The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I am talking the matter over with Knight. I'll let you know the outcome. We do want TOL to have a variety of topics. We don't want single topics taking over the forum. With the volume with which you post that could happen.
Since we're always looking for a better flat earth model, I found two images I haven't posted before and it's what I imagined. The depictions show earth as we know it in the center, the little green and blue spots, surrounded by ice. We possibly have never been to the "edge" so to speak because of distance, fuel capacity, wind and weather, temps, communications and maybe other factors.
The frozen uncharted land could extend a thousand or more thousands of miles. The whole earth could also form a square like the borders of the images are. This would account for the Four Corners of the earth. We flatters are still in need of a legitimate model of the sun and moon movement above the earth.
[h=3]10 Craziest Scientific Theories - Listverse[/h]
The frozen uncharted land could extend a thousand or more thousands of miles. The whole earth could also form a square like the borders of the images are. This would account for the Four Corners of the earth. We flatters are still in need of a legitimate model of the sun and moon movement above the earth.
[h=3]10 Craziest Scientific Theories - Listverse[/h]
Last edited:
To paraphrase the psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers, that line contains enough material for an entire conference.
Stuart
You are a lunatic.
Liar. You said it, I challanged it, you defended it, I proved you wrong THEN you started talking about how you never said it.
THE THREAD IS ALL STILL HERE FOR EVERYONE TO READ MORON!
I haven't backtracked at all, freak.
You said God created math, I challenged it, you defended it, I proved you wrong THEN you started talking about how you never said it.
THE THREAD IS ALL STILL HERE FOR EVERYONE TO READ MORON!
Repeating yourself doesn't count as a rebuttal, idiot. The reason is because all I have to do to sit you right back in your chair is to repeat myself too!
You said it, I challanged it, you defended it, I proved you wrong THEN you started talking about how you never said it.
THE THREAD IS ALL STILL HERE FOR EVERYONE TO READ MORON!
See how that works!
I have quoted you directly. I then responded to your own defense of my challenge to your claim that God created math. It wasn't until after I spent a good deal of time explaining the history of math and number theory and the fact that next to none of it existed before 1500 years ago that all of a sudden, you never said it.
I frankly don't care what you meant. You said that God created math, which He flat out did not do. Your inability to articulate yourself is not my problem.
Saying it doesn't make it so, daqq.
You did!
If that is not is not a good example of what you meant by God used math throughout the creation then please, by all means, give us an example.
Prediction: You won't do it because anything you give as an example will be essentially identical to the example I used.
Gen2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Not a word in there about Adam speaking Hebrew.
Translation: I have no rebuttal and my brain is on fire!
And now we know why daqq is on my ignore list. What a waste of time.
Clete
I'll let someone else deal with those idiotic images.
Try thinking for once, PJ.
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/html-3/apollo11mission.htm
Flat earth - Southern stars rotation explained
Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are key to Southern Star Rotation Flat Earth perspective.
Perspective and distance of low and small sun and stars explains what we see across the flat earth. Without a proper model of perspective and distance on the flat earth the globe model does indeed debunk the flat earth model but not with a proper model of flat earth.
I will continue to explore both models further. This video is one that explains flat earth model the best that I have seen so far. Perhaps it's flawed but it is one that can be used to compare globe model with for my unbiased purposes.
:salute: --Dave
Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are key to Southern Star Rotation Flat Earth perspective.
Perspective and distance of low and small sun and stars explains what we see across the flat earth. Without a proper model of perspective and distance on the flat earth the globe model does indeed debunk the flat earth model but not with a proper model of flat earth.
I will continue to explore both models further. This video is one that explains flat earth model the best that I have seen so far. Perhaps it's flawed but it is one that can be used to compare globe model with for my unbiased purposes.
:salute: --Dave
The sun sets just fine on flat earth - The math's are wrong perspective
This video is for all those who say, the sun will be visible 24/7 on a flat earth and won't make it any closer than 20 to 30 degrees above the horizon.
Here is an answer from flat earth on globe earth argument.
--Dave
This video is for all those who say, the sun will be visible 24/7 on a flat earth and won't make it any closer than 20 to 30 degrees above the horizon.
Here is an answer from flat earth on globe earth argument.
--Dave
You are the liar and lunatic:
You stated that God did not create math, period, and you said nothing about formal mathematics or any of the constructs of man. You're no better off than the flat-earthers, atheists, or anyone else you are always bashing. You're a pompous ignoramus who actually does not believe in an all-powerful all knowing God.
Because He did not.
Did God create darkness? OR did darkness come into existence by God creating light?
In the same way, "math" is a result of God creating the universe.
And you didn't think that "math" includes formal mathematics, etc?
Come on, Daqq. Use your head a bit.
Ad hominem attacks don't help your case, Daqq, nor does making straw men.
I watched this video and I am wondering why the presenter made such a big deal about perspective but completely ignored the effect that perspective would have on the size of the sun as it approaches the vanishing point. Perspective says the sun gets smaller. But everytime I watch the sun set, through appropriate safety glass, the sun never gets smaller. Why doesn't the sun obey the "laws" of perspective?
