[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Brothers (and Sisters) -

A particularly well-off member of my congregation has bought me a present.

He and I will be going on a "Space Adventures" suborbital flight! It costs $102,000 each, but he says it will be well worth it.

The flight goes 62 miles up from the surface of the planet and flies about in space.

As a result of this, I will be able to report with absolute certainty whether the earth is flat or round. And I will also know if we slam into the Fundament.

The flight is next week!

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Flight time is Thursday morning! I can't wait to see the entire Earth below me, and the fundament above, and the sun and the moon in the fundament! I hope we will fly alongside the icy mountain ranges that the fundament rests upon.

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Flight time is Thursday morning! I can't wait to see the entire Earth below me, and the fundament above, and the sun and the moon in the fundament! I hope we will fly alongside the icy mountain ranges that the fundament rests upon.

If you do that, can you try to catch a glimpse of Hell beneath? Pictures of Hell always work very well to convince unbelievers to accept Christ.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Be very careful not to point your camera too far upwards, if you see God's face your fate is sealed*!


*rather like a Canadian seal cub's fate is 'sealed'.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Brothers and Sisters -

I have returned from my sub-orbital flight.

I have seen things. Things which forced me to turn to the Bible for consolation.

We did not crash into the fundament. In fact, it was nowhere to be seen. I believe that the Lord allowed the fundament to collapse when the waters without were unleashed on the Earth during the Flood.

We flew around the Earth. Yes, around.



It's true!

It looks like this:



Ice is not, as was believed, gathered in a vast mountain range around the edge of the world, supporting the fundament. Instead, it is at the north and south "poles". Just like on a scientician's globe.

But I have good news!

These things are remarkably consistent with Scripture:

1. The Shape of the Earth
   1. "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," (Isaiah 40:22 NIV).
      1. This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
2. The Earth is suspended in nothing
   1. "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job. 26:7 NIV).
      1. This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.

Yes, I realize that the particular site is quoting the New International perVersion.
However, in this instance, the quotes are still essentially accurate.

The Earth is floating in space, supported by nothing, and it's a sphere. And the Bible supports this!

This PROVES that the Bible is God's Word! How could ancient Jews have known that the Earth was floating in space if GOD HIMSELF didn't tell them, eh? Answer me THAT, atheists!!

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

The Earth is floating in space, supported by nothing, and it's a sphere. And the Bible supports this!

Dear Reverend, though I hold you in high regard, I am afraid I must disagree with you here; the Earth cannot possibly a sphere. After all, we still read this in the Bible:

Job 28:24:
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

Psalm 19:4-6:
Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Psalm 136:6:
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Isaiah 42:5:
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isaiah 44:24-25:
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

Isaiah 51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Matthew 4:8:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Job 38:13:
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Psalm 103:12:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Proverbs 8:27-29:
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

Isaiah 11:12:
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Ezekiel 7:2:
Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Revelation 7:1:
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Job 9:6:
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Isaiah 24:1:
Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

I think that the people who took you on that flight in reality put you in some kind of simulator, designed to destroy your Faith in the Bible! If I were you, I'd demand my money back!

Also, about these Verses:

Job 26:7:
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isaiah 40:21-22:
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The first of these Verses only says that the Earth isn't hanged on anything. However, this is consistent with Job 9:6, which teaches that the Earth is founded on pillars, as the Earth doesn't hang on them; it simply is supported by it, because the pillars are below the Earth! It isn't suspended in any way; instead it is supported by pillars.

The second Verse gives a view from above: From that vantage point, the Earth indeed seems round, because the Earth is pancake-shaped. However, this Verse also teaches that the Earth has foundations under it.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

All I see is part of a flat disk and. in the far, far distance at the boundaries of the firmament, the thin line of white that is the ice wall.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

All I see is part of a flat disk and. in the far, far distance at the boundaries of the firmament, the thin line of white that is the ice wall.

That's because you weren't up there. It's a gigantic sphere.

And I know it wasn't a simulator, because members of my congregation were watching the liftoff and landing.

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

That's because you weren't up there. It's a gigantic sphere.

And I know it wasn't a simulator, because members of my congregation were watching the liftoff and landing.

Well, obviously, then you were high in the air, but still in a simulator.
Reverend, you aren't going to discount all those Scripture Verses now, are you? After all, who knows better than God?

[Cursed]

What I don't get is, why does it matter?

I just want to get to Heaven, then GOD can tell me what the facts are, Praise Him!

Then I won't be stupid anymore, ha ha! You guys are so smart and you have the whole Bible memorized and you know so much and I'm just a dumb bastard here on Earth, but in Heaven I'll be as smart as you forever and ever and ever and we can all sing praises to JESUS for all time!

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by True Disciple

Dear Reverend, though I hold you in high regard, I am afraid I must disagree with you here; the Earth cannot possibly a sphere. After all, we still read this in the Bible:

Job 28:24:
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

A common expression having nothing to do with the shape of the earth.


Psalm 19:4-6:
Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

As above.

Psalm 136:6:
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

I don't see how this indicates a shape of the planet.

Isaiah 42:5:
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

As above.

Isaiah 44:24-25:
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

As above.

Isaiah 51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Are you saying the Earth is a garment, now? Is it a robe, or a pair of pants? Neither of those is a flat square, now is it? This only says the Earth will age.

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

This is describing a vision, not the shape of the planet.

Matthew 4:8:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

At this time, all the kingdoms of the world were located within one part of the world. If you look at a globe, if you are far enough away (high enough up on a mountain), you can see all of the civilized countries at that time.

It didn't say that the devil showed Him all the destitute, maggot-eating savages of the world. Not much glory there.

Job 38:13:
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

"Ends of the Earth" is a common expression used even today.

Psalm 103:12:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

This says nothing about the shape of the Earth, and you're really reaching.

Proverbs 8:27-29:
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

That'd be the core and the mantle. The foundations.



This is how the scienticians explain it.


Isaiah 11:12:
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Common expression, like "ends of the Earth".

Ezekiel 7:2:
Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Common expression, like "ends of the Earth".

Revelation 7:1:
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Common expression, like "ends of the Earth".

