Why I take the Bible literally

[TheLightWithin]

we know our own history books are not true.

Which history books are not true about which part of history? Example?

By this I mean (and I don't remember if something specific were alluded to earlier in this thread) is that there are many many many history books on many topics, and many are bound to have some errors in them, due to fact checking slipping through the cracks or not following the normal criteria historians rely on or drawing unfounded conclusions from evidence or just mistakes. So you could have zillions of examples as to a history book not being "true" to some degree ... but if this statement was to support a conclusion you had drawn about something else - is there a case in mind?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Which history books are not true about which part of history? Example?

By this I mean (and I don't remember if something specific were alluded to earlier in this thread) is that there are many many many history books on many topics, and many are bound to have some errors in them, due to fact checking slipping through the cracks or not following the normal criteria historians rely on or drawing unfounded conclusions from evidence or just mistakes. So you could have zillions of examples as to a history book not being "true" to some degree ... but if this statement was to support a conclusion you had drawn about something else - is there a case in mind?

The biggest ones for me are how the Indigenous peoples were treated and shoved west and then put into tiny pockets of undesirable land.

How the African American people were treated after the Civil war and basically re-enslaved as share croppers.

How we weren't the ones that ended slavery.. it was the UK. And WHY we wanted slaves as cheap labor.

Planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist Margaret Sanger

How the projects were created and how they split up the African American family unit.

Lief Erickson isn't even taught anymore.

How we stole California and Texas from Mexico.

The Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps during WW2 on our own soil.

How and why Kennedy was assassinated.

I could stretch my brain to think of more but it would be redundant.. we are liars and it pisses me right off.

Oooh my newest one is how we stole Hawaii from the natives!

 

[TheLightWithin]

The biggest ones for me are how the Indigenous peoples were treated and shoved west and then put into tiny pockets of undesirable land.

How the African American people were treated after the Civil war and basically re-enslaved as share croppers.

How we weren't the ones that ended slavery.. it was the UK. And WHY we wanted slaves as cheap labor.

Planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist Margaret Sanger

How the projects were created and how they split up the African American family unit.

Lief Erickson isn't even taught anymore.

How we stole California and Texas from Mexico.

The Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps during WW2 on our own soil.

How and why Kennedy was assassinated.

I could stretch my brain to think of more but it would be redundant.. we are liars and it pisses me right off.

Oooh my newest one is how we stole Hawaii from the natives!

It is possible to get these things in books, but...
Do you mean then that those are missing from contemporary school textbooks?
Sadly much is missing.
The schools I went to growing up were no great shakes, at least not in terms of academic rigor, but perhaps I was fortunate or it was a thing of the times for Gen X or something, luckily enough getting a decent amount of the information above growing up. Probably glossed over, and not necessarily framed the same (for example learning that we got much of the Southwest from Mexico due to conquest, but that California and Texas seceded supposedly for their own reasons under different conditions, and not sure about the role the UK played in how we ended slavery)
Last I remember debate was still raging around the hows and whys of the Kennedy assassination. I remember the Oliver Stone film coming out when I was in college and presenting its case around the hows and whys.

I can only imagine what it is like to be a history teacher, now or ever.

 

[juantoo3]

If I may humbly offer...history is written by the victor.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If I may humbly offer...history is written by the victor.

..I have a touch of deja-vous .. I'm sure I had such a conversation with you at some point,
along these lines .. or was it Thomas?

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Means that 93% of the Brazilians know that the earth is round. And 100% of Brazilian pilots know it, else they would get lost...

why would they get lost if its a flat circle, i'm sure they tell them how to get from place to place in flight school

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

I somehow think that even after a trip to walk on the moon they would somehow come back and say they've been conned by the establishment into believing they were actually on a spaceship, etc?

I would, because it contradicts what I know for certain from more reliable sources. I would even say it must have been a simulation, like a ride at universal studios.

You could laugh all you want, I really pity you for having such ridiculous beliefs as dinosaurs, man on the moon, cave men and heliocentric universe etc.

 

[RJM]

why would they get lost if its a flat circle, i'm sure they tell them how to get from place to place in flight school

Because when you fly around the outside of a circle you cover more distance than if it was a straight line in a flat plane, and pilots need to know these things?

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

but either way if they could make people think the earth is a sphere I'm sure they have some false way to explain it if it is how you say. I've never been to flight school but I'm sure they give a plausible but false theory to explain it.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

how do you explain the planets which used to be known as planetoi (wandering stars) to the Greeks.

They make it out as if they are dry spheres so they are like stars (light and heat) from further away but closer up they are dark dry and cold.

