Learn about God's Earth

Nevermind the fact that languages did have a word for moon before then.  Do a little research on it.

You make this claim and offer nothing except your assumption that the moon existed. Foolishness and dishonesty. If the moon did not exist, the word did not refer to the moon. This is very simple. God's Bible is clear.

Light and dark?

What was this darkness? Where did it come from? Is God too frail to create light? If there was no Sun, then all the light that is, is for no benefit save God's own, and stems from Him alone.
You are being foolish once more.

You are clearly picking and choosing which verses to take literal and which to interpret based on your own beliefs.  You can hand wave all you want.

All save those God explicitly calls parables are intended as literal truth. He does not deceive. I do not pick and choose, that is your choice.

I am not the one rejecting his word, you have.  God wrote moon, you are rejecting it.

Men wrote a word that now means moon. You have been told of this. Your hardened heart and your foolishness do not change His word.

Proverbs 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.

The moon referenced in genesis refers to the actual moon.  I know this because it is the word of God, written in the king James bible that was specifically made to be the first publicly available bible to spread gods word.  It was written after the star of bethlahem and would therefore be referred to as the star of Bethlehem, unless Gods word is lying and it's actually the moon.

Furthermore, while you say external sources can be demonically influenced I doubt all of them that refer to a moon are.  Also, there is absolutely no texts, (including the bible, but whatever) that make mention of the moon suddenly springing up out of nowhere.  A gigantic new celestial body appears and not a single astronomer anywhere in the world writes so much as a footnote about it.

And while you say the moon fits the description of the star of Bethlehem (it doesn't, but whatever) that does not automatically assume the two are the same.  Likewise "the planets are angels because there just so happens to be 7 of them" doesn't really hold water either. Especially since God found the book of Enoch to not be worthy enough for his king James bible.  You know, the one he specifically designed to be the best public version of his words.

I feel as if you have become so obsessed with the litteral letters of the bible that you've lost sight of what it is for my friend.

Do you believe the tests were against God's will? Satan is explicitly a servant of God, and the Devil rules Hell, as God tasked Him. They disagree, more and more, but they do as He commands. Compare, for example, Job.
The mountain exist exclusively for the test. The evidence is in the book. No such mountain exists now, but it did then: unless you now claim God lies.

Generally regular scholars agree that the mountain described was a literal high mountain at the time (it didn't just pop into existence).  The additional quote from Luke 4:5 ("5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.") shows that somehow (in a vision?) in an instant, Jesus could see all the kingdoms (obviously not visually). This is the typical explanation for this event. It does not involve magically creating then eliminating a VERY high mountain of which you have no proof. It also does not have anything to do with a Flat Earth model.

How might stars bow, were they not people?

That is my point, Gen 37:9-10 (9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”). If the Sun is God, is God bowing down to Joseph? If the stars are angels, are they bowing down to Joseph? What is the moon that is also bowing down to Joseph?  Clearly, the Sun, stars and moon are symbolic. Jacob understands their symbolism in verse 10, and assigns them to himself (sun), his wife (moon) and their other 11 sons (stars). This is the Bible interpreting itself - dreams and visions.  You do not believe that. You omit the inconvenient moon - "It includes the Sun and eleven stars bowing: this seems a strong indication that they are understood as entities, such as angels and God." (Same as in Dan 4:10-12,20-22 where again the Bible clearly explains the dream, but you don't believe it.) You only seem to believe the Bible when it is convenient.

This is an outright lie. I have explained mistranslations and the role of expectation, demons rewrote many external sources, and I have shown very clearly that the moon is the only candidate to be the Star of Bethelehem.

Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
Shines, rises in the East, and moves visibly. It can only be one thing.

"Wise men" had jobs watching the sky. If the moon suddenly appeared as you say, secular references of it would be all over the place - and there is not even one mention of something as phenomenal as the Moon suddenly appearing? As I pointed out, the moon can not be "The Star of Bethlehem" because it is in the heavens with the sun, planets and stars.  These revolve around the Earth at about 700 mph at the latitude of Bethlehem and no one, not even you, can stand under them or follow them anywhere.  There is no candidate. Like I said, it would have to have been an atmospheric one-off event/miracle. Nothing natural fulfills its actions. The moon certainly does not and you stating it over and over again does not make the moon any slower or stop in the heavens (not to mention the dozens of texts that show the moon was known way before Jesus' time).

I have explained how we may determine that they are the planets. Enoch is referred to as a prophet in Jude (reference in above post): do you believe the Bible contains lies, now? Simply because it was not bound with other texts does not prevent it being genuine.
If you were as much of an expert on the Bible as you claim, you would know this.

Your explanation is "The planets are the Archangels. There are seven bright shiners, and seven archangels:". Nowhere in the Bible (or the Book of Enoch) does it say this. This is purely your idea. Even if we were to take the Book of Enoch as usable scripture (and I wouldn't), nowhere are the archangels having anything to do with planets mentioned, so I am not sure why it is a part of the discussion of Flat Earth theory.

