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

[Clete]

If we want to debate well we have to study the side we oppose.

Look Dave, If you want to claim that all this is some sort of role that you're playing then take my insulting attitude as a compliment to your acting skills because unless and until you start acting like a rational human being, I'll not stop treating you like a lying moron.

I read the sites on photographing the moon, thanks.

--Dave

No problem.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, Dave, because if you can't answer a single question, then there's no reason for me to even make my point.

DAVE: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE IN YOUR MIND FOR GOD TO HAVE CREATED A GLOBE EARTH, IN 6 DAYS, ~7000 YEARS AGO?

Answer this question, then I will make my point.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,

The earth is the center of God's creation. The sun, moon, and stars are set in the firmament above the earth to give it light.

One has to compare the globe earth model with the flat earth model and imagine which model best fits the Genesis one creation account.

In the heliocentric universe the sun is the immovable center in relation to the earth and other planets. The moon moves around the earth which is the immovable center for the moon. The stars, not the other planets, in this model are in other galaxies that have their own centers that have nothing to do with the earth.

There is no above in the globe model. The smaller moon is set outside of the earth and is subordinate to the earth but the earth is much smaller than the sun and is set outside of it and is subordinate to it.

We have no such contradictions to the flat earth model. The heavens above are where God placed the smaller sun, smaller moon, and much smaller stars that move around and are subordinate to a much larger immovable earth.

By subordinate I mean that the sun, moon, and stars are all much smaller to the earth and move above it which makes the earth the primary and the center of God's creation in accordance with Genesis.

If we don't take Genesis literally then we are making it a non-literal myth.
If Genesis is a non-literal cosmology of God's creation then it will also become non-literal in it's account of the creation of man and non-literal in it's account of the nature of God. Genesis will also become non-literal in it's account of Satan, the fall, and flood. All of which which by the way has already happened in the eye's of the world and much of the church.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Look Dave, If you want to claim that all this is some sort of role that you're playing then take my insulting attitude as a compliment to your acting skills because unless and until you start acting like a rational human being, I'll not stop treating you like a lying moron.


No problem.

Just take me as I have presented myself both as advocate for a debate I believe is important and as one who is genuinely not sure that heliocentrism is true and flat earth is false.

That you, or any other Christian, would take other Christians like myself who have doubts about this and brand us the way you have, and ridicule us the way you have, I find appalling.

That you have also looked at some of the arguments and helped me better understand the heliocentric model with your particular expertise I am grateful. Others have also been helpful, at times, as well in this way.

The arguments for flat earth must be analysed before they can be argued against. The next round of argument I will focus on the horizon over the ocean and what happens. This will be photo and video analysis and to you and others who refuse to watch the evidence flat earth presents will be seen by me as a refusal to do what's needed to refute it.

Did you watch the video where a consultant for the FBI analyses Neil Armstrong's interview of moon landing?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Even on a globe the moon and sun are closer to the viewer over head and smaller at the horizon. The only real question is by how much.

--Dave

That question has been answered MANY TIMES here, just like EVERYTHING ELSE.

 

[Right Divider]

In the heliocentric universe the sun is the immovable center in relation to the earth and other planets. The moon moves around the earth which is the immovable center for the moon. The stars, not the other planets, in this model are in other galaxies that have their own centers that have nothing to do with the earth.

The global earth does NOT REQUIRE a heliocentric view. Heliocentrism is just ONE WAY to view the objects around us.

There is no above in the globe model. The smaller moon is set outside of the earth and is subordinate to the earth but the earth is much smaller than the sun and is set outside of it and is subordinate to it.

Wrong on ALL COUNTS.

Or is the "flat earth moon" set inside of the earth in your version?

These are all STRAW-MEN Dubious Dave.

 

[Clete]

Even on a globe the moon and sun are closer to the viewer over head and smaller at the horizon. The only real question is by how much.

--Dave

A question that has been directly answered more than once. The Moon is, in fact, slightly smaller at the horizon than it is at it's zenith.

If m is the distance between the center of the Earth and the Moon, and r is the radius of the Earth then when the moon is overhead, its distance from you is simply m - r.
The moon's average distance from the center of the Earth is 384399 km,
The Earth's average radius is 6371 km.
Thus, the moon is about 384346 km from you when it's at the horizon, and about 378028 km from you when it's overhead.
So, the horizon moon is, on average, about 6318km or about 1.64% further away than the zenith moon.

