The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[DFT_Dave]

http://kgov.com/bel/20180730
http://kgov.com/bel/20180731

Dave, there's a difference between debating theology and defending mental illness.

Open theism is theology.

Flat earthism is mental illness.

That's what atheists say about people who believe in God.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Historically Genesis has been made into a myth, we don't agree with that, but it has happened in the eyes of the world and much of the church today.

Yeah, so what?

Math does not prove a cosmology, it assumes one or another.

This is false.

Given the known and undisputed data, math PROVES that the Earth cannot be flat. Therefore the flat-Earth "cosmology" is falsified.

The Biblical sun is not a star among millions of other stars.

This is an unsubstantiated primary premise that I dispute.

The fact that the Sun is given a different word than the rest of the stars is because the rest of the stars do not look the same as the Sun. This is not evidence that the Sun is not a star or that the stars are not Sun. It is merely proof that there are two different words to differentiate one from the other which is done for obvious visual reasons.

Once again, the Bible is not a science text book and should not be read as one. To use the fact that there is a separate word used for the Sun vs the stars to state that "The Biblical sun is not a star" is, at best, a hasty generalization fallacy and at worst the sort of idiotic thinking used by cult leaders to deceive their followers into drinking the proverbial cool-aid.

There is one earth, one sun, one moon, and many stars. The Biblical sun moves and stood still, not the earth.

Once again, you are reading the Bible as though it were some sort of scientific paper. It isn't!

It is not wrong to talk about the Sun standing still RELATIVE to the horizon. In other words, if the Earth were stopped from spinning on it's axis, it would make the Sun stop moving across the sky and there is no requirement for the Bible to discuss it in any other terms.

To say God could not have told us otherwise, since we supposedly figured it out anyway, makes the Bible a mythology that was written by men from a finite perspective, and not a book of truth revealed by an infinite God who created the world.

Once again, this is a false dichotomy.

It is not necessary to take the most woodenly literal way in order for it to be both true and inspired by God. It is also not necessary to deny that the Bible was written by men from their own perspective in order to acknowledge and fully accept that it was inspired by God.

God could have told us the truth about the cosmology of a heliocentric world at the beginning if that's what he created.

If you continue down this road, you'll be an unbeliever at the end of it.

That the earth spins and rotates around the sun would not have been that difficult a thing to reveal.

Neither would the process of cell division or the fact that diseases are spread by really small organisms or that not every lightning bolt is thrown by God's own hand or any number of thousands of other facts of reality that are not discussed in the Bible.

Why even third graders have no trouble understand this today according to you so why would Adam and the writers of the Old Testament not have been able to understand this as well and made it clear to us?

I never suggested that they wouldn't have understood it. The fact remains that the Bible doesn't contradict it nor will it ever be found to contradict any fact of reality.

Flat earth was the original and accepted model the the world until Plato and Aristotle gave us geocentrism and that was the dominate worldview until Copernicus. Funny how those closest to the creation of the world got it all wrong and those farthest away from it have figured it all out.

--Dave

First of all, you have no idea what the ancients knew or didn't know. There are all kinds of things that pass in and out of human understanding through history.

But even if it is true, why would that be surprising and why do you limit this sort of thinking to the shape of the Earth?

No one denies that the Earth looks flat to us on the surface and the Sun looks like it's going around the Earth. But, as I've said a few times today already, the principle thing about science is the willingness of the scientist to accept the verdict of the evidence over their experience. Experiences are biased by not only our minds but by our biology (i.e. our actual eyes and physical brains, etc) but objectively collected data and sound reason will lead to the truth. The objectivity part of that is the hardest part to achieve which is why multiple independent verification is an important part of the scientific process.

Further, most of the scientific progress we have throughout history has not been made in spite of a biblical worldview but rather because of it. It is precisely the understanding that the universe is real and that it isn't governed by mystic and unknowable forces that encourage us to investigate and to understand God's creation. Indeed, it is the desire to understand the God who created this world that pushes the faithful to want to understand His creation. Thus, a progression from believing that things are the way they merely appear to be toward an understand of what things actually are is to be expected.