The closer you get to a source of heat and light, the lighter and hotter it gets, not the darker and colder.

I once saw in science magazine an alleged amateur photograph of the planet saturn. It looked like a glow in the dark burger king toy.

Green and black object. It was really absurd.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

why would they get lost if its a flat circle, i'm sure they tell them how to get from place to place in flight school

Yes, indeed they tell them how to get from one place to another in the flight school, and they wouldn't get lost if the earth was a flat circle and they were taught accordingly. But they are told to navigate on a sphere because it is a sphere. The Earth doesn't change its shape according to the belief of the pilot.

 

[Niblo]

Yes, indeed they tell them how to get from one place to another in the flight school, and they wouldn't get lost if the earth was a flat circle and they were taught accordingly. But they are told to navigate on a sphere because it is a sphere. The Earth doesn't change its shape according to the belief of the pilot.

You may have heard of Flat Earther, and YouTuber, Darryle Marble, who took a spirit level onto an aircraft, in an attempt to prove that the earth is indeed flat. His case was based on the fact that the pilot – throughout the flight – did not have to drop the aircraft’s nose to compensate for the curve.

Marble recorded a 23 minute and 45 second time-lapse; and figured out that, during his experiment, the aircraft had travelled a little over 203 miles. According to Marble, this meant that the pilot ought to have compensated for some five miles of curvature.

Marble’s error is basic. He is assuming that 203 miles is a lot of distance. It’s not!

That the earth seems flat to us is due entirely to relative size; a concept known as ‘local flatness’ That is why – even at sea – the horizon always appears flat. It’s a matter of scale. You know this, of course.

For localised flights it is perfectly adequate to assume a flat earth. However, for trans-global navigation (and for trans-atmospheric flight) a spherical co-ordinate system is preferred (for a far more comprehensive explanation see ‘Flight Dynamics Principles’ by Michael V. Cook).

Aircraft fly by interacting, not with the ground, but with the atmosphere.

Charlie Page, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner pilot, reminds us that:

‘The important factor here is that this is very much dependent on the air pressure. As weather systems move around the world, the pressure of the air changes above a certain location on the ground. These pressure changes are like the air in an inflatable mattress. Imagine placing a model aircraft on top of your mattress and treat the floor as sea level. As you pump air into the mattress, increasing the air pressure, the aircraft rises higher than the sea. When you let air out, lowering the pressure, the aircraft sinks closer to the sea.

‘As a result, pilots have to be aware of the air pressure for their location in the world. To make sure they are flying the correct altitude, they have to update their altimeter accordingly.

‘By flying at a Flight Level (FL), aircraft can fly for thousands of miles without having to reset their pressure setting. When climbing away from an airfield, ATC will instruct the pilots to climb to a certain Flight Level. Take the last two 0’s from the altitude and you have the FL — i.e. 23,000 feet becomes FL230. The pilots will change the pressure setting to 1,013 HPA and the aircraft is now flying at a Flight Level. When approaching the destination airfield, ATC will instruct them to set the local pressure setting, the QNH, and from then on, they are flying at altitudes.’ (‘How Do Pilots Decide How High They Fly?’).

The aircraft’s Flight Management System, by following the air pressure gradient, ensures that the aircraft is flown at an altitude that maintains constant ambient pressure.

This done, the aircraft will follow the earth’s curvature, simply because the atmosphere – attached to a spherical planet, and affected by the Earth's gravity – is also spherical, and not (as the FE’s insist) a ‘plane’.

No adjustments are needed, except where there are natural changes in barometric pressure (as you know, air pressure varies according to a number of factors, but the principal factor is distance above sea level); or when there are local changes (provided by air traffic control). In such cases, the aircraft’s altimeter is recalibrated.

An aircraft’s every movement – both laterally and vertically — is planned and coordinated with extreme precision; and aircraft are always separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet vertically.

Eastbound traffic fly at odd levels of altitude; and westbound traffic, at even levels. Using this rule (called the ‘semicircular rule’) ensures that aircraft flying toward each other don’t end up at the same level.

Flights that operate north/south routes are subject to country specific rules; but the end purpose is, of course, the same.

 

[Niblo]

Concerning Antarctica:

Antarctica is our fifth largest continent, covering about 5.5 million square miles. The 1,900-mile-long Transantarctic Mountains divide the continent into East Antarctica (consisting largely of a high, ice-covered plateau) and West Antarctica (consisting of an archipelago of mountainous islands covered and bonded together by ice).

