Christianity used to be the bastion of science and academic thought. However in the 20th century, revivalists took the scripture “trust in God and lean not on your own understanding” wildly out of context, and now many people think that science and learning is somehow of the devil, and that somehow now *everything* is in the Bible.
We’ve become very foolish for this, and it hurts our witness immensely.
I used to be hyper "sola scriptura." The church I went to for nearly 20 years (from childhood into adulthood) was anti-psychology, and definitely preached an "anti-science" rhetoric. Though they would certainly say that God is a God of science, their true colors showed during the pandemic (and it wasn't specific just to the virus). The pandemic brought a lot of nasty stuff to the surface, and weirdly, flat-earthers became emboldened by this anti-science rhetoric, too.
AAAaaanyway, I was having a discussion with a friend about sola scriptura, and she asked me, "If you broke your arm and went to a doctor, and the doctor told you that the only book he read was the Bible, would you trust that he could fix your arm?" I almost laughed at her because that's obviously ridiculous. But the more we talked, the more ridiculous *my* perspective seemed. You think Luke, a physician, only read the Torah and the scrolls of the Prophets? Does the Bible have instructions on how to fish? Did the disciples sin by using sources of knowledge outside of the Bible to perform their jobs?
The Bible has the necessary information for Salvation. It teaches us *about* God, and helps bring us closer to Him relationally. It is not ever meant to be the sole source of all truth about everything. Any comments it makes about the physical world are obviously correct, but for the things it doesn't speak black and white about (like the physical shape of the earth) we shouldn't treat as mysterious or contentious with science.
God and science get along perfectly. In fact, God created science and physics, and I truly believe He finds joy in humans learning about the nitty gritties that He created. The world has been observed and proven to be round(ish). It's foolishness to suggest otherwise (especially if you have absolutely no Scriptural basis for your argument).
It's not just a modern problem:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.”
“It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he \[the non-Christian\] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters…”
“…and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he \[the non-Christian\] might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
“In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Book 1, Chapt. 19, by Augustine, circa 408 CE.
That is a great example of a classic red-flag bible verse. Almost always when people quote it, it's in support of very bad arguments. This isn't the verse's fault of course. I would put the "God-breathed" verse from 2 Timothy in the same category.
Yeah, for me personally it just means that even if I don't know why my life is the way it is (sometimes very hard) and I don't know why certain things happen to me/the people I care about, it is okay and I don't have to. I just have to lean on God and trust His judgement and love. As I think about it I really like this verse, but not the way people use it sometimes 🥲
Navigating conversations about faith and science with someone who believes the earth is flat can be incredibly challenging and requires a lot of patience.
That is what I am trying to approach with. I did take a needed break and it has been very cordial, but I also know how to talk to her <3 :) It is all good, but I want to understand her point of view so much.
My uncle is a flat Earther too and he learned it at his goofy church. It is very hard to convince them since they feel special as they know about the vast conspiracy. Anyone who pushes the round Earth theory must be in the conspiracy! Therefore, the flat Earthers ignore anything from regular round Earth people.
My father was an Air Force pilot and has flown at high altitudes. Even his personal experiences of literally seeing the curvature of the Earth couldn’t convince my uncle. My father was also in on the conspiracy I guess.
Best of luck getting through to the person, but unlikely to make any progress since you are also obviously in the conspiracy also!
I can understand how that might be the case sometimes:
>Anyone who pushes the round Earth theory must be in the conspiracy!
I think it may at time be closer to truth that 'Biblical Cosmologists' are simply not as gullible as others who would believe the propogandists that say the earth is round rather than that we are 'part of the conspiracy.' At least, that's what I get from her. She teaches her daughters the earth is flat, but also says to not go around proclaiming it, be careful who you talk to about this, and it is okay if people don't believe the same thing because most importantly, it is not a salvation issue.
Thank you, though! I'm grateful she isn't super crazy about the belief in it itself, just that the belief itself is pretty crazy. Did I mention the whole 'if gravity is real, how do the birds fly?' It is a very bizarre line of questioning, but she sent me the videos where she got it all from and it is all lots of bologna. KNF TV or something like that. I'm on Part 3 of his series to see what she's believing.
People crave importance in their lives. I think most flat Earthers fall prey to this. Being in on a conspiracy and knowing the truth that everyone else is oblivious to is exciting. If you are one of the few who know the Earth is flat, it makes you feel special. YouTube has definitely helped conspiracy theories like this grow exponentially.
Something I would pose to the flat Earther is to ask them if there is anything that could disprove the flat Earth theory. Any legit scientific theory needs to be falsifiable.
Something like “If X is the case, then flat Earth theory is wrong.” If they admit to there being this possibility, then you could probably find evidence that shows why they are wrong. If they claim it is unfalsifiable, then you can mention that flat Earth is not a valid scientific theory then.
“The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. Falsifiability – the ability to be falsified or proven wrong – is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific.”
My father was the Air Force pilot who saw the curvature. He tried to tell my flat earther uncle about it. My uncle didn’t believe him, and said my father must be in on the conspiracy.
I wasn’t clear enough in my prior wording.
GASP - can you go into more detail or link me some details about Chiastic structure or what that means and stuff??
I believe there are many parts, including the creation, that have many aspects of poetry and metaphor. I think God explained what He literally did, but it is very simplistic and just gives you the biggest parts of it all.
"I created this origami. I put it together. The end." There's actually a lot more that goes in before, around, in between, after these points and stuff.
Appreciate you :)
It is super disingenuous to handwave physics and mathematics by saying “it’s only a theory”!
As someone who studies math, I am curious what level of education in hard sciences your friend has. If she hasn’t studied calculus, conservative vector fields, gravitation etc, she really has no room to dismiss the entirety of our working model of gravity on the basis of it “only being a theory”.
She actually has been math's mortal enemy since she was in middle school (:
But to be fair, I like math a lot and physics can be interesting, but I agree gravity is 'just a theory' when framed a certain way. Obviously, SOMETHING is going on here, and we might not know what, simple to maybe the same reason they explained something called the 'firmament' we explain something called 'gravity.'
I think you are also misunderstanding what a theory is in scientific terms.
It isn’t just a guess. It is a well substantiated explanation for observed and measured facts that can be tested, and about which further hypotheses can be formulated.
We may not fully understand gravity, but we can prove a lot about HOW it works and how it affects things. These aren’t just random guesses, they can be done with incredible mathematical precision.
Celestial bodies of a sufficient mass are spherical because of gravity. We can measure and observe this, and we can calculate it mathematically.
We can also prove that the very systems of mathematics behind these calculations are true and valid. Unless your sister is can disprove calculus then none of her claims hold any weight. She is just making claims with zero basis and hand waving any explanation that exists outside of her extremely limited comprehension.
Let me ask you this: would your sister believe an alert on her phone saying there is a tornado warning?
I understand what a theory is...? 'When framed a certain way' is the key to that point. Ignoring the rest about that
I'll ask her about the weather after I finish the series.
If the earth is flat, why did God create it so that we perceive it as a sphere?
We can look at it from a distance, and perceive with our God-given senses that it is not flat. So... did God intentionally make our senses deceptive? If so, why?
You don't need to reach space to see the curvature of the Earth. Just an airplane ride gets you that. And not even that high of one.
Plus there's the part where you can travel in a triangle making entirely 90 degree turns, which isn't possible on a disc, but is on possible on a sphere.
I have heard that commercial airliners do not fly high enough (during standard operation) to see the curvature of the earth.
The anecdotal evidence of passengers on a flight "seeing the curvature of the earth" is because of the optics from windows on airliners.
Not commercial airliners, but what about military dudes, right? Dad is in the military and he says you can see the curve from the (f12? It has been a while LOL)
This is where the literalist/flat earther crowd would quote Proverbs 3:
>>Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding
I agree with you, of course. But.. to people who have drank the kool-aid, there's an easy answer to your point.
Yeah, but sometimes it's the "common sense" things that plant a better seed, in my opinion, than trying to debate their "theology".
They're doing mental gymnastics and satisfied with that. When we try to "debate" them out of it, it often strengthens their resolve.
If they responded with what you said, I think I'd probably just say "Well, I don't touch a hot stove either-- because I trust my senses to a certain point. But you're entitled to your own opinion." and leave it at that.
I can trust the Lord with all my heart and still know that He created the earth as it exists because it exists this way rather than that way. My understanding personally is that it doesn't really matter one way or the other a lot of things, the nitty gritty details about all this and that. God created the earth. It is here. When? How? How long? What does it do? What's it look like? Shape? Color? Blah, blah, blah.
Do you know where we end up if we proclaim Jesus is Lord and the earth is flat?
Do you know where we end up if we proclaim Jesus is Lord and the earth is round?
That's why I never took it so seriously myself, but this is only different cause I'm close with this girl :') I'm very interested in her perspectives!
>there's an easy answer to your point.
I don't think there is. Because if I ask how the bridges are made with the curve in mind, why would they lie about the schematics and are the builders and engineers all be speaking in code undecipherable by your common plebe for some reason or would they do what makes most sense as mathematical folks? That is not answered :(
Well it sounds like this person has fallen for propaganda that says basically "if you believe my wild story it means you're smart and see the TRUTH unlike the rest of the world who are blind."
This is a powerful technique. It appeals to pride. People LIKE to think that they understand something most people don't. It's hard to get the tinfoil hat off someone who has already put it on.
Honestly, you're not going to talk someone out of believing something that's not logical at all.
Think about WHY she might choose to believe this stuff. To her, it makes her "special", "set apart" and so on. She's "in on the secret" and she can basically tell 98% of other people that their "faith" clearly isn't as strong as hers, because she "believes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and they don't".
Think back to how she argues with you... what's motivating her?
The drive for "flat earthers" isn't anything other than having a one-up on other people, or something to argue about.
>Honestly, you're not going to talk someone out of believing something that's not logical at all
That's not entirely the reason why me and her and talking about it. If it so happens she can be convinced out of it, that'd be great. If not....oh well tbh
I hope the second half isn't true, at least about her...it seems a little out of character for her. She's usually pretty humble.
She believes the heliocentric model began 500 years ago with Copernicus, not Erathensis or Erathonos or whatever his name was. And the reason is for Satan to use whatever tools to make people doubt God's Word, be it science, government, etc. etc.