Also, as I said, why limit this sort of thinking to the shape of the Earth? There are all kinds of things that we didn't understand about the way things work even 50 years ago, never mind 5000. Martin Luther went to his death bed thinking that God had sent a storm to kill him and that his bargaining with God to dedicate his life to Him was what kept him from getting struck by lightning. People believed for centuries that people with a different skin color were a different species of human beings (and used the Bible, must as you are now, to make their arguments, by the way). People used to think that diseases where spread by "bad humors", that left handed people were inherently evil and that flies formed spontaneously from rotten meat. God could have kept all that confusion from happening by simply having explained it all in the Bible!

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah, so what?


This is false.

Given the known and undisputed data, math PROVES that the Earth cannot be flat. Therefore the flat-Earth "cosmology" is falsified.


This is an unsubstantiated primary premise that I dispute.

The fact that the Sun is given a different word than the rest of the stars is because the rest of the stars do not look the same as the Sun. This is not evidence that the Sun is not a star or that the stars are not Sun. It is merely proof that there are two different words to differentiate one from the other which is done for obvious visual reasons.

Once again, the Bible is not a science text book and should not be read as one. To use the fact that there is a separate word used for the Sun vs the stars to state that "The Biblical sun is not a star" is, at best, a hasty generalization fallacy and at worst the sort of idiotic thinking used by cult leaders to deceive their followers into drinking the proverbial cool-aid.

Ah, that's what it's called haha. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Once again, you are reading the Bible as though it were some sort of scientific paper. It isn't!

It is not wrong to talk about the Sun standing still RELATIVE to the horizon. In other words, if the Earth were stopped from spinning on it's axis, it would make the Sun stop moving across the sky and there is no requirement for the Bible to discuss it in any other terms.


Once again, this is a false dichotomy.

It is not necessary to take the most woodenly literal way in order for it to be both true and inspired by God. It is also not necessary to deny that the Bible was written by men from their own perspective in order to acknowledge and fully accept that it was inspired by God.


If you continue down this road, you'll be an unbeliever at the end of it.


Neither would the process of cell division or the fact that diseases are spread by really small organisms or that not every lightning bolt is thrown by God's own hand or any number of thousands of other facts of reality that are not discussed in the Bible.


I never suggested that they wouldn't have understood it. The fact remains that the Bible doesn't contradict it nor will it ever be found to contradict any fact of reality.


First of all, you have no idea what the ancients knew or didn't know. There are all kinds of things that pass in and out of human understanding through history.

But even if it is true, why would that be surprising and why do you limit this sort of thinking to the shape of the Earth?

No one denies that the Earth looks flat to us on the surface and the Sun looks like it's going around the Earth. But, as I've said a few times today already, the principle thing about science is the willingness of the scientist to accept the verdict of the evidence over was their experience. Experiences are biased by not only our minds but by our biology (i.e. our actual eyes and physical brains, etc) but objectively collected data and sound reason will lead to the truth. The objectivity part of that is the hardest part to achieve which is why multiple independent verification is an important part of the scientific process.

Further, most of the scientific progress we have throughout history has not been made in spite of a biblical worldview but rather because of it. It is precisely the understanding that the universe is real and that it isn't governed by mystic and unknowable forces that encourage us to investigate and to understand God's creation. Indeed, it is the desire to understand the God who created this world that pushes the faithful to want to understand His creation. Thus, a progression from believing that things are the way they merely appear to be toward an understand of what things actually are is to be expected.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

The point that the sun is the greater light, the moon is the lesser light, and the stars are distinct from both sun and moon and that all are in the firmament of heaven above the earth is clear and needs no long drawn out explanations.

Trying to fit this into a globe is clearly as you have shown a very complicated affair.

--Dave

The fact that you deleted most of my post does not bode well for you, Dave.

Are you unable to come up with a response, Dave? or are you just unwilling?

