Does the Bible teach a flat Earth?

Intro

In spite of my request re: Bible use, and considering that over 100 English versions exist today, I thought it prudent that we agree on an English Bible version to use, as noted by my posted Comment #1, but Pro declined to specify in Comment #2 or in the Challenge, therefore, the time has past and the non-specified condition is now unchangeable. Having accepted the debate as is, I am using the King James Version [KJV]. 

In consideration of the Resolution: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

Thank you, SomeDebatePerson, for this debate.

I Argument: Biblical-sourced case for a flat Earth: circular

I.a Throughout history, man has theorized various shapes of Earth, but only two have purpose for this debate: a sphere, or a flat plane; the latter may be either circular or rectangular. Further, this debate is rooted, by Pro's Resolve and Description, in biblical interpretation and will accept as key evidence for either participant's Bible citation. However, all is dependent on accurate translation.

I.a.1 Therefore, we discover, from Isaiah, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..."[1], [1a], [4]  However, the above assumes, from biblical perspective, that, by Pro's Burden of Proof [BoP] a "sphere" is synonymous with a "circle," since the latter is the featured keyword of the verse. However, since Pro has effectively waived an R1 argument, saying, "Until you provide evidence of a flat Earth, we have no reason to believe it." Non-belief is not evidence of lack of biblical teaching. I'll remind Pro of his own Description, imposing a Pro BoP: "I will argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat."  I have no need to rebut Pro's R1, as there is no argument therein satisfying his BoP, other than as given in this § [paragraph], which I have rebutted herein. However, as for my own BoP:

I.b By Euclidean geometry [Euclid is credited as "the father of Geometry," a Greek mathematician of the 4th to 3rd centuries B.C.E.][2], who taught that a sphere is, "When a semicircle with fixed diameter [A - B] is carried round and restored again to the same position from which it began to be moved, the figure so comprehended is a sphere."[3]

I.c This is all well and good, but, the English biblical keyword is not "sphere," but "circle." We might forgive a minor shift of word, because it is certain that a sphere does offer a flat, round shape. The sphere is three-dimensional. A circle is but two; length and width.

I.c.1 Further, one must realize we deal with an English language Bible. Which? My Intro, above, introduces the problem. I am using the KJV [King James Version], c. 1611[4], second of two most popular English Bibles in the world. The first is the NIV [New International Version] c. 1978[4] Both reference the keyword of Isa. 40: 22 as "circle," not "sphere." 

I.c.2 The original language of this Isaiah verse [§I.a.1] was likely Hebrew, in which the keyword "circle" is ח֣וּג [khūg or hūg].[5]. It may have also been translated from Hebrew to Greek [Septuagint LXX] anciently, and later, Greek to English, in which case, the operative keyword is γῦρον [gyron].[6] In either case, Pro fails to justify "sphere" [Hebrew: כַּדוּר [khadur] / Greek: σφαίρα [sfaira]] to arrive at a modern English "circle," unless translators were incompetent in any of the three languages, and in basic geometry.

I.c.3 Further, Euclid's geometry became common in use by the second century B.C.E., 1800 years prior to the KJV translation, and 2100 years prior to NIV. That is sufficient time for translators to learn all three languages. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject the Hebrew/Greek Isaiah verse keyword above as "sphere" in English. A "circle" is shown to be a flat, two-dimensional plane, by mathematical theory, according to Euclidean geometry.[7] Note: the illustration below offers minor depth, but this is purposefully rendered because even under the circumstance of a flat Earth, we have, even as children, with plastic pail and bucket, dug into the dirt, or sand at the beach, to reveal depth of an obvious nature. Additionally, we see evidence of mountain ranges on Earth, which demonstrate obvious height above us, and valleys below us, therefore, "flatness" of Earth is an acknowledged relative term not to be confused with the mathematically theoretical, dimensionless flat plane as demonstrated by below's illustration of the B-C diameter of the circle. 

