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

daqq

Well-known member
God did not create math.

So according to you the Arabs also probably created zero? That was nothing more than man discovering something that was already there and giving it a name or label. Man did not create math but rather continues to be in the process of discovering and uncovering the truth(s) concerning it. The basic math found on a school kid's calculator contains the basic building blocks, (mathematics), of creation.
 
Last edited:

WizardofOz

New member
Spoiler
D0Hq8AE.jpg
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
No, I did not ask that, and your comments are yet another mischaracterization and misrepresentation of statements and questions I have put forward. I asked Dave for a mechanism or cause or at least some reasoning to support the motions of the sun which were presented in a video he posted. You could say that the reason I asked for a mechanism is because my Elohim created math and used it all over the place throughout His creation. My Elohim does not despise math or geometry: He created it, He invented it, He used it all over His creation and continues to use it for His purposes.

:yawn:
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You know there's a way for you to directly measure the curvature of the Earth, if you have the time to put into doing it. I've mentioned it before but perhaps when you find yourself with a lot of free time, we can discuss it and figure out the details on how to pull it off.

My new place in NJ has a big sky right out the front door. I will most certainly like to do some measurements from there.

I will be somewhat limited with time to post for the next month with packing, moving, and that I still will be working full time until Social Security checks start coming.

I'm already planning a youtube channel and I'll be making videos--short ones.

The theme will be worldview analysis and comparisons. It will cover theology, philosophy, cosmology, etc. I like to see all this from a historical timeline as well; who said what, when and why.

That the Bible, literally taken in the proper sense, gives us the only coherent, cohesive, rational worldview, that is not self contradictory, is my basis. It will be a visual presentation of my website.

--Dave
 

daqq

Well-known member
Explain this. Did God create math or is math intrinsic to God's nature? I think this is a very good and important point.

--Dave

I know you are asking Clete this question but since his comment was directed to me I will answer for myself as to your question so that you might know where I am coming from also, (so as to clarify my position). I cannot speak for Clete but I suspect that he and I have a different understanding of the word create as to what it means in the most basic sense. One thing that seems to be so often overlooked in Hebrew cosmology, (which is so often touted in the flat-earth meme thanks to the work of Logos Bible Software and Dr. Michael Heiser, by way of that one particular image file that always gets posted), is the fact that the first thing believed to have been created by the Father, in the very beginning, is the Hebrew aleph-bet or alphabet.

This thinking is taken from the aleph-taw found right in the first statement from Genesis 1:1, and thus, it is a critical point that should not be overlooked in Hebrew cosmology: for if Elohim created the Hebrew alphabet first, before anything else, then here we have mathematics introduced right from the very beginning; for the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not just letters but also corresponding numbers, (no matter which script one argues to be the original script of Moses and the Prophets, (for there is a debate over that)). However the word create does not mean "to make something from nothing" as I understand it, (it means something more like to cut down trees, (so as to make a house)), and this may be seen by the fact that the whole creation of the first chapter of Genesis is spoken Word. Therefore what I mean when I say create is that the things created came forth from the Father, (and that therefore answers to your question about mathematics possibly being part of the intrinsic nature of the Father). In this manner also the Word is not a created being but proceeded and proceeds from the Father, (as in most of the Christian creeds).

One simple gematria example:

The first two words spoken by Elohim:

Genesis 1:3 — יהי אור — "YAHI AUR — "LET THERE BE LIGHT" = Gematria 232

Compare:

The Word of YHWH — דבר־יהוה — "DABAR YHWH" = Gematria 232
My Firstborn — בכרי — "BECHORI" (Exodus 4:22) = Gematria 232

As for what I have said about the Hebrew alphabet being the first thing created, (coming forth from the "mind of the Father" and not "from nothing"), you can find examples of this understanding online. This one is similar, and though I do not agree with everything said it presents the basic idea from what appears to be a more Christian perspective:
http://hethathasanear.com/Aleph-Tav.html
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I know you are asking Clete this question but since his comment was directed to me I will answer for myself as to your question so that you might know where I am coming from also, (so as to clarify my position). I cannot speak for Clete but I suspect that he and I have a different understanding of the word create as to what it means in the most basic sense. One thing that seems to be so often overlooked in Hebrew cosmology, (which is so often touted in the flat-earth meme thanks to the work of Logos Bible Software and Dr. Michael Heiser, by way of that one particular image file that always gets posted), is the fact that the first thing believed to have been created by the Father, in the very beginning, is the Hebrew aleph-bet or alphabet.

