The Earth is Flat

My opponent starts with:Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds".But this is not putting the verse into its full context! Anybody who had read the holy scriptures would know that this was a dream and, furthermore, the great Daniel (who had the holy spirit of God in him) interpreted the dream and we find that the mighty tree (which protected all the life in the kingdom) was a dream-image representative of the dreamer himself, King Nebuchadnezzar [1]. Surely, Pro doesn't expect us to interpret dreams literally? If dreams (even planted by God Himself) require a skilled interpreter (as I think the scriptures make plainly clear), we certainly should not presume to add interpretation beyond that which Daniel himself offered!Pro then treats us to two important passages from the New Testament, in which we find our Lord Jesus Christ being tempted by none other than the Devil himself:Matthew 4:8. "...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world".Luke 4:5. "[a]nd the devil, taking him up into a high mountain shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time".How should we interpret this? I suggest that if we were to read it literally (and why wouldn't we, if it's perfectly sound to do so?) then we would have to explain how Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the World in a moment of time. I think that it's quite clear that what the Devil did was to create an image in Jesus' mind of all the kindoms of the World, without the need for physical reality... in other words, we are not told that the Devil turned Jesus round in a full circle so that he could survey the kingdoms of the World... rather, he "shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time". Apart from anything else, we are told that Jesus was taken into a high mountain; for Pro's interpretation of events to be correct, Jesus and the Devil would have had to be right at the very summit of a mountain (and that mountain would have to be one with a single such peak); no such conclusions may be drawn from the scripture alone.Next, Pro turns to Isaiah:Isaiah 11:12. "he shall set up an ensign for the natiosn [stet], and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"Already, it seems obvious to me, the "corners" represent the four cardinal directions: North, South, East and West. However, on closer inspection, it's a little more subtle than that, and we need to turn to the original Hebrew to understand [2]. I encourage the gentle reader to follow and read the link [2] but for those who cannot be bothered: "corners" is a very loose translation; "wings" is more literal and this is what one biblical commentary says (as do others that I have had cause to recently refer to):From the four corners of the earth - Chaldee, 'From the four winds of the earth.' The Septuagint renders it, 'From the four wings (πτερυL9;γων pterugoM2;n) of the earth.' It means, that they should be collected to God from each of the four parts of the earth - the east, the west, the north, and the south. The Hebrew word rendered here 'corners,' means properly "wings." It is applied, however, to the corner, or border of a thing, as a skirt, or mantle 1 Samuel 24:5, 1 Samuel 24:11;Deuteronomy 23:1; and hence, to the boundaries, or corners of the earth, because the earth seems to have been represented as a quadrangular plain; Ezekiel 7:2.I suspect that Pro would have done better to reference Ezekiel 7:2 (or the commentary that I have generously quoted that seems to have some sympathy for Pro's position) but, alas, according to the rules that Pro laid out, it would be unfair for them to do so now; either way, "four corners" or "four winds" or "four wings" represents "four compass points" and, as such, is not meant to inform our understanding of the shape of Earth in any way... I understand that there is a common modern theory that can explain "north" "south" "east" and "west" that comports with my spherical Earth theory... but I won't demean the gentle reader by providing an unnecessary image.And finally, for Pro's Christian case, they resort to Revelation 7:1. Again, I ask the gentle reader to listen to the biblical commentary provided by biblehub [3] but I provide the most relevant detail here:"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" — That is, the north, the south, the east, and the west;Now, I am only supposed to be using refutations in this round... but since Pro provided a positive argument in R3 that was different from Pro's R2 offering (see the picture of a circular rotation of the sun and the moon on a flat circle: I'll leave it to the gentle voter to decide whether this was breaking Pro's own rules or not), I feel it only fair that I may refute that new argument here: Which point of Earth, Pro, is at the centre of your circle? Where is it constantly the same level of light and dark? Because as far as I'm concerned, all points of the Earth experience day and night (as I've already shown is the Lord's desire) even if there is 6 month day and then 6 month night. Unless you have biblical evidence that some points of the Earth were not to recieve the special intention of the Lord and remain in semi-light/dark? The North Pole is as worthy a point of God's creation as any other and it, like all others, receives variation from Day to Night. How important it is to take the Word of God literally: when He divided light and darkness, He didn't just do it for some places, He did it for all places. Hence the spherical interpretation! (Nice try with the flat disc, though!).Briefly, now, since I have not much space left, I turn to Pro's Islamic justification for a flat Earth: 79:30 "And after that He spread the earth" - I wonder if Pro has ever spread icing on a cake? Was that cake flat? No! So...78:6. "Have We not made the earth as an expanse" - let's look at what that word "expanse" means [4] - "A wide continuous area of something". How, unless the World wraps around (as I say it does) could you have a continuous area? This verse argues for the spherical Earth, not the flat Earth (thanks Pro)!43:38 "...distance of the two Easts..." - cryptic but, even by Pro's admission, this is open to interpretation; I offer this one: "from East to West". If Pro wishes to cite this verse as authority, I ask Pro to provide an interpretation of the original Arabic that precludes the interpretation "from East to West".18:47. "...you will see the earth as a levelled plain" - oh, yes, Pro, but "you will see"... well, we may well "see" things a certain way, but this verse is not claiming to describe objective reality, simply a subjective feeling that the Earth will seem to be as a levelled plain. What does this prove? Anyhow, this is not a definitive translation and should not be read literally (as Pro implies) [5]:And [warn of] the Day when We will remove the mountains and you will see the earth prominent, and We will gather them and not leave behind from them anyone.I note, Pro, that you awaited my response; now you have it: I refute every single verse that you cite, from the Bible and from the Qur'an. Your entire case lies in tatters. I eagerly await your counter-refutations; I'm ready (and very keen) to provide mine to your R3 offering.[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...[2] http://biblehub.com...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[5] http://quran.com...