The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Danoh]

I did nothing of the sort.

I was just pointing out that they were building the tower to reach something (which scripture says was heaven).
Their imaginations were that they could reach it.
Scripture implies that 'something' could be reached. (At least that is one way to look at it.)


Genesis 11:6 KJV
(6) And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Its a Dispensational issue - God was not yet willing to once more allow man the height of his religious rebellion against Him - til at some point after the Rapture - see the latter half of Acts 17; the latter half of Romans 1; the latter half of 2 Thessalonians 2; etc.

That is the height all that is referring to - the height of man's religious rebellion.

Always look for the Dispensational issue and ya can't go wrong.

Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

If you find it, post it or send me a pm.

For some FEs, it's not about proving the actual shape of the earth, but just about how scripture describes the earth, and that is the description we should vision when reading those descriptions.
In other words, it's about viewing the earth as scripture presents it THEOLOGICALLY and not SCIENTIFICALLY.
So I don't have a dog in this fight.
I just want to view the world as scripture says to view it.

I lean toward the view that the windows are some sort of openings that exist.
But I keep my options open about it at this time.

Scripture seems to imply that GOD stopped the continuation of the tower ob Babel because it was possible for them to reach the boundary they set out to reach.
I mean, if it was just a tall building that couldn't reach their determined destination, then why worry about it being finished?
For whatever reason, GOD did not want man to reach that destination and had to intervene in order to keep them from reaching that destination.
:think:

Yo, Tam...

I put the word out to people I know, and various promised to look through their collections and get back to me.

In the meantime, I googled the words "job windows heaven richard jordan pdf" and ran across the following link. Its a study by someone apparently based on their notes of Jordan's findings on those literal windows and so on that you mentioned.

And apparantly, Jordan holds the view that the Earth is not flat (wouldn't be surprised if he did one of his well-known in-depth studies on that also; I'll ask around about that, as well).

Anyway, I'll let you know what else I dig up.

Here are that person's notes on those literal windows, etc - enjoy...

http://www.lisaleland.com/llcopy/heavenhelp072404.htm

Here is an interesting video study by Jordan called "Outer Space And Us" about the order and structure of Heaven and all that is literal in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8LQvCg39s&app=desktop

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Tambora]

Yo, Tam...

I put the word out to people I know, and various promised to look through their collections and get back to me.

In the meantime, I googled the words "job windows heaven richard jordan pdf" and ran across the following link. Its a study by someone apparently based on their notes of Jordan's findings on those literal windows and so on that you mentioned.

And apparantly, Jordan holds the view that the Earth is not flat (wouldn't be surprised if he did one of his well-known in-depth studies on that also; I'll ask around about that, as well).

Anyway, I'll let you know what else I dig up.

Here are that person's notes on those literal windows, etc - enjoy...

http://www.lisaleland.com/llcopy/heavenhelp072404.htm

Here is an interesting video study by Jordan called "Outer Space And Us" about the order and structure of Heaven and all that is literal in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8LQvCg39s&app=desktop

Rom. 5:6-8.

OK.
Don't go to too much trouble.
I'm really only interested in seeing what folks consider the windows to be.
And, what was the "heaven" that the tower could have reached had they not stopped building.

I don't really want to have to read someone's book just for that.
Just tell me what you think they are.

Whether one is FE or GLOBE, I would like to know their thoughts on it.

 

[Danoh]

OK.
Don't go to too much trouble.
I'm really only interested in seeing what folks consider the windows to be.
And, what was the "heaven" that the tower could have reached had they not stopped building.

I don't really want to have to read someone's book just for that.
Just tell me what you think they are.

Whether one is FE or GLOBE, I would like to know their thoughts on it.

I noticed you have an interest in all those names and numbers in Scripture and what they are about. I ran accroos a study on them but decided not to post it, as I felt the above was perhaps more than enough to expect anyone to go through.

At the same time, I am voraciously curious about every aspect of all things Scripture, and sooner or later get around to doing my own studies on them. Because they are all connected.

And because they are; they often shed unexpected light on the one thing we might be focused on.

As for my own view, I've not studied out the flat earth or not issue. As with STP, its not that important to me at this time.

As to whether or not those windows are literal, I agree with Jordan that they are. But I often find we're on the same page on many a thing.

Because, again, when you study things from their bigger picture, you tend to find agreement or not with someone on some aspect or another they are going on about; just from the fact of the bigger picture you have studied much out from to begin with.

