RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver


I move that this article be deleted for being too erudite. 17:53, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I second this motion. Dyskolos 18:02, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait a minute, buddy, I rescind my motion...if the writer wants it gone, it must stay.--PalMD-yada yada 18:04, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I move that this article be deleted for being confusing to the devout and meaningless to everyone else. Tony 11:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)


An articles with more references than content. Someone should fix that. The unbusinesslikeman of business 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I put them in columns, will that do? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not flat[edit]

[1] the dome does not have to mean a flat Earth. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk

I see you (and the writer of the article you linked) failed geometry. A dome has one flat side by default. Why is it so hard for you people to just admit that the early primitives who wrote, compiled, and (poorly) edited the Bible got it wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the article's explanations? It explains away the problems of several verses. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk
Yeah, I read it. Standard apologetics soundbites. Domes still have one flat side by default and no amount of tap dancing or "corrections" will change that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I also poked around a bit and noticed that they subscribe to other pseudoscience such as "homosexuality is a choice" (science says no) and "rapture" (bullshit, made up wholesale). Kinda undermines their credibility when they subscribe to crap that isn't even in the bloody fucking Bible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that a reference to all the 'begetting'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
" the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not" see that? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk
I read that in the article. Repeating it verbatim doesn't change the facts of geometry, or that the author(s) of your source have poor credibility (aside from being biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists), or that they support theological concepts which have no basis in the source material, or that they on multiple occasions use circular reasoning, or that there is zero evidence of a "firmament" in reality. What your source is doing is a basic aplogetics trick wherein they shoehorn something into the bible that a plain reading of the text does not support. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Fault me for the lack of imagination, but how the hell does a proposal for a dome not suggest a flat earth? Is Earth actually some sort of salad bowl? Yeah, sure there's "spreading out process"? I'm struggling to understand what kind of difference this makes, but I feel this is some sort of literalist just raqaing their interpretation of the definition super thin, after first assuming the Bible is correct to begin with. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Could a convex-concave shape 'work in this 'non-theory'?
When 'the relevant bits' of the Bible were being devised there was, of course, very little knowledge of what the sky was and where it ended 'above the clouds.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)