The Bible and flat earth.

Now address my firmament issue.

Here's a few for the pile. Sorry they aren't KJV.

The Earth "is founded upon the seas and established upon the floods" Psa xxiv. 2

Why the Roman numerals? Anyway that could be interpreted to mean that under the crust there's water. We already see that with the springs under the seas.

God's own hand "hath laid the foundations of the Earth" - Isa xlviii 13

The continents have a deeper crust than the oceans. How do you know it's talking about earth as a whole rather than earth as in solid ground?

"Who laid the foundations of the earth,
That it should not be moved for ever
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture;
The waters stood above the mountains,
..." Psa civ 5-8

See above and the video in my sig.

"God said Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And god called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas" Gen i, 9, 10

This proves flat earth how? It's talking about the continents.

You are certainly wrong though when you say things like the "KJV" translators knew what they were doing. Mistakes happen in it all the time. For example, take Genesis 1:2

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

When we look to the hebrew at "and the earth was without form and void" we get this:

ve-he-arets hiteh tehu ve-behu

Which translates word by word to

ve-he-arets: and the earth
hiteh: BECAME
tehu: without form
ve-behu: and void

Giving us the proper translation:
"and the earth BECAME without form and void"

First place which Hebrew text are you basing this on? Second without form and void is without form and void. A house under construction is without formed and void but it doesn't mean it became that way. This topic is better dealt with if we were talking about theistic evolution.

The difference here as Wardlaw points out is that the earth was not originally created without  void but it gained this quality according to the Word of God. This is seen to be the case due to Isa. xlv 18

"For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens. He is God, that formed the earth and made it; He established it, He created it not without form (tehu) ..."

or in KJV: "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain..." again we see this entire piece mistranslated due to changing the meaning of the word tehu and introducing an inconsistency between Genesis and Isa. In vain? really? No, without form. He is clearly talking of the creation and referencing Genesis.

Even with your translation it still doesn't contradict my explanation. Besides, if what you're saying is true then that means death came before sin and that's against the Bible.

Listening to it your video now. He makes lots of mistakes and misrepresents the FE view as well as several of the interpretations.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 12:00:03 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 22, 2016, 11:52:04 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 11:31:49 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 22, 2016, 11:24:34 AM

Although this article doesn't strictly follow Luke's "KJV only rules" it has a great deal of information about why the bible is a flat earth book. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm  It's really interesting to read, whether you are FE or RE.

Pick one of the verses and we'll discuss it.

Well, I realized you wouldn't read the article when I posted it because it's not from Answers in Genesis, but there are others who like to learn things.

No I've read it, but to save a long text response I'm giving you the opportunity to pick out the most convincing and we can discuss it. The problem is not that you linked to something, the problem is I can't respond to all of it. I'm not saying its all false or else I would be obligated to respond to all of it.

Convincing of what? The article lays out all the arguments that the bible authors believed the earth flat. I'm not sure what you want to debate. I don't use the bible as proof the earth is flat, but it is proof the ancient Hebrews believed it was.

Pick the best argument and we'll discuss it. A lot of them I've previously dealt with already or dealt with in the video in my sig. I'm not afraid or anything but it is a long article.

Another issue with KJV is it doesn't preserve the names in Genesis. For example, we see in Chapter 1 the entirety is using God. In the original, we see "Elohim" being used and then secondary "Jehovah-Elohim".

Elohim, if I take Wardlaw and his citation from Rev. J. M. Denniston properly and he is correct, denotes plurality highlighting him as creator of the universe. Once Adam exists, then Jehovah-Elohim is used - the self-existing God with a covenant with Adam.

I'm inclined to say so what? Your name in English is John but in Mexico its Juan. It still translate the same and you would answer to that if you were in Mexico and someone called you Juan. Now once you get to know each other you might want to have pronounce it as John but still.

This solves the issue concerning two authors of Genesis. He also touches on the issue of the ages quite a bit. I think he has another non-flat book out there concerning just this that I have yet to acquire.

Without going into much detail I think there's actually ten eyewitnesses that wrote Genesis.

My knowledge on this isn't very deep though and mostly has been picked up through flat earth texts. False Prophet might be able to shine some light on this. Didn't he say he was a translator?


