Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[kinda]

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can't you depend on him to steer you to the best Bible?

Also, be thankful that you have a Bible, that you have the faith to believe it, and the ability to read it.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

@ViktorKent You should vote In the poll at the very top of this page.👆🏾🥰

 

[Dino246]

Changes in relation to the Textus Receptus, I think? Basically, changes like dumbing down Christ's divinity (e.g. reducing the number of verses that support this). Changes that shouldn't be regarded as trivial.

I suggest that you do your homework before making such assertions.

 

[tourist]

Actually, the Bible I mostly read now is the New Revised Standard. It's actually the Oxford Annotated Bible.

That's the version that I am currently reading with my wife cover to cover. There were other versions before that.

 

[GaryA]

That is why, given the choice, one would not choose the worst.....

That is why one would want to choose a bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus manuscripts and not the Wescott&Hort manuscripts.

The KJV is not the standard by which other English translations should be judged.

Like it or not - the KJV has in fact been the [English Bible] standard for 400 years.

 

[cv5]

That is why one would want to choose a bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus manuscripts and not the Wescott&Hort manuscripts.

I am with you there bro. Absolutely.

 

[GaryA]

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can't you depend on him to steer you to the best Bible?

Yes, you can!

But, not everyone listens...

If you let Him. If you ignore Him every time He sends someone to tell you your bible might not be the best... well, that's on you.

People tend to find it very difficult to let go of things they have been accustomed to all their life.

I can certainly agree that the scenario you are suggesting here happens a lot...

 

[lonelysummer]

I believe the Gospel can still be believed despite one using an inaccurate translation (unless the inaccuracy extends even to the Gospel, and it is a false gospel that is believed). But I do believe that an inaccurate translation leads to an incorrect understanding of God (and therefore, ourselves and our behaviour). And as we have seen, the more that Christians are willing to accept inaccuracy in translations, the more churches depart from the truth. While not strictly a salvation issue (immediately), I believe over generations, poor translations become even moreso (as I believe it is Satan's intent to slowly draw the believers from the true Church into a worthless and salvation-less cult).

If you let Him. If you ignore Him every time He sends someone to tell you your bible might not be the best... well, that's on you.

But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly. If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.
And I suppose you, Moses Young, believe you are the messenger?

 

[GaryA]

But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly. If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.
And I suppose you, Moses Young, believe you are the messenger?

Steve must, for a specified amount of time, live in another country at his fathers side; therefore, he cannot come to you himself to personally give you the message he would like for you to hear. So, he sends his word to you through a message service...

Moses is a man in your neighborhood - who tells you the orginal message service was intercepted by the message service that you have been receiving messages from directly - and, that it is a corrupt message service - that has, in fact, edited the messages and changed them to alter or [even] leave out parts of the message.

Steve sent Moses to inform you of the situation and give you the uncorrupted message that you should ignore that message service and seek to receive messages from Steve from a different message service that is not corrupt like the other one.

Moses receives messages from Steve through the recommended message service and knows about the corruption of other message services.

Because you have gotten comfortable with the message service that you have long believed has been giving you personal messages from Steve - but, not realizing that the messages were corrupted before you received them - you send Moses away, telling him:

~ any message service is just as good as any other

~ no message service could/would possibly be corrupt enough to alter the message before giving it to you

~ you are less interested in the accuracy of the messages from Steve than you are in the "good feeling" belief that you have received a message from Steve

As Moses leaves, he tells you that - if you would [only] accept the messages from the recommended message service - and, study them at length - you would discover the truth about the corrupt message service and the altered messages they have been giving you.

The recommended message service is the long-time most-stable most-trustworthy service available that handles messages in your language.

But, [some] are not willing to believe that. So, instead of accepting the advice of Moses, [some] choose to ignore the recommended message service - even going so far as to criticize it out of ignorance - not realizing the special historical significance it has in preserving intact the messages from Steve.

 

[Moses_Young]

But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly.

Why did God send Paul to Peter, the Corinthians or the Galatians? These also had personal relationships with Jesus.

If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.
And I suppose you, Moses Young, believe you are the messenger?

