The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Circles are not spheres but spheres are circular and from any vantage point a sphere looks like a circle. It is, therefore not one bit wrong or inaccurate to speak of "the circle of the Earth".

This post of yours is an attack, not just on the intelligence of those who read it but on the whole Christian faith. You are actually making the tacit argument that if the Earth is a sphere, the bible is false.

You will recant that right now, or I'm not even going to entertain this conversation any longer. I will not be party to that level of insanity, even for the sake of argument. No good fruit could possibly come from it.

Were we attacking the Christian faith when we said God was not "timeless", were we arguing the Bible was false?

I would not rest my case on one Bible verse and one word either way, anyway.

If you're going to get emotional about this, I understand if you would rather not continue. Thank you for all your impute, your participation here, as in all threads, is very appreciated and highly valued.

--Dave

 

[Hawkins]

Just as a square is not a box, a circle is not a sphere. Both are flat. A tent would be like a dome.

--Dave

What do you expect God showed the earth to an ancient human such as Isaiah who had no scientific knowledge, while the shape of earth was not even the focus.

Moreover, what you applied here is a 3D concept. Do you have a higher dimension concept to confirm that earth can actually be visually 'displayed' as a dome? Say, the contents on earth can (or cannot) actually be demonstrated as a bit 'flat' or 'as dome' when the 3D space is shown differently in terms of time-space.

 

[DFT_Dave]

What do you expect God showed the earth to an ancient human such as Isaiah who had no scientific knowledge, while the shape of earth was not even the focus.

As I just said, I think this verse could be used either way.

I think Genesis is clear that the sun, moon, and stars are different from the earth. They are lights not planets, not other galaxies, or other universes.

--Dave

 

[Hawkins]

As I just said, I think this verse could be used either way.

I think Genesis is clear that the sun, moon, and stars are different from the earth. They are lights not planets, not other galaxies, or other universes.

--Dave

Or rather the description is in a way which is comprehensible to humans (who have low intelligence). "different from earth" is not even the point. Making sense to humans, especially ancient humans is the point.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As I just said, I think this verse could be used either way.

I think Genesis is clear that the sun, moon, and stars are different from the earth. They are lights not planets, not other galaxies, or other universes.

--Dave

Dave, a sphere looks like circle from any direction. A cube cannot look like a square except from 1 of 6 sides. The "circle of the earth" is a very fitting description for the shape of the earth, because it is spherical. You can't a circle from a flat plane that extends to infinity.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Or rather the description is in a way which is comprehensible to humans (who have low intelligence). "different from earth" is not even the point. Making sense to humans, especially ancient humans is the point.

Ancient man was pretty genius if you ask me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

Were we attacking the Christian faith when we said God was not "timeless", were we arguing the Bible was false?

I would not rest my case on one Bible verse and one word either way, anyway.

If you're going to get emotional about this, I understand if you would rather not continue. Thank you for all your impute, your participation here, as in all threads, is very appreciated and highly valued.

--Dave

I'm trying my best not to get emotional.

I'm not at all surprised to hear that you wouldn't rest your case on a single verse. That is exactly in keeping with what I've come to expect from you. This thread, however, is certainly not what I've come to expect at all.

I think the real problem here is that your posts are excessively brief. You seem to be intentionally choosing not to make full arguments. We are all left to fill in the blanks and assume what you mean based on the implication of what little you do say.

I, believe it or not, am very much enjoying this discussion but we are getting too far into the weeds here I think. We're at a point where all the major points have been made and there's little left to do on that front other than to repeat ourselves. So, if the conversation can't widen, lets make it go deeper. Pick a point or two - whichever ones you think are the strongest points in favor of the flat Earth model, and flesh out the argument. You know what the counter arguments are, so address them thoroughly and with specificity.

Or, if you'd rather, we can ask each other specific questions that the other agrees to answer as directly and thorough as possible, which can then be responded too and then a new question gets asked. In other words, we can move to a more structured form of debate.