The moon referenced in genesis refers to the actual moon.  I know this because it is the word of God, written in the king James bible that was specifically made to be the first publicly available bible to spread gods word.  It was written after the star of bethlahem and would therefore be referred to as the star of Bethlehem, unless Gods word is lying and it's actually the moon.

It also claims bats are birds. You cannot read a text and ignore its context, it is foolish to do otherwise. Words mean something different now to what they once did.

Furthermore, while you say external sources can be demonically influenced I doubt all of them that refer to a moon are.  Also, there is absolutely no texts, (including the bible, but whatever) that make mention of the moon suddenly springing up out of nowhere.  A gigantic new celestial body appears and not a single astronomer anywhere in the world writes so much as a footnote about it.

Demons deceive. What is your point?

And while you say the moon fits the description of the star of Bethlehem (it doesn't, but whatever) that does not automatically assume the two are the same.  Likewise "the planets are angels because there just so happens to be 7 of them" doesn't really hold water either. Especially since God found the book of Enoch to not be worthy enough for his king James bible.  You know, the one he specifically designed to be the best public version of his words.

The moon being the only object that matches the description of the Star of Bethlehem is very strong evidence. The planets as archangels is a deduction, the fact there are seven is an additional observation.
God did not collect books in the Bible, that was man: and the King James Version did indeed include a translation of the Book of Enoch.

I feel as if you have become so obsessed with the litteral letters of the bible that you've lost sight of what it is for my friend.

It is God's word. It is primarily to teach us of Him, and how best to live. This does not prevent it from teaching other truths. Why would we be told of Creation if we were not meant to learn? It is more than a book of rules.

You make this claim and offer nothing except your assumption that the moon existed. Foolishness and dishonesty. If the moon did not exist, the word did not refer to the moon. This is very simple. God's Bible is clear.

What?  I have provided direct quotes from the Bible that refer to the moon prior to the birth of Christ.  Your response is just that the Bible is wrong.  If the word did not refer to the moon, then what is God's word referring to?  Why would he suddenly change his own definition?  Why wouldn't he just say the moon when referring to the birth of Jesus, rather than calling it something entirely different, only to go back to using the term moon again in later scripture.  You are the one that has made a claim with a very liberal interpretation of the Bible and offer nothing except your assumption that the moon was created 2000 years ago.  The burden of proof is on you.

What was this darkness? Where did it come from? Is God too frail to create light? If there was no Sun, then all the light that is, is for no benefit save God's own, and stems from Him alone.
You are being foolish once more.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I said. 

What was this darkness?
Read Genesis 1:2.

Where did it come from? 
I don't know, the Bible doesn't say specifically.  My guess is darkness is just the absence of light.

Is God too frail to create light? 
Did I say that? Read Genesis 1:3.  Obviously, he isn't.

If there was no Sun, then all the light that is, is for no benefit save God's own, and stems from Him alone.

What are you trying to say here?  I am saying that God can create light without a sun.  Genesis 1:3 doesn't say he created a sun, it just says he created light.

All save those God explicitly calls parables are intended as literal truth. He does not deceive. I do not pick and choose, that is your choice.

You are clearly choosing.  Stating the Star of Bethlehem was the moon is a clear interpretation and nowhere stated.  Were you there?  Provide one source from anyone, a biblical scholar, anyone, that supports your claim.  Surely you aren't the only one out of 7 billion.  Go follow the moon now, see if it takes you to Bethlehem.

Can you find a culture out there that noticed this sudden appearance of the moon around the birth of Christ?  What do the Chinese say?  The Aztec?  The Egyptians?  The Greeks?  Surely one of them noticed this sudden appearance of something new in the night sky and made note of it.  They all made note of the moon of course, just well before the birth of Christ.  For your reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_deities

Men wrote a word that now means moon. You have been told of this. Your hardened heart and your foolishness do not change His word.

I thought the Bible was God's word and written by God, now it is written by man?  How do I know which words are true and which are the affect of the men that wrote it?  I am not trying to change His word, I am trying to keep it the same.  You are the one saying His word means something else.

Generally regular scholars agree that the mountain described was a literal high mountain at the time (it didn't just pop into existence).  The additional quote from Luke 4:5 ("5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.") shows that somehow (in a vision?) in an instant, Jesus could see all the kingdoms (obviously not visually). This is the typical explanation for this event. It does not involve magically creating then eliminating a VERY high mountain of which you have no proof. It also does not have anything to do with a Flat Earth model.

I do not care what those in the mainstream say, they are influenced by the need not to contradict so-called science. You laugh and mock me because I quote God's word: they would face worse scorn.
If it was a vision, Christ would not have been lead up a mountain in order to be shown. Altitude is the relevant factor.

