... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

... on CMI Mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (first half of video) · ... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

Not repeating link to video right now, see previous.

14:54 Back to Flat Earth, the other subject where you are not wrong.

Yes, four corners could be a figure of speech taken over from Babylonian terminology and never taken literally at all in Bible while Babylonians had taken Earth to be a flat rhombic shape (as seen on ordinary map directions), with a corner at each cardinal direction.

But in Revelation we have an angel standing in each of the four corners and holding in the winds.

This implies that angels have power to hold in winds (or conversely to make it blow), but it also pinpoints "four corners" as actual places.

You can get that better with a round earth than with a flat earth, unless you want to count all South corners and on top of that give Oz two of them.

Earth seems to be a word which can also mean "land" - both eretz and "terra" have such a double meaning.

And land can have corners outside which you fall into the sea.

If it refers to the four corners of the "main land" of mankind, namely Old World, we would have a NW corner at Greenland, Iceland, British Isles or Scandinavia, a SW corner at Cape of Good Hope, a SE corner at Singapore, New Guinea or even Oz, and a NE corner at Sakhalin or Japan.

Which would imply that Americas, outside these corners, would have lost in importance, before this happens.

15:21 Earth not on back of some animal - good.

But most mythologies which had a flat earth were not really into backs of animals anyway.

Norse has a tree trunk, also excluded.

Many would have agreed with this word in Job, Greek would. Despite Flat Earth (as witnessed by Hercules meeting Atlas near where Heaven would have touched Earth without the service.

As to Isaiah, if khûg means circle or globe, either way it is at least open for a round Earth.

And if khûg on top of that actually must mean sth globe shaped, well, too bad that some Talmudists missed that.

Many of the Christians involved in Flat Earth are bona fide and simply too much into "Jewish roots". Willing to take anything Talmudic which does not positively directly contradict Christianity.

15:42 Other example of misinformation in public school systems and these days most private schools too : they teach Heliocentrism as if it were a solid and proven fact. It is not.

16:06 "The American Pageant" by Thomas Bailey .... would it perhaps include some endorsement of Heliocentrism too?

16:56 As to full sphere, there was no total proof before Magellan.

Aristotle's fourth and best proof was a mistake about already having a Magellan type proof : if Ganges would have been on the immediate West of Pillars of Hercules, a k a Gibraltar.

Sailors passing equator were not much done by pre-Columbian sailors, except perhaps Portuguese ones - and Columbus had a Spanish crew.

18:22 Lunar eclipses are a fairly good argument for a round earth, but not a fool proof one.

Hindoos who deny round earth attribute lunar eclipses to Rahoo - a planet usually not seen, since it is hidden below the rim of Earth, but which comes up every once in a while to produce eclipses (both lunar and solar, I think).

And a Hindoo would answer that Rahoo is a globe?

Sure always casting a circular shadow proves sth is a globe, but not necessarily the Earth.

Works of Aristotle I: p. 389 is a bad reference, since given in relation to a modern edition.

You ought to have given either the work with its separate title and the book and chapter and paragraph or the pagination of a Renaissance edition, with all works paginated ... sorry, it was a Prussian edition:

"Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle (Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, 1831–1870). They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker (1785–1871)."

I would like to have known how Aristotle argued against Rahoo, if he even had come across such an idea of a body other than Earth causing lunar eclipses.

[They give a list from 9 to 1 on why Earth is a sphere:]

Number 9 : all "other" celestial bodies are round - but is Earth a celestial body?

Number 8 : day and night happen at different times.

Which is easy to verify by internet, and sometimes when I wake up at night thinking about sth, I am sure someone opposite side of the Earth was praying for me to consider x, but was not considering my timezone being sleeping time. Usually it is also an argument where they would be wiser to try to verify my answer by arguing over the internet with me, than to pray for me to immediately consider the argument when it is perhaps bright day in LA or Sydney, but middle of the night in the area of Paris.

This one has however mostly not been verifiable through out history. Chronometres used to verify latitude ... sorry longitude ... by comparing time on chronometre to astronomic noon or midnight are a fairly recent invention.

Number 7 : note that Coriolis might have a bearing on shape of Earth, but would be the same whichever of Earth and Universe were moving.

So, cannot be used against Geostationary or Geocentric world view.

Number 6 : two quibbles.

• a) if it has three straight angles but curved lines between them, I think triangle is a somewhat misplaced word (it has a bearing on two dimensional geometry);
• b) while I consider this as true, I consider this as a conclusion of Round Earth,, not as a proof of it, since it cannot be well tested.

Or would you like to start walking South from the North Pole to the Equator and then back North to the Pole after some march along equator?

I'd consider it uncomfy.

Number 5 : the curvature of Earth can be measured.

Without Magellan, this might not prove more than Earth being shaped like a chapati pan.

Number 4 : the constellations and the moon appear upside down if seen from other hemisphere than the one you are used to (an Aussie would be saying it is here they appear upside down) : good point, but it is also just recently this is testable.

Number 3 : the Magellan proof!

Yes. But there is such a thing as trusting the Portuguese on this one!

Precisely as there is on trusting Latin Americans on the seasons and day lengths at Tierra del Fuego.

You bet there are Protestants around still who say "na, that is a Jesuit plot". Just as there are such who claim Baptist continuity theory in Church History. To these, the normal givens of history through the centuries as applied to Church are results of a Jesuit plot to deny the "one Protestant faith which was older than Catholicism" as they would have it.

There is also such a thing as trusting sailors - and some land crabs will consider sailors as impure, just as Pharisees did with fishermen.

You can perhaps see now why Jews and Judaising Christians are prominent among Flat Earthers?

Number 2 : good point.

However, some are bungling the mathematical implications on this one.

I have seen people argue as if seeing buildings at all at a certain distance disproved Earth's known diameter. Their argument is equivalent to what you would have if the one watching always had his eyes at ground level.

Number 1 : the Moon landing is perhaps real, I am not DENYING it, but it would have been much easier to fake than the Magellan proof, considering the number of times it has been repeated (mostly by sailors, or Latinos or people who were both).

Admittedly, Deep Space Climate Observatory is a bit better documented, seeing the photo was not from Moon but from EPIC.

24:49 The photoshopping you refer to is indeed a technical possibility which is a weakness in the proof you put as number 1. 24:54 And CGI might have been secretly invented but not yet on market before the opening date of the invention.

I still think you number 3, Magellan, is much better.

25:03 NASA is apart from Round Earth promoting things like Heliocentrism - including Earth turning on its axis - and Climate Science. Not quite traditional things, perhaps NASA could have a skeleton in the cupboard.

By the way Magellan could have had motives like promoting Catholic exegesis. If you are into that kind of thing.

And now, the thing about footages taken from Moon. You believe them to be genuine, I have no quarrel with that, but a footage from Moon taken in timelapse showing Earth turns around itself is like a footage from ISS showing same : in both cases (and for ISS you know it) the stance of observer is moving around the observed object.

26:16 There you have a mighty motive for a Protestant. All Medieval scholars ... think of what that means to a Protestant.

Orbis cruciger is also appealing to Catholics.

27:06I actually saw an evolutionist or old earther appeal to King James.