I also no longer see the point of laying out a detailed study, where someone else has already done one I agree with.

Watch that video (or not) see if you don't come away from it with a much fuller picture of many interconnected aspects of things in Heaven and in Earth.

I'll leave this at that. Let me know if you want any more studies on those things. What I posted is enough of a start.



Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[iouae]

I thought that flat earth's got their belief from the Bible. But the Bible speaks of the circle of the earth.

Isa 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[musterion]

I thought that flat earth's got their belief from the Bible. But the Bible speaks of the circle of the earth.

Isa 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

That's the first thing I ever saw replied to by an FE, a long time ago, when I realized there were still FEs. The response was, from God' POV, looking down upon the whole earth, the disc would still looks like a circle (as their maps do), therefore what Isaiah wrote does not demand it be a sphere.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's the first thing I ever saw replied to by an FE, a long time ago, when I realized there were still FEs. The response was, from God' POV, looking down upon the whole earth, the disc would still looks like a circle (as their maps do), therefore what Isaiah wrote does not demand it be a sphere.

The problem with their argument is that a circle is only a circle from directly above, and since God is omnipresent, then he is not only above, but everywhere else as well, and since the earth is always "below" Him, then except from directly above, the earth is not a circle, thereby rendering that verse (if the word means only "circle") meaningless. However, since God is omnipresent, anywhere above a sphere looks like a circle, and if the the word means circle, but is speaking about a sphere, or even if the word really means sphere, then that verse has meaning, because it doesn't matter where God is looking from, it's always a circle to Him.

 

[iouae]

That's the first thing I ever saw replied to by an FE, a long time ago, when I realized there were still FEs. The response was, from God' POV, looking down upon the whole earth, the disc would still looks like a circle (as their maps do), therefore what Isaiah wrote does not demand it be a sphere.

Well at least from one point of view, we have flat earthers conceding that the earth is a circle. Now we only have one dimension left to work on

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey [MENTION=7053]SaulToPaul[/MENTION] can you comment on this post?

 

[Clete]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

Wikipedia knows everything!

 

[Clete]

Well, I'm still stuck on the right triangle math stuff. Check this out...

Patrick brought up the size of the Sun. In the context he was bringing it up in, it's completely irrelevant because the angles involved are all calculated from the point in the center of the Sun, regardless of how big it is.

BUT!

Let's think about the size of the Sun, shall we?

Let's draw another right triangle.

View attachment 26442

This time, instead of running side b along the surface of the Earth, that side will represent the distance between the Earth and the center of the Sun (i.e. 3000 miles according to FET).

The average angular diameter of the Sun is 32.15 minutes of arc.

That's all the information we need to calculate the size of the Sun. We do it by stacking two right triangles like so...

View attachment 26443

We already have the number for side b (3000). Angle A is half of the angular diameter.

32.15 minutes of arc converted to degrees is .53583°

Angle A then equals .53583°/2 = .267815°

Using the calculator found HERE we get side a = 28.1 miles

Double that to get the size of the Sun...

28.1 x 2 = 56.2

The Sun, according the the Flat Earth Theory is 56.2 miles across.

That's just about the same as the distance between Denver and Colorado Springs.


Also, just to reiterate a point that has been made on this thread a million times before, the constant angular size of the Sun is proof that it is not vanishing at some supposed vanishing point due to perspective. The variation in the angular diameter of the Sun happens over an entire year's worth of time and varies less than 1 full minute of arc (<1/60th of a degree). The entire idea of perspective has to do with the angular diameter of an object getting smaller and smaller with distance. Since the Sun does not do that, the perspective theory is out the window and you'd be stupid to stick with it, which every single solitary Flat Earther will do.

Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Genesis 13:14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;

I wonder what God was talking about when he used North, South, East and West as directions?

As far as I can tell.... directions don't make sense on a flat earth.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...moon-Part-II&p=5241791&viewfull=1#post5241791

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Genesis 13:14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;

I wonder what God was talking about when he used North, South, East and West as directions?

As far as I can tell.... directions don't make sense on a flat earth.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...moon-Part-II&p=5241791&viewfull=1#post5241791

It's N&S poles you are confused on.

Which by the way are never mentioned in the bible.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well, I'm still stuck on the right triangle math stuff. Check this out...

Patrick brought up the size of the Sun. In the context he was bringing it up in, it's completely irrelevant because the angles involved are all calculated from the point in the center of the Sun, regardless of how big it is.