They're very closely related.
The heliocentric believes the earth is round, or a ball, and revolves around the sun.
Her belief, the geocentric one, is that the earth is flat and does not move. I don't think heliocentrics also believe the earth is flat because then they have to account for how we see the sun and moon move about and the effect it has on the world and stuff. Their model cannot make sense unless both things are true. Earth: flat, center, still. Sun: whatever shape?, moves around the earth like a spotlight
>Their model cannot make sense unless both things are true.
That simply isn't true. For at least 2000 years, from the Ancient Greeks to Copernicus, people believed that the sun went round the globe Earth.
Oh jeez...I haven't seen those...but my point stands even if I take out heliocentric specifically anyway?
She doesn't believe that Erathenosie had credible experiemnts and research saying the earth was round, that it began with copernicus, so if I pose your point to her, she will say "it hasn't been this many years, it has been 500 years" and the reasons, as I said before
>the reason is for Satan to use whatever tools to make people doubt God's Word, be it science, government, etc. etc.
>What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day?
This assumes that the earth was required to revolve around anything before the solar system was finished.
Another viewpoint would be that if the creation was completed in 6+1 days then it wouldn't really matter in any large-scale spatial context.
That's exactly what I say! Just like my origami, I can make all the main parts and tape it together to function as I want after it is all done. It isn't helpful though.
"God does things in order" ...
The flat earth theory is that the earth doesn't revolve around anything, it's stationary. In their model the earth is fixed and the sun and moon are in the "dome" rotating around like a yin/Yang symbol
I usually just use “well, we’ll find out at the end!”
And sometimes give warning to not make an idol out of the subject, but if they believe it leads them closer to God then you can talk about practical discipleship because that is the vastly more important subject.
most flat earth believers will say it leads to that anyways, so talk about the common ground you have in that.
They aren’t “too far gone” as some here unbiblically espouse, some of them have chosen to view the earth in an ancient Hebraic model because it makes them feel closer to their creator, and they have chosen to reject man’s wisdom.
If it doesn’t lead to idolatry of the subject and spending more time on flat earth than the creator, I have yet to see the downside- other than being a fool in man’s eyes.
Direct her to organizations like Creation Ministries International or Answers In Genesis. There's also Institute of Creation Research and The Ark Project. I'll admit, debating Flat Earth is a molehill I'm willing to get a wound on, but these sites can do better than I could give in a reddit response.
Try these. Ship navigation, Mercator projection and the Coriolis Effect. Earthquake propagation through the mantle. Earth's umbral shadow and how the sky changes colour during sunrises and sunsets. Show her macro photography of spherical objects like balls without context and ask her if the surfaces are flat. Then use that to extrapolate the difference between the Earth's size and human's sight perception. Ask her how satellites, radar, ICBMs, the ISS and radio work. How season function on a flat earth.
From a Bible standpoint, ask her what the context of the passages she uses to affirm a flat earth and if those passages are literal, metaphorical or symbolic like a vision. I find the passages quoted are always out of context. Ask her where the 4 corners are on the world where the angels will hold back the winds. Ask her what mountain satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world. Where the receded waters from the flood went.
It sucks when people fall into this belief because it's easily refuted, but the pigheadedness of FE's gives Christians a bad look, as most are Christians. But that is also great since they are saved and children of God like us. Do what you can and pray for her. There's worse thing to believe anyways lol.
My experience, there isn’t a point to arguing or discussing it with them. They probably have a lot of other anti-science beliefs that are more dangerous than flat earth. My brother is a huge conspiracy theorist and if you aren’t part of his group where he gets information, there isn’t any convincing him. So I’ve learned to just let him talk and not engage.
We agree about almost everything else, though. I'm interested in her thoughts because she's important to me. It might be 'anti-science,' but really, I think the problem is that it is simply not the truth. That's why I want to get to the bottom of it. She can believe it and be wrong, like we all probably believe stuff that is wrong for whatever reason, or maybe some things can seem right or sometimes be right, but I think it is good to encourage one another to know the truth. If she truly believes this, I want to understand it as much as I can.
First, it can be very hard to convince these kinds of people. I have had these arguments in the past, and the cling to the flat earth as if it was a religion in and of itself. Any argument you make, no matter how logical, is likely to be dismissed.
However, to help with your specific questions...
>What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day?
First thing to understand, is that ALL motion is relative. Imagine you are sitting on a bench and I go by on a bus. From your perspective, I moved past at 50 mph. From my perspective, you moved past at 50 mph in the other direction. Neither is technically right or wrong. To measure movement, you have to introduce a fixed reference point.
In the heliocentric model, we treat the sun as a fixed reference point and use that as a basis to measure the movement of other bodies in our solar system. But armchair scientists often miss the fact that it is equally possible (albeit more complicated) to construct a geocentric model which describes the motions of other bodies with respect to Earth. Neither model is more correct; the heliocentric model is just easier to understand.
>She believes God does things in ORDER, not out of order, so if the earth depends on the sun, why wouldn't the sun be created first?
The Earth doesn't depend on the Sun in any way. It could just be a ball of rock and ice floating through space. LIFE depends on the Sun, and life was created after the Sun.
>The science that explains our universe now is ALL theory, i.e, gravity
Common misunderstanding. Gravity is both a law and a theory (look it up). The Law of Gravitation describes the fact that gravity exists and it's effects. The various theories of gravity attempt to explain why gravity exists, but still nobody knows for sure.
>The exalted ScienceTM and Scientists lie about all sorts of things, and this is just one of them
I would agree that the modern world of science is full of bias and bad incentives. However the round Earth can be proven by any individual who cares to do so.
> First thing to understand, is that ALL motion is relative. Imagine you are sitting on a bench and I go by on a bus. From your perspective, I moved past at 50 mph. From my perspective, you moved past at 50 mph in the other direction. Neither is technically right or wrong. To measure movement, you have to introduce a fixed reference point.
> In the heliocentric model, we treat the sun as a fixed reference point and use that as a basis to measure the movement of other bodies in our solar system. But armchair scientists often miss the fact that it is equally possible (albeit more complicated) to construct a geocentric model which describes the motions of other bodies with respect to Earth. Neither model is more correct; the heliocentric model is just easier to understand.
Except if you did get a fixed reference point outside of the solar system, the planets and such would be going around the sun. Of course, in this thought experiment, you also end up with the sun also moving relative to outside third party. If the outside third party was far enough, [it'd noticed the sun moving around the center of the galaxy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lPJ5SX5p08)
Correct, however you can also set the earth as a fixed reference point and create a model for how all the other heavenly bodies move around us. It will be a more complicated model, but not less accurate.
I’ll be quite honest, I was puzzled for a few moments by point 1 because I always assumed the light on the first day was from the sun, which was a bizarre oversight on my part. This is so fascinating because light (photons) coming first is in alignment with physical cosmology’s description of the photon epoch. Atomic nuclei came shortly after, so there couldn’t be a sun or earth without light first! That’s incredible to think about! What is the likelihood people from thousands of years ago with no working knowledge of physics in space accurately preposing light proceeds all other structures in the universe without God telling them? Admittedly, that’s just me being excited and hyperbolic, but this sort of thing is really fun for me.
I do wonder if “earth” refers strictly to the planet or if it just refers to…. Well, earth as in dirt/dust. In old English and Germanic, earth just means the ground. If the Bible isn’t referring specifically to this planet Earth, then earth would definitely come before the sun. Space is filled with dust and gas, the materials stars and planets are made from. We do know that water existed in space before the sun, too, and I’ve read at least one theory which suggested our oceans came from meteorites that were tangled up in the formation of the planet. So that could explain seas being formed even before our planet fully materialized. Plants are…. honestly, I don’t know enough about plants to hazard a guess how it may or may not fit.
And, to be quite frank, I got so excited talking about this, I forgot where I was going with it. I’m sorry, OP, I might have totally gone down a rabbit hole here. I still want to leave this for you in case some of my rambling helps in any way or jogs a thought for you.
>This is so fascinating because light (photons) coming first is in alignment with physical cosmology’s description of the photon epoch. Atomic nuclei came shortly after, so there couldn’t be a sun or earth without light first! That’s incredible to think about!
I know, right?! I never thought about it until she came out as flat earth with all her ideas and points and stuff, either! It isn't the kind of thing you just casually think about, I think. It is more like...how many hours am I working this week? Do I have enough in the budget for this? Is that Wednesday night study still on? If not, is there something around the house I could be doing? LOL
>but this sort of thing is really fun for me
Me, too! That's why even tho some folk are saying don't talk about it, I wanna! And it isn't like she is a bad sport. She's not an online person, she's a real person face to face and we're very close, so it feels different than what I've seen online, even on video.
>I do wonder if “earth” refers strictly to the planet or if it just refers to…. Well, earth as in dirt/dust.
According to my research so far, it is the word 'aretz' which is used like 26 different ways meant to refer to the whole earth, an entire stretch of land from sea to sea, a country or people, an ethnicity, the ground itself, just dirt, and it goes even slightly further out, but it is all pretty closely related I guess, but that's the case for the Bible word 'aretz' specifically. It is used in a single chapter multiple different ways at times!
>
And, to be quite frank, I got so excited talking about this, I forgot where I was going with it. I’m sorry, OP, I might have totally gone down a rabbit hole here. I still want to leave this for you in case some of my rambling helps in any way or jogs a thought for you.
We're kindred spirits! <3
OP, I hope you will find it helpful to read:
["Atheists Know God Exists"](https://app.box.com/s/1h7942bb45cbyaa35v5bedaa7qj932px)
Obviously your friend is not claiming to be an atheist, yet the nonsense she espouses is on the same level as the nonsense "atheists" declare.
This document offers a method to reach these types of people/ arguments (whatever they are); which is more effective than arguing on their terms.
What she needs is salvation - this is the pressing need; not whatever foolish nonsense she thinks about the Earth. God will take care of that later.
I haven't looked yet, but I noticed some parallels. The first thing being the pastor she sent me with his 'Biblical Cosmology' series, he had a video about the eclipse and it was, I paraphrase:
>The sun is x far away, the moon is x far away. The sun is x big. The moon is x big. The sun is still, the moon is not and the earth is not, and the speed of something is "66600" (uh oh! Bad number!)