All this is aside the point, as I feel Genesis depicts it fine enough in KJV.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Note he is clearly not saying (at least in KJV) that the waters are within the firmament or outside the firmament. They are above and below. To be below a spherical firmament means to be outside of the firmament. To be above it as well means to be outside of it. This makes no sense! The only interpretation that makes this sensible is the one in which the firmament is flat and thus has an 'above' and a 'below.'

In actuallity the waters above was a ice canopy that collapsed during the flood. The waters below are the seas and lakes and such. The firmament is the sky as it says in Genesis 1:20 that he created the birds to fly IN the open firmament of heaven.

Listening to it your video now. He makes lots of mistakes and misrepresents the FE view as well as several of the interpretations.

Oh, like what?

So what? I'd think if it wasn't important to those who witnessed the creation they wouldn't have used two different words. You seem quick to stand by the translators but not the witnesses.


No offense, but you don't want us to list out 50 arguments but you want us to listen to 50 minutes of arguments many of which this preacher misrepresents. There are too many issues to list.

His answer for "above" and "below" doesn't apply everywhere he would like it to (like in my Genesis example above) here as it is God talking about the creation. There is no man to have the frame of reference that "down" is towards the center of the earth or up is away from it.  Even if the firmament is an ice dome that fell during the flood, a view I first tried to develop when I first came here in my first post actually, there is no doubt from what I said that it must be flat. Why else would the waters be separated ABOVE and BELOW and not WITHIN and OUTSIDE. You sidestep the question. I'm perfectly comfortable with the water canopy idea, but its a flat canopy.

He also attempts to disprove it by saying heaven isn't flat in our model. Ok then, our model would be wrong and heaven AND Earth would be flat. He is clearly a liar. Again he moves the goalpost by saying that heaven can't be flat because the model doesn't say that - the question isn't about our model. Its about the literal interpretation and if the earth is flat. As such, he is actually agreeing here without knowing it that the Earth and Heaven is flat, the argument you are now not addressing.

Going on:
Using the map as a disprove of the earth being flat is fallacy - he is moving the goal post. All he is showing is that the map is wrong. Likewise for the corners of the earth - he did nothing to show that the gentiles or Jewish people were not there at the time in question.

He does nothing to support his argument that "Earth" refers to the dry land despite this being easier to do. He draws parallels in English translations (like corners of your head) that don't exist in the original texts.

It is known that the Hebrew people believed the Earth was flat. Academics know this. The writers of the Bible knew this. He then goes on a tirade against the Academics and calls them all Jesus denying Jew wackos.

He tries to call meteors stars.

His rant on circles isn't correct. Circles can be drawn on surfaces. The edge of a surface is two dimensional. He goes on to call other people ignorant of geometry despite him being incorrect. He also misdefines a circle and tries to say its a sphere. Oh boy. Really?!



I can literally write another hour about all the mistakes he makes.

He sees it fit to take 100 years of different flat earth models and smash them together as one, then complain of their inconsistency. Wow.

That was a really disappointing hour.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 22, 2016, 12:26:38 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 12:00:03 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 22, 2016, 11:52:04 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 11:31:49 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 22, 2016, 11:24:34 AM

Although this article doesn't strictly follow Luke's "KJV only rules" it has a great deal of information about why the bible is a flat earth book. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm  It's really interesting to read, whether you are FE or RE.

Pick one of the verses and we'll discuss it.

Well, I realized you wouldn't read the article when I posted it because it's not from Answers in Genesis, but there are others who like to learn things.

No I've read it, but to save a long text response I'm giving you the opportunity to pick out the most convincing and we can discuss it. The problem is not that you linked to something, the problem is I can't respond to all of it. I'm not saying its all false or else I would be obligated to respond to all of it.

Convincing of what? The article lays out all the arguments that the bible authors believed the earth flat. I'm not sure what you want to debate. I don't use the bible as proof the earth is flat, but it is proof the ancient Hebrews believed it was.

Pick the best argument and we'll discuss it. A lot of them I've previously dealt with already or dealt with in the video in my sig. I'm not afraid or anything but it is a long article.

I have never ever seen you deal with any argument you've been presented with. You don't even understand your own sources. I can already see you are doing the same in this topic as you did in the evolution topic.  Have fun.

