Flat Earth Theory.

[Strong in Him]

Well here's another sweeping claim, man has never been or walked on the moon. Amen

Several very well documented claims, you mean - which you choose not to believe.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well here's another sweeping claim, man has never been or walked on the moon. Amen

Nothing like calling Christians liars.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, there is no possibility that might happen.
There is no proof or aliens, or other life anywhere.

we know this, but there are the gullible masses to consider.

 

[Apple Sky]

Nothing like calling Christians liars.

Well I'm sorry but if Christians believe all this hog wash, I feel for them & will pray for them to come out of their strong delusion.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well I'm sorry but if Christians believe all this hog wash, I feel for them & will pray for them to come out of their strong delusion.

But you're still publicly calling them a liar.

 

[Apple Sky]

But you're still publicly calling them a liar.

No - I'm calling NASA liars.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well here's another sweeping claim, man has never been or walked on the moon. Amen

No - I'm calling NASA liars.

You're calling the Christians that state they've walked on the moon liars.

 

[Apple Sky]

You're calling the Christians that state they've walked on the moon liars.

No - I'm not, I'm saying they are delusional for believing this.

 

[pgp_protector]

No - I'm not, I'm saying they are delusional for believing this.

They say they walked on the moon, you say they didn't.

 

[Apple Sky]

They say they walked on the moon, you say they didn't.

I'm not having this conversion with you. Your on ignore.

 

[Strong in Him]

No - I'm not, I'm saying they are delusional for believing this.

They are delusional for believing THEY walked on the moon?

You've been told this before; some born again Christians were among those who walked on the moon.
Your response? They're liars - in fact I think the term you used was "deluded freemasons."

And you've now chosen to ignore someone who's calling you out on it.

 

[d taylor]

I just don't think the creation account is making any claim about it being flat or sphere-like. I'm convinced that the description given is not clear enough for us to know either way. I mean if you're pointing out that the firmament must be a solid dome couldn't that work either way? whatever shape it is, on a flat earth or sphere-like.

-
​

The creation account is more than just being a flat earth (which The Bible never outright states God created a flat earth).
The account science gives as scientific fact. Nothing from science agrees with The Bible, nothing.

The Bible plainly states God created two great light (sun and moon) i believe this. That the sun and moon are created lights giving off their own light. There is not a single verse giving any indication the moon reflects the suns light.

It is also plainly stated these lights are placed in the raqia (dome, expanse, sky) by God to give light on the earth. No mention of God placing these light out in an outer space thousands to millions to billions of mile/light years away from the earth.

There is absolutely no way to get from The Bible that planets orbit the sun and the sun lights up these planets and moons orbiting the sun.

I can go on and on The Bible creation accounts and creation description are given in The Bible. So you can either believe them or not, if not i guess science is your choice. But these accounts are not compatible, one is a lie and the other is the truth. For me that is an easy to believe in The Bible/s creation account, i like the narrow road or the road less traveled.

 

[d taylor]

No one demands it of creation. We accept it for the poetic description that it is.

-
​

Sure you do, you just will not admit it. For you to accept The Bibles creation account it would have to measure up to sciences version. I do not know how many times i have been told on this forum The Bible is not science book. That means for The Bibles creation accounts they would have to interchange with a science books version.

You can accept it as poetic description all you want. May be you can add The Bible to (if you have one) your collection of books of poetry.

 

[Apple Sky]

And you've now chosen to ignore someone who's calling you out on it.

Yes, I have found him to be very rude & insulting in most of his posts.

 

[Apple Sky]

I do not know how many times i have been told on this forum The Bible is not science book.

Snap -

For me that is an easy to believe in The Bible/s creation account, i like the narrow road or the road less traveled.

Me too

 

[didactics]

-
​

The creation account is more than just being a flat earth (which The Bible never outright states God created a flat earth).
The account science gives as scientific fact. Nothing from science agrees with The Bible, nothing.

The Bible plainly states God created two great light (sun and moon) i believe this. That the sun and moon are created lights giving off their own light. There is not a single verse giving any indication the moon reflects the suns light.

It is also plainly stated these lights are placed in the raqia (dome, expanse, sky) by God to give light on the earth. No mention of God placing these light out in an outer space thousands to millions to billions of mile/light years away from the earth.

There is absolutely no way to get from The Bible that planets orbit the sun and the sun lights up these planets and moons orbiting the sun.

I can go on and on The Bible creation accounts and creation description are given in The Bible. So you can either believe them or not, if not i guess science is your choice. But these accounts are not compatible, one is a lie and the other is the truth. For me that is an easy to believe in The Bible/s creation account, i like the narrow road or the road less traveled.

My view is that I'm mostly persuaded of the young earth creation (YEC) view but recently I've heard some teaching by Dr. Michael Heiser that I've not heard before until recently. I had no idea that some conservative scholars who are not out to disprove the infallibility of scripture nevertheless hold to a view that's described as non concordist. It's the idea that ancient near eastern (ANE) culture used the best language they knew at the time to describe cosmology and the best they could do with the limited knowledge was to describe a flat earth model. Yet he would tell you the point is not to say God did something wrong in allowing this view which is believed to be false into the text. The point he would make in one of his lectures is that it's not making a scientific observation, but the point is to show all the other nations it was their God that created all things not the false gods the other nations worshiped and he did not need help from lesser gods as the other cultures would claim in their creation accounts.

But I don't know, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It is interesting to learn about though. But those who hold to a ANE perspective or say that it's poetic tend to also believe in theistic evolution. These same people will tell you that you can believe whatever you want about science and cosmology and still maintain that the creation account is poetic.

But I'll just end with this. There are few that hold to your view of a flat earth model or at least there's not many that share your view on this forum and most of the time it seems the debate is you pitted against everyone else. However, I don't know why more YEC believers side with you against theistic evolutionists. Instead it's the other way around. It's almost like an insult. Most of us wouldn't outright call you stupid and disrespect you like that, yet by our actions we're too afraid to side with you over a more pressing matter- theistic evolution.

But does that go against the topic of this thread? I'm not sure that it does. Because we who say the earth is round and hold to YEC would agree with those flat earthers on at least one point, that we don't believe in macro evolution. But then again, it is off topic. I just find this topic uninteresting when it's a couple people disagreeing with everyone else and we just seem to talk passed each other. I say that we even the playing field and talk about whether or not the Bible leaves room for theistic evolution. But that could be for another thread.

 

[Yttrium]

Well I'm sorry but if Christians believe all this hog wash, I feel for them & will pray for them to come out of their strong delusion.

Reminder: the Christians who believe in a flat Earth are an itsy bitsy teeny tiny percentage of Christians. The percentage, in fact, rounds out to zero. You're going to have to pray for more than two billion people.

So get prayin'. Ya got a lot of work to do.

 

[prodromos]

However, I don't know why more YEC believers side with you against theistic evolutionists.

These guys use the same kind of arguments against evolution as they do against the globe earth. Quotes from the Bible aren't going to convince atheists, so it requires a bit more in depth knowledge of biology to argue against evolution, whereas flat earth is trivial to debunk.

 

[Apple Sky]

Reminder: the Christians who believe in a flat Earth are an itsy bitsy teeny tiny percentage of Christians. The percentage, in fact, rounds out to zero. You're going to have to pray for more than two billion people.

So get prayin'. Ya got a lot of work to do.

I pray that the billions of people wake up to their delusions

 

[Apple Sky]

Quotes from the Bible aren't going to convince atheists,

I have to disagree, quotes from the bible has saved many an atheist.

@ 33:46