That's not a precise number because there are other variables such as the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and one's position north or south of the equator. Also the calculation doesn't take into account the fact that when the Moon is rising or setting, you aren't at the center of the Earth but are actually at the point of a right triangle formed with the radius of the Earth being the shortest side of that triangle. That amount of precision is not necessary for this discussion. The point is that if you took a photo of the Moon shortly after it rose and then again when it is high in the sky, the horizon picture will be about 1% smaller or maybe a bit more than that. That's plenty enough to measure with a simple pixel count of two images of the Moon taken a few hours apart.

This would an excellent experiment for any flat-Earther to do and a completely intuitive one at that. I wonder why they never ever do it? :think:
If any of them were to do it, they'd fake the results because they cannot bring their minds to except actual evidence over the testimony of their eyes, which is perhaps the most important principle of science.

I'll make an effort to do this experiment myself but it'll be a while. Right now the Moon doesn't rise until about 11:30 at night and doesn't culminate (reach it's highest point in the sky) until after 6:00am. I'm not into pulling all-nighters so it'll have to wait for a few weeks.

Clete

Portions of this post were copied from HERE

 

[Clete]

Just take me as I have presented myself both as advocate for a debate I believe is important and as one who is genuinely not sure that heliocentrism is true and flat earth is false.

That you, or any other Christian, would take other Christians like myself who have doubts about this and brand us the way you have, and ridicule us the way you have, I find appalling.

As I have explained over and over again, it isn't merely the fact that you have doubts. It is that you systematically and consistently refuse to accept the verdict of sound reason and compelling proof that the Earth cannot be flat. You are stubbornly clinging to what has been known to be false for centuries.

In addition to that you find videos that are so patently ridiculous and plainly faked that any third grader would laugh at them and present them here as if they deserve to be taken seriously. Then, when they are thoroughly debunked, it doesn't move you an inch.

And this idiotic conspiratorial thinking is more than I can take. It is fundamentally irrational and unfalsifiable and you truly ought to be ashamed of yourself for having bought into any of it for even half a second.

I HATE stupidity, David!

Stupidity is what is bringing this entire country down and will likely see us in a civil war before my kids are thirty years old. Stupidity is what caused things like the Salem Which trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades and any number of other atrocities that the Christian faith either perpetrated or gets blamed for.

That you have also looked at some of the arguments and helped me better understand the heliocentric model with your particular expertise I am grateful. Others have also been helpful, at times, as well in this way.

You should understand that if you were nearly anyone else, if you were just some idiot that had shown up here to discuss this moronic stupidity, I'd have placed you on ignore months ago and written you off as a hopelessly delusional basket case. That's how bad all this makes you look. It's really bad, David. Honestly, you really ought to repent.

The arguments for flat earth must be analysed before they can be argued against. The next round of argument I will focus on the horizon over the ocean and what happens. This will be photo and video analysis and to you and others who refuse to watch the evidence flat earth presents will be seen by me as a refusal to do what's needed to refute it.

It has all already been refuted, David!

What the hell else is there about the stupid horizon to discuss that hasn't already been beaten like a dead horse?

I'm willing to discuss this nonsense with you but I am not interested in debating every YouTuber that you can find on the internet. If you want me to refute something, make the argument yourself or find someone else who is willing to spend this much time even discussing this stupidity with you.

Did you watch the video where a consultant for the FBI analyses Neil Armstrong's interview of moon landing?

--Dave

NO! Nor will I. It's beneath me.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,

AMEN!

The earth is the center of God's creation.

I disagree.

The earth is slightly off-center in the universe. If it was dead center, the universe would appear to be "center-less", or without a center. kgov.com/axis

The sun, moon, and stars are set in the firmament above the earth to give it light.

Correction. They are set in "the firmament of the heavens." There IS a difference.

One has to compare the globe earth model with the flat earth model and imagine which model best fits the Genesis one creation account.

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?

In the heliocentric universe the sun is the immovable center in relation to the earth and other planets.

No, Dave, it's not "immovable," nor is it dead center. The center of the solar system's gravity (the "center" of the Solar System") moves around in relation to the position of the planets, moons, and other celestial objects, however minimal their gravity.

The moon moves around the earth which is the immovable center for the moon.

Again, not "immovable," not the "center."

The stars, not the other planets, in this model are in other galaxies that have their own centers that have nothing to do with the earth.

What, so you think that the Solar system is on it's own in the middle of no man's land between galaxies?

You're dead wrong.

There is no above in the globe model.

Another straw man. Why am I not surprised.

"Up" and "above" are relative terms.

"Up" on any celestial object, be it star, planet, moon, asteroid, is always relative to the observer, but most of the time, it's away from the center of gravity of that object.

