Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[Dino246]

Peace Brother,

I do not declare my interpretation to be the only valid one.

Please allow me to suggest the following guidelines for Revelation set forth by our LORD & Savior Jesus Christ.

#1 God only speaks Truth to us =
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

#2 His Truth is not subjective nor does it vary =
Can anyone teach knowledge to God - Job 21
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

#3 God cannot lie =
Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie

#4 "no lie comes from the Truth" = 1 John 2:21

#5 Become a child before Him = Matt 18:3

None of which lends any weight to your misinterpretation of the thread-relevant passages.

As for your claim, "His Truth is not subjective", you need have an appointment...

Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee. - 1 Kings 17:9

You might want to rethink your understanding of absolute, relative, and subjective truth; yours is flawed.

 

[John146]

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.

From the same Psalm. They being "the heavens."

And, God has pitched a tent for the sun.

Tell me that you do not take that literally? And how do you read this?

Nothing is deprived of its warmth. It being the sun.

Nothing in all creation, or nothing on earth?

The sun is being compared to the bridegroom when he comes. He will make a circuit about the earth just as the sun does.

 

[John146]

A passage simply needs to have a correct context. In some cases, there are multiple possible contexts.

"His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." - Psalm 19:6 KJV

I would argue that we need to accept some passages from man's perspective. An example of this is the crucifixion accounts and the colour of Jesus' robe.

The passages that go against a certain theology, those passages aren't truth but man's perspective? I'm not buying that. Where in the bible does it teach this? Man's perspective and not God's truth?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Everybody has a conscience.
Some people's conscience can be "seared as with a hot iron".
Some people experience a change in their conscience especially as they get older = 'death bed confessions'.

Mr. Kubrick's conscience was beginning to privately reveal, leak out, to the world that the moon landing was a hoax.

Just days later he died - get it.

I get that you are a victim of internet hoaxes.

20 minutes research would have shown you that Kubrick's family denies the confession.
And the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be Kubrick.
There never was any such ‘confession’ because Kubrick had nothing to do with the Apollo missions.

A two-hour film, said to be raw footage of an interview with Kubrick, in March 1999, emerged days after NASA
announced it had found the crash site on the moon of part of the Apollo 16 Mission rocket.

How convenient.

A statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: "The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed
by T.Patrick Murray, the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.”

No more rabbit holes David. Wise up.

 

[DavidTree]

I get that you are a victim of internet hoaxes.

20 minutes research would have shown you that Kubrick's family denies the confession.
And the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be Kubrick.
There never was any such ‘confession’ because Kubrick had nothing to do with the Apollo missions.

A two-hour film, said to be raw footage of an interview with Kubrick, in March 1999, emerged days after NASA
announced it had found the crash site on the moon of part of the Apollo 16 Mission rocket.

How convenient.

A statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: "The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed
by T.Patrick Murray, the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.”

No more rabbit holes David. Wise up.

And you believe those whose job/order is to counter any leak at any time of this magnitude.

Many a whistleblower and their families have recanted when the proper authorities have spoken to them.

How many 'suicides' of doctors, nurses and scientists who examined the Covid vaxx and what took place in hospitals and elsewhere.

https://www.winterwatch.net/2021/12/proof-that-the-pandemic-was-planned-with-a-purpose/

Wise UP to Truth

 

[DavidTree]

None of which lends any weight to your misinterpretation of the thread-relevant passages.

As for your claim, "His Truth is not subjective", you need have an appointment...

Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee. - 1 Kings 17:9

You might want to rethink your understanding of absolute, relative, and subjective truth; yours is flawed.

Can anyone teach knowledge to God - Job 21
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. = John ch1

Do you believe this to be absolutely true?

 

[Dino246]

Can anyone teach knowledge to God - Job 21
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. = John ch1

Do you believe this to be absolutely true?

Explain how the sun can appear to the SOUTHEAST of the Sydney Opera House in your flat Earth, and then I will answer your question.

 

[Jocund]

The passages that go against a certain theology, those passages aren't truth but man's perspective?

1) An interpretation of a passage is not the passage itself.

2) If your interpretation of a passage creates a contradiction, it is not necessarily the case that the passage itself creates one. You must explore all possible meanings of a passage in order to definitively determine that kind of contradiction, including the possibility that a description in question is metaphoric rather than exclusively literal.

3) Man's perspective and truth are not polar opposite things.

I'm not buying that. Where in the bible does it teach this? Man's perspective and not God's truth?

Was Jesus' robe red or purple? How does your exegesis deal with the differing description?

 

[Dino246]

Was Jesus' robe red or purple? How does your exegesis deal with the differing description?

To support your question...

Matthew 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

 

[oyster67]

Color is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[GaryA]

I understand your model, but it has been refuted. Please, demonstrate your intelligence by abandoning it.

