Flat Earth Theory.

Apple Eye said:

I know, because even if they could they can't go any further. The furthest they can go up is about 100 km.

Click to expand...

People been to the moon... That's like 4 times that amount...
Even if they haven't in your belief it's certainly possible

Apple Eye said:

I know, because even if they could they can't go any further. The furthest they can go up is about 100 km.

Click to expand...

Why are you lying again?

Apple Eye said:

Most of NASA's cameras have fish eyed lenses to cover up the fact that the earth is level.

Click to expand...

Another lie from you. Where is your evidence?

Apple Eye said:

Most of NASA's cameras have fish eyed lenses to cover up the fact that the earth is level.

Click to expand...

Evidence?
Or is it something you've just been told/learned from a YouTube clip?

weekEd said:

People been to the moon... That's like 4 times that amount...
Even if they haven't in your belief it's certainly possible

Click to expand...

Impossible.

Astronauts words nobody else's.

trophy33 said:

Grammatical meanings of "yom" are not too relevant. Its just a literary device in the creation myth/drama.

What matters more is that there is no flat earth, that the sun, the moon and the stars are not in any firmament, but in the space, that the solar system is not geocentric, that the universe is much bigger and much older than the Genesis 1 implies, that we are not of literal dust etc.

Click to expand...

Some believe the Bible and some don’t.

BNR32FAN said:

Some believe the Bible and some don’t.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with that statement, I've often found that two bible believers differ in interpretation. And sometimes to the point of splitting off into different churches.

I remember having what I had hoped would be a civil disagreement with a particularly dogmatic member of a church and he was getting more and more emotional and, finally, red faced and veins popping in his neck, raised up his big bible and waved it yelling, "I BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!". To which I calmly said, "So do I. Where we differ is in interpretation." I left that church because I did not want to be a "dividing spirit". We'd only been there a few months.

As a music director of a large Louisville church once told me, "The more someone knows about the bible, the less sure they are about their opinion of secondary issues." His church had a lot of bible college professors and I had been lamenting about all the small churches in my area where my gospel band played. The dogmatism based on bible ignorance in that area is amazing. I didn't know about the Dunning Kruger effect back then. But now it all makes sense.

trophy33 said:

The quotations are from biblehub.com, search for "kidneys" and you can verify it in Hebrew. Yes, its ridiculous that our emotions or consciousness is in kidneys, in the same way as its ridiculous to believe in the flat earth or that the sun is in our sky etc. But those concepts are in the Bible, because the Bible was written partly in the bronze age and they did not know better.

No, its not from an atheist website, its a common knowledge, at least in people who know some biblical cultural background.

Click to expand...

No it’s just a reference to a person’s inner self just like Leb or Nephesh which are typically translated as mind, heart, or soul.

Apple Eye said:

Impossible.

Astronauts words nobody else's.

Click to expand...

He's talking about a reusable rocket which would be a first to send people to those places
Sad that sometimes people don't say exactly what you want to hear
He didn't say we never sent people to the moon

Reasonably Sane said:

Though I agree with that statement, I've often found that two bible believers differ in interpretation. And sometimes to the point of splitting off into different churches.

I remember having what I had hoped would be a civil disagreement with a particularly dogmatic member of a church and he was getting more and more emotional and, finally, red faced and veins popping in his neck, raised up his big bible and waved it yelling, "I BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!". To which I calmly said, "So do I. Where we differ is in interpretation." I left that church because I did not want to be a "dividing spirit". We'd only been there a few months.

As a music director of a large Louisville church once told me, "The more someone knows about the bible, the less sure they are about their opinion of secondary issues." His church had a lot of bible college professors and I had been lamenting about all the small churches in my area where my gospel band played. The dogmatism based on bible ignorance in that area is amazing. I didn't know about the Dunning Kruger effect back then. But now it all makes sense.
View attachment 344659

Click to expand...