Job 9:6:
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Describing an earthquake. So?

Isaiah 24:1:
Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

Sounds to me like a description of pole shift:



The scienticians think that the Earth's poles move.That would have the effect of "turning the world upside down"! (They obviously have the timing off a few thousand years, but may be correct on the rest.)

It wasn't a simulator. It was, in fact, a "flight in reality". I could see the members of my congregation out the window before we took off.

Job 26:7:
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isaiah 40:21-22:
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The first of these Verses only says that the Earth isn't hanged on anything. However, this is consistent with Job 9:6, which teaches that the Earth is founded on pillars, as the Earth doesn't hang on them; it simply is supported by it, because the pillars are below the Earth! It isn't suspended in any way; instead it is supported by pillars.

The second Verse gives a view from above: From that vantage point, the Earth indeed seems round, because the Earth is pancake-shaped. However, this Verse also teaches that the Earth has foundations under it.

Brother, please explain how Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, and Revelation 7:1 (all of which you cited above as "proving" a square or rectangular Earth) are consistent with Isaiah 40:21-22, which clearly states that the Earth is round, not rectilinear.

I am glad that belief in a "flat" Earth is not a Salvation issue!

I wonder how many of Landover's congregation secretly know the Earth is a sphere, but are afraid to say so for fear of being kicked out of the church?

Here's some wonderful additional reading.

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Job 28:24:
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

A common expression having nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Oh yes, it definitely has. Where do you think that expression comes from? Like many of our modern-day expressions, from the Bible.
Anyway, since when do you prefer to interpret something as an "expression" over the literal reading of the text? Because as a globe has no ends, it is excluded as a possible shape of the Earth when we take the Passage literally.

Psalm 136:6:
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

I don't see how this indicates a shape of the planet.

Of course it does. By stretching something out, you make it longer and flatter. Therefore, a globe is the least stretched-out shape there is, as there is no conceivable three-dimensional shape that becomes a globe when stretched.

If the world had been a globe, this Verse would have read: "And the Lord compressed the Earth above the waters."

Isaiah 51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Are you saying the Earth is a garment, now? Is it a robe, or a pair of pants? Neither of those is a flat square, now is it? This only says the Earth will age.

No, it says that it will age like a garment. It will not age like cheese, not like people, not like mountains, not like trees, not like books, but like a garment.
That, of course, means that the Earth apparently can be compared more with a garment than with any of the other things I've named. And what is a garment made from? Long, flat materials.

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

This is describing a vision, not the shape of the planet.

No, it says that all ends from the Earth could be seen only from that tree, as the sight only "reached to the end of the Earth," after it had grown to a certain height.

Also, the prophet doesn't say "I could see to the ends of the Earth," but just "the sight thereof was to the end of the earth," implying that this was not something that was unique to him, which you would have expected in case it only applied to him having the vision.

Matthew 4:8:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

At this time, all the kingdoms of the world were located within one part of the world. If you look at a globe, if you are far enough away (high enough up on a mountain), you can see all of the civilized countries at that time.

It didn't say that the devil showed Him all the destitute, maggot-eating savages of the world. Not much glory there.

You are using a very broad definition of the world "king" here. Think about how many of the feeble tribal chieftains of the Canaanites are called "kings" by the book of Judges: Adonibezek has managed to conquer 70 of them and fit them all under a very big table (Judges 1:1-7). Israel isn't that big, so these kings weren't that mighty either.

And anyway, if the round earth hypothesis was correct, there still would have been no mountain on Earth from where you could see both Rome and China, both mighty empires at that time. So yes, this Passage disproves the round earth hypothesis.

Job 38:13:
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

"Ends of the Earth" is a common expression used even today.

Yes, but not in the context of grabbing the earth and shaking people out of it.

Psalm 103:12:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

This says nothing about the shape of the Earth, and you're really reaching.

No, I'm not. If the round earth hypothesis were correct, then if you would go west, you'd eventually end up east, which would make the far east the exact same place as the far west. However, this Passage teaches that the far east and the far west aren't the same place, but are actually removed a great distance from one another.

Proverbs 8:27-29:
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

That'd be the core and the mantle. The foundations.



This is how the scienticians explain it.

And they are wrong. Maybe not when combining this concept with this Passage, but certainly when combining it with Job 9:6. Because this "lithosphere" of those secular scientists can in no way be interpreted as "pillars."

Isaiah 11:12:
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Common expression, like "ends of the Earth".

Same as with the previous common expressions. Why wouldn't God just say the "furthest places of the Earth" or "the other side of the globe," if the Earth was round?

Job 9:6:
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Describing an earthquake. So?

Well, it says that the Earth is founded on pillars, not on a "lithosphere."

Isaiah 24:1:
Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

Sounds to me like a description of pole shift:

The scienticians think that the Earth's poles move.That would have the effect of "turning the world upside down"! (They obviously have the timing off a few thousand years, but may be correct on the rest.)

Reverend, this has nothing to do with a "pole shift," as in the round earth hypothesis, there is no real difference between the North and South Pole, and one is not "up" while the other is "down." Up and down would just be a matter of your arbitrarily chosen reference frame. A spherical Earth has no up- or downsides. A flat Earth, of course, has.

It wasn't a simulator. It was, in fact, a "flight in reality". I could see the members of my congregation out the window before we took off.

You were probably watching them on a computer screen, or on a false image created by Satan to deceive you! Remember, the adversary will do anything to destroy the Faith of you and your flock. Don't let him win! This is one of those moments where it is vital to let your Faith trump your common sense, as it also might be God testing your Faith!

Brother, please explain how Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, and Revelation 7:1 (all of which you cited above as "proving" a square or rectangular Earth) are consistent with Isaiah 40:21-22, which clearly states that the Earth is round, not rectilinear.

Reverend, I hope you aren't suggesting that God's Word would be internally contradictory?

I am glad that belief in a "flat" Earth is not a Salvation issue!

I think it is, Reverend. After all, Jesus says:

John 12:21:
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

And these Commandments include:

Matthew 5:17-19:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Like the rest of the Bible, not believing in the Verses proving a flat Earth will negatively affect your Salvation™.

