Flat Earth Theory.

[trophy33]

I don’t understand why you keep saying they are ignorant. The word ignorant means they don’t know any better, this is not the case with these people.

Some their statements are ignorant (like about physics, astronomy, experiments...), some are lies (like claiming that somebody supports the flat earth, while its not the case at all - viz Bill Nye or admiral Bird videos), some are false witnessing (like "scientists lie, photos are CGI, NASA is doing xyz..."), some are simply dishonest (ignoring questions, abusing biblical poetry etc.).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Days, talking snake, trees of xyz, woman from the side of man, lights in the firmament... the text is full of various quite obvious symbolism.

There is a genre very common in the era the Genesis was written in - creation mythos. There is basically no probability that its meant to be literal or even technical, but a very high probability they wrote the genre they liked and that was common for them.

Do you realize that Genesis wasn’t handed down from Adam? Moses wrote Genesis and the book of Genesis has way too many details to have come thru oral tradition that only God could’ve possibly known about. What you’re basically saying is that Genesis isn’t actually true, it’s a myth. Is Jesus’ virgin birth a myth? Is His resurrection a myth? Did He actually walk on water? Do you actually believe these events were real?

 

[trophy33]

Do you realize that Genesis wasn’t handed down from Adam? Moses wrote Genesis and the book of Genesis has way too many details to have come thru oral tradition that only God could’ve possibly known about. What you’re basically saying is that Genesis isn’t actually true, it’s a myth. Is Jesus’ virgin birth a myth? Is His resurrection a myth? Did He actually walk on water? Do you actually believe these events were real?

There is basically no difference between the flat earth and the Seventh Day Adventist young earth creationism propaganda.

Both contradict science and our reality and both are trying to use the Bible as a technical textbook, ignoring its genres, and both are trying to bend or ignore facts. Both are working with some kind of scientific conspiracy, both use the same or similar arguments etc.

 

[Strong in Him]

Do you realize that Genesis wasn’t handed down from Adam? Moses wrote Genesis and the book of Genesis has way too many details to have come thru oral tradition that only God could’ve possibly known about. What you’re basically saying is that Genesis isn’t actually true,

Symbolism is not the same as myth.
For example the "days" might be periods of time/ages rather than 24 hour segments.
The whole point of Genesis 1 is that GOD created. The earth isn't/wasn't random; a fluke or chance event. God created - God said - God saw etc. God is the creator, author, instigator of the world.

THAT is what is true and that is what we should be proclaiming to the world - "you were made, you were wanted your life can have purpose."
Yet Christians seem to get hung up on the minutiae and squabble over insignificant details.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is basically no difference between the flat earth and the Seventh Day Adventist young earth creationism propaganda.

Both contradict science and our reality and both are trying to use the Bible as a technical textbook, ignoring its genres, and both are trying to bend or ignore facts. Both are working with some kind of scientific conspiracy, both use the same or similar arguments etc.

Ok your promoting propaganda if your going to sit here and claim that no one believed in a six day creation before the 20th century, that’s just absurd. People didn’t even think that the earth was millions of years old until the mid 19th century. As I already agreed the Bible is not a technical book but it absolutely is a history book. I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions.

Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Do you believe in Hos resurrection? Do you believe that He actually walked on water?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Symbolism is not the same as myth.
For example the "days" might be periods of time/ages rather than 24 hour segments.
The whole point of Genesis 1 is that GOD created. The earth isn't/wasn't random; a fluke or chance event. God created - God said - God saw etc. God is the creator, author, instigator of the world.

THAT is what is true and that is what we should be proclaiming to the world - "you were made, you were wanted your life can have purpose."
Yet Christians seem to get hung up on the minutiae and squabble over insignificant details.

The Hebrew word Yovm is never once used in reference to an age or an era. That’s just a misconception brought about by James Strong’s Concordance because he didn’t differentiate between the different usages between the words Yovm and Beyovm. If you disagree I invite you to provide an example of Yovm being used in reference to an age or an era and I will prove you wrong by showing that the actual word that is being used is Beyovm with Biblehub.com.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Symbolism is not the same as myth.
For example the "days" might be periods of time/ages rather than 24 hour segments.
The whole point of Genesis 1 is that GOD created. The earth isn't/wasn't random; a fluke or chance event. God created - God said - God saw etc. God is the creator, author, instigator of the world.

