There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

** It appears that I may have taken your argument in the wrong way, if that be the case please disregard this message ** First, as has been explained the system isn't quite as delicate is you think.Second, we all know that there is a balance and there are many circumstances where human life couldn't work, but the evolutionist would say that that is because humans have been fine tuned to survive in this environment rather than an environment that is 50 degrees warmer or colder. How well would Microsoft word work if instead of having a box full of transistors your computer had a bunch of tinker toys in it? Your computer must have been made for Microsoft word, huh.As a side note, the vast majority of our planet is covered in salt water, desert or ice, doesn't seem like this planet was built for us.That argument is just as valid as saying "look at how dependent our bodies are on this environment rather than say a being that breathes helium." The problem is that this argument doesn't distinguish whether the earth is suited for us or we are suited for the earth. Until you can do that, I suggest you abandon that argument.Edited by Max Power, : No reason given.

You need to remember that the folk who bring up things that might lead to questions such as those really haven't thought about the issue at all.The Earth's diameter is almost 9000 miles. That alone means that one side of the Earth is 9000 miles further from the Sun than another side, every single day.As others have pointed out, there are also variations due to the position of the Earth at any given time and there the change is on the order of almost 4,000,000 miles.We also really don't know what the habitable range of a world would be. For example, if the earth were in the current orbit of Mars it does not appear that conditions would be much different than they have been here or even as they are in some parts of the Earth today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Devil, Sorry Devil not my thoughts.I was refering to being fixed or established.If it has a cycle it goes through every year or varys every so many years then that is a fixed cycle or an established cycle.Just trying to understand the debate.By the way there is a place you can see the entire planet earth from it is called the space station.

Untrue. It's not in a polar orbit, so you can never see most of Antarctica or the Arctic from it. And even from the moon you only see half the globe at any one time - with part of that almost always in darkness.

Not so much, at least not all at the one time. In fact I'm pretty sure that the space station, I assume you mean the International Space Station, doesn't even see the whole 'disc' of the Earth.But lets say that you said 'the moon' instead, you would still be wrong. Yes you can see the whole disc of the Earth, but you can't see the side facing away from you.TTFN,WK

Space stations are in low orbits. It's like trying to see the whole house while having your face 2 inches away from its east side wall. You can't even see the entirety of the wall, let alone the house.

If you're alluding to the verse:

quote:

---

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

---

it should be noted that there is no mountain high enough - nor orbit high enough - to see the whole surface of the earth.The verse suggests:

1. an ignorance of the spherical nature of the earth, or
2. an ignorance of the geography of the earth, or
3. a figurative description of the earth.

In no way can the verse be literally accurate.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Wait a minute, this is a good example. Now look, even modern man can pull things way out of proportion.
yet I know what he means, if he thinks about it more, then he will
see that he did not really mean the whole world, it's just normal
to forget about a 4D world.Yet I understand the phrase.Zcoder....

That's just it though - he clearly did mean the whole world. He said "all the kingdoms of the world". The only way to see "all the kingdoms of the world" from one point above the earth would be if the earth was flat.That verse clearly shows the author's understanding that the earth is flat.Now, I'm saying that the Bible is simply flat-out wrong about that. That's all, just wrong.That doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't have it's value. It just means that it's wrong about that particular thing.You, on the other hand, seem to want to twist the Bible to make it "right". You seem to be saying that the authors "meant" to get it right, and that we should bend over backwards to make it right, even if we have to ignore what the Bible actually says.Edited by Ringo, : New Improved subtitle.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, I can't do it, but if I could go back in time, and was able to
take anyone up to so hight to where he could see what looked like the
whole world, and he did not know what the whole world look like
before.
Then I would also suspect that person to talk as if he seen the whole
world. infact, I sould not even expect less then that from that
person.All it is, is you just can't understand people and their possition
and allow them some slack. But also remember that the bible is full
of meanings that we do not understand even today.The bible can not, and should not be used as "The Holy Science" book
as it is clear that is is only "The Holy Bible"
and modern man should also have the wisedom to know that it is more
of a philosophy book, and if I was trying to learn math from the
moby dick book, I would surely look silly.I am sure you are more intelagent then to use the bible as a science
book? or even suggest it? and if you think it is, please show me even
one of the authors of that book who said it was a science of the
world or universe.Zcoder....

The question is: why should we allow them any slack? If they wrote "as if" they thought the world was flat, how can we assume that they knew better?I take them at their word. If they described the world as flat, I conclude that they thought it was flat.You seem to be assuming that they "must have" known it was round, but they described it as flat anyway. Why would they do that? Aren't you paying any attention at all to what I say? I have said several times now that they Bible is wrong when it says the earth is flat.The fact that it's not a science book is irrelevant. It does say quite plainly that the earth is flat. It's wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The Authors interpretation is wrong. but it does not take away the message of the book.If I took a person up only to a point where the world still looked flat
and then held out my hand and said "Behold the world" what would they
think?or maybe I could say "Behold all the kingdoms" and lets also assume
that in those times, those was the only kindoms. we don't know.Thing is, You should try to put yourself in their shoes and then read
it again, and forget how they viewed it, but more what the phrase's message is.You might be supprized.Zcoder....Edited by zcoder, : fixed spellings

We're not talking about the message of the book. We're talking about what the text says and whether or not what it says is accurate. I would think, "That isn't the whole world." And since the author specifically said, "all the kingdoms of the world," I'd think he didn't know much about the world. You're missing the point of this forum.If a book said, "Pink fairies eat cheese all day long," I could look for the message behind it. Or I could check the real world to see if it contains real pink fairies.That's what the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum is about. There are some people who read in the Bible that there was a worldwide flood and they believe it. They don't bother to look at the real world to see if there really was a flood. This forum is about comparing what the Bible says to the real world. It's not about looking for messages.So our only point of contention is about what the Bible says.Forget about messages. Forget about philosophy. Forget about wearing anybody else's shoes.Read the passage and decide what it says. Does it say/suggest/imply that the world is anything but flat? Does what it says correspond to the real world?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But we do know that there were kingdoms in those days, in the Middle East, sure, but also in India, China, Japan, Peru, and Mexico/Guatemala, just off the top of my head. You don't get to "assume" things that are contrary to fact, Z.

Ok you do that, and like I said you will look silly in my eyes becouse
the book was written only to pass on the mesage of god.
So to save me from being the fool, who follows the fool I must
exit this thread and save face.Know I respect your view, but you just backed it up into a corner
to where there is no valid info on science in the bible so it know
looks more like you just want to brake down the bible for pleasure.
to prove some point?But one more thing, the bible has no valid science in it, so it stands no
chance in that respect, so to me this is like picking on a child
who you know has no chance.So now if you will excuse me I am done.Zcoder....