So when Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters (spheres have one face too, you know... (or inifinitely many, if you're looking at it from a geometry standpoint, but that's a different topic for another time)), "above" is literally above the waters, away from the center of the earth. God can be in many places at once, and Him being "above" a sphere can also imply that he is around the sphere, looking down at it. There's nothing illogical about God, who can be in multiple places at once, looking down at a sphere.

The smaller moon is set outside of the earth and is subordinate to the earth but the earth is much smaller than the sun and is set outside of it and is subordinate to it.

"Outside?" Why not just say "in orbit around"?

We have no such contradictions to the flat earth model.

You're begging the question that the above was contradictory. You first need to explain where the contradiction is.

The heavens above are where God placed the smaller sun,

Clete and I have already shown that the sun CANNOT be smaller than the earth.

smaller moon,

...

and much smaller stars

The sun is a star. And there are much, MUCH larger stars than the Sun. Several hundred if not thousand times larger, in fact.

that move around and are subordinate to a much larger immovable earth.

By subordinate I mean that the sun, moon, and stars are all much smaller to than the earth and move above it which makes the earth the primary and the center of God's creation in accordance with Genesis.[/QUOTE]

It also results in a model that does not match reality. This is why I asked if it's even possible in your mind that God created a spherical earth, because if you can't accept it as even a possibility, then there's no way you'll accept it if shown to be true.

If we don't take Genesis literally then we are making it a non-literal myth.
If Genesis is a non-literal cosmology of God's creation then it will also become non-literal in it's account of the creation of man and non-literal in it's account of the nature of God. Genesis will also become non-literal in it's account of Satan, the fall, and flood. All of which which by the way has already happened in the eye's of the world and much of the church.

--Dave

Neither Clete nor I have said it was a myth, and yet you continue to act like we have.

http://kgov.com/trading-genesis-enyart-on-pepperdine-university-campus-on-theistic-evolution

 

[Clete]

If we don't take Genesis literally then we are making it a non-literal myth.
If Genesis is a non-literal cosmology of God's creation then it will also become non-literal in it's account of the creation of man and non-literal in it's account of the nature of God. Genesis will also become non-literal in it's account of Satan, the fall, and flood. All of which which by the way has already happened in the eye's of the world and much of the church.

--Dave

This is an over reaction and, I think, presents a false dichotomy.

No one here denies the literal truth of Genesis. The point is that there is nothing in the Genesis creation account that contradicts reality. And whether you want to believe it or not, the reality is that the Earth very definitely does orbit the Sun and the Moon really does orbit the Earth and we are not living on a motionless, flat disk. In fact, we know, not only from centuries of science but from simple math that has been presented on this very thread, that the Earth cannot be flat. Thus, if the Genesis creation account implied a flat Earth, the whole Bible would be falsified. You can't very well have a divinely inspired book with a first chapter that is demonstrably false, now can you?

Further, your understanding of the Genesis creation account is not definitive by virtue of the fact that it is your understanding. There are a LOT of details that are left out of the creation account and as such there is a lot of wiggle room with respect to our understanding of it. That isn't to say that it so bereft of detail as to be meaningless or to be open to any interpretation whatsoever, but merely to say that the book of Genesis is not a science textbook and ought not be read as one.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

A question that has been directly answered more than once. The Moon is, in fact, slightly smaller at the horizon than it is at it's zenith.

If m is the distance between the center of the Earth and the Moon, and r is the radius of the Earth then when the moon is overhead, its distance from you is simply m - r.
The moon's average distance from the center of the Earth is 384399 km,
The Earth's average radius is 6371 km.
Thus, the moon is about 384346 km from you when it's at the horizon, and about 378028 km from you when it's overhead.
So, the horizon moon is, on average, about 6318km or about 1.64% further away than the zenith moon.

That's not a precise number because there are other variables such as the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and one's position north or south of the equator. Also the calculation doesn't take into account the fact that when the Moon is rising or setting, you aren't at the center of the Earth but are actually at the point of a right triangle formed with the radius of the Earth being the shortest side of that triangle. That amount of precision is not necessary for this discussion. The point is that if you took a photo of the Moon shortly after it rose and then again when it is high in the sky, the horizon picture will be about 1% smaller or maybe a bit more than that. That's plenty enough to measure with a simple pixel count of two images of the Moon taken a few hours apart.

This would an excellent experiment for any flat-Earther to do and a completely intuitive one at that. I wonder why they never ever do it? :think:
If any of them were to do it, they'd fake the results because they cannot bring their minds to except actual evidence over the testimony of their eyes, which is perhaps the most important principle of science.