II Argument: Another biblical example of flat Earth

II.a Job 26: 10 - "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."[8]  The Hebrew-to-English translated "compassed" was חֹֽק־ [chōc >> "circular [horizon"], and we are back to a circle; a flat circle, with the same sense as the Isaiah verse in §I.a.1, above., and all subs.

II.b Note that the source reference [1a] is a demonstration of 100 Bible verses which allege to demonstrate "The Earth is a Sphere," however, closer analysis of these 100 verses demonstrates, by their texts, that 96% of the verses offer no detail of the shape of Earth whatsoever, but merely that God was the creator, and related non-shape verbiage. Exaggeration, anyone?

I yield R2 to Pro.

R1 Sources:

[1] Holy Bible [KJV] Isaiah 40: 22

[1a] https://www.openbible.info/topics/the_earth_is_a_sphere [Note: This list of verses uses the ESV English translation, c. 2001 - 4th most popular translation worldwide]

[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Euclid-Greek-mathematician[3] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 26

[3] http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookXI/defXI14.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations [See "Complete Bibles" section]

[5] https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm

[6] ibid

[7] https://www.maths.dur.ac.uk/users/anna.felikson/Geometry/Geometry13/Eucl.pdf

[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Job 25: 10 [also see source reference [1a]]

[9] Artwork in this round created by fauxlaw [Pro]

In consideration of the Resolution: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

III Argument: Biblical-sourced case for a flat Earth: rectangular

III.a Isaiah 11: 12: And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 

This "four corners of the earth" idea is repeated in Revelation 7: 1, "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

III.a.1 By Euclidian geometry, a sphere has no "corners," as Isaiah and Revelation [therefore, Old & New Testaments] describe in the above verses, nor in the verse seen in R1, §II.a [1], speaking of a circle, nor in R1, §II.b, speaking of a "compass," also a circle. However, "corners," even four of them, are defined in Euclidian geometry as follows, by illustration, and by text in §III.a.2, below: 

III.a.2 "Any rectangular parallelogram is said to be contained by the two straight lines containing the right angle."[10] Euclid never offered a single word for "rectangle," but instead offered two words meaning "right-angled parallelogram." A parallelogram is four-cornered shape with parallel lines A-B and C-D, and two joined parallel lines A-D and B-C respectively perpendicular to A-B and C-D. Again, this is a flat plane, as with the circle described in Pro R1, but this shape has the "four corners" of A, B, C, D.

III.a.3 Consider any typical, printed map of the world today, and in what format, by shape, is that map presented? A flat rectangle. A printed Atlas of the World offers hundreds of examples of flat, rectangular maps.

III.b There is a term, "square the circle," which is to ask a question to which the answer is either very difficult, at best, or impossible at worst. However, by Euclidean geometry, "square the circle" means as illustrated and described below by illustration. Observe: Given circle A, neither square B nor C can equal the area of circle A. Square B is greater in area; square C is smaller in area. No calculation by mathematics is necessary with this illustration; by observation, alone, the obvious condition of both squares is evident. In each case [B & C], circle A's area is either exceeded by the corners of square B, or contains the corners of square C. 

Proof: area of a circle = πr 2. π [pi] is irrational, meaning it cannot be expressed as a fraction because neither integer of a fraction, x ÷ y, multiplied by π, produces a whole number, and therefore will not resolve. An irrational number expressed by decimals does not resolve, either; values beyond the decimal extend to infinity, such as the literal value of π, which equals

3.1415926535...[11] Therefore, while it is a fractional difference, rounding is necessary to "successfully" approximate areas of a circle and a square.

III.c Even drifting from biblical text or by geometry, for a sidebar, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics[12] [Pro is fluent in this ancient language] "[the] earth" is rendered as  

Further sidebar, but closer to home, given another biblical reference: Isaiah 66: 1, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool;" I challenge any functional footstool to be spherical and simultaneously useful:

Both, by primary object and by function, appear as a flat, not spherical. Further it may be coincidental, but note the similarity of form between these two images...

IV Rebuttal, Con R1: "For most of history..."

