Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

[GaryA]

C’mon @GaryA, let me introduce you to my flight school instructors. If you can convince them that the earth is flat you’re a wizard.

I am really not in the business of trying to convince people that the earth is flat - if they deliberately choose to "live in the MATRIX", I cannot help them - and, it only wastes my time.

I am only interested in helping people better understand the Flat Earth model if-and-when they have "swallowed their pride" and show me that they are truly interested in learning something - as opposed to just wanting to mock, etc. - like most on here seem to be inclined to do in FE threads.

And, it definitely makes the most sense to begin a discussion on Flat Earth by looking at what the scriptures say on the subject - which is obviously the purpose of this thread.

 

[Gideon300]

Having been involved with electronics most of my life, I also know something about radio and radar. I believe some of what you say here is true; however, I think a few things are not quite as correct as much as you might like to think. (Because of what you were taught and not taught - you were taught on a need-to-know basis - they taught you what they wanted you to know - remember this!)

First, in every area of electronics - power is in fact significant - but, very much so in the RF arena - and, it can certainly affect the efficiency of signal transmission over any sufficient distance.

The reason for the height is not earth curvature. The real reason has to do with the fact that higher frequency waves have smaller wavelengths - which are more easy to block or disrupt by small things such as a drop of water. Antennas are mounted higher up to reduce the "ground clutter" encountered down closer to the water level. In your illustration, radar cannot detect low-flying cruise missiles because they "get lost" in the "ground clutter" of water droplets, etc. in the air above water level due to water turbulence from waves, etc. - providing a "cover" for the missiles - because microwaves may be absorbed and blocked by the water - and never get far enough to bounce off of anything and return to be picked up by the receiver.

Also, since microwaves can "cook" flesh and cause cancer - antennas are mounted higher up to keep humans well away from the transmitted waves.

Since you know something about electronics, you may be able to get your head around Australia's JORN technology.

https://www.petersonschriever.space...e/1059651/jindalee-operational-radar-network/

It was developed over a period of decades to detect objects over the horizon. You know, the horizon that FE people do not believe exists. Microwaves are limited in power because its pointless, not just because they can be dangerous. My 5 watt 2-way has a range up to 17 km. But that assumes line of sight. My ship had a microwave jammer. It was 3 watts. That's because anything more was pointless.

Militaries employ AWACS aircraft to achieve early warning of possible threats. That's because most ground based radars are unable to "see" over the horizon. Of course, at some frequencies (below 3Mhz) there is a ground wave. At those frequencies, the earth acts as a conductor. So the wave will track the curvature of the earth.

 

[Gideon300]

In the Flat Earth model, Australia is on the same 'plane' as/with every other continent/country.

Except it's not. This video includes a detailed explanation of Australia's JORN system. You can find it from about 7.05 in

 

[Caan]

So, you flat earthers believe,

The I.S.S. is fake.
Satellites are fake.
Apollo Moon Landings are fake.
Thousands of Planet pictures, all fake.
Planets are round EXCEPT EARTH.
N.A.S.A., E.S.A., ROSCOSMOS., C.N.E.S., J.A.X.A., C.N.S.A.,
these agencies and data are hoaxes also? (AND 20-30 more).

Seriously??

Seriously.

It is all part of a "grand illusion" for the purpose of keeping the world population "in the MATRIX" - to keep it in the dark concerning the true nature of our reality. However, it may be clearly seen and understood by any who is willing to unbrainwash themselves - "escape the MATRIX" - and wake up to the truth about our world.

A 'planet' is a "wandering star" according to scripture. None of the "planets" is actually a "planet" in the sense that we have all been taught since birth.

I certainly note your position , however more from a selfish standpoint.
I am being educated on the spirit of deception & its tactics ...

 

[Susanna]

I certainly note your position , however more from a selfish standpoint.
I am being educated on the spirit of deception & its tactics ...

It’s no point in debating with FE people.

 

[Dino246]

Metaphor is defined as "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them." So please explain how "the stars shall fall from heaven" is a metaphor, and what is it a metaphor for? And are the sun, moon, and "the powers of the heavens" that "shall be shaken" also metaphors? And what are they metaphors for?

Start with Genesis 37:9-11.

 

[Caan]

It’s no point in debating with FE people.

WIth Respects ,
I am observing responses not debating.

 

[Romans34]

Metaphor is defined as "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them." So please explain how "the stars shall fall from heaven" is a metaphor, and what is it a metaphor for? And are the sun, moon, and "the powers of the heavens" that "shall be shaken" also metaphors? And what are they metaphors for?

Start with Genesis 37:9-11.

I understand sun, moon, and stars representing Joseph's family in Genesis 37 because the context says it was a dream. The context of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 are not the same. Do you believe that EVERY place the sun, moon, and stars are mentioned, they are metaphors? He created them (and they aren't metaphors in Genesis 1), and the same sun shall be darkened (black as sackcloth of hair), the same moon shall not give her light (become as blood), and those same stars "shall fall from heaven" (Matthew 24:29; Revelation 6:12-13). So please explain how a metaphor in Genesis 37 can be imposed upon the prophetic utterances of Jesus in Matthew 42 and Revelation 6.

P.S. You still have not answered the question as to what they are metaphors for. The context of Genesis 37:9-11 tells they are metaphors and what they are metaphors for.