I wouldn't presume to tell you that I have a direct message from Christ to you, unless I was certain that I did. But we all have been blessed with gifts for the benefit of the Body. Whether you benefit from the wisdom we have shared with you is your choice. You are not our servant, and don't answer to us.

 

[Moses_Young]

I suggest that you do your homework before making such assertions.

Here is one example, just to show the reader that it is indeed you who needs to do his homework.

Is Jesus from everlasting (i.e. God), or only from ancient times (as even the JW cult will claim, like the first angel)? I'm sure we both know that Jesus is God, so the NIV got it very, very wrong in this case. I'd argue blasphemously wrong. There are many such other occurrences you will become aware of, if you will but commit to doing your homework.

KJV Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

NIV Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

 

[kinda]

I think it's more like you saying "I can prove that there are goblins on the outskirts of the forest." Then you setting up some cameras, and showing the video produced, evidencing no fairies on the outskirts of the forest. And as there are no fairies evidenced, concluding "See, I have proved that there are goblins on the outskirts of the forest."

Your points help refute ball-Earth. They don't support concave-Earth. Flat Earth is the observation, so is the logical conclusion.

You did an excellent job noticing, that my posts refuted heliocentric model. Bravo! I'm glad you didn't miss that.

How you can say, that my post didn't support Concave Hollow Earth, I would like to understand why. I don't understand how goblins proves flat earth. Can you explain how no fairies proves flat earth?

Here are just five points, that I made to support Concave Hollow Earth. Please explain in detail, why they don't support Cellular Cosmology. My posts can be found in detail on page 150. PLEASE GIVE A DETAIL RESPONSE. Thank you.

1. 1896-1897 U.S. Geodetic Survey results

2. Tamarack Mine Shaft Experiment.

3. Airplanes fly nose up to prove curvature of earth is concave. Also, commercial airline flights work seemlessly in a concave hollow earth.

4. The earth is stationary, and the sun and moon are mobile.

5. Glass Sky


My post did cover why flat earth is not worth discussing due to observation, which you state is the "logical conclusion", without supporting why.

Can I remind you that, you thought the sun was rotating at the speed of 1,000 mph, ON THE GROUND, at the equator, in another thread. This is illogical, but for some reason, your faith in flat earth, is beyond question. This is proof that flat earthers don't know what they are talking about.

Dino was part of that conversation, he can verify these posts. He actually had to tell you were wrong, but I wanted you to figure it out on your own. Remember that?

I thought a commonly accepted diameter for Earth was closer to 8,000 miles, which would mean the sun's speed is about 1000 miles per hour.

This was a post from a previous thread, where you you thought you were right. Remember this one?

It's the same as yours. But I thought the diameter of the Earth was 8000 miles? (or 7899?)

Calculation is simply v = pi x 8000 / 24 (the same as yours, but with the Earth's diameter instead of presumed height to sun?)

You seemed to be indicating that the sun was orbiting in the vertical plane, rather than the horizontal? Or did I misunderstand your calculation?

Here you use the same formula that I posted, but concluded differently, and thought you efforts were wasted... I concluded you don't know what your talking about, and from the constant disregard of even acknowledging what I post, you still don't. It's like talking to and ice wall, this would be my observation.

That's the point I was trying to get across. It seems to have been wasted effort, though.

Speaking of wasted effort? I have to constantly remind you to get specific, why you disagree with something. My honest opinion is that, you can't/won't understand the points being made, if they go against your flat earth religion. Once again, flat earthers, don't know what they are talking about.

This is my final attempt, to try to understand your view. I can't understand your points, if you don't explain them. Do you understand what that means?

By just stating an opinion, without supporting it, it's baseless. You notice how long my two posts were, that supported Concave Hollow Earth? These gave examples and reasons why.

Here are the reasons, why flat earth is not worth discussing, please explain in detail, why you disagree.


1. Flat Earth does not have a working model to show, sun, moon, and stars in a flat earth. Fact or fiction? If you answer fiction, please show the model.