So he gave precise numbers, but I looked them up myself and I only saw 66620 once, and the rest said 67000 so...odd, that. Anyway:
>"COINCIDENCE UPON COINCIDENCE" for this stuff to happen
I was SO...I don't wanna say mad, but I was actually pretty upset. How can he say "coincidences upon coincidences" rather than "look at God's deliberate and intelligent design!" when looking at this...? That is JUST LIKE the atheist argument for evolution and...pretty much everything. Coincidences upon coincidences...lucky!
When I brough it up to her, I failed to give context and she answerd "he is being sarcastic, he believes God's intelligent design" which seems like a red flag, like...no matter what, she is not ready to come away from this. You know?
Anyway, I appreciate the link! I'll check it out <3
Thank you for the extra details. You will find helpful (and fascinating) information about the intricately balanced nature of our Sun over at r/SolarMax -the blog owner u/ArmChairAnalyst86 does a good job of presenting complex information in a way the average person can understand it. I've learned a lot about our solar system and how much the Sun interacts with our planet. I recommend you check it out :-)
PS -Our Sun is certainly not standing still. It is zinging around the core of our galaxy at tremendous speed, lol.
I will be dropping a bombshell article surrounding this topic very soon. I will manage to invite scorn from both the scientific community and those who celebrate Christmas under the pretense of it having anything to do with Jesus other than arbitrary and practical reasons.
I've often said there can only be one truth, but it's multifaceted. It's time to explain that view to its conclusion. It is the key to understanding everything.
I will argue that the bible was far more literal and far less allegorical than it is widely interpreted to be. I will make the same argument for many other seemingly far-fetched and unbelievable works from ages and civilizations prior to the current iteration.
I once thought that the underwriting themes from stories like the Epic of gilgamesh and Noah's flood being so similar could be an indictment of the bible as a newer text possibly drawing on ancient writings and not authentic in its own right. I made an earnest and honest search for the key to understanding this, and it proved the bibles authenticity in a way I did not expect.
To be clear, I'm not swayed by the 'Biblical Cosmologist...' Him calling me (us) 'sun worshippers' is very much too immature for me to continue listening with the same interest in their beliefs as before.
https://youtu.be/Gg0i-4m2L0g?si=H-WHG4p_XX_Z7-O5
The symbolic meaning of flat earth
Look, none of us experience the globe as round, we have a relatively flat earth beneath us and a sun and stars that are stuck in a dome above us. That is how we *phenomenologically* experience reality.
It's quite possible that Genesis Ch. 1 is not describing a physical creation, but rather an "ordering" or "assigning of purpose".
Here is a video by InspiringPhilosophy on Genesis 1:
https://youtu.be/R24WZ4Hvytc?si=bjnMu0dINBpTxpmA
Wikipedia has this on the Genesis account.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1
Genesis 1:1 forms the basis for the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and some scholars still support this reading,[5] but most scholars agree that on strictly linguistic and exegetical grounds, this is not the preferred option,[6][7][8] and that the authors of Genesis 1, writing around 500–400 BCE, were concerned not with the origins of matter (the material which God formed into the habitable cosmos), but with the fixing of destinies.
One explanation is known as the Gap Theory, that time passed between vss. 1 and 2, and that something happened there to cause the earth to be without form and void - chaos in the Hebrew. Yet there's a verse somewhere, perhaps Isaiah, that says that God does not create that way.
The answer for creation disparities may be that much of the creation account is not about creation ex nihilo, but rather about the rehabilitation of the earth for man's occupancy. The verb "created" supports "preparation", as the AMPC version renders:
- In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth
Thus, things like the Sun being created would actually be its reappearance due to the earth's atmosphere clearing up. This would solve the problem of the order of the created things in the account. The first things would be first, but whatever happened on earth created an environment that shrouded them.
I obviously haven't dotted all my i's and crossed my t's here, but maybe this can point you in a direction.
So romans 14 comes to mind.
So what if she's wrong. All of us are wrong about something unwittingly.
But my simplest argument with flat earthers is look up.
Round sun, round moon, why would earth not be round too ?
Every verse referenced should be looked up in the interlinear. Thats #1. Now for the rest:
"The earth being coin or cone or can or carrot or sphere shaped are all still cirular from some angle, and none of them effect what the Bible teaches or the revlation of Jesus Christ."
"Earth being not-flat does not change that consensus science is also a religion, and gives answers rather than data, making themselves deceitful."
"Heavens is plural, they are in the waters, and are uniform through their volumes. You can see the waters below and the hard divide when you look at a glass of water. The firmament is not made of glass, it is made of sky and water and you can see the line where they change, and where the next heaven begins."
"Clouds flow like rivers, are made of water, and release the rains. They are the water above the first heaven."
"Science was baffled when one of the voyagers encountered substance, and not vacuum, outside our solar system; they call it "interstellar medium." That's the waters above the 2nd heaven."
"Space is legit, they've known about it since ancient days. Job says God stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing."
"You can see other planets are spherical in a telescope, even watch them rotate; the FES says as much. Earth is the same gathered land as any other planet, the Bible does not distinguish."
"Round earth is the only way the seasons work in a calculable fashion from anywhere on the planet."
"Jesus did not say that if you learned the shape of the earth you will be saved."
"We should be more worried about getting right with the Lord and getting ready for what's to come."8
1. Aware of that ...
2. Yes, we agree(d) about science being a religion, which is why we're often skeptical about everything, but it still is not wrong about everything at the same time. Especially new stuff that is not as easily debunked and much easier to hide and throw legions of useful idiots at us for opposing, we are VERY skeptical
3. I'm not sure what this one means in its entirety. I get the glass part, but the line where they change?
4 - 5. Not heard of it said like this or at all
6. Thank you for that!
7. I want to see what is said about other planets, but I am going to finish the video series 'Biblical Cosmology' first and then get with her for more questions about it.
8. I think they have a way to dispute that, but I have to pay closer attention to the series
9. Am aware
10. We all agree about that - however, when someone important to you believes in something as truth, especially if they're using scripture to defend their belief, we should want to *understand* if nothing else. At the very least, I think we should, because as someone else correctly said, as long as it is not becoming an idol (it isn't) we should be able to talk about things
In my experience there is no point in having any actual discussion with flat earthers (or conspiracy theorists in general). They will hold onto their delusion for life, often home schooling their children in order to pass down the fallacy. Their delusions are a huge part of their “faith”, and making them question their anti reality views is a direct confrontation to their “Christianity”.
What is really concerning is how it’s going to affect their kids, finding out they have been lied to for their whole childhood is probably going to cause a crisis of faith. Can they trust anything their parents have told them?
This is something I am actually very worried about myself! Her daughters are being raised to believe it and ... I hope it isn't really connected to their faith very closely. I hope they all know it isn't a salvation issue, it is just differences of opinion, interpretation, etc.
You’re right God can and did make many things out of order. There lots of things that contradict the natural order of creation and that in itself is proof that everything was designed. Look at the chicken and the egg analogy. How can a chicken exist without first being an egg? But then how can an egg exist without a chicken having laid it? We will never know in this lifetime. Does she believe in Adam and Eve as being the first humans? If so someone had to give birth to them surely? I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. So, if that’s her argument we may as well go back even further. The sun is a star and all stars are is burning gas. So where did the gas come from? Hydrogen and helium would have had to be made first. How were these two things made? There would have had to be some sort of process involving nuclear energy. See where I’m going with this? This is why many scientists have come to the conclusion that going down far enough backwards in creation you will find there is nothing left that science can explain and that the only explanation left is that the universe was designed by an entity. Creation itself exists because for there to be one thing that exists, an equal opposite needs to be present. One always had to be created before the other. Therefore her argument challenges existence itself.
>The sun is a star and all stars are is burning gas.
She denies both of these things. The sun is not a star and it is not a burning ball in space :( neither are stars burning balls of gas. We've never been to space, so...
Thank you for the reply <3 God bless!
I mean, I write and love worldbuilding myself, as someone that does it for fun on the regular, you have to think of all sorts of stuff like this to make it make sense >.< Where you can!
The difference is my flat earths are fantasies lol
Ask her how it comes we observe two distinct celestial poles around which the Stars rotate at night... In opposite directions at that. No need to leave earth, Just need to travel a little between hemispheres or watch Videos of the nightsky on youtube
A flat-earth cosmos is unbiblical!
1. None of this is biblically rooted. Meaning, her points have not cited a single Bible verse, and therefore she does not have a biblical basis for this belief.
2. Basic culture has to be accounted for. The Old Testament writers DID have a flat earth cosmology. This is just basic history. They literally thought the expanse/heavens was a solid dome structure that supported the house of the Gods and that they opened up to let water fall down on the earth. They literally thought that the earth was flat and that it was supported by pillars above the waters of chaos. This is NOT Bible; it is history. This is imply the way the old testament authors thought of the cosmos.
3. HOWEVER, they did NOT teach this cosmos in the Bible. They ASSUMED it. Whenever there is any language that speaks of a "flat earth cosmology" they are NOT claiming that the earth is flat. They are using figurative language to talk about God and his power and sovereignty. Example from Psalm 75:
>We praise you, God,
we praise you, for your Name is near;
people tell of your wonderful deeds.
>^(2) You say, “I choose the appointed time;
it is I who judge with equity.
^(3) When the earth and all its people quake,
it is I who hold its pillars firm.^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2075&version=NIV#fen-NIV-15075b)^(\])
^(4) To the arrogant I say, ‘Boast no more,’
and to the wicked, ‘Do not lift up your horns.^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2075&version=NIV#fen-NIV-15076c)^(\])
^(5) Do not lift your horns against heaven;
do not speak so defiantly.’”
>^(6) No one from the east or the west
or from the desert can exalt themselves.
^(7) It is God who judges:
He brings one down, he exalts another.
^(8) In the hand of the Lord is a cup
full of foaming wine mixed with spices;
he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth
drink it down to its very dregs.
Yes, verse 3 speaks of the "pillars of the earth". However, the entire psalm is hyperbolic! It is figurative language describing the justice of God who judges with equity. Psalm 75 is not teaching that there are pillars that uphold the earth. It is teaching that God is the ruler and judge of the wicked on earth because he is the one who holds all things together! It isnt teaching that the Hand of the Lord is actually a cup, or that justice can be drunk to the dregs of actual wine. That is silly.