I wonder how many of Landover's congregation secretly know the Earth is a sphere, but are afraid to say so for fear of being kicked out of the church?

Reverend, are you now calling the integrity of our church members into question as well?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by True Disciple

Oh yes, it definitely has. Where do you think that expression comes from? Like many of our modern-day expressions, from the Bible.
Anyway, since when do you prefer to interpret something as an "expression" over the literal reading of the text? Because as a globe has no ends, it is excluded as a possible shape of the Earth when we take the Passage literally.

See the visions of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, and Pharaoh, mentioned below.

Of course it does. By stretching something out, you make it longer and flatter. Therefore, a globe is the least stretched-out shape there is, as there is no conceivable three-dimensional shape that becomes a globe when stretched.

If the world had been a globe, this Verse would have read: "And the Lord compressed the Earth above the waters."

In that passage, "the earth" is referencing land, not the planet. Context, Brother.

No, it says that it will age like a garment. It will not age like cheese, not like people, not like mountains, not like trees, not like books, but like a garment.
That, of course, means that the Earth apparently can be compared more with a garment than with any of the other things I've named. And what is a garment made from? Long, flat materials.

It means it, AND THE PEOPLE (they that dwell therein), will wear out and die. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Earth's shape.

No, it says that all ends from the Earth could be seen only from that tree, as the sight only "reached to the end of the Earth," after it had grown to a certain height.

Also, the prophet doesn't say "I could see to the ends of the Earth," but just "the sight thereof was to the end of the earth," implying that this was not something that was unique to him, which you would have expected in case it only applied to him having the vision.

It was a vision. He was not describing an actual, real tree. Visions are typically metaphorical, much as the visions of Daniel.

See Daniel 2:31-45. See also Daniel 4 (vision sent by God to Nebuchadnezzar) and Genesis 41 (vision sent by God to Pharaoh, interpreted by Joseph). All metaphorical.

You are using a very broad definition of the world "king" here. Think about how many of the feeble tribal chieftains of the Canaanites are called "kings" by the book of Judges: Adonibezek has managed to conquer 70 of them and fit them all under a very big table (Judges 1:1-7). Israel isn't that big, so these kings weren't that mighty either.

If you think Australian aborigines and Eskimos had "glorious kingdoms", then I'd be interested to know what you think happened to those glorious kingdoms, and why there is no evidence of their ever having existed.

A kingdom is actually very narrowly defined, Brother. It is you who are expanding "kingdom" from its actual meaning to include every strongest-guy-in-the-village who yammers in grunts and clicks.

And anyway, if the round earth hypothesis was correct, there still would have been no mountain on Earth from where you could see both Rome and China, both mighty empires at that time. So yes, this Passage disproves the round earth hypothesis.

You are both right and wrong. There is no mountain on Earth where a human could see both Rome and China, because we can't see that far. Jesus is God. Do you say it is beyond Him to see farther than humans? Do you say that it is beyond Him to see around a round Earth, for that matter?

Yes, but not in the context of grabbing the earth and shaking people out of it.

What does shaking people off the Earth have to do with its shape?

Are you saying God cannot grasp a ball, but He can grasp a square-round pancake-sheet?

No, I'm not. If the round earth hypothesis were correct, then if you would go west, you'd eventually end up east, which would make the far east the exact same place as the far west. However, this Passage teaches that the far east and the far west aren't the same place, but are actually removed a great distance from one another.

It is clearly an expression. East and west are directions, not places. Much like up and down, they are relative to an arbitrary starting point.

And they are wrong. Maybe not when combining this concept with this Passage, but certainly when combining it with Job 9:6. Because this "lithosphere" of those secular scientists can in no way be interpreted as "pillars."

It can when you go into a cave and see the stalactites and stalagmites, Brother.

Same as with the previous common expressions. Why wouldn't God just say the "furthest places of the Earth" or "the other side of the globe," if the Earth was round?

It is not for me to know the mind of the Lord. Nor is it for you to know.

Well, it says that the Earth is founded on pillars, not on a "lithosphere."

And elsewhere, it says that the Earth hangs on nothing.

Reverend, this has nothing to do with a "pole shift," as in the round earth hypothesis, there is no real difference between the North and South Pole, and one is not "up" while the other is "down." Up and down would just be a matter of your arbitrarily chosen reference frame. A spherical Earth has no up- or downsides. A flat Earth, of course, has.

That sounded rather scientific, Brother. I'm glad to see that you agree that up and down are relative.

You were probably watching them on a computer screen, or on a false image created by Satan to deceive you! Remember, the adversary will do anything to destroy the Faith of you and your flock. Don't let him win! This is one of those moments where it is vital to let your Faith trump your common sense, as it also might be God testing your Faith!

Sorry, you are misunderstanding God's Word. There are many Christian ministries demonstrating that the Bible is entirely consistent with modern science. I even gave you links to read, which you haven't.

Reverend, I hope you aren't suggesting that God's Word would be internally contradictory?

Not at all, Brother. Indeed, YOU are the one insisting that the Earth is flat and rectilinear, yet also circular like a pancake.

Why do you question God's Word, Brother?

I think it is, Reverend. After all, Jesus says:

John 12:21:
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

And these Commandments include:

Matthew 5:17-19:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Like the rest of the Bible, not believing in the Verses proving a flat Earth will negatively affect your Salvation™.

There are no verses proving a flat Earth. You merely misunderstand the Word.

Perhaps you should go for a flight yourself!

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

In that passage, "the earth" is referencing land, not the planet. Context, Brother.

No, it isn't, The waters we are talking about here are the waters of space. After all, in your round-earth cosmology, there wouldn't be waters beneath the earth, but earth beneath the waters only.

It was a vision. He was not describing an actual, real tree. Visions are typically metaphorical, much as the visions of Daniel.

There is no indication in this vision that the Earth Daniel sees is not the real Earth. Maybe it was the Earth in the future, but still it was the Earth. And from the tree in his vision, he could see the entire Earth. It's not about the tree being real or not; the point is that if the tree were real, you could see the entire Earth from it. That means the Earth is flat.