That is my point, Gen 37:9-10 (9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”). If the Sun is God, is God bowing down to Joseph? If the stars are angels, are they bowing down to Joseph? What is the moon that is also bowing down to Joseph?  Clearly, the Sun, stars and moon are symbolic. Jacob understands their symbolism in verse 10, and assigns them to himself (sun), his wife (moon) and their other 11 sons (stars). This is the Bible interpreting itself - dreams and visions.  You do not believe that. You omit the inconvenient moon - "It includes the Sun and eleven stars bowing: this seems a strong indication that they are understood as entities, such as angels and God." (Same as in Dan 4:10-12,20-22 where again the Bible clearly explains the dream, but you don't believe it.) You only seem to believe the Bible when it is convenient.

Again, I ask, how is it that stars may bow if they do not have the semblances of people? You ignore a question when it is inconvenient to you. The stars are not mere lights: if they wer,e how could they bow? If he saw them otherwise, how would he identify them as stars?
Jospeh calls them stars, he must have seen stars. I omit the moon because it did not exist: he was referring, likely, to further stars.
It was a dream. God bowing to him in the dream is to demonstrate his importance: and further, God symbolizes another. His father, indeed. You will observe the dream does indeed make sense.
A dream sent by God is intended to teach. Why would it contain a lie? Foolishness.

"Wise men" had jobs watching the sky. If the moon suddenly appeared as you say, secular references of it would be all over the place - and there is not even one mention of something as phenomenal as the Moon suddenly appearing? As I pointed out, the moon can not be "The Star of Bethlehem" because it is in the heavens with the sun, planets and stars.  These revolve around the Earth at about 700 mph at the latitude of Bethlehem and no one, not even you, can stand under them or follow them anywhere. 

Demons lie, you forget that times change, and that the moon may be followed as it moves in one particular direction. Repeating yourself because you despise correction.

Your explanation is "The planets are the Archangels. There are seven bright shiners, and seven archangels:". Nowhere in the Bible (or the Book of Enoch) does it say this. This is purely your idea. Even if we were to take the Book of Enoch as usable scripture (and I wouldn't), nowhere are the archangels having anything to do with planets mentioned, so I am not sure why it is a part of the discussion of Flat Earth theory.

If the Book of Enoch is not scripture, why is it quoted in Jude? Did God choose to ask a false text and false prophet to be written into His work? This is ludicrous.
Celestial objects which appear as stars (fallen angels) to the untrained eye. It is simple logic that the worlds too, and most celestial objects, would be further angels.

What?  I have provided direct quotes from the Bible that refer to the moon prior to the birth of Christ.  Your response is just that the Bible is wrong.

If you offer nothing except lies, why should I waste time on one who has clearly hardened his heart? Your questions have been answered. Asking them again will not change the answer. God is clear.

Quote

What was this darkness? Where did it come from? Is God too frail to create light? If there was no Sun, then all the light that is, is for no benefit save God's own, and stems from Him alone.
You are being foolish once more.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I said.

You claim that day and night existed before the Sun, when the only light was God's. If His is the only light, what might overpower Him to cause darkness? You are more than a fool, you blaspheme.

What was this darkness?
Read Genesis 1:2.

A darkness God shone his light over. Why would this alter with time?

Where did it come from? 
I don't know, the Bible doesn't say specifically.  My guess is darkness is just the absence of light.

Why would God's light fail to shine?

Is God too frail to create light? 
Did I say that? Read Genesis 1:3.  Obviously, he isn't.

Then there should be no night if He is not the Sun.

What are you trying to say here?  I am saying that God can create light without a sun.  Genesis 1:3 doesn't say he created a sun, it just says he created light.

He created the light which defines day and night. You ignore this. He did not create light alone, he created a darkness from which night is defined. How are day and night defined in the absence of the Sun which is what defines day and night?
You call God a liar, it is that simple. You have rejected His word for what men tell you.

You are clearly choosing.  Stating the Star of Bethlehem was the moon is a clear interpretation and nowhere stated.  Were you there?  Provide one source from anyone, a biblical scholar, anyone, that supports your claim.  Surely you aren't the only one out of 7 billion.  Go follow the moon now, see if it takes you to Bethlehem.

The moon's path alters, especially now Christ is gone. You ask absurdities, no doubt knowingly.

Can you find a culture out there that noticed this sudden appearance of the moon around the birth of Christ?  What do the Chinese say?  The Aztec?  The Egyptians?  The Greeks?  Surely one of them noticed this sudden appearance of something new in the night sky and made note of it.  They all made note of the moon of course, just well before the birth of Christ.  For your reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_deities

The meanings of words change. This is something you have been taught many times. Why do you choose to ignore?
Demons deceive. History is rewritten.

I thought the Bible was God's word and written by God, now it is written by man?  How do I know which words are true and which are the affect of the men that wrote it?  I am not trying to change His word, I am trying to keep it the same.  You are the one saying His word means something else.

God inspired men to write, and men are limited to the language they speak. A text is useless if none are able to read it.

You claim God is a liar and you defile His world with your insults and your mockery. You follow what men teach you about the world rather than what God clearly states. You have abandoned Him to follow false prophets and demon works.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

You claim that day and night existed before the Sun, when the only light was God's. If His is the only light, what might overpower Him to cause darkness? You are more than a fool, you blaspheme.