THAT is what is true and that is what we should be proclaiming to the world - "you were made, you were wanted your life can have purpose."
Yet Christians seem to get hung up on the minutiae and squabble over insignificant details.

No the whole point of Genesis 1 and 2 was to provide the information that is provided in the chapters. If the point was to indicate that God created it then the scriptures wouldn’t have to state 3 times that God created the earth, the heavens, and the seas, and everything in them in 6 days. Science is still wrong which shouldn’t be so surprising since they’ve been wrong on this particular subject numerous times in the past and they have very limited information about the facts about the origin of the earth and man. I’m sure you’re aware that they believe mankind as we are today has existed for 300,000 years? So that would mean that the genealogies recorded in the Bible are incorrect as well?

Are you aware that historians agree that the wheel was invented about 5500 years ago? Do you believe it took man 295,000 years to figure out how to make something as simple as a wheel? Yet in the last 5500 years we were capable of creating immensely complex technology like computers, smartphones, space travel, etc, etc? Does that seem proportionate to you?

 

[trophy33]

Ok your promoting propaganda if your going to sit here and claim that no one believed in a six day creation before the 20th century, that’s just absurd. People didn’t even think that the earth was millions of years old until the mid 19th century. As I already agreed the Bible is not a technical book but it absolutely is a history book. I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions.

Its a mistake, when you do not know better, like people in the past. Its a propaganda, when you already know better, but stick to the religious narrative because of a 19th century prophetess.

Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Do you believe in Hos resurrection? Do you believe that He actually walked on water?

Yes.

See? You use the same arguments as flat earthers. "If you do not believe the verses about the flat earth, then you cannot believe in the New Testament miracles".

 

[d taylor]

-
​

What is known as Christianity in Europe and even in America (and growing daily) is so secularized and wrought with pagan beliefs.. I am not surprised, there is not a companion science book to go along with The Bible to use in church teachings.

The great falling away may be in the works or is coming and will be followed by the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
In many churches there is not much already, to fall away from.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Its a mistake, when you do not know better, like people in the past. Its a propaganda, when you already know better, but stick to the religious narrative because of a 19th century prophetess.


See? The same arguments as flat earthers. "If you do not believe verses about the flat earth, then you cannot believe in the New Testament miracles".

Ok just to be clear I have spent extensive hours here on CF refuting SDA theology. Just search “SDA” and type my profile name and you’ll see that.

 

[trophy33]

Ok just to be clear I have spent extensive hours here on CF refuting SDA theology. Just search “SDA” and type my profile name and you’ll see that.

I know you are not SDA. But the modern YEC believers are using basically the same logic, work with the Bible and the same errors as the modern flat earth believers. And get into the similar conflict with science.

The sources of the modern YEC are from the Seventh Day Adventist propaganda.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Its a mistake, when you do not know better, like people in the past. Its a propaganda, when you already know better, but stick to the religious narrative because of a 19th century prophetess.


Yes.

See? You use the same arguments as flat earthers. "If you do not believe the verses about the flat earth, then you cannot believe in the New Testament miracles".

I don’t understand why you can’t answer the questions. It’s a simple yes or no. I suspect that you realize that if you say yes then I’m going to ask why you can believe in the miracle of creation, and if you answer no then I’m going to say that you don’t actually believe the Bible. So which is it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I know you are not SDA. But the modern YEC believers are using basically the same logic, work with the Bible and the same errors as the modern flat earth believers.

Are you aware that no scientists had performed any experiments or calculations to deduce the age of the earth before the mid 19th century?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Its a mistake, when you do not know better, like people in the past. Its a propaganda, when you already know better, but stick to the religious narrative because of a 19th century prophetess.


Yes.

See? You use the same arguments as flat earthers. "If you do not believe the verses about the flat earth, then you cannot believe in the New Testament miracles".

Ok you answered thank you. Why do you think that scientists couldn’t be wrong? Do you understand how the dating methods work?

 

[trophy33]

Are you aware that no scientists had performed any experiments or calculations to deduce the age of the earth before the mid 19th century?

No, but it seems acceptable. What is the point, though?

 

[trophy33]

Ok you answered thank you. Why do you think that scientists couldn’t be wrong?

They can. But they are not wrong just because they contradict the SDA propaganda (or the literal reading of Genesis). Its not a correct stance.

Do you understand how the dating methods work?

Only roughly.

 

[BNR32FAN]

-
​

What is known as Christianity in Europe and even in America (and growing daily) is so secularized and wrought with pagan beliefs.. I am not surprised, there is not a companion science book to go along with The Bible to use in church teachings.

