The Instigator
AWSM0055
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jellyx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The bible teaches flat earth

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 730 times Debate No: 84523
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

AWSM0055

Pro

This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to debate this topic, please apply in chat. Any breakage of above rule will be considered as automatic win for Pro (me).

Pro: Claims that the bible teaches that earth is flat
Con: Claims that the bible teaches the earth is spherical.

Burden of proof is shared.

Use NIV (New international version). Available online for free here: http://biblehub.com...

And Interlinear Bible here: http://biblehub.com...

I don't think any definitions are required, but if anyone finds any definitions necessary, please say so in chat. Do not produce definitions after accepting debate.

Rules:
No Kritiks (that is, changing the debate topic to something unrelated).
No trolls, imbeciles or idiots

Debate structure:

[Round 1]
Turn 1: Rules and negotiations
Turn 2: Acceptance

[Round 2]
Turn 1: First argument
Turn 2: Rebuttal

[Round 3]
Turn 1: Counter rebuttal and more arguments
Turn 2: Counter rebuttal

That's it I guess. Make any inquiries in chat.
Jellyx

Con

Isaiah 40:21-22
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and it's people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

And also hadn't Paul travel to Spain which had "nothing" there because the earth was "flat" but Paul went on his trip was most likely because he knew the earth was round so meaning the bible does imply it was round
Debate Round No. 1
AWSM0055

Pro

You fell into my trap. I'm very happy about that.

Firstly, a circle is not the same as a sphere, in English OR in a ancient Hebrew.

Proof you say? Well, the ancient Hebrew word for "circle" is "hug".[1]

On the other hand, the Hebrew word for "ball" or "sphere" (as shown in Isaiah 22:18) is "kaddur".[2]

So what can we determine from this? Clearly, Isaiah was NOT referring to a spherical 3D earth when he stated that the earth was a circle. If he was, he should have used a more appropriate Hebrew word (which he already knew of as indicated by Isaiah 22:18). But he didn't. He instead used a word to refer to a 2D flat disc-like earth.

We can also look at the historical context of the time, where people understood the earth as being flat (and commonly circular like a disc).[3]

Thus, we can logically conclude that the "circular earth" Isaiah was referring to in Isaiah 40:22 was in fact a flat disk, and not a 3D sphere.

As for your point about Paul travelling to Spain is just...wrong.

We don't even positively know whether Paul ever did get to Spain at all. But regardless, I doubt that Paul would have thought that the edge of the world was near Spain, as people were already dwelling there (which he knew because he wouldn't have gone there if there weren't people there to convert).

[1]: http://biblehub.com...

[2]: http://biblehub.com...

[3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

(P.S. I know Wikipedia isn't the best source to site but it gets my point across anyway).
Jellyx

Con

Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth," or in the Italian translation, globo. The Hebrew is Khug = sphericity or roundness. Even if the translation "circle" is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space--to him the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from.

And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:6-10

The vault is an arched "roof", here is the Google meaning a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches, typical of churches and other large, formal buildings.

Therefore God created it as a sphere and obviously the prophets read the bible many times so they would know.
Debate Round No. 2
AWSM0055

Pro

"Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth," or in the Italian translation, globo."

Irrelevant.

"The Hebrew is Khug = sphericity or roundness. "

No, as clearly shown in my source, the Hebrew word for "circle" is "hug", whereas "ball" or "sphere" is "kaddur". You haven't refuted my point, or given sources to back up your claim that "sphere" is actually "khug" and not "kaddur".

"Even if the translation "circle" is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space--to him the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from."

Isaiah was never in space, nor did he ever hint at describing earth as it would be seen 300,000 km away. This is not a very reasonable explanation, considering the historical background of when it was written.

"And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:6-10

The vault is an arched "roof", here is the Google meaning a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches, typical of churches and other large, formal buildings.

Therefore God created it as a sphere and obviously the prophets read the bible many times so they would know."

Absolutely not. Firstly, the earth doesn't have a damn roof as Genesis says. Secondly, there is no water above this "roof" on the earth. Third, the curved roof genesis speaks about doesn't imply the ground was curved. In fact, it would also be in accord with ancient belief that the earth was flat with a dome.[1]

Third, Gensis 1:16 - 19 says that the sun and moon were WITHIN this "vault" or "roof" or "sky".

God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day.

What does this mean? The vault or sky depicted in Genesis 1:6 - 10 could not have been earth's atmosphere because it also included the moon and sun. Therefore, Genesis's depiction of the sky as curved would have included the whole solar system...somehow.

Clearly, Genesis is a poor source to gain knowledge of the celestial bodies, including their shape.

[1]: https://www.google.com.au...
Jellyx

Con

Actually he didn't travel to space but if you have God, God will give u knowledge and he did and so he would know plus John actually saw the end times so anything is possible through God like great knowledge. So in space you see it as a circular shape and 2D.

This is all I will say because all you will do is find the faults in my points and not make any of your points meaning you don't have any reasons why, but just using my points as your points. I may not have sources but I have God.
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
Isaiah 40:28 NIV

God bless you d84;
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
@Jellinx
I have respect for the bible, but I don't use it as a guide on how to conduct my life. Nevertheless, I don't have any prejudice on those who do :).