Can't God just put out the light for a bit? He's an all powerful god yet he can't turn off a light?

Quote from: TexasH on September 30, 2015, 02:11:02 PM

What?  I have provided direct quotes from the Bible that refer to the moon prior to the birth of Christ.  Your response is just that the Bible is wrong.

If you offer nothing except lies, why should I waste time on one who has clearly hardened his heart? Your questions have been answered. Asking them again will not change the answer. God is clear.

If you are going to parcel up my responses, at least make the response match up.  There are no lies in what you quoted, go back through this thread, I have clearly quoted the Bible and your response has been the Bible wrongly uses the word moon.  You also need to learn the definition of lie.  If someone disagrees with your view, that doesn't mean they are lying.   

You claim that day and night existed before the Sun, when the only light was God's. If His is the only light, what might overpower Him to cause darkness? You are more than a fool, you blaspheme.

Please quote where I said anything about God being overpowered.  You have serious reading comprehension problems.

A darkness God shone his light over. Why would this alter with time?

Ask God.

Why would God's light fail to shine?

I never said it would fail.  I would imagine he does have control over it and can turn it on and off as he sees fit.

Then there should be no night if He is not the Sun.

 
Are you saying God isn't capable of controlling the light by turning it off?

He created the light which defines day and night. You ignore this. He did not create light alone, he created a darkness from which night is defined. How are day and night defined in the absence of the Sun which is what defines day and night?
You call God a liar, it is that simple. You have rejected His word for what men tell you.

I didn't ignore it, I specifically stated it.  Quote where he created darkness.  I already answered that question.  I have not once called God a liar.  Again, you are the one that has stated his words are not correct in every instance and we should use context.  No, I am very clearly rejecting what you are telling me (assuming that you are a man and not God).

The moon's path alters, especially now Christ is gone. You ask absurdities, no doubt knowingly.

Prove it.  I ask questions, but I only expect absurdities back.  I am bad about feeding trolls.

The meanings of words change. This is something you have been taught many times. Why do you choose to ignore?
Demons deceive. History is rewritten.

Provide evidence the word moon has changed in meaning.

God inspired men to write, and men are limited to the language they speak. A text is useless if none are able to read it.

You claim God is a liar and you defile His world with your insults and your mockery. You follow what men teach you about the world rather than what God clearly states. You have abandoned Him to follow false prophets and demon works.

I have not once claimed God is a liar. 

Quote one time I have insulted you.

Quote one time I have mocked you.

I am following what the Bible and God clearly states.  The Bible clearly states moon.  My Bible doesn't have an appendix of words that have changed meaning over time.

Nice rhetoric you have there.

If the meanings of words change (Seemingly only for the benefit of your arguments) then how do you know none of the other words have changed since the beginning of creation.  If the Moon referenced in genesis doesn't really mean moon, then how do you know God really means God?  Maybe at the beginning of time God meant Stanley.

Stan was a gardner who made some killer compost.  That was the Earth.  Earth didn't mean earth, it meant compost.  Anyway, Stan found a naked couple in his garden one day and let them live there in peace, asking only that they not eat anything from his apple tree as he was going to try and make a pie later.  One of Eve's ex's sent her a text (because snake back then meant cellphone, not that it was an actual snake) though saying Stan's apples were too good to pass up so she jacked one and got Adam to eat one too.

Stan found out about it and kicked them out of his garden.  And moon didn't mean moon, it actually referred to the UV lights Stan used to light his garden at night.

The similarities been the story of genesis and the story i just made up are far to great to ignore, therefore it must be absolutely true.

maybe back then Enoch didn't mean dedicated, trained of famous.  Maybe it meant lier and Jude was saying this lier made this prophesy.  Then later the meaning of Enoch changed to a dudes name, because, you know, words in the old testament might not mean what they mean today.

There are no lies in what you quoted, go back through this thread, I have clearly quoted the Bible and your response has been the Bible wrongly uses the word moon.  You also need to learn the definition of lie.  If someone disagrees with your view, that doesn't mean they are lying.   

Please quote where I said anything about God being overpowered.  You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I never said it would fail.  I would imagine he does have control over it and can turn it on and off as he sees fit.

I have not once called God a liar.  Again, you are the one that has stated his words are not correct in every instance and we should use context.  No, I am very clearly rejecting what you are telling me

Provide evidence the word moon has changed in meaning.

I have not once claimed God is a liar. 

Quote one time I have mocked you.

My Bible doesn't have an appendix of words that have changed meaning over time.

It is a lie when you ignore what I say, and claim I said another. It is a lie to pretend words mean the same thing at present, than they did thousands of year ago. It is a lie to pretend I have not justified each and every one of my claims. It is a lie to pretend God would turn His light of for no reason. It is a lie to claim God's work is not an honest depiction of the world as He knows it to be.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

If the meanings of words change (Seemingly only for the benefit of your arguments) then how do you know none of the other words have changed since the beginning of creation. 