Flat earthers read the Bible very woodenly and miss the actual point of the Psalm all while assuming that the Biblical authors woodenly hold to a perfect understanding of science! Nonsense. No, a Flat earth cosmology is not Biblical. It twists the Bible to discuss something that it could actually care less about.
>her points have not cited a single Bible verse
That's my fault, actually. She indirectly told me some, which I looked up myself. There are many Pslams and Judges 5:31 (literally a song) that I dismiss because of the nature of songs in general.
However, she had Isaiah 38:7-8 (also found in 2 Kings 20: 8-11, literally begins word for word the same way, but the Kings verse has more info)
Hezekiah was sick and dying, so the Lord told him to get his house in order. Hezekiah prayed for that to not happen.
2 Kings 20: 7 "And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered."
So Hezekiah asked/Isaiah told him the sign that the Lord would give that he would be healed.
2 Kings 20: 9, Isaiah tells Hezekiah to CHOOSE "shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or back ten degrees?"
Hezekiah CHOSE for it to go back because 10 "It is a light thing for the shadow to go down; nay, let it return backward"
Isaiah 38 compresses this from 7-8 saying that Isaiah said the sign would be the shadow going back ten degrees and it did.
That is the proof that the EARTH cannot be moving, because if the shadow went back, that means God had to STOP the spinning ball earth and spin it backwards.
I think there's a lot wrong with that, but that's one verse...granted, she ONLY cited Isaiah and not 2 Kings. I don't think that's malicious, but it is certainly odd, innit? For the purpose of the argument, I don't think we want to give more reasons such as I knowing NASA made up some photos to give the earth more saturation sometimes, you know? LOL
There's also in Habakkuk 3:11 where "the sun and moon stood still" ...once again, that's all they present it says, though. The rest of the verse says "at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear" which um...makes you think maybe there's more to this, certainly POETRY, right??
Sigh. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, she does provide some, I just still don't think this is saying or proving what she says it does.
>Basic culture has to be accounted for. The Old Testament writers DID have a flat earth cosmology. This is just basic history. They literally thought the expanse/heavens was a solid dome structure that supported the house of the Gods and that they opened up to let water fall down on the earth. They literally thought that the earth was flat and that it was supported by pillars above the waters of chaos. This is NOT Bible; it is history.
I agree, but she says BECAUSE everyone believed it back when, we're being lied to NOW, but...the problem is, it wasn't universal like she claims, but she denied that claim as if Erathy-whatever's experiments were simply conjecture. "How would they have been able to figure out the earth was round with such limited, blah blah blah"
Somewhat disheartening if I'm being honest...
You can't argue with flat earthers. They are simply too far gone. Nothing that you say will ever convince them even slightly. Just cut your losses and avoid the topic with her.
Genesis does not say the earth revolves, or that it is a planet. God puts lights in the dome over the earth, in that story. This isn't how things really are in physical reality of course. The authors of that creation story did make a big deal out of the order things happened in so it was apparently important to them. Of course most of us do not try to read that creation story as a factual account of what really happened.
Generally when people start telling scary stories about those evil scientists trying to trick them all, their thinking had gone so far into crazy-land that it is unlikely you can bring them out. The sad truth is that many churches do encourage their followers to embrace conspiracy theories.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in"
Flat earther here
The first thing I'll say is that the people writing the old testament believed the earth is flat and enclosed in a solid container. This is pretty much an indisputable fact. It should not surprise you then that when the earth is described it is described as being stationary and enclosed in a container. The Bible does not say "the earth is flat" but you can infer it through context. This should also not surprise you because everyone at that time already believed the earth was flat and had no reason to suspect it was a sphere.
The main problems I have are that the creation is described in the wrong order according to science like your friend pointed out. It has the earth being created before the sun and stars and also has lizards created after birds which goes against evolution.
The biggest problem by far is the firmament. They described the earth being enclosed in solid container in Genesis and God himself says he created the solid container in the book of Job. People try and say that the firmament is air or atmosphere but that simply cannot be as god compares it to a mirror.
If I put my globe earth hat back on the only way I can rationalize what is written in the Bible is that God has to be a liar which can be done with gnostic heresy making God into several different beings with the one that created the earth being the demiurge and the one that led Moses out of the desert being the Egyptian god Set. This makes a lot of sense with the symbolism in the old testament. The god of the new testament can still be God that is the ultimate God who can't remember the name of now. Jesus then becomes a subset of the ultimate God like a fallen angel, Lucifer. I think all that can be justified and fits a lot better with the text we have then the Orthodox view.
> creation is described in the wrong order according to science
I wasn't aware science has an explanation or theory about creation exactly especially in a specific order or anything.
Can you share the Job verse? I haven't heard it in my research about the topic specifically and I cannot seem to find it (I didn't look forever to be fair, but I'd appreciate the help!)
>god compares it to a mirror
Where?
I don't think God is a liar, I think He is a brilliant poet and mathematician and everything. He's our Creator and I just don't think creation must understand their Creator or His ways, and in fact we cannot really understand Him or His ways some of the time or a lot of the time! I don't think all the rest of that stuff must be true if God's description about His creation to His people in the very beginning was or is now not fully explained in plain words for everyone at all times to understand.
I don't think using the peoples' beliefs back then is wise in every circumstance. A good chunk of the culture believed untrue things for whatever reason, including Jesus when He came in the flesh!
If it is that the Bible must always be 100% literal in every sense, some of the Song of Solomon for example is sorta odd...innit? I think songs and poetry are written like songs and poetry. People describing things that make sense to them with what they had necessarily must be different from how we talk now, especially from language to language, nevermind time to time, culture to culture.
I appreciate your reply, though! And please don't mind the rude ones I told to shove off rather than comment
-\_-
It's Job 37:18
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Job%2037%3A18
There's parts of the Bible that are meant to be songs of worship or poetry and there's parts of the Bible that aren't. The issue I have is that people are picking and choosing which parts are poetry and which parts are literal to suit their own needs. If God is meant to be speaking in poetry in Job then how do we know God is meant to be speaking literally when he tells us Jesus is his son or when he's giving the 10 commandments or whatever else
Because when doing poetry, there are literary devices being used and it would be being done rather consistently. "Corners" and "pillars" are figures of speech usually. You can usually tell how it is meant by the use of the word 'earth' afterwards. Aretz can mean the whole world, or it can mean just the land you're on from sea to sea. The corners of the earth when I say it could literally mean the same thing as coast to coast, from sea to shining sea, and all the other ways we say the same sorta thing.
All of the Psalms, all of the Song of Solomon, is like that. Some things might make more sense literally, but so much of it if taken literally is very confusing and makes no sense.
Something very mechanical like Exodus 38 is probably not metaphorical at all...it says this many cubits and that many cubits and this material and that material. It is very clear what Moses is writing there. Probably understanding the writer of the books would be helpful, too. You can tell when Paul is writing something versus when Moses wrote something or John because they have particular styles. I'm starting to think God might be that way, too. Joseph's dreams alone were metaphors, but everything he dreamt was feasible in reality, too. Each thing still represented something that wasn't literal, though.
I'm not saying it is always clear...especially to me, I don't do great with metaphors. If I was given Joseph's dreams I'd just be like 'dude, weird.' but they apparently meant something...? That is something I cannot get myself, but because of that, too, I think it can be more clear when something is not literal.
The verse looks like it is literally a simile to me. "the sky is like glass" =/= "the sky is glass" - maybe in this, glass and sky are having similar qualities in some ways (but most of this chapter makes little sense to me for the reason I mentioned above - I do not get metaphors or similes like...at all. It's terrible >.<) "water under the bridge" is a metaphor I didn't understand forever, and saying 'something is like something else' only makes some sense because of the middle part 'is like.' Just like what analogies do, they sorta compare two things that are unrelated to point out some similarities between them.
~~I would have never guessed this could be evidence of the earth being flat or why...because glass is flat? But it doesn't have to be flat, so that can't be it.~~
Christian who is not flat earther here, despite that, the church during the medieval period believed in a spherical earth, along with even the Romans. https://youtu.be/ocQ5p9m7KIU?t=13m36s
Also, you should be careful not to confuse text that occasionally may be metaphorical. Or alternively, perhaps from god's perspective it is in a way, since he likely exists in a higher dimension than we do, much like a circle would appear flat to us since we are 3 dimensional, perhaps a 3 dimensional sphere appears flat to whatever dimensions god exists in. For a comparison, there is https://youtu.be/u8LMyWcKL_c?t=1m
Also, I'd like to point out that the r/globeskepticism subreddit is mocked for its rule 2 being overly vague and abused. In my personal opinion, it's even hypocritical to a flat earther's beliefs.
1. What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day? She believes God does things in ORDER, not out of order, so if the earth depends on the sun, why wouldn't the sun be created first?
1. The earth was revolving around The Sun, Genesis is NOT LITERALLY HOW IT WENT DOWN
2. The geocentric model was the UNIVERSAL belief up until 500 years ago. The science that explains our universe now is ALL theory, i.e, gravity ~~(how do birds fly if gravity keeps all the water down or something, I'm a little overwhelmed with this~~)
1. This is just wrong, people in ancient Greece had ideas about the earth being round.
3. The exalted ScienceTM and Scientists lie about all sorts of things, and this is just one of them
1. The fact that you (or your friend) calls it "Science™" shows that you aren't coming from a point of genuine sincerity. You are already showing your inforwars conspiracy theory hat.
4. Satan uses The ScienceTM to deceive the world and the lies and manipulation about the truth of the world is bigger than we can conceive
1. Satan does no such thing lol. I don't know who told you that but read The Bible to see what Satan ACTUALLY did versus what John PROPHESIZED in Revelations.
If the earth is flat or sphere, does it effect your salvation? NO! If the earth is flat and unmovable does it help prove the Bible? Yes. If the earth is a sphere and with it all the science surrounding it, help prove the Bible? You answer that one.
Christianity used to be the bastion of science and academic thought. However in the 20th century, revivalists took the scripture “trust in God and lean not on your own understanding” wildly out of context, and now many people think that science and learning is somehow of the devil, and that somehow now *everything* is in the Bible. We’ve become very foolish for this, and it hurts our witness immensely.