If you could, I would like you to at least try to respond to the rest of that post, and try to show how it is wrong.

That is, after all, how discussions work... Of course, you have every right to ignore it if you so choose, but if you do, know that the points made in that post are points that remain unaddressed by your side of this discussion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yeah, so what?

This is false.

Given the known and undisputed data, math PROVES that the Earth cannot be flat. Therefore the flat-Earth "cosmology" is falsified.

This is an unsubstantiated primary premise that I dispute.

The fact that the Sun is given a different word than the rest of the stars is because the rest of the stars do not look the same as the Sun. This is not evidence that the Sun is not a star or that the stars are not Sun. It is merely proof that there are two different words to differentiate one from the other which is done for obvious visual reasons.

Once again, the Bible is not a science text book and should not be read as one. To use the fact that there is a separate word used for the Sun vs the stars to state that "The Biblical sun is not a star" is, at best, a hasty generalization fallacy and at worst the sort of idiotic thinking used by cult leaders to deceive their followers into drinking the proverbial cool-aid.

Once again, you are reading the Bible as though it were some sort of scientific paper. It isn't!

It is not wrong to talk about the Sun standing still RELATIVE to the horizon. In other words, if the Earth were stopped from spinning on it's axis, it would make the Sun stop moving across the sky and there is no requirement for the Bible to discuss it in any other terms.

Once again, this is a false dichotomy.

It is not necessary to take the most woodenly literal way in order for it to be both true and inspired by God. It is also not necessary to deny that the Bible was written by men from their own perspective in order to acknowledge and fully accept that it was inspired by God.

If you continue down this road, you'll be an unbeliever at the end of it.

Neither would the process of cell division or the fact that diseases are spread by really small organisms or that not every lightning bolt is thrown by God's own hand or any number of thousands of other facts of reality that are not discussed in the Bible.

I never suggested that they wouldn't have understood it. The fact remains that the Bible doesn't contradict it nor will it ever be found to contradict any fact of reality.

First of all, you have no idea what the ancients knew or didn't know. There are all kinds of things that pass in and out of human understanding through history.

But even if it is true, why would that be surprising and why do you limit this sort of thinking to the shape of the Earth?

No one denies that the Earth looks flat to us on the surface and the Sun looks like it's going around the Earth. But, as I've said a few times today already, the principle thing about science is the willingness of the scientist to accept the verdict of the evidence over their experience. Experiences are biased by not only our minds but by our biology (i.e. our actual eyes and physical brains, etc) but objectively collected data and sound reason will lead to the truth. The objectivity part of that is the hardest part to achieve which is why multiple independent verification is an important part of the scientific process.

Further, most of the scientific progress we have throughout history has not been made in spite of a biblical worldview but rather because of it. It is precisely the understanding that the universe is real and that it isn't governed by mystic and unknowable forces that encourage us to investigate and to understand God's creation. Indeed, it is the desire to understand the God who created this world that pushes the faithful to want to understand His creation. Thus, a progression from believing that things are the way they merely appear to be toward an understand of what things actually are is to be expected.

Also, as I said, why limit this sort of thinking to the shape of the Earth? There are all kinds of things that we didn't understand about the way things work even 50 years ago, never mind 5000. Martin Luther went to his death bed thinking that God had sent a storm to kill him and that his bargaining with God to dedicate his life to Him was what kept him from getting struck by lightning. People believed for centuries that people with a different skin color were a different species of human beings (and used the Bible, must as you are now, to make their arguments, by the way). People used to think that diseases where spread by "bad humors", that left handed people were inherently evil and that flies formed spontaneously from rotten meat. God could have kept all that confusion from happening by simply having explained it all in the Bible!

Clete

Well, I write with my left hand and throw with my right so perhaps I'm both evil and mentally ill.

Flat earth and ancient history
"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century.

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC) retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC. Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on."

Get your history right.

