A Biblical Cosmology / God's Flat Earth
- Thread starter JStates
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe the earth is flat set on a foundation enclosed in a dome 
(Job 37:18) "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"
It seems there's a structure there. This is the sea of glass under God's throne that the saints will one day stand upon.
A FE model makes everything so much easier to calculate. If you have to allow for the curvature of the earth, the maths becomes near impossible for a PC to model. It is a game. Star Wars is a movie. Fighters maneouvre as if there was an atmosphere and gravity. Geeks like me notice, very few notice or care.
The earth could be flat. God can do anything. No life would exist as there would be no gravity to hold the atmosphere. So we would not be having this conversation if it was flat.
The earth could be flat. God can do anything. No life would exist as there would be no gravity to hold the atmosphere. So we would not be having this conversation if it was flat.
-
1
- Show all
Good question. If you traveled far enough, would you be able to walk up to a crystalline wall and "knock on the glass"? Who knows. It seems from Biblical context that angelic messengers can travel into this Earth realm and back out.
Actually I take the Tower of Babel account pretty literally. I think they were trying to build a tower in order to attack the firmament and break into the Second Heaven (there are three heavens, Biblically). If it were completely impossible to do, God would not have needed to intervene. I take the account to mean two things: it's theoretically POSSIBLE to leave this Earth realm, but God will not PERMIT it.
It seems from Biblical context that angelic messengers can travel into this Earth realm and back out.Actually I take the Tower of Babel account pretty literally. I think they were trying to build a tower in order to attack the firmament and break into the Second Heaven (there are three heavens, Biblically). If it were completely impossible to do, God would not have needed to intervene. I take the account to mean two things: it's theoretically POSSIBLE to leave this Earth realm, but God will not PERMIT it.
Good question. If you traveled far enough, would you be able to walk up to a crystalline wall and "knock on the glass"? Who knows. It seems from Biblical context that angelic messengers can travel into this Earth realm and back out.
Actually I take the Tower of Babel account pretty literally. I think they were trying to build a tower in order to attack the firmament and break into the Second Heaven (there are three heavens, Biblically). If it were completely impossible to do, God would not have needed to intervene. I take the account to mean two things: it's theoretically POSSIBLE to leave this Earth realm, but God will not PERMIT it.
It seems from Biblical context that angelic messengers can travel into this Earth realm and back out.Actually I take the Tower of Babel account pretty literally. I think they were trying to build a tower in order to attack the firmament and break into the Second Heaven (there are three heavens, Biblically). If it were completely impossible to do, God would not have needed to intervene. I take the account to mean two things: it's theoretically POSSIBLE to leave this Earth realm, but God will not PERMIT it.
Great post and I was 100% on board until the last couple sentences.
Gravity exists, I'm not denying that. "What goes up must come down." Something forces matter downwards towards the Earth's surface.
I don't think the modern explanation for gravity as an attractive force between mass has been perfectly explained or proven. Newton didn't "discover" gravity. He simply described a phenomenon and his explanation was accepted.
My dad's an electrical engineer. He's always been interested in something called "GUT" - Grand Unification Theory. You see, modern scientism has a problem. The forces that supposedly exist on a mega scale affecting galaxies, stars, planets, etc. (gravity) and the atomic forces that hold all matter together (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force, etc.) have equations which are not mutually compatible. A GUT framework that reconciles these two areas of equations has been sought for some time.
But here's my thought on that. Gravity - mass attracting mass - simply isn't observable, measurable, testable in real life the way it should be. The computer models of the solar system etc. all work great... but you can lie with math and computers. Every CG film or video game is a lie told with math.
I think that gravity in the modern explanation of it simply doesn't exist and thus a GUT is not needed at all.
We need a new theory of gravity.
Gravity exists, I'm not denying that. "What goes up must come down." Something forces matter downwards towards the Earth's surface.
I don't think the modern explanation for gravity as an attractive force between mass has been perfectly explained or proven. Newton didn't "discover" gravity. He simply described a phenomenon and his explanation was accepted.
My dad's an electrical engineer. He's always been interested in something called "GUT" - Grand Unification Theory. You see, modern scientism has a problem. The forces that supposedly exist on a mega scale affecting galaxies, stars, planets, etc. (gravity) and the atomic forces that hold all matter together (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force, etc.) have equations which are not mutually compatible. A GUT framework that reconciles these two areas of equations has been sought for some time.
But here's my thought on that. Gravity - mass attracting mass - simply isn't observable, measurable, testable in real life the way it should be. The computer models of the solar system etc. all work great... but you can lie with math and computers. Every CG film or video game is a lie told with math.
I think that gravity in the modern explanation of it simply doesn't exist and thus a GUT is not needed at all.
We need a new theory of gravity.
-
1
- Show all
Could be.
Flat Earth is interesting because this latest resurgence started only around 2012-2014 and serious flat earthers are questioning everything and trying to understand what is fact and what is dogma. But the establishment has had hundreds of years to put its heliocentric system in place.
One flat earther put it this way: We can prove that the globe is a lie, but that's not the same thing as being able to perfectly explain everything.