This thinking is taken from the aleph-taw found right in the first statement from Genesis 1:1, and thus, it is a critical point that should not be overlooked in Hebrew cosmology: for if Elohim created the Hebrew alphabet first, before anything else, then here we have mathematics introduced right from the very beginning; for the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not just letters but also corresponding numbers, (no matter which script one argues to be the original script of Moses and the Prophets, (for there is a debate over that)). However the word create does not mean "to make something from nothing" as I understand it, (it means something more like to cut down trees, (so as to make a house)), and this may be seen by the fact that the whole creation of the first chapter of Genesis is spoken Word. Therefore what I mean when I say create is that the things created came forth from the Father, (and that therefore answers to your question about mathematics possibly being part of the intrinsic nature of the Father). In this manner also the Word is not a created being but proceeded and proceeds from the Father, (as in most of the Christian creeds).

One simple gematria example:

The first two words spoken by Elohim:

Genesis 1:3 — יהי אור — "YAHI AUR — "LET THERE BE LIGHT" = Gematria 232

Compare:

The Word of YHWH — דבר־יהוה — "DABAR YHWH" = Gematria 232
My Firstborn — בכרי — "BECHORI" (Exodus 4:22) = Gematria 232

As for what I have said about the Hebrew alphabet being the first thing created, (coming forth from the "mind of the Father" and not "from nothing"), you can find examples of this understanding online. This one is similar, and though I do not agree with everything said it presents the basic idea from what appears to be a more Christian perspective:
http://hethathasanear.com/Aleph-Tav.html

Would you call yourself an "open theist"?

--Dave
 

daqq

Well-known member
Would you call yourself an "open theist"?

--Dave

I have seen some talk about it, mostly around here, but have not actually studied the position or view sufficiently so as to be able to answer your question, (I do not know enough about that mindset).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Explain this. Did God create math or is math intrinsic to God's nature? I think this is a very good and important point.

--Dave

Mathematics is a formal form of language that is used to communicate information about (i.e. to describe) God's creation. God definitely did not create mathematics any more than He created any other form of sound reasoning. Math is an abstraction, not a thing.

The history of mathematics is pretty well documented. The Zero, for example, is not only a desperately needed concept for even modestly advanced mathematics, it is an idea that is probably less than 2000 years old and certainly far less than 3000. If God created math, it seems a tragic oversight that such an important creation failed to make it into the pages of Genesis (never mind the rest of the Bible) and it seems impossible to believe that such valuable knowledge would have been simply forgotten and any argument from that direction would be an argument from silence anyway.

In short, math is not a thing that needs created and there is no evidence that God invented it or that He personally passed it along to mankind. There is, on the other hand, all sorts of evidence that mankind (mostly unbelievers, by the way) figured out most of it's principles only several hundred years to as much as a millennia or two ago.

That is not to say that God has been ignorant of the concepts contained within mathematics and number theory. It's clear that God uses numbers throughout the scriptures, but that isn't at all the same thing as suggesting that God created mathematics in general (i.e. Multiplication, Division, Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, etc).

In fact, I don't see that mathematics is any different in principle to any other invention of man. Did God create the internal combustion engine? No, He clearly did not and yet, just as with mathematics, each of it's component parts is there for a reason and because of reason. Each lever or gauge or bolt or plus or minus or division sign are each an answer to the question, "Yes or No?", "Right or wrong?". They are the answers to questions both asked and answered in the minds of men.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I know you are asking Clete this question but since his comment was directed to me I will answer for myself as to your question so that you might know where I am coming from also, (so as to clarify my position). I cannot speak for Clete but I suspect that he and I have a different understanding of the word create as to what it means in the most basic sense. One thing that seems to be so often overlooked in Hebrew cosmology, (which is so often touted in the flat-earth meme thanks to the work of Logos Bible Software and Dr. Michael Heiser, by way of that one particular image file that always gets posted), is the fact that the first thing believed to have been created by the Father, in the very beginning, is the Hebrew aleph-bet or alphabet.

This thinking is taken from the aleph-taw found right in the first statement from Genesis 1:1, and thus, it is a critical point that should not be overlooked in Hebrew cosmology: for if Elohim created the Hebrew alphabet first, before anything else, then here we have mathematics introduced right from the very beginning; for the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not just letters but also corresponding numbers, (no matter which script one argues to be the original script of Moses and the Prophets, (for there is a debate over that)). However the word create does not mean "to make something from nothing" as I understand it, (it means something more like to cut down trees, (so as to make a house)), and this may be seen by the fact that the whole creation of the first chapter of Genesis is spoken Word. Therefore what I mean when I say create is that the things created came forth from the Father, (and that therefore answers to your question about mathematics possibly being part of the intrinsic nature of the Father). In this manner also the Word is not a created being but proceeded and proceeds from the Father, (as in most of the Christian creeds).