The sun is not the moon and is not the stars is based on syntax and definition--the rule of logic. The writer of Genesis makes a distinction between three things not two things, not just between sun and moon. The author is not giving us a merely "visual" representation of the stars as being the reason for using a different word for stars and sun. The Genesis author would have said "and God made lesser suns" if the sun and stars were the same thing.

The earth is also distinct from the sun, moon, and stars.

Genesis could easily have said the earth is round and moves around the sun by simply stating it. The Bible could have simply stated the earth stood still. Simple, easy, and true statements to make.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The fact that you deleted most of my post does not bode well for you, Dave.

Are you unable to come up with a response, Dave? or are you just unwilling?

If you could, I would like you to at least try to respond to the rest of that post, and try to show how it is wrong.

That is, after all, how discussions work... Of course, you have every right to ignore it if you so choose, but if you do, know that the points made in that post are points that remain unaddressed by your side of this discussion.

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

It sounds like you are abandoning your quest for scientific evidence and are opting to settle for a statement of faith based on your biblical beliefs. Is this true?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

So now you're ignoring arguments? Yeah, that REALLY doesn't bode well for your side.

 

[JudgeRightly]

`

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

Of course it needs to be addressed Dave, because it goes against your position.

I thought you were trying to examine both sides of this discussion. This post is proof that you're not.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I write with my left hand and throw with my right so perhaps I'm both evil and mentally ill.

You're certainly giving everyone that impression.

Get your history right.

The sun is not the moon and is not the stars is based on syntax and definition--the rule of logic. The writer of Genesis makes a distinction between three things not two things, not just between sun and moon.

Fallacious logic AGAIN Dave. The writer of Genesis does NOT exclude the sun from being a star. He does NOT say one way or the other.

The author is not giving us a merely "visual" representation of the stars as being the reason for using a different word for stars and sun. The Genesis author would have said "and God made lesser suns" if the sun and stars were the same thing.

Fallacious logic AGAIN Dave. The Sun is the NAME that we have given ONE PARTICULAR star.

The earth is also distinct from the sun, moon, and stars.

Duh! You've finally made a true statement... congrats!

Genesis could easily have said the earth is round and moves around the sun by simply stating it.

Genesis could easily have said the earth is flat and the sun circles above it by simply stating it.

See how that works Dave?

The Bible could have simply stated the earth stood still. Simple, easy, and true statements to make.

What?

The Bible could say many things. Your "idea" is pointless.

 

[JudgeRightly]

When you ignore arguments such as this one:

You need to put your glasses on and reread the passage again. Or just look at the pictures below.

The firmament is not called the seas. The waters gathered into one (echad, meaning a unity of multiple) place(s) are called "Seas." There was no world-wide ocean like we have today.

The firmament is called Heaven.

The "firmament of the heavens" is not the "firmament called Heaven."



They're not. Nor does scripture say they are.

It says in the "firmament of the heavens," which is not the firmament called Heaven.



There are two firmaments in Genesis 1. You're conflating the first one with the second, and vice versa.

The first firmament (from the latin, "firmamentum"; Hebrew word is "raqia") is the ground on which we stand.

The second firmament (of the heavens) is the sky, space.



This is the second time you've made this straw man now. Stop it. I literally just got done explaining how there IS an "above" on a globe.



So? Doesn't mean it's not a star.



You do realize that the first instance of the word "sun" is in Genesis 15, right?

The word used in Genesis 1 is "lights," PLURAL.

Not "sun" or "stars."

LIGHTS.



No contradiction at all, Dave, because the word "sun" isn't in Genesis 1-14.



Literally, you're wrong.

See below.



No, what has led to the mythification of Genesis is by people rejecting God and proposing an alternate theory of origin for the universe.



Except I can because that's not what has happened.

Here, you tell me if this isn't a good representation of what Scripture shows. [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION], I hope you don't mind if I borrow your image from the other thread. If you do, let me know and I'll remove it.

