700 Inconsistencies in the Bible

I consider this a high compliment.

You know a load of paranoid horseshit that gullible flat earthers believe.

That's all it is.

I suspect you're just attention seeking.

Yeah, sure. That must be it.

It sounds like you're protesting an awful lot.

But do you actually have any proof otherwise? Because otherwise, it just sounds like you're threatened by it all.



It's so obvious she's wearing padding.

In other news, explain this, won't you?



1040 mph, yet nobody is so much as motion sick. Meanwhile, at a mere 4 mph, we feel the wind rushing around us.

No, I'm just trying to ignore your verbose nonsense.

Mmm, so you can't address that one.

What about this one.


This is a bathtub filled with water. As anyone not brainwashed and with an ounce of observation can tell you, water holds the shape of its container. It flattens out without one.



It can stay inside a container, even a flat one, even when moving slightly, so long as the container is suited to hold water. But what happens when water is poured on a spinning object that is unsuited for holding water? Well first of all, it drips off. But secondly, it spins off. Objects inside of something have centrifugal force. But objects outside of it get flung out! Or do you want to hang on to one of those gravitation rides from the outside while they are spinning?

Back to the frying pan. Even washing it from the with no rotation, it won't stay on. But rotating it will make it stick, right? No. If things are not true on themicro level, how can they possibly be true in the macro level? Even if the Earth were grossly wide, we would still have to deal with its roundness and the constant churn of water.

Or have you a solution for this, besides calling this "verbose nonsense"?

Other than the first line I don't read your posts.

There is nothing to address.

Oh bulma, I so feel your pain (really, I’m serious), but your science is not only just abdominal, it’s getting embarrassing.

Edit: abominable

**** spellcheck

(Abdominal)

I was wondering why it hurt down there.

I do not expect the rest of the world to agree with me.

But I know they are brainwashed by repeated exposure to stuff like this,

when they cannot answer why I am wrong.

Science, first and foremost, should be based on logic not consensus. So no matter how many people feel that the Earth is round, if this is so, they must have logic to back up their assertions.

It appears you're not a believer in Newtons universal theory of gravity...but maybe a believer in the law of inertia...but you then can't explain why a rocket takes so much thrust to leave Earths orbit. I'm not sure how you explain air not wondering off into space either, or the moon and its phases, or the tides matching the moon phases, or flying in the same direction and arriving back at your starting point / circumnavigation via ship or otherwise. Frankly, your view boggles the mind.

Maybe you're one of those odd people that likes saying really stupid stuff just see what reaction you get from others. That would certainly make more sense than flat earth theory. Strange way to do things, but oh well.

Different stars in the different hemispheres, different path of the sun through the sky during the different seasons, and why it is warmer at the equator and sooo much colder at the extremities.....

...he's no doubt aware of all of this. So it must be that he just says really stupid stuff to get a reaction.

I am not a believer in anything with a SELF-PROCLAIMED name of "universal". Often also declared a "law."

Who says I can't explain that?

It's simple. I believe that what we are dealing with is layers of buoyancy, not gravity. That is, an apple is heavier than the layer of buoyancy that is air, ergo it falls. But it is lighter than layers of water so it floats. Other objects absorb moisture and get heavier, thus sinking despite their buoyancy.

A plane or rocket is a freaking huge metal object, so while a plane can go to a high altitude, it requires that much more propulsion (thrust as you put it) to actually leave the Earth. By the time it reaches outer space, air density ("gravity") approaches zero, and movement is 100% determined by thrust.

Btw, if in fact there was orbital rotation interfering with launch, what design would make the most sense? A pencil-shaped rocket? A saucer? Or a sphere?

Any film history student would tell you that the reason rockets are shaped as they are has nothing at all to do with aerodynamics (in which case, a spheroid would be best, since a pencil could easily be tossed sideways; a pencil ONLY makes sense if exiting Earth involves piercing some kind of barrier) and everything to do with inspiration provided by this film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVChRVfZ74

Air not wandering off into space? The hell are you talking about? We have a dome surrounding the Earth. It separates the space outside of Earth from the air inside.

The tides do not match the moon phases. There are about two high tides a day. This means the moon should only affect the tides at night when it has proximity, but in fact, it happens in response to (around) noontide when the moon is nowhere near, and around 3am or so when the moon is nearest. This suggests a near Earth system, where BOTH the sun and moon exert pull. But this can be explained more by magnetism (water is not pure) or some other principle of attraction rather than gravity (a conveniently inconsistent law).

... Nope, I looked at a weekly high tide thing. The high tide extended throughout the week, proving it has nothing at all to do with the sun/moon, or it would occur roughly the same time each day.



The time is all over the place, some days being vaguely in sync with the sun and moon, sometimes only being once per day. There is no rhyme nor reason to this. Basically, the tides do not have to do with the sun, moon, or anything. They're tides. They just happen.

As for the moon phases, they are dictated by refraction of the sun. In a flat Earth model, the sun and moon are overheard, and near to the Earth. You can verify that while looking up at the sky, the sun is often up, and then if you look around from the sun, the moon can also be seen. So while the two are overhead, the angle is different in different dates of the year.



Lastly, ummm hey so when you go east or west, you are not going "left" or "right" you are going clockwise or counterclockwise. Inside a building, this does not matter, but while navigating the disc, you eventually end up where you started.

If the Earth were truly a sphere, you would have to divide the stars not into hemipheres but 12 zones.

- Four quadrants in the northern hemisphere (NE, NW, SW, SE)
- Stars only found when standing on the absolute north (North Pole), east (180th Meridian), south (South Pole), western (Null Island) extremes
- Four quadrants in the southern hemisphere (NE, NW, SW, SE)

None of these should see the same stars during the same time of the year because of an absolute slope of the Earth. Moreover, as the Earth turns and wobbles and rotates, many of these quadrants will interchange from night to night.