For example, the Sun. The truth is no one has EVER proven 100% that they know what it is. The heliocentric "magic burning ball of gas" is just what we're told. But it's a childish explanation if you think about it. Wouldn't it burn out? Spread out into a cloud? And no one can verify it.
Flat Earth is interesting because this latest resurgence started only around 2012-2014 and serious flat earthers are questioning everything and trying to understand what is fact and what is dogma. But the establishment has had hundreds of years to put its heliocentric system in place.
One flat earther put it this way: We can prove that the globe is a lie, but that's not the same thing as being able to perfectly explain everything.
For example, the Sun. The truth is no one has EVER proven 100% that they know what it is. The heliocentric "magic burning ball of gas" is just what we're told. But it's a childish explanation if you think about it. Wouldn't it burn out? Spread out into a cloud? And no one can verify it.
Genesis 10: 25
Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
The next chapter is about babel and again mentions Peleg
Yes, and this is quite frustrating that the powers that be have corrupted knowledge and truth and deceived humanity about many things. What do you think the Sun is?
Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
The next chapter is about babel and again mentions Peleg
Yes, and this is quite frustrating that the powers that be have corrupted knowledge and truth and deceived humanity about many things. What do you think the Sun is?
-
1
- Show all
Hmm, that Genesis bit is really interesting. I've heard young Earth creationists postulate that the Flood triggered the ice ages, which in turn triggered sea level rise which may have also contributed to the dividing of the Earth by flooding a lot of low-lying archipelagos and land masses. The Earth as seen on an AE map like Gleason's is VERY divided with the Americas, Africa, and Australia making kind of a rough Y-shape. And obviously lots and lots of water... or so we are told
What is the Sun? Yup, that's a hard one. Well, Biblically it is a light and its circuit denotes the passing of a day. Beyond that... dunno! But I've seen some simulations where flat earthers have used a flashlight to project a spot of light inside a glass dome. The Bible never says the Sun is a physical object, only that it is a light. Could it be a large energetic projection being projected by something on the other side of a firmament structure?
What is the Sun? Yup, that's a hard one. Well, Biblically it is a light and its circuit denotes the passing of a day. Beyond that... dunno! But I've seen some simulations where flat earthers have used a flashlight to project a spot of light inside a glass dome. The Bible never says the Sun is a physical object, only that it is a light. Could it be a large energetic projection being projected by something on the other side of a firmament structure?
-
1
- Show all
Hmm, that Genesis bit is really interesting. I've heard young Earth creationists postulate that the Flood triggered the ice ages, which in turn triggered sea level rise which may have also contributed to the dividing of the Earth by flooding a lot of low-lying archipelagos and land masses. The Earth as seen on an AE map like Gleason's is VERY divided with the Americas, Africa, and Australia making kind of a rough Y-shape. And obviously lots and lots of water... or so we are told
What is the Sun? Yup, that's a hard one. Well, Biblically it is a light and its circuit denotes the passing of a day. Beyond that... dunno! But I've seen some simulations where flat earthers have used a flashlight to project a spot of light inside a glass dome. The Bible never says the Sun is a physical object, only that it is a light. Could it be a large energetic projection being projected by something on the other side of a firmament structure?
What is the Sun? Yup, that's a hard one. Well, Biblically it is a light and its circuit denotes the passing of a day. Beyond that... dunno! But I've seen some simulations where flat earthers have used a flashlight to project a spot of light inside a glass dome. The Bible never says the Sun is a physical object, only that it is a light. Could it be a large energetic projection being projected by something on the other side of a firmament structure?
reminds me of that. And yes so they say the flood caused Pangea -
2
- Show all
The old one has held up pretty well. I've seen a presentation that says gravity is not a force. I do not care. Whatever it is, it has demonstrable laws that apply everywhere. Even an asteroid has a certain amount of gravity. If there is not gravity (an FE dogma) then what holds the atmosphere in place? We know what weightlessness is like from space flight and space stations.
There are things called spectrum analysers. They show that the sun is fundamentally hydrogen in fusion, which produces helium. Helium is about 30%. Helium is increasing, because as you asked, the sun will eventually burn out. The hydrogen does spread out into a cloud and some of the material is ejected into space from time to time - solar flares.
No one can verify anything. When I was a child, I wondered if everything was a dream and I'd wake up and be someone else. How could be sure? There are things that can be verified to a point where it is reasonable to accept that it is truth. The sun's fusion mechanism is demonstrable big time by hydrogen bombs.
There are things called spectrum analysers. They show that the sun is fundamentally hydrogen in fusion, which produces helium. Helium is about 30%. Helium is increasing, because as you asked, the sun will eventually burn out. The hydrogen does spread out into a cloud and some of the material is ejected into space from time to time - solar flares.
