Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

[trophy33]

But why? Do you count Maccabees, the Book of Jubilees, Baruch, etc as inspired Scripture? You often mention in your posts that certain words aren't scriptural, yet here you seem to be promoting whole books which aren't Scriptural.

FYI, modern canon of 66 books is not too historical. For example even protestant reformers considered Baruch, the books of Macabees etc to be Scripture. These books were also in the Latin Vulgate, in the Septuagint and in the protestant bibles till the 19th century.

And the catholic and eastern orthodox bibles have these books in their canon till today.

The Ethiopian church has especially wide canon compared to even the orthodox one, but books like Baruch are not that special, there.

 

[David Lamb]

FYI, modern canon of 66 books is not too historical. For example even protestant reformers considered Baruch, the books of Macabees etc to be Scripture. These books were also in the Latin Vulgate, in the Septuagint and in the protestant bibles till the 19th century.

And the catholic and eastern orthodox bibles have those books in their canon.

The Ethiopian church has especially wide canon compared to even the orthodox one, but books like Baruch are not that special, there.

I was replying to Apple Sky, who, from her posts, seems to believe the same as I do about the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New. I didn't intend to take the thread off-topic by starting a debate about the canon.

 

[trophy33]

I was replying to Apple Sky, who, from her posts, seems to believe the same as I do about the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New. I didn't intend to take the thread off-topic by starting a debate about the canon.

This thread goes off-topic almost the whole time, it is no longer about the final experiment, if you noticed. Neither your posts are.

And I do not think Apple Sky sticks to the modern protestant canon of the 66 books. She stated several times she does not.

 

[Apple Sky]

This thread goes off-topic almost the whole time, it is no longer about the final experiment, if you noticed. Neither your posts are.

And I do not think Apple Sky sticks to the modern protestant canon of the 66 books. She stated several times she does not.

Your right I do not stick to the 66 books of canon, I believe there is more to scriptures than they are letting on, especially in the book of Enoch.

 

[David Lamb]

Your right I do not stick to the 66 books of canon, I believe there is more to scriptures than they are letting on, especially in the book of Enoch.

In that case, I apologise for posting misinformation. Although you have sometimes quoted Enoch, and referred to the Book of Jubilees, I thought I remembered you agreeing with me that these are not scriptural books. Perhaps my memory failed me. The fact that you have now made clear that you believe that God's inspired word should include more than the 66 books is something that will make a great difference to what you actually mean when you argue that the bible teaches such-and-such.

 

[Phil G]

The fact that you have now made clear that you believe that God's inspired word should include more than the 66 books is something that will make a great difference to what you actually mean when you argue that the bible teaches such-and-such.

But regardless, what she “means” is still contradicted by her own observation of the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it is at noon.

 

[David Lamb]

But regardless, what she “means” is still contradicted by her own observation of the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it is at noon.

Yes, I agree. But I am concerned by the fact that she now says she thinks Scripture is more than the 66 books.

 

[Phil G]

Yes, I agree. But I am concerned by the fact that she now says she thinks Scripture is more than the 66 books.

Yes, this is an issue which will mean she cannot stick to defining Scripture as the 66 books of even the KJV. It’s a bit of a contradiction for her to say she only reads the KJV and then to say she also reads other books as Scripture that are not even in the KJV

 

[Apple Sky]

It’s a bit of a contradiction for her to say she only reads the KJV and then to say she also reads other books as Scripture that are not even in the KJV

I mean't I only read the KJV in regards to the NIV etc.

 

[Phil G]

I mean't I only read the KJV in regards to the NIV etc.

It's still a contradiction (and by the way, you have posted quotes from the NKJV on these threads before, showing that you don't just read the KJV). If the KJV is more authoritative, then why step outside of it to justify your biblical claims, including the book of enoch which is not in the KJV?

And, to get back to the point you either don't understand or you do understand but are avoiding it, your own observation of the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it does at noon is not consistent with the earth being flat. In fact it directly contradicts such a notion. And you cannot explain it in the slightest. Yet you persist with flat earth claims.

 

[David Lamb]

I mean't I only read the KJV in regards to the NIV etc.