What do you think?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Or rather the description is in a way which is comprehensible to humans (who have low intelligence). "different from earth" is not even the point. Making sense to humans, especially ancient humans is the point.

I'm not sure ancients, as you put it, were of low intelligence. I think the closer to Adam we get the more accurately informed humanity would be.

I say earth is different because it was meant to be inhabited and have oceans. The Pythagorean philosophers imagined the earth to be like the sun, moon, and stars, and therefore a sphere moving through space.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

The vault
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

What is the vault? (NIV) It's also called the firmament, the canopy, the dome, a tent, maybe the Van Allen Belt.

It is believed, by flat earthers, that this canopy is like a bowl that sits over the circle of the earth. It is believed by some that we cannot go to Antarctica because the canopy comes down around it and our government (those who know) does not want us to know about it. "If" all this is true then no one knows what is beyond the canopy or dome because no one has gone beyond it.

The sun, moon and stars are set "in" the vault to give "light". They move across the sky at the top of the vault. They are not millions or billions of miles away. The sun and moon are about the same size and about the same distance from earth.

View attachment 25368

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, a sphere looks like circle from any direction. A cube cannot look like a square except from 1 of 6 sides. The "circle of the earth" is a very fitting description for the shape of the earth, because it is spherical. You can't a circle from a flat plane that extends to infinity.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Yes, a sphere can look like a circle, I agree with that. The flat earth is not said to be infinite.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm trying my best not to get emotional.

I'm not at all surprised to hear that you wouldn't rest your case on a single verse. That is exactly in keeping with what I've come to expect from you. This thread, however, is certainly not what I've come to expect at all.

I think the real problem here is that your posts are excessively brief. You seem to be intentionally choosing not to make full arguments. We are all left to fill in the blanks and assume what you mean based on the implication of what little you do say.

I, believe it or not, am very much enjoying this discussion but we are getting too far into the weeds here I think. We're at a point where all the major points have been made and there's little left to do on that front other than to repeat ourselves. So, if the conversation can't widen, lets make it go deeper. Pick a point or two - whichever ones you think are the strongest points in favor of the flat Earth model, and flesh out the argument. You know what the counter arguments are, so address them thoroughly and with specificity.

Or, if you'd rather, we can ask each other specific questions that the other agrees to answer as directly and thorough as possible, which can then be responded too and then a new question gets asked. In other words, we can move to a more structured form of debate.

What do you think?

Did you see the three videos I posted in row?

I was not prepared to get this involved with this subject. I believe it needs to be look at. It took me years to come to terms with evolution. I have been a couple of years trying to grasp modern cosmology which is far removed from reality and rationality. I wanted to know how we got to multiverses and quantum physics then I came across flat earth.

Just so you know, I have not made up my mind yet. I did not realize how badly informed I actually have been about the history of cosmology so it has been good for me to go back to how it all started and understand how we got to where we are today. Do you know about the series "Closer to Truth", with Robert Lawrence Kuhn? I have watch most of their videos on cosmology.

I'm going to keep walking in these flat earth moccasins until I am "satisfied" one way or the other.

I am still especially not satisfied about the horizon part of this either way. It's the one thing that seems closest to us to be able to see for ourselves. When the weather warms up I'm buying a camera and heading for the beach.

If I don't answer some questions it's because I think they are good points for globe earth and I have to consider it.

--Dave :surf:

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not sure ancients, as you put it, were of low intelligence. I think the closer to Adam we get the more accurately informed humanity would be.

I say earth is different because it was meant to be inhabited and have oceans. The Pythagorean philosophers imagined the earth to be like the sun, moon, and stars, and therefore a sphere moving through space.

They weren't wrong on that.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

The word used does not mean vault. It means firmament, and it's not talking about something up in the air. It's talking about something beneath our feet.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-6.htm

*And Elohim said, Let there be a raki’a (expanse, dome, firmament) in the midst of the mayim (waters), and let it divide the mayim from the mayim. - Bereshis 1:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Bereshis1:6&version=OJB

The vault
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

What is the vault? (NIV) It's also called the firmament, the canopy, the dome, a tent, maybe the Van Allen Belt.

