The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The bible plainly states( pun intended) that the earth is a stationary plane.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 84367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (43)
Votes (3)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

I'll start with a few verses that explain the earth is stationary. Unless someone can counter, I'll move on to other verses.
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
donald.keller

Con

Thank you Pro for asking that I accept this debate.

I will start by addressing Descriptive v Prescriptive text, and then I will explain the meaning of the text if it were literal. Next, I will explain the meaning of the text if it were (and likely is) metaphorical.

Rebuttal: Biblical Texts

The biblical text that Pro shows us falls under two errors of interpretation. The first is that this text is descriptive, not prescriptive. This text isn't text from God saying he specifically made the world flat or stationary, but is instead the writers view of God. If they believe the world is stationary, they would therefore view God as the one who made the world stationary. So this text doesn't mean the Bible says the world is stationary, but that the writers did. To prove the Bible specifically promotes a stationary earth theory, Pro must show prescriptive text. Not descriptive.

The second error of interpretation is semantically in nature. The Earth may very well be stationary, but still move. The Earth is stationary as it stays within a perfect orbit. It circles the Sun, following the same orbit year after year. It never leaves that orbit. It can't be moved from that orbit (as the text seems focused on the ability to move it, and not on whether it's moving {e.i. "immovable" instead of "moving".}) It's orbit never changes or shifts. It doesn't shift inwards or outsides. It is stuck in place by the Sun.

Therefore, the Bible is saying that the Earth does not budge from it's orbit, firmly set around the sun. The Earth can not be moved by people, a meaning which correlates better when you read the actual text. A look at other versions of these text shows us a more accurate view of the meaning. The text as Pro shows is nearly deceptive in nature.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength;
indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.”
The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity.

The world can not be made to move... Not that it doesn't move. It is established like how a bull may charge forward, and yet it can not be moved once it begins charging... That bull is established and secure. As for Pro's last text, it's a complete lie. Such text does not exist. Isaiah 45:18 say:

For this is what the Lord says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the Lord,
and there is no other.

Pro's text only show an opinion of God... An opinion that is accurate in that we can not move the Earth, literally or metaphorically. It's position... It's orbit... is secure and established, as are it's laws of nature and the rules set for it (which is more akin to the meaning of the text.)

Conclusion: Pro's text is descriptive text, not prescriptive. Even then, the text uses terms that imply human's ability to make the Earth move, not terms that imply it is not already moving. More so, the meaning of the text is that human's can not command the Earth... They have no power over God's creation... His creation is established and secure. Not stationary.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro

Just trying to clarify, you said that prescriptive text should only be taken literally because they are God's word? And no scriptures mentioned were a part of God's word? If the writer's write what Jesus was saying? Otherwise it's always metaphorically. How convenient it is to be able to completely change the meanings of the words unmovable, fixed and foundation to mean spinning, orbiting, and flying through space! Can you provide any scriptural backup?
Never mind that, I'll try to move on...
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
These scriptures clearly point to there being an up, down, under, and above. Can you explain which part of a spherical earth the firmament is above because that would put it under another part of it.
Daniel 4:10 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.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
All of the earth could see this tree that grew with Height, to the end. This also applies to the story of when Jesus was tempted, as he was shown every kingdom on the earth from a mountain, as well as Jesus's return in revelations that every eye shall see... None of these possible on a spherical object.
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Speaks of the ends of the earth.
donald.keller

Con

Rebuttal I: Biblical Text

Pro blatantly misinterprets my argument. There are two types of text in the Bible. While it's all what God wanted included in the Bible, that does not make it all God's will. Take a part of the bible when the Israelites were enslaved in Babylon. The text showed them singing to the death of the Babylonians, and of revenge. All "the word of God," but only to describe, and not prescribe, meaning. It described how they felt of the Babylonians and of their situation, and not what God felt. This was descriptive text.

The existence of Prescriptive text v Descriptive text is an objective truism. It is not up for debate that these two text exist. Or that, if literal, the examples Pro gave were descriptive... The opinion of those who believed in God, and not the opinion of God himself. However, I showed that they were not literal in meaning... That being "immovable" wasn't referencing actual movement. And that being "immovable" doesn't imply it isn't already moving.

Rebuttal II: Second Biblical Texts.

Pro's examples now are gravely unrelated to his theory. The waters 'under' and 'above' the firmament refers to underground water and ocean water. That aside, Pro's case makes no sense. The text in no way seems to refer to any formation the Earth exists in. A sphere has an up, down, under and above area... Caves are 'under' the Earth, and clouds are "upon"... This isn't proof of a flat Earth, nor does it imply a Earth of any shape.

Pro's next text is silly. The tree isn't an actual tree that you could see from everywhere. It's an analogy. The text is literally about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and not but a few lines after Pro's text, Daniel interprets the dream... The Tree represented Nebuchadnezzar (1).

As for Job 38:13, the term "ends of the Earth" means all areas... All extremities. This is one of the first figurative phrases we learn as children... Tracking someone down to the ends of the Earth, for example, means tracking them across all of it.

[1] http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Conclusion: Pro seems to ignore obvious figurative language, and even takes a dream/analogy and tries to convince the voters it's literal... Lying to them. As that is the only thing his actions can be considered... Taking the dream, and purposefully leaving out the interpretation found just a sentence later in the text, to knowingly lie to the voters about what it means. That, or he failed to actually read the full text before quoting part of it.