I understand your model, but it has been refuted. Please, demonstrate your intelligence by abandoning it.

The video in post #983 utterly refutes the Ball Earth model.

"no two ways about it"

 

[GaryA]

I'm not trying to understand fiction. Much less a conspicuous internet hoax like FE.

So - your position in this discussion is to simply rail at something you know nothing about (and refuse to learn)...???

SMH

 

[GaryA]

View attachment 244836

Please don't post stuff like this...

(Where in the world did you get this?)

The first sentence (flat-earth part) is true.

The second sentence (ball-earth part) is not true.

(according to the Ball Earth model)

The moment you say 'If the Earth were a Globe' - the Ball Earth model becomes the context for whatever is then stated.

In the Ball Earth model, the magnetic lines of force are going to be aligned in the north-south direction.

It would have been better if only the image - by itself - were posted... (What the image is illustrating is correct.)

"Food for thought..." / "Just being honest..."

 

[Moses_Young]

Please don't post stuff like this...

(Where in the world did you get this?)

The first sentence (flat-earth part) is true.

The second sentence (ball-earth part) is not true.

(according to the Ball Earth model)

The moment you say 'If the Earth were a Globe' - the Ball Earth model becomes the context for whatever is then stated.

In the Ball Earth model, the magnetic lines of force are going to be aligned in the north-south direction.

It would have been better if only the image - by itself - were posted... (What the image is illustrating is correct.)

"Food for thought..." / "Just being honest..."

Sorry friend. I posted for the image, not the text. The image was really the part that was not understood.

I already trimmed part from the text, as it clearly was in error. I should have just trimmed all of it.

I think what it was trying to say is that if Earth were a ball, in the Northern Hemisphere, the compass would point north (to the North pole). In the Southern Hemisphere, it would point south (to the South pole). By default, the East/West on the compass would then show East/West at the equator.

 

[Dino246]

I understand your model, but it has been refuted. Please, demonstrate your intelligence by abandoning it.

The video in post #983 utterly refutes the Ball Earth model.

"no two ways about it"

I call HOGWASH.

I wasn't one minute into the video when the logical fallacies started showing up. The argument about flora and fauna is based on supposition. The argument about relative ice cover ignores the cumulative effect of albedo and proximal ocean masses. The argument about length of days at equal points South or North bears further investigation, but in no way "utterly refutes" the Ball Earth model.

Now... I have examined your evidence. It's time for you to respond to mine.

 

[DavidTree]

1) An interpretation of a passage is not the passage itself.

2) If your interpretation of a passage creates a contradiction, it is not necessarily the case that the passage itself creates one. You must explore all possible meanings of a passage in order to definitively determine that kind of contradiction, including the possibility that a description in question is metaphoric rather than exclusively literal.

3) Man's perspective and truth are not polar opposite things.



Was Jesus' robe red or purple? How does your exegesis deal with the differing description?

a.) Did you ever consider that they placed two separate robes on Him?

b.) Did you ever consider that they first placed a scarlet robe then possibly removed the scarlet for a more illustrious purple robe since the soldiers knew that He was called the King of the Jews?

c.) scarlet/red and purple are colors with significant meaning in the Scripture and at that time in history.

d.) Peace to everyone who is spinning thru space on a water ball that denies the Law of Physics

e.) d.) is brotherly humor just as i enjoy puns made my way - Peace

 

[DavidTree]

Color is in the eye of the beholder.

i love the colors of Fall on the trees

 

[tourist]

Color is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, there are those that are color blind.

 

[tourist]

i love the colors of Fall on the trees

Me too. Wife and I took a drive a couple weeks ago during peak here in NE Tennessee.

 

[GaryA]

I call HOGWASH.

I wasn't one minute into the video when the logical fallacies started showing up. The argument about flora and fauna is based on supposition. The argument about relative ice cover ignores the cumulative effect of albedo and proximal ocean masses. The argument about length of days at equal points South or North bears further investigation, but in no way "utterly refutes" the Ball Earth model.

Now... I have examined your evidence. It's time for you to respond to mine.

Do not let yourself become fixated on a single tree - look at the forest!

There is no possible way in the world that - according to the "workings" of the Ball Earth model - it should be a veritable never-ending frozen wasteland from 56 degrees South and further - while, as far as 80-something degrees North there exists a full spectrum of season, temperature, plant life, animals, etc.

All "equivalent" North/South points on a Ball Earth model Globe get the same amount of sunlight. (within a year cycle)

This cannot be disputed - it is Ball Earth 101.

Why would the climate in the "equivalent" north be so much different than in the "equivalent" south?

45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south

It is not just about the "poles" or the "Antarctic continent" - it is about 'everywhere'.

Go wash your hog and cogitate on it some more...