IV.a Con's R1 claimed: "For most of history, no one believed in a flat Earth." Note the absence of scholastic sourcing. That lack aside, consider: "Both Homer and Hesiod, in their poems, give us an idea of the world-view of the primitive Greeks. In Homer, the Earth is a flat circular disc, surrounded on all sides by the great river Okeanos"[13], appearing on the shield of Achilles, which is described in Homer's Iliad (Book XVIII, lines 483-608). Homer & Hesoid, by the way, date from about the 8th century B.C.E. [as does Isaiah]. 

IV.b Prior to that time, "Dating back to ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and Egyptians, early cosmological theories were largely based on mythological beliefs."[14]  "...ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamian records describe the world as a disk in the ocean with the heavens arching above it. An Iraqi tablet dated to 1000 BCE shows Babylon at the centre of a flat disk."[15]

IV.b.1 Ancient Egyptians as noted above believed in the flat disk of Earth from the 1st dynasty with the worship of the god, Ptah, in Memphis.[16], [17] In spite of Con's claim, that is rather historic. Therefore, I declare Con's claim as false.

V Rebuttal, Con R1: "Didn’t God make the natural law?"

V.a This question exceeds the scope of the debate, which is to demonstrate, by BoP of both participants, which is what the Bible teaches relative to the shape of Earth. Since Con failed to offer a definition of "theistic evolution," I offered my own in R1. Con may agree or disagree, but that subject is not the purpose of this debate.

VI Rebuttal, Con R1: "Darwin acknowledged a 'Creator'" 

VI.a This discussion, as well, exceeds the scope of the Resolve. Again, this is tied to the definition I offered for "theistic evolution." Why Darwin mentioned a "Creator" is Resolve creep, and not productive to the debate. I merely cite that Darwin wrote it.

VII Rebuttal, Con R1: "Man shares about 67% of our DNA with a banana"

VII.a Once again, Con engages Resolve creep. He said, "Scientists admit it is a misleading statement," yet, again, did not bother to cite a credible source for the claim, just as I did not because this subject is not within the scope of debate. I merely mentioned it as part of the discussion of definition for "theistic evolution" prior to any argument, which I always designate by alpha/numeric listing.

VIII Rebuttal, Con R1: "Since God made order from chaos, He can make life from death"

VIII.a Con alleges that I mean by God making order from chaos that I also mean God makes life from death. The fact is, by the Bible, this was accomplished.[18] However, this Con argument exceeds the debate Resolve.

IX Rebuttal, Con R1: "...light before the sun..."

IX.a Con claims, "Hebrew words for “morning” and “evening” don’t talk about the sun." Correct, it is some other light; not the Sun. But then Con claims, "...how would you interpret “day” as some random extended amount of time if there is no sun?" This is explained in my R1, §II.a & §II.b by analysis of Hebrew 

Hebrew for “morning” and “evening” is not about the sun. How is "day" interpreted as some random amount of time if there is no sun? The argument makes no sense. Animals were created on the 5th and 6th days. But anything before the 4th day is not a literal 24-hour day since there’s no sun.

X Rebuttal, Con R2: "A circle is a 2d object. A sphere is 3d. Flat-earthers want the Earth to be a disk."

X.a Con's R2 is a summary of my R1, §I.1.a.1 thru I.c.3, first demonstrated in my entire R1, but with Con ignoring my BoP is not based on a flat-earther want, but by biblical teaching. And further, Con, once again, does not argue anything for his own BoP that the Bible does not teach flat-earth, and without mention of modern-day flat-earthers. 

X.b I repeat my entire R1, §I.c.2, for purposes of now adding §X.b.2 to it. Con claimed in R2 that ancient Hebrew has no word that translates to "sphere."

"R1, §I.c.2 The original language of this Isaiah verse, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..."[1]] was very likely Hebrew, in which the keyword "circle" is ח֣וּג [khūg or hūg].[5]. It may have also been translated from Hebrew to Greek [Septuagint LXX] anciently, and later, Greek to English. In either case, Pro fails to justify "sphere" to arrive to the modern English "circle." 