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5258130

This is what the Bible LITERALLY says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

2D cross-section of what the earth might have looked like at this point

And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

2D cross-section of what the earth might have looked like at this point

And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:1-10&version=NKJV

What the surface of the (spherical) earth probably looked like at this point)

https://youtu.be/Hqvroege-Hk

(Credit to Bryan Nickel, who allowed me to use these images from an email chain between him, me, and a few others)

See also http://kgov.com/hydroplate-theory-and-walt-brown-on-the-global-flood

you have lost the debate. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, nor am I saying that my arguments can't be shown to be wrong. I'm just saying that my argument is a clear rebuttal to Dave's, and the fact that he's ignoring it because "it's too long"...

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

...shows that his position (if you can even call it that) is not very strong.

Roughly half of my post is QUOTEd posts, some of it is links to other sites that provide infrastructure to my points, some of it is SCRIPTURE(!), and the rest (I'd say about 30%) is me rebutting Dave's claims and straw men.

Dave has, for all intents and purposes, admitted defeat, because he refuses to consider and even outright ignores the arguments presented by his opponents.

 

[JudgeRightly]

When you ignore arguments such as this one:



you have lost the debate. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, nor am I saying that my arguments can't be shown to be wrong. I'm just saying that my argument is a clear rebuttal to Dave's, and the fact that he's ignoring it because "it's too long"......shows that his position (if you can even call it that) is not very strong.

Roughly half of my post is QUOTEd posts, some of it is links to other sites that provide infrastructure to my points, some of it is SCRIPTURE(!), and the rest (I'd say about 30%) is me rebutting Dave's claims and straw men.

Dave has, for all intents and purposes, admitted defeat, because he refuses to consider and even outright ignores the arguments presented by his opponents.

In addition to all of that, I specifically asked Dave to provide a flood model that works with the flat earth model.

It not only has to fit Genesis 1, Dave, it has to fit the ENTIRE BIBLE.

And that includes the Flood.

So tell me Dave, what model does the Flat earth use for Noah's Flood?

He has not done so.

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION], I ask again. Could you outline, even just in general terms, how the flood occurred if the earth was flat.

@ everyone reading this thread:

Should Dave refuse, or if he says there is no standard model for the Flood for the flat earth side, none of his arguments beyond this point should be taken seriously, because he himself has claimed that the model we use for the universe should match scripture. I have provided the Hydroplate Theory as one that DOES IN FACT match scripture. If his position is correct, then he should be able to do so as well.

If he cannot, then the Hydroplate theory (which is based on a spherical earth, heliocentrism, and an entire solar system with 8 planets and 1 star), stands as the correct one until it can be falsified.

 

[Clete]

That's what I was told about open theism, and I doubt that I will undermine the Christian faith or the Bible by giving it a literal interpretation.

--Dave

I interpret it literally too, David. But I'm smart enough to understand that there is more than one way to do that.

There is exactly NOTHING about the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis or any other option of the Bible.

 

[Clete]

Well, I write with my left hand and throw with my right so perhaps I'm both evil and mentally ill.

Nice.

Is this you're way of not responding to the argument?

Why do you think that it's alright to waste my time?

Get your history right.

I do not dispute history. It's prehistory that I doubt you know anything about. You simply don't have any idea whether Adam or Abel or Methuselah or a million other prehistoric people knew about the shape of the Earth. No one does because it isn't recorded. You are assuming that the human race's knowledge began from ancient Greek or Egyptian texts or something and I'm telling you that there was a long span of human history that took place before there was an Egypt or any other civilization that we have written histories of and that you simply have no way of knowing what ancient peoples knew and didn't know about God's creation.

The sun is not the moon and is not the stars is based on syntax and definition--the rule of logic.

No. All syntax and defginitons are going to rightly tell you is that there is a distinction being made between the things being named. Even though I know that the stars are far distant suns, that doesn't preclude me from using the word Sun to discuss THE Sun. I am not required to use the same word because I know and everyone who speaks English knows intuitively that there is a distinct difference between the big hot ball of light that separates the night from the day vs. the little pin pricks of light that we call stars. And if I discuss the fact that the stars are far distance suns, no one is confused into thinking that I've changed the subject. It is context that defines the terms, not merely the syntax and definition.

