do, cling onto evidence.

Or maybe you were spoon fed the idea of a round Earth (most of us were) and then found for yourself some evidence that corroborates the notion of a round Earth,

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2012, 09:45:06 AM »
Of course, that's one of the places I've been looking, and so far, I've only found anecdotal evidence.  What else do you have?  Can you be more specific and point me to an actual scientific study that shows the world to be flat?  Thanks.

Read Earth Not a Globe. It contains multiple studies and experiments, most of which can be verified in a local area using household tools.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2012, 11:40:40 AM »
Please stop telling people the read Earth Not a Globe, that book is the worst possible attempt at observational science. People have shown Robo to be wrong on countless topics.

You are getting sloppy Rushy, you used to be better at trolling new posters.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2012, 11:56:26 AM »
Please stop telling people the read Earth Not a Globe, that book is the worst possible attempt at observational science. People have shown Robo to be wrong on countless topics.

You are getting sloppy Rushy, you used to be better at trolling new posters.

I have been really lazy recently (I'm not trolling, however). Maybe due to too many posts in such a short time span. Quality and quantity, etc.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2012, 12:14:27 PM »
It happens, take a nap.  :P

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2012, 03:29:10 PM »
Wasn't Earth Not a Globe written in 1865?  This book is nearly 150 years old, from what you said in your summary, appears to be filled with experiments that will end up being anecdotal at best.  Do you have anything more recent?  Something 120 years newer might be helpful--you know, after the inventions of modern computers, space shuttle flights, orbiting satellites, photos of the earth from space, etc.

Has anybody made an attempt to visit the edge of the earth and photograph it?

Has anyone measured the distance between the southern tip of South America and Africa through real life travel?

Has anyone flown a commercial flight that flies a southerly route to determine whether the flight actually goes the way it claims to be going?  Qantas has a direct commercial flight from Chile to Sydney Australia.  If the world is a globe that flight path (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28) will be predominately over water, and the flight may be around 7,000 miles.  If the FE map is correct, that flight will have to cross almost the entire diameter of the earth, and it will likely have much of its flight over land unless they direct the route over water, making the flight even longer.  If the diameter of the earth is about 25,000 miles in FE theory, this flight will take forever.  In fact, commercial flights are not capable of flying that distance without refueling.  In fact, let's suppose the flight is about 22,000 miles and it takes 12.5 hours to fly (what Qantas advertises).  This would mean that the plane would have to fly over 1700 miles/hour to arrive on time, that's more than twice the speed of sound.  So if you take that flight and land in Sydney without refueling, you'll have pretty good reason to abandon FE theory.  If you land any where near on time, you may as well shut down the site.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2012, 03:44:09 PM »
Careful, you ask for a picture of the edge of Earth you will get another fun picture of a portion of antarctica. For some reason FET proponents think that a picture of antarctica some how proves that there is an ice-wall surrounding Earth.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2012, 04:06:53 PM »
Careful, you ask for a picture of the edge of Earth you will get another fun picture of a portion of antarctica. For some reason FET proponents think that a picture of antarctica some how proves that there is an ice-wall surrounding Earth.

If you ask for a picture, then of course you're going to get a picture.  Nobody claimed it was proof.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2012, 06:07:44 PM »
Wasn't Earth Not a Globe written in 1865?  This book is nearly 150 years old, from what you said in your summary, appears to be filled with experiments that will end up being anecdotal at best.  Do you have anything more recent?  Something 120 years newer might be helpful--you know, after the inventions of modern computers, space shuttle flights, orbiting satellites, photos of the earth from space, etc.

Has anybody made an attempt to visit the edge of the earth and photograph it?

Has anyone measured the distance between the southern tip of South America and Africa through real life travel?