One simple gematria example:

The first two words spoken by Elohim:

Genesis 1:3 — יהי אור — "YAHI AUR — "LET THERE BE LIGHT" = Gematria 232

Compare:

The Word of YHWH — דבר־יהוה — "DABAR YHWH" = Gematria 232
My Firstborn — בכרי — "BECHORI" (Exodus 4:22) = Gematria 232

As for what I have said about the Hebrew alphabet being the first thing created, (coming forth from the "mind of the Father" and not "from nothing"), you can find examples of this understanding online. This one is similar, and though I do not agree with everything said it presents the basic idea from what appears to be a more Christian perspective:
http://hethathasanear.com/Aleph-Tav.html

This is all speculation - at best. It is certainly (admittedly) extra-biblical.

Further, while it is true that the Hebrews used their alphabet as numbers, this is not at all the same thing as doing mathematics. The Hebrews had no concept at all of the zero in the mathematical sense and as such could not have formulated any sort of formal mathematics with their number system. It was good for counting real objects and for creating calendars and that's just about it. Without the concept of zero and of negative numbers, most of algebra becomes extremely confusing and cumbersome, if not out right impossible.

Further still, just as creating a language is not the same as creating language, creating a number system where symbols represent not only sounds but quantities is not the same as creating mathematics.

Clete
 

daqq

Well-known member
This is all speculation - at best. It is certainly (admittedly) extra-biblical.

Further, while it is true that the Hebrews used their alphabet as numbers, this is not at all the same thing as doing mathematics. The Hebrews had no concept at all of the zero in the mathematical sense and as such could not have formulated any sort of formal mathematics with their number system. It was good for counting real objects and for creating calendars and that's just about it. Without the concept of zero and of negative numbers, most of algebra becomes extremely confusing and cumbersome, if not out right impossible.

Further still, just as creating a language is not the same as creating language, creating a number system where symbols represent not only sounds but quantities is not the same as creating mathematics.

Clete

I stand by everything I have said about it and I never mentioned formal mathematics. Look at the ten digits on your two hands: do you suppose ten did not exist until someone invented the symbol zero? Ten, (one and zero, 10), is simply a better way to write the same number. If you think there was no math involved in creation then more power to ya: but this is not an argument worth my time in pursuing.

PS ~ Moreover what I posted about gematria is not speculation but fact. As long as one does not venture into the sofits or final form letters and their supposed values, (because the sofits did not exist in the original language), all of the numerical values are very plain and simple. The first nine letters are the single digits one through nine. The next nine letters are the tens, (ten through ninety). The last four letters are the hundreds, (one hundred through four hundred). There is nothing mystical about them so long as you stay away from trying to invent mystical interpretations of the scripture that do not comply with the surface text, (the main reason why gematria has now received such a bad reputation). The Hebrew alphabet was used as the numbering system from its inception: there is nothing speculative about the numerical values given to the letters, and what I posted was nothing more than the addition of the numerical values of the letters in those phrases which I posted. There is no argument from anyone but the uninformed concerning the values of the simple phrases and words which I posted previously as a simple example.

geresh-table1.gif

Numeric Values of Hebrew Letters
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I stand by everything I have said about it and I never mentioned formal mathematics.
Why do people always do this?

When someone has demonstrated that you were wrong, why try to pretend that you said something other than what is still right there for all of us to read?

You said, "... Elohim created math and used it all over the place throughout His creation." to which I responded that God did not create math.

Further, God did not use math throughout the creation. Math is often used to describe His creation but that's altogether a different thing than to suggest that the force equal mass times acceleration because God wanted to used the formula F=ma to determine how force would relate to mass and acceleration. God did no such thing. God simply made the universe and it is what it is. We are the one's who figured out what the relationships are and we use math to express those ideas. You have no more evidence that God created math than you have that He created American English or any other form of human language (other than whatever language Adam spoke and DNA).

Look at the ten digits on your two hands: do you suppose ten did not exist until someone invented the symbol zero?
No, as a matter of fact, it didn't. If you think it did, it's because you think that a concept used to describe and thing is the thing itself - it isn't.

