- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 4 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Genesis 1:1
You say that earth and heaven (including the sun, moon, and stars) were created by the end of Gen 1:1.
It says that God created the heavens and earth and these things are part of the heavens. So that is what the text says.
You suggest that despite the sun existing, a dense atmosphere kept the surface of the earth in darkness.
Okay, so when God said, “Let there be light” and separated the light from the darkness, what actually happened to make light reach the earth and break up the darkness?There are a number of possibilities but I will explain one that science seems onboard with.
One scientific explanation is volcanic eruptions spewed gases from Earth’s interior to the atmosphere, a process called outgassing. Most of the gas was carbon dioxide and water vapor. The water vapor eventually condensed to form part of Earth’s oceans as the surface cooled.
We also have an example of what earth conditions were like preceding the light that caused night and day. On Venus, the clouds are so thick that light cannot even pierce through them to light up the surface. That means if you were to stand on the surface of Venus, it would be fairly dark. And bear in mind that Venus is much closer to the Sun so it gets more light. And Venus is the brightest celestial object after the Sun and Moon because of this thick cloud layer which reflects light away from the surface.
And it should be mentioned that there could have been many ages / worlds on this planet with each ending in some kind of event that leaves the earth in chaos followed by God creating order. So when it says that in the beginning that God created the heavens and earth, the could have been a period between that and the darkness over the face of the earth which could be an event of some kind that led to the earth being covered in darkness.
Of course this is speculation as to what happened. But the text is clear. God created the heavens and earth in the beginning and then God brought order out of chaos or light when there was darkness.
I know you are trying your best to make the Bible not add up with the increased knowledge we have today, but I think your motivation is impure. That’s my opinion and it explains why you and gadam are buddies. His motivation to disprove the Bible is also not pure.
New no1 verse contenders for bible teaching a flat earth according to gadam
“And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come” (Jer 49:36, KJV).
“Son of man, this is what the Sovereign LORD says to the land of Israel: “The end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land!”” (Ezek 7:2).
“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree” (Rev 7:1; 20:8).Ah, the old four corners argument. Lol.
@gadam123, how many points on a compass?Four, right?
And the earth is still a globe right?
So if I travel north, south, east, or west, that is four directions right?
And the wind can come from the north, south, east, and west right?
See. You don’t need a flat earth now do you?
And the text doesn’t actually use the word ‘flat’ right?
Further, in the United States, the term “Four Corners” is used to describe a point where the boundaries of four states meet. There is only one such point in the entire nation. The four states that are part of this region are Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. So it was in the ancient world. In Mesopotamian tradition, the four corners are rivers flowing out of the garden of creation, which is the center of the world. They define the four corners of the world from the point of view of the Akkadians, the northern geographical horizon was marked by Subartu, the west by Mar.tu, the east by Elam and the south by Sumer;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_of_the_world
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Easy.
The Sinkhole Theory debunked
You mean the giant sinkhole in your image? Sinkholes happen all the time on the earth. Nothing needs to come through the firmament to cause them. Just because you’ve BEEN TOLD that this sinkhole is a “meteor blast” or whatever does not change the fact that it is, indeed, a sinkhole.
Bahahaha! You gotta stop this @mikeboll64.
I can only take so much laughing before I run out of oxygen.
I’ve seen sink holes and you wouldn’t walk across one.
These craters are the same things you see on The Moon or Mars.
But are you sure you want to stick to the sink holes explanation?
Because it does disprove your moon LED light theory after all.
Sink holes on the LED second light now? Lol.
If craters are sinkholes then that makes the moon terrafirma, meaning this theory debunks your other theory.
Congrats on your spectacular own goal. You now have to admit your wrong with at least one of your theories.
Anyway, we are getting showered by meteors here in NZ at the moment. (Not sure if this is world wide.)
But what would happen if one of these was really big?
It might be too big to completely burn up and it would certainly leave a crater right?
Food for thought Mike?
I will give you a chance to change your stance on this one before annihilating you with further facts.