Well when you have the word “day” appearing over 2500 times in the bible and people only have a problem with the definition of it when it’s used in regard to 6 particular days because of what science says then it is actually a matter of believing what the Bible says and the point I keep trying to explain is that scientists don’t know how old the earth is or how long it took to created. So let’s apply this same logic to another miracle in the Bible and you tell me if it would constitute a matter of unbelief in the Bible. Let’s say someone says that Jesus wasn’t really resurrected after being dead for 3 days because science tells us that would be impossible. Would you say that person is actually believing the gospel? There’s only one truth and it is not subjective to personal or popular opinion or belief. We aren’t free to just believe whatever we want, the Bible tells a specific history. Our goal is to determine the interpretation that the author intended by examining the context. Now don’t get me wrong we do have to apply logic into our interpretations because some verses are obviously intended to be metaphorical and we can know this by the context of the passage and the usage of the metaphor and by comparing facts that we know to be true. Obviously Jesus wasn’t a literal gate and obviously He’s not a literal lamb those are obvious metaphors but when we attribute metaphorical reasoning to the miracles that God performed because they don’t coincide with what science teaches us then it becomes a problem because miracles are by definition are specifically intended to be contradictory to science and natural occurrence. That’s the whole purpose of God performing them was to show that He is capable of doing the impossible. I was in a discussion last week where a guy says that Jesus didn’t walk on water He was walking on ice and Peter fell into the water because he’s not skilled at walking on icebergs. He said Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because a meteor came too close to her. I come here to CF to discuss the word of God and help people understand what I’ve learned and what I’ve learned is that we don’t have to dismiss the creation account as being fictional or metaphorical because it hasn’t been disproven by science. And I explain how scientists can be wrong yet people choose to believe scientists over the word of God even tho the word of God hasn’t been proven wrong yet. I try to help people understand that the Bible is full of miracles, it’s a history book that is filled with miracles and supernatural events. The very existence of God Himself is contradictory to what scientists teach. You cannot reconcile science and the Bible and actually believe both you have to make a choice. One of them has to be wrong you can’t have it both ways but there is a difference between what has been proven by science and what has been predicted by science and on this particular subject people are leaning towards believing scientist’s predictions over what the Bible tells us that actually took place.

The Liturgist said:

While it is up to Christ Pantocrator to decide what to do with Judas Iscariot*, it should be stressed that partaking of the Eucharist does not preclude someone from committing complete apostasy in the future, and indeed someone can partake of the Eucharist unworthily, as Judas clearly did, and doing so is dangerous (1 Corinthians 11:27-34). Indeed it is possible that it was because of having partaken of the body and blood of our Lord unworthily, without confessing to Christ our True God the sins he had committed, such as embezzling from the disciples’ purse of which he had fiduciary responsibility, that this contributed to the circumstances of his demise. The real tragedy of Judas is that he never sought the forgiveness of God, even after having betrayed Him.

*It is of course very widely expected, he does not seek nor is granted forgiveness, but I pray that God will have mercy on everyone, because the more people he has mercy on, the more likely I will be forgiven for my manifold sins and wickedness.

Click to expand...

I completely agree and given that in John 17 Jesus refers to him as the son of perdition on the night He was arrested that’s pretty solid evidence of what Jesus thought of him at that time. My point is that what Jesus said about the Eucharist in John 6 is not intended to be taken literally otherwise Judas would’ve had to be saved. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will receive eternal life”. This wasn’t about literally eating Jesus’ flesh and blood it was about receiving Him within us in our heart and soul and allowing Him to abide in us. It’s about walking and living in His ways not about what we put into our mouth. He made a very similar analogy to the Samaritan woman at the well.

”Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”“
‭‭John‬ ‭4‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.“
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭35‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

”He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.“
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭56‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

”He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.“
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭54‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

BibleLinguist said:

Apart from these prefixes and suffixes, which typically do not stand alone in Hebrew (there are standalone pronouns which can be used), Hebrew words are intrinsically connected to a three-letter root, called its shoresh (pl. shoreshim). The word "yowm" in Hebrew has the root letters yod-vav-mem, and the Brown-Driver-Briggs (familiarly known as the "BDB") definition for this word can be seen HERE. Notice that in its sixth sense of meaning the definition is "time", and within this definition, the concept of "year" is also included. So, while "yowm" is most often meaning and translated as "day," it can also be either time or year.

Click to expand...

And I have noticed that every time the word Yom is mentioned in the scriptures in reference to an age or an era the word Beyovm is used not Yovm.