So what? I'd think if it wasn't important to those who witnessed the creation they wouldn't have used two different words. You seem quick to stand by the translators but not the witnesses.

I was speaking of the names mentioned.

No offense, but you don't want us to list out 50 arguments but you want us to listen to 50 minutes of arguments many of which this preacher misrepresents. There are too many issues to list.

I don't expect you to list all of his arguments. I only ask that you take one example a disprove it.

His answer for "above" and "below" doesn't apply everywhere he would like it to (like in my Genesis example above) here as it is God talking about the creation. There is no man to have the frame of reference that "down" is towards the center of the earth or up is away from it.  Even if the firmament is an ice dome that fell during the flood, a view I first tried to develop when I first came here in my first post actually, there is no doubt from what I said that it must be flat. Why else would the waters be separated ABOVE and BELOW and not WITHIN and OUTSIDE. You sidestep the question. I'm perfectly comfortable with the water canopy idea, but its a flat canopy.

I didnt say the firmament was the canopy. I said it was the sky and the waters above it was the canopy. Interesting fact: with a canopy you won't have any clouds because of the high pressure. High pressure equals no clouds and low pressure equal clouds. Just ask any weather man.

He also attempts to disprove it by saying heaven isn't flat in our model. Ok then, our model would be wrong and heaven AND Earth would be flat. He is clearly a liar. Again he moves the goalpost by saying that heaven can't be flat because the model doesn't say that - the question isn't about our model. Its about the literal interpretation and if the earth is flat. As such, he is actually agreeing here without knowing it that the Earth and Heaven is flat, the argument you are now not addressing.

There are several models in the flat earth. My understanding is he's talking about the model with the canopy wrongly called the firmament. Just because he didn't represent your model doesn't mean he's lying.

Going on:
Using the map as a disprove of the earth being flat is fallacy - he is moving the goal post. All he is showing is that the map is wrong. Likewise for the corners of the earth - he did nothing to show that the gentiles or Jewish people were not there at the time in question.

Wait, how is he moving the goalposts? He's using one model to illustrate his point.

He does nothing to support his argument that "Earth" refers to the dry land despite this being easier to do. He draws parallels in English translations (like corners of your head) that don't exist in the original texts.

Which original text? And of course he'll use a English translation. He speaks English and by his channel name he believes in the KJV.

It is known that the Hebrew people believed the Earth was flat. Academics know this. The writers of the Bible knew this. He then goes on a tirade against the Academics and calls them all Jesus denying Jew wackos.

It's actually circular reasoning to say that. How do you know the Hebrews thought the earth is flat? Because that's what the texts says. How do you know that the text meant that the earth is flat? Because the Hebrews believe the earth is flat.

He tries to call meteors stars.

So does everybody else. Ever heard of a shooting star?

His rant on circles isn't correct. Circles can be drawn on surfaces. The edge of a surface is two dimensional. He goes on to call other people ignorant of geometry despite him being incorrect. He also misdefines a circle and tries to say its a sphere. Oh boy. Really?!

It doesn't even exists on paper. A true 2D shape would have length, with, and NO height whatsoever. The circle you drew is as tall as the thickness of the ink or pencil lead.

I can literally write another hour about all the mistakes he makes.

By all means.

He sees it fit to take 100 years of different flat earth models and smash them together as one, then complain of their inconsistency. Wow.

Actually he doesn't. He takes two models mainly as the most plausible. He can't represent all models and address each one.

That was a really disappointing hour.

It was really interesting to me.

Alright, it's been touched on here and there but no one recently made a thread discussing it. I challenge anyone to prove that the Bible speaks of a flat earth without any doubt and within context. Only use the KJV for reference that way we are on the same page.

how about isaiah 66:1..

he calls it a footstool.

a ball is not a footstool

He's not using one model to illustrate his points. He uses models spread over our 100 year history and presenting them as one, then complaining about how they are inconsistent and how we move the goal post. IN actuality, that is what he is doing. He takes two? Not at all. I see him throw around the Firmament, Rowbotham's Model, the Orlando Fergunson Model, and likely a few others that have escaped my memory. Even if he takes two, then why is he using their inconsistencies as an attack against the flat earth? Lying.

