The Flat Earth.

[EzraLB]

Personally I do not care if earth is a Rubic's Cube. It would, however, look better with all white squares.

This is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.

The problem with the "ice wall" theory of Antarctica, is that some of the oldest maps show it to have coastlines with no ice on them....

[Gaius]

The whole thing is just another rabbit-hole distracting people from the real battle.

100% with this view.

I sometimes wonder about those of our people who obsessively promote this type of tripe. This and drivel about Noah in a space-ship etc etc. Do they think they are being clever and impressing folk in some way ? Quite the opposite, at least in my case anyway ...

[Joe]

Good-point about the maps Ezra.

Some people prefer tall tales over plain truths. I myself don't mind reading about such things occasionally as entertainment, but I always centre my life around a solid foundation. So I don't understand it entirely either Gaius. Do we really need UFO stories and occult histories to be part of CI.

Perhaps people want these things to be true, they gravitate towards them in their pride. Rather than humbling themselves before Scripture. People want to feel they have a secret no-one else has.

[wmfinck]

Eric Dubay is one of the most vocal flat-earth proponents. I believe that I exposed a few of his obvious lies in the recent "Round Earth Roundtable" program we did when we were in Pennsylvania earlier this month, posted here:

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/round-earth-roundtable

After that program, I found this. Evidently Dubay is a plagiarist as well as a liar and a fraud (and a race-mixer, too):

[wmfinck]

I was on the road a few months ago, and had promised Bahr that once I got home, I would produce the passages from Strabo where he had discussed Eratosthenes. So I thought I would finally do that.

From the notes I made while reading Strabo back in 2003, it appears that Strabo discussed the spherical earth, based on what he learned from Eratosthenes, in the following places in Book 1 of his Geography:

1.1.20: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1A*.html

20 Most of all, it seems to me, we need, as I have said, geometry and astronomy for a subject like geography; and the need of them is real indeed; for without such methods as they offer it is not possible accurately to determine our geometrical figures, "climata," dimensions, and the other cognate things; but just as these sciences prove for us in other treatises all that has to do with the measurement of the earth as a whole and as I must in this treatise take for granted that the universe is sphere-shaped, and also that the earth's surface is sphere-shaped, and, what is more, I must take for granted the law that is prior to these two principles, namely that the bodies tend toward the centre; and I need only indicate, in a brief and summary way, whether a proposition comes — if it really does — within the range of sense-perception or of intuitive knowledge. Take, for example, the proposition that the earth is sphere-shaped: whereas the suggestion of this proposition comes to us mediately from the law that bodies tend toward the centre and that each body inclines toward its own centre of gravity, the suggestion comes immediately from the phenomena observed at sea and in the heavens; for our sense-perception and also our intuition can bear testimony in the latter case. For instance, it is obviously the curvature of the sea that prevents sailors from seeing distant lights at an elevation equal to that of the eye; however, if they are at a higher elevation than that of the eye, they become visible, even though they be at a greater distance from the eyes; and similarly if the eyes themselves are elevated, they see what was before invisible. This fact is noted by Homer, also, for such is the meaning of the words: "With a quick glance ahead, being upborne on a great wave, [he saw the land very near]." So, also, when sailors are approaching land, the different parts of the shore become revealed progressively, more and more, and what at first appeared to be low-lying land grows gradually higher and higher. Again, the revolution of the heavenly bodies is evident on many grounds, but it is particularly evident from the phenomena of the sun-dial; and from these phenomena our intuitive judgment itself suggests that no such revolution could take place if the earth were rooted to an infinite depth. As regards the "climata," they are treated in our discussion of the Inhabited Districts.

1.3.3: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1C*.html

3 Now after Eratosthenes has himself told what great advances in the knowledge of the inhabited world had been made not only by those who came after Alexander but by those of Alexander's own times, he passes to his discussion of the shape of the world, not indeed of the inhabited world — which would have been more appropriate to his discussion of that subject — but of the earth as a whole; of course, one must discuss that point too, but not out of its proper place. And so, after he has stated that the earth as a whole is spheroidal — not spheroidal indeed as though turned by a sphere-lathe, but that it has certain irregularities of surface — he proceeds to enumerate the large number of its successive changes in shape — changes which take place as the result of the action of water, fire, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other similar agencies; and here too he does not preserve the proper order. For the spheroidal shape that characterises the earth as a whole results from the constitution of the universe, but such changes as Eratosthenes mentions do not in any particular alter the earth as a whole (changes so insignificant are lost in great bodies), though they do produce conditions in the inhabited world that are different at one time from what they are at another, and the immediate causes which produce them are different at different times.