Color is a great example of this. The sky scattered light in exactly that same way as it does now long before anyone had the concept of blue in their mind - long before. There are people alive right now that cannot distinguish blue and green. And I'm not talking about a physiological disorder (i.e. color-blindness), I'm talking about the fact that the concept of blue does not exist in their mind at all and they see it as green (or black depending on the actual hue) and many times cannot distinguish the two colors in spite of having eyes that function perfectly. There is real evidence that the reason you draw a clear distinction between blue and green as well as blue and black has to do with the fact that they each have a name in your language and, as a result, your brain has been trained to distinguish them.

As for the number ten, there were entirely different symbols used to denote that quantity of things for centuries before the base-ten system we use today existed. In fact, the number 10 as we know it today didn't exist before the 5th or 6th century A.D. And it is not trivial distinction to point out the difference between the concept of ten and the fact that you have ten objects. One is mathematics, the other isn't. Additionally, the number "10" is an important distinction in the evolution of mathematics. The zero holding the ones place turning the 1 into a ten and doing so in a simple to understand and firmly consistent manner is precisely what makes mathematics possible beyond trading some number of apples for some quantity of grain or counting the number of days since the Sun stopped moving south and started moving north again, which is just about all number were good for prior to the invention of the zero less than a thousand years ago.

Ten, (one and zero, 10), is simply a better way to write the same number. If you think there was no math involved in creation then more power to ya: but this is not an argument worth my time in pursuing.
Yeah, right! If you had an ounce of confidence that you knew anything about what you're saying, God Himself would have to get involved to keep you from boring us all to death with the amount of time you'd spend on it.

PS ~ Moreover what I posted about gematria is not speculation but fact. As long as one does not venture into the sofits or final form letters and their supposed values, (because the sofits did not exist in the original language), all of the numerical values are very plain and simple. The first nine letters are the single digits one through nine. The next nine letters are the tens, (ten through ninety). The last four letters are the hundreds, (one hundred through four hundred). There is nothing mystical about them so long as you stay away from trying to invent mystical interpretations of the scripture that do not comply with the surface text, (the main reason why gematria has now received such a bad reputation). The Hebrew alphabet was used as the numbering system from its inception: there is nothing speculative about the numerical values given to the letters, and what I posted was nothing more than the addition of the numerical values of the letters in those phrases which I posted. There is no argument from anyone but the uninformed concerning the values of the simple phrases and words which I posted previously as a simple example.

geresh-table1.gif

Numeric Values of Hebrew Letters
The error you're making is called a hasty generalization fallacy. God's use of numbers is not at all the same thing as Him having "created math". You've jumped to an unsupported conclusion. No one denies that God not only uses numbers, He loves numbers! That doesn't mean He "created math". Math is not a created thing. It is an abstraction and does not exist outside a thinking mind. It is really just a form of language and the history of it is rather well known. Nearly all of what you think of when you think of mathematics, especially symbolic formulas (i.e. with variables and specific rules of how to deal with them), did not exist even a thousand years ago. The word "mathematics" (i.e. a word used to name the study of number and number theory) wasn't even coined until more than 500 years after Christ!


You may think it a trivial matter but I happen the think that it matters what we attribute to God and what we do not and that we ought to be careful to say what we mean when attributing things to God. You can do your theology any way you like but if you want to have a doctrine that is true, you might do well to add a bit of precision to your thought process as well as to the claims that you make, especially when using extra-biblical speculation for make such claims.

Clete
 

daqq

Well-known member
Why do people always do this?

When someone has demonstrated that you were wrong, why try to pretend that you said something other than what is still right there for all of us to read?

You said, "... Elohim created math and used it all over the place throughout His creation." to which I responded that God did not create math.

Why are you trying to change your stance? I stand by what I said and I did not say anything about what you are trying to force into my words by your own faulty interpretation of what I said. I never said anything about formal math, which you never said anything about either until your last post when you started backtracking from what you accused. I stand by what I said: you are the one back-pedaling. I did not say what you are accusing me of saying because you misinterpreted what I was saying in your own mind.

Further, God did not use math throughout the creation.

Further, yes, He did.

Math is often used to describe His creation but that's altogether a different thing than to suggest that the force equal mass times acceleration because God wanted to used the formula F=ma to determine how force would relate to mass and acceleration. God did no such thing.

So what? Who has said that He did?

God simply made the universe and it is what it is. We are the one's who figured out what the relationships are and we use math to express those ideas. You have no more evidence that God created math than you have that He created American English or any other form of human language (other than whatever language Adam spoke and DNA).