It is believed, by flat earthers, that this canopy is like a bowl that sits over the circle of the earth. It is believed by some that we cannot go to Antarctica because the canopy comes down around it and our government (those who know) does not want us to know about it. "If" all this is true then no one knows what is beyond the canopy or dome because no one has gone beyond it.

rsr.org/hpt

Almost everything said in the Bible about creation and the flood and how it changed our entire universe can be explained by the Hydroplate theory. None of the other flood models even come close to explaining the flood, let alone how we ended up with comets, the weather patterns we have today, the ~365 1/4 day year (kgov.com/360), Earth's radioactivity, and many other phenomena that we see.

A "vault"? "Raqia" does not mean vault. I imagine that it's the origin of where we get our word for "rock", as the etymology comes from the french "rocque", which comes from the latin "rocca".

The firmament of the earth is the raqia that divides the waters from the waters, the waters above from the waters below. the HPT explains that the "waters below" are vast subterranian oceans, which explains why the flood waters kept rising well after the rain stopped.

The sun, moon and stars are set "in" the vault to give "light". They move across the sky at the top of the vault. They are not millions or billions of miles away. The sun and moon are about the same size and about the same distance from earth.

View attachment 25368

God says He hung the earth on nothing. I believe I've said this before. What is "nothing" but a vacuum, which is an absence of matter. Space is literally nothing.

God hung the earth in orbit around the Sun. The model of our solar system is literally the planets orbiting our Sun, as if they were hung on nothing.

We know exactly how far away these stars are, and we know their size, color, type, and mass too. We know how far apart they are from one another. The closest is 4 light-years away, and the farthest we've seen is upwards of 13 billion light-years away.

Dave, we know exactly how far away both the moon and sun are, we know how big they are, and we know their mass. None of those things match the flat earth theory.

The Earth is the only planet in the solar system where you can see a perfect eclipse. The reason for this is that while the Sun is about 400 times farther away from the earth than the moon is, it's also about 400 times larger than the moon is, an almost perfect ratio.

The lights in the sky were meant for signs and seasons. You've heard of the zodiac? Well, the zodiac wasn't created by man to remember certain patterns of stars, the stars were put in place by God for us to use to remember the story he tells us in the Bible.

I highly recommend you get this.

http://store.kgov.com/the-planets-stars-and-the-bible-dvd-or-video-download/

It goes through how everything in the night sky tells us not only how great God is, but, even though it wasn't intended to be about this, it also shows how those pinpricks of light in the night sky aren't just pretty lights, they're actual objects.

In fact, the most important is the "Star" of Bethlehem. Check it out.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, a sphere can look like a circle, I agree with that. The flat earth is not said to be infinite.

--Dave

So then how do you know that the "plane" of the earth doesn't extend out and become a square or triangle, or other polygon? You just said no one has been past the border of the dome.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[KingdomRose]

Ancient man was pretty genius if you ask me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Hey, Judge! Did you answer my question yet about EPHESIANS 6:12 and 2 CORINTHIANS 10:4? I haven't noticed any reply about that anywhere. If I missed it, please tell me where it is.

 

[themuzicman]

All of us view the ground rising up as it meets the horizon line of our eye level.

We know that the ground is still level and the road ahead is still the same width even though it appears narrower as it reaches the horizon line.

These people have not gone over a curved earth when comparing in both pics and neither has the land in the background for the same reason.

View attachment 25366

--Dave

And airplane flights that occur that are impossible on a flat earth?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hey, Judge! Did you answer my question yet about EPHESIANS 6:12 and 2 CORINTHIANS 10:4? I haven't noticed any reply about that anywhere. If I missed it, please tell me where it is.

You should post this on the other thread, where I can properly respond to it without being off topic.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://youtu.be/HfXq1vkELyA

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

They weren't wrong on that.