God's meaning is clear. The words whose meanings change do not affect His story, He is not a fool.
Many words have changed meaning. This is acknowledged by every honest person, be they Christian or damned. Leviticus 11:13-19 claims bats are birds: is this true by the modern definition, or was God merely using the only practical word which existed for that purpose? Deuteronomy 14:7 claims rabbits chew the cud, which is not true by the modern technical definition, but is functionally true if you focus on result rather than method. Language is not a static thing.

maybe back then Enoch didn't mean dedicated, trained of famous.  Maybe it meant lier and Jude was saying this lier made this prophesy.  Then later the meaning of Enoch changed to a dudes name, because, you know, words in the old testament might not mean what they mean today.

God does not mislead. If you believe the moon existed, it does not alter His tale. You may believe it was made of cheese if you wish, this would not alter the lessons of Christ. The Bible's primary purpose is to teach us how to live. For those willing to think and acknowledge context exists, however, it may also be used as a resource to find out about our world, and to learn what God teaches, and where His foes must lurk.

Ok, I'm done.  Now you can see why this thread was needed, so all this stuff would not be debated in unrelated topics.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD from your first post. BS as demonstrated in this thread.

• "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see".
• "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? None. It has to WANT to change".

People on this and other threads have searched your views, like the Bereans and brought up valid arguments that you totally ignore.

Simply put, unless God comes down and tells you something, normal people with the relatively normal interpretation of the Bible passages are totally disregarded by you trying to prove your bizarre, unusual, unique, non-mainstream theories.  No amount of discussion, debate, evidence, logic, science or quotes will change your mind or your views - this is clearly evident.

This was why I wanted you to start a new thread instead of hijacking other threads with your bizarre beliefs.

• As far as I know, no one believes what you do.
• You don't care what anyone - other scholars think (i.e. they are ALL idiots, you are the ONLY smart scholar in the world).
• You take Biblical text out of context.
• You change words and obvious meanings as is convenient for your views.
• In places the Bible explicitly explains the meaning, you ignore or change it to your convenience.
• You don't believe in logical, scientific and historical data, observations, pictures and quotes. They are the works of demons or to be ignored.
• Anything that does not conform to your belief is a lie by demons.
• Anyone that does not believe as you, you insult saying they call God a liar because YOU are the only one that knows the true interpretation of his Word.
• God does not lie if it conforms to your view of the world.
• You use apocryphal ideas without letting readers, who assume your quotes are from canonical Bibles, know. This amounts to a deception on your part.
• You glean weird and wonderful beliefs from some passages and make them solid indisputable facts (that people dispute).
• It is most unfortunate that you are vocal on the forums where your bizarre and unique view will be mistook by readers as the mainstream Biblical view of most Christians.  They will then think Christians are really weird and insane. I believe that is your intention.

For the rest of the people on this thread:

• Know that no amount of discussion, debate, evidence, logic, science or quotes will change his mind or his views - you're wasting your time.
• Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD will only work if YOU change your views to his.

• As far as I know, no one believes what you do.
• You don't care what anyone - other scholars think (i.e. they are ALL idiots, you are the ONLY smart scholar in the world).

I have never claimed any such thing. Many may believe as I do: few would be open about it. You see the mockery that presents itself here.

• You take Biblical text out of context.
• You change words and obvious meanings as is convenient for your views.
• In places the Bible explicitly explains the meaning, you ignore or change it to your convenience.

The precise opposite. I acknowledge the context if the times: it is you who assume all words would mean the exact same, and you who assume day and night is defined two completely different ways for no reason, for example. It is also you who assumes God speaks lies or parables without any warning. This is an absurdity.

• You don't believe in logical, scientific and historical data, observations, pictures and quotes. They are the works of demons or to be ignored.
• Anything that does not conform to your belief is a lie by demons.
• Anyone that does not believe as you, you insult saying they call God a liar because YOU are the only one that knows the true interpretation of his Word.
• God does not lie if it conforms to your view of the world.

This is an open lie. I have explicitly said I have no problem with logic, science, observations... Indeed, i use God's given capability for logic. I simply state that those conclusions which are contrary to what God clearly states are not accurate: perhaps by mistake, perhaps by deception. Demons do exist, to deny their interference is dangerous.
There is no 'true interpretation'. There is God's word and God's word alone. He is very clear with what he means: the only 'interpretation' is whether you take the knowledge of man to be superior, or inferior. Only then is it possible to insist there is room for interpretation: and it is dishonest.

• You use apocryphal ideas without letting readers, who assume your quotes are from canonical Bibles, know. This amounts to a deception on your part.

There is no deception. I am honest, if people ask for the source. The Book of Enoch can hardly be called apocryphal, simply because it is quoted in the canon: and even so, I use it solely for the names of the archangels, which is a comparatively minor aspect of my model.

• You glean weird and wonderful beliefs from some passages and make them solid indisputable facts (that people dispute).

I use what those passages explicitly state. God does not lie.

• Know that no amount of discussion, debate, evidence, logic, science or quotes will change his mind or his views - you're wasting your time.
• Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD will only work if YOU change your views to his.

