189. The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam and other holy books say that Earth is stationary and flat

"The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam, and many other holy books describe and purport the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable .” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” The Bible also repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around) giving a scriptural proof the Earth is not a spinning ball."


We should take the Bible as proof.  Really?

Thanks for that opinion, but I think I’ll continue to rely on scientists instead of priests to tell me about computers, airplanes, nuclear power stations, medicines, the weather, space etc.  In fact anything that relates to the physical world.

Presumably Dubay also believes in sorcerers and magicians because the Bible says they exist
Exodus 7:9-12 New International Version (NIV)
 "When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Perform a miracle,’ then say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,’ and it will become a snake.”
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
No really.  I do presume that Dubay believes in them.

Of course putting faith in the literal truth of the Bible is the root of all this flat earth nonsense.

Interestingly the actual passages from the Bible are not particularly specific.  It seems an odd thing for them to pick a fight with science over.



The following phrases could be taken literally as proof

Foundations of the earth

This could be interpreted that the Earth has a "lowest" part which makes more sense on a flat Earth than a sphere

E.g: Samuel 2:8 
He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.  For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; on them he has set the world.

Circle of the earth

This is the only reference in the Bible that suggest that the Earth is a disc

Isaiah 40:22 
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Ends of the earth

This could be interpreted as indicating that Earth has an edge.

E.g: Psalm 67:7
God shall bless us; let all the ends of the earth fear him!


However, if the above phrases are to be taken as literal proof for a flat Earth, then surely the following phrases should be taken literally as well

Four corners of the earth

This has many more references than the single reference to the circle of earth.  Why do flat earthers insist that the flat Earth is a disc which has no corners? Surely the Bible is telling us that the Earth is a square or rectangle.

E.g. Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Pillars of the earth

Why do none of the depictions of the flat Earth show the pillars that the Bible Psalm 75:3 states exist?
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Hopefully this demonstrates to you how silly it is to take passages from the Bible as literal truth.




< Prev      181-190     Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light...
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse, ...
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of ...
Read more