BibleLinguist said:

If referring to an age or an era, Hebrew will make the word "day" (yowm) plural, i.e. "יָמִים / yammim." (Yes, that plural is irregular, as it looks like it should be the plural of "sea", which is "yam" in Hebrew. Student beware! Hebrew is full of exceptions, but English is, too, so we cannot stand in judgment.) Note also that the Hebrew -im suffix, which ordinarily denotes masculine plural, gets exchanged for an "-e" suffix when in construct state, which might cause it to appear singular with a pronominal suffix to an unpracticed eye. So "days of Adam" for example will appear as "yame adam."

Click to expand...

Can you show me an example of this usage in the scriptures? I see it used in the plural form in Exodus 20:11 but not in reference to an age or an era.

weekEd said:

He's talking about a reusable rocket which would be a first to send people to those places
Sad that sometimes people don't say exactly what you want to hear
He didn't say we never sent people to the moon

Click to expand...

Rubbish - He says we can't get past low earths orbit.

The Liturgist said:

If we have the opportunity to do so, and refuse, this is an example of spiritual sloth or a lack of fidelity. The ordinary form of salvation, except for martyrs and confessors, who get a shortcut, is to be baptized, (and the Orthodox also take the precaution of ensuring infants receive the seal of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation, which most churches only offer to adolescents as part of the catechetical ritual of Confirmatiom), and partaking of the Eucharist (which we also give to infants after their baptism and Chrismation), and regularly confessing our sins, either congregational or individually through auricular (individual, secret) confession.

The Slavic Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox stress a particularly healthy process of confessing at least once a month once one reaches a certain age in childhood, and receiving the Eucharist at least weekly (which had become rare in Orthodoxy until restored as normative by the Greek Kollyvades Brothers and the Russian priest St. John of Kronstadt, who had congregational confession and encouraged everyone at his parish (who were mostly pilgrims and sailors as opposed to regular parishioners) to partake of the Eucharist. And this two fold approach in turn spread to the Coptic Orthodox and other Oriental Orthodox churches, and also to the Assyrians.

Click to expand...

Again I would agree. Jesus told His disciples to do this in remembrance of Him so anyone honoring Christ should absolutely do as He said but my point was that if Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 then anyone who never received the Eucharist could never receive eternal life and anyone who has received the Eucharist could never be condemned. Paul, whom I think you would agree received the Eucharist wrote to Timothy and said “if we deny Him, He will deny us” in 2 Timothy 2:12. So the point I was trying to make is that according to what Jesus said in John 6 if it was intended to be taken literally salvation is automatic for anyone who receives the Eucharist which is not the case. Salvation is automatic for anyone who receives Jesus within themselves. Now mind you that receives would be a constant action not a one time event.

Apple Eye said:

Rubbish - He says we can't get past low earths orbit.

Click to expand...

With that type rocket
Geesh and you say you didn't understand Hebrew

weekEd said:

He's talking about a reusable rocket which would be a first to send people to those places
Sad that sometimes people don't say exactly what you want to hear
He didn't say we never sent people to the moon

Click to expand...

In the same way that a YouTube clip which, apparently, claimed that Buzz Aldrin never went to the moon, said nothing of the sort.

Strong in Him said:

In the same way that a YouTube clip which, apparently, claimed that Buzz Aldrin never went to the moon, said nothing of the sort.

Click to expand...

Yes Buzz did, try watching it again, he says plainly to the young girl, ' cus we didn't go there'.

Apple Eye said:

Yes Buzz did, try watching it again, he says plainly to the young girl, ' cus we didn't go there'.

Click to expand...

He's answering the question "why haven't we gone to the moon in such a long time" not "did we go to the moon"
Hebrew is the least of your problems, basic common sense seems elusive also
He's being diplomatic instead of saying we didn't go back because some lame nut flat earther wanna bees want the spotlight for ignorance's sake

weekEd said:

He's answering the question "why haven't we gone to the moon in such a long time" not "did we go to the moon"
Hebrew is the least of your problems, basic common sense seems elusive also

Click to expand...

0:48
to keep it going and so I'm sure some of
0:52
you are in disbelief of what you just
0:55
heard and you might want to make an
0:57
excuse for like he misspoke or
0:59
something but regardless of all of your
1:01
excuses this is just the icing on the cake