If you can’t admit your error directly to me because of pride, then post a pic of a white flag. That will suffice.
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Easy.
PS. As a bonus point, Mike debunked himself as he contradicts the LED Moon Theory (LMT) by indirectly saying that the moon has sinkholes.
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Zero effort.
Pillars of the Earth theory debunked again
Foundation Texts“In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Ps 102:25; see also 104:2; 93:1).
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them” (1 Sam 2:8, KJV).
“Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together (Isa 48:13; see also Zech 12:1).Hi @gadam123, I am pretty sure that I debunked this one earlier. Maybe you missed it. Read on.
When people in the Bible use the phrase the pillars of the earth, they are not giving a scientific description of the shape of the world. The Bible does not teach that the earth sits on literal pillars, stilts, or elephants. Pillars simply denote foundations. This can even be applied to people who are foundations of their society, culture, church, kingdom. Carnal mindedness tends to take a physical meaning to everything. Remember when Jesus said, you must be born again. Well a carnal minded Pharisee asked if he needed to crawl back into my mother’s womb. This is what you are like gadam. You cannot even drink the milk of the word. It makes you choke. Read on and learn if you can digest it.
Revelation. 3:12
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it anymoreGalatians 2:9
James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.Psalm 144:12
Let our sons in their youth be as grown-up plants, And our daughters as corner pillars fashioned as for a palace;DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Easy.
As for Genesis 1:20, try a better translation…
Douay-Rheims Bible
God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
The mistaken KJV translation was corrected in the NKJV…
King James Bible
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of heaven.”pə·nê — 266 Occurrences
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/penei_6440.htmGenesis 1:2
HEB: וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ
NAS: was over the surface of the deep,
KJV: and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
INT: and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the SpiritGenesis 1:2
HEB: מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
NAS: over the surface of the waters.
KJV: moved upon the face of the waters.
INT: was moving over the surface of the watersGenesis 1:20
HEB: הָאָ֔רֶץ עַל־ פְּנֵ֖י רְקִ֥יעַ הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
NAS: the earth in the open expanse
KJV: the earth in the open firmament
INT: the earth above the open expanse of the heavensGenesis 1:29
HEB: אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י כָל־ הָאָ֔רֶץ
NAS: seed that is on the surface of all
KJV: seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth,
INT: which is on the surface of all the earthGenesis 2:6
HEB: אֶֽת־ כָּל־ פְּנֵֽי־ הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: the whole surface of the ground.
KJV: and watered the whole face of the ground.
INT: and water the whole surface of the groundGenesis 4:14
HEB: הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ
NAS: me this day from the face of the ground;
KJV: this day from the face of the earth;
INT: day and from the face of the ground your faceGenesis 6:1
HEB: לָרֹ֖ב עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת
NAS: to multiply on the face of the land,
KJV: on the face of the earth,
INT: to multiply on the face of the land and daughtersGenesis 6:7
HEB: בָּרָ֙אתִי֙ מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה מֵֽאָדָם֙
NAS: I have created from the face of the land,
KJV: whom I have created from the face of the earth;
INT: have created from the face of the land manGenesis 7:3
HEB: זֶ֖רַע עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י כָל־ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
NAS: alive on the face of all
KJV: alive upon the face of all the earth.
INT: offspring on the face of all the earthGenesis 7:4
HEB: עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: and I will blot out from the face of the land
KJV: from off the face of the earth.
INT: have made out the face of the landGenesis 7:18
HEB: הַתֵּבָ֖ה עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
NAS: floated on the surface of the water.
KJV: went upon the face of the waters.
