Flat Earth? Not Far From The Truth.

[Messenger 3k]

The only circles I am wandering in are the ones followed by our planet, in its daily turns and annual orbits.

In case you missed my opening point, I consider beliefs the refuge of the insecure, the unquestioning and the dull. People who unquestioningly accept the findings of science are just as worthy of scorn as those who unqeustioningly accept the claims of F.E. enthusiasts. They are to be pitied. On the other hand those who argue against the evidence based upon an indiosyncratic reading of scripture are to be condemned.

Don't be silly.

Understanding is acceptance, which is next to belief.

If you asked critical questions, you'd be concerned with how you were deluded against your own senses into believing you live on a ball, spinning at an utterly ridiculous speed.

You'd ask why you believe the sun, which appears close to you, is over 90 million miles away.

And how the moon which clearly gives off its own light is said to be reflecting the sun's light like a mirror even when the angles are off.

But don't worry, its all been proven in a lab.

 

[Messenger 3k]

There are zero such scriptures

Not one to flex muscles in scriptural prowess. And even if so, not with you.

Seeing as you can't understand basic scriptures as this:

Ecclesiastes 1:5,

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)


Explain that on a ball earth.

 

[A_Thinker]

Not one to flex muscles in scriptural prowess. And even if so, not with you.

Seeing as you can't understand basic scriptures as this:

Ecclesiastes 1:5,

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)


Explain that on a ball earth.

Easy ... the earth is turning ... like a ball ... and both sides of the earth cannot see the sun at the same time.

So ... when the East turns to where it see the sun again, they experience a sunrise. As they they so that they cannot see the sun anymore, they experience a sunset.

Now you explain it on a flat earth ...

 

[Ophiolite]

Don't be silly.

You have that market cornered.

Understanding is acceptance, which is next to belief.

Beliefs are rarely swayed by facts, whereas acceptance is always provisional.
i.e. you are mistaken. (Is being mistaken you super power?)

If you asked critical questions, you'd be concerned with how you were deluded against your own senses into believing you live on a ball, spinning at an utterly ridiculous speed.

• Anyone who believes their senses in favour of mutiply vlaidated observations is a fool.
• All the evidence points towards living on a ball. (In passing I note if I relied on my senses I would reach the same conclusion based upon flying around it more than once and viewing the heavens from multiple locations. But I don't rely on my senses, I rely upon independent evidence. The mutually confirmed sensory obsevations of tens of thousands of researchers and observers.)
• The speed only seems ridiculous to those with limited imaginations.

You'd ask why you believe the sun, which appears close to you, is over 90 million miles away.

Dumb remark. The sun doesn't appear close to me. I make no judgements on distance in the absence of data available to us for many terrestrial objects. I've considered, in depth the evidence for the distance to and size of the sun. The only thing I've heard from you on the subject is sound of ignorance evaporating in its rays. (Quite peaceful, actually.)

And how the moon which clearly gives off its own light is said to be reflecting the sun's light like a mirror even when the angles are off.

Oh, please don't tell me I'm attempting an intelligent conversation with the , the, the, the, no words fail me - with the member who thinks the moon emits its own light. You see, that is the benefits of scepticism. Sooner or later we can recognise we made a mistake and move on.

Enjoy your delusions. Wash your hands. Don't buy bridges. (And don't waste time replying. I won't be able to read it.)

 

[Messenger 3k]

To measure something, perhaps. But to test something may depend on what kind of a thing it is. 'Can this bridge support the weight of 10 cars?' Well, you can drive 10 cars onto it and reality will tell you the answer quite plainly.

I mean probably civil engineers have reference books that tell you so and so much concrete of such and such a kind and weight limits. But....

What if you built the bridge exactly according to the reference, but it failed when there were 10 cars on it? You might conclude that there was an error in the reference, or possibly the error was in your understanding of the reference book, but you never would have known that if you hadn't tested it.



I'm not stuck. I'm doing just fine thanks. I was just hoping to learn why you think "We do not test God's word, through things".
If it's faulty, or your understanding of it is faulty, you're never going to find out if you take that kind of attitude.

How do I explain faith to the faithless? Impossible.

One needs God's word for that.

But to accept His word is to accept Him.

To believe His word is to believe Him.

Of what use is discussing God's word if you've chosen not to believe in Him?

How can you have a definitive say on what God said and,

1. You're not Him.

2. You don't know Him.

3. You've decided to never be like Him or know Him.

Does that make sense?

 

[Messenger 3k]

Now you explain it

The video above does so perfectly.

So ... when the East turns to where it see the sun again, they experience a sunrise. As they they so that they cannot see the sun anymore, they experience a sunset.

Lol. Try again.

Did you miss the words, hurries back to were it rises?

 

[A_Thinker]

The video above does so perfectly.

Video ???

Lol ... try again ...

Did you miss the word, hurries back to were it rises?

Lol yourself.

Is it your claim that the suns RISES ... AND SETS in the EAST ? Or that the suns RISES ... AND SETS in the WEST ?

Because that's what that verse says ... IF you can only look at it LITERALLY ....

 

[Messenger 3k]

You have that market cornered.

Beliefs are rarely swayed by facts, whereas acceptance is always provisional.
i.e. you are mistaken. (Is being mistaken you super power?)

• Anyone who believes their senses in favour of mutiply vlaidated observations is a fool.
• All the evidence points towards living on a ball. (In passing I note if I relied on my senses I would reach the same conclusion based upon flying around it more than once and viewing the heavens from multiple locations. But I don't rely on my senses, I rely upon independent evidence. The mutually confirmed sensory obsevations of tens of thousands of researchers and observers.)
• The speed only seems ridiculous to those with limited imaginations.