I.c.2.A To answer Con's claim in R2, "Biblical Hebrew had no word for sphere or disk,"   consider, "A case can also be made from modern European terms denoting sphericity. Philologists have discovered a number of Indo-European words that appear to be related to Semitic words, whether of shared origin or having been borrowed in the distant past... it may be significant that, in Indo-European languages, there are similar-sounding words that definitely refer to a spherical object, examples being kugel."[6] There is, therefore, justification that, contrary to Con's unsourced opinion otherwise, the ancient Hebrew language, apparently dependent on context, blended use of ח֣וּג [khūg or hūg] to be either circle or sphere. 

R2 Sources:

[10] https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookII/defII.html

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational

[12] Sir Alan Gardiner, "Egyptian Grammar," 3rd Ed., Oxford University Press, London, 1969

[13] https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1916PA.....24..358M

[14] https://historytimelines.co/timeline/cosmology

[15] https://www.britannica.com/topic/flat-Earth

[16] https://egyptmythology.com/ancient-egyptian-cosmology-a-journey-through-time-and-space/ 

[17] https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-dynasties-of-ancient-Egypt

[18] Holy Bible [KJV] I Corinthians 15; 22

[x] All artwork in this round created by fauxlaw [Pro]

In consideration of the Resolution: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

XI Rebuttal : Reveal the climax in the second reel?

XI,a After posting my R2, Con, in Comments, asked about why I appeared to post an argument for our concurrent debate re: theist evolution. I have a personal debate rule: do not discuss a current debate in Comments of that debate, so, I offered an oblique answer that apparently made Con think I erred in posting my R2. I even mentioned "theist evolution" a few times. Moral of story: ask me to reveal the movie climax after the 2nd reel, I'll tell you to find another pastime; movies ain't your bag.

XII: Argument: What a 3D globe of Earth really is

XII.a Wait, one may argue, if one is convinced the Bible teaches a spherical Earth, although, to date, now in the 3rd reel of this 4-reel movie, we have seen no evidence of a sphere from Con; only claimed opinions. But, there are printed, 3D [spherical] globes of the Earth, right? One may even have the physical example at home. I do. But how is that globe manufactured [i.e., as if created by God in theist evolution]? It is printed on flat, pliable material, cut into pieces and formed into individual arcs to be assembled into a small globe with pieces sealed together. Something like taking a robust rib from Adam, and give it squeeze to reduce the arc to fit in a smaller frame of a woman... A fabrication. You know, something like "artificial" intelligence, keying on the word in quotes, because that is what A.I. is. End of support for Con's BoP. A.I. is not a process God uses; it isn't "natural law." His is the Objective, Original, Omnipotent, Omniscient Intelligence.

XII.b And what, after all, can we learn from the model globe [sphere] that cannot be learned in more detail [thus better to learn dominion of the Earth, yes?] than from the aforementioned Atlas, with text included with the flat, multiple, detailed maps. And we don't need to be Atlas to carry the sphere for which Atlas must stress his shoulders.

XIII Rebuttal: Con's R3, "Four corners of the Earth"

XIII.a Con has a problem with a shift of shape from a flat Earth. Being flat, which is, after all, a keyword of the Resolve of Con's creation, is not limited in shape. Yes, the citation [1], from my R1, §I.a.1, from Isaiah referenced "...the circle of the Earth," but its shape, other than being a mathematic plane, and a circle can be of infinite diameter, rectangular, octogonal, or any other shape, as long as it is planar. Any other conceived shape can also be infinite by the same means.

But arguing shape is immaterial to the debate; another resolve creep that Con continues to employ. The fact is, by Euclidean geometry, a circle can be defined as infinite radii from a common center of infinite length; therefore, an infinite plane.

XIV Rebuttal: Con's R3, Testaments and rivers and prophecies, oh, my!

XIV.a I repeat from §XIII.a, above, "... arguing shape is immaterial to the debate; another resolve creep that Con continues to employ." Con failure to argue his BoP, but merely to attempt rebuttal of my BoP.

