Questions for Flat Earthers

[AV1611VET]

I must admit, I have difficulty in seeing the connection.

Daniel 2 says the Antichrist will come from Europe.

If you're saying that's wrong, and the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar's statue represents ten states in the United States instead; then are you saying Daniel 2 is a reference to the Antichrist coming from the United States?

 

[lesliedellow]

Daniel 2 says the Antichrist will come from Europe.

Only in American evangelicals' febrile imaginations it does.

 

[dad]

The purveyors of the prosperity Gospel. Something so completely at variance with, "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor..... and come, take up the cross, and follow me," could only have its origins in the land of the gas guzzlers and 50" waists.

Judas was choked that he didn't get to steal the money from selling the expensive oil to anoint Jesus and claimed 'it should have been sold and given to the poor'. A lot of those pious pretenders use the poor as a cover.

 

[rturner76]

Did you actually manage to watch Byrd's interview or are you relying on secondary sources to form your opinion?

In truth what I am looking at is photographic and/or topographic images and maps produced by satellites and geographic survey. Even if satellites happen to be a hoax radio signals could be used to calculate coordinates and map out Antarctica correct?

It is speculated that satellite GPS does not exist and radio signals are bounced off the dome to acquire location coordinates on the earth.

Why do you suppose that Antarctica is a no-fly zone?

Actually it isn't. There is a company that takes 12 hour flying tours over the continent. Flights in that area aren't typical because of you crash land, your chances of survival are slim to none, however this Australian company is allowed. Check out the promotional video, they go over mountains and what looks like a volcano. It's beautiful there!
Sightseeing Flights Over Antarctica

Faith is based on what the scriptures state as being true.

Yes,now we agree on something. What is written in the scriptures are to be believed as a matter of faith, not empirical data. You are welcome to believe it and I commend you for keeping to faith but please don't mistake Bible writings for evidence of a flat Earth

the onus is on those who use this argument to prove that these persons were wrong

Actually it is the opposite. the onus is on those who uses the Biblical argument to prove that they are right. How? Not with more Bible verses but with empirical data. That is how proving something works. Faith doesn't need proof but facts do.

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Daniel 2 says the Antichrist will come from Europe.

Except that it doesn't. Daniel 2 doesn't mention the Antichrist, neither does it mention Europe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oldmantook]

In truth what I am looking at is photographic and/or topographic images and maps produced by satellites and geographic survey. Even if satellites happen to be a hoax radio signals could be used to calculate coordinates and map out Antarctica correct?

Actually it isn't. There is a company that takes 12 hour flying tours over the continent. Flights in that area aren't typical because of you crash land, your chances of survival are slim to none, however this Australian company is allowed. Check out the promotional video, they go over mountains and what looks like a volcano. It's beautiful there!
Sightseeing Flights Over Antarctica

Yes,now we agree on something. What is written in the scriptures are to be believed as a matter of faith, not empirical data. You are welcome to believe it and I commend you for keeping to faith but please don't mistake Bible writings for evidence of a flat Earth

Actually it is the opposite. the onus is on those who uses the Biblical argument to prove that they are right. How? Not with more Bible verses but with empirical data. That is how proving something works. Faith doesn't need proof but facts do.

.

This is the dilemma. We have Admiral Byrd who on a recorded TV show stating for a fact that there is land beyond the S. Pole. He was charged by the US Gov't. to explore the area and give his report. He is an eye-witness and therefore the primary source of info regarding his findings. Any coordinate info from "satellites" would have to conform to his statement that there is land beyond the S. Pole. The problem is we (the public) don't have any. Thus, either Byrd was lying or mistaken but I have no reason to doubt his integrity or his intelligence. The other alternative is that Byrd was right, hoax satellite information conceals the fact that there is land beyond Antarctica which is the exact reason why it is a restricted area. Take your pick.

I already wrote earlier that there are guided tours to Antarctica so limited sight seeing indeed exists. The rest of the continent is forbidden to all except scientific researchers. No other continent has restrictions put on it as does Antarctica.

"...please don't mistake Bible writings for evidence of a flat Earth."
I have already cited a few scriptures which describe a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth. I presume that since you believe all Scripture is inspired by God, the onus is on you to prove that the scriptures don't mean what they say. My position falls in line with the scriptures since I question the "empirical data" which in my opinion points to a flat earth but you choose to accept the empirical data without question and therein lies our difference. Although this is a complicated subject, it doesn't take a long time to examine both sides of the issue and you can come to your own final conclusion should you to decide to investigate for yourself.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...

