In order for our to cling to your belief, the text plainly states that all the believers EXCEPT the apostles were scattered. Plain English dictates that if the apostles were also scattered at that time, the verse would state all INCLUDING the apostles were scattered. It does not state that does it?
Let's read the important part of that verse again.
"...and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).
Let me ask you some questions concerning this part of the verse.
Question #1. In what two regions was the church scattered (except the apostles)?
My answer:
(a) Judea.
(b) Samaria.
Do you agree?
Question #2. Before Philip went down to the city of Samaria in Acts of the Apostles 8:5, was he in Samaria or Judea?
My answer:
No, there is a good possibility Philip could have been in Caesarea (Which is North of Samaria). For Philip went down South from Jerusalem to: (1) Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian Eunuch. Philip was than transported North by the Holy Spirit to: (2) Azotus. Philip then traveled further North to (3) Caesarea (Which just so happens to be North East of Samaria).
Question #3. Does Acts of the Apostles 8:1 specifically say all of the apostles were in Jerusalem? If so, what words in that sentence give you that indication?
Here is the entire verse:
"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).
Question #4. Is it possible to read into the above verse that some of the apostles could have been on a missionary journey elsewhere and not scattered abroad in the regions of Judaea and Samaria?
My answer is:
Yes, it is possible. Why? Because if Philip was already on a missionary journey and was not scattered abroad into the regions of Judea and Samaria like the others, there would be no contradiction in Acts of the Apostles 8:1. Verse 1 in Acts 8 does not say that all the apostles had to exclusively be in Jerusalem. If it was saying that, then the text would read like this:
"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles
[who were all in Jerusalem]." (Acts of the Apostles 8:1).
Note: I added my added words in blue within brackets to the text above. This is not what the Word of God says. But it is what it should say if what you are saying is 100% true. Is it possible that all of the apostles were in Jerusalem? Yes. But I am doubtful of that fact because it makes sense that Philip went down to Samaria from Caesarea.
You said:
Furthermore, the text states that Philip went down to the city of Samaria. No where in this entire passage does this the text outline the scenario you posit as you are just imagining a chronology simply in order to fit your belief. I personally find that to be an exceedingly weak argument. If you choose to hold on to your scenario about Acts 8 that is certainly your prerogative but in my opinion it is without any scriptural warrant whatsoever.
I am saying it is a possibility that Philip may have been in Caesarea when the text says he went down to Samaria. I am not claiming it as 100% fact. I am saying it is a possibility. But regardless, that does not change what is said in Acts of the Apostles 8:26. If God's Word says go down South, that means what it says. South is the direction of going down. I know you don't want to admit that truth, but it is true none the less.
You said:
Indeed NASA (Never A Straight Answer) is an expensive lie. Perhaps it would thus behoove you to investigate why instead of blindly continuing to believe in a lie wouldn't it?
They are not lying because you can confirm the Earth is round yourself by easy and simple methods scientifically. You can see ships and buildings drop below the horizon, which is not possible on a flat Earth. You can see a circular shadow of a round Earth upon an eclipse. You can send a camera up into space at night time and see stars in the distance of space and no flat Earth sun is visible in sight like a flash light or spot light (because it is on the other side of a spherical Earth).
You said:
Do you believe in evolution instead of a 7 day creation account?
Well, actually the Earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days and not 7. God rested on the 7th death. So it would technically be a 6 day creation account.
Oh, and no. I do not believe in Macro-Evolution that one species can form into another species.
You said:
If you don't then why do you believe in a heliocentric model? Anyone can post videos claiming a round or flat earth. It doesn't take much brain power or effort to do that so your "evidence" is questionable at best.
I can say the same for what you believe. To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a round Earth. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality that is obvious in my opinion.
You said:
I can also do the same thing showing a flat earth as in the link below. Science as you know is founded on empirical evidence. Evidence that is gathered through our personal senses - vision, hearing, touch. Do you dispute Swiss physicist's Auguste Piccard's personal observations?? His preconceived notion that the earth is round was borne out his education (like all of us) but upon going up 10 miles in his balloon, his own eyes confirmed otherwise. That is the heart of scientific methodology.
You cannot see the obvious curvature of the Earth until you escape orbit. The Earth is too big to see the obvious curvature of the Earth from a hot air balloon. Think of it like a microscopic water bear on top of a hot air balloon.
Check out this video from YouTube that has been cropped
here.
You said:
Your lack of comprehension is apparent in your reference to undersea cables.
I am not denying we have undersea cables that go between the continents. I am just saying that they are not going out to every point in the ocean like to remote islands and stuff to give you signals like a satellite phone will. These underground water cables also do not send out remote signals to give you reception on your phone if you are on a remote island. You cannot get a signal on a satellite phone if it was ocean based if you were stranded far out on some far off point in the deep ocean.
You said:
GPS is ground-based; not satellite-based.
You are just re-quoting mindlessly what you have heard or read from Flat Earthers that has no basis in scientific fact or the real world. This is entirely made up. GPS is satellite based.
For example: If you go under a bridge, you will lose signal.
Then there are Dish Networks, and DirectTV satellites in a Geosynchronous orbit. The distance matches the orbit so it is stationary. Funny how if a Dish Network dish moves by 1cm it can lose signal. But Flat Earth theorists don't have an answer for that one.
You said:
And ironically, your point actually proves the opposite of your belief. On a flat earth, undersea cables do not have to account for the curvature of the ocean therefore the expense associated with laying cable on a flat earth is much less expensive than laying cables on an orbed earth. FYI the equation for calculating the curvature of the earth's surface is each mile squared is multiplied by a factor of 8 and divided by 12. Therefore if the distance to lay cable between the West Coast and Hawaii say roughly is about 2,500 miles, 2500 x 2500 x 8 divided by 12 = 4,166,666 feet of undersea cable - an astronomical length of cable! On a flat earth of course the amount of cable is much less. Surveyors do not account for the curvature of the earth. Civil engineers do not account for the curvature of the earth. Why do you suppose that is?
Why does navigation systems factor in the curvature of the Earth for pilots and captains at sea? Longitude and latitude is based on the curvature of the Earth.
You said:
Your reference to ships disappearing at a distance over the horizon shows me that you haven't really taken the time to study the subject. If you did, you would easily find out that ships never disappear "over the horizon" on a curved earth as you were taught. You can easily disprove this lie by taking binoculars or a high-powered zoom camera. When the ship disappears over the horizon with your naked eye, take out your binocs or camera and you will see the ship in your viewfinder. No curve.
So you are telling me that you can watch a ship never diseappear below the horizon with a high powered telescope? When did you observe this?
What do you think the sun does every day?
It disappears below the horizon or the curvature of the Earth.
You said:
Since you choose to post videos attempting to validate your belief, I can easily do likewise.
Thank you, but I am not interested in watching videos on theories that I know are clearly and observably false.
May God bless you today.