XV Rebuttal: Con's R3, History Controversy

XV.a Con says, "Most historians agree that no educated man from the 3rd century BC onward thought the world was flat," a virtual repeat of his R1 argument, and, still, even after a simple request, refuses to cite a credible source for that personal opinion. My R2, §IV.a rebuttal: "In Homer, the Earth is a flat circular disc, surrounded on all sides by the great river Okeanos"[13], appearing on the shield of Achilles, which is described in Homer's Iliad (Book XVIII, lines 483-608). Homer & Hesoid, by the way, date from about the 8th century B.C.E. [as does Isaiah]. 

XV.a.1 "So you've got to ...unpack that question a little bit because it's very easy for us to see...the flat earth movement as one singular cohesive movement."[2] It is a common fallacy to artificially group people with whom one disagrees into a singular group. Makes arguing against one easier than against several or many.

XV.b Contrary to Con's claim of "no educated man... [beyond the 3rd Century B.C.E.] thought the world was flat." The Flat Earth Society's president is John Davis, a software engineer and computer scientist. The vice president, Daniel Shenten, is a graduate of Virginia Tech. What, exactly, is Con's threshold of "educated?"

XVI Rebuttal: Con's R3, "Circle of the Earth"

XVI.a Con sites the Douay-Reims Bible [finally, a stated preferred English biblical translation!], which refers to a "globe" earth shape. But then Con follows this with another opinion: "I don’t think the Israelites were huge geometry people." A little research on the matter, rather than mere "I don't think..." is useful. According to Medium, "...numerical values derived from Gematria also correspond to geometric shapes, possibly extending to higher-dimensional geometry."[5]

XVI.b I understand Con's non-belief in circles. From my R1, §I.a.1: "Non-belief is not evidence of lack of biblical teaching."

I yield the 4th, last round to Con.

R3 sources:

[1] https://www.expii.com/t/center-and-parts-of-a-circle-833#:~:text=When studying Geometry it is,equal distance to the middle.

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/

[3] https://www.westmont.edu/people/mark-sargent

[4] https://eyeofheaven.medium.com/decoding-the-mathematics-and-geometry-hidden-in-the-torah-an-introduction-to-the-evolution-of-76e0c9869139

[5] https://eyeofheaven.medium.com/decoding-the-mathematics-and-geometry-hidden-in-the-torah-an-introduction-to-the-evolution-of-76e0c9869139

In consideration of the Resolution: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

IX Rebuttal: Why I threw a ringer in R2 re: "theist evolution"

Y.a In movie jargon, a plot misdirection is a deliberate technique by a filmmaker to manipulate audience perception, drawing their attention to one thing, like a magician's ruse in one hand, while an entirely different, unexpected event is occurring in the other. That manipulation has purpose: our [Con & Pro] two concurrent debates, "Does the Bible teach a flat earth," and "Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?" Both debates were proposed by Con to be biblically based. That means finding relevant scripture in the Bible and citing it in a debate rounds to underpin argument and rebuttal, round by round. These two debates are really a one-reel documentary. That's it. Mystery solved. Popcorn eaten.

X Rebuttal: "[Con] will argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat."

X.a Will argue? Through 4 rounds, Con has failed to consistently mention/cite from the Bible. Con has mentioned the Bible in R2 & R4, and cites from it twice in R3. But Con never wrote a scene in which it is said that "...the Bible teaches that the Earth is a sphere" until R3. Even then, it was a weak argument. Well, the earlier Con quote, "...Biblical Hebrew had no word for sphere or disk," taken as a stand-alone statement, edits Con's BoP, a critical cut, completely out of the movie, left on the cutting room floor, before it was ever written. No Oscar for that edit. 

X.b Therefore, Con, once again, might have done this research himself in both instances of his few Bible references, and, in so doing, mount at least one argument that actually supports the Con-stated BoP that,

"[Con] will argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat.."[21] But Con failed to do so, while claiming, "Look, I’ve done research on this..." [R2], and, ultimately demonstrate at least mention of "the Earth is a sphere," let alone "teach" anything. But, sadly, Con never, in 4 rounds, mentions either term;' but even claimed, "Biblical Hebrew had no word for sphere..." in his R2. Does that meet any standard of proof? No, but I'll accept the claim, thank you very much.