Dumb remark. The sun doesn't appear close to me. I make no judgements on distance in the absence of data available to us for many terrestrial objects. I've considered, in depth the evidence for the distance to and size of the sun. The only thing I've heard from you on the subject is sound of ignorance evaporating in its rays. (Quite peaceful, actually.)

Oh, please don't tell me I'm attempting an intelligent conversation with the , the, the, the, no words fail me - with the member who thinks the moon emits its own light. You see, that is the benefits of scepticism. Sooner or later we can recognise we made a mistake and move on.

Enjoy your delusions. Wash your hands. Don't buy bridges. (And don't waste time replying. I won't be able to read it.)

Another pointless regurgitation of overly heard words that head nowhere; bereft of applying one's own mind to one's surrounding. Zero prior thought, critical thinking thrown out the window.

It sounds impossible for the moon to emit light because you've never heard of photoluminescence?

Tell me, do you wait for lab results before deciding that the cup on your table is close enough to be picked up?

 

[Messenger 3k]

Video ???

Top of the thread.

Lol yourself.

Is it your claim that the suns RISES ... AND SETS in the EAST ? Or that the suns RISES ... AND SETS in the WEST ?

Because that's what that verse says ... IF you can only look at it LITERALLY ....

It appears I'm wasting time with you, but let me be more specific:

The scripture in question says the sun hurries back to where it rises on the east.

Explain that.

 

[topher694]

Not one to flex muscles in scriptural prowess. And even if so, not with you.

Seeing as you can't understand basic scriptures as this:

Ecclesiastes 1:5,

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)


Explain that on a ball earth.

This is exactly why flat Earth is biblically wrong. The arguments continually example bad fruit. They are deceptive, dismissive and belittle others. Jesus said you would know the false by their fruit.

I'll say this clearly for you: the Bible does not speak to the shape of the Earth, flat OR round in any way. Period.

You fancy that you know the Bible better than me? Ok why don't you enlighten us all on what the message of the entire chapter of Ecc 1 is, not just one verse. Context is important after all.

 

[A_Thinker]

The scripture in question says the sun hurries back to where it rises on the east.

Explain that.

If you INSIST on interpreting that verse hyperliterally, ... you'd have to concede that the scripture is WRONG, ... because the sun CLEARLY sets ... in the WEST ...

 

[essentialsaltes]

How do I explain faith to the faithless? Impossible.

I didn't ask you to explain faith. I want to know why you don't test your understanding of God's word. If you test it and it passes the test, wouldn't that increase your confidence in it? If it doesn't pass the test, wouldn't you want to know? Does faith have to be blind, or are you allowed to use your own eyes?

How can you have a definitive say on what God said

Me? You're the one making that claim, not me. I was asking you why you don't test your understanding.

 

[Paul4JC]

The Bible does not teach flat or round earth, it just says it looks like a circle from a distance, which either one can.

It does not affect any doctrine nor salvation and since God was not concerned to give any more information on it, then it is of no importance except to constantly fuel the same thread on this site over and over again.

Yeah well Dr. Michael Heiser, Ancient Hebrew scholar, teaches the bible does teach 3-tier cosmology, even though he says it does not fit with today's scientific world, and is outdated. At least he acknowledges that Scripture does teach it.

 

[WolfGate]

The levels of ignorance still amaze me.

 

[Paul4JC]

I agree. But there is deception surrounding it. And it is important you know why this deception exists.

So "Flat Earthers" who have come to interest in the Bible, and to Christ are also deceived?

 

[Messenger 3k]

This is exactly why flat Earth is biblically wrong. The arguments continually example bad fruit. They are deceptive, dismissive and belittle others.

Typical.

When you tell them the truth alone, they say you lack proof and hold on to ignorance.

When you appear scripturally grounded and present them undeniable proof, they say you belittle them.

By their fruits you shall know them, but I'm not required to be nice in my approach.
Nice is not a fruit of the Spirit. Sorry.

The truth is often filled with hard words which are hard to accept. And in its pure, undiluted form cannot be sugar-coated.

Jesus in knowing this, said in Luke 7:23,

"And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." (NKJV)

I'll say this clearly for you: the Bible does not speak to the shape of the Earth, flat OR round in any way. Period.

Your opinion. Misguided, I'll add.

You fancy that you know the Bible better than me? Ok why don't you enlighten us all on what the message of the entire chapter of Ecc 1 is, not just one verse. Context is important after all.

Isn't it self explanatory?

The pointlessness of superficial desires.

 

[Messenger 3k]

So "Flat Earthers" who have come to interest in the Bible, and to Christ are also deceived?

No. They're awake to the lies.

Only a bit off on the truth.

 

[Messenger 3k]

The levels of ignorance still amaze me.

I agree.

 

[Paul4JC]

Not sure it's inspired though. Take the Apocalypse of St Paul, clearly not written by him, and gives a detailed description of hell. Not part of the canon for good reason.

Yet the canon says in Jude "Enoch prophesied." but let's cut that Bible verse out, cause it's not canon.

 

[Messenger 3k]

If you INSIST on interpreting that verse hyperliterally, ... you'd have to concede that the scripture is WRONG, ... because the sun CLEARLY sets ... in the WEST ...

You seem to be missing my point.

Explain how the sun hurries (key-word) back to the east on a ball earth.