But don't you see that reading non-biblical books and using them as if they were God's inspired word is wrong? Take the Book of Jubilees, for example. I found that it contradicts biblical books:

"Another important reason to reject Jubilees as inspired Scripture is that it contradicts the Bible in numerous and significant ways. Perhaps the biggest conflict between Jubilees and Scripture is Jubilees’ extremely negative attitude toward Gentiles. In Jubilees, God himself created spirits to rule over the Gentiles and lead them away from following him (Jub 15:30-32)

Jubilees states that all the descendants of Lot are destined for complete annihilation (Jub 16:9). The problem is that Lot’s descendants include the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:37:38). Thus, Jubilees’ proclamation of destruction for Moab and Ammon contradicts the Prophets’ hope of salvation and restoration for a remnant of these peoples in the latter days (Jer 48-49; Isa 15-16). Worse still, when one considers that Ruth was a Moabite, Jubilees’ condemnation of Lot’s descendants would extend to her, to her grandson King David, and to the Messiah himself (Matt 1:5).Jubilees states that all the descendants of Lot are destined for complete annihilation (Jub 16:9). The problem is that Lot’s descendants include the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:37:38). Thus, Jubilees’ proclamation of destruction for Moab and Ammon contradicts the Prophets’ hope of salvation and restoration for a remnant of these peoples in the latter days (Jer 48-49; Isa 15-16). Worse still, when one considers that Ruth was a Moabite, Jubilees’ condemnation of Lot’s descendants would extend to her, to her grandson King David, and to the Messiah himself (Matt 1:5)."

 

[Apple Sky]

It's still a contradiction (and by the way, you have posted quotes from the NKJV on these threads before, showing that you don't just read the KJV). If the KJV is more authoritative, then why step outside of it to justify your biblical claims, including the book of enoch which is not in the KJV?

And, to get back to the point you either don't understand or you do understand but are avoiding it, your own observation of the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it does at noon is not consistent with the earth being flat. In fact it directly contradicts such a notion. And you cannot explain it in the slightest. Yet you persist with flat earth claims.

Okay, what ever you say I'm not arguing anymore.

 

[David Lamb]

Okay, what ever you say I'm not arguing anymore.

But you still haven't answered the question about the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it does at noon, which you said you have observed yourself.

 

[Phil G]

Okay, what ever you say I'm not arguing anymore.

I'm not asking you to argue. I'm asking you to explain your own observation which contradicts the notion that the earth is flat.

Saying "Okay, what ever you say I'm not arguing anymore." and posting a rolling eye emoji only shows you up.

 

[Apple Sky]

But you still haven't answered the question about the sun looking bigger at sunrise than it does at noon, which you said you have observed yourself.

Maybe it's like what @prodromos said it's due to my outlook.

 

[Phil G]

Maybe it's like what @prodromos said it's due to my outlook.

@prodromos didn't post that it's due to your outlook. He said that the angular size of the moon (and sun) remain constant throughout. The fact that they appear to change size is an optical illusion.

But that still contradicts a flat earth because, according to flat earth models, the sun is a relatively short distance from the earth. Consequently there would be major changes to its distance from an observer between sunrise and noon, but in such a way that the sun would appear bigger at noon than at sunrise.

In fact the sun would have to appear as a point of light at sunrise and gradually get bigger as it approaches noon, when it would appear at its biggest. This is not what you have observed. @prodromos explained this in the globe earth context. Now you explain it in a flat earth context.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, this is an issue which will mean she cannot stick to defining Scripture as the 66 books of even the KJV. It’s a bit of a contradiction for her to say she only reads the KJV and then to say she also reads other books as Scripture that are not even in the KJV

The KJV originally included books like Baruch. Since its first publication in 1611 until they were removed in 1885.

 

[Apple Sky]

Now you explain it in a flat earth context.

I can only explain it due to the vanishing point.

 

[Phil G]

I can only explain it due to the vanishing point.

A vanishing point is when something gets so small that it vanishes. At sunrise it should reappear as a point of light from the vanishing point and get bigger as it gets closer to you until it’s at its biggest at noon.

You are trying to explain what you saw with major inconsistencies in what you say.

Once again, please explain why you have observed the sun as appearing bigger at sunrise than at noon. Because that observation contradicts a flat earth.

 

[Apple Sky]

Once again, please explain why you have observed the sun as appearing bigger at sunrise than at noon.

Like I once said, I can't.