The following countries have (or have had) seasonal or permanent bases there: Finland; Argentina; United States; Uruguay; Japan; Russia; Chile; Germany; Chile; India; Australia; Brazil; Italy; France; Spain; United Kingdom; South Korea; Pakistan; China; Peru; Ecuador; Czech Republic; Belgium; South African; Bulgaria; New Zealand; Sweden; Norway; and Ukraine. These bases are located all around the coast, with the exception of that which lies between Edward VII Land (adjacent to the Ross Ice Shelf) and Palmer Land (adjacent to the Ronne Ice Shelf). There are also, of course, bases in the interior.

All of Antarctica’s mountain regions have been mapped and visited by geologists, geophysicists, glaciologists, and biologists. Many hidden ranges and peaks are known from geophysical soundings of the Antarctic ice sheets.

In January 1773, Captain James Cook crossed the Antarctic circle and circumnavigated Antarctica.

In 1819-21, Captain Thaddeus Bellingshausen, a Russian naval officer, circumnavigated the Antarctic. His ships were the ‘Vostok’ and the ‘Mirny’. Bellingshausen was the first to cross the Antarctic circle since Cook. He made the first sighting of the continent, reaching 69° 21'S, 2° 14'W. He described: ‘An icefield covered with small hillocks.’

In 1823 the British whaler James Weddell discovered the sea named after him (sailing to 74° 15' S). It was eighty years before anyone else entered the Weddell sea.

In the 1840’s, separate British, French and American expeditions established the status of Antarctica as a continent. They did so after sailing along its continuous coastline.

In 1840, the British naval officer and scientist James Clark Ross took two ships (the ‘Erebus’ and the ‘Terror’) to within 80 miles of the coast until stopped by the Ross Ice Shelf. He also discovered the active volcano named after his ship (Erebus). Another scientist on board identified 145 new species of fish.

Between the late 1800’s and the 20th century numerous expeditions, largely by sealers and whalers, were carried out.

In February 1874, HMS Challenger – during her around-the-world oceanographic cruise – became the first steamship to cross the Antarctic Circle. When dredging the ocean bottom, her crew discovered continental rocks deposited left by icebergs, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Antarctica is a continent.

In January 1909, the Australian Douglas Mawson reached the South Magnetic Pole.

On the 14th of December 1911, the Norwegian Roald Amundsen led a five man expedition that reached the South Pole for the first time.

In 1928, Australian Sir Hubert Wilkins and American Carl Benjamin Eielson became the first to fly over Antarctica around the peninsula region.

In 1929, Richard E. Byrd and three others became the first to fly over the South Pole.

In 1935, Lincoln Ellsworth flew across the continent.

In 1947, The United States sent the largest ever expedition of over 4700 men, 13 ships and 23 airplanes to Antarctica. Most of the coast was photographed for map making.

In 1997, the Norwegian Boerge Ousland became the first person to cross Antarctica unsupported.

Several companies offer tours to Antarctica, from South America, Australia and New Zealand.

And now you’re asking: ‘What’s the point of all this…what is this old fool up to?’

Here’s the point: According to flat earth proponents, the continent of Antarctica does not exist.

They argue that its seven million (thereabouts) cubic miles of ice – representing about 90 percent of the world’s total, with and average thickness of about 1.5 miles – are located around the entire ‘rim’ of the Earth, forming a barrier some one hundred and fifty feet high, which nobody has ever crossed. This ‘barrier’ contains the oceans and all the land masses. There is no South Pole. The equator is a circle half way between the North Pole and the South Ice Wall.

I’ve mentioned that the South Pole has been located (precisely) by explorers and by Antarctic expeditions. No insurmountable ice wall has been found in Antarctica, nor anywhere else for that matter.

The continent was ice-free during most of its lengthy geologic history: ‘It wasn’t until 34 million years ago that the first small glaciers on the tops of Antarctica’s mountains, and it was some 20 million years later, when world-wide temperatures dropped by 8 °C, that the glaciers’ ice froze onto the rock, and the and the southern ice sheet was born. The northern hemisphere remained relatively ice-free for longer, with Greenland and the Arctic becoming heavily glaciated only around 3.2 million years ago.’ (New Scientist).

There is no reason to believe that Antarctica will not become ice -free again.

Question: What kept the seas from spilling over the ‘rim’ of the world before Antarctica developed its ice; before the so-called ‘ice barrier’ could possibly have formed?

Continued:

 

[talib-al-kalim]

You may have heard of Flat Earther, and YouTuber, Darryle Marble, who took a spirit level onto an aircraft, in an attempt to prove that the earth is indeed flat. His case was based on the fact that the pilot – throughout the flight – did not have to drop the aircraft’s nose to compensate for the curve.