His arguments fall short of the most basic laws of writing and interpretation.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Pro

The whole point of this debate was to prove whether or not the Bible claims that the earth is flat I feel like I have proved that whether or not you believe it or not, it does. We aren't debating whether or not the bible should be taken literally. I had somehow hoped that you could provide at least one scripture stating otherwise. In conclusion, how the reader interprets scriptures is irrelevant, you have been conditioned to"know" that the earth is a sphere, therefore, it feels like you're looking for ways to make it fit, just as you are supposed to. It's referred to as the great deception, to make us out as a tiny speck in an insignificant corner of a giant universe, we have been hidden from the truth. You try to take Satan's, I mean NASA's view of earth and fit it with the bible's. A form of cognitive dissonance.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I'll leave you with a few more verses.
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.

Revelations 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 11:9
The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

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

Job 37:3
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

Job 38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

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

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Daniel 4:11
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;
donald.keller

Con

Premise I: Burden of Prove.

As Pro brought this up, I feel justified in exploring it. Burden of Prove is on Pro, and what he needs to prove isn't that the bible, in some odd interpretation, states that the Earth is stationary... He must prove that it plainly, blatantly, states this.

plain (plān)
adj. plain·er, plain·est
1. Free from obstructions; open; clear: in plain view.
2. Obvious to the perception or mind; evident:

Therefore, Pro MUST show text that is clearly states the Earth is stationary. So far, all of his examples require alternative definitions and unique interpretations to find such a meaning. Saying "All four corners" wouldn't work, as the 'plain' meaning, the easy one that anyone would think first, means "everywhere." If Pro shows text saying "The Earth is stationary," he might have a case.

Pro must show that, without much question or separate interpretation, the Bible is specifically saying the Earth is stationary.

This IS a debate about how literal the text is, as this is too relevant to what the Bible says. If I can prove that there are more likelier interpretations, Pro fails to meet his BOP. Since Pro brought the topic up...

Rebuttal I: Bibilical Text.

Pro's text from 2 Thessalonians is silly. The text is about anti-christs... People passing on false religious teaching, not flat-Earth teachings. Remember that the Round Earth was the main believe 300+ years before Christ (which is 20-60 years before the writing of Thessalonians.(1)) And the Israelite's believed in a round Earth (2). So if the text was referring to people misleading us on the Earth's shape, it would be about flat-earthers. Not NASA. Otherwise, this text is pointless.

Pro's first two text again refers to the phrase "Four corners of the Earth." Let's review the Definitions since Pro isn't getting this simple fact:

Four Corners of the Earth: "All parts of the Earth." (3)

The words are not a perfect translation. The words "four corners" is translated from the ancient Hebrew word Kanaph, meaning extremities. So the text, translating Kanaph as 'four corners', refers to the extremities of the Earth, not the literal edges. Again, referring back to the meaning of the words "four corners of the Earth."

Regarding Job 11:9, the "length" of the Earth is easy to interpret... The circumference. This isn't hard to find. More importantly, it's a phrase using the size of the Earth to explain that something is huge...

The "ends of the Earth" literally means the same as the "four corners of the Earth."

The rest of the text doesn't seem to refer to any shape of the Earth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://stevenmcollins.com...
[3] http://www.phrases.org.uk...

Conclusion:
Pros text has obvious meanings that refer to the 'extremities' of the Earth, not the shape of it. His text often lacks context, and in some cases, leaves out adjacent text to the point of lying about the meaning of the text.
Debate Round No. 3
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I didn't have to provide counter text. The BOP was entirely on you.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
You can't really argue with someone s opinion on what unmovable, fixed, and foundation actually means, thought that would explain itself, the debate was whether or not the bible (whether literally or metaphorically) states that the earth is flat, stationary and it is! Literally with a dome, 18th hates that hold back water, that heaven is above. I brought up several scriptures stating so, con has provided none to counter.
Posted by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
Well you never defended your texts from previous rounds. When you just let those points drop, you essentially concede that they have been effectively rebutted. In the future make sure to defend yourself against rebuttals, don't just bring up new arguments every round.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Wow 8 votes to none and only 2 votes counted, this is pretty much set up.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Lol
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
It's an expression. You can't take figures of speech literally...

But yes, you can spread things across a sphere.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Sorry
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
So your entire argument is not to show any biblical scripture to counter a flat earth, but to say that all of these verses "don't really mean what they say" descriptive and prescriptive you said?
King James Bible
Isaiah44:24.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;
Do you spread out by balling up?
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
So your entire argument is not to show any biblical scripture to counter a flat earth, but to say that all of these verses "don't really mean what they say" descriptive and prescriptive you said?
King James Bible
Isaiah44:24.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;
Do you spread out by balling up?
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
The Book of Enoch is not biblical.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Edlvsjddonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is from the Voter's Union. I give the win to Con. A main factor in this decision was in fact the resolution. Pro says that the bible PLAINLY states that the earth is flat. All Con had to do was show that it depends on interpretation. Pro on the other hand needed to find a passage that clearly stated that the Earth is flat, and it would've gone something like "the Earth is flat." Instead, all of the text examples Pro provides are open to interpretation. This alone should give the win to Con. But Con takes it further and gives other meanings of these texts that are just as likely to be the ones intended. Such as "stationary," referring to the orbit of the earth, which is in a way stationary, as it doesn't deviate. All of Pro's passages that he referenced really didn't say, beyond all doubt, that the Earth is flat. Con was able to show how all of these were actually referring to something else. Con can make the case for other interpretation. Which negates "plainly," in the resolution
Vote Placed by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Edlvsjddonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10MRJsct1nzt_m4tbbCioHQQh-eMqn1Hn2BMBdbG08Z8/edit
Vote Placed by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
Edlvsjddonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments