- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
- Posts
Anthony: Mike you start with falseness
Then you take it some where else you pick up on, something someone said or pasted and run with that which belittls the authority of the inspired word in most cases. It’s call trickery Mike.
Interesting what a difference perspective makes, huh Anthony? Because from my perspective, that is exactly what you do. We’ll talk plenty about perspective very soon, because it is the lack of understanding of visual perspective that causes so many people to think boats disappear over a curved horizon, when they clearly and undeniably haven’t done any such thing. But that is the next “proof” from your source, so stay tuned.
House of cards
Of course I do. I’ve only shown you four things out of literally hundreds. But here’s something you need to keep in mind: We don’t have to disprove every single claim made by every single ball earther who has ever lived. All we need is one single piece of conclusive and verifiable evidence to bring the entire house of cards crashing down.
Agreed Mike. That is why I bring up the Antarctic and the Volvo Ocean Race. Two pieces of evidence that makes the Flat Earth deflate even more. I bring these two up because I have some personal evidence of these. As far as the math, and eclipses, not really well versed in those, but have seen videos supporting either view. So it stands to reason I would bring these lesser things up which is kinda what God does too. He confounds the wise with the foolish things sometimes. If Antarctica is truly an ice covered continent surrounded by the Southern Ocean, then the Flat Earth suddenly becomes a globe right?
Trolls are useful
Being a troll is hard work, but someone’s gotta do it, right?
Trolls and hecklers are actually quite useful. They often attract crowds to hear the message.
Jesus had trolls heckling him right. And knowing human nature, they probably helped attract crowds to see what was going on.
The cake argument
I have to say that this has been an eye-opening discussion so far. It never dawned on me that so many of you would turn out to be theistic evolutionists, believing in the big bang, deep time, and evolution as God’s way of creating our world in six huge time periods that are not to be confused with 24 hour days.
I think you will find that we are creationists or believe in a creator. While Evolutionist have their theories about the origin of man and the universe, we agree that both were created by God. But we also do not throw away the baby with the bathwater. We can take scientific data too and show why there is a God. Look at it this way:
Two people believe in the existence of a cake. They agree on the ingredients and may agree on the conditions that led to the creation of the cake. The ingredients were mixed together, then heated for 45 minutes at 100 degrees. But one believes that the ingredients by chance came together and heat from some other explanation heated it up to make the ingredients combine and the whole mixture rise up to become a cake. The other person believes in the existence of a baker. Just because both believe in the cake, its ingredients, and even the conditions necessary to make the cake, this doesn’t mean that the person believing in the baker is an Evolutionist.
Nick: Your teachings are strange and we are trained to recognise them as such.
Yes, the truth does indeed appear strange to those who have spent a lifetime accepting lies as reality. But tell me Nick, have you been able to learn that shadows cast by sticks and wells are not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth? Or do you still prefer the lies to the truth?
Mike,
Regarding Astronaut Chris and his less than perfect wording, that’s all I believe it was. I still got the point and the context was that the ISS was in space talking to students in CA which was across the States from where the students were. I’m sure my sentences aren’t always clear. If I forget a comma, then you might think I’m calling one of the HN members god. That actually happened once, ha. Even novelists need editors.
you said: But the context of Genesis 1 verifies that they are 24 hour periods, because any time “yom” is used with a number (one, two, first, third, etc.) in the Bible, it always refers to a literal day. And anytime “yom” is used in conjunction with the phrase “evening and morning”, it refers to a literal 24 hour day. And finally, I will repeat so we can stop trying to force the scriptures in Genesis 1 to conform to our own preconceived understanding…
If you want to be literal, 24 hour days are always based on the orientation of the earth to the sun which didn’t exist for 3 of the “days.” Evening and morning also, literally speaking, are oriented to the sun. Now, to be clear, I am not opposed to there being seven 24 hour periods (God can do that) but I am open to there being a more general way of interpreting that to refer to a sequence of events. This happened first, then this, then this…etc.
Nick: Hi Mike,
You speak legalese and deny Ps 90.4 and 2 peter 3.8
You have no solid foundation to make your pronouncements about time.
Evening and morning cannot be claimed as proving a 24 hr period.
Did you really write those bolded words? 🙂 Man, you need a reality check.
My solid foundation is the statement Jehovah God Himself made in Exodus 20:8-11. Or are God’s own words not solid enough of a foundation for you? Nick, do you believe those words in 20:8-11? Or do you suppose God was either lying or fooling us with tricky talk?
Oh, and please be so kind as to explain to everyone how I have denied Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3.8… and how you would use those verses change the days or order of the creation event recorded by Moses. Seriously… put you money where your mouth is here.
(Of course he won’t, because trolls are notorious for being cowards. They yell a bunch of slander from a distance, but then run and hide like little girls when confronted.)
Hi Mike,
You offer what you honestly think is truth.
It is built on doubt and suspicion and a shallow view of scripture… And it leads nowhere.
We have better things to do than try to shore up your personal edifice.
Also, Mike, I don’t know if you remember but I believe that day one of creation has to do in part by bringing forth the Son as the firstborn of all creation, begotten, not made…the Light of the world. The Light that sustained the upcoming creation was/is the Son and the Father…ultimately, no need for the sun to exist in order to sustain life, see the light that is given when there is no sun in Revelation. At that time there will be no more night, only day.
D4T: Hey guys, if the scriptures can say anything then they say nothing.
Obviously if the word “day” is used with “evening and morning” it is in a literal sense. If it includes “day 1, 2, 3”, etc. it also is in a literal sense. If ANYONE has a problem with this reasoning please speak up.
I am picking up some very progressive vibes in this forum. From evolution to God knows what!
I know. I can hardly believe it. I knew the heliocentric lie would be a hard pill for them to swallow, but I surely wasn’t expecting childish ridicule and scorn from people I had come to know as honest truth seekers. And I certainly wasn’t expecting to find out that these people I had come to know so well over the course of many years were all so eager to twist the scriptures so that God’s own story of creation is dismissed in favor of the story presented by godless men who laugh at us all for even believing in a Creator.
I am feeling a little ashamed now for telling you what I did about this great bunch of truth seekers before you joined the forum. I simply didn’t know, and would never had expected this. My apologies. It just goes to show that the scriptures are once again confirmed, as only God knows the true heart of a person.
Hi Mike,
Are you really offering yourself as the sole source of scriptural truth
and someone that is fit to judge the hearts of others?
T8: Hi Mike. When I am given a video that has info on why the Earth is flat, it is obviously going to take more time than anyone of us have to test them via the scientific method. But some people do dedicate time to such things, so often my best response is someone else’s work on the subject debunking the claim. If I think the claim or claims have merit then I post that as my answer, so yes I have answered many of your questions and opposed many flat earth ideas with some substance. Of course, the debunking can be false and of course the original claim could be true, but obviously it can go the other way which is the camp I am in at the moment.
Each day I come here, there are 2 or 3 pages of posts and even one post would take ages to refute, so I liked your idea of visiting one point at a time. However, that endeavour has kinda been overtaken by the amount of other posts. So I have a proposal for working through this.
How about we continue this thread as it is, with the liberty to answer some and not others, I say this because of time constraints. But in order to avoid answering difficult or problematic questions and evidence regarding our views, how about we introduce the Yes / No rule here, (or start a debate). I think here would be better though.
So, you ask me a question again stipulating it requires a Yes / No answer and I dedicate a whole post to putting only that answer in the post (if it is a fair question). So in my reply, I put in Yes, No, or I don’t know. Then after that, I can make a post explaining why I answered as I did, but that goes in a following post. I like this format because it helps eliminate the devil in the details which many debaters engage in. And when a person cannot answer yes or no or refuses to do so, then you know you have won the debate. Of course that doesn’t mean you have the truth, but that you have stumped the other person on that point and they are too proud to acknowledge that.
If you are onboard with this, then start with a yes no question and I will focus on that. Once I have answered, then I get to ask you a yes no question, so we take turns. Each question can be a new category in the subject of Flat Earth or it can be a question regarding a point they made in explaining why they answered yes or no that you want to address.
I find this format gives good structure, encourages honesty, and makes sure that neither of us skip over points that are problematic for us. And as I said before, we can still continue this conversation as we have been doing and posting videos etc, outside of this yes / no component.
How about it?
Yes, let’s do the Yes/No/I Don’t Know thing in a debate format with just us two. That way I can go free-form in this thread, and work you through the pre-70’s heliocentric deception at my own pace in the other thread… with my share of questions, of course. You can set it up and please start the OP with my first question to you:
T8: Do you now understand that the Eratosthenes experiment couldn’t possibly determine the shape of the earth, and therefore the oft-touted claim that “intelligent people have known the earth was round for 2000 years” is blatantly erroneous?
Hey mike,
don want to throw your conversation off. Haven’t thought about any of his at all, but have a couple questions which perhaps you already addressed.
What is the purpose of this deception—with NASA and scientists and others deceiving others into thinking the earth is spherical?
And, what do we think of the other planets, and stars. Are they flat as well?
can anyone buy a good telescope and see the space station?
T8: Ed. While the sun could have been created on day one…
Whoa hoss… let me stop you right there.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky…
Every time in Genesis when God said, “Let there be”, He created something that didn’t already exist.
15 And it was so.
So God said “Let there be lights…”, and it was so. Not, “Let there be lights…”, and then He noticed they had already existed for three days.
16 God made two great lights…
You have to do some heavy duty scriptural gymnastics to twist “made” into “caused things that already existed to become visible”. Do you think that’s a wise thing to do, especially considering that the only reason you would think to do it is because certain godless men have told you that the sun came before the earth?
17 God set them in the firmament to give light on the earth…
So if God just now set them in their places, it means they weren’t already there being hidden by noxious clouds or whatever. And if you put all of these together, “Let there be”, “And it was so”, “God made”, and “God set them in the firmament”, there’s just no honest way anyone could read that as anything other than God made and placed the sun, moon and stars on day four. T8, give me your honest answer here: Do you think there’s anyway someone reading those verses in Moses’ day, David’s day, or Jesus’ day would ever interpret them as meaning God created the sun on day one, before the earth?
And if not (as I truly hope is the case), are you man enough to admit that the ONLY reason you are going through such scriptural gymnastics is because scientism has convinced you that the sun must have come before the earth?
Mike: Don’t scriptures say the sun runs its appointed circuit from one end of the heavens to the other, and that nothing is hidden from its heat? Is that the truth… or a deception.
T8: Mike, that is obviously addressing the view we get of the atmosphere and what is visible through it.
So then King David was just confused about us living on a spinning ball, and assumed from his viewpoint that it was the sun moving around the earth? Is that it?
1The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4Yet their voiceb goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
The sun lives in a “tent”? It “comes out” of its chamber? It “runs a course” and “makes a circuit” from “one end of the heavens to the other”, so that nothing is deprived of its warmth? David’s visual description, although poetic, is very clear, and aligns with what we on earth can observe with our own eyes every day.
So once again, let me ask you for your complete honesty: Do you think anyone living in David’s or Jesus’ day would have taken those words to mean that the “tent” is really the virtually endless universe – in which the sun is a minuscule speck of dust – and that it is really the earth who runs his circuit from one end of the heavens to the other, while the sun remains still?
And if not (which again I truly hope), are you man enough to admit that the ONLY reason you would consider such scriptural gymnastics is because scientism has convinced you that we live on a spinning ball, and you must therefore assume that King David is the one who had it wrong?
Yeah, we’re still trying to get to all that evidence, because as of now, there hasn’t been a single piece produced on this thread that we could individually verify.
Likewise, where is the personal evidence for atoms, the soul, the man called Jesus Christ, and the Illuminati.
The point here is that most of what we will produce as evidence is testimony of others, mathematics, video, photos, and the common sense to see the big picture and what it all means. Same goes for you. You cannot prove a Flat Earth, but you have much less if any video, photos, witnesses who have seen the edge of the dome, and at best you have mathematics or models that work for both.
The evidence you give in video form has counter arguments that make sense. So far, the weight of evidence in my view is the Earth is still a globe. As for what you have that supposedly disproves the globe, such as photos and videos, they are testimonies of others and not of you. Your video of the moon fo rexample doesn’t prove a falt earth, in fact it shows craters at the bottom showing that it is being bombarded by objects such as the current view that the other side of the moon is a shiled from space objects. The video lends itself to the current view of the moon and not as an actual object that emits light from within itself.
So turn the question on yourself. Where is your photo or video of the Flat Earth and where is my video of the Globe Earth. We have to use other people’s right and surely I can more material that I can access than you right? So you lose that one right there. But note, that still wouldn’t prove that the Earth was a globe in itself, but it would be one more sign that it is among a myriad of other signs. The Flat Earth model has way less material to draw upon and that is either because of lack of funding to the right people, or that the earth is not flat. I still believe the latter.
T8: But we also do not throw away the baby with the bathwater. We can take scientific data too and show why there is a God.
There exists exactly zero scientific data that contradict scripture. These kinds of scriptural gymnastics have never been about science or scientific data, but about scientism. Time for you to learn the difference. D4T and I can surely help you on your way, as we’ve spent countless hours over the last 4 years learning the difference for ourselves. Think of something in science that you believe contradicts a literal reading of scripture, and ask us about it. We’d love help by sharing what we’ve learned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
