Flat Earthers: What They Believe and Why

[Piers Plowman]

-
​

Now that was not the point of that sentence i wrote. So until you can addressed what i wrote and what i wrote was addressing. Your question will remain unanswered by me.

Unless you want to prove me wrong by showing in The Gospel of John. Where repentance is a condition God requires a person to do to believe in Jesus and receive God's free gift of Eternal Life salvation.

John 16:8

 

[d taylor]

John 16:8

-
​

And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

John 16:8 so will you care to show in the verse where it is stated to receive Eternal life a person must repent of their sins.
Those words seem to be missing in John 16:8

 

[Piers Plowman]

-
​

And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

John 16:8 so will you care to show in the verse where it is stated to receive Eternal life a person must repent of their sins.
Those words seem to be missing in John 16:8

'convict' sounds like eternal life, to you?

 

[d taylor]

'convict' sounds like eternal life, to you?

-

​

Your understanding is way off, convict does not mean or can be used as a substitute for the word eternal life.

 

[Piers Plowman]

-

​

convict does not mean or can be used as a substitute for the word eternal life.

good, we agree.

 

[DennisF]

-
​

I believe the earth originally was created a single circular pieces of land/ground surrounded by the seas. This land/ground is or was, as now the land ground has been broken up or divided as states in The Bible in English.

To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

The circular land/ground was/is a stationary plain (now divided up). Above the earth is the raqia (dome, sky, expanse) where God placed the sun, moon and stars. They were place there to give light to the earth and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

The sun and moon are circular convex disk facing the earth, whose light shines directly down toward the surface of the earth.

The sun, moon and stars are around 5000 (+ or-) miles up above the earth. The sun is the sun a created light and not a star, as stars are stars and not suns. The moon is also a created light which is it own light source. The moon does not reflect the suns light.

A few comments -

1. "Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided" The word divided is probably better rendered in vernacular English as measured.

2. What is a "circular convex disk"? These are words from math - from geometry - and they have a meaning that makes this expression an oxymoron because disks have planar, not convex, surfaces. If you mean instead that one (or both?) sides of the solar disk are convex, then it isn't a disk.

3. If the sun is a disk, how do you explain its light generation? Is it by nuclear fusion as astrophysicists have theorized in detail that is consistent with everything else known about the physical world? How does your claim relate to astrophysics, which has detailed explanations for radiation emission from a round sun? If not, what is the generation mechanism?

4. And the moon? Apollo spacecraft and unmanned craft have orbited the moon, which would not have been possible with the orbital mechanics equations that they were programmed with were the moon anything but spherical. The dark side of the moon had the same spherical curvature as the side visible from earth. Astronauts saw it with their eyes.

If you are going to rework physics from its very foundations, why don't you do so and when you have something that might hold up under scrutiny, come back and propose it. Until then, work on the above questions, taking into account all that is known about the shape of the earth, sun, and moon. Include in your accounting the force equation between two masses caused by gravity and apply it to your ideas. If you do not accept the gravitational force equation, then on what basis do you reject it, considering that there is a long history of many experiments of various kinds, including the orbiting of spacecraft that you will need to explain and the attraction of objects toward the center of the earth. And if you do, do not be superficial in your explanation! Take into account all the data that NASA has acquired over many years from space missions. Lotsa luck, pal. If you push this far enough, perhaps you will be driven to deny your own physical existence!

 

[d taylor]

A few comments -

1. "Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided" The word divided is probably better rendered in vernacular English as measured.

2. What is a "circular convex disk"? These are words from math - from geometry - and they have a meaning that makes this expression an oxymoron because disks have planar, not convex, surfaces. If you mean instead that one (or both?) sides of the solar disk are convex, then it isn't a disk.

3. If the sun is a disk, how do you explain its light generation? Is it by nuclear fusion as astrophysicists have theorized in detail that is consistent with everything else known about the physical world? How does your claim relate to astrophysics, which has detailed explanations for radiation emission from a round sun? If not, what is the generation mechanism?

