The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'll let others decide who's making an idiot of himself.

Distrust of NASA is certainly on the table. They use a lot of tax dollars, and not all of it comes back to us in useful product. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. NASA didn't invent the spherical earth, as your own flat earther sites will tell you. Ancient Greeks recognized it as fact. And other countries have their own space and Antarctica exploration programs.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

The ancient Greeks favored a geocentric world not the heliocentric one. They could have chosen either and why they chose a stationary globe earth over a spinning globe circling the sun is something I'm trying to figure out. Any idea's on this?

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'll let others decide who's making an idiot of himself.

Distrust of NASA is certainly on the table. They use a lot of tax dollars, and not all of it comes back to us in useful product. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. NASA didn't invent the spherical earth, as your own flat earther sites will tell you. Ancient Greeks recognized it as fact. And other countries have their own space and Antarctica exploration programs.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

With the Copernican model Christian's will have to deal with the "Big Bang", the "evolution" of the universe and multi galaxies theory that have been incorporated into it. This incorporation is coherent with this model but contradictory to the Genesis account.

How many here believe in the Bible and:

1. The Big Bang

2. The evolution of the universe

3. Multi galaxies

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
With the Copernican model Christian's will have to deal with the "Big Bang", the "evolution" of the universe and multi galaxies theory that have been incorporated into it. This incorporation is coherent with this model but contradictory to the Genesis account.

How many here believe in the Bible and:

1. The Big Bang

2. The evolution of the universe

3. Multi galaxies

--Dave

Dave, are you saying that all Christians who believe the earth is round must also believe in the Big Bang and evolution?

Also, do you mean multiple universes? Because there are in fact many billions of galaxies...
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, are you saying that all Christians who believe the earth is round must also believe in the Big Bang and evolution?

Also, do you mean multiple universes? Because there are in fact many billions of galaxies...

No, I'm just wondering how many do.

But I would say that many Christian do believe in the Big Bang and an evolving universe. Other galaxies are not facts of science or Biblical.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

chair

Well-known member
No, I'm just wondering how many do.

But I would say that many Christian do believe in the Big Bang and an evolving universe. Other galaxies are not facts of science or Biblical.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are confusing multiple galaxies with multiple universes, I think. Or I hope.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
With the Copernican model Christian's will have to deal with the "Big Bang", the "evolution" of the universe and multi galaxies theory that have been incorporated into it. This incorporation is coherent with this model but contradictory to the Genesis account.

How many here believe in the Bible and:

1. The Big Bang

2. The evolution of the universe

3. Multi galaxies

--Dave


I am Christian and I believe in:
The Big Bang (God said, "Let there be light!")
The evolution of the Universe. And all that is in it. Including life. All according to God's plan.
Multiple Galaxies. We have pictures of them.
I do not believe that scripture is or was ever intended to be a science text book.

Science and Faith are not mutually exclusive propositions. They are opposite sides of the same coin.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The ancient Greeks favored a geocentric world not the heliocentric one. They could have chosen either and why they chose a stationary globe earth over a spinning globe circling the sun is something I'm trying to figure out. Any idea's on this?

--Dave
Yes, one thought. We are by nature short-sighted, meaning we think about what's happening to us right now as the most important thing going on. Thus we naturally think we are the center of the universe. As far as I can tell, nothing in God's word requires such a thought--when God made the sun and moon, "the stars also", He didn't tell us how far away they were or whether they are located in concentric circles around us--just that He made them. He placed them in the expanse of heaven. It might be possible to read into that account (provided below) some of our own prejudices, but we should strive not to, as that is adding to scripture. And I believe He wants us to explore His creation to the fullest extent of our observational powers that He gave us.

[Gen 1:14-18 NASB] 14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.​

With the Copernican model Christian's will have to deal with the "Big Bang", the "evolution" of the universe and multi galaxies theory that have been incorporated into it. This incorporation is coherent with this model but contradictory to the Genesis account.

How many here believe in the Bible and:

1. The Big Bang

2. The evolution of the universe

3. Multi galaxies

--Dave
I appreciate your concerns here! But as Christians we should NEVER be afraid of the truth. I'm not saying that hose things you've listed ARE truth, but observation of the heavens, if we really observe them faithfully and seeking the truth, God WILL be glorified in it.

[Psa 19:1-2] 1 ...The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

To me, the larger the universe is, the greater God seems, as He made it all, and it is wonderful indeed.