XI Rebuttal: Con R3, Pro's Douay-Reims Bible's "sphere"

XI.a I meant to mention in R3 rebuttal of use of the Douay-Reims translation compared to other English translations. The website, biblehub.com is a useful source of biblical reference, offering English, Spanish, German, French, Russian, Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin translations. In English, the site includes roughly 30 English-translated versions [there are actually more than 3x that number, but these are the most commonly used, worldwide]. Of the 30, 3 offer the keyword "sphere" in the Isaiah 40: 22 verse we have both referenced; 23 offer "circle," and 4 have other words used. "Sphere" is the minimum translated word-use in the Isaiah verse; the Douay-Reims, the Catholic Public Domain, and the Peshitta. 

XII Rebuttal: Con R4, "Pro cannot decide... [if] the Earth is a circular disk or a rectangular plane."

XII.a Thus, Con's virtual R4, but for mention of two other old-news items. To my accused disk/rectangle issues, Pro is doing a great job repeating my arguments, such as that shape is not relevant to the Resolve, but he's not been so hot on mention, let alone supporting his own BoP, to argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat. That lack has now spread over 4 rounds of argument.

XII.a.1 Con's R2 was the only weak argument for Pro, to wit: "A sphere is 3d. Flat-earthers want the Earth to be a disk. Circle is simply what is being seen above, whether it’s a sphere or a disk. Biblical Hebrew had no word for sphere or disk." If, as Pro alleges, the ancient Hebrews "...had no word for sphere..." that cuts any argument Con has right from his scene before he can mount principle photography, to coin movie jargon.The Bible, then, "does not teach that the Earth is flat" as was Con's singular BoP, yet, on four rounds, failed to substantiate the claim. How can he when he has declared it missing from ancient Hebrew thought.

XII.a.2 And Con has acknowledged my mention that, disk or rectangle, the Bible teaches the shape [three-dimensional] of Earth is not in the Pro Resolve of this debate; only whether or not the Bible teaches it is flat. A mathematical, or geometric plane is flat. I have demonstrated that flatness in every round of my argument.

XIII Rebuttal, Con R4: Other imponderables

XIII.a Con said, "Pro uses history to justify arguments." Yes, I did; in Bible verses, in keeping with the Resolve. But also with other historic references in all previous rounds. What should I have used, according to Pro? Future?

XIII.b Con said, "The shape of the Earth was not part of what the Bible needed to teach." Words out of my mouth, first: in R1, §II.b; R2, §V.a; R3, §XIII.a.

XIX Conclusion: Ferris Bueller, et al

XIX.a "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."[22]  Ferris Bueller then tells us: "You're still here? It's over. Go home. Go."[22]

Thank you, SomeDebatePerson, for this debate.

Members of the Academy of DC [DebateCraft readers/voters]: Please watch the entire documentary, then consider which scenes support a Con-produced/directed plot, but vote the Oscar for Pro's scenic and epic-produced evidences that the Bible teaches a flat Earth. 

This debate has not been about my belief, but what the Bible teaches by its words. By the way, this is entirely a Hollowood production. I no more believe the Earth is flat than I do the proposition that life imitates art, if Hollowood is, as Hollowood claims, exemplary of art. Being an artist by profession, who grew up there, I know it's the opposite. Only, in Hollowood's case, it can only try, but never succeed. Eh, okey-dokey[23], Ferris Bueller came close.

R4 sources:

[19] https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/25597/question-with-regard-to-dual-meanings-in-the-hebrew-words-erev-and-boker-in

[20] https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/25597/question-with-regard-to-dual-meanings-in-the-hebrew-words-erev-and-boker-in

[21] Debate Description: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/2l/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth

[22] "Ferris Beuller's Day Off," John Hughes, Paramount Pictures, 1986

[23] Originated by Spanky McFarland of The Little Rascals "Our Gang,"a long-running series produced as comedy shorts when movie double-features were once popular and inexpensive