no I joke not. The antartic surrounds all the earth. It is one of the most inhospitable places you can find. Even fuel freezes when you are there long enough.

In any case, your refusal to accept this won't make the earth round. There is no curvature on the earth.

You're not sincere in seeking the truth because you expect to have all the answers. Real life doesn't work like that.

I didn't refuse to accept anything.  I asked, to help me understand.
Why would you accuse me of not being sincere WHEN I"M ASKING !!!!!!!!?
Another question....if the earth is surrounded by the antarctic what happens at the equator?  How does the ice not melt?  Whether the earth is round, square, rectangular or whatever the equator has to touch the outer edge at some point.

no I joke not. The antartic surrounds all the earth. It is one of the most inhospitable places you can find. Even fuel freezes when you are there long enough.

In any case, your refusal to accept this won't make the earth round. There is no curvature on the earth.

You're not sincere in seeking the truth because you expect to have all the answers. Real life doesn't work like that.

.
The problem you're having is that flat-earth doesn't work like that:  flat-earth doesn't answer far too many questions.
.
Why can the southern cross and its nearby constellations be seen from anywhere in Antarctica when they are not visible at all in the northern hemisphere?
.
Why can no one ever see the north star from Antarctica?
.
Every year there is a famous sail boat race that travels all around the world just north of Antarctica.
All the boats sail around the earth but none of them travel as far as they would have to if they could remain at the equator.
Compare it to an airplane flying over the equator, since there are land masses in the way of boats sailing at the equator.
Therefore the circuмference of the earth south of the equator is less than it is at the equator.
More problems for flat-earthism!
.

.
You know, if you're going to copy and paste with abandon like this, you ought to proof your copy before you post because this sloppiness makes you look pretty bad.

From what I have found, Jerusalem has always been considered the center of the world.  
Protestant historian Dickenson White mocking the Church says: "In accordance with the dominant view that physical truth must be sought by theological reasoning, the idea was evolved that not only the site of the cross on Calvary marked the geographical center of the world, but that on this very spot had stood the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in Eden. Thus was geography made to reconcile all parts of the great theologic plan."
"For the beliefs of various nations of antiquity that the earth's center was in their most sacred place, see citations from Maspero, Charton, Sayce, and others in Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth, chap. iv. As to the Greeks, we have typical statements in the Eumenides of Æschylus, where the stone on the altar at Delphi is repeatedly called "the earth's navel"—which is precisely the expression used regarding Jerusalem in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel"


For the beliefs of various nations of antiquity that the earth's center was in their most sacred place, see citations from Maspero, Charton, Sayce, and others in Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth, chap. iv. As to the Greeks, we have typical statements in the Eumenides of Æschylus, where the stone on the altar at Delphi is repeatedly called "the earth's navel"—which is precisely the expression used regarding Jerusalem in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel (see note below). The proof texts on which the mediæval geographers mainly relied as to the form of the earth were Ezekiel, v, 5, and xxxviii, 12. The progress of geographical knowledge evidently caused them to be softened down somewhat in our King James's version; but the first of them reads, in the Vulgate, "Ista est Hierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in circuitu ejus terræ", and the second reads, in the Vulgate, "in medio terræ," and in the Septuagint, ἐπὶ τὸν ὸμφαλὸν τῆς γῆς. That the literal center of the earth was understood, see proof in St. Jerome, Commentar. in Ezekiel, lib. ii; and for general proof, see Leopardi, Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi, pp. 207, 208. For Rabanus Maurus, see his De Universo, lib. xii, cap. 4, in Migne, tome cxi, p. 339. For Hugh of St. Victor, see his De Situ Terrarum, cap. ii. For Dante's belief, see Inferno, canto xxxiv, 112-115:
"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,
Ch' è opposito a quel che la gran secca
Coverchia, e sotto il cui colmo consunto
Fu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca."


St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth."  Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.  



According to St. Jerome and other Fathers of the Church, Jerusalem is in the middle of the earth and because this teaching has been maintained for over a thousand years it thereby constitutes official Catholic teaching.  