BUT!

Let's think about the size of the Sun, shall we?

Let's draw another right triangle.

View attachment 26442

This time, instead of running side b along the surface of the Earth, that side will represent the distance between the Earth and the center of the Sun (i.e. 3000 miles according to FET).

The average angular diameter of the Sun is 32.15 minutes of arc.

That's all the information we need to calculate the size of the Sun. We do it by stacking two right triangles like so...

View attachment 26443

We already have the number for side b (3000). Angle A is half of the angular diameter.

32.15 minutes of arc converted to degrees is .53583°

Angle A then equals .53583°/2 = .267815°

Using the calculator found HERE we get side a = 28.1 miles

Double that to get the size of the Sun...

28.1 x 2 = 56.2

The Sun, according the the Flat Earth Theory is 56.2 miles across.

That's just about the same as the distance between Denver and Colorado Springs.


Also, just to reiterate a point that has been made on this thread a million times before, the constant angular size of the Sun is proof that it is not vanishing at some supposed vanishing point due to perspective. The variation in the angular diameter of the Sun happens over an entire year's worth of time and varies less than 1 full minute of arc (<1/60th of a degree). The entire idea of perspective has to do with the angular diameter of an object getting smaller and smaller with distance. Since the Sun does not do that, the perspective theory is out the window and you'd be stupid to stick with it, which every single solitary Flat Earther will do.

Clete

Refraction works better for a flat earth than it does for a globe.

Laser tests have already debunked the mirage myth of globular curvature.

The math you're trying to use is completely inadequate due to refraction plus perception.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well at least from one point of view, we have flat earthers conceding that the earth is a circle. Now we only have one dimension left to work on

It's not like God doesn't know the difference.
Unlike you.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Uh... yeah... you can map out perspective. You are mocking that? :idunno:

Not without taking into account refraction.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I'm still stuck on the right triangle math stuff. Check this out...

Patrick brought up the size of the Sun. In the context he was bringing it up in, it's completely irrelevant because the angles involved are all calculated from the point in the center of the Sun, regardless of how big it is.

BUT!

Let's think about the size of the Sun, shall we?

Let's draw another right triangle.

View attachment 26442

This time, instead of running side b along the surface of the Earth, that side will represent the distance between the Earth and the center of the Sun (i.e. 3000 miles according to FET).

The average angular diameter of the Sun is 32.15 minutes of arc.

That's all the information we need to calculate the size of the Sun. We do it by stacking two right triangles like so...

View attachment 26443

We already have the number for side b (3000). Angle A is half of the angular diameter.

32.15 minutes of arc converted to degrees is .53583°

Angle A then equals .53583°/2 = .267815°

Using the calculator found HERE we get side a = 28.1 miles

Double that to get the size of the Sun...

28.1 x 2 = 56.2

The Sun, according the the Flat Earth Theory is 56.2 miles across.

That's just about the same as the distance between Denver and Colorado Springs.

Also, just to reiterate a point that has been made on this thread a million times before, the constant angular size of the Sun is proof that it is not vanishing at some supposed vanishing point due to perspective. The variation in the angular diameter of the Sun happens over an entire year's worth of time and varies less than 1 full minute of arc (<1/60th of a degree). The entire idea of perspective has to do with the angular diameter of an object getting smaller and smaller with distance. Since the Sun does not do that, the perspective theory is out the window and you'd be stupid to stick with it, which every single solitary Flat Earther will do.

Clete

That is why this is the single fact that I use the most with regards to the proper model for the earth and sun.

This single and indisputable FACT proves, by itself, that the sun does NOT circle above a flat earth.

 

[Right Divider]

Wikipedia knows everything!

It's a great resource for many simple facts. That article is very well documented with foot-notes to other resources.

 

[Right Divider]

It's N&S poles you are confused on.

Which by the way are never mentioned in the bible.

There is NO SUCH thing as a "south pole" in the flat earth model.

 

[musterion]

FEs sometimes ask why we don't all fly off the surface of a rapidly rotating globe, as if the reason we don't fly off is because we're really on the surface of a fixed plate...the reason we don't fly off is because what we're standing on is not moving at all.

Okay, so everyone can see stars and planets rotating overhead (given time-lapse film or seasonal observations). No one argues that.

Which means either all of those stars are moving, or the plate we're on is moving. Or maybe both. But SOMETHING moves all the time.

What's moving, FEs?