The great falling away may be in the works or is coming and will be followed by the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
In many churches there is not much already, to fall away from.

satan is the father of lies, you should think about that.

 

[trophy33]

What is known as Christianity in Europe and even in America (and growing daily) is so secularized and wrought with pagan beliefs...

There are virtually no pagan beliefs in the European churches. You just use wrong words, because you (wrongly) think that experiments and scientific discoveries are pagan beliefs. Which makes no sense, of course.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They can. But they are not wrong just because they contradict the SDA propaganda (or the literal reading of Genesis). Its not a correct stance.


Only roughly.

In thermoluminescent dating and radiometric dating scientists have to assume that at some point there was no isotope decay present in the material when it was first created. That’s where their calculations are thrown off. They’re expecting that at some point there was no decay present in the material and my position is that they must be wrong because we don’t know how much decay was present when it was created 6,000 years ago. We don’t know what these materials were exposed to during the creation process or how it would’ve affected them. Adam & Eve were created as adults, I think we can all agree with that. Their bodies showed signs of age even tho they were created in one day. I won’t even go into carbon dating because it’s dead, they’ve finally come to the realization that it’s not reliably accurate enough but they weren’t saying that 10 years ago were they? 10 years ago they had the best technology and carbon dating proved that the earth was old, now it’s considered obsolete and unreliable. The age of the earth has been changing according to scientists for over 150 years and every time they have another breakthrough anything other than their predicted age is considered absurd. Yet over and over they’ve managed to prove themselves wrong starting from 20 million years all the way up to 4.5 billion years. Look at how far they were off when they thought they knew it all 150 years ago. People need to realize that the age of the earth has not been proven to be over 6,000 years old, that’s just a prediction not a fact. They’re trying to look into the past according to what we see today. Let me give you an example. Let’s say we walk into a room and there’s a glass of water sitting under a dripping faucet and I ask you how long has that glass been there. You could calculate the amount of water that is dripping over time and conclude that it’s been there for 2 hours. Then in the corner of the room we see a camera pointed at the glass. We go and look at the video footage and see that someone came in, got a drink of water, then put the glass under the faucet half full just 5 minutes ago. Now before we had that information from the camera all the evidence suggested that the glass was there for two hours, it was a justifiable conclusion but the missing information revealed by the camera radically changed the conclusion despite the evidence we had before seeing it. So the evidence wasn’t wrong in the beginning only the conclusion we came to. In the same way the rate of decay we see in different isotopes might be correct but without knowing how much decay the material had 6,000 years ago it still doesn’t actually prove anything. I’m sure you hear about tree rings, the oldest tree we’ve found as of today is only 4,900 years old. I assume you’ve heard of ice layers. Ice layers aren’t formed by years they’re formed by freezing and melting temperatures which can happen several times per year. It all depends on how much snow fell between each melting period. Scientists say that the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, yet we can see light from stars 46 billion light years away. A light year is how far light can travel in one year. That’s a big discrepancy. The Bible says that God made the lights in the heavens to be signs of the seasons. Obviously these would be signs for man, not God. So naturally it wouldn’t make any sense to create stars that man couldn’t see if they were intended to be used by man as signs of the seasons. The Bible also says several times that God stretched out the heavens. So perhaps those stars weren’t as far away 6,000 years ago as they are today, not to mention that scientists do teach that the universe is expanding. They also say that 9 billion years ago the expansion decelerated and 4 billion years ago it accelerated again. That’s weird that objects traveling thru space would decelerate then accelerate again, very strange. I’ve looked into these things because I have to know if the creation account in Genesis has actually been proven wrong and it really hasn’t. The arguments I’ve encountered are, “you can’t assume that there was isotopic decay in materials from the beginning” which really isn’t a viable argument given the circumstances since we don’t know what these materials were exposed to and how it might affect the decay process. So I feel that my argument is just as viable as their’s. They’re saying the glass was empty when it was placed under the faucet and I’m saying you don’t know that for sure because I have a record from God Himself telling me when the glass was created and it wasn’t 4.5 billion years ago. So please understand that my reasoning is nothing like the flat earther’s reasoning because I’m not contradicting anything that is actual proof. My argument is actually a viable and plausible argument.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

That b/c there are no real pictures of the cosmos, they are all CGI.

And yes I'm back

How did they equip my telescope with CGI? Amazing technology.