INT: and the ark on the surface of the waterGenesis 7:23
HEB: אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה מֵאָדָ֤ם
NAS: living thing that was upon the face of the land,
KJV: was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
INT: that was upon the face of the land manGenesis 8:8
HEB: הַמַּ֔יִם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: was abated from the face of the land;
KJV: were abated from off the face of the ground;
INT: the water from the face of the landGenesis 8:9
HEB: מַ֖יִם עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י כָל־ הָאָ֑רֶץ
NAS: for the water was on the surface of all
KJV: for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth:
INT: the water was on the surface of all the earthGenesis 8:13
HEB: וְהִנֵּ֥ה חָֽרְב֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: and behold, the surface of the ground
KJV: and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground
INT: and behold was dried the surface of the groundSo Mike. Birds fly:
- in the open firmament
- over the firmament
- across the firmament
- on the firmament
- on the surface of the firmament.
Not looking great for the glass dome theory is it Mike? It gets worse the more you look into it.
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Medium.
Flat Earth Motors
This hodgepodge of a car looks like Mater from the kids movie, Cars. It reminds me of Flat Earth theory which is a hodgepodge of theories when combined are worse than this Mater looking car. At least this car might work, unlike all the flat earth theories and points that are not cohesive.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT FLAT EARTH THEORIES ?
Against the background of declining confidence in the elites—be they political, religious or scientific—the flat earth theory has lately been revived and promoted by a wave of fake news and misinformation that circulates on social media. Unfortunately, it has been noted that many Christians have become swept up in this trend, using shaky theology to argue their points. For Christians who claim that the Earth is flat, a single Bible verse is considered superior to any number of scientific arguments.
In response to the concerning trend we see here, this article will focus on some of the Bible verses most frequently referenced by Christian proponents of the flat earth theory. There are teachers and theologians who have carefully analysed the subject and their conclusions are worth the attention of honest and open-minded Christians investigating this topic. Two such men are Dr Danny Faulkner, a creationist who specializes in mathematics and physics and has a PhD in astronomy, and Dr Randal Younker, professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity at Andrews University, USA.
The four corners of the Earth
There are three verses in the Bible that are often quoted by Christian proponents of the flat earth theory. The first, Revelation 7:1, states: “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree”. The repetition of the number four creates an obvious connection between the four angels, the four corners of the earth and the four cardinal points from which the winds are about to blow: North, South, East, and West. As Faulkner points out, not even a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible can disregard the symbolism of the book of Revelation. “The four corners of the earth” is an expression which is widely used in different languages, but always with the same meaning: to indicate the farthest points on earth or a great distance, not literal corners.This is also the context in which the expression appears in the second verse that is often cited, Revelation 20:8 which states that the devil will “will go out to deceive the nationsin the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore”. The fact that the same sentence also mentions the number of people in the four corners as being as numerous as “the sand on the seashore” supports a non-literal understanding of the text. The alternative is to believe that the text speaks of four literal corners containing a number of people mathematically equal to the sum of the grains of sand on all the shores of the world.
The final time this expression is used is in Isaiah 11:12, which speaks of God bringing the Israelites together, stating “He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth”. In many other cases in which the expression appears in the Bible, there is talk not of a place but of the people who live in faraway lands, thus strengthening the non-literal understanding of the expression. Once the idiomatic use of the expression in a passage is acknowledged, it is hard to claim that in other similar situations it is used differently.
In some translations of the Bible, mentions of the four corners of the earth appear almost 30 times and, if understood literally, would not only suggest that the earth is flat but also that it is square. There is no cosmology in which the earth is square. Not even followers of the flat earth theory claim such a thing. This once again highlights the non-literal interpretation of the phrase.
The flat surface of the Earth
How can you tell if the earth is flat or round? According to some flat-earthers, if you climb to the highest central point and you can see everything to the end of the earth, then it is flat. This idea of “the ends of the earth” is mentioned in the Bible, which says in Daniel 4:10-11: “These are the visions I saw while lying in bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.” On a round earth it would not be possible for such a tree to be visible from everywhere on earth. Does this Bible verse then say that the earth is flat?In reality, the text does not refer to a physical reality; rather it is the description of a dream of king Nebuchadnezzar. As we know, dreams do not abide by the laws of physics. The Bible is actually very clear about this passage. The dream, as interpreted by Daniel, refers to something completely different to a physical tree on earth. The tree in the dream is actually Nebuchadnezzar himself.