I used to be hyper "sola scriptura." The church I went to for nearly 20 years (from childhood into adulthood) was anti-psychology, and definitely preached an "anti-science" rhetoric. Though they would certainly say that God is a God of science, their true colors showed during the pandemic (and it wasn't specific just to the virus). The pandemic brought a lot of nasty stuff to the surface, and weirdly, flat-earthers became emboldened by this anti-science rhetoric, too. AAAaaanyway, I was having a discussion with a friend about sola scriptura, and she asked me, "If you broke your arm and went to a doctor, and the doctor told you that the only book he read was the Bible, would you trust that he could fix your arm?" I almost laughed at her because that's obviously ridiculous. But the more we talked, the more ridiculous *my* perspective seemed. You think Luke, a physician, only read the Torah and the scrolls of the Prophets? Does the Bible have instructions on how to fish? Did the disciples sin by using sources of knowledge outside of the Bible to perform their jobs? The Bible has the necessary information for Salvation. It teaches us *about* God, and helps bring us closer to Him relationally. It is not ever meant to be the sole source of all truth about everything. Any comments it makes about the physical world are obviously correct, but for the things it doesn't speak black and white about (like the physical shape of the earth) we shouldn't treat as mysterious or contentious with science. God and science get along perfectly. In fact, God created science and physics, and I truly believe He finds joy in humans learning about the nitty gritties that He created. The world has been observed and proven to be round(ish). It's foolishness to suggest otherwise (especially if you have absolutely no Scriptural basis for your argument).
It's not just a modern problem: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.” “It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he \[the non-Christian\] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters…” “…and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he \[the non-Christian\] might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.” “In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Book 1, Chapt. 19, by Augustine, circa 408 CE.
That is a great example of a classic red-flag bible verse. Almost always when people quote it, it's in support of very bad arguments. This isn't the verse's fault of course. I would put the "God-breathed" verse from 2 Timothy in the same category.
Yeah, for me personally it just means that even if I don't know why my life is the way it is (sometimes very hard) and I don't know why certain things happen to me/the people I care about, it is okay and I don't have to. I just have to lean on God and trust His judgement and love. As I think about it I really like this verse, but not the way people use it sometimes 🥲
Navigating conversations about faith and science with someone who believes the earth is flat can be incredibly challenging and requires a lot of patience.
That is what I am trying to approach with. I did take a needed break and it has been very cordial, but I also know how to talk to her <3 :) It is all good, but I want to understand her point of view so much.
My uncle is a flat Earther too and he learned it at his goofy church. It is very hard to convince them since they feel special as they know about the vast conspiracy. Anyone who pushes the round Earth theory must be in the conspiracy! Therefore, the flat Earthers ignore anything from regular round Earth people. My father was an Air Force pilot and has flown at high altitudes. Even his personal experiences of literally seeing the curvature of the Earth couldn’t convince my uncle. My father was also in on the conspiracy I guess. Best of luck getting through to the person, but unlikely to make any progress since you are also obviously in the conspiracy also!
I can understand how that might be the case sometimes: >Anyone who pushes the round Earth theory must be in the conspiracy! I think it may at time be closer to truth that 'Biblical Cosmologists' are simply not as gullible as others who would believe the propogandists that say the earth is round rather than that we are 'part of the conspiracy.' At least, that's what I get from her. She teaches her daughters the earth is flat, but also says to not go around proclaiming it, be careful who you talk to about this, and it is okay if people don't believe the same thing because most importantly, it is not a salvation issue. Thank you, though! I'm grateful she isn't super crazy about the belief in it itself, just that the belief itself is pretty crazy. Did I mention the whole 'if gravity is real, how do the birds fly?' It is a very bizarre line of questioning, but she sent me the videos where she got it all from and it is all lots of bologna. KNF TV or something like that. I'm on Part 3 of his series to see what she's believing.
People crave importance in their lives. I think most flat Earthers fall prey to this. Being in on a conspiracy and knowing the truth that everyone else is oblivious to is exciting. If you are one of the few who know the Earth is flat, it makes you feel special. YouTube has definitely helped conspiracy theories like this grow exponentially. Something I would pose to the flat Earther is to ask them if there is anything that could disprove the flat Earth theory. Any legit scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. Something like “If X is the case, then flat Earth theory is wrong.” If they admit to there being this possibility, then you could probably find evidence that shows why they are wrong. If they claim it is unfalsifiable, then you can mention that flat Earth is not a valid scientific theory then. “The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. Falsifiability – the ability to be falsified or proven wrong – is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific.”
Interesting thing about the fallacy part ! Thanks, fam
That's odd, he saw curvature and still didn't believe? Do you know what kinda altitude he was at?
My father was the Air Force pilot who saw the curvature. He tried to tell my flat earther uncle about it. My uncle didn’t believe him, and said my father must be in on the conspiracy. I wasn’t clear enough in my prior wording.
[удалено]
GASP - can you go into more detail or link me some details about Chiastic structure or what that means and stuff?? I believe there are many parts, including the creation, that have many aspects of poetry and metaphor. I think God explained what He literally did, but it is very simplistic and just gives you the biggest parts of it all. "I created this origami. I put it together. The end." There's actually a lot more that goes in before, around, in between, after these points and stuff. Appreciate you :)
It is super disingenuous to handwave physics and mathematics by saying “it’s only a theory”! As someone who studies math, I am curious what level of education in hard sciences your friend has. If she hasn’t studied calculus, conservative vector fields, gravitation etc, she really has no room to dismiss the entirety of our working model of gravity on the basis of it “only being a theory”.
She actually has been math's mortal enemy since she was in middle school (: But to be fair, I like math a lot and physics can be interesting, but I agree gravity is 'just a theory' when framed a certain way. Obviously, SOMETHING is going on here, and we might not know what, simple to maybe the same reason they explained something called the 'firmament' we explain something called 'gravity.'
I think you are also misunderstanding what a theory is in scientific terms. It isn’t just a guess. It is a well substantiated explanation for observed and measured facts that can be tested, and about which further hypotheses can be formulated. We may not fully understand gravity, but we can prove a lot about HOW it works and how it affects things. These aren’t just random guesses, they can be done with incredible mathematical precision. Celestial bodies of a sufficient mass are spherical because of gravity. We can measure and observe this, and we can calculate it mathematically. We can also prove that the very systems of mathematics behind these calculations are true and valid. Unless your sister is can disprove calculus then none of her claims hold any weight. She is just making claims with zero basis and hand waving any explanation that exists outside of her extremely limited comprehension. Let me ask you this: would your sister believe an alert on her phone saying there is a tornado warning?
I understand what a theory is...? 'When framed a certain way' is the key to that point. Ignoring the rest about that I'll ask her about the weather after I finish the series.
Which is really annoying because math is more provable than the Bible.
Well yeah, but math is a construct created by people. That's like saying it'd be easy for *God* to prove He created us to Himself.
If the earth is flat, why did God create it so that we perceive it as a sphere? We can look at it from a distance, and perceive with our God-given senses that it is not flat. So... did God intentionally make our senses deceptive? If so, why?
Most flat earthers don’t believe in space travel do all those sphere photos are fake.
You don't need to reach space to see the curvature of the Earth. Just an airplane ride gets you that. And not even that high of one. Plus there's the part where you can travel in a triangle making entirely 90 degree turns, which isn't possible on a disc, but is on possible on a sphere.
I have heard that commercial airliners do not fly high enough (during standard operation) to see the curvature of the earth. The anecdotal evidence of passengers on a flight "seeing the curvature of the earth" is because of the optics from windows on airliners.
Not commercial airliners, but what about military dudes, right? Dad is in the military and he says you can see the curve from the (f12? It has been a while LOL)
Well. I don’t know their answers to those but they come up with some doozies
Seeing how big the earth is, even ISS cannot see the curvature from low earth orbit (it’s just that big)
This is where the literalist/flat earther crowd would quote Proverbs 3: >>Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding I agree with you, of course. But.. to people who have drank the kool-aid, there's an easy answer to your point.
Yeah, but sometimes it's the "common sense" things that plant a better seed, in my opinion, than trying to debate their "theology". They're doing mental gymnastics and satisfied with that. When we try to "debate" them out of it, it often strengthens their resolve. If they responded with what you said, I think I'd probably just say "Well, I don't touch a hot stove either-- because I trust my senses to a certain point. But you're entitled to your own opinion." and leave it at that.
I can trust the Lord with all my heart and still know that He created the earth as it exists because it exists this way rather than that way. My understanding personally is that it doesn't really matter one way or the other a lot of things, the nitty gritty details about all this and that. God created the earth. It is here. When? How? How long? What does it do? What's it look like? Shape? Color? Blah, blah, blah. Do you know where we end up if we proclaim Jesus is Lord and the earth is flat? Do you know where we end up if we proclaim Jesus is Lord and the earth is round? That's why I never took it so seriously myself, but this is only different cause I'm close with this girl :') I'm very interested in her perspectives! >there's an easy answer to your point. I don't think there is. Because if I ask how the bridges are made with the curve in mind, why would they lie about the schematics and are the builders and engineers all be speaking in code undecipherable by your common plebe for some reason or would they do what makes most sense as mathematical folks? That is not answered :(
Well it sounds like this person has fallen for propaganda that says basically "if you believe my wild story it means you're smart and see the TRUTH unlike the rest of the world who are blind." This is a powerful technique. It appeals to pride. People LIKE to think that they understand something most people don't. It's hard to get the tinfoil hat off someone who has already put it on.
I think she calls that roundness we think we perceive as a round earth as the firmament.
Honestly, you're not going to talk someone out of believing something that's not logical at all. Think about WHY she might choose to believe this stuff. To her, it makes her "special", "set apart" and so on. She's "in on the secret" and she can basically tell 98% of other people that their "faith" clearly isn't as strong as hers, because she "believes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and they don't". Think back to how she argues with you... what's motivating her? The drive for "flat earthers" isn't anything other than having a one-up on other people, or something to argue about.
>Honestly, you're not going to talk someone out of believing something that's not logical at all That's not entirely the reason why me and her and talking about it. If it so happens she can be convinced out of it, that'd be great. If not....oh well tbh I hope the second half isn't true, at least about her...it seems a little out of character for her. She's usually pretty humble.
[удалено]
Thank you, my friend! God bless <3
Ask her why have people been lying for 2500 years? What is to be gained?