 

[GaryA]

I certainly note your position , however more from a selfish standpoint.
I am being educated on the spirit of deception & its tactics ...

In that case, a real education awaits you concerning the truth about all of the things you listed in post #689 - if you are willing to do the research...

 

[GaryA]

Except it's not.

Except it is - and, you cannot deny it - it exists - it is defined by the Flat Earth model - period - live with it - deal with it.

You cannot properly discuss any model that you deny even exists - because, you MUST discuss a particular model from WITHIN the model definition.

You CANNOT discuss the Ball Earth model from a Flat Earth perspective.

You CANNOT discuss the Flat Earth model from a Ball Earth perspective.

You can discuss the Ball Earth model from the Ball Earth perspective.

You can discuss the Flat Earth model from the Flat Earth perspective.

In neither case MUST you believe what the model suggests; however, you MUST discuss each from within its own framework.

In any case - to discuss a particular model does not mean you believe it - just that you are able to think about that model in your mind.

If you are going to deny that a model/theory/etc. can even exist - you are a "silly person" who needs to just stay out of these types of discussions.

~

I will try to find time to look at the information in posts #702 and #703 this week - thank you for posting it.

 

[GaryA]

Start with Genesis 37:9-11.

I understand sun, moon, and stars representing Joseph's family in Genesis 37 because the context says it was a dream.

Oh, wow - Joseph's family is gonna fall from heaven to the earth - hey, I never looked at it that way before...

 

[Dino246]

I understand sun, moon, and stars representing Joseph's family in Genesis 37 because the context says it was a dream. The context of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 are not the same. Do you believe that EVERY place the sun, moon, and stars are mentioned, they are metaphors? He created them (and they aren't metaphors in Genesis 1), and the same sun shall be darkened (black as sackcloth of hair), the same moon shall not give her light (become as blood), and those same stars "shall fall from heaven" (Matthew 24:29; Revelation 6:12-13). So please explain how a metaphor in Genesis 37 can be imposed upon the prophetic utterances of Jesus in Matthew 42 and Revelation 6.

P.S. You still have not answered the question as to what they are metaphors for. The context of Genesis 37:9-11 tells they are metaphors and what they are metaphors for.

Yes... but there are other metaphors used in Scripture where the context does not clearly explain that they are metaphors nor what they represent. My point is simple: don't assume that the text is literal. Consider what "sun, moon, and stars" may represent. Consider what fell soon after John's prophecy (as it was written prior to 70 AD).

 

[Romans34]

Yes... but there are other metaphors used in Scripture where the context does not clearly explain that they are metaphors nor what they represent.

But Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:13 are NOT such a case. "Sun, Moon, and Stars" represent "Sun, Moon, and Stars".

My point is simple: don't assume that the text is literal.

I disagree. The text should be taken literal UNLESS it doesn't make sense to take it literal.

Consider what fell soon after John's prophecy (as it was written prior to 70 AD).

It wasn't sun, moon, and stars.

 

[Gideon300]

Except it is - and, you cannot deny it - it exists - it is defined by the Flat Earth model - period - live with it - deal with it.

You cannot properly discuss any model that you deny even exists - because, you MUST discuss a particular model from WITHIN the model definition.

You CANNOT discuss the Ball Earth model from a Flat Earth perspective.

You CANNOT discuss the Flat Earth model from a Ball Earth perspective.

You can discuss the Ball Earth model from the Ball Earth perspective.

You can discuss the Flat Earth model from the Flat Earth perspective.

In neither case MUST you believe what the model suggests; however, you MUST discuss each from within its own framework.

In any case - to discuss a particular model does not mean you believe it - just that you are able to think about that model in your mind.

If you are going to deny that a model/theory/etc. can even exist - you are a "silly person" who needs to just stay out of these types of discussions.

~

I will try to find time to look at the information in posts #702 and #703 this week - thank you for posting it.

FE is a theory that has been debunked so comprehensively that it no longer qualifies as a theory.

Definition of theory: "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world".

Well substantiated? No way. The opposite. Thoroughly debunked.

 

[Dino246]

But Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:13 are NOT such a case. "Sun, Moon, and Stars" represent "Sun, Moon, and Stars".

So you say.

It wasn't sun, moon, and stars.

Your certainty blinds you.

 

[GaryA]

Consider what "sun, moon, and stars" may represent.

What do you believe they represent?

 

[GaryA]

Yes... but there are other metaphors used in Scripture where the context does not clearly explain that they are metaphors nor what they represent.

Would you care to share one such case and explain how you know there is a metaphor present without any indication from the passage where it is found?

 

[GaryA]

My point is simple: don't assume that the text is literal.

Anyone who attempts to interpret scripture with a base-level "default" attitude-and-intent to look for any other meaning than what it says outright is not going to have much success at arriving at the proper interpretation.

If something is not literal - scripture will indicate it. Otherwise, if no indication is given, it must be assumed to be lteral.

 

[GaryA]

Consider what fell soon after John's prophecy (as it was written prior to 70 AD).

Assuming you are referring to Revelation - I am glad you realize and understand that it was written before 70 A.D.

 

[GaryA]

Consider what fell soon after John's prophecy (as it was written prior to 70 AD).

What fell...?

What in particular are you thinking about and referring to?