Another Bible passage which is interpreted in a similar way is the one in Matthew 4, in which Jesus, tempted by the Devil in the desert, is at some point brought to “a very high mountain” where the Devil showed Him “all the kingdoms of the world”. The same logic we applied to the tall tree also applies here; if the whole Earth could be seen from the top of a mountain we would conclude that the Earth is flat. However, if there was a literal mountain from which the entire Earth could be seen in Jesus time, where is this mountain now and why can’t anybody see it? There is no evidence in Palestine’s geography for the existence of a mountain higher than any other mountain in the world. We must recognise that the situation recounted in the Gospels includes supernatural elements, something Luke also alludes to when he says that the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world “in an instant”.
The firmament
In the cosmology of the flat Earth, the disk-shaped planet is covered by a dome whose edges stop just beyond the 45-meter-high ice wall of Antarctica, which surrounds the Earth. The stars are fixed on this dome, while the sun and moon, which are only about 50 kilometres in diameter, revolve about 5,000 kilometres above the Earth.The idea of this dome is born at the intersection of three arguments, Professor Younker explains: 1. raqia, the Hebrew word used for “sky” in Genesis 1 would somehow imply the need for a solid, metal-like material; 2. subsequent translations of the biblical term in the Greek (stereoma) and Latin (firmamentum) versions keep the idea of a solid material; 3. ancient Jews would have supported this cosmology like their Mesopotamian neighbours.
Let’s look at the three arguments starting from the second one. Most likely, raqia was translated into Greek and from there into Latin so as to preserve the meaning of a solid object because this meaning suited the cosmology of the Greeks, the scientists of the time. We must not ignore who made these translations. The first versions of the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek) were ordered by Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, the son of the founder of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, for the famous library in Alexandria.
Starting in the 6th century BC the Greeks based their distances on the models of the disk-shaped planet and were evolving to the sphere model (not half spheres or domes). Therefore, the idea that the Earth was contained in one or more solid spheres was common in the academic environment in Alexandria when the Septuagint was translated “and is undoubtedly the main factor (rather than etymology) in translators choosing the word stereoma to translate raqia,” professor Younker says.
Regarding the first argument, it must be mentioned that in Hebrew, the verb raqa, which is a derivative of the noun raqia, points to the actions of making something thin by stretching it and has no intrinsic meaning which would make someone think about a form or a material (for instance, metal). Raqa is used as a verb for objects like tent cloths and other fabrics for which the idea of stretching actually makes sense. Dr. Faulkner explains that this is why modern theologians have concluded that raqia must be translated “sky”—a vast expanse of space that includes not only the Sun and the Moon, but also the Earth’s atmosphere in which birds fly—since Genesis 1:14 and 1:20 both use the same word, raqia, to refer to the two different situations.
The third argument, according to which ancient Jews would have had the same cosmology as their Mesopotamian neighbours, namely, that the Earth is flat and covered by a solid dome, is twice wrong. First of all this argument is wrong because Mesopotamians, although they supported the flat Earth theory, never talked about a dome. This incorrect idea was introduced in 1850 by Hormuzd Rasam and used by other historians who, at that time, were trying to sketch the landscape of ancient cosmologies. According to them, during their Babylonian exile Jews would have assimilated these ideas into their cosmology. However, in 1975—when specialist in Assyriology, W.G. Lambert tried to establish the origin of the idea that the Babylonians believed that the Earth was covered by a dome—Lambert did not find any historical proof until the works of Assyriology specialists in the second half of the 19th century, the first ones to translate the Babylonian word for sky as “celestial vault”. On the contrary, the Babylonians saw the cosmos as a series of objects, flat layers piled up one on top of the other and held together by ropes, with no mention of a tri-dimensional dome. “The reality is that there is no term to describe a celestial vault in ancient Mesopotamia,” Younker says.