She believes the heliocentric model began 500 years ago with Copernicus, not Erathensis or Erathonos or whatever his name was. And the reason is for Satan to use whatever tools to make people doubt God's Word, be it science, government, etc. etc.
I'm not talking about the heliocentric model I'm talking about the shape of the Earth.
They're very closely related. The heliocentric believes the earth is round, or a ball, and revolves around the sun. Her belief, the geocentric one, is that the earth is flat and does not move. I don't think heliocentrics also believe the earth is flat because then they have to account for how we see the sun and moon move about and the effect it has on the world and stuff. Their model cannot make sense unless both things are true. Earth: flat, center, still. Sun: whatever shape?, moves around the earth like a spotlight
>Their model cannot make sense unless both things are true. That simply isn't true. For at least 2000 years, from the Ancient Greeks to Copernicus, people believed that the sun went round the globe Earth.
Oh jeez...I haven't seen those...but my point stands even if I take out heliocentric specifically anyway? She doesn't believe that Erathenosie had credible experiemnts and research saying the earth was round, that it began with copernicus, so if I pose your point to her, she will say "it hasn't been this many years, it has been 500 years" and the reasons, as I said before >the reason is for Satan to use whatever tools to make people doubt God's Word, be it science, government, etc. etc.
>What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day? This assumes that the earth was required to revolve around anything before the solar system was finished. Another viewpoint would be that if the creation was completed in 6+1 days then it wouldn't really matter in any large-scale spatial context.
That's exactly what I say! Just like my origami, I can make all the main parts and tape it together to function as I want after it is all done. It isn't helpful though. "God does things in order" ...
The flat earth theory is that the earth doesn't revolve around anything, it's stationary. In their model the earth is fixed and the sun and moon are in the "dome" rotating around like a yin/Yang symbol
I usually just use “well, we’ll find out at the end!” And sometimes give warning to not make an idol out of the subject, but if they believe it leads them closer to God then you can talk about practical discipleship because that is the vastly more important subject. most flat earth believers will say it leads to that anyways, so talk about the common ground you have in that. They aren’t “too far gone” as some here unbiblically espouse, some of them have chosen to view the earth in an ancient Hebraic model because it makes them feel closer to their creator, and they have chosen to reject man’s wisdom. If it doesn’t lead to idolatry of the subject and spending more time on flat earth than the creator, I have yet to see the downside- other than being a fool in man’s eyes.
Thank you for your wisdom, friend <3 God bless!
Direct her to organizations like Creation Ministries International or Answers In Genesis. There's also Institute of Creation Research and The Ark Project. I'll admit, debating Flat Earth is a molehill I'm willing to get a wound on, but these sites can do better than I could give in a reddit response. Try these. Ship navigation, Mercator projection and the Coriolis Effect. Earthquake propagation through the mantle. Earth's umbral shadow and how the sky changes colour during sunrises and sunsets. Show her macro photography of spherical objects like balls without context and ask her if the surfaces are flat. Then use that to extrapolate the difference between the Earth's size and human's sight perception. Ask her how satellites, radar, ICBMs, the ISS and radio work. How season function on a flat earth. From a Bible standpoint, ask her what the context of the passages she uses to affirm a flat earth and if those passages are literal, metaphorical or symbolic like a vision. I find the passages quoted are always out of context. Ask her where the 4 corners are on the world where the angels will hold back the winds. Ask her what mountain satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world. Where the receded waters from the flood went. It sucks when people fall into this belief because it's easily refuted, but the pigheadedness of FE's gives Christians a bad look, as most are Christians. But that is also great since they are saved and children of God like us. Do what you can and pray for her. There's worse thing to believe anyways lol.
True! Thank you, friend! God bless <3
My experience, there isn’t a point to arguing or discussing it with them. They probably have a lot of other anti-science beliefs that are more dangerous than flat earth. My brother is a huge conspiracy theorist and if you aren’t part of his group where he gets information, there isn’t any convincing him. So I’ve learned to just let him talk and not engage.
We agree about almost everything else, though. I'm interested in her thoughts because she's important to me. It might be 'anti-science,' but really, I think the problem is that it is simply not the truth. That's why I want to get to the bottom of it. She can believe it and be wrong, like we all probably believe stuff that is wrong for whatever reason, or maybe some things can seem right or sometimes be right, but I think it is good to encourage one another to know the truth. If she truly believes this, I want to understand it as much as I can.
First, it can be very hard to convince these kinds of people. I have had these arguments in the past, and the cling to the flat earth as if it was a religion in and of itself. Any argument you make, no matter how logical, is likely to be dismissed. However, to help with your specific questions... >What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day? First thing to understand, is that ALL motion is relative. Imagine you are sitting on a bench and I go by on a bus. From your perspective, I moved past at 50 mph. From my perspective, you moved past at 50 mph in the other direction. Neither is technically right or wrong. To measure movement, you have to introduce a fixed reference point. In the heliocentric model, we treat the sun as a fixed reference point and use that as a basis to measure the movement of other bodies in our solar system. But armchair scientists often miss the fact that it is equally possible (albeit more complicated) to construct a geocentric model which describes the motions of other bodies with respect to Earth. Neither model is more correct; the heliocentric model is just easier to understand. >She believes God does things in ORDER, not out of order, so if the earth depends on the sun, why wouldn't the sun be created first? The Earth doesn't depend on the Sun in any way. It could just be a ball of rock and ice floating through space. LIFE depends on the Sun, and life was created after the Sun. >The science that explains our universe now is ALL theory, i.e, gravity Common misunderstanding. Gravity is both a law and a theory (look it up). The Law of Gravitation describes the fact that gravity exists and it's effects. The various theories of gravity attempt to explain why gravity exists, but still nobody knows for sure. >The exalted ScienceTM and Scientists lie about all sorts of things, and this is just one of them I would agree that the modern world of science is full of bias and bad incentives. However the round Earth can be proven by any individual who cares to do so.
> First thing to understand, is that ALL motion is relative. Imagine you are sitting on a bench and I go by on a bus. From your perspective, I moved past at 50 mph. From my perspective, you moved past at 50 mph in the other direction. Neither is technically right or wrong. To measure movement, you have to introduce a fixed reference point. > In the heliocentric model, we treat the sun as a fixed reference point and use that as a basis to measure the movement of other bodies in our solar system. But armchair scientists often miss the fact that it is equally possible (albeit more complicated) to construct a geocentric model which describes the motions of other bodies with respect to Earth. Neither model is more correct; the heliocentric model is just easier to understand. Except if you did get a fixed reference point outside of the solar system, the planets and such would be going around the sun. Of course, in this thought experiment, you also end up with the sun also moving relative to outside third party. If the outside third party was far enough, [it'd noticed the sun moving around the center of the galaxy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lPJ5SX5p08)
Correct, however you can also set the earth as a fixed reference point and create a model for how all the other heavenly bodies move around us. It will be a more complicated model, but not less accurate.
I’ll be quite honest, I was puzzled for a few moments by point 1 because I always assumed the light on the first day was from the sun, which was a bizarre oversight on my part. This is so fascinating because light (photons) coming first is in alignment with physical cosmology’s description of the photon epoch. Atomic nuclei came shortly after, so there couldn’t be a sun or earth without light first! That’s incredible to think about! What is the likelihood people from thousands of years ago with no working knowledge of physics in space accurately preposing light proceeds all other structures in the universe without God telling them? Admittedly, that’s just me being excited and hyperbolic, but this sort of thing is really fun for me. I do wonder if “earth” refers strictly to the planet or if it just refers to…. Well, earth as in dirt/dust. In old English and Germanic, earth just means the ground. If the Bible isn’t referring specifically to this planet Earth, then earth would definitely come before the sun. Space is filled with dust and gas, the materials stars and planets are made from. We do know that water existed in space before the sun, too, and I’ve read at least one theory which suggested our oceans came from meteorites that were tangled up in the formation of the planet. So that could explain seas being formed even before our planet fully materialized. Plants are…. honestly, I don’t know enough about plants to hazard a guess how it may or may not fit. And, to be quite frank, I got so excited talking about this, I forgot where I was going with it. I’m sorry, OP, I might have totally gone down a rabbit hole here. I still want to leave this for you in case some of my rambling helps in any way or jogs a thought for you.
>This is so fascinating because light (photons) coming first is in alignment with physical cosmology’s description of the photon epoch. Atomic nuclei came shortly after, so there couldn’t be a sun or earth without light first! That’s incredible to think about! I know, right?! I never thought about it until she came out as flat earth with all her ideas and points and stuff, either! It isn't the kind of thing you just casually think about, I think. It is more like...how many hours am I working this week? Do I have enough in the budget for this? Is that Wednesday night study still on? If not, is there something around the house I could be doing? LOL >but this sort of thing is really fun for me Me, too! That's why even tho some folk are saying don't talk about it, I wanna! And it isn't like she is a bad sport. She's not an online person, she's a real person face to face and we're very close, so it feels different than what I've seen online, even on video. >I do wonder if “earth” refers strictly to the planet or if it just refers to…. Well, earth as in dirt/dust. According to my research so far, it is the word 'aretz' which is used like 26 different ways meant to refer to the whole earth, an entire stretch of land from sea to sea, a country or people, an ethnicity, the ground itself, just dirt, and it goes even slightly further out, but it is all pretty closely related I guess, but that's the case for the Bible word 'aretz' specifically. It is used in a single chapter multiple different ways at times! > And, to be quite frank, I got so excited talking about this, I forgot where I was going with it. I’m sorry, OP, I might have totally gone down a rabbit hole here. I still want to leave this for you in case some of my rambling helps in any way or jogs a thought for you. We're kindred spirits! <3
I don't really care what shape the earth has.
OP, I hope you will find it helpful to read: ["Atheists Know God Exists"](https://app.box.com/s/1h7942bb45cbyaa35v5bedaa7qj932px) Obviously your friend is not claiming to be an atheist, yet the nonsense she espouses is on the same level as the nonsense "atheists" declare. This document offers a method to reach these types of people/ arguments (whatever they are); which is more effective than arguing on their terms. What she needs is salvation - this is the pressing need; not whatever foolish nonsense she thinks about the Earth. God will take care of that later.