The Scripture is written in Hebrew: Adam spoke Hebrew and named all of the animals if you believe Gen2:19. Do you also not believe what Gen2:19 says? Where do you suppose Adam received the language and intellect to name every living creature? Here is a clue: look a little more diligently into Gen2:7.

No, as a matter of fact, it didn't. If you think it did, it's because you think that a concept used to describe and thing is the thing itself - it isn't.

Color is a great example of this. The sky scattered light in exactly that same way as it does now long before anyone had the concept of blue in their mind - long before. There are people alive right now that cannot distinguish blue and green. And I'm not talking about a physiological disorder (i.e. color-blindness), I'm talking about the fact that the concept of blue does not exist in their mind at all and they see it as green (or black depending on the actual hue) and many times cannot distinguish the two colors in spite of having eyes that function perfectly. There is real evidence that the reason you draw a clear distinction between blue and green as well as blue and black has to do with the fact that they each have a name in your language and, as a result, your brain has been trained to distinguish them.

As for the number ten, there were entirely different symbols used to denote that quantity of things for centuries before the base-ten system we use today existed. In fact, the number 10 as we know it today didn't exist before the 5th or 6th century A.D. And it is not trivial distinction to point out the difference between the concept of ten and the fact that you have ten objects. One is mathematics, the other isn't. Additionally, the number "10" is an important distinction in the evolution of mathematics. The zero holding the ones place turning the 1 into a ten and doing so in a simple to understand and firmly consistent manner is precisely what makes mathematics possible beyond trading some number of apples for some quantity of grain or counting the number of days since the Sun stopped moving south and started moving north again, which is just about all number were good for prior to the invention of the zero less than a thousand years ago.


Yeah, right! If you had an ounce of confidence that you knew anything about what you're saying, God Himself would have to get involved to keep you from boring us all to death with the amount of time you'd spend on it.


The error you're making is called a hasty generalization fallacy. God's use of numbers is not at all the same thing as Him having "created math". You've jumped to an unsupported conclusion. No one denies that God not only uses numbers, He loves numbers! That doesn't mean He "created math". Math is not a created thing. It is an abstraction and does not exist outside a thinking mind. It is really just a form of language and the history of it is rather well known. Nearly all of what you think of when you think of mathematics, especially symbolic formulas (i.e. with variables and specific rules of how to deal with them), did not exist even a thousand years ago. The word "mathematics" (i.e. a word used to name the study of number and number theory) wasn't even coined until more than 500 years after Christ!


You may think it a trivial matter but I happen the think that it matters what we attribute to God and what we do not and that we ought to be careful to say what we mean when attributing things to God. You can do your theology any way you like but if you want to have a doctrine that is true, you might do well to add a bit of precision to your thought process as well as to the claims that you make, especially when using extra-biblical speculation for make such claims.

Clete

:blabla::blabla::blabla:

Have a nice life.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
This movie/documentary is one of the best I've seen lately. It is NOT about flat earth although it is if you can imagine. While watching and listening think of a flat immovable earth and you'll see. The findings in recent years destroy the Copernican model and annihilate the heliocentric garbage. You may have to click on the video 2 or 3 times to play. @jsanford108 told me about it. You can buy, rent or borrow it, filmed in 2014 I think.

Galileo even admitted late in his life that the EARTH DOES NOT MOVE. They removed his name from the paper and hid that for 500 years. This is a fascinating and very educational film and a MUST watch for anyone that takes life seriously and has a desire to KNOW WHAT WE LIVE IN. This movie is NOT available on youtube and must be bought. I just watched it for free here on this this link below.

This Video Is Purely Scientific
https://123moviesfree.watch/watch/the-principle/full-movie-free-putlocker.html
 
Last edited:

daqq

Well-known member
For the record this is what I asked Dave about his video:

If indeed the sun circles above the earth, as in the video you have posted, then please explain how the hours of the day remain the same as the sun works its way over the two different Tropics and the Equator throughout the year as shown in the video. If what the video presents were indeed true then the sun would need to speed up in order to maintain a twenty-four hour day as it widens its circuit from the Tropic of Cancer to the Equator, and then on to the Tropic of Capricorn: for if the sun did not speed up then it would no doubt take more than twenty-four hours to make its circuit as it progresses further out away from the Tropic of Cancer as shown in your video. And the further it moves away from the Tropic of Cancer the faster it needs to make its daily circuit so as to maintain a twenty-four hour day because it is clearly traveling much more distance in the circumference of the circle it is traversing or orbiting.

