An Actually Pious Protestant, Against Flat Earth, As He Should, Not For Heliocentrism, and He Shouldn't

Does the Bible teach a flat earth?
Answers from Scripture | 3 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1SKmdMCGCs

3:07 Science may have said the Earth is a sphere since Aristotle, but Geography has said so since Magellan.

To the point: Aristotle's four proofs have as the strongest one a pseudo-Magellan. The point was weakened when that error was found to be one, and strengthened beyond destruction once we have Ferdinand Magellan and his shipmates.

Answers from Scripture

@answersfromscriptureonline

And the Bible stated it plainly more than two thousand years before Magellan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline In theory, a disc could also hang on nothing.

The more plain statement, with today's geographic knowledge is the four corners.

[omitting a private one]

7:15 Fixed Earth, however, is a fact.

You cannot have the universe turning around earth each day, moved by God, if it's earth that's moving.

And Romans 1 (18 to 20) and John 5:17 say God is moving the universe around us each day.

Answers from Scripture

You need to re-read your proof texts. They say nothing whatsoever resembling your claim for them. Sie sollen ihren Beweisrext wieder neu lesen. Die sagen überhaupt nicht was sie von ihnen behauptet haben.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline Well, as to John 5:17, the one work that God is undisputedly performing in the present every Sabbath is referenced, what other could it be than keeping the universe turning, since otherwise time would stop at a Sabbath evening?

Upholding in existence could be argued as not a work, but an ongoing result from creation week. Don't think that's the case, but could be argued, and probably more so among Jews back then. 5I don't have a time machine, and am not a Jew, despite some ancestry).

As to Romans 1, you need a proof for God, which is visible (excludes human reason, despite the proof in Miracles, chapter 3, by CSL), visible without modern equipment (excludes the flagellum of the bacterium), is undisputedly ongoing action (excludes existence or the ordered working of an automaton), argues he ... aïdios autou dunamis = everlasting power, a power that doesn't get tired.

A work of turning the universe around earth each single day certainly fits that bill.

And it also argues the theiotes over all of the universe.

7:35 If it hasn't been proven either way, Geocentricity, as what we observe, is the default.

As what we normally observe, I should say. If you are in a car, you can see the ground move from under your nose and back, if you are in a chopper around the Eiffel Tower, you can see the Eiffel Tower move, and if the Moon moves around Earth every 25 hours, that explains why Armstrong saw the Earth "turn around itself" ...

But if we stand on the ground, the ground isn't moving, the Eiffel Tower isn't moving, the whole Earth isn't moving, but cars, choppers and the Moon are moving.

There are exactly two ways to argue conclusively about God and Tychonian Geocentrism.

Tychonian Geocentrism cannot work without God and angels.
God and angels don't exist.
Therefore Tychonian Geocentrism is false.

Tychonian Geocentrism cannot work without God and angels.
Tychonian Geocentrism holds, as observed.
Therefore God and angels exist.

Answers from Scripture

Your argument is both subjective and circular.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline Show me the circulus in probando.

And show what's faulty in the subjectivity.

8:02 The four corners in Apocalypse 7:1 are the NW corner (Alaska), the SW corner (Cape Horn), let's go across the Pacific, evening and then morning, NE corner (Siberia), SE corner (Tasmania).

Even if the four winds are N, E, S, W, that would be angels, two and two keeping back the wind between them.

Now, each of these corners would also exist on a flat earth map, but the Northern ones would no longer be outer corners, and instead Cape of Good Hope would be a third outer corner. To get a fourth one, you'd need to add the other South corner of Australia, which is disingenious.

Therefore the four corners are with modern geographic knowledge rather a proof text for globe than for disc.

Answers from Scripture

I agree with you that the four corners argument doesn’t need a flat earth to be accurate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline By now it can't have a flat earth, unless you want Australia to be two of the four corners.

10:12 is where I saw "proven either way"

You'll excuse me for using the verse divisions of Douay Rheims rather than KJV.

Here is Joshua 10:12

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon
[Josue (Joshua) 10:12]

If it was earth that stopped and was again set in motion, rather than God ceasing the daily Westward motion of the Universe, and angels the longer Eastward motions of Sun and Moon, this would be the very only time in the Bible when a miracle worker adresses a different thing from what needs to be changed.

You could speak of man and leprosy cleaned, but the one is the man getting "saubergewaschen" and the other is the leprosy getting "abgewaschen" so the Gospeller used a pun in the same verb.

The men who think Joshua apparently adressed Sun and Moon, while really commanding Earth, they could argue the other Yehoshua apparently adressed demons while really commanding the functions of a human brain and nothing else. Obviously, that's refuted by some drowning pigs too, but normally, we will assume the miracle worker adresses what needs to have a miraculous change of state or behaviour.

Meaning, Joshua adressed Sun and Moon because it was Sun and Moon that needed to cease moving.

You cannot argue the words to Sun and Moon were his prayer, they must have come after his unquoted prayer, because "sun" and "moon" are not names of God.

Answers from Scripture

Nobody was saying any of this. I think you were typing instead of listening in this section.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline You said, by the way I was reading, not hearing, this library has no headphones, that you don't think it's "proven either way."

I argue it very much is, due to the verse where Joshua makes his miraculous command to Sun and Moon.

10:21 No, we are not told of what he asks for.

We are only told what he says once he's done asking.

They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth
[John 11:41-43]

For the other Jesus, the son of Nave or of Nun, we are not told the words that correspond to "Father, I give thee thanks" but only the ones that correspond to "Lazarus, come forth".

"Sun, stand still" = "Lazarus, come forth"

Jesus didn't ask the grave to roll back from around him, he told him to walk out of the grave.

Joshua didn't ask the earth to stop moving, he told Sun and Moon to stop moving.

Answers from Scripture

You are correct that “Sun stand still was spoken as an imperative, not an interrogative, but that changes in no way the rest of the monologue on that issue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline My point was not that it wasn't an interrogative.

My point is, that injunction cannot have been the prayer, since you and I and also Joshua would never adress God as "Sun" or as "Moon" ... his predecessor had recently received very strict orders not to bow down to them.

The prayer must have preceded, unquoted.

The following comments

have disappeared, and so have my replies to Answers from Scripture in the previous dialogues.

10:57 If the Azteks actually had a story about a day lasting two days, their ancestors can't have been in Mexico back then

Sure it isn't a night lasting two nights?

Because a two day long day and a two day long night are delimited in eastern China, on a globe.

12:07 Phenomenology works fine for verse 13, Sun standing still.

Phenomenology doesn't work for verse 12, since it's not a story of what it looked like, but the inspired words of the miracle worker.

14:40 Those factors, the same they will use to talk about "impossibility of Sun orbitting Earth", those factors are under natural laws.

Now, the natural law only states what way the result will go from that factor, or you could make more ones about two interacting factors, but it doesn't state and it cannot state that there are no other factors or that the other factors cannot significantly alter the outcome, or that the other factors that alter the outcome can only come from among those subjected to natural law.

One must realise what natural laws do and don't state.

A current in a wire will obey both Ohm's law for some reason (like thickness and material of the wire) and Ampère's law, but if they interact ... bad example, I suppose, since these two are actually pretty separate. But the two body problem of astronomic orbits involves laws related to gravitation and to inertia, and their interaction, the result being neither exactly what gravitation would produce by itself, nor what inertia would produce by itself.

Neither of the laws state that God and angels can't modify the outcome even more.