If one followed my arguments in the "Round Earth Rountable" about the irregularities of the land surface, one may see that they were long ago precipitated by Strabo. That I would be expect to be the case. But the realization defeats perhaps half of Dubay's supposed "200 Proofs".

Further references are made at 1.3.22

1.4.1: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1D*.html

1 In his Second Book Eratosthenes undertakes a revision of the principles of geography; and he declares his own assumptions, to which, in turn, if there is any further revision to be made, I must undertake to supply it. Now his introduction of the principles of mathematics and physics into the subject is a commendable thing; also his remark that if the earth is sphere-shaped, just as the universe is, it is inhabited all the way round; and his other remarks of this nature. But as to the question whether the earth is as large as he has said, later writers do not agree with him; neither do they approve his measurement of the earth. Still, when Hipparchus plots the celestial phenomena for the several inhabited places, he uses, in addition, those intervals measured by Eratosthenes on the meridian through Meroë and Alexandria and the Borysthenes, after saying that they deviate but slightly from the truth. And, too, in Eratosthenes' subsequent discussion about the shape of the earth, when he demonstrates at greater length that not only the earth with its liquid constituent is sphere-shaped but the heavens also, he would seem to be talking about things that are foreign to his subject; for a brief statement is sufficient.

(Strabo described the οἰκουμένη further on in that chapter, especially in 1.4.5 and 1.4.6 where he also showed that he could be critical of Eratosthenes.)

Further references are made at 2.3.3, where we also see some errant proto-Dubay logic:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/2C*.html

Then there are further references at 2.5.1 through 2.5.5, and at 2.5.10 (where he further discusses the οἰκουμένη):
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/2E1*.html

[MichaelAllen]

Not sure who was speaking at the 31:30 mark in the flat earth podcast... hydrocarbon deposits have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Not sure of your source but if you can locate it, I'd like to read and critique. Hydrocarbon production is all about rock pressure manipulation by a series of chokes and separators on surface equipment - this only taking place on a drilled, cemented, cased wellbore and after perforation and stimulation operations have happened. Most modern non-conventional wells have true vertical depths of between 7000 and 9000 ft, so I'm not sure why someone would think this is of any import to the flat vs sphere earth debate.

For the record, I don't know that the earth is flat... but I've become very suspicious that the physical construct of the universe is not really known fully either way - if perhaps unknown only to the sheeple. My position is... Adam is to have the dominion over the land and the beasts of Yahweh's creation, and there are “things" hindering that.

[bahr]

Bill,

There must be a misunderstanding here. You seem to think that, in my post, I was defending one model over the other. But it was absolutely not the case. All I said was that the Eratosthenes experiment, by itself, proved nothing in favor of a particular form of the earth. The roundness of the earth was already supposed/known by Eratosthenes, and the objective was to measure the curvature of the already supposed/known sphere, not to prove its roundness, because this roundness was already "proved" before the experiment took place.

And so, if someone repeat this exact same experiment with the presupposed idea that the earth is flat, then what he would determine is obviously not a curvature, but a distance : the distance between the supposed flat earth and the sun.

Who is right and who is wrong in his presupposition about the form of the earth is another matter.

[wmfinck]

Bahr,

I did not determine that you were a proponent of either side. I only posted the information because I had mentioned that I would. It was not intended to prove or disprove anything, but only to show the logic of the "spherical earth" side of the ancients.

There are many other flat-earthers besides Eric Dubay and Mark Sargent. I got involved in this because certain Identity Christians have of late become involved with Dubay and Sargent, and to me they are both obvious disinfo agents and provocateurs out to discredit all so-called conspiracy theories. I have shown that a few things which Dubay said in his book were outright lies.

Headline: "Don Spears Gets into Bed with Jew for Flat-earth Marriage". There are a half-dozen others getting into that bed too, and I thought I might shake some of them loose from the idiocy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkaO9Fyuwq0

Of course, I am persuaded that the earth is spherical. However the main point is that the argument does not belong in CI.

I would also agree with Michael Allen, that we do not know as much about the structure of our universe as "scientists" would claim to know. I do not even really remember what was said about hydrocarbon production, so I must have been distracted, LOL, sorry. It was meant to be an informal evening.

Maybe if they drilled too deep, all the oil would leak out the bottom and we would really be screwed.

Combining the flat-earth proponents with the hollow-earth proponents, we would end up with a donut shaped earth. Or more appropriately, a bagel.

[Fenwick]

Combining the flat-earth proponents with the hollow-earth proponents, we would end up with a donut shaped earth. Or more appropriately, a bagel.

Soviet astrophysicists have beaten you to that idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tor ... e_universe

[EzraLB]

I think there are six corners to the Earth, not four....