See Daniel 2:31-45. See also Daniel 4 (vision sent by God to Nebuchadnezzar) and Genesis 41 (vision sent by God to Pharaoh, interpreted by Joseph). All metaphorical.

As I said, it doesn't matter. There is no reason to suppose that the "Earth" in Nebuchadnezzar's dream was anything else than the real Earth.

If you think Australian aborigines and Eskimos had "glorious kingdoms", then I'd be interested to know what you think happened to those glorious kingdoms, and why there is no evidence of their ever having existed.

I was talking about China and Rome, Reverend. If those weren't "kingdoms," then there was nothing for Jesus to see.

A kingdom is actually very narrowly defined, Brother. It is you who are expanding "kingdom" from its actual meaning to include every strongest-guy-in-the-village who yammers in grunts and clicks.

Reverend, I have quoted the Bible to support my point about what we should consider to be a "king." As I said, there were hundreds of "kings" in Canaan. As Canaan isn't big enough to house hundreds of kingdoms that are bigger than eskimo villages (let alone Chinese Empires), it is clear that "strongest-guy-in-the-village who yammers in grunts and clicks" can indeed be considered "kings" according to the Bible.

Again, I didn't broaden the definition, the Bible did. Why are you disregarding the Bible, Reverend?

You are both right and wrong. There is no mountain on Earth where a human could see both Rome and China, because we can't see that far. Jesus is God. Do you say it is beyond Him to see farther than humans? Do you say that it is beyond Him to see around a round Earth, for that matter?

Of course not, but this Verse doesn't say that Jesus looked around Himself, but that the devil "shew Him" the kingdoms of the world. And the devil, unlike Jesus, isn't almighty.

Additionally, why do you think the devil took Jesus up a mountain, if it wasn't to have a better view on everything? It would be quite useless, Jesus and Satan strolling all the way up to the mountain to see everything, if they could just as well have stayed where they were.

What does shaking people off the Earth have to do with its shape?

Because God "took hold" of the ends of the Earth, in order to shake the wicked out of it. A round Earth doesn't have "ends" you can use as handles for such a purpose.

Additionally, if the round-earth cosmology was correct, then you couldn't shake people out of the world, since the meaning of up and down wouldn't change by turning the earth on its head. In a flat-earth cosmology, however, there is a change in up-and-down if the earth is turned on its head.

Are you saying God cannot grasp a ball, but He can grasp a square-round pancake-sheet?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this Verse teaches that God grabbed the Earth "by its ends," and a round Earth does only have metaphorical ends, which cannot function as a handle.

It is clearly an expression. East and west are directions, not places. Much like up and down, they are relative to an arbitrary starting point.

Reverend, you're forgetting what this Verse actually says:

Psalm 103:12:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

My very point was: if they were "relative to a starting point," then the far east and far west, being the same place, wouldn't have been removed at all from one another, which would make the Bible say that God didn't remove our transgressions from us. You know that the Bible doesn't teach that, Reverend.

It can when you go into a cave and see the stalactites and stalagmites, Brother.

Reverend, there aren't enough stalactites and stalagmites to support the Earth with. Also, these stalactites and stalagmites themselves are founded on deeper rock layers, so they can not be considered "pillars of the earth," as they are supported by the Earth, not vice versa.

It is not for me to know the mind of the Lord. Nor is it for you to know.

True.
But Reverend, while it certainly could be that God used "corners of the earth" as a metaphoric denotation for a round earth, there is no reason why that would be more likely than God using this expression for a flat earth, which is more true to a literal reading of the text.
And if there is no reason to prefer a metaphorical reading over a literal reading of the Bible (if there are no other Bible Verses that require it), we should always go with the literal meaning.

And elsewhere, it says that the Earth hangs on nothing.

I answered this before, I believe. The Earth "hangs" on nothing, because it doesn't hang at all: it rests on pillars. After all, the Earth couldn't "hang" on pillars, could it? It could hang on ropes of some kind maybe, but pillars can support things resting on them.

That sounded rather scientific, Brother. I'm glad to see that you agree that up and down are relative.

I didn't say that. I said that they were in a round-earth cosmology. I then said that in a flat earth cosmology, they weren't. And the Verse we were discussing said that the Earth was turned upside down, implying an upside and a downside which certainly aren't relative, as in that case, there would be no point in turning the Earth over.

Sorry, you are misunderstanding God's Word. There are many Christian ministries demonstrating that the Bible is entirely consistent with modern science. I even gave you links to read, which you haven't.

No, of course I haven't. I detest false christians who mangle God's Word to make it fit the expectations of godless atheist scientists. As you should as well.

Not at all, Brother. Indeed, YOU are the one insisting that the Earth is flat and rectilinear, yet also circular like a pancake.

Why do you question God's Word, Brother?

I never did, I only asked you a question.

Nevertheless, God can do everything, so he can also make a pancake shaped Earth with four corners. God is mightier than geometry. Problem solved.

There are no verses proving a flat Earth. You merely misunderstand the Word.

Again, I have proven in every single Verse I quoted that the Bible indeed supports a flat earth cosmology. Meanwhile, there are no Verses supporting a round earth. That's how it is, Reverend. Why are you resisting the Truth™ of the Bible?

Perhaps you should go for a flight yourself!

Definitely not. If these are the consequences, then I'll pass this honor.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by True Disciple

No, it isn't, The waters we are talking about here are the waters of space. After all, in your round-earth cosmology, there wouldn't be waters beneath the earth, but earth beneath the waters only.

Are you suggesting that the ocean is above the land, Brother, instead of below it?

The waters of space were dumped onto the Earth during the Flood.

There is no indication in this vision that the Earth Daniel sees is not the real Earth. Maybe it was the Earth in the future, but still it was the Earth. And from the tree in his vision, he could see the entire Earth. It's not about the tree being real or not; the point is that if the tree were real, you could see the entire Earth from it. That means the Earth is flat.

Actually, it said the tree was "in the midst" of the Earth.

Why could the tree not have been at the center of the Earth, from which one could in fact (with Godly Vision vision) see every point on the surface?