The second error is to assume, without valid historical arguments, that we know what kind of cosmology ancient Jews used. The oldest Jewish writings on this topic date from the medieval period and reflect the cosmology of that time, namely geocentrism, Faulkner says. Therefore, at the time the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) was written we can, at most, only assume what the Hellenized Jews in the diaspora believed. Since many of them lived in Alexandria, Egypt, one of the educational and cultural centres of the Greek world, they most likely assimilated the translation raqia with stereoma—not, however, the meaning only introduced in the 1850s, of stereoma as a dome, but the meaning understood by the Greeks of that time: a spherical Earth contained in solid spheres.
The Bible on the flat Earth theory: a history
Perhaps the final argument from the flat Earth camp is that up until 500 years ago the church supported the model of a flat Earth, as many still do today. Again, this is wrong.As we will see shortly, the church never claimed that the Earth is flat, but supported the theory of geocentrism—which says that the Earth stands still and the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around it—placing humans at the centre of creation. This generated the conflict between heliocentrist Galilelo Galilei and the church. So where did this long-standing false idea of a conflict between Christianity and science on this point come from? It comes from an attempt to discredit the Bible at the end of the 19th century, Faulkner says.
If you are familiar with the Flammarion engraving, a very well-known illustration of the flat Earth covered by a dome, you might believe it originates in the medieval period but it actually dates from the 1880s. Such illustrations—of a religious or scientific origin—are almost non-existent in the medieval period, because during the Middle Ages almost nobody believed in the flat Earth theory, not even the church leaders. Therefore, if the proponents of the flat Earth theory are geocentrists, it is important to know that from a historical point of view the converse is not true.
A possible explanation for the geocentric model remaining as the preferred model for such a long time—although the Greeks developed, almost in parallel, geocentric and heliocentric cosmological models—is that the technology of the time was not advanced enough to provide evidence in favour of the heliocentric model. For observers in that time, the Sun and planets seemed to revolve around a stationary Earth. Without an external reference point, any observer might draw a similar conclusion even today—for instance, a passenger in a moving train carriage might believe that the train on the next line is the one that actually started moving. The idea that the heliocentric theory had supporters everywhere, except in the church, is completely false. Copernicus dedicated his famous work on heliocentrism to Pope Paul the second.
Conclusion
There are a number things that we can learn from this history, Faulkner says. The Bible does not promote a specific cosmology. It is people who put together different passages to make up a cosmology. The fact that it does not promote a specific cosmology may even be a good thing. If the Scriptures supported a specific cosmology, ancient or modern, those who believed otherwise would have had reason to renounce the Bible. Some do this today because they learn from unreliable sources that the Bible teaches the flat Earth theory. However, as discussed above, this is not what the Bible teaches but what people have read into it. Some do it knowingly, others not, and others, instead of using an exegetical approach (that is, critically examining the Bible to understand the context and meaning of the verses), use an eisegetical approach; that is, they introduce new meanings from external sources into Scripture. At the same time, a reader of the Bible must not stop at exegesis, but must always seek to understand what the message of the text is for the contemporary reader, and this implies understanding the right principles of interpretation for the text that is being analysed.At the end of this brief review of the main arguments that the Bible supports the flat Earth theory, we can draw a sufficiently clear conclusion: the Bible does not promote a specific cosmological model—the flat or round Earth, geocentrism or heliocentrism—and the conflict on cosmological models between science and religion, although having a rich history, is still an artificial one.
Just as false is the assumption that the church rejected heliocentrism based only on biblical arguments. The church (both Catholics and Protestants) rejected the theory of heliocentrism because it was contrary to the science of the time and did not offer comprehensive and satisfactory answers. The geocentric model had dominated the world for more than 1500 years and made sense, according to what could be observed prior to the invention of the telescope. As the Greeks before them, neither Copernicus nor Galileo Galilei managed to solve the severe flaws in the heliocentric model, due to the lack of a more advanced technology. While problems still existed on an empirical level, however, their calculation models for determining the position of the planets were advanced. Unfortunately, the limitations of direct observation at the time prevented these beliefs from becoming scientific consensus. Therefore, 60 years after Copernicus had published his theory, only ten other authors with supportive works had emerged.