I'll make an effort to do this experiment myself but it'll be a while. Right now the Moon doesn't rise until about 11:30 at night and doesn't culminate (reach it's highest point in the sky) until after 6:00am. I'm not into pulling all-nighters so it'll have to wait for a few weeks.

Clete

Portions of this post were copied from HERE

Another factor is horizon magnification. This was not invented by flat earth.

Magnification at the Astronomical Horizon
"The magnification at the astronomical horizon depends only on the density gradient just below eye level; for practical purposes, that density gradient depends only on the temperature gradient. This page is devoted to demonstrating the truth of this statement."

View attachment 26623

If I understand this properly, and if it is true, then the moon, which is already a bit smaller at the horizon is actually even smaller than what we see.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Another factor is horizon magnification. This was not invented by flat earth.

Magnification at the Astronomical Horizon
"The magnification at the astronomical horizon depends only on the density gradient just below eye level; for practical purposes, that density gradient depends only on the temperature gradient. This page is devoted to demonstrating the truth of this statement."

View attachment 26623

If I understand this properly, and if it is true, then the moon, which is already a bit smaller at the horizon is actually even smaller than what we see.

--Dave

No. I'm not sure what that article is about but atmospheric effects on the apparent size of the Moon (and other bodies) actually causes it to look very very slightly smaller and flatter than it is.

This, by the way, is counter intuitive because of the optical illusion that causes our brains to think that the Moon looks much larger on the horizon. One must always remember that our eyes ARE NOT cameras and what we see has as much to do with the way our brains interpret things as it does with the light that enters our pupils.

Why does the moon look so much bigger when it is near the horizon?

The moon illusion: why the moon looks so weirdly huge right near the horizon (this article is better)

(Incidentally, the photos of the Moon in that second article are all very excellent photos but, except for the first one, they are all definitely composite photos and the first one probably is as well but might not be.)

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

AMEN!
I disagree.

The earth is slightly off-center in the universe. If it was dead center, the universe would appear to be "center-less", or without a center. kgov.com/axis

Correction. They are set in "the firmament of the heavens." There IS a difference.

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?

No, Dave, it's not "immovable," nor is it dead center. The center of the solar system's gravity (the "center" of the Solar System") moves around in relation to the position of the planets, moons, and other celestial objects, however minimal their gravity.

Again, not "immovable," not the "center."

What, so you think that the Solar system is on it's own in the middle of no man's land between galaxies?

You're dead wrong.

Another straw man. Why am I not surprised.

"Up" and "above" are relative terms.

"Up" on any celestial object, be it star, planet, moon, asteroid, is always relative to the observer, but most of the time, it's away from the center of gravity of that object.

So when Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters (spheres have one face too, you know... (or inifinitely many, if you're looking at it from a geometry standpoint, but that's a different topic for another time)), "above" is literally above the waters, away from the center of the earth. God can be in many places at once, and Him being "above" a sphere can also imply that he is around the sphere, looking down at it. There's nothing illogical about God, who can be in multiple places at once, looking down at a sphere.

"Outside?" Why not just say "in orbit around"?

You're begging the question that the above was contradictory. You first need to explain where the contradiction is.

Clete and I have already shown that the sun CANNOT be smaller than the earth.

The sun is a star. And there are much, MUCH larger stars than the Sun. Several hundred if not thousand times larger, in fact.

By subordinate I mean that the sun, moon, and stars are all much smaller to than the earth and move above it which makes the earth the primary and the center of God's creation in accordance with Genesis.

It also results in a model that does not match reality. This is why I asked if it's even possible in your mind that God created a spherical earth, because if you can't accept it as even a possibility, then there's no way you'll accept it if shown to be true.

Neither Clete nor I have said it was a myth, and yet you continue to act like we have.

http://kgov.com/trading-genesis-enyart-on-pepperdine-university-campus-on-theistic-evolution[/QUOTE]

7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were "above" the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven...9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.”

The firmament called heaven is "above" the the firmament called seas where the dry land appeared.

So, if the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament, and the firmament is above the seas and dry ground then the sun, moon, and stars were set above the earth in the firmament that is above the earth. There is no above for a globe.

The sun is not a star in Genesis. If the sun and the stars were the same thing then Genesis would have said that God created other suns, which would make no sense. So, we have another contradiction to the globe model in Genesis. Thanks for pointing it out.