As I said, it doesn't matter. There is no reason to suppose that the "Earth" in Nebuchadnezzar's dream was anything else than the real Earth.

By which I assume you mean Daniel's dream. And there's no reason to suppose it was anything but a metaphor for God to convey a message, as in the other visions I have listed.

I was talking about China and Rome, Reverend. If those weren't "kingdoms," then there was nothing for Jesus to see.

And if you were high enough, you could well see China and Rome, as I've already said. Assuming you had Godly vision.

Reverend, I have quoted the Bible to support my point about what we should consider to be a "king." As I said, there were hundreds of "kings" in Canaan. As Canaan isn't big enough to house hundreds of kingdoms that are bigger than eskimo villages (let alone Chinese Empires), it is clear that "strongest-guy-in-the-village who yammers in grunts and clicks" can indeed be considered "kings" according to the Bible.

If that's what you call "glorious", I guess we have different standards, Brother.

Again, I didn't broaden the definition, the Bible did. Why are you disregarding the Bible, Reverend?

Why are you, Brother? How glorious are maggot-eating Aborigines? Even Satan wouldn't try to tempt Jesus with that!

Of course not, but this Verse doesn't say that Jesus looked around Himself, but that the devil "shew Him" the kingdoms of the world. And the devil, unlike Jesus, isn't almighty.

The devil is, however, an angel. Angels have powers far beyond those of humans. They are immortal, they can change shape, and move from place to place in an instant. We do not know by what means Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms.

Additionally, why do you think the devil took Jesus up a mountain, if it wasn't to have a better view on everything? It would be quite useless, Jesus and Satan strolling all the way up to the mountain to see everything, if they could just as well have stayed where they were.

Why do you think God required Moses to come up a mountain to commune with Him? So Moses could see farther, with his mere-human eyes?

A private place, away from all the humans, Brother.

Because God "took hold" of the ends of the Earth, in order to shake the wicked out of it. A round Earth doesn't have "ends" you can use as handles for such a purpose.

stretch it farther, Brother. If the "ends of the Earth" is metaphorical, then it's still metaphorical.

Additionally, if the round-earth cosmology was correct, then you couldn't shake people out of the world, since the meaning of up and down wouldn't change by turning the earth on its head. In a flat-earth cosmology, however, there is a change in up-and-down if the earth is turned on its head.

We've already established that up and down are relative. And God certainly could shake people off of the planet if He so desired. Why do you doubt His abilities?

How exactly would He shake them off the Earth if there were a solid dome above it? They'd hit the dome, and then slide back to Earth. Like the flakes in a snow globe.

Reverend, you're forgetting what this Verse actually says:

Psalm 103:12:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

My very point was: if they were "relative to a starting point," then the far east and far west, being the same place, wouldn't have been removed at all from one another, which would make the Bible say that God didn't remove our transgressions from us. You know that the Bible doesn't teach that, Reverend.

Except there is a maximum you can go east until you are an equal distance west of your starting point. I'm sorry this is so complicated for you, Brother. Did you go to public school?

Reverend, there aren't enough stalactites and stalagmites to support the Earth with. Also, these stalactites and stalagmites themselves are founded on deeper rock layers, so they can not be considered "pillars of the earth," as they are supported by the Earth, not vice versa.

So what is it you believe the pillars rest upon, Brother, if not rock?

True.
But Reverend, while it certainly could be that God used "corners of the earth" as a metaphoric denotation for a round earth, there is no reason why that would be more likely than God using this expression for a flat earth, which is more true to a literal reading of the text.
And if there is no reason to prefer a metaphorical reading over a literal reading of the Bible (if there are no other Bible Verses that require it), we should always go with the literal meaning.

Then you are forced to believe that the Bible is contradictory, and that the Earth is both square, with corners, and circular . . . by definition, without corners.

Why do you insist that the Bible is contradictory, Brother?

I answered this before, I believe. The Earth "hangs" on nothing, because it doesn't hang at all: it rests on pillars. After all, the Earth couldn't "hang" on pillars, could it? It could hang on ropes of some kind maybe, but pillars can support things resting on them.

And upon what do your pillars rest?

I didn't say that. I said that they were in a round-earth cosmology. I then said that in a flat earth cosmology, they weren't. And the Verse we were discussing said that the Earth was turned upside down, implying an upside and a downside which certainly aren't relative, as in that case, there would be no point in turning the Earth over.

If it is possible to turn the (flat) Earth over, which according to you is spread above water and supported on pillars, wouldn't that effectively flood the entire planet and drown the entire population . . . which God promised never to do again?

Are you calling God a liar, Brother? This is very disturbing.

Nevertheless, God can do everything, so he can also make a pancake shaped Earth with four corners. God is mightier than geometry. Problem solved.

Yet according to you, He would choose to describe it in His Word as being both square and circular. Why would that be? Again, are you calling God a liar?

Again, I have proven in every single Verse I quoted that the Bible indeed supports a flat earth cosmology. Meanwhile, there are no Verses supporting a round earth. That's how it is, Reverend. Why are you resisting the Truth™ of the Bible?

Insisting that you have proven yourself right when you have been refudiated is proof of nothing. Who are you, Obama?

Definitely not. If these are the consequences, then I'll pass this honor.

If you went on the flight, you could make a video proving me wrong.

[GodIsWinning]

This 'Space Adventures' scam is run by an atheist Mexican. He took your friend's money to wobble you about and show you videos through your window. There is no trickery too low for scum like this.

Repent thy foolish mistake and declare the REAL TRUTH to one and all. Remember Proverbs 14:15

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Are you suggesting that the ocean is above the land, Brother, instead of below it?

No. That's what the round earth cosmology claims, which you defend.

The waters of space were dumped onto the Earth during the Flood.

There is no reason to suppose that all of the waters went onto the Earth then. Why don't you back statements like this up with Scripture?

Actually, it said the tree was "in the midst" of the Earth.

Why could the tree not have been at the center of the Earth, from which one could in fact (with Godly Vision vision) see every point on the surface?