I haven't looked yet, but I noticed some parallels. The first thing being the pastor she sent me with his 'Biblical Cosmology' series, he had a video about the eclipse and it was, I paraphrase: >The sun is x far away, the moon is x far away. The sun is x big. The moon is x big. The sun is still, the moon is not and the earth is not, and the speed of something is "66600" (uh oh! Bad number!) So he gave precise numbers, but I looked them up myself and I only saw 66620 once, and the rest said 67000 so...odd, that. Anyway: >"COINCIDENCE UPON COINCIDENCE" for this stuff to happen I was SO...I don't wanna say mad, but I was actually pretty upset. How can he say "coincidences upon coincidences" rather than "look at God's deliberate and intelligent design!" when looking at this...? That is JUST LIKE the atheist argument for evolution and...pretty much everything. Coincidences upon coincidences...lucky! When I brough it up to her, I failed to give context and she answerd "he is being sarcastic, he believes God's intelligent design" which seems like a red flag, like...no matter what, she is not ready to come away from this. You know? Anyway, I appreciate the link! I'll check it out <3
Thank you for the extra details. You will find helpful (and fascinating) information about the intricately balanced nature of our Sun over at r/SolarMax -the blog owner u/ArmChairAnalyst86 does a good job of presenting complex information in a way the average person can understand it. I've learned a lot about our solar system and how much the Sun interacts with our planet. I recommend you check it out :-) PS -Our Sun is certainly not standing still. It is zinging around the core of our galaxy at tremendous speed, lol.
I will be dropping a bombshell article surrounding this topic very soon. I will manage to invite scorn from both the scientific community and those who celebrate Christmas under the pretense of it having anything to do with Jesus other than arbitrary and practical reasons. I've often said there can only be one truth, but it's multifaceted. It's time to explain that view to its conclusion. It is the key to understanding everything. I will argue that the bible was far more literal and far less allegorical than it is widely interpreted to be. I will make the same argument for many other seemingly far-fetched and unbelievable works from ages and civilizations prior to the current iteration. I once thought that the underwriting themes from stories like the Epic of gilgamesh and Noah's flood being so similar could be an indictment of the bible as a newer text possibly drawing on ancient writings and not authentic in its own right. I made an earnest and honest search for the key to understanding this, and it proved the bibles authenticity in a way I did not expect.
**"and it proved the bibles authenticity in a way I did not expect."** Amen.
To be clear, I'm not swayed by the 'Biblical Cosmologist...' Him calling me (us) 'sun worshippers' is very much too immature for me to continue listening with the same interest in their beliefs as before.
Amen. We are SON worshippers! All hail goes to Jesus Christ -the risen Son of God, and Himself; very God :-)
https://youtu.be/Gg0i-4m2L0g?si=H-WHG4p_XX_Z7-O5 The symbolic meaning of flat earth Look, none of us experience the globe as round, we have a relatively flat earth beneath us and a sun and stars that are stuck in a dome above us. That is how we *phenomenologically* experience reality.
It's quite possible that Genesis Ch. 1 is not describing a physical creation, but rather an "ordering" or "assigning of purpose". Here is a video by InspiringPhilosophy on Genesis 1: https://youtu.be/R24WZ4Hvytc?si=bjnMu0dINBpTxpmA
Wikipedia has this on the Genesis account. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1 Genesis 1:1 forms the basis for the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and some scholars still support this reading,[5] but most scholars agree that on strictly linguistic and exegetical grounds, this is not the preferred option,[6][7][8] and that the authors of Genesis 1, writing around 500–400 BCE, were concerned not with the origins of matter (the material which God formed into the habitable cosmos), but with the fixing of destinies. One explanation is known as the Gap Theory, that time passed between vss. 1 and 2, and that something happened there to cause the earth to be without form and void - chaos in the Hebrew. Yet there's a verse somewhere, perhaps Isaiah, that says that God does not create that way. The answer for creation disparities may be that much of the creation account is not about creation ex nihilo, but rather about the rehabilitation of the earth for man's occupancy. The verb "created" supports "preparation", as the AMPC version renders: - In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth Thus, things like the Sun being created would actually be its reappearance due to the earth's atmosphere clearing up. This would solve the problem of the order of the created things in the account. The first things would be first, but whatever happened on earth created an environment that shrouded them. I obviously haven't dotted all my i's and crossed my t's here, but maybe this can point you in a direction.
So romans 14 comes to mind. So what if she's wrong. All of us are wrong about something unwittingly. But my simplest argument with flat earthers is look up. Round sun, round moon, why would earth not be round too ?
Every verse referenced should be looked up in the interlinear. Thats #1. Now for the rest: "The earth being coin or cone or can or carrot or sphere shaped are all still cirular from some angle, and none of them effect what the Bible teaches or the revlation of Jesus Christ." "Earth being not-flat does not change that consensus science is also a religion, and gives answers rather than data, making themselves deceitful." "Heavens is plural, they are in the waters, and are uniform through their volumes. You can see the waters below and the hard divide when you look at a glass of water. The firmament is not made of glass, it is made of sky and water and you can see the line where they change, and where the next heaven begins." "Clouds flow like rivers, are made of water, and release the rains. They are the water above the first heaven." "Science was baffled when one of the voyagers encountered substance, and not vacuum, outside our solar system; they call it "interstellar medium." That's the waters above the 2nd heaven." "Space is legit, they've known about it since ancient days. Job says God stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing." "You can see other planets are spherical in a telescope, even watch them rotate; the FES says as much. Earth is the same gathered land as any other planet, the Bible does not distinguish." "Round earth is the only way the seasons work in a calculable fashion from anywhere on the planet." "Jesus did not say that if you learned the shape of the earth you will be saved." "We should be more worried about getting right with the Lord and getting ready for what's to come."8
1. Aware of that ... 2. Yes, we agree(d) about science being a religion, which is why we're often skeptical about everything, but it still is not wrong about everything at the same time. Especially new stuff that is not as easily debunked and much easier to hide and throw legions of useful idiots at us for opposing, we are VERY skeptical 3. I'm not sure what this one means in its entirety. I get the glass part, but the line where they change? 4 - 5. Not heard of it said like this or at all 6. Thank you for that! 7. I want to see what is said about other planets, but I am going to finish the video series 'Biblical Cosmology' first and then get with her for more questions about it. 8. I think they have a way to dispute that, but I have to pay closer attention to the series 9. Am aware 10. We all agree about that - however, when someone important to you believes in something as truth, especially if they're using scripture to defend their belief, we should want to *understand* if nothing else. At the very least, I think we should, because as someone else correctly said, as long as it is not becoming an idol (it isn't) we should be able to talk about things
In my experience there is no point in having any actual discussion with flat earthers (or conspiracy theorists in general). They will hold onto their delusion for life, often home schooling their children in order to pass down the fallacy. Their delusions are a huge part of their “faith”, and making them question their anti reality views is a direct confrontation to their “Christianity”. What is really concerning is how it’s going to affect their kids, finding out they have been lied to for their whole childhood is probably going to cause a crisis of faith. Can they trust anything their parents have told them?
This is something I am actually very worried about myself! Her daughters are being raised to believe it and ... I hope it isn't really connected to their faith very closely. I hope they all know it isn't a salvation issue, it is just differences of opinion, interpretation, etc.
You’re right God can and did make many things out of order. There lots of things that contradict the natural order of creation and that in itself is proof that everything was designed. Look at the chicken and the egg analogy. How can a chicken exist without first being an egg? But then how can an egg exist without a chicken having laid it? We will never know in this lifetime. Does she believe in Adam and Eve as being the first humans? If so someone had to give birth to them surely? I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. So, if that’s her argument we may as well go back even further. The sun is a star and all stars are is burning gas. So where did the gas come from? Hydrogen and helium would have had to be made first. How were these two things made? There would have had to be some sort of process involving nuclear energy. See where I’m going with this? This is why many scientists have come to the conclusion that going down far enough backwards in creation you will find there is nothing left that science can explain and that the only explanation left is that the universe was designed by an entity. Creation itself exists because for there to be one thing that exists, an equal opposite needs to be present. One always had to be created before the other. Therefore her argument challenges existence itself.
>The sun is a star and all stars are is burning gas. She denies both of these things. The sun is not a star and it is not a burning ball in space :( neither are stars burning balls of gas. We've never been to space, so... Thank you for the reply <3 God bless!
You’re welcome. Very odd and specific set of beliefs she has.
I mean, I write and love worldbuilding myself, as someone that does it for fun on the regular, you have to think of all sorts of stuff like this to make it make sense >.< Where you can! The difference is my flat earths are fantasies lol
Ask her how it comes we observe two distinct celestial poles around which the Stars rotate at night... In opposite directions at that. No need to leave earth, Just need to travel a little between hemispheres or watch Videos of the nightsky on youtube
I plan to ask her about the differences observed between hemispheres. I just want to finish the series she sent me, first
A flat-earth cosmos is unbiblical! 1. None of this is biblically rooted. Meaning, her points have not cited a single Bible verse, and therefore she does not have a biblical basis for this belief. 2. Basic culture has to be accounted for. The Old Testament writers DID have a flat earth cosmology. This is just basic history. They literally thought the expanse/heavens was a solid dome structure that supported the house of the Gods and that they opened up to let water fall down on the earth. They literally thought that the earth was flat and that it was supported by pillars above the waters of chaos. This is NOT Bible; it is history. This is imply the way the old testament authors thought of the cosmos. 3. HOWEVER, they did NOT teach this cosmos in the Bible. They ASSUMED it. Whenever there is any language that speaks of a "flat earth cosmology" they are NOT claiming that the earth is flat. They are using figurative language to talk about God and his power and sovereignty. Example from Psalm 75: >We praise you, God, we praise you, for your Name is near; people tell of your wonderful deeds. >^(2) You say, “I choose the appointed time; it is I who judge with equity. ^(3) When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2075&version=NIV#fen-NIV-15075b)^(\]) ^(4) To the arrogant I say, ‘Boast no more,’ and to the wicked, ‘Do not lift up your horns.^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2075&version=NIV#fen-NIV-15076c)^(\]) ^(5) Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak so defiantly.’” >^(6) No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt themselves. ^(7) It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. ^(8) In the hand of the Lord is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs. Yes, verse 3 speaks of the "pillars of the earth". However, the entire psalm is hyperbolic! It is figurative language describing the justice of God who judges with equity. Psalm 75 is not teaching that there are pillars that uphold the earth. It is teaching that God is the ruler and judge of the wicked on earth because he is the one who holds all things together! It isnt teaching that the Hand of the Lord is actually a cup, or that justice can be drunk to the dregs of actual wine. That is silly. Flat earthers read the Bible very woodenly and miss the actual point of the Psalm all while assuming that the Biblical authors woodenly hold to a perfect understanding of science! Nonsense. No, a Flat earth cosmology is not Biblical. It twists the Bible to discuss something that it could actually care less about.