Hes moving the goalposts because the discussion is about whether the Bible talks of a flat earth. Not whether the Bible matches the models of Flatists. Not about whether our map matches biblical interpretation. And so on. Hypocrite.


Shooting stars are not stars and he did nothing to show the ancient Hebrews would have called them shooting stars. We are supposedly to take him on his word over gods literal word that he did not mean the stars would fall to earth (which would actually support his argument of a round earth with an expanding-collapsing Universe better than trying to recast God's Word to fit his personal point of view.) However, I'm willing to admit this one is a bit weak.

Answer my point which you have dodged again and again. This is the my one question, and the only one I'll put forth to you that I expect answer:

To reiterate:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Note he is clearly not saying (at least in KJV) that the waters are within the firmament or outside the firmament. They are above and below. To be below a spherical firmament means to be outside of the firmament. To be above it as well means to be outside of it. This makes no sense! The only interpretation that makes this sensible is the one in which the firmament is flat and thus has an 'above' and a 'below.'



Its not valid to say the firmament is above man here because man isn't even in the picture. The world is still being formed in fact.  It has no logical consistency to say the firmament is "above" whether you talk of the water above being a canopy or not, above the firmament is still outside the firmament. Below the Firmament is outside it as well. 

And in case I wasn't clear enough: there is no way that BELOW means WITHIN.

I agree with Jroa, this whole discussion is moot. By the time KJV was written it was in vogue to think that the world was round so they wrote out what they thought were rather embarrassing bits. It's like asking to find proofs for Lamarckism in a modern book on biology.

you guys do realize jesus was black and the bible was and is their history book. it was taken a translated to erase the idea??

you would think a community of people who collectively agree that there are lies in the world would suspect even that.

you guys do realize jesus was black and the bible was and is their history book. it was taken a translated to erase the idea??

you would think a community of people who collectively agree that there are lies in the world would suspect even that.

You do realize that the "Bible", as far as the Old Testament, was written thousands of years after the fact, and the New Testament was written at least 100 years after the fact.  I know you people think that the words spawned from God, but did you ever consider that they were just stories that change over the years?  We have almost 2 thousand years of written stories that do not jive, and we accept that stories change over the millenia these days, but you people seem to thing that the writings of monks who worked for the king of England 500 years ago must be the word of God from thousands of years ago. 

you guys do realize jesus was black and the bible was and is their history book. it was taken a translated to erase the idea??

you would think a community of people who collectively agree that there are lies in the world would suspect even that.

Umm, Jesus is a Jew. A Semite like everybody else in that region.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 09:33:15 AM

Alright, it's been touched on here and there but no one recently made a thread discussing it. I challenge anyone to prove that the Bible speaks of a flat earth without any doubt and within context. Only use the KJV for reference that way we are on the same page.

how about isaiah 66:1..

he calls it a footstool.

a ball is not a footstool

And he calls heaven his throne. Is heaven the literal shape of a throne? The earth as a footstool is describing function rather than shape.

Quote from: BoneandNacho on June 23, 2016, 06:51:45 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 09:33:15 AM

Alright, it's been touched on here and there but no one recently made a thread discussing it. I challenge anyone to prove that the Bible speaks of a flat earth without any doubt and within context. Only use the KJV for reference that way we are on the same page.

how about isaiah 66:1..

he calls it a footstool.

a ball is not a footstool

And he calls heaven his throne. Is heaven the literal shape of a throne? The earth as a footstool is describing function rather than shape.

How do you know? It's the important question.

He's not using one model to illustrate his points. He uses models spread over our 100 year history and presenting them as one, then complaining about how they are inconsistent and how we move the goal post. IN actuality, that is what he is doing.

The two that I'm reffering to is one map that's just a disc and another built like a block with a bowl in it with a hill.

He takes two? Not at all. I see him throw around the Firmament, Rowbotham's Model, the Orlando Fergunson Model, and likely a few others that have escaped my memory. Even if he takes two, then why is he using their inconsistencies as an attack against the flat earth? Lying.

Maybe because he considers them the most plausible. Besides, exactly how many models are there? I know that you have you infinate plane model which really doesn't add up but what else?