Because the Verse also said that the sight only reached the end of the Earth after the tree "grew" and reached unto Heaven. Read the Passage again:

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Only when the tree reached Heaven, the sight thereof reached the ends of the Earth. That's what Scripture says, Reverend. Why are you ignoring this?

By which I assume you mean Daniel's dream. And there's no reason to suppose it was anything but a metaphor for God to convey a message, as in the other visions I have listed.

Reverend, now you're talking like a fluffy-bunny false christian. What happened to "always taking the Bible literally, except when other Verses imply or demand a metaphorical interpretation?"

That the vision of Daniel conveyed a Message, does not mean that, when it describes the Earth, then that Earth is some "other" Earth than the real Earth.

And if you were high enough, you could well see China and Rome, as I've already said. Assuming you had Godly vision.

I have disproved your point about Godly Vision already. Why are you repeating yourself? 1, Jesus didn't look Himself, but Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the earth, and 2, with Godly Vision, the whole going-up-to-the-mountain part makes no sense anymore.

If that's what you call "glorious", I guess we have different standards, Brother.

Satan showed Jesus all the Kingdoms, and their glory. Of course, if there was no glory, Satan wouldn't be able to show it, but He would have shown Jesus the kingdoms nevertheless. Again, that's what the Passage says.

Why are you, Brother? How glorious are maggot-eating Aborigines? Even Satan wouldn't try to tempt Jesus with that!

This is a very weak cop-out. I have proven with the Bible that even the feeblest of chieftains are considered to be kings. I said nothing about them being glorious in any way. Why do you respond to an argument that is founded in the Bible with ridicule?

And "Satan wouldn't tempt Jesus with that?" How comes you know Satan so well, Reverend?

The devil is, however, an angel. Angels have powers far beyond those of humans. They are immortal, they can change shape, and move from place to place in an instant. We do not know by what means Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms.

We do not know how Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms, and as there is no clue whatsoever in the Bible regarding Satan's method here, we stick by the most literal one, as we should always do: Satan made Jesus see them with His Eyes, which is the most literal meaning of "to show."

Why do you think God required Moses to come up a mountain to commune with Him? So Moses could see farther, with his mere-human eyes?

No. Because God was up that mountain, of course. If you want to know why anyone in the Bible goes up a mountain, the context is the place to look. In Moses' case, it was to receive the Law from God. In Satan's case, it was to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.

A private place, away from all the humans, Brother.

Of course not. They would have gone into the desert if that was the motivation. The Bible doesn't say: "And Satan took Him up a mountain to enjoy a private moment with Him," and I'm somewhat bemused that you even suggest such a thing.

stretch it farther, Brother. If the "ends of the Earth" is metaphorical, then it's still metaphorical.

Yes, but it's not metaphorical. It seems you are deliberately avoiding my arguments, Reverend.

We've already established that up and down are relative.

No, we didn't. Because they aren't.

And God certainly could shake people off of the planet if He so desired. Why do you doubt His abilities?

I do not. Again, you misquote me. I said that the whole concept of presenting the ends of the Earth as handles in order to shake people out of the earth doesn't make sense if these "ends" are metaphorical. Are you suggesting that God would be so stupid as to be trying to look for handles on a round ball?

How exactly would He shake them off the Earth if there were a solid dome above it? They'd hit the dome, and then slide back to Earth. Like the flakes in a snow globe.

Where in the Bible does it say that it didn't happen that way?

Additionally, While there is a solid dome above the Earth, it is by no means established that the ends of the Earth are connected to this dome. After all, the sun has to go down, and has to pass in between them. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to turn the Earth on its head while keeping it within the dome.

Except there is a maximum you can go east until you are an equal distance west of your starting point. I'm sorry this is so complicated for you, Brother. Did you go to public school?

Reverend, are you serious? This is the point I've been making all along: In a round earth cosmology, the "furthest" point east is the same as the "furthest" point west (on both of these points, of course, you can still go further, because there would be no absolute east or west), which contradicts Psalm 103:12, which says that these points are not the same. Ergo, the round earth cosmology is wrong, and the Earth is flat. Did you even go to any school at all?

So what is it you believe the pillars rest upon, Brother, if not rock?

I have no idea, of course. God doesn't say that in the Bible. However, we know that the pillars aren't resting on the Earth, while stalactites are.

Then you are forced to believe that the Bible is contradictory, and that the Earth is both square, with corners, and circular . . . by definition, without corners.

I am disappointed in your lack of faith, Reverend. Surely, God can do anything, including creating a square circle? What "definition" could ever trump God's Power?

Why do you insist that the Bible is contradictory, Brother?

I don't. It is because of your own lack of faith that it may seem so, but the Bible is internally fully consistent.

And upon what do your pillars rest?

Again, I don't know, but not on the Earth.

If it is possible to turn the (flat) Earth over, which according to you is spread above water and supported on pillars, wouldn't that effectively flood the entire planet and drown the entire population . . . which God promised never to do again?

Are you calling God a liar, Brother? This is very disturbing.

Reverend, please don't lose your head. God might as well lift the Earth into the air above the waters. Isaiah 24:1 nowhere implies that God would have dropped the Earth into the waters.

Yet according to you, He would choose to describe it in His Word as being both square and circular. Why would that be? Again, are you calling God a liar?

No, Reverend, you are, with your consistent unbiblical claims of a round earth, and your open doubts about the capability of God to make square circles, solely because Satan apparently had a very easy job in deceiving you.

Insisting that you have proven yourself right when you have been refudiated is proof of nothing. Who are you, Obama?

This is beyond childish, Reverend. I have provided Scripturally Sound rebukes to your allegations, most of which you tried to shunt by changing the topic from the Verse in question into trifling details, repeating yourself over and over again without discussing what the Bible literally says, and ridiculing the things I (and the Bible) said.

If you went on the flight, you could make a video proving me wrong.

Unlike you, I believe in the Bible, and therefore, I need no video to convince me of anything.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by True Disciple

No. That's what the round earth cosmology claims, which you defend.

No, it does not suggest that the ocean is above the land. I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. The ocean is clearly lower than the land. Water runs downhill.

There is no reason to suppose that all of the waters went onto the Earth then. Why don't you back statements like this up with Scripture?