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

There are no special stars only seen at certain points, and are the equator, you simply see stars nearest the equator. There is no bulge where you can see the intersect of multiple quadrants either.

What actually happens is two sets of stars that are more or less universal to the northern hemisphere vs southern hemisphere, with variation to season. This can be explained by one set being nearer, or maybe that the sky actually has two domes. I don't know, and honestly I don't care, but I do know there are not 12 quadrants of stars that alternate with each other.

It does not occur to any of you people that I might actually believe this (or if you do, I must be stupid, yet don't ask how). Because you are so conditioned to seeing this as the truth that it doesn't even occur to you that someone can question it. That someone could possibly see it as a massive fraud. But it is indeed a massive hoax that has been given to you when you were too young to question it, much less reject it.

Here, you've tossed alot of questions at me. I'll give you an easy one. Why are children taught the Earth is round? I mean, shouldn't that be knowledge that only is relevant to aeronautics? (Assuming it's even true, which is doubtful) Why does a kid not even old enough to wander out from his playpen need to know that if you keep heading one direction, you'll end up back where you started?

Because the earth is spherical.



Because basically with a few minor correction, that is exactly what will happen.

1. Because the Earth is a disc. The Earth is round, but you guys don't get that round isn't the same as spherical or globular. It's round. If I draw a circle on the floor, this is round. My carpet is round. But it's also flat. The Bible mentions the Earth being round, but gives plenty of hints that it is also flat. These are not mutually exclusive. Think of it as an upright pin on a disclike record player if you're baffled about how the Earth can be flat if we stand upright. There is a logical sleight of hand involved, forcing people to jump from a circular plane to light bending around dramatic vertical corners. Round =/= globe.
2. Because NASA (and their secret society ancestors) trusts that the public are idiots who will forever ask "Well why doesn't a ship fall off the Earth" and finds it simpler to mislead the public into atheism than to explain that God designed a closed space simulacrum (basically a snowglobe, outside which is the REAL WORLD where God lives), and that horizontally curved flat space far more suitably explains inconsistencies far more effectively than a sphere.
3. It is easier to get people to stop asking questions about other things if they are force-fed propaganda from childhood. "Climate change is real" (Oh really? There have been 50 years of climate change predictions, none of which worked) "The Earth is round." ( I would say flat because everyone assumes I'm talking about a sphere) "You can trust your government when it gives you free stuff." (Yeah? There's always a catch or pricetag) "Russia was the cause of the 2022 inflation." (In ten years if this regime is not unseated, that is what schoolchildren will learn. Actually it was irresponsible policies from a senile old bastard. Meanwhile the most effective question is to ask them "How is Russia responsible?")

These two excerpts contained about the same level of logic as the rest of your post.

I notice many, many years back, that people are capable of convincing themselves of virtually anything. Hell, there are people that believe that nothing is 'real'. Flat earth isn't any different. In the end I wonder - why does it matter if the earth is flat or round (unless you rely on navigation)?

Of course many people come here to stretch their brain, in which case meaningless discussions can still be an exercise in logic. But sometimes the effort outweighs any benefit.

This is exactly it. Why does it matter?

I certainly don't care whether you believe flat Earth or not, the only reason I bring it up is because people act like not only is it not a viable theory but they have the right to make it a basi s for appeal to ad hominem. Bulma is wrong about this religion (say, Buddhism) because look, they're an idiot, they even believe in a flat Earth. Firat, yeah I do. So? Second, this point and that point have nothing to do with each other, and whoever said crap like that (izzy), you fail logic forever. I can't even.
And third, how long will you swallow secondhand knowledge? If an "expert" told you that you should sell your house to them cheap, because bees live in it, will you trust them without flinching? Shouldn't you try to look for the signs of bees first?

Insofar as we do not test anything, nothing is real. In an age where videos can be doctored, we can't trust the media we watch not to lie to us about the existence of a disease, whether the antagonist in a war was actually unprovoked or if there is sone offscreen events that nobody has told us about.
Hell, as far back as 1997 (25 years ago), there was a film called Wag the Dog wherein the media to help someone get re-elected, made an "old" record, had an actress posed in digitally edited "war" photos, and came up with a phony news event that listed for several days entirely from false images.
https://archive.org/details/wagthedog1997_201908
When the movies of back then warned us such a thing was theoretically possible, how much more can God do? We've all seen the Truman Show, we know that there isn't really any good way to know if the Earth we see is the real world, short of being an explorer.

So, homework time. Investigate plane routes, specifically those that appear to go through the South Pole. If the Earth is really round, South America to Australia should be a quick flight. But this route... doesn't exist. What you get instead is Qatar Airlines. In other words, rather than head south and fly for about ten or fifteen hours over water and ice, the area is a no-fly zone and they instead head east.

An omnipotent God is certainly capable of making a fake world for you to live in.

We disagree, but as I alluded to in my last post - not only does it not matter (unless you're in navigation), but it is also not worth the effort.

Yeah that's fine.

My point was just if there are 700 inconsistencies in the Bible, there are also scientific inconsistencies, things that don't add up about the observed universe, but that the scientific community tells us to take blindly.

People should always question - but it is only useful to question when one is prepared to look at all sides of the answer...to ensure that their belief accounts for all evidenced 'facts'...rather than just those that match what they want to believe. This applies to both scientists and creationists. Scientists for example, cannot answer the question 'what existed before the big bang'... And creationists cannot actually prove the existence of God...

If people aren't prepared to incorporate all the known variables into their beliefs - then invariably they come up with what they want to believe, rather than what is believable. I've no actual issue with a person believing what they want to believe... unless they are trying to impress on another that their belief is the correct belief.