It is you who demand I change my mind. I am here to reason, but there is no reason if your only argument is "You are wrong," and no acknowledgement nor discussion of my justification. You reject what God says, but offer no evidence: you offer no logic, merely the fact you personally do not wish to believe in, for example, the interference of demons. This is your choice, but ignoring education does not mean that you have not been taught.
I am here to reason. It is clear to everyone that you are not.

So when a discussion does not go your way or people disagree with you, you devolve into throwing a fit and calling people liars.  Are you a child?  This is behavior that I would expect from my children.  If you have issues with people disagreeing with you, then the internet is probably not the place for you.

It is a lie when you ignore what I say, and claim I said another.

I haven't ignored what you said.  The only claim I have made is that you have stated the Bible is wrong.  You can't deny this or your whole Star of Bethlehem interpretation falls apart.  You can't say the Bible is 100% accurate and say that the words are incorrect.  Those are mutually exclusive.

It is a lie to pretend words mean the same thing at present, than they did thousands of year ago.

I haven't pretended that words don't change meaning.  I have asked you to provide a source other than your own words that show the word for moon has changed in every language that existed.  You have failed to do so.

It is a lie to pretend I have not justified each and every one of my claims.

You have justified them in your mind.  You haven't justified it to anyone else's mind.  Just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone else does.  Just because I say I don't share your beliefs, doesn't mean I am lying when I saying you haven't sold me on your argument. 

It is a lie to pretend God would turn His light of for no reason.

This doesn't even make sense and isn't close to anything I have said.  You have serious reading comprehension problems.  Please quote me where I said he didn't have a reason to turn his light on and off. 

It is a lie to claim God's work is not an honest depiction of the world as He knows it to be.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.  I think what you are trying to say is if I say that world is not how it is literally described in the Bible then I am lying.  You should really look up the definition of lie.  Part of lying is you have to knowingly speak falsehoods.  If you unknowingly speak falsehoods, then it is just ignorance.

I have nothing more to add and completely agree with Jadyyn's post.  You seem to get quite angry when people disagree with your unusual beliefs.  You are certainly not the man of God that you present.  A man of God wouldn't call people liars.  You claim to be a literal follower of the Bible, but feel free to make changes as you see fit and then try to discredit others when others don't agree with you.

My opinion is you are only here to make Flat Earthers look like idiots and discredit their website.  If my opinion is incorrect and you are not misrepresenting yourself, then you are truly doing them a disservice and not helping their cause in any shape or form.  If you can't bring more than what the Bible says, you aren't adding much to the discussion.  Everyone has heard of the Bible and can freely read it they so choose.

So when a discussion does not go your way or people disagree with you, you devolve into throwing a fit and calling people liars.  Are you a child?  This is behavior that I would expect from my children.  If you have issues with people disagreeing with you, then the internet is probably not the place for you.

You once more resort to mockery. I am here to reason: disagreement, I accept. Mockery and lies, I do not.

I haven't ignored what you said.  The only claim I have made is that you have stated the Bible is wrong. 

False. Your offered justifications are, each time, clear contradictions of what I have stated: which you do not acknowledge, nor make any effort to refute. For this reason, you are a liar.

You can't say the Bible is 100% accurate and say that the words are incorrect.  Those are mutually exclusive.

Absurd. The words are accurate, if you pay attention to them in context. It is impossible to write a text where this is not so. If you read poetry and novels from a few decades ago, you would come across the word 'gay' often. Are we to assume it means the same as it does now?
Context is important, language is limited.

I have asked you to provide a source other than your own words that show the word for moon has changed in every language that existed.  You have failed to do so.

I have provided God's word. You rejected it: this is your choice, but you may not lie and pretend I did not.

You have justified them in your mind.  You haven't justified it to anyone else's mind.  Just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone else does.  Just because I say I don't share your beliefs, doesn't mean I am lying when I saying you haven't sold me on your argument. 

This is always true. However, as you have given no reason to reject what I say beyond lies from your own hardened heart, my points remain justified: or can I simply claim your arguments are unjustified because I happen to disagree?

This doesn't even make sense and isn't close to anything I have said.  You have serious reading comprehension problems.  Please quote me where I said he didn't have a reason to turn his light on and off. 

You refused to give a reason when I asked, and that remains a focus on an irrelevancy. Do you believe day and night are defined two entirely separate ways?

Quote

It is a lie to claim God's work is not an honest depiction of the world as He knows it to be.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.  I think what you are trying to say is if I say that world is not how it is literally described in the Bible then I am lying.  You should really look up the definition of lie.  Part of lying is you have to knowingly speak falsehoods.  If you unknowingly speak falsehoods, then it is just ignorance.

Now you lie once more. My meaning is clear. God's work accurately depicts the world as He knows it to be. You claim otherwise when you listen to man over Him.

You once more resort to mockery. I am here to reason: disagreement, I accept. Mockery and lies, I do not.