The writer of Genesis makes a distinction between three things not two things, not just between sun and moon.

That's right. Moses does so because they are three different things. You are forcing a contradiction where none exists. A "sun" that is light years away can be rightly considered to be in a different class of objects based solely on it's appearance, especially if the one speaking is entirely ignorant of that distance and the distance is entirely irrelevant to the narrative being presented.

THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK!!!

The author is not giving us a merely "visual" representation of the stars as being the reason for using a different word for stars and sun. The Genesis author would have said "and God made lesser suns" if the sun and stars were the same thing.

He wouldn't have if he didn't know that they were essentially the same thing. There was no need for Moses to know anything about what stars are or what the Sun is. Such knowledge is not relevant to what Moses was writing about. The Sun exists and the stars exist and the experience of them is altogether different and so they are called different things and serve different purposes.

The earth is also distinct from the sun, moon, and stars.

You don't say!

Genesis could easily have said the earth is round and moves around the sun by simply stating it.

And He chose not to do so.

Suggesting that His not mentioning it is proof that it isn't round is an argument from silence.

The Bible could have simply stated the earth stood still. Simple, easy, and true statements to make.

--Dave

Two irrational arguments from silence in a row!

You're on a streak!

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nice.

Is this you're way of not responding to the argument?

Why do you think that it's alright to waste my time?


I do not dispute history. It's prehistory that I doubt you know anything about. You simply don't have any idea whether Adam or Abel or Methuselah or a million other prehistoric people knew about the shape of the Earth. No one does because it isn't recorded. You are assuming that the human race's knowledge began from ancient Greek or Egyptian texts or something and I'm telling you that there was a long span of human history that took place before there was an Egypt or any other civilization that we have written histories of and that you simply have no way of knowing what ancient peoples knew and didn't know about God's creation.


No. All syntax and definitons are going to rightly tell you is that there is a distinction being made between the things being named. Even though I know that the stars are far distant suns, that doesn't preclude me from using the word Sun to discuss THE Sun. I am not required to use the same word because I know and everyone who speaks English knows intuitively that there is a distinct difference between the big hot ball of light that separates the night from the day vs. the little pin pricks of light that we call stars. And if I discuss the fact that the stars are far distance suns, no one is confused into thinking that I've changed the subject. It is context that defines the terms, not merely the syntax and definition.


That's right. Moses does so because they are three different things. You are forcing a contradiction where none exists. A "sun" that is light years away can be rightly considered to be in a different class of objects based solely on it's appearance, especially if the one speaking is entirely ignorant of that distance and the distance is entirely irrelevant to the narrative being presented.

THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK!!!


He wouldn't have if he didn't know that they were essentially the same thing. There was no need for Moses to know anything about what stars are or what the Sun is. Such knowledge is not relevant to what Moses was writing about. The Sun exists and the stars exist and the experience of them is altogether different and so they are called different things and serve different purposes.


You don't say!


And He chose not to do so.

Suggesting that His not mentioning it is proof that it isn't round is an argument from silence.


Two irrational arguments from silence in a row!

You're on a streak!

Clete

Dave has started ignoring arguments outright, especially if "they're too long"...

Your very long post does not need to be addressed in relation to what Genesis simple states as per my point.

--Dave

So now you're ignoring arguments? Yeah, that REALLY doesn't bode well for your side.

`Of course it needs to be addressed Dave, because it goes against your position.

I thought you were trying to examine both sides of this discussion. This post is proof that you're not.

When you ignore arguments such as this one:



you have lost the debate. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, nor am I saying that my arguments can't be shown to be wrong. I'm just saying that my argument is a clear rebuttal to Dave's, and the fact that he's ignoring it because "it's too long"......shows that his position (if you can even call it that) is not very strong.

Roughly half of my post is QUOTEd posts, some of it is links to other sites that provide infrastructure to my points, some of it is SCRIPTURE(!), and the rest (I'd say about 30%) is me rebutting Dave's claims and straw men.