4. And the moon? Apollo spacecraft and unmanned craft have orbited the moon, which would not have been possible with the orbital mechanics equations that they were programmed with were the moon anything but spherical. The dark side of the moon had the same spherical curvature as the side visible from earth. Astronauts saw it with their eyes.

If you are going to rework physics from its very foundations, why don't you do so and when you have something that might hold up under scrutiny, come back and propose it. Until then, work on the above questions, taking into account all that is known about the shape of the earth, sun, and moon. Include in your accounting the force equation between two masses caused by gravity and apply it to your ideas. If you do not accept the gravitational force equation, then on what basis do you reject it, considering that there is a long history of many experiments of various kinds, including the orbiting of spacecraft that you will need to explain and the attraction of objects toward the center of the earth. And if you do, do not be superficial in your explanation! Take into account all the data that NASA has acquired over many years from space missions. Lotsa luck, pal. If you push this far enough, perhaps you will be driven to deny your own physical existence!

-
​

1. No, on your first statement
2. If you can not understand what i am saying i am sorry, maybe science has caused this.
3. God causes the sun to give light, no other reason is needed
4. Moon hahaha.

 

[Apple Sky]

Apollo spacecraft and unmanned craft have orbited the moon,

How did they get through the firmament or in today's modernism the Van Allen Belts ?

 

[David Lamb]

How did they get through the firmament or in today's modernism the Van Allen Belts ?

The Van Allen Belts are not solid barriers. As I understand it, the instrumentation on board space rockets has to be shielded against the radiation of those Belts, but they don't stop the rockets passing through them.

 

[Apple Sky]

The Van Allen Belts are not solid barriers. As I understand it, the instrumentation on board space rockets has to be shielded against the radiation of those Belts, but they don't stop the rockets passing through them.

Tell this to this guy.

 

[David Lamb]

Tell this to this guy.

I can't tell him - I don't know him I am not in a position to be able to watch the video. Does he actually say the Belts are a solid barrier? I am telling you, because you brought the matter up. Here is something about the belts:

"Astronauts must fly though the Van Allen Belts to reach outer space, so it is important to fly through this region quickly to limit their exposure to radiation. Sensitive electronics on satellites and space craft traveling through the Van Allen Belts also need to be protected from the radiation."

Not "Astronauts can't travel through the Van Allen Belts because they are a solid barrier."

 

[DennisF]

How did they get through the firmament or in today's modernism the Van Allen Belts ?

Describe in more detail what the firmament is. And what are the Van Allen Belts? How are they observed?

 

[DennisF]

-
​

1. No, on your first statement
2. If you can not understand what i am saying i am sorry, maybe science has caused this.
3. God causes the sun to give light, no other reason is needed
4. Moon hahaha.

d taylor hahaha
Your responses are utterly uncompelling in their vacuity.

 

[Apple Sky]

Not "Astronauts can't travel through the Van Allen Belts because they are a solid barrier."

 

[Apple Sky]

Describe in more detail what the firmament is.

 

[DennisF]

I would like to read your description because it is you who are involved in the forum discussion. Also, you did not say what the Van Allen Belt is or where the name came to you from. Much is missing from your description. If you do not tell us what you mean by these words when you use them, how are we to know what you mean to be saying? You are not communicating.

 

[Apple Sky]

Van Allen Belts

 

[DennisF]

Your reading comprehension seems "challenged" in that you fail to respond with your own descriptions. You are hiding behind videos that are not from you. If you are going to make claims as you do - that come from you - then please join the discussion with your responses.

 

[DennisF]

Your reading comprehension seems "challenged" in that you fail to respond with your own descriptions. You are hiding behind videos that are not from you. If you are going to make claims as you do - that come from you - then please join the discussion with your responses.

P.S. It is okay to refer to other sources, but you should make your own arguments because you are the one making your own claims.

 

[Apple Sky]

Your reading comprehension seems "challenged" in that you fail to respond with your own descriptions. You are hiding behind videos that are not from you. If you are going to make claims as you do - that come from you - then please join the discussion with your responses.

Sigh - Done it multitude of times go look up some of my posts.