Has anyone flown a commercial flight that flies a southerly route to determine whether the flight actually goes the way it claims to be going?  Qantas has a direct commercial flight from Chile to Sydney Australia.  If the world is a globe that flight path (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28) will be predominately over water, and the flight may be around 7,000 miles.  If the FE map is correct, that flight will have to cross almost the entire diameter of the earth, and it will likely have much of its flight over land unless they direct the route over water, making the flight even longer.  If the diameter of the earth is about 25,000 miles in FE theory, this flight will take forever.  In fact, commercial flights are not capable of flying that distance without refueling.  In fact, let's suppose the flight is about 22,000 miles and it takes 12.5 hours to fly (what Qantas advertises).  This would mean that the plane would have to fly over 1700 miles/hour to arrive on time, that's more than twice the speed of sound.  So if you take that flight and land in Sydney without refueling, you'll have pretty good reason to abandon FE theory.  If you land any where near on time, you may as well shut down the site.

I thought this thread was abut FE Theory and the Bible?

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2012, 06:38:26 PM »
The catholic church did try their best to keep the Flat Earth hypothesis going on for as long they could. So it is fair to assume that the modern FE community was somehow influenced by early catholic FE apologists. 

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2012, 06:43:25 PM »
Its seems he is just another RE'er who has nothing to go on but stereotypes and has contributed no real thought to the discussion.

Wasn't Earth Not a Globe written in 1865?  This book is nearly 150 years old, from what you said in your summary, appears to be filled with experiments that will end up being anecdotal at best.  Do you have anything more recent?  Something 120 years newer might be helpful--you know, after the inventions of modern computers, space shuttle flights, orbiting satellites, photos of the earth from space, etc.

Oh, I didn't realize that science has an expiration date. You might want to try actually reading the book.

Has anybody made an attempt to visit the edge of the earth and photograph it?

Yes.

Has anyone measured the distance between the southern tip of South America and Africa through real life travel?

Let me go get my tape measure?

Has anyone flown a commercial flight that flies a southerly route to determine whether the flight actually goes the way it claims to be going?  Qantas has a direct commercial flight from Chile to Sydney Australia.  If the world is a globe that flight path (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28) will be predominately over water, and the flight may be around 7,000 miles.  If the FE map is correct, that flight will have to cross almost the entire diameter of the earth, and it will likely have much of its flight over land unless they direct the route over water, making the flight even longer.  If the diameter of the earth is about 25,000 miles in FE theory, this flight will take forever.  In fact, commercial flights are not capable of flying that distance without refueling.  In fact, let's suppose the flight is about 22,000 miles and it takes 12.5 hours to fly (what Qantas advertises).  This would mean that the plane would have to fly over 1700 miles/hour to arrive on time, that's more than twice the speed of sound.  So if you take that flight and land in Sydney without refueling, you'll have pretty good reason to abandon FE theory.  If you land any where near on time, you may as well shut down the site.


Do you know anyone that has taken that flight and can attest to it personally? Anyone can throw around speculation as to when and how something should happen.

The catholic church did try their best to keep the Flat Earth hypothesis going on for as long they could. So it is fair to assume that the modern FE community was somehow influenced by early catholic FE apologists. 

That is a myth. The Catholic Church always considered the Earth to be round. It is the idea that it is not the center of the universe that they had problems with. Thus, RET was perpetuated by religion, not science.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2012, 07:18:53 PM »
I thought this thread was abut FE Theory and the Bible?

Good point. My question had to do with the Bible--I had assumed that FE people believed this because they believed the Bible to infallibly teach the world to be flat, requiring people who believe the Bible to come up with any theory imaginable to disprove RE theory. I was informed that not all FE people are biblical literalists, so this raised a new question in my mind.  Why would someone decide to believe in FE theory if not compelled to do so by an infallible authority?

Perhaps I should have asked that second question in a new thread, and I'd be happy to do so if necessary.  But I find it fascinating that despite the many ways in which the world appears to be round, despite photos of the earth, orbiting satellites, and travels to the moon and even mars, some people choose to believe that the world is flat.  And the outlandish theories developed to support this belief all scream out to me that there's some authority that's infallible in their minds compelling them to believe the world is flat.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2012, 08:05:31 PM »
Oh, I didn't realize that science has an expiration date. You might want to try actually reading the book.