Hes moving the goalposts because the discussion is about whether the Bible talks of a flat earth. Not whether the Bible matches the models of Flatists. Not about whether our map matches biblical interpretation. And so on. Hypocrite.

Yet if there is no map that matches the Bible and science then it would undermine any Bible believing flat earther.

Shooting stars are not stars

Everyone knows that now. We have a different classification than ancient times. They would classify whales as large fish. They classify bats as fowl. It doesn't contradict science as its nothing more than a classification.

and he did nothing to show the ancient Hebrews would have called them shooting stars. We are supposedly to take him on his word over gods literal word that he did not mean the stars would fall to earth (which would actually support his argument of a round earth with an expanding-collapsing Universe better than trying to recast God's Word to fit his personal point of view.) However, I'm willing to admit this one is a bit weak.

Another explanation is Planet X. It is said that it has enough gravity to bend light and make the stars look like their falling.

Answer my point which you have dodged again and again. This is the my one question, and the only one I'll put forth to you that I expect answer:

I didn't dodged, at least on purpose. I try to answer as best as I can.

To reiterate:

Ok.

Quote

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

In the midst means in between. Which would be between the seas below and the canopy above.

Quote

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day[/size].

In the the very next verse it says "And God said, Let the waters UNDER the heaven (firmament) be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land appear: and it was so". So the waters below are the seas.

Note he is clearly not saying (at least in KJV) that the waters are within the firmament or outside the firmament. They are above and below. To be below a spherical firmament means to be outside of the firmament.

Why? God is speaking from earth's POV. Below the firmament would be on earth. This entire creation is from earth's POV. It is why the days are measured in earth days.

To be above it as well means to be outside of it. This makes no sense! The only interpretation that makes this sensible is the one in which the firmament is flat and thus has an 'above' and a 'below.'

See above.

Its not valid to say the firmament is above man here because man isn't even in the picture. The world is still being formed in fact.  It has no logical consistency to say the firmament is "above" whether you talk of the water above being a canopy or not, above the firmament is still outside the firmament. Below the Firmament is outside it as well.

Again, see above.

And in case I wasn't clear enough: there is no way that BELOW means WITHIN.

Yes it can when you are speaking from earth's POV.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 23, 2016, 11:32:24 AM

Quote from: BoneandNacho on June 23, 2016, 06:51:45 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 22, 2016, 09:33:15 AM

Alright, it's been touched on here and there but no one recently made a thread discussing it. I challenge anyone to prove that the Bible speaks of a flat earth without any doubt and within context. Only use the KJV for reference that way we are on the same page.

how about isaiah 66:1..

he calls it a footstool.

a ball is not a footstool

And he calls heaven his throne. Is heaven the literal shape of a throne? The earth as a footstool is describing function rather than shape.

How do you know? It's the important question.

Context. God has a throne IN heaven, heaven, as far as I can figure, isn't shaped like a throne. It's the same verbiage as the county seat. Is the entire city is shaped like a seat? Plus God can fit the entire universe in his hand and earth is rather small.

you asked for a verse.. that is a verse..

you just said as far as you can think.. well who the fuck are you?

i have to say i won't argue this further because for one.. the book is for and by Hebrews.. you are not a hebrew.. they are black skinned people..

i can tell you are white

also you are stealing their book and reading it.. you should stop making up your own gospel

you asked for a verse.. that is a verse..

you just said as far as you can think.. well who the fuck are you?

i have to say i won't argue this further because for one.. the book is for and by Hebrews.. you are not a hebrew.. they are black skinned people..

i can tell you are white

also you are stealing their book and reading it.. you should stop making up your own gospel

Are you saying the Bible is just for a one group of people with a certain skin pigment?

Who is actually allowed to contemplate the meaning of the Bible and discuss it?

What is God's intentions for inspiring people to write the Bible?  Is it just for a select few or for everyone? 

If not for everyone what religious text did God intend for people of European origin?

You can ask "well who the fuck are you?" to anyone that posted in this thread.  Depending on who raised them, the part of the world they were born and other factors people may result in different interpretations of the Bible and beliefs. 

I can ask,"Who you are and why your beliefs should be considered to be correct?"  Like me I suspect you are not perfect and all knowing.  Some of what you think is true is not, some of what I think is true is not.  Which suggest some of the more ambiguous verses in the Bible may be misinterpreted by either one of us.