 

[rturner76]

He is an eye-witness and therefore the primary source of info regarding his findings. Any coordinate info from "satellites" would have to conform to his statement that there is land beyond the S. Pole. The problem is we (the public) don't have any. Thus, either Byrd was lying or mistaken but I have no reason to doubt his integrity or his intelligence.

Herein lies the crux of the failure of your argument.
As an academic with advanced degrees in multiple subjects, you no doubt understand the concept of verification am I right?
If a claim is made, it must be tested in order to determine if the claim being made is a verified fact.
As an advanced degree holder is the underlined sentence true or false?

I hope the answer is "true" because this will illustrate that you are able to distinguish between fact and faith. (I want to acknowledge that for many, their faith is as unshakable as if it were fact and that is commendable)

When a claim, thesis, or untested statement of fact is made it it must be tested if it is to be proven true or false. If a claim is tested and it is proven false, the next step is to either test further (again) or eliminate the claim as it has been proven false. One of the least productive and most destructive things to do in the search for truth is to eliminate or alter the test and reassert the original claim as true.

What you have said (above) is a perfect example of that. Let's go right to the heart of the argument:

Any coordinate info from "satellites" would have to conform to his statement

This is what I was talking about. You don't make the satellites conform to his statements. You judge his statements by the data received from the satellites. That is the same thing as changing the question to fit the answer you already have instead of accepting you have the wrong answer but below you seem to acknowledge that you know this:

The problem is we (the public) don't have any. Thus, either Byrd was lying or mistaken but I have no reason to doubt his integrity or his intelligence.

I beg to differ, there are many reasons to doubt the claim you are citing. One big reason is that ever since 1956 The US Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station has been established and has been continuously staffed since then by research and support personnel. The operations to establish that and other bases at that time were commanded by Richard Byrd. So people are living on the South Pole right now that have not confirmed a story of a separate land beyond the South Pole other than the remainder of the island of Antarctica. Mr. Byrd's statement again when compared to geological survey and other first hand accounts of the conditions at the South Pole falls short of verifiable.

I have already cited a few scriptures which describe a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth. I presume that since you believe all Scripture is inspired by God, the onus is on you to prove that the scriptures don't mean what they say. My position falls in line with the scriptures since I question the "empirical data" which in my opinion points to a flat earth

The scriptures themselves do not exist in a vacuum. God didn't create the cannon of scripture out of nothingness. God did not pen the scriptures. I think we can agree on these points. The scriptures were written by men. Inspired by God I will concede however like I said, not directly and literally written by God. They were penned by man. Man, (even more specifically men) as I'm sure we can agree is/are imperfect. While God's message to his followers can be found in story, poem, song, parable, and various other means of communicating a message of divine revelation, that message did not include a large amount of scientific revelation. We don't look to the Bible for medical knowledge let we put all our epileptics and schizophrenics through an endless amount of exorcisms. We don't look to it for physics or chemistry because they weren't a thing. We mostly look to the Bible to learn how to be moral people,how to treat each other, poor people, old people, and learn what Jesus did for us and learn about what a great God we have. We have other books to look to for astrology. The Bible just isn't the best source for that. Some humans got that part wrong.

If you want to believe otherwise that's your business but be honest and say something like "I believe in a flat Earth because of my faith" I think it's just not quite telling the truth to say you believe it because of evidence.

God bless your faith though. I think it's great to believe in something whole heartedly

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Like a duck, how to recognize: if it looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck,
sounds like a duck,
waddles like a duck,
flies like a duck,
eats like a duck....

it's probably a duck...

Either that or artificial (manmade) animalcam.

 

[morse86]

Genesis is clear. The ground came first (earth means ground, not globe). Then the stars. Then the sun and the moon. The stars, the sun, and the moon is under the firmament and above that, there is water.

Genesis disapproves NASA. Who are you going to believe? NASA or God?

Above the firmament is water....does NASA say that? No. Under the firmament is the stars/moon/sun, does NASA say that? NO.

You have 2 accounts of creation, you must pick 1. One is backed by science falsely so called with CGI and paid actors along with parrot $cientists who never test the rubbish theories (this is why we have laughable utter rubbish like "string theory").

The other account of creation is the word of God.

 

[rturner76]

Genesis is clear. The ground came first (earth means ground, not globe). Then the stars. Then the sun and the moon. The stars, the sun, and the moon is under the firmament and above that, there is water.

Genesis disapproves NASA. Who are you going to believe? NASA or God?

Above the firmament is water....does NASA say that? No. Under the firmament is the stars/moon/sun, does NASA say that? NO.

You have 2 accounts of creation, you must pick 1. One is backed by science falsely so called with CGI and paid actors along with parrot $cientists who never test the rubbish theories (this is why we have laughable utter rubbish like "string theory").

The other account of creation is the word of God.

Why doesn't someone who thinks the Earth is flat prove it. We have plenty of proof the Earth is a sphere. Match the proof with your own proof, and do it one better. Have someone go to the edge of the Earth and get photographic and topographical proof.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Genesis is clear. The ground came first (earth means ground, not globe). Then the stars. Then the sun and the moon. The stars, the sun, and the moon is under the firmament and above that, there is water.

Genesis disapproves NASA. Who are you going to believe? NASA or God?

Above the firmament is water....does NASA say that? No. Under the firmament is the stars/moon/sun, does NASA say that? NO.

You have 2 accounts of creation, you must pick 1. One is backed by science falsely so called with CGI and paid actors along with parrot $cientists who never test the rubbish theories (this is why we have laughable utter rubbish like "string theory").

The other account of creation is the word of God.

Seeing you interpret the Bible so literally, please answer these two questions:

1) Is God a strong tower?, Psalm 61:3 says, "For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy." I mean, is God literally a fortified, tall structure, comprised of some sort of building material such as stone and mortar?

2) Jesus, at the Last Supper took and broke bread, giving it to His disciples, saying, "This is my body broken for you." My question: Is the bread Jesus' body? Not a symbol, not a representation. Is the bread, as St. Paul calls it, "communion of the body of Christ"; the actual flesh of Jesus Christ. Yes or no?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

Why doesn't someone who thinks the Earth is flat prove it. We have plenty of proof the Earth is a sphere. Match the proof with your own proof, and do it one better. Have someone go to the edge of the Earth and get photographic and topographical proof.

This has already been done. Why don't you spend some time doing research?!?

Here is a simple video:

Do you see the distance and hotspot?

There are countless other evidence for the flat earth.

 

[morse86]

Seeing you interpret the Bible so literally, please answer these two questions:

1) Is God a strong tower?, Psalm 61:3 says, "For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy." I mean, is God literally a fortified, tall structure, comprised of some sort of building material such as stone and mortar?

2) Jesus, at the Last Supper took and broke bread, giving it to His disciples, saying, "This is my body broken for you." My question: Is the bread Jesus' body? Not a symbol, not a representation. Is the bread, as St. Paul calls it, "communion of the body of Christ"; the actual flesh of Jesus Christ. Yes or no?

-CryptoLutheran

Some parts of the bible are literal and some are not. When it says that Jesus is the saviour, it is LITERAL.

When it says the earth was created in 6 days, it is literal.

Jesus is the bread of life, if you eat and drink of him, you will never hunger or thirst. It's symbolic meaning that Jesus is the saviour and salvation is by faith.

It doesn't take a brain scientist to figure out what is literal and what is not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So when someone like Admiral Byrd stated in his own words that there is land the size of America beyond the South pole, how does that fit into your paradigm? In order to fit into your world view, Admiral Byrd would have had to been untrustworthy or crazy. If on the other hand, Admiral Byrd's statement was accurate, it deserves further investigation in my opinion.

I assume you mean his words in this interview?

I think his statement (1:39-1:52) was probably accurate - "......on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." If you arrive at the South Pole from one side of Antarctica you can keep going (back north) on the other side which may not have been explored at that time. There's no reason to think he was talking about a flat earth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some parts of the bible are literal and some are not. When it says that Jesus is the saviour, it is LITERAL.

When it says the earth was created in 6 days, it is literal.

Jesus is the bread of life, if you eat and drink of him, you will never hunger or thirst. It's symbolic meaning that Jesus is the saviour and salvation is by faith.

It doesn't take a brain scientist to figure out what is literal and what is not.

Apparently what is literal or not depends on what morse86 happens to believe. Why is when it says the earth was created in six days is that literal but when Jesus says "this is my body" it's not?

All I'm getting from you is "because I say so".

You can say it's obvious, but what is obvious is that it isn't obvious. If it was so obvious then we wouldn't see the sorts of debates and discussions which have taken place over two thousand years on such matters. If it was so obvious that Jesus was speaking metaphorically then why would the entire historical record of Christian thought and belief on the subject be that Jesus meant it literally? If it was so obvious that the opening chapter of Genesis was to be taken literally, then why have so many recognized the glaring problems with literal readings of the text and point out that it shouldn't be taken literally--e.g. Origen and Augustine, and many both ancient and more recent.