There is no reason not to suppose it.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

I wouldn't think I would have to explain the Flood to you, Brother.

Because the Verse also said that the sight only reached the end of the Earth after the tree "grew" and reached unto Heaven. Read the Passage again:

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Only when the tree reached Heaven, the sight thereof reached the ends of the Earth. That's what Scripture says, Reverend. Why are you ignoring this?

Metaphorical tree. Did you bother to read the rest of Daniel 4? Daniel explains that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar himself:

22It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Now, here we see the use of metaphor in the explanation. Or do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion extended to Heaven?

R

everend, now you're talking like a fluffy-bunny false christian. What happened to "always taking the Bible literally, except when other Verses imply or demand a metaphorical interpretation?"

As I just explained above, the verse you are quoting IS metaphorical, as Daniel explained.

Do you presume to know better than Daniel?

I have disproved your point about Godly Vision already. Why are you repeating yourself? 1, Jesus didn't look Himself, but Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the earth, and 2, with Godly Vision, the whole going-up-to-the-mountain part makes no sense anymore.

Moses up to the mountain to meet God. You ignored this.

Satan showed Jesus all the Kingdoms, and their glory. Of course, if there was no glory, Satan wouldn't be able to show it, but He would have shown Jesus the kingdoms nevertheless. Again, that's what the Passage says.

Godly and/or Angelic vision. Point?

This is a very weak cop-out. I have proven with the Bible that even the feeblest of chieftains are considered to be kings. I said nothing about them being glorious in any way. Why do you respond to an argument that is founded in the Bible with ridicule?

The kingdoms and the glory thereof.

And "Satan wouldn't tempt Jesus with that?" How comes you know Satan so well, Reverend?

Perhaps it would have been better phrased, "Jesus would not be tempted by that."

We do not know how Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms, and as there is no clue whatsoever in the Bible regarding Satan's method here, we stick by the most literal one, as we should always do: Satan made Jesus see them with His Eyes, which is the most literal meaning of "to show."

And according to you, Satan could not have seen these great distances, even though Jesus could. So, how could Satan have shown Jesus anything, if Satan could not see great distances?

No. Because God was up that mountain, of course. If you want to know why anyone in the Bible goes up a mountain, the context is the place to look. In Moses' case, it was to receive the Law from God. In Satan's case, it was to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.

You insisted that Satan had to bring Jesus up to a tall mountain so He could see something. For what purpose would Moses have to go up a mountain, instead of into the desert?

I do not. Again, you misquote me. I said that the whole concept of presenting the ends of the Earth as handles in order to shake people out of the earth doesn't make sense if these "ends" are metaphorical. Are you suggesting that God would be so stupid as to be trying to look for handles on a round ball?

If the poles are the ends (which are frozen wastelands), He could easily grasp the poles without squashing anybody other than a few penguins.

Additionally, While there is a solid dome above the Earth, it is by no means established that the ends of the Earth are connected to this dome. After all, the sun has to go down, and has to pass in between them. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to turn the Earth on its head while keeping it within the dome.

Really? But the water is below the flat Earth, remember?

Reverend, are you serious? This is the point I've been making all along: In a round earth cosmology, the "furthest" point east is the same as the "furthest" point west (on both of these points, of course, you can still go further, because there would be no absolute east or west), which contradicts Psalm 103:12, which says that these points are not the same. Ergo, the round earth cosmology is wrong, and the Earth is flat. Did you even go to any school at all?

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is inadequate.

As I said, there is a point farthest east from a starting point before you are equally far west. As you go around a globe to the east, you can travel just short of halfway before you are farther east than you are west from your point of origination.

If you travel exactly 1/4 of the way east, and your friend travels exactly 1/4 of the way west, from the same point of origination, then your eastern location is the maximum possible distance from his western location.

I have no idea, of course. God doesn't say that in the Bible. However, we know that the pillars aren't resting on the Earth, while stalactites are.

How do you know that the rocks upon which the stalactites rest are part of the Earth?

I am disappointed in your lack of faith, Reverend. Surely, God can do anything, including creating a square circle? What "definition" could ever trump God's Power?

Yet you think He can't see all the kingdoms of the world if the world isn't flat?

I don't. It is because of your own lack of faith that it may seem so, but the Bible is internally fully consistent.

I agree that the Bible is fully consistent. You claim that the Bible describes the Earth as both a square and a circle. It cannot be both. Therefore, since you refuse to accept that the "corners" are as metaphorical as Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree, WHICH REPRESENTED NEBUCHADNEZZAR, you insist that the Bible is contradictory to itself.

Reverend, please don't lose your head. God might as well lift the Earth into the air above the waters. Isaiah 24:1 nowhere implies that God would have dropped the Earth into the waters.

And what, hold it there forever?

This is beyond childish, Reverend. I have provided Scripturally Sound rebukes to your allegations, most of which you tried to shunt by changing the topic from the Verse in question into trifling details, repeating yourself over and over again without discussing what the Bible literally says, and ridiculing the things I (and the Bible) said.

Are you certain you aren't Catholic, Brother? After all, you ignored the Scripture in Daniel 4, in which Daniel explained to Nebuchadnezzar that THE TREE WAS REPRESENTING NEBUCHADNEZZAR and thus not a real tree.

Know who else ignores Scripture, Brother? Catholics.

Unlike you, I believe in the Bible, and therefore, I need no video to convince me of anything.

Apparently, you do not believe in the Bible. You say it is contradictory.

[Mister E]

I am glad to see that not only have you witnessed this firsthand, but that you have scripture to explain your findings.

I know this may be difficult for some to see the light of, but if we all go back and re-read the Bible from cover to cover, I think the answer may be found.

Ready, set, go!

[True Disciple]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

No, it does not suggest that the ocean is above the land. I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. The ocean is clearly lower than the land. Water runs downhill.

And what, in your worldview, is below the ocean? Right, the seafloor. Which is a part of earth. So, the ocean is higher than the earth in your worldview. Which was my point all along.

There is no reason not to suppose it.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

I wouldn't think I would have to explain the Flood to you, Brother.