The water doesn't run off the edge because the oceans are cradled in by land.  Also, it is true that at some point, the dome of the sky meets up with the edge of the earth around the entire earth.  Although, most men have not been to the edge, there are stories of those who have.  In fact, I read an encyclopedia that explains what has been observed there.

According to most flat earthers, the edge of the earth is largely inaccessible because it is too cold for most to get there, being the largest and most distant concentric ring in the 'southern' regions known as the Antarctic.   Its not that people cannot get to it per se, but that they are prevented from getting to it because (some say) governments keep us from it, and/or the weather and harsh conditions prevent it.  There is old footage of a man named Admiral Byrd that claimed in the 1950's that there is incredible resources in Antarctica he said he saw for himself.  If true, you can see why the government might not want us to know about it.  You can listen to what he has to say here:

.
What a pile of bilge scuм.
.
"Also, it is true that at some point, the dome of the sky meets up with the edge of the earth around the entire earth.  Although, most men have not been to the edge, there are stories of those who have.  In fact, I read an encyclopedia that explains what has been observed there."
.
----- Don't tell me, that was the punch line!
.
"Most men have not been to the edge..." You mean to say, NOBODY has EVER been to the edge!  
.
Where are the accounts of those who have "been to the edge" and have seen "the dome?" If it "meets up with the edge of the earth" then there must be a photo of that.
.
Or is this all in your twisted imagination?
.

.
Are you trying to say St. Brendan, as in St. Brendan the Navigator?
.
Copying and pasting too fast again, or just sloppy?

Just sloppy.

.
The video you link is really, really bad. How could you be associated with such lowbrow junk?
The camera is out of focus, wobbling and off the page.
The reader hems and haws, saying "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand" -- unbelievable.
No mention of the publisher or even the title of the encyclopedia.
You know there have been some really bad encyclopedias in print.
If this is the kind of trash flat-earthers are reading, no wonder they're confused.
.

I didn't ask for scripture quotes.  I asked for some supporting evidence from reality to support the scriptures.
A pre teen ( or anyone else) isn't satisfied with a "because God said so" or "it's in the Bible" answer.
In this day and age of extensive travel SURELY SOMEONE can give the geographical location of the outer edges so we can calculate the center of the flat earth.
And as for the cold theory, are you saying the earth is surrounded by an icy circuмference? even at what we call the equator?

The ice wall is real, and there is no shortage of photos of it.
It is south of all known landmasses. It is NOT encircling the equator. 
The Sun doesn't circuit above Antarctica. The sun circuits above the Tropic of Capricorn in their summer.

.
Truths presented in this thread (minus the hysterics, drama and subjective anxiety):
.
.
Blasphemy: the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk
.
Flat-earthism: that the Scriptures reveal a flat-earth and that it is the true Catholic meaning of Scripture.
.
Flat-earth blasphemy: This occurs by way of INFERRING [implying that] the churchmen, Fathers and popes since the founding of Christianity failed to protect the true meaning of Scripture, even when condemning the multitude of 'Pythagorean' heresies right up to the time of Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, and Galileo.
.
Having read a new book Pythagoras Bruno Galileo by Professor A.A. Martinez, now out of print, we now have the best book ever written on the 'Pythagorean' heresies and the Church's fight against them from the very beginning.
.
It seems Pythagoras (570 B.C. - 495) left not a single written word behind him. That said, many Greek philosophers accredited to him a multitude of things. It is written that he invented heliocentrism, multi-worlds, the earth is a star, moving bodies have souls etc., including that he was the first to insist the EARTH IS A SPHERE.
.
From roughly 150 A.D. to 430 A.D., the early Church Fathers criticised  and denounced many Pythagorean notions as false or heretical. A global earth was not among them. The Fathers  Hippolytus, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine formulated the core texts and judgments that were echoed much later by Catholic theologians, but a global earth was not among them. By then Pythagoras had been elevated to a living God just like Jesus. The number of heresies multiplied from this and it seems to me Lucifer had taken the role of Pythagoras. That is how serious the Devil was attacking the Church.

