[Neil Obstat]

.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac has been in circulation for hundreds of years and farmers all over the world use its data to plan the planting of their crops and for answering other important questions related to their art.
.
Flat-earthers come along as if the world's history has just begun yesterday (except of course for the non-Scriptural book of Enoch) and never have any coherent or objective criticism of the almanac or the methods used to tabulate its charts. 
.
Nonetheless, whenever the data of the almanac poses a glaring problem for the pet (false) hypothesis of flat-earthism, they suddenly have a problem with the almanac.
.

[Meg]

.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

Not as pathetic as believing that the Farmer's Almanac is infallible!  ;D

[Neil Obstat]

Do you know if Enoch is still considered scripture, even though it is not canonical? I don't know much about it.

If it is considered scripture (though not canonical), then it is very telling that the globalists consider the Farmer's Almanac to be above it.

.
FYI, Scripture is what you find in the Bible (presuming you are Christian -- Hindus have their own so-called scripture, etc.), and the Bible has never included the Book of Enoch. 
.
Perhaps you might find the history of how the Church decided what is Scripture and what is not.
.
As for the Old Farmer's Almanac, its contents are very reliable and have been checked and double checked many times by thousands of readers. But the problem flat-earthers have with this concept is they fail to realize that the material under the title of the almanac is of a different NATURE than the material under the title of Scripture.
.
The Bible is concerned with spiritual matters and is directed toward the salvation of our soul.
.
The almanac has no objective of saving your soul, and is entirely concerned with providing facts of astronomical reality and other information that farmers find useful for running their farms well.
.
You can be a very holy person and a lousy farmer, and you can be an excellent farmer who loses his soul because of unrepented sin.
.

[Neil Obstat]

Not as pathetic as believing that the Farmer's Almanac is infallible!  ;D

.
I never said the almanac is "infallible" but if you can find an error somewhere in it, please do post it for all to see.
.

[Meg]

.
I never said the almanac is "infallible" but if you can find an error somewhere in it, please do post it for all to see.
.

Right. Like I'm going to take the time to go through it to find errors. That would be silly. Why do you propose such silly things? I don't get it.

You generally consider it to be free from error though, right?

[Neil Obstat]

.
The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't make a big production of its errors and omissions. Very rarely they provide apology for having made some mistake or omission, but it's very rare. In general the almanac is very reliable and provides vast amounts of useful information. They try to make their presentation enjoyable for their readers.
.
Here is an image they currently have on their home page which is probably not an actual photograph of the moon being observed by a group of people. It is merely an image that is given as an attraction to the article which it heads. It is a graphic arts composition designed to get readers interested in clicking on the article and reading it, and nothing more. It carries no moral message, nor is it intended to predict some event of great consequence soon to befall the earth or whatever. It's just a nice, interesting picture.
.

[Meg]

.
The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't make a big production of its errors and omissions. Very rarely they provide apology for having made some mistake or omission, but it's very rare. In general the almanac is very reliable and provides vast amounts of useful information. They try to make their presentation enjoyable for their readers.
.
Here is an image they currently have on their home page which is probably not an actual photograph of the moon being observed by a group of people. It is merely an image that is given as an attraction to the article which it heads. It is a graphic arts composition designed to get readers interested in clicking on the article and reading it, and nothing more. It carries no moral message, nor is it intended to predict some event of great consequence soon to befall the earth or whatever. It's just a nice, interesting picture.
.

Yes, it is a nice picture. Whoever made it did a good job. But it distorts reality.

[Neil Obstat]

Right. Like I'm going to take the time to go through it to find errors. That would be silly. Why do you propose such silly things? I don't get it.

You generally consider it to be free from error though, right?

.
In case you missed it, I have been repeatedly accused of "contributing nothing" to the discussion. 
.
Then when I mention something as consequential and universally accepted as the almanac, flat-earthers claim I'm attempting to make it more reliable than the Bible.
.
The Bible and the almanac are concerned with different things, the former spiritual, the latter material.
.
I've been referring to the Old Farmer's Almanac off and on for over a half century and have never found any error in it.
.
But nonetheless, I have read about an error or an omission occurring in rare instances, even though I never saw one.
.
Does that answer your question?

[Neil Obstat]

Yes, it is a nice picture. Whoever made it did a good job. But it distorts reality.

.
Are you accusing the almanac of publishing "an error" because of this picture?
.

[aryzia]

.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac has been in circulation for hundreds of years and farmers all over the world use its data to plan the planting of their crops and for answering other important questions related to their art.
.
Flat-earthers come along as if the world's history has just begun yesterday (except of course for the non-Scriptural book of Enoch) and never have any coherent or objective criticism of the almanac or the methods used to tabulate its charts.
.
Nonetheless, whenever the data of the almanac poses a glaring problem for the pet (false) hypothesis of flat-earthism, they suddenly have a problem with the almanac.

Who cares how long Almanac has done business? As if the difference didn't matter? There is a difference and it matters. One is Godly, the other secular.  That's the point. Truth comes from God. Lies come from man.

[Meg]

.
Are you accusing the almanac of publishing "an error" because of this picture?
.

Since that picture is in the Farmer's Almanac, I would think that they would be interested in showing pictures that reflect reality. That picture shows the moon much larger than it actually is in relative size to humans.

I expect would expect a non-reality picture from, say, a comic book company, or sci-fi movie, but not from a publication that tries puts out non-fictional material.

Does that answer your question?

[Jaynek]

Do you know if Enoch is still considered scripture, even though it is not canonical? I don't know much about it.

If it is considered scripture (though not canonical), then it is very telling that the globalists consider the Farmer's Almanac to be above it.

There is no such thing as Sacred Scripture that is not canonical.  

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

Also:

The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church, using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society which began with God's revelation of Himself to the people of Israel, and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic organism. The whole Biblical Canon therefore consists of the canons of the Old and New Testaments. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm


There are many ancient writings.  We know which ones are revealed by God through the teaching of the Church.  The writings identified by the Church may be called "the canon of Scripture" or "Sacred Scripture" or the "Holy Bible."  These are different names for the same thing.

The word "scripture" comes from a Latin root meaning writing and is sometimes used for the important writings of other religions, but in the context of Catholicism only means Sacred Scripture.

The Book of Enoch has no more authority than the Farmer's Almanac and seems far less accurate.  Neither is infallible.

[Meg]

I have zero interest in your opinion on the subject Jayne. 

[Neil Obstat]

.
If you're having a moral crisis over that picture you may really turn back-flips over this one.
.

[Meg]

A moral crisis? That's a huge exaggeration, Neil.