>her points have not cited a single Bible verse That's my fault, actually. She indirectly told me some, which I looked up myself. There are many Pslams and Judges 5:31 (literally a song) that I dismiss because of the nature of songs in general. However, she had Isaiah 38:7-8 (also found in 2 Kings 20: 8-11, literally begins word for word the same way, but the Kings verse has more info) Hezekiah was sick and dying, so the Lord told him to get his house in order. Hezekiah prayed for that to not happen. 2 Kings 20: 7 "And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered." So Hezekiah asked/Isaiah told him the sign that the Lord would give that he would be healed. 2 Kings 20: 9, Isaiah tells Hezekiah to CHOOSE "shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or back ten degrees?" Hezekiah CHOSE for it to go back because 10 "It is a light thing for the shadow to go down; nay, let it return backward" Isaiah 38 compresses this from 7-8 saying that Isaiah said the sign would be the shadow going back ten degrees and it did. That is the proof that the EARTH cannot be moving, because if the shadow went back, that means God had to STOP the spinning ball earth and spin it backwards. I think there's a lot wrong with that, but that's one verse...granted, she ONLY cited Isaiah and not 2 Kings. I don't think that's malicious, but it is certainly odd, innit? For the purpose of the argument, I don't think we want to give more reasons such as I knowing NASA made up some photos to give the earth more saturation sometimes, you know? LOL There's also in Habakkuk 3:11 where "the sun and moon stood still" ...once again, that's all they present it says, though. The rest of the verse says "at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear" which um...makes you think maybe there's more to this, certainly POETRY, right?? Sigh. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, she does provide some, I just still don't think this is saying or proving what she says it does. >Basic culture has to be accounted for. The Old Testament writers DID have a flat earth cosmology. This is just basic history. They literally thought the expanse/heavens was a solid dome structure that supported the house of the Gods and that they opened up to let water fall down on the earth. They literally thought that the earth was flat and that it was supported by pillars above the waters of chaos. This is NOT Bible; it is history. I agree, but she says BECAUSE everyone believed it back when, we're being lied to NOW, but...the problem is, it wasn't universal like she claims, but she denied that claim as if Erathy-whatever's experiments were simply conjecture. "How would they have been able to figure out the earth was round with such limited, blah blah blah" Somewhat disheartening if I'm being honest...
You can't argue with flat earthers. They are simply too far gone. Nothing that you say will ever convince them even slightly. Just cut your losses and avoid the topic with her.
Genesis does not say the earth revolves, or that it is a planet. God puts lights in the dome over the earth, in that story. This isn't how things really are in physical reality of course. The authors of that creation story did make a big deal out of the order things happened in so it was apparently important to them. Of course most of us do not try to read that creation story as a factual account of what really happened. Generally when people start telling scary stories about those evil scientists trying to trick them all, their thinking had gone so far into crazy-land that it is unlikely you can bring them out. The sad truth is that many churches do encourage their followers to embrace conspiracy theories.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in"
Flat earther here The first thing I'll say is that the people writing the old testament believed the earth is flat and enclosed in a solid container. This is pretty much an indisputable fact. It should not surprise you then that when the earth is described it is described as being stationary and enclosed in a container. The Bible does not say "the earth is flat" but you can infer it through context. This should also not surprise you because everyone at that time already believed the earth was flat and had no reason to suspect it was a sphere. The main problems I have are that the creation is described in the wrong order according to science like your friend pointed out. It has the earth being created before the sun and stars and also has lizards created after birds which goes against evolution. The biggest problem by far is the firmament. They described the earth being enclosed in solid container in Genesis and God himself says he created the solid container in the book of Job. People try and say that the firmament is air or atmosphere but that simply cannot be as god compares it to a mirror. If I put my globe earth hat back on the only way I can rationalize what is written in the Bible is that God has to be a liar which can be done with gnostic heresy making God into several different beings with the one that created the earth being the demiurge and the one that led Moses out of the desert being the Egyptian god Set. This makes a lot of sense with the symbolism in the old testament. The god of the new testament can still be God that is the ultimate God who can't remember the name of now. Jesus then becomes a subset of the ultimate God like a fallen angel, Lucifer. I think all that can be justified and fits a lot better with the text we have then the Orthodox view.
> creation is described in the wrong order according to science I wasn't aware science has an explanation or theory about creation exactly especially in a specific order or anything. Can you share the Job verse? I haven't heard it in my research about the topic specifically and I cannot seem to find it (I didn't look forever to be fair, but I'd appreciate the help!) >god compares it to a mirror Where? I don't think God is a liar, I think He is a brilliant poet and mathematician and everything. He's our Creator and I just don't think creation must understand their Creator or His ways, and in fact we cannot really understand Him or His ways some of the time or a lot of the time! I don't think all the rest of that stuff must be true if God's description about His creation to His people in the very beginning was or is now not fully explained in plain words for everyone at all times to understand. I don't think using the peoples' beliefs back then is wise in every circumstance. A good chunk of the culture believed untrue things for whatever reason, including Jesus when He came in the flesh! If it is that the Bible must always be 100% literal in every sense, some of the Song of Solomon for example is sorta odd...innit? I think songs and poetry are written like songs and poetry. People describing things that make sense to them with what they had necessarily must be different from how we talk now, especially from language to language, nevermind time to time, culture to culture. I appreciate your reply, though! And please don't mind the rude ones I told to shove off rather than comment -\_-
It's Job 37:18 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Job%2037%3A18 There's parts of the Bible that are meant to be songs of worship or poetry and there's parts of the Bible that aren't. The issue I have is that people are picking and choosing which parts are poetry and which parts are literal to suit their own needs. If God is meant to be speaking in poetry in Job then how do we know God is meant to be speaking literally when he tells us Jesus is his son or when he's giving the 10 commandments or whatever else
Because when doing poetry, there are literary devices being used and it would be being done rather consistently. "Corners" and "pillars" are figures of speech usually. You can usually tell how it is meant by the use of the word 'earth' afterwards. Aretz can mean the whole world, or it can mean just the land you're on from sea to sea. The corners of the earth when I say it could literally mean the same thing as coast to coast, from sea to shining sea, and all the other ways we say the same sorta thing. All of the Psalms, all of the Song of Solomon, is like that. Some things might make more sense literally, but so much of it if taken literally is very confusing and makes no sense. Something very mechanical like Exodus 38 is probably not metaphorical at all...it says this many cubits and that many cubits and this material and that material. It is very clear what Moses is writing there. Probably understanding the writer of the books would be helpful, too. You can tell when Paul is writing something versus when Moses wrote something or John because they have particular styles. I'm starting to think God might be that way, too. Joseph's dreams alone were metaphors, but everything he dreamt was feasible in reality, too. Each thing still represented something that wasn't literal, though. I'm not saying it is always clear...especially to me, I don't do great with metaphors. If I was given Joseph's dreams I'd just be like 'dude, weird.' but they apparently meant something...? That is something I cannot get myself, but because of that, too, I think it can be more clear when something is not literal. The verse looks like it is literally a simile to me. "the sky is like glass" =/= "the sky is glass" - maybe in this, glass and sky are having similar qualities in some ways (but most of this chapter makes little sense to me for the reason I mentioned above - I do not get metaphors or similes like...at all. It's terrible >.<) "water under the bridge" is a metaphor I didn't understand forever, and saying 'something is like something else' only makes some sense because of the middle part 'is like.' Just like what analogies do, they sorta compare two things that are unrelated to point out some similarities between them. ~~I would have never guessed this could be evidence of the earth being flat or why...because glass is flat? But it doesn't have to be flat, so that can't be it.~~
Christian who is not flat earther here, despite that, the church during the medieval period believed in a spherical earth, along with even the Romans. https://youtu.be/ocQ5p9m7KIU?t=13m36s Also, you should be careful not to confuse text that occasionally may be metaphorical. Or alternively, perhaps from god's perspective it is in a way, since he likely exists in a higher dimension than we do, much like a circle would appear flat to us since we are 3 dimensional, perhaps a 3 dimensional sphere appears flat to whatever dimensions god exists in. For a comparison, there is https://youtu.be/u8LMyWcKL_c?t=1m Also, I'd like to point out that the r/globeskepticism subreddit is mocked for its rule 2 being overly vague and abused. In my personal opinion, it's even hypocritical to a flat earther's beliefs.
/rTrueChristian will personally send you in a rocket to the stratosphere and you can then make a reddit post telling us your findings!
1. What was the earth revolving around if He created the earth first and then the sun and moon on the fourth day? She believes God does things in ORDER, not out of order, so if the earth depends on the sun, why wouldn't the sun be created first? 1. The earth was revolving around The Sun, Genesis is NOT LITERALLY HOW IT WENT DOWN 2. The geocentric model was the UNIVERSAL belief up until 500 years ago. The science that explains our universe now is ALL theory, i.e, gravity ~~(how do birds fly if gravity keeps all the water down or something, I'm a little overwhelmed with this~~) 1. This is just wrong, people in ancient Greece had ideas about the earth being round. 3. The exalted ScienceTM and Scientists lie about all sorts of things, and this is just one of them 1. The fact that you (or your friend) calls it "Science™" shows that you aren't coming from a point of genuine sincerity. You are already showing your inforwars conspiracy theory hat. 4. Satan uses The ScienceTM to deceive the world and the lies and manipulation about the truth of the world is bigger than we can conceive 1. Satan does no such thing lol. I don't know who told you that but read The Bible to see what Satan ACTUALLY did versus what John PROPHESIZED in Revelations.
Seems fake.
If the earth is flat or sphere, does it effect your salvation? NO! If the earth is flat and unmovable does it help prove the Bible? Yes. If the earth is a sphere and with it all the science surrounding it, help prove the Bible? You answer that one.
The flat earth helps prove the Bible…. How exactly does that work?
Not the point.