It was Copernicus who started Pythagoreanism all over again. Bruno was the one who adopted many of his 'cosmic' heresies and was seven years before the Inquisition being questioned on every one of them. Four of the Inquisitors were involved in judgment against Galileo's heliocentrism that he attributed to Pythagoras.

Throughout the 1700 years of the Church's anti-Pythagorean battle against the heresies attributed to Pythagoras, whether he invented them or not, not once WAS THE GLOBAL EARTH ONE OF THE CONDEMNED. Indeed, there was never mentioned the notion that the Scriptures depict or insists on a FLAT-EARTH. That had to be because it did not exist ever as a fact of Scripture.

But now we have a growing number of Catholics who are insisting the Scriptures do reveal a FLAT-EARTH, and calling any who disagree as bad Catholics to say the least, as anyone can check by reading their posts on this and other forums. This INFERS [implies] that all the Fathers and popes and theologians who never defended their FLAT-EARTH were FAILING IN THEIR CATHOLIC DUTY TO DEFEND THE TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE. 

And that is why I said it amounts to blasphemy or worse.

.

It seems to me that the churchmen of those days were prudent by not being heavy-handed regarding a subject that was of no great consequence at that time. What difference would it have made for them whether everyone had agreed or not about the shape of the earth? What possible consequence could there have been if a Catholic had believed one way or the other in those days?
.
However, today it's not the same story!!
.
We have today many more observations by scientists, astronomers, surveyors, satellites, astronauts, aviators and such, to the point where flat-earthers are required to ignore all the testimony of our senses and mind in order to adhere to their unsupportable dogmatism. It renders sound thinking to be under attack, much like what the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI does. 
.
It's an insult to religion for flat-earthers to claim they have a basis for their silliness in religion, and imputes silliness and unsound thinking to religion. So it is dangerous on that basis. 
.
Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.
.
So, for the proponents of flat earth, do you think that this truth (as you see it) is SO vital to people's salvation that you'd be willing to scare off untold numbers of potential converts to Traditional Catholicism by claiming that flat earth is CHURCH TEACHING?
.
[Reply] Let me ask you a simple question:
.
If you were to find yourself a first-hand eyewitness to a murder, when you got a good look at the murderer's face, and then when the case came up for trial after you had been out of the country for a while and had just returned, would you feel obliged to contact the prosecuting attorney to tell your story, or would you rather contact the defense attorney first?
.

The skill with which our flat-earth friends are now avoiding their previous assertions that the Scriptures reveal a flat-earth shows me this thread has been successful in putting a stop to the idea that Catholics are obliged to believe the earth is flat as an item of faith if it is indeed revealed in Scripture.

That is all I intended to achieve. I have no problem with any believing or considering the earth is not a globe like every other cosmic body known to man except bits of rocks out there. Admittedly there is a lot of relativity in God's geocentric universe and a lot can be used to support a flat earth. For me the science of geodesy has confirmed the earth is a sphere. Further are the outer space photos and images that clearly show a curved Earth, even a spherical earth from afar. To deny these images is like saying all those rockets we see heading from space are frauds, and that NASA has hundreds of engineers permanently employed in one of the greatest cօռspιʀαcιҽs ever undertaken all to hide the fact that the earth is flat. 
.
What really fascinates me is, how does NASA know the earth is flat and that it had to be hidden?

Inherent in a global earth is the 'miracle' of gravity, for that is something created by God. This means that everyone living on Earth has the ground below his or her feet and the sky above. That defies human capacity to understand. It also accounts for the fact that bits of the moon or planets do not fall off them. The size of the Earth accommodates this creation, it is so big in comparison to man that all appears level at all times on the larger scale to man on it.

Heaven is above, and if anyone is looking for its physical place then it is all outside the created universe. St Thomas said hell is the furthest place from heaven which is in the centre of the Earth. That theological belief makes a lot of sense.
.
.
Anyone coming here for the first time might find it too laborious to read through all the noise and nonsense posts from trolls and/or perhaps well-meaning but confused flat-earthers. So I've collected the truth posts, above, for easier reading.