Or, perhaps I can say the same thing a little differently: when the sun is making its smallest circuit, above the Tropic of Cancer, why is the day not shorter than when it is over the Equator? which would be even shorter than when it is over the Tropic of Capricorn? Does the sun slow down in its orbit above the surface of the supposed flat earth, as it makes its way from the Tropic of Capricorn back to the Equator and then on to the Tropic of Cancer? Is the sun not traveling a much shorter distance when it is over the Tropic of Cancer as compared to when it is over the Tropic of Capricorn according to how it is shown in your video? According to the very simple geometry and imagery presented in your video the sun would need to slow down as it returns to the Tropic of Cancer and begin speeding back up as it makes it way back toward the Equator and on to the Tropic of Capricorn.

What is the mechanism that causes the sun to speed up as it traverses further away from the Tropic of Cancer in its daily orbit? and which also apparently causes the sun to slow back down at the same rate as it returns from the Tropic of Capricorn back to its tightest orbital position over the Tropic of Cancer?

Moreover, if 1-M-1-S is correct, (or perhaps I should say, his friend, Chippy the chipmunk), then the Tropic of Capricorn might actually be all the way out near the supposed ice wall. If that is the case then how much faster does the sun need to speed up when it is all the way out over the ice wall in its orbit? Moreover, if Chippy and 1-M-1-S are correct about the location of the Tropic of Capricorn: how is possible that the sun melts ice every where else when it is directly overhead but not when it is out traversing over the ice wall? :)

For the record this was a response from 1-M-1-S that followed my comments:

Daqq has already asked how does God keep the sun and moon up there.:think:

For the record this was my response to 1-M-1-S after he misrepresented my comments:

No, I did not ask that, and your comments are yet another mischaracterization and misrepresentation of statements and questions I have put forward. I asked Dave for a mechanism or cause or at least some reasoning to support the motions of the sun which were presented in a video he posted. You could say that the reason I asked for a mechanism is because my Elohim created math and used it all over the place throughout His creation. My Elohim does not despise math or geometry: He created it, He invented it, He used it all over His creation and continues to use it for His purposes.

There are reasons for why we believe and understand the earth to be a globe spinning on an axis of rotation that is tilted at 23.5 degrees. The mechanisms are generally classified as celestial mechanics. Those are indeed inventions, constructs, and postulations of man but all those things are based on the fundamental foundational math which Elohim used throughout His creation. I have not said what Clete is accusing me of saying: Clete has misunderstood the whole point of my comments to 1-M-1-S. There are reasons, and mathematics, and algebra, and geometry, and trigonometry, and celestial mechanics for why the earth is believed to be a sphere. There are no such mechanisms to show that Dave's, PJ's, and 1-M-1-S's flat earth with a sun orbiting overhead can even be possible.

The response from 1-M-1-S appears to be implying that "God does it and I do not need to explain it", and this appears to be what he meant when he tried to say that I had asked how God does it? I asked no such thing and yet I get the attack? Are you a closet flat-earther too, Clete? :crackup:
 

Sherman

Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] The posts would be more interesting if you posted why the FE model works for you. These posts equating the Globe theory with gnosticism sit right on the edge of being 'outlandish'. You say out of one side of your mouth, that whether someone is a 'flatty' or a 'glober' doesn't effect what kind of Christian they are, and yet you post stuff like this. I realize you are passionate, but don't let your passion make you into a burr that gets up people's noses.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
@patrick jane The posts would be more interesting if you posted why the FE model works for you. These posts equating the Globe theory with gnosticism sit right on the edge of being 'outlandish'. You say out of one side of your mouth, that whether someone is a 'flatty' or a 'glober' doesn't effect what kind of Christian they are, and yet you post stuff like this. I realize you are passionate, but don't let your passion make you into a burr that gets up people's noses.
Can I post those in one of my threads and then I won't post them hear. The Mason thing and the gnostic or occult stuff is real and permeating every aspect of our lives.

Anyone that's watched one or two of these videos (most from one channel, a man named Will, not an expert, pastor or scientist but he EXPOSES the bad "isms" of the world and preaches Christ crucified. The titles and images or for effect and likely for click bait but there are very substantial points made, more Biblical than anything else and he rarely speaks of flat earth, it's just in his titles.). I'm not calling people that believe in a globe a mason or a liar or a bad evil person. Only in high places of control and influence. The tit'es are outlandish but the videos are totally sane and rational.

Thanks, you just told me you'd let me know about using another thread I already started. I won't be talking about this the rest of my life on here. :chuckle:
 
Top