2. Since Flat Earth doesn't have a working model to show sun, moon, and stars in a flat earth, it can't show how seasons work. Fact or fiction? If you say, fiction, please show your model.

3. Commercial airline flights don't work on a flat earth. Please see Professor Dave's video for reference. Fact or fiction? If you say, fiction, please go into detail.

4. The Southern Cross or stars disprove flat earth. Fact or fiction? If you say, fiction, please give detail reasons on why it's fiction. Just saying, goblins doesn't refute the starts by the way. Also, saying the sun rolls on the equator doesn't refute stars also. Just denying it doesn't refute it either. Does this make any sense to you? If so, please give a detail response.

5. Flat earth doesn't have evidence of an ice wall, that circles the world. Fact or fiction? If you say, fiction, please show evidence of an ice wall that circles the world. You know a detail response. Your observations will be telling, I'm sure. lol

The very fact, that you believe in a flat earth, shows that you believe in it by faith, since there is no flat earth model, can't show seasons, can't show how the sun orbits, how the moon orbits, how the Southern Cross is viewable in the Southern Hemisphere in different points, how commercial planes operate, and how there is no evidence of ice wall that circulates the world.

Once again, this is my last attempt for clarification. I really believe Professor Dave has a valid point, flat earthers don't know science, and only parrot what they see on youtube. Your reply to this post, will surely prove this. We shall see. Prove Professor Dave and I wrong.

It's more than likely you will have a goblin response, which will further prove, THAT FLAT EARTHERS, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. lol

 

[Sipsey]

Please answer how a satellite that circles around the pizza-shaped earth taking pictures, has never photographed the bottom.

 

[kinda]

I just stumbled on this beauty.

Orbit and Rotation
"Our solar system is moving with an average velocity of 450,000 miles per hour (720,000 kilometers per hour). But even at this speed, it takes about 230 million years for the Sun to make one complete trip around the Milky Way. The Sun rotates on its axis as it revolves around the galaxy."


https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-...ystem is moving,it revolves around the galaxy.


"Yes, the Sun - in fact, our whole solar system - orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. But even at that high rate, it still takes us about 230 million years to make one complete orbit around the Milky Way!"


https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/doc... the Sun - in fact,orbit around the Milky Way!


The scientific community known as NASA, has some very interesting perspectives, to say the least. The more I learn about the NASA universe, the more I wonder, why did I ever believe anything the teacher told me in school?!?!

 

[kinda]

Please answer how a satellite that circles around the pizza-shaped earth taking pictures, has never photographed the bottom.

The pizza man didn't have time to take pictures, he has a 30 minute window to deliver.

 

[Dino246]

Like it or not - the KJV has in fact been the [English Bible] standard for 400 years.

The KJV has been the most commonly available translation; that does not make it the standard against which others should be judged. There are two meanings of "standard" in use here; don't conflate them.

 

[Dino246]

Here is one example, just to show the reader that it is indeed you who needs to do his homework.

Is Jesus from everlasting (i.e. God), or only from ancient times (as even the JW cult will claim, like the first angel)? I'm sure we both know that Jesus is God, so the NIV got it very, very wrong in this case. I'd argue blasphemously wrong. There are many such other occurrences you will become aware of, if you will but commit to doing your homework.

KJV Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

NIV Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

The correct rendering is not necessarily the one that best fits a particular theological viewpoint (right or wrong), but rather the one that best renders the original-language text into English. Theology is a derivation from the text, not the other way around.

 

[RaceRunner]

When astronomers assert that it is “necessary” to make “allowance for curvature” in canal construction, it is, of course, in order that, in their idea, a level cutting may be had for the water. How flagrantly, then, do they contradict themselves when they say that the curved surface of the Earth is a “true level!” What more can they want for a canal than a true level? Since they contradict themselves in such an elementary point as this, it is an evidence that the whole thing is a delusion, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

It is certain that the theory of the Earth’s rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely to fall from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth, since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will participate in that motion; but, if an object be thrown upwards from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion, the circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall behind—the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it will fall by the gun. If the Earth travelled eleven-hundred miles a minute, the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since, then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth’s fancied motion is negatived, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.