Dave has, for all intents and purposes, admitted defeat, because he refuses to consider and even outright ignores the arguments presented by his opponents.

In addition to all of that, I specifically asked Dave to provide a flood model that works with the flat earth model.



He has not done so.

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION], I ask again. Could you outline, even just in general terms, how the flood occurred if the earth was flat.

@ everyone reading this thread:

Should Dave refuse, or if he says there is no standard model for the Flood for the flat earth side, none of his arguments beyond this point should be taken seriously, because he himself has claimed that the model we use for the universe should match scripture. I have provided the Hydroplate Theory as one that DOES IN FACT match scripture. If his position is correct, then he should be able to do so as well.

If he cannot, then the Hydroplate theory (which is based on a spherical earth, heliocentrism, and an entire solar system with 8 planets and 1 star), stands as the correct one until it can be falsified.

 

[Stripe]

Dave has started ignoring arguments outright, especially if "they're too long"...

You know he's just trolling us, right?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

You know he's just trolling us, right?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Of course he is.

 

[chair]

Dave,

You live in a world where:
1. You are convinced that the Bible says the earth is flat
2. Plain facts say the earth is a globe

There are two approaches to this:
1. Keep your particular interpretation of the Bible, and reject reality
2. Interpret the Bible to match reality

You have chosen #1. This is choosing falsehood over truth, a fantasy over reality. It insults the Bible. And it insults God, who gave you a brain to think with.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=130373&share_fid=4230&share_type=t

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nice.

Is this you're way of not responding to the argument?

Why do you think that it's alright to waste my time?


I do not dispute history. It's prehistory that I doubt you know anything about. You simply don't have any idea whether Adam or Abel or Methuselah or a million other prehistoric people knew about the shape of the Earth. No one does because it isn't recorded. You are assuming that the human race's knowledge began from ancient Greek or Egyptian texts or something and I'm telling you that there was a long span of human history that took place before there was an Egypt or any other civilization that we have written histories of and that you simply have no way of knowing what ancient peoples knew and didn't know about God's creation.


No. All syntax and defginitons are going to rightly tell you is that there is a distinction being made between the things being named. Even though I know that the stars are far distant suns, that doesn't preclude me from using the word Sun to discuss THE Sun. I am not required to use the same word because I know and everyone who speaks English knows intuitively that there is a distinct difference between the big hot ball of light that separates the night from the day vs. the little pin pricks of light that we call stars. And if I discuss the fact that the stars are far distance suns, no one is confused into thinking that I've changed the subject. It is context that defines the terms, not merely the syntax and definition.


That's right. Moses does so because they are three different things. You are forcing a contradiction where none exists. A "sun" that is light years away can be rightly considered to be in a different class of objects based solely on it's appearance, especially if the one speaking is entirely ignorant of that distance and the distance is entirely irrelevant to the narrative being presented.

THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK!!!


He wouldn't have if he didn't know that they were essentially the same thing. There was no need for Moses to know anything about what stars are or what the Sun is. Such knowledge is not relevant to what Moses was writing about. The Sun exists and the stars exist and the experience of them is altogether different and so they are called different things and serve different purposes.


You don't say!


And He chose not to do so.

Suggesting that His not mentioning it is proof that it isn't round is an argument from silence.


Two irrational arguments from silence in a row!

You're on a streak!

Clete

God did not have to tell us the earth was flat and motionless and sun, moon, and stars move over the earth because that's obvious to all people. That it was God who created everything must be revealed to us by God because we were not there to see it, obviously. We don't need a revelation for what is obvious.

That the earth is a globe that moves around a sun would be something God could have and would have told us since it's something that's not consistent with what we see and experience.

The argument you call "from silence" is merely the fact that flat earth works with Genesis and all of scripture and spinning globe does not. You can stretch scripture to make a case for the globe but that's not good Biblical exegesis.

Ancient written history is clear, up until Plato and Aristotle, the world believed in flat earth and Genesis is consistent with it.

--Dave