No one can verify anything. When I was a child, I wondered if everything was a dream and I'd wake up and be someone else. How could be sure? There are things that can be verified to a point where it is reasonable to accept that it is truth. The sun's fusion mechanism is demonstrable big time by hydrogen bombs.
that's ridiculous.
your cellphone has reception and working GPS precisely because the maths are entirely possible and in fact are being calculated every second, with astounding accuracy.
however if the earth was flat many things are physically impossible, like the observed distribution of sunlight on the face of the earth and the rising and setting of the sun, eclipses of the sun & moon, the motion of planets, the seasons, lunar phases, gravity, orbital mechanics, fuel consumption for aircraft, magnetic 'north', horizons, long-range ballistics, large-scale weather patterns, ocean tides and currents, all kinds of optical phenomena in the sky, many many things.
and all those things are 100% explained with a physical model of a heliocentric system of roundish planets & moons, when atmospheric phenomena are taken into account properly. 100%.
how do you think we know when an eclipse is going to happen or what time the sun sets? certainly not with a FE model. there is no existing FE model that can even explain the sunrise, but God shows this to every eye, every day.
your cellphone has reception and working GPS precisely because the maths are entirely possible and in fact are being calculated every second, with astounding accuracy.
however if the earth was flat many things are physically impossible, like the observed distribution of sunlight on the face of the earth and the rising and setting of the sun, eclipses of the sun & moon, the motion of planets, the seasons, lunar phases, gravity, orbital mechanics, fuel consumption for aircraft, magnetic 'north', horizons, long-range ballistics, large-scale weather patterns, ocean tides and currents, all kinds of optical phenomena in the sky, many many things.
and all those things are 100% explained with a physical model of a heliocentric system of roundish planets & moons, when atmospheric phenomena are taken into account properly. 100%.
how do you think we know when an eclipse is going to happen or what time the sun sets? certainly not with a FE model. there is no existing FE model that can even explain the sunrise, but God shows this to every eye, every day.
that's a laughable dogma. you know what they say when they claim there is no gravity?
they say, no, it's buoyancy.
well what's the definition of buoyancy?
Archimedes principle:
it's the "gravitational constant"
buoyancy is a derived expression from the force of gravity.
so their argument is equivalent to "there's no such thing as eggs, there are only omelets"
FE is a trap for ignorant people who do not investigate claims. it's prepping people to accept even bigger lies.
they say, no, it's buoyancy.
well what's the definition of buoyancy?
Archimedes principle:
see that 'g' there? it's the "gravitational constant"
buoyancy is a derived expression from the force of gravity.
so their argument is equivalent to "there's no such thing as eggs, there are only omelets"
FE is a trap for ignorant people who do not investigate claims. it's prepping people to accept even bigger lies.
for one thing: planetarium & video game code is 'black box' for the user and proprietary, protected information so i don't know how you 'know' how it's written.
but, that said:
there is literally no such thing as a working FE physical model. no FE model can explain a sunrise / sunset. every FE model predicts behaviour 100% contrary to observation, and no FE model has any physical explanation for the movements of the heavenly bodies.
it's rubbish.
God did not create the sky in order to deceive us; studying the sky reveals an enormous creation in which we are a tiny speck -- and yet He has put life in only one place: here on earth. in the same way He did not choose Israel because she is great, nor choose to place His name with her because of her virtue.
our relative insignificance in the grand scope of His creation makes the Psalm true:
but the FE man-centered creation is a vanity, and makes the Psalm an ignorant lie.
when we consider the heavens we are humbled, not puffed up with pride because we think all of creation is an arrow pointing at us. it's an arrow pointing at the majesty and glory of the power of God, and His great mercy and lovingkindness towards us, that He should stoop to consider us
but, that said:
- in the case of a video game like skyrim they are not calculating any physical interactions between bodies. they are writing code to say "this circle moves along an arc across the surface of a dome from point A to point B in a specified, repeating time period"
- when it moves past the edge of the dome, it simply ceases to exist.
- that's not a physical model.
- that's definitely not 'flat earth' related, it's mimicking observation of actual planets/the sun, which do not display the behavior a FE physical model predicts; they definitely move according to an heliocentric 'globe' model according to physical principles of gravity, optics, etc.
- in the case of planetariums they use digitized sky models based on observation of the movements of the stars and planets and sun. when these planetarium digitized models simulate moving forward & backward in time to make predictions or extrapolations about the relative positions of planets, stars etc -- they are 100% making those calculations based on physical models of an observer standing on a rotating globe-earth orbiting the sun. i.e. classical physics.
there is literally no such thing as a working FE physical model. no FE model can explain a sunrise / sunset. every FE model predicts behaviour 100% contrary to observation, and no FE model has any physical explanation for the movements of the heavenly bodies.
it's rubbish.
God did not create the sky in order to deceive us; studying the sky reveals an enormous creation in which we are a tiny speck -- and yet He has put life in only one place: here on earth. in the same way He did not choose Israel because she is great, nor choose to place His name with her because of her virtue.
our relative insignificance in the grand scope of His creation makes the Psalm true:
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
(Psalm 8:3-4)
(Psalm 8:3-4)
but the FE man-centered creation is a vanity, and makes the Psalm an ignorant lie.
when we consider the heavens we are humbled, not puffed up with pride because we think all of creation is an arrow pointing at us. it's an arrow pointing at the majesty and glory of the power of God, and His great mercy and lovingkindness towards us, that He should stoop to consider us