To me, the current scientific theories are attempts to understand things that we currently don't comprehend, but God made it all, made it well, and made it without trial and error.

I don't believe the current scientific theories can hold a candle to the word of God in truth value, but that doesn't mean there's no truth in them. Certainly we don't want to set aside our observations, as we set aside different theories over the years/centuries. If we can't tell what is going on from our observations (even if we don't understand how it works fully), then God gave us powers of observation for no good reason.

Let's talk about your 3 topics:
1. The Big Bang: It astounds me that so many Christians don't like the Big Bang model, as it maintains that the universe had a beginning, that major stuff happened really quickly (within the first few minutes), and that one of the early products was photons--light. All of those things fit nicely with the creation narrative in Gen 1. That doesn't mean that everything about the Big Bang model is correct, but it's sure better than the previous theories, such as an eternal universe.

2. The evolution of the universe: The Bible describes an evolution of the universe. It was not an unguided, random process, but it did evolve from nothing to something over the course of some amount of time.

3. Multi galaxies: I don't understand your concern with this. Why is this a problem for Christians? Others have suggested you meant "multi-universes". I'm not sure why you have a problem with that, either, although some applications of such thoughts are not in line with Christian thought.

In my mind, real observations should lead to real theories about how things work, which can then be tested. We are hampered when we apply our preconceived notions to the task, unless we really allow the bible to guide us in those preconceived notions. That's not always easy, as the side topic of Joshua's long day illustrated.

Scientists, bless their hearts, are seeking truth, but they often do so by making the greatest source of truth taboo. That hampers science. The theory of biological evolution is a case in point. Scientists are awaking from a 150-year biological nap as they see the grandeur of the microscopic side of creation. There are signs that astronomical science is also awakening to the design in the heavens that declare God's works.

Christians have the opportunity to rejoice in the observations of science, even if we don't agree with the interpretations of science. But if we bury our heads in the sand, which I believe the flat earth and fake moon shot conspiracy theories make us do, we bring disgrace on our God and blaspheme His name. Let's not do that.

Christians, of all people, being freed by the truth, should NEVER be afraid of truth.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I do not believe that scripture is or was ever intended to be a science text book.
I'm sorry to hear you say this. "Science" essentially means "knowledge". And if the bible is not a book to gain "knowledge", I can't imagine of what use it is.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (Prov 1:7)

The most important thing Scientists (knowledge seekers) can do to further science (knowledge), is to start looking for it in the right place. From there we can move on to observe and dissect and calculate and probe this creation God made to the fullest and best extent possible.

But if we try to gain knowledge apart from God's word, we go down wrong paths over and over again. It started with Adam and Eve, attempting to gain knowledge (science) of good and evil apart from the fear of God, which resulted in death.

I hope we Christians can stop making that mistake over and over again.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry to hear you say this. "Science" essentially means "knowledge". And if the bible is not a book to gain "knowledge", I can't imagine of what use it is.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (Prov 1:7)

The most important thing Scientists (knowledge seekers) can do to further science (knowledge), is to start looking for it in the right place. From there we can move on to observe and dissect and calculate and probe this creation God made to the fullest and best extent possible.

But if we try to gain knowledge apart from God's word, we go down wrong paths over and over again. It started with Adam and Eve, attempting to gain knowledge (science) of good and evil apart from the fear of God, which resulted in death.

I hope we Christians can stop making that mistake over and over again.

Its not a mistake. I used the more appropriate meaning of science to denote the study of physics, chemistry, math, biology; the things that we define as hard science. It does not matter if you literally believe everything in the bible if treat people terribly. I don't think God really cares what we believe about the age of creation, I do think that God wants us to love Him with all our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Until Christians learn that and actually to live by those two commandments, science, knowledge if you prefer, is meaningless.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned

Derf

Well-known member
Its not a mistake. I used the more appropriate meaning of science to denote the study of physics, chemistry, math, biology; the things that we define as hard science. It does not matter if you literally believe everything in the bible if treat people terribly. I don't think God really cares what we believe about the age of creation, I do think that God wants us to love Him with all our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Until Christians learn that and actually to live by those two commandments, science, knowledge if you prefer, is meaningless.

I hope you don't think I was advocating treating people terribly. If so, would you let me know where I suggested such, so I can correct it?

If not, why do you bring it up in a discussion of what science and knowledge are? Red herring, perhaps?