It would have been a big leap of faith for the church to give up geocentrism when not even the scientific world had reached a positive consensus. Let us remember that it was a period in which individual interpretations of Scripture was a delicate subject for the Catholic Church, which had just gone through the Protestant Reformation. This is why, when it hit the theological arena, the debate of Galileo’s ideas ended the way it did. Meanwhile, technology proved Galilelo right, and geocentric systems have been, for the most part, forgotten. Only much later did the Catholic Church admit its guilt in one of the more infamous incidents in its history….link https://signsofthetimes.org.au/2021/05/flat-earth-theory-and-the-bible/
Hi Mike,
The article “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”
has many great arguments.
What I’m going to say is hard for me but I will say it anyway:
At this time, I’m no longer convinced that our earth is a globe!
Argument 15 got me thinking.
I will share this argument in the following post.15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
How does the sun in the flat earth manage to illuminate the Earth in this way during the December solstice? Does the light bend around the areas that have night to the other side?
The Devil showed Him “all the kingdoms of the world”
Another Bible passage which is interpreted in a similar way is the one in Matthew 4, in which Jesus, tempted by the Devil in the desert, is at some point brought to “a very high mountain” where the Devil showed Him “all the kingdoms of the world”.
gadam, a quick glance in your post show much regurgitated content that has been debunked in this topic.
This is the old ‘Jesus saw all the kingdoms argument’.
This one is easy. You cannot see all the kingdoms of planet earth on a flat earth either.
Once again, a carnal interpretation when it seems clear that either Jesus was given a vision of all the kingdoms or that he saw the four corners of the earth, a term to describe the ancient four kingdoms in that area of the world as coined by the Akkadians to describe the four quadrants that existed.
Going up a high mountain was not to get a better view, but is what Jesus did when he went to pray to the Father.
In other words, to get away from it all and get some solitude in order to pray or even have an encounter with the Devil as this text says. This is not on any level, text that teaches or supposes the flat earth model. If I said in 2 hours that the Sun will go down, does that mean that I believe the Sun will burn my feet?
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULLTY: Easy.
The large strong tree
This idea of “the ends of the earth” is mentioned in the Bible, which says in Daniel 4:10-11: “These are the visions I saw while lying in bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.” On a round earth it would not be possible for such a tree to be visible from everywhere on earth. Does this Bible verse then say that the earth is flat?
Another easy one to answer.
When the Bible talks about kingdoms of the world / earth, it is not talking about the planet. Earth for example just means land, but those ignorant think it means what we call earth today, the whole planet.
The bible says that the Roman Empire will trample the whole earth. It simply means the area of the Middle East and Europe that exist around Israel. If you stand in Israel and look to the four corners or four points of the compass, then you will see all the earth / world in the context of that time.
The bible is a book where the central focus is the area around the Great Sea, the Mediterranean.
When you apply your cultural understanding of the world and earth today, you see the planet. But that is not how the earth was looked at back then. It was the land in this area. Beyond that, they didn’t know what existed.
Now to the tree. Without studying the verse, a tree often refers to a kingdom or king. So this tree grew, it was strong. It had roots in the four corners of the world. Once again, this is simply talking about this area of the world.
Even the prophecies in the Book of Revelation are focussed on the area around the Great Sea, the Mediterranean. It is when you apply your world view that thing go awry.
As for the rest of your post, I will not address as it would take too long. But I am happy to address two points from it that you choose.
But in future, could I ask you to keep the posts to one point? Just dumping an essay of text that takes you 1 minute might take me 5 hours to address. It is a lazy way for you to have a conversation or debate.
Please be considerate in future.
Cheers.
Hilarious @dannyd. This really challenged you and made you doubt? Wow.
Planes fly by altitude and air pressure. So yes, if the plane follows that, then it will fly around a globe.