@snkcake666
I don't agree with DDO's 7 point system (I agree that the judges should judge a debate based on several points, but points such as "conduct" and "grammar" seem to have little relevance to the debate. But that's just my opinion).

Nonetheless, I'll keep what you say in mind, and I'll make my arguments more clear in future.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Oh, I forgot to mention. Instigator. Wikipedia is actually a fine source, contrary the common belief. Its information pages are locked, and new information can only be submitted once reviewed (although smaller pages are susceptible to attacks). Do not be dissuaded from using it as a source of information.

Now please, go write up another debate and keep practicing.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
I could quite frankly have cared less concerning which side you chose. I have little tolerance for poor additude for any debator. Not much of a bias of I do not believe the Bible to be the "word of God". A quality character is merely the beginning of any debate- a leader may not lead unless he can both provide reason and a prominent example, else he just be an abandoned figure, whose only capability is to formulate argument, and not persuasion.

If you take a look at the seven-point system you will actually see evidence of the " character" factor (e.g conduct). Additude does factor in the end results, in addition to grammar, argument, and source reliability and presentation. Your rebuttals were not necessarily the issue on band, rather, do did have a notable absence of primary arguments of your own. Contender was actually guilty of the opposite in this case- a lack of proper rebuttals, but fair enough on the primary argument.

I appreciate the change in additude, however. Bbut it is crucial that I point out blatant flaws. Neither of you substantiated your arguments (or rebuttals) well, and they seemed quite ambiguous. In order to gain merit and experience, it is essential for one to acknowledge the critique, and even downright criticism for that matter. Of course absolutely no one appreciates criticism, and is inclined to reject it, but it is character-building.
Posted by Jellyx 1 year ago
Jellyx
@AWSM0055
Oh ok, it's just that many of my "friends" that are atheists argue that it's written by a crazy man or men but and they barely respect any of my opinions or beliefs but it's good to know you do at least respect the Bible or such.😊
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
@Jellinx
No. Though I don't believe the bible is the infallible word of God, I certainly don't believe it is all false or written by crazy people. Nor was it my intention to prove such a thing by showing the bible teaches a flat earth.
Posted by Jellyx 1 year ago
Jellyx
@AWSM0055
Like its fiction that it was written my "crazy" as some Say or ?
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
@Jellinx
What do you mean by "the bible isn't real"?
Posted by Jellyx 1 year ago
Jellyx
@AWSM005
I have a question, Um are you using the point that the bible teaches the flat earth to prove that the Bible isn't real? I was just wondering
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Fine, I apologise for my poisoning the well fallacy.

Nevertheless, I still believe that you are being biased:

Firstly, you either didn't understand my rebuttal at all in regards to Paul travelling to Spain, or you did, and your being dishonest. My point was that people were already living is Spain, which would definitely NOT seem like the edge of the world. Spain was already well discovered in those times, so I'm completely dumbfounded when you say my argument wasn't "well rounded". Spain is practically right next door to the Mediterranean. If Paul was planning on going to the Greenland, or farther out, maybe then my opponent would have a point.

Secondly, bad character has NOTHING to do with the debate. This is a blatant Ad Hominem. I could be a real piece of work, but if my reasoning is sound, then my attitude has nothing to do with it. The only concession is if I flung Ad Hominems, which I didn't. Your bias is obvious because your concentrating on my poor "additude" (BTW, it's spelt "attitude"), rather than my arguments at the beginning which remained standing this entire debate.

Nevertheless, I shall expand and explain in painful detail blatant assertions such as "the earth doesn't have a roof". I apologise for assuming that my opponent was intelligent enough to already know this. In future, I will expand on every assertion - no matter how trivial and obvious - because someone might use it against me when the debate finishes.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
@Jelly
Fine try, and I appreciate the sport.

@AWSM
Poisoning the wells fallacy, I see. Assuming that because I am Christian that I automatically regard the Bible as a holy text? Well, you have misconceived. My issue with your conflict was a matter of two variables: Arrogance, and poorly- argumentation. Now the contender did not do exceptionally well either with the argumentation, but at least I can respect his additude (-that- is how one improves).

You rebuttal which played the "just wrong" card was in round two when you stated
"As for your point about Paul travelling to Spain is just...wrong.". You could not even source this statement, or support it with a well-rounded rebutal, or at least concession. Your "argument" was more of a play-off of a rebuttal than anything, and again, it was poorly executed, without a slick of explanatory reasoning. Arrogance? No one without even a lick of modesty starts out his 'argument' with, "You fell into my trap". In a formal, debating environment that is considered downright rude and assumptuous. Belittling an opponent before they can even state more than an opening statement really speaks about your character. And you do realize that the use of explicit Ad Hominem is not the only show of bad character? That simply happens to be the most obvious..

"Firstly, the earth doesn't have a damn roof as Genesis says.". I will not necessarily condemn the use of cursing in a debate, but context does matter. Attempt to not let emotion guide your logic. I was also interested as to why you did not attempt to broaden on this statement. Did you think your opponent literally? Either way, that was quite the assumptuous proclamation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.