Literally, the Genesis story is not a heliocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe has lead to the mythification of Genesis. You may not agree that this is a reasonable/logical conclusion but you can't deny that this is historically what has happened.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

So, if the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament, and the firmament is above the seas and dry ground then the sun, moon, and stars were set above the earth in the firmament that is above the earth. There is no above for a globe.

You just keep repeating these lies Dave. Very dishonest on your part.

This has been clearly and repeated explained to you and yet you insist on your STRAW-MAN.

 

[Clete]

It also results in a model that does not match reality. This is why I asked if it's even possible in your mind that God created a spherical earth, because if you can't accept it as even a possibility, then there's no way you'll accept it if shown to be true.

Neither Clete nor I have said it was a myth, and yet you continue to act like we have.

http://kgov.com/trading-genesis-enyart-on-pepperdine-university-campus-on-theistic-evolution

7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were "above" the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven...9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.”

The firmament called heaven is "above" the the firmament called seas where the dry land appeared.

So, if the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament, and the firmament is above the seas and dry ground then the sun, moon, and stars were set above the earth in the firmament that is above the earth. There is no above for a globe.

The sun is not a star in Genesis. If the sun and the stars were the same thing then Genesis would have said that God created other suns, which would make no sense. So, we have another contradiction to the globe model in Genesis. Thanks for pointing it out.

Literally, the Genesis story is not a heliocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe has lead to the mythification of Genesis. You may not agree that this is a reasonable/logical conclusion but you can't deny that this is historically what has happened.

--Dave

You really need to stop this, David.

You simply don't have any idea what you're talking about and you are actively undermining the Bible and with it, the entire Christian faith.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is an over reaction and, I think, presents a false dichotomy.

No one here denies the literal truth of Genesis. The point is that there is nothing in the Genesis creation account that contradicts reality. And whether you want to believe it or not, the reality is that the Earth very definitely does orbit the Sun and the Moon really does orbit the Earth and we are not living on a motionless, flat disk. In fact, we know, not only from centuries of science but from simple math that has been presented on this very thread, that the Earth cannot be flat. Thus, if the Genesis creation account implied a flat Earth, the whole Bible would be falsified. You can't very well have a divinely inspired book with a first chapter that is demonstrably false, now can you?

Further, your understanding of the Genesis creation account is not definitive by virtue of the fact that it is your understanding. There are a LOT of details that are left out of the creation account and as such there is a lot of wiggle room with respect to our understanding of it. That isn't to say that it so bereft of detail as to be meaningless or to be open to any interpretation whatsoever, but merely to say that the book of Genesis is not a science textbook and ought not be read as one.

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.

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

The Biblical sun is not a star among millions of other stars. There is one earth, one sun, one moon, and many stars. The Biblical sun moves and stood still, not the earth.

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. God could have told us the truth about the cosmology of a heliocentric world at the beginning if that's what he created. That the earth spins and rotates around the sun would not have been that difficult a thing to reveal. 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?

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

You just keep repeating these lies Dave. Very dishonest on your part.

This has been clearly and repeated explained to you and yet you insist on your STRAW-MAN.

I'm showing you what the Bible literally says.

I'm pointing out where you are wrong about what it says.

Calling me a liar means you can't defend your point.

You can claim the Copernican Heliocentric modal can be seen in Genesis one but you have to stretch it to make it fit. Flat earth Cinderella is an easy fit.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were "above" the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven...9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.”

The firmament called heaven is "above" the the firmament called seas where the dry land appeared.

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."

So, if the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament,

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

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

and the firmament is above the seas and dry ground then the sun, moon, and stars were set above the earth in the firmament that is above the earth.

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.

There is no above for a globe.

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.

The sun is not a star in Genesis.

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

If the sun and the stars were the same thing then Genesis would have said that God created other suns, which would make no sense.

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.

So, we have another contradiction to the globe model in Genesis. Thanks for pointing it out.

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

Literally, the Genesis story is not a heliocentric universe.

Literally, you're wrong.

See below.

The heliocentric model of the universe has lead to the mythification of Genesis.

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

You may not agree that this is a reasonable/logical conclusion but you can't deny that this is historically what has happened.

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

I'm showing you what the Bible literally says.

I'm pointing out where you are wrong about what it says.

Calling me a liar means you can't defend your point.

You can claim the Copernican Heliocentric modal can be seen in Genesis one but you have to stretch it to make it fit. Flat earth Cinderella is an easy fit.

--Dave

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

You really need to stop this, David.

You simply don't have any idea what you're talking about and you are actively undermining the Bible and with it, the entire Christian faith.

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

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

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.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

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