But on a flat earth, if you travel west say from Australia to South America for example, then the pilot has to constantly adjust the plane to the right or left when following latitude, otherwise they will hit the ice wall or dome if they head in a straight line. And the pilot would have to intentionally do this because the plane is not guided by altitude or air pressure, just intentional deception.
If you doubt the globe for the reason you stated, then all the more the flat earth should be doubted for a similar but much more prominent reason. Look at the constant turning that a pilot has to make to go from Australia and South America. And by the way, the distances in the Southern Hemisphere where I live are not that big. I live here, I visit these places. I am a witness.
PS. If the flat earth were true, to save fuel and time, why not fly from Australia to South America via the North Pole? Are these airlines trying to make a profit or not?
Mike: You say that earth and heaven (including the sun, moon, and stars) were created by the end of Gen 1:1.
Proclaimer: It says that God created the heavens and earth and these things are part of the heavens. So that is what the text says.
Actually, it says “heaven”, not “heavens”. Secondly, you assume – for no valid reason – that the creation of heaven INCLUDES all the things currently IN heaven. Of course you DON’T assume that the creation of earth INCLUDES all of the things currently on the earth, right? So your bias and lack of cognitive ability are on display when you pick and choose which thing you’re going to understand one way, and which thing you’re going to understand in the completely opposite way.
But more on that later…
Mike: You suggest that despite the sun existing, a dense atmosphere kept the surface of the earth in darkness.
Okay, so when God said, “Let there be light” and separated the light from the darkness, what actually happened to make light reach the earth and break up the darkness?
Proclaimer: There are a number of possibilities but I will explain one that science seems onboard with.
One scientific explanation is volcanic eruptions spewed gases from Earth’s interior to the atmosphere, a process called outgassing. Most of the gas was carbon dioxide and water vapor. The water vapor eventually condensed to form part of Earth’s oceans as the surface cooled.
We also have an example of what earth conditions were like preceding the light that caused night and day. On Venus, the clouds are so thick that light cannot even pierce through them to light up the surface. That means if you were to stand on the surface of Venus, it would be fairly dark. And bear in mind that Venus is much closer to the Sun so it gets more light. And Venus is the brightest celestial object after the Sun and Moon because of this thick cloud layer which reflects light away from the surface.
And it should be mentioned that there could have been many ages / worlds on this planet with each ending in some kind of event that leaves the earth in chaos followed by God creating order. So when it says that in the beginning that God created the heavens and earth, the could have been a period between that and the darkness over the face of the earth which could be an event of some kind that led to the earth being covered in darkness.
Of course this is speculation as to what happened. But the text is clear. God created the heavens and earth in the beginning and then God brought order out of chaos or light when there was darkness.
Proclaimer, I wasn’t able to find an actual answer to my question anywhere in your post. I’m pretty sure that you’re not saying volcanic eruptions are what allowed the light to hit the earth, right? I’m not asking what happened to PROHIBIT the light from hitting the earth, but what happened to ALLOW the light to hit the earth. What is your direct (and please God, SUCCINCT) answer to the question I actually asked?
Proclaimer: Genesis 1:2
HEB: וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ
NAS: was over the surface of the deep,
KJV: and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
INT: and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the SpiritGenesis 1:2
HEB: מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
NAS: over the surface of the waters.
KJV: moved upon the face of the waters.
INT: was moving over the surface of the watersGenesis 1:20
HEB: הָאָ֔רֶץ עַל־ פְּנֵ֖י רְקִ֥יעַ הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
NAS: the earth in the open expanse
KJV: the earth in the open firmament***************************
INT: the earth above the open expanse of the heavensGenesis 1:29
HEB: אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י כָל־ הָאָ֔רֶץ
NAS: seed that is on the surface of all
KJV: seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth,
INT: which is on the surface of all the earthGenesis 2:6
HEB: אֶֽת־ כָּל־ פְּנֵֽי־ הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: the whole surface of the ground.