Tell your pal Clete to stop the ad-hominem attacks and see if he is capable. Why do you suppose I asked him before to put me back on ignore? Yet here again he brags about how I am on his ignore list and yet here he is attacking me for something he misunderstood. He would have been better off to leave me on ignore because every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it and it gets shown to him. Clete apparently believes that God wants nothing to do with His own creation: does that sound proper to you too? How can that be true of a perfect and loving heavenly Father? How can a perfect loving Father not be active in His own creation? That is not a perfect Father but a perversion because such a Father would be terribly lacking in love: but God is love, and He is clearly active within His creation and among His people throughout the Torah. Is this what you guys call Open Theism? Which Dave asked me about? Are you and Clete Open Theists? (if so, there is your answer, Dave, no, I want nothing to do with such foolishness).
Clete is the one who pressed the issue and he is the one who started back pedaling when he realized that he had goofed: he never said anything about formal mathematics until after he realized his error. That is not my fault. Perhaps he should have left me on ignore. He said what he said, and I did not say anything about the buffoonery until after he clarified himself: now that he has clarified his stance his statement is indeed the buffoonery which it first appeared to be. His mindset concerning the Creator appears to be nothing more than his own reflection-projection onto God because it has nothing to do with what is written in the scripture, (especially the Torah).
Clete apparently is not even willing to admit that the language of the scripture comes from above. We have multiple statements and claims from the scripture that refute what Clete apparently believes on that matter. We have the Messenger Gabriel coming to Daniel, from chapter eight to chapter twelve of that book, and some places where even multiple messengers are speaking. What language do you suppose they spoke which Daniel recorded in those Hebrew portions of the book of Daniel? In 1Cor13:1 we have Paul speaking of the tongues of men and that of the Messenger-Angels: what tongue do you suppose is the language of the Messengers? Do you think Paul is speaking of gibberish like the Pentecostals believe? We have the testimony of Stephen stating that the Torah was given by/at/to the disposition of the Messenger-Angels:
Acts 7:52-53 KJV
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
We have the same testimony from Paul:
Galatians 3:19 KJV
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
We have Paul stating that Messiah spoke to him in Hebrew after the resurrection:
Acts 26:14 KJV
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
As I strongly suggested already to Clete, (which he apparently ignored), Elohim breathed this holy tongue into the first man Adam when Elohim created him from dust of the adamah, in Gen2:7, just as it is written. Ignoring these things only means that you ignore what the scripture says in favor of your own man-made construct which apparently seeks to exclude the Father from an active and loving role in His own creation. His handiwork is all over His creation.
Romans 1:18-22 KJV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Colossians 1:16-17 KJV -
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Wouldn't all things include maths?
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Wouldn't all things include maths?
As for myself, yes, I believe so: but the creation is spoken-Word, that is, Hebrew.
But perhaps Clete believes the Epic of Gilgamesh is just as valid. :idunno:
1 Kings 8:12 KJV
(12) Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
Not to mention we have scripture specifically saying GOD creates darkness.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV
(7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The word for "create" is the same used in Genesis 1.
Wouldn't this be like saying that GOD did not use math when He created the universe, since it could not exist until after creation?
In mathematics, how does one differentiate between a singular 1 and a plural 1 when looking at an equation?
I was under the impression that when you add 1 to another 1, you get 2.
But scripture reveals that when you add 1 to another 1, you get 1.
Doesn't the language of mathematics miss the mark on that one?
Just wondering.
Greg Jennings
New member
Well that sounds to me like God creates light and then darkness results. It doesn't make much sense to have darkness without light. Everything would be dark. Everything would be the same.
I mean, darkness is simply the absence of light, after all
If nothing existed before God created everything, do terms like "light" and "dark" have any meaning when there is nothing?
Scripture says GOD made both.
Genesis 1 states GOD created heaven and earth.
And there was darkness.
Light was not created until after there was darkness.
There was created darkness before there was created light.
And if light expels all darkness, then how can GOD (who is light) dwell in darkness?
And, not to get too far off thread topic ...... but there may be different types of darkness (just as there are different types of light - ie. not all light is visible).
Exodus 10:21 KJV
(21) And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.
This seems to be more than just a visual sensory.
:think:
Bara also means to cut down, like cutting down trees to build a house, (as I tried to explain earlier to someone else in this line of conversation). "I form [yatsar] the light, and cut down [bara] darkness: I make peace, and cut down [bara] evil", "Drop down, O heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open up, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together: I YHWH have cut-down-created it", moreover from the same passage, "I have made the earth, and cut down [bara] Adam upon it: I Myself, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded: I raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build My city, and he shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, says YHWH Tsabaoth." And of course, "IN ROSHIYTH [the Federal Head, that is in the Greek text, "IN ARCHE", (εν αρχη, as in John 1:1)] Elohim cut down [bara] Aleph-Taw-> the heavens and the earth: and the earth was desolated, and a ruinous void..."
The same word bara is used by Joshua in the following passage and in this context there is no other way to understand it:
Joshua 17:15-18 KJV
15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down [bara] for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.
16 And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.
17 And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only:
18 But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: [bara] and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
This can get mind-boggling!
I mean, it would make just as much sense to say it doesn't make much sense to have light without darkness.
What would you need a light for if there was no darkness?
(That last question can have a lot of theological points.)
- Status