Nonsense. If the Bible doesn't say they were emptied, they weren't, unless another part of the Bible requires it. The Bible didn't say either that Jesus took part in horse racing. Should we therefore suppose that He did? Of course not.

Metaphorical tree. Did you bother to read the rest of Daniel 4? Daniel explains that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar himself:

As I explained, it doesn't matter that the tree is metaphorical, as long as it is presented as a thing that, when it grows to full height, is able to see to the ends of the Earth, which requires a flat Earth.
Again (and again and again), it is not the reality of the tree that is important here, but the reality of the Earth, and as there is no reason to suppose that the Earth in this vision was any other Earth than the real Earth, it is ridiculous to assume that it wasn't. Especially if the only reason to do so is to salvage your round-earth worldviews.

22It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Now, here we see the use of metaphor in the explanation. Or do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion extended to Heaven?

Don't you? If the Bible says Nebuchadnezzar's greatness (not his dominion, again, read the Scripture you quote) reached into Heaven, who are you to dispute that?

And anyway, there is still no reason whatsoever that the Earth he saw in the dream as being flat was any other Earth than the real Earth.

As I just explained above, the verse you are quoting IS metaphorical, as Daniel explained.

Do you presume to know better than Daniel?

Are you still deliberately misunderstanding me? The Earth in Daniel's dream wasn't metaphorical, as there is no Verse in the entire chapter that implies that.

Moses up to the mountain to meet God. You ignored this.

I didn't. Now don't attempt to bear false witness against me, Reverend. I explained why Moses went up the mountain.

Godly and/or Angelic vision. Point?

Shown by Satan? Needlessly on top of a mountain?

Of course, the main point is that the Bible doesn't say anywhere that what Satan showed Jesus was an angelic vision of some kind. Again, a True Christian™ should always go with the literal meaning of the Text, unless the Bible Itself says otherwise. And the literal meaning of the verb "to show" is to make someone see something.
As the normal way of seeing is using your eyes, this is the most literal meaning of this Verse. The only reason you have to impose your definitely less literal meaning upon this Verse is to rescue your round-earth worldview. There is no Biblical argument whatsoever that supports your interpretation.

The kingdoms and the glory thereof.

Which is something entirely different than: "only the glorious kingdoms." All kingdoms, the Bible says, and all glory of those kingdoms.

Perhaps it would have been better phrased, "Jesus would not be tempted by that."

He wasn't tempted by this either, so this argument doesn't make much sense.

And according to you, Satan could not have seen these great distances, even though Jesus could. So, how could Satan have shown Jesus anything, if Satan could not see great distances?

You are, again, misunderstanding me. I said that there is no reason to suppose Satan could see those distances if the Earth was round. If the Earth is flat, however, Satan can, as you can look from one end to the other end of the Earth from a high mountain.

You insisted that Satan had to bring Jesus up to a tall mountain so He could see something. For what purpose would Moses have to go up a mountain, instead of into the desert?

God was up that mountain, why He was there? We can't really say. We only know that it was for that reason that Moses went up there. Possibly because His Cloud was better visible for the people then.

If the poles are the ends (which are frozen wastelands), He could easily grasp the poles without squashing anybody other than a few penguins.

Isn't the North Pole supposed to be a frozen sea? How can a topographical depression function as a handle?

Really? But the water is below the flat Earth, remember?

So? God lifts the Earth from its pillars and out of the water, and held it upside down. Where's the problem there?

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is inadequate.

As I said, there is a point farthest east from a starting point before you are equally far west. As you go around a globe to the east, you can travel just short of halfway before you are farther east than you are west from your point of origination.

If you travel exactly 1/4 of the way east, and your friend travels exactly 1/4 of the way west, from the same point of origination, then your eastern location is the maximum possible distance from his western location.

Yes, but those points are not the "far east" and "far west" as you could still go further east and west respectively. As soon as you would reach one of those points, you could still go further. You would then go round and round, because, again, there is no absolute furthest point. And Scripture speaks here of "the east" and "the west" as fixed points, Reverend.

Another Scripture Passage that illustrates this:

Mark 13:27:
And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Here, the Bible describes the four winds as equal locations. This is consistent with a Flat Earth worldview, which includes an absolute north, west, east and south. It is inconsistent, however, with a round-earth worldview, which only includes an absolute north and south.

How do you know that the rocks upon which the stalactites rest are part of the Earth?

The image you posted before shows an Earth that is Earth all down to its core:



So according to this image you posted before, stalactites rest on Earth.

Also, we can find stalactites near the surface of the Earth high in the mountains, supporting only a few meters of rocks. If the rocks those rested on weren't part of the Earth, then very few things are part of the Earth.

Yet you think He can't see all the kingdoms of the world if the world isn't flat?

I didn't say that, Reverend. Why do you keep distorting my words even after I corrected you on it?

Anyway, do you, or do you not, believe that God can create a flat circle?

I agree that the Bible is fully consistent. You claim that the Bible describes the Earth as both a square and a circle. It cannot be both.

Now you just repeat yourself. Again, why do you think creating a square circle would be too hard for God?

Therefore, since you refuse to accept that the "corners" are as metaphorical as Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree, WHICH REPRESENTED NEBUCHADNEZZAR, you insist that the Bible is contradictory to itself.

And what, hold it there forever?

Umm...maybe just putting it back again, after shaking wicked people out of it?

Are you certain you aren't Catholic, Brother? After all, you ignored the Scripture in Daniel 4, in which Daniel explained to Nebuchadnezzar that THE TREE WAS REPRESENTING NEBUCHADNEZZAR and thus not a real tree.

I didn't ignore that, Reverend, I explained multiple times now that the Earth in Nebuchadnezzar's dream wasn't metaphorical. And it's the Earth we are talking about now, not the tree.

Know who else ignores Scripture, Brother? Catholics.

I know that. That is why all catholics believe in a round earth, like you do.

Apparently, you do not believe in the Bible. You say it is contradictory.

Reverend, this is a little above name-calling at the schoolyard. I have explained how God can created a circular Earth that has corners. Stop ignoring this point, please.