KJV: and watered the whole face of the ground.
INT: and water the whole surface of the groundGenesis 4:14
HEB: הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ
NAS: me this day from the face of the ground;
KJV: this day from the face of the earth;
INT: day and from the face of the ground your faceGenesis 6:1
HEB: לָרֹ֖ב עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת
NAS: to multiply on the face of the land,
KJV: on the face of the earth,
INT: to multiply on the face of the land and daughtersGenesis 6:7
HEB: בָּרָ֙אתִי֙ מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה מֵֽאָדָם֙
NAS: I have created from the face of the land,
KJV: whom I have created from the face of the earth;
INT: have created from the face of the land manGenesis 7:3
HEB: זֶ֖רַע עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י כָל־ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
NAS: alive on the face of all
KJV: alive upon the face of all the earth.
INT: offspring on the face of all the earthGenesis 7:4
HEB: עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: and I will blot out from the face of the land
KJV: from off the face of the earth.
INT: have made out the face of the landGenesis 7:18
HEB: הַתֵּבָ֖ה עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
NAS: floated on the surface of the water.
KJV: went upon the face of the waters.
INT: and the ark on the surface of the waterGenesis 7:23
HEB: אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה מֵאָדָ֤ם
NAS: living thing that was upon the face of the land,
KJV: was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
INT: that was upon the face of the land manGenesis 8:8
HEB: הַמַּ֔יִם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: was abated from the face of the land;
KJV: were abated from off the face of the ground;
INT: the water from the face of the landGenesis 8:9
HEB: מַ֖יִם עַל־ פְּנֵ֣י כָל־ הָאָ֑רֶץ
NAS: for the water was on the surface of all
KJV: for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth:
INT: the water was on the surface of all the earthGenesis 8:13
HEB: וְהִנֵּ֥ה חָֽרְב֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
NAS: and behold, the surface of the ground
KJV: and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground
INT: and behold was dried the surface of the groundSo Mike. Birds fly:
in the open firmament
over the firmament
across the firmament
on the firmament
on the surface of the firmament.Not looking great for the glass dome theory is it Mike? It gets worse the more you look into it.
Your lack of cognitive abilities is on display again. Look through the list YOU posted as some kind of proof. Look at the words I made blue. In every single instance the KJV translates the Hebrew word as “THE FACE”… except for one (which I made pink).
Proclaimer, WHY do you think the KJV does NOT translate that same Hebrew word as “THE FACE” in that one single instance? I don’t have an answer for that discrepancy – but I know that the NKJV fixed the problem…
Genesis 1:20 New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across THE FACE of the firmament of the heavens.”This is the second scripture you listed (and the second verse in the Bible)…
Genesis 1:2… And the Spirit of God was hovering over THE FACE of the waters.
1. Notice that the Spirit was not IN the body of water, but instead hovering OVER the FACE (ie: surface) of the water. In this case, the water is below, and so the meaning is not that the Spirit was UNDER the waters, but hovering OVER the FACE (the uppermost top part) of them.
2. In Genesis 1:20, birds are said to fly, not IN the firmament – but ACROSS/AGAINST the FACE (ie: surface) of it. In this case, the firmament is above, and so the meaning is not that the birds fly IN or ABOVE the firmament, but UNDER the FACE (the lowermost bottom part) of it.
The only thing your verses showed is that the KJV properly translated FACE in every one of those scriptures except Gen 1:20. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they butchered 1:20. Thankfully, the NKJV fixed the error.
Proclaimer, have you ever heard of a self-professed Christian organization called “BioLogos”? They are right up your alley… scientists who have been trying for years to align the Bible with deep time big bang heliocentric Scientism. Please read this short article on the firmament (and Gen 1:20) from one of their scientists…
The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid, But That’s Not the Point
I see. The waters were on the face and plants and seeds on the face of the earth.
And birds fly across the face.
So they are flying over the dome.
Interesting.
Don’t forget to put a bird outside the dome in your flat earth model.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