Science does not have an exploration date, which is why I wondered why the book you recommend is almost 150 yrs old.  Are there scientific studies still being done and theories still being made that require more than just sitting in front of a computer and typing?

Yes.


I asked for a photograph of the edge of the earth.  I suspect you know as well as I do that this is not what you showed me.  This is a picture of water and ice.

Let me go get my tape measure?

Well, you'll need a boat.

Do you know anyone that has taken that flight and can attest to it personally? Anyone can throw around speculation as to when and how something should happen.

No, I haven't taken the flight, but I have nothing to prove.  Just go to their website, and you can see the flight schedules; I'm sure you can even look at the airport websites to see the flight take off and land.  If you think the airports, airlines, and passengers are all a part of the conspiracy, you can even book the flight yourself. Just think what you could prove.  You'll know where you took off; you'll know where you landed.  You'll know how long it took to get there.  The question mark is how far you flew--7,000 miles or somewhere around 22,000 miles.  Did you fly about 550 mph or about 1700 mph?  If you take the flight and land anywhere near on time, then you would be forced either to give up on FE theory or to believe that you just flew over twice the speed of sound for 12.5 hours, and you flew twice as far as commercial planes can travel without refueling.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2012, 08:14:25 PM »
I thought this thread was abut FE Theory and the Bible?

Good point. My question had to do with the Bible--I had assumed that FE people believed this because they believed the Bible to infallibly teach the world to be flat, requiring people who believe the Bible to come up with any theory imaginable to disprove RE theory. I was informed that not all FE people are biblical literalists, so this raised a new question in my mind.  Why would someone decide to believe in FE theory if not compelled to do so by an infallible authority?

Perhaps I should have asked that second question in a new thread, and I'd be happy to do so if necessary.  But I find it fascinating that despite the many ways in which the world appears to be round, despite photos of the earth, orbiting satellites, and travels to the moon and even mars, some people choose to believe that the world is flat.  And the outlandish theories developed to support this belief all scream out to me that there's some authority that's infallible in their minds compelling them to believe the world is flat.

FET is not a religion.  It is also not a doctrine.  You will find that there are many different ideas about the nature of the Earth here.  The main point is that we question the mainstream "facts" and we do not just accept them because some scientist in Arizona decided that we should.  We also question the motives of the government, NASA, and other unknown entities. 

Let me ask you a question.  Why are we automatically wrong to question these things?

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2012, 08:28:01 PM »
Let me ask you a question.  Why are we automatically wrong to question these things?

I never said you were automatically wrong to question anything.  Nobody's wrong for questioning, though after deciding to question something you are not obligated to reject what you question.  You may just confirm that the prevailing opinion prevails because it happens to be right.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2012, 08:56:14 PM »
You may just confirm that the prevailing opinion prevails because it happens to be right.

Yes, after careful consideration, I might just confirm that what I have been spoon fed is true.  On the other hand, there is a chance that it is not.  Will you at least concur with me on this point?

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2012, 09:10:08 PM »
Yes, after careful consideration, I might just confirm that what I have been spoon fed is true.  On the other hand, there is a chance that it is not.  Will you at least concur with me on this point?

Of course.  There's a chance for just about anything.  There's a chance that commercial planes can travel 22,000 miles for 12.5 hours w/o refueling, flying over twice as fast as the speed of sound.  But that chance is pretty small.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 09:12:28 PM by BibleBeliever »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2012, 09:33:16 PM »
Yes, after careful consideration, I might just confirm that what I have been spoon fed is true.  On the other hand, there is a chance that it is not.  Will you at least concur with me on this point?

Of course.  There's a chance for just about anything.  There's a chance that commercial planes can travel 22,000 miles for 12.5 hours w/o refueling, flying over twice as fast as the speed of sound.  But that chance is pretty small.

You are referring to one of the FET maps.  I have yet to find a map that I 100% agree with.

Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 10:17:43 PM »
The worst RE map is 1000 times more accurate that the best FE map. You cannot argue with this.