Marble recorded a 23 minute and 45 second time-lapse; and figured out that, during his experiment, the aircraft had travelled a little over 203 miles. According to Marble, this meant that the pilot ought to have compensated for some five miles of curvature.

Marble’s error is basic. He is assuming that 203 miles is a lot of distance. It’s not!

That the earth seems flat to us is due entirely to relative size; a concept known as ‘local flatness’ That is why – even at sea – the horizon always appears flat. It’s a matter of scale. You know this, of course.

For localised flights it is perfectly adequate to assume a flat earth. However, for trans-global navigation (and for trans-atmospheric flight) a spherical co-ordinate system is preferred (for a far more comprehensive explanation see ‘Flight Dynamics Principles’ by Michael V. Cook).

Aircraft fly by interacting, not with the ground, but with the atmosphere.

Charlie Page, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner pilot, reminds us that:

‘The important factor here is that this is very much dependent on the air pressure. As weather systems move around the world, the pressure of the air changes above a certain location on the ground. These pressure changes are like the air in an inflatable mattress. Imagine placing a model aircraft on top of your mattress and treat the floor as sea level. As you pump air into the mattress, increasing the air pressure, the aircraft rises higher than the sea. When you let air out, lowering the pressure, the aircraft sinks closer to the sea.

‘As a result, pilots have to be aware of the air pressure for their location in the world. To make sure they are flying the correct altitude, they have to update their altimeter accordingly.

‘By flying at a Flight Level (FL), aircraft can fly for thousands of miles without having to reset their pressure setting. When climbing away from an airfield, ATC will instruct the pilots to climb to a certain Flight Level. Take the last two 0’s from the altitude and you have the FL — i.e. 23,000 feet becomes FL230. The pilots will change the pressure setting to 1,013 HPA and the aircraft is now flying at a Flight Level. When approaching the destination airfield, ATC will instruct them to set the local pressure setting, the QNH, and from then on, they are flying at altitudes.’ (‘How Do Pilots Decide How High They Fly?’).

The aircraft’s Flight Management System, by following the air pressure gradient, ensures that the aircraft is flown at an altitude that maintains constant ambient pressure.

This done, the aircraft will follow the earth’s curvature, simply because the atmosphere – attached to a spherical planet, and affected by the Earth's gravity – is also spherical, and not (as the FE’s insist) a ‘plane’.

No adjustments are needed, except where there are natural changes in barometric pressure (as you know, air pressure varies according to a number of factors, but the principal factor is distance above sea level); or when there are local changes (provided by air traffic control). In such cases, the aircraft’s altimeter is recalibrated.

An aircraft’s every movement – both laterally and vertically — is planned and coordinated with extreme precision; and aircraft are always separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet vertically.

Eastbound traffic fly at odd levels of altitude; and westbound traffic, at even levels. Using this rule (called the ‘semicircular rule’) ensures that aircraft flying toward each other don’t end up at the same level.

Flights that operate north/south routes are subject to country specific rules; but the end purpose is, of course, the same.

Seems you know something about the matter. That guy seems to disprove my thesis that the shape of the earth does not adapt to the belief of the pilot. The spherical nature of the earth is more important in the horizontal orientation. By the way, the fact that the earth is bound can easily be observed at flight height.

 

[Niblo]

I would ask you to imagine that you are on a small island – on the equator – in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It is summer time. The island has a continuous sandy beach, and you can walk around that beach in half an hour.

Allow me to assume that you are 6ft tall; and that you possess super-zoom binoculars (your choice of make, of course….and colour!).

If you look to sea (from shore level, and without your binoculars for the time being), your horizon will be 3 miles away.

Look to sea in any direction you please; your horizon will always be three miles away. Stand on any shore you chose (in any country you choose); the horizon will always be three miles away. This is a constant for someone of your (assumed) height, standing at sea-level. This constant meets all the requirements of repeatability and reproducibility.

Have a peep through your binoculars.

The horizon remains three miles away. You are not able to see the ship that is 3.5 miles away. It is sailing below the offing – below your line of sight. In order to see this vessel, you would need to be 8.5 feet above sea level. At 30 feet, your horizon is around 6.7 miles away; at 60 feet it’s 9.5; at 100ft it’s 12.3; and at a thousand feet it’s 38.7 miles. The higher we are, the further we see. That is why lookout points on ships (and radar installations for that matter) are set high in the superstructure (and why ‘friendly’ spotter planes are dearly loved by naval commanders). On a flat earth, a guy standing on the shore would see just as far as a chopper pilot at 1000ft. This never happens; not under any circumstance.