You really struggle with the definition of some words, mockery and lies being two of them.  Calling someone out for childish behavior is not mockery.  Show me one time where you have been accepting of disagreement.  Your response to someone that disagrees is to either call them a liar, say they have a hardened heart, or blame demons.

False. Your offered justifications are, each time, clear contradictions of what I have stated: which you do not acknowledge, nor make any effort to refute. For this reason, you are a liar.

Well, yeah, of course my justifications are clear contradictions of what you have stated.  If our justifications were the same we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Absurd. The words are accurate, if you pay attention to them in context. It is impossible to write a text where this is not so. If you read poetry and novels from a few decades ago, you would come across the word 'gay' often. Are we to assume it means the same as it does now?
Context is important, language is limited.

Are the words 100% accurate at this moment in time? Yes or no?  When did the definition of moon change?  It must of been with the last few hundred years then as the translation you reference was written in the early 17th century.  Yes, the usage of gay used then still stands today, it just has additional definitions today.

I have provided God's word. You rejected it: this is your choice, but you may not lie and pretend I did not.

Please quote the verse where God changes the definition of moon.  Show me where it changed of the Greek word for moon, or the Latin word for moon, or Chinese.  Please cite these claims of yours.

This is always true. However, as you have given no reason to reject what I say beyond lies from your own hardened heart, my points remain justified: or can I simply claim your arguments are unjustified because I happen to disagree?

Let me get his straight.  My reason for rejecting what you say has been directly quoting verses from the Old Testament.  Explain to me how me quoting a verse from the OT is a lie from my hardened heart.  I am simply stating you need to validate your argument beyond your own personal words.  You argument is heavily reliant on the change in definition of word that is not substantiated in the Bible.  You call your argument valid simply by basically saying "because I said so."

You refused to give a reason when I asked, and that remains a focus on an irrelevancy. Do you believe day and night are defined two entirely separate ways?

When did you ask for a reason?  Here are the questions you specifically asked: "A darkness God shone his light over. Why would this alter with time?" and "Why would God's light fail to shine?"  Neither of them are asking for God's motive.  The Bible does not reference a reason for why God would turn the light on or off.  Maybe so living things could sleep without having to block out the light?  Entirely my guess and nowhere stated that I can see.  What other way have I defined day and night?  I said it is defined as light and dark.  A definition that still works today.  I know it is day time because it is light out.

Now you lie once more. My meaning is clear. God's work accurately depicts the world as He knows it to be. You claim otherwise when you listen to man over Him.

I have no idea what you think I am lying about.  If I think God's word doesn't accurately depict the world, that is my belief.  It isn't a lie.  I don't listen to man on the subject, I use my eyes and look out the window.

It is also quite telling that you didn't refute my comment about you trolling this website.  Of all things to resort to name calling, you would think that would be the one.

You really struggle with the definition of some words, mockery and lies being two of them.  Calling someone out for childish behavior is not mockery.  Show me one time where you have been accepting of disagreement.  Your response to someone that disagrees is to either call them a liar, say they have a hardened heart, or blame demons.

Calling someone a child is mockery.

Well, yeah, of course my justifications are clear contradictions of what you have stated.  If our justifications were the same we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Willful ignorance of what I meant.

Are the words 100% accurate at this moment in time? Yes or no?  When did the definition of moon change?  It must of been with the last few hundred years then as the translation you reference was written in the early 17th century.  Yes, the usage of gay used then still stands today, it just has additional definitions today.

Further willful ignorance.

Please quote the verse where God changes the definition of moon.  Show me where it changed of the Greek word for moon, or the Latin word for moon, or Chinese.  Please cite these claims of yours.

Ignorance of what justification is.

Let me get his straight.  My reason for rejecting what you say has been directly quoting verses from the Old Testament.  Explain to me how me quoting a verse from the OT is a lie from my hardened heart.  I am simply stating you need to validate your argument beyond your own personal words.  You argument is heavily reliant on the change in definition of word that is not substantiated in the Bible.  You call your argument valid simply by basically saying "because I said so."

I have explained the meaning of those verses, and I have explained how words change, and not once have you thought about this is any way. This is a sign of a hardened heart: one who does not accept correction.
My argument is valid because it is God's word. Your word is man's.

Maybe so living things could sleep without having to block out the light?

Living things did not exist. Foolishness.

What other way have I defined day and night?  I said it is defined as light and dark.  A definition that still works today.  I know it is day time because it is light out.

You define it by whether or not the Sun is out. So, is the light in Genesis 1:3-5 the Sun, or does the day have anotehr definition?
You engage in willful ignorance, as you have just made clear.

I have no idea what you think I am lying about.  If I think God's word doesn't accurately depict the world, that is my belief.  It isn't a lie.  I don't listen to man on the subject, I use my eyes and look out the window.

You are a man, are you not? Do you believe you are wiser than God?
It is a lie to claim God would not know more of the world as man.

It is also quite telling that you didn't refute my comment about you trolling this website.  Of all things to resort to name calling, you would think that would be the one.