The word used does not mean vault. It means firmament, and it's not talking about something up in the air. It's talking about something beneath our feet.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-6.htm

*And Elohim said, Let there be a raki’a (expanse, dome, firmament) in the midst of the mayim (waters), and let it divide the mayim from the mayim. - Bereshis 1:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Bereshis1:6&version=OJB



rsr.org/hpt

Almost everything said in the Bible about creation and the flood and how it changed our entire universe can be explained by the Hydroplate theory. None of the other flood models even come close to explaining the flood, let alone how we ended up with comets, the weather patterns we have today, the ~365 1/4 day year (kgov.com/360), Earth's radioactivity, and many other phenomena that we see.

A "vault"? "Raqia" does not mean vault. I imagine that it's the origin of where we get our word for "rock", as the etymology comes from the french "rocque", which comes from the latin "rocca".

The firmament of the earth is the raqia that divides the waters from the waters, the waters above from the waters below. the HPT explains that the "waters below" are vast subterranian oceans, which explains why the flood waters kept rising well after the rain stopped.



God says He hung the earth on nothing. I believe I've said this before. What is "nothing" but a vacuum, which is an absence of matter. Space is literally nothing.

God hung the earth in orbit around the Sun. The model of our solar system is literally the planets orbiting our Sun, as if they were hung on nothing.

We know exactly how far away these stars are, and we know their size, color, type, and mass too. We know how far apart they are from one another. The closest is 4 light-years away, and the farthest we've seen is upwards of 13 billion light-years away.

Dave, we know exactly how far away both the moon and sun are, we know how big they are, and we know their mass. None of those things match the flat earth theory.

The Earth is the only planet in the solar system where you can see a perfect eclipse. The reason for this is that while the Sun is about 400 times farther away from the earth than the moon is, it's also about 400 times larger than the moon is, an almost perfect ratio.

The lights in the sky were meant for signs and seasons. You've heard of the zodiac? Well, the zodiac wasn't created by man to remember certain patterns of stars, the stars were put in place by God for us to use to remember the story he tells us in the Bible.

I highly recommend you get this.

http://store.kgov.com/the-planets-stars-and-the-bible-dvd-or-video-download/

It goes through how everything in the night sky tells us not only how great God is, but, even though it wasn't intended to be about this, it also shows how those pinpricks of light in the night sky aren't just pretty lights, they're actual objects.

In fact, the most important is the "Star" of Bethlehem. Check it out.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Great post!

I LOVE the Hydroplate Theory! I have multiple copies of Walt Brown's book. Truly outstanding!

 

[Clete]

Space Shuttles are jets not gliders

True deception at work here, listen and see for yourself.

--Dave

Dave, watch that video again.

The guy's own videos disprove his thesis.

Notice how the sound of the jet engines pass the camera before the shuttle does.
Notice how the sound of the jet engines isn't even close to being loudest when the back end of the shuttle is facing the camera.
Notice how the supposed jet engines don't burn the brake chute to smithereens upon deployment, nor is there even any evidence of thrust coming from the engines when that chute is deployed.

The jet engines audible on the video are on the chase planes. Just because they aren't in the camera's view doesn't mean that they aren't there.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, watch that video again.

The guy's own videos disprove his thesis.

Notice how the sound of the jet engines pass the camera before the shuttle does.
Notice how the sound of the jet engines isn't even close to being loudest when the back end of the shuttle is facing the camera.
Notice how the supposed jet engines don't burn the brake shoot to smithereens upon deployment, nor is there even any evidence of thrust coming from the engines when that shoot is deployed.

The jet engines audible on the video are on the chase planes. Just because they aren't in the camera's view doesn't mean that they aren't there.

*chute, not shoot

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

5 CRUSHING ARGUMENTS AGAINST GLOBE EARTH THEORY

--Dave

Dave,

I had an entire post typed responding to all five of the "arguments" made in this video and when I hit the post button, TOL acted like I wasn't logged in (I never ever log out) and I lost the whole post. The only thing that survived was the photo I imported of the Persied Meteor shower showing "falling stars" going in all directions just as the video said they should if the Earth was a globe.

Maybe I'll retype it all but I really doubt it.