You’ll be familiar with a type of fighting ship known as a frigate. Lighter and faster than a ship-of-the-line (the battleship of its day) frigates served as over-the-horizon scouts. Admiral Nelson called them ‘the eyes of the fleet’. Although capable of fighting, they would avoid contact with ships-of-the-line (matchwood doesn’t make for good sailing). By the way, in the midst of a fleet engagement it was considered bad etiquette for a ship-of-the-line to fire on an enemy frigate which had not fired first! (See Brian Lavery: ‘Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1793–1815’).

On a flat earth, the frigate would not be needed as a scout; after all, even with the less than supa-dupa telescopes of Nelson’s day it would have been possible to spot an enemy fleet miles away (some twenty miles at least).

Now back to your island:

Imagine a ship – an aircraft carrier, something nice and chunky – sailing away from you. You are looking directly at its stern…no binoculars for the moment. At around 3 miles from shore the ship will begin to fall below the horizon; after a short while, only its deck and upper structures will be visible.

Look through your binoculars. Ah……the ship does not – will not – spring back into full view (as some appear to believe). Nah. What you will see is the deck and upper structures magnified (of course), but also the horizon – still hiding the hull from view. In another moment you will see nothing at all, save the empty ocean, where it ‘meets’ the sky. It is always this way…….always.

As you know, on a clear and cold day, water can create mirage effects. Your aircraft carrier might – in these conditions – appear to spring into full view. But this is an illusion. The hull will not be reflected, only the deck and upper structures; giving the appearance – at least to the novice observer – of a complete vessel.

Experiment for yourself. No need to wait for an aircraft carrier; a full moon and a beach will do just fine. I assure you that the moon, when partly hidden by the horizon, will not spring back to a complete disc when you switch from naked-eye to binoculars. Or you could get into a boat, and look back at the land. Same thing…no bounce-back. It is ever thus.

The notion that the earth is flat demands that we accept as false the entire space programme; to believe that this programme is designed to cover up hundreds of years of an even deeper scientific conspiracy to hoodwink people (for no apparent reason) into thinking that the earth is a globe.

It is difficult to believe that the proponents of flat earth theory actually take themselves seriously. In truth, there are many who don’t. They do it for fun. But there are some who take it very seriously indeed.

 

[Niblo]

Seems you know something about the matter. That guy seems to disprove my thesis that the shape of the earth does not adapt to the belief of the pilot. The spherical nature of the earth is more important in the horizontal orientation. By the way, the fact that the earth is bound can easily be observed at flight height.

I served in the Royal Air Force (ground crew), and have a keen interest in flight. Also. I've been to sea many times. All that I've written can be easily demonstrated.

 

[Niblo]

On Easter Saturday 2022, I flew a dual control Spitfire from Biggin Hill (Spitfire TE308). We passed the cliffs of dover at 3,500 feet.

On a clear day, an observer standing at the top of the cliffs (at 350 feet) will be able to see the coast of France (20.7 miles away) with unaided vision.

On that same day – and very same moment – an observer on the shore below will not be able to see France at all (not even with binoculars). For this second observer, France lies below the offing. On a flat earth, both observers would be able to see France equally well.

At 3,500 feet, I was able to see, not just the coast of France, but some distance inland. Haze prevented me from seeing any further.

One thing is sure, beyond doubt: I was able to see further into France than any observer on the Dover clifftop, or beach below.

This is possible only because the Earth is a sphere.

 

[RJM]

The closer you get to a source of heat and light, the lighter and hotter it gets, not the darker and colder

The planets do not give off light or heat. The light by which we on earth are able to see the moon or planets is because they reflect sunlight, like mirrors, back at us. Have you ever seen sunlight reflected off water or ice, or sand? Planets do not emit heat, whether from near or from far.

Suns or stars emit light and heat by nuclear fusion, and get brighter and hotter the closer we get. It's the second time you've asked and received the answer.

It's all available on Google and You Tube and Wikipedia for science laymen even if they don't read books or understand science papers -- but no doubt they are all part of the conspiracy?

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

what people today call planets actually are stars like any other stars, the only difference is that they are not fixed in place. Planetoi means wandering stars in Greek.

The Greeks and Babylonians knew this.

 

[Thomas]

On Easter Saturday 2022, I flew a dual control Spitfire from Biggin Hill (Spitfire TE308). We passed ...

Whoa! Stop stop! back it up ...

You lucky, lucky ... ! (With all due respect, and reference to Monty Python)

So –
I flew a dual control Cessna 150 Aerobat (+ points) from Denham airfield (no score). Cred points total: 3.
You flew a dual control Spitfire (+ points) from Biggin Hill (+ points) over the White Cliffs of Dover (+ points). Credit points total: 27, 348 and rising