Why would I repeat myself? You have made your views clear. You reject God's word and refuse to accept correction, or even so much as listen to it. It says a great deal that you feel the need to bring it up again. I explain God's word, and you find any excuse to reject Him.

I still don't get how you can say the moon didn't exist before Jesus.  Multiple accounts of the moon from before his birth, describing it exactly how it is now.  All of that is the work of demons... For some reason.  Until Jesus is born and all of those previous texts coincidently describing it in perfect detail.

Yet Jesus is born and there isn't a single scrap of writing about the giant light in the sky the gigantic light in the sky suddenly, with no warning, and seemingly out of thin air.  Not just astronomers would write about it.  Anyone who knew how to write would mention it.  Poems and songs would be written about the new light in the sky.  Kings would claim they were born the night the moon suddenly appeared.  Pictures would be painted.  Wild theories would be made.  Masses of animals would be sacrificed to the new sky God.

I still don't get how you can say the moon didn't exist before Jesus.  Multiple accounts of the moon from before his birth, describing it exactly how it is now.  All of that is the work of demons... For some reason.  Until Jesus is born and all of those previous texts coincidently describing it in perfect detail.


Yet Jesus is born and there isn't a single scrap of writing about the giant light in the sky the gigantic light in the sky suddenly, with no warning, and seemingly out of thin air.  Not just astronomers would write about it.  Anyone who knew how to write would mention it.  Poems and songs would be written about the new light in the sky.  Kings would claim they were born the night the moon suddenly appeared.  Pictures would be painted.  Wild theories would be made.  Masses of animals would be sacrificed to the new sky God.

Why is this argument repeated so often when I have already dealt with it?
Moon is likely a repurposed word. It means the light at night: the sum of starlight. This is clear by context, we know that the moon came into being 2000 years ago, the Bible is very clear on this topic. No other object matches the description.
The Bible is our record of this. Few records exist of that long ago: we have the barest fragments. It is not suspicious at all that some things are lost, especially with demons seeking to hide the truth.

God is clear. To deny it is willful ignorance.

Calling someone a child is mockery.

Good thing I didn't call you a child then.  I called your behavior childish.  Different things.  Calling people liars because they disagree with you is childish.  Mature adults do not do this.

Quote

Well, yeah, of course my justifications are clear contradictions of what you have stated.  If our justifications were the same we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Willful ignorance of what I meant.

Call it just plain ignorance then, as I don't know what you meant.

Quote

Are the words 100% accurate at this moment in time? Yes or no?  When did the definition of moon change?  It must of been with the last few hundred years then as the translation you reference was written in the early 17th century.  Yes, the usage of gay used then still stands today, it just has additional definitions today.

Further willful ignorance.

A simple "I don't know" would suffice.

Quote

Please quote the verse where God changes the definition of moon.  Show me where it changed of the Greek word for moon, or the Latin word for moon, or Chinese.  Please cite these claims of yours.

Ignorance of what justification is.

Again, you can just say "I don't know."

Quote

Let me get his straight.  My reason for rejecting what you say has been directly quoting verses from the Old Testament.  Explain to me how me quoting a verse from the OT is a lie from my hardened heart.  I am simply stating you need to validate your argument beyond your own personal words.  You argument is heavily reliant on the change in definition of word that is not substantiated in the Bible.  You call your argument valid simply by basically saying "because I said so."

I have explained the meaning of those verses, and I have explained how words change, and not once have you thought about this is any way. This is a sign of a hardened heart: one who does not accept correction.
My argument is valid because it is God's word. Your word is man's.

How do you know you are correct?  From my point of view I am correct and you are refusing to accept correction, which is a sign that you have a hardened heart.  Are you implying you are God and not a man?  Stating the Star of Bethlehem is your words and nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Quote

Maybe so living things could sleep without having to block out the light?

Living things did not exist. Foolishness.

Are you saying that God had never intended to create living creatures?  I think he had a grand plan and you are taking a single step out of context.

Quote

What other way have I defined day and night?  I said it is defined as light and dark.  A definition that still works today.  I know it is day time because it is light out.

You define it by whether or not the Sun is out. So, is the light in Genesis 1:3-5 the Sun, or does the day have anotehr definition?
You engage in willful ignorance, as you have just made clear.

That was your definition, not mine.  Are you confusing who said what?  Good thing there is a transcript of everything that we have said.  You should go back and review it before making baseless accusations. 

As I said earlier, the light in Genesis 1:3-5 is just light, he hadn't created the Sun yet.  As I said, the Bible clearly defines a day by light and dark.  Who is willfully ignorant now?

Quote

I have no idea what you think I am lying about.  If I think God's word doesn't accurately depict the world, that is my belief.  It isn't a lie.  I don't listen to man on the subject, I use my eyes and look out the window.

You are a man, are you not? Do you believe you are wiser than God?
It is a lie to claim God would not know more of the world as man.

Yes, I am a man.  No, I do not think I am wiser than God.  Seriously, go look up the definition of lie, you keep using it incorrectly. 

Just because I don't share the same opinion, doesn't mean I am lying.  It is