My belief is the important part is to take the core teachings and do you best to apply them in your life.  That nowhere in the Bible does it absolutely state the shape of the Earth.

i am saying that.. because the bible says.. that..

and please don't ask me to show you where.. buy a bible.. talk to a hebrew..

im not your mom nor your white pastor.. i can't help you man.. ask seek and knock.

i did.

as soon as you tell someone that the bible is for the "chosen" people and that they shouldn't be reading it..

they get all bent out of shape.. why...

"because its for everyone.. I'm going to heaven too"

yeah okay guy.. whatever you say it is.. you're the god

as soon as you tell someone that the bible is for the "chosen" people and that they shouldn't be reading it..

they get all bent out of shape.. why...

"because its for everyone.. I'm going to heaven too"

yeah okay guy.. whatever you say it is.. you're the god

I actually agree with the part about the Bible saying the Word of God is for a select group. It is also why I do not take the Bible literally.  I accept it was written by people and is limited by what they were able to comprehend and influences of the time.

If I am wrong it means God does not really care for a large portion of the people on Earth. 

If I am right it means that God cares for everyone on Earth and wants his word to be heard by everyone. So he really does not care where someone was born, who that person's parents are and the pigment of their skin.

As for being bent out of shape about it you saying it is for a chosen people I am not.  I already stated you or I maybe wrong.

I also will point out you are not pointing anything out someone who has done a limited amount of research on the subject does not know already.  I know many people who accept Jesus was likely not white and was Jewish.  Many people are aware that the Jewish people are referred to as God's Chosen people.

The argument here is if the Bible is to be interpreted literally and if the writers were writing from their perspective.

Examples:

When you read history books written by Europeans it is likely written from a Eurocentric viewpoint. 

If you look at what different cultures viewed as the world it changes depending on their location and time period.  The more of the world they explored their world was larger, the less the smaller it was.

When you read things from people with little contact with other people and cultures they tend to write and think from their perspective.  Why do you think the Catholic Church portrayed Jesus as fair skinned?  It is what they knew and were comfortable with.  It is the same reason people are able to marginalize others and be convinced they are superior to them. It is a lack of knowledge and ignorance of those people.

Which makes me think the writers of the Bible may have been influenced by perspective.  They wrote about the world and people in it as they knew it.

he calls people by their fathers name..

the book has lots and i mean lots of records of birth lines..

not mention places where named after people..

not to mention nations is used over and over.. it means nationality..
which meant..

if you for example are a michaelite.. you are from a man named michael..

during history when people took over a place they would wipe out all the history of the people before it..

hebrews in the bible are the main character.. they turn into israelites.. that is who the bible is talking to.

not you.

put it down.

you asked for a verse.. that is a verse..

I asked for a verse so that way we can discuss its context, not blindly accept your interpretation

you just said as far as you can think.. well who in the world are you?

Myself.

i have to say i won't argue this further because for one.. the book is for and by Hebrews.. you are not a hebrew.. they are black skinned people..

1. The entire point of this thread is to debate whether the Bible says the earth is flat.

2. The book is made by Hebrews for everybody.

3. To say they are black is regionally and historically wrong. They came from the line of Shem who founded the orientals and Semites which would include Israel.

i can tell you are white

Your senses are wrong then. I'm black.

also you are stealing their book and reading it.. you should stop making up your own gospel

I'm not stealing anything. And what's wrong with reading it? And I'm not making up my own gospel. In fact the shape of the earth has nothing to do with the gospel.

There is no description of Jesus in the bible except in Revelation, it says he has a sword coming out or his mouth so obviously it's not meant to be taken literally, it says his hair is white as wool...not the texture of wool,it says his feet are like burnt bronze... Because earlier it describes him stamping out ashes.

We know where he was. He was on the surface of the waters, not talking from the point of view on Earth. When he talked in reference to the Earth, he did so mentioning the earth or Earth explicitly. Unfortunately, at that time it was without form and void - he was on the surface of the waters. If this was a globe, he would be outside the globe and water canopy.

If anything is clear, its clear that its not hard to interpret this either way thus putting the practice of biblical literal interpretation into question as a whole.