And before you say "what they thought doesn't matter, all what matters is what God said in His word", then stop; because that is precisely the point: what does the text say and what does it mean. Your opinion, and the opinions of your tradition, are merely another voice in a long history of voices that includes the ancient and recent voices I mentioned and alluded to. Your voice is not any more authoritative simply because you say so, or simply because you think it reflects the "plain meaning of Scripture"--since the "plain meaning of Scripture" is precisely what I'm getting at.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why is when it says the earth was created in six days is that literal but when Jesus says "this is my body" it's not?

Back to YHWH'S WORD, and Y'SHUA'S WORD -
They did not say the earth is spirit.

They did say "this is my body" , Jesus Words, Are Spirit, and they are LIFE. (i.e. Jesus said they are not 'literal/physical" and we can trust Jesus - we cannot trust fallible men who oppose Jesus)

Thus, YHWH and Y'SHUA did not abominably violate YHWH'S WORD by telling anyone to disobey YHWH'S WORD.

See how easy it is when we listen to YHWH and Y'SHUA instead of
to very very fallible men ?!

 

[morse86]

Apparently what is literal or not depends on what morse86 happens to believe. Why is when it says the earth was created in six days is that literal but when Jesus says "this is my body" it's not?

All I'm getting from you is "because I say so".

You can say it's obvious, but what is obvious is that it isn't obvious. If it was so obvious then we wouldn't see the sorts of debates and discussions which have taken place over two thousand years on such matters. If it was so obvious that Jesus was speaking metaphorically then why would the entire historical record of Christian thought and belief on the subject be that Jesus meant it literally? If it was so obvious that the opening chapter of Genesis was to be taken literally, then why have so many recognized the glaring problems with literal readings of the text and point out that it shouldn't be taken literally--e.g. Origen and Augustine, and many both ancient and more recent.

And before you say "what they thought doesn't matter, all what matters is what God said in His word", then stop; because that is precisely the point: what does the text say and what does it mean. Your opinion, and the opinions of your tradition, are merely another voice in a long history of voices that includes the ancient and recent voices I mentioned and alluded to. Your voice is not any more authoritative simply because you say so, or simply because you think it reflects the "plain meaning of Scripture"--since the "plain meaning of Scripture" is precisely what is under discussion.

-CryptoLutheran

Did the apostles eat Jesus body and drink his blood literally OR did they eat the bread and drink the wine? They ate the bread and drank the wine. The meaning of the verse is salvation is by grace through faith. You can either trust in your righteousness or Jesus righteousness. You can provide yourself the bread or eat the bread God has provided. Your righteousness or Jesus righteousness, which one are you going to use to stand in front of God? Jesus did the entire works (it's impossible for man) and took upon himself the world's sins.

That is what the verse means. Any Jesus believing person would verify that. Once properly examined, it is common sense to a person.

When God created the earth, he did it literally. Stop trying to play semantic games.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Back to YHWH'S WORD, and Y'SHUA'S WORD -
They did not say the earth is spirit.

They did say "this is my body" , Jesus Words, Are Spirit, and they are LIFE. (i.e. Jesus said they are not 'literal/physical" and we can trust Jesus - we cannot trust fallible men who oppose Jesus)

Thus, YHWH and Y'SHUA did not abominably violate YHWH'S WORD by telling anyone to disobey YHWH'S WORD.

See how easy it is when we listen to YHWH and Y'SHUA instead of
to very very fallible men ?!

Did Jesus have real flesh?
Did Jesus break real bread?

If you want to promote seemingly Docetic and/or Gnostic ideas, go right ahead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

Back to YHWH'S WORD, and Y'SHUA'S WORD -
They did not say the earth is spirit.

They did say "this is my body" , Jesus Words, Are Spirit, and they are LIFE. (i.e. Jesus said they are not 'literal/physical" and we can trust Jesus - we cannot trust fallible men who oppose Jesus)

Thus, YHWH and Y'SHUA did not abominably violate YHWH'S WORD by telling anyone to disobey YHWH'S WORD.

See how easy it is when we listen to YHWH and Y'SHUA instead of
to very very fallible men ?!

His name is Jesus. We have the perfect word of God today. We don't need to go to ancient greek (just think about the different pronunciations/spellings in old world english vs new world english) or dead language like ancient Hebrew.

His name is Jesus. Not YHWH. Not YSHUA. Do you speak ancient greek or ancient Hebrew? Or do you trust the $$$ university grant seek $cientists on what the name of the saviour is?

The KJV translation is based on what's handed down from generation to generation.