Which part of the bible are you suggesting we not literally believe? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy? Or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

I'll give you a hint--Jesus was quoting Leviticus when He said to love our neighbors as ourselves in Matt 22. Jesus was also quoting Genesis when He talked about the beginning in Matt 19:4.

If you disregard the Old Testament, the New Testament is meaningless.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I hope you don't think I was advocating treating people terribly. If so, would you let me know where I suggested such, so I can correct it?
Just a simple observation about the state of Christianity.

If not, why do you bring it up in a discussion of what science and knowledge are? Red herring, perhaps?
Because your semantics did not bring clarity to the discussion.

Which part of the bible are you suggesting we not literally believe? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy? Or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
We were created in God's image. As such, we have the ability to study and understand His creation. As such, our understanding of scripture must be tempered by what God reveals about Himself in His creation. This is also why I say the Bible is not and was never intended to be a science text. Scripture deals with our relationship with God and with each other. That does not change whether the Earth is 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old.

I'll give you a hint--Jesus was quoting Leviticus when He said to love our neighbors as ourselves in Matt 22. Jesus was also quoting Genesis when He talked about the beginning in Matt 19:4.
None of that changes. Why should it? Why would it?

If you disregard the Old Testament, the New Testament is meaningless.
Where did I say disregard the OT? Oh yeah, I didn't. We must understand the OT based on what God has revealed about Himself in His creation. Old or young, God created the Earth and all that is in it. God is not threatened nor reduced by the honest study of science. Agenda science, such as hydro plate theory, is not the honest study of science and does nobody any good.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Just a simple observation about the state of Christianity.

Because your semantics did not bring clarity to the discussion.
Thanks for helping to do so.

We were created in God's image. As such, we have the ability to study and understand His creation. As such, our understanding of scripture must be tempered by what God reveals about Himself in His creation. This is also why I say the Bible is not and was never intended to be a science text. Scripture deals with our relationship with God and with each other. That does not change whether the Earth is 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old.
So God set out the relationship He wanted Adam and Eve to have with Him. Satan, part of the creation, usurped that relationship, so Adam and Eve used knowledged gained from the creation as greater knowledge ("you shall NOT die") than the knowledge gained from God directly ("you SHALL die").

None of that changes. Why should it? Why would it?
If the creation story is not literal, how can Jesus use it literally to explain God's desires? If God, in the beginning, made them "amoeba", rather than "male and female", then it is quite easy for us to disregard what Jesus said in relation to that statement--that God hates divorce: [Mat 19:8 NASB] 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Yet the divorce rate among believers is about the same as among non-believers. Maybe that's because people are disregarding what Jesus said, since He's only quoting from a non-literal account of the creation.

Where did I say disregard the OT? Oh yeah, I didn't. We must understand the OT based on what God has revealed about Himself in His creation. Old or young, God created the Earth and all that is in it. God is not threatened nor reduced by the honest study of science. Agenda science, such as hydro plate theory, is not the honest study of science and does nobody any good.
Adam and Eve went with "what God has revealed about Himself in His creation", supposedly. But it contradicted what God had revealed about Himself directly. That made it a bad choice.

God may not be threatened, but our acceptance of the truth might be. If there is no sin that was brought into this world in the beginning, then did Jesus really have to die? If it's ok to either do what God says or not do what God says, wasn't Jesus perfect life and horrific death of little value?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Thanks for helping to do so.

So God set out the relationship He wanted Adam and Eve to have with Him. Satan, part of the creation, usurped that relationship, so Adam and Eve used knowledged gained from the creation as greater knowledge ("you shall NOT die") than the knowledge gained from God directly ("you SHALL die").

If the creation story is not literal, how can Jesus use it literally to explain God's desires? If God, in the beginning, made them "amoeba", rather than "male and female", then it is quite easy for us to disregard what Jesus said in relation to that statement--that God hates divorce: [Mat 19:8 NASB] 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Yet the divorce rate among believers is about the same as among non-believers. Maybe that's because people are disregarding what Jesus said, since He's only quoting from a non-literal account of the creation.


Adam and Eve went with "what God has revealed about Himself in His creation", supposedly. But it contradicted what God had revealed about Himself directly. That made it a bad choice.

God may not be threatened, but our acceptance of the truth might be. If there is no sin that was brought into this world in the beginning, then did Jesus really have to die? If it's ok to either do what God says or not do what God says, wasn't Jesus perfect life and horrific death of little value?

What does any of this have to do with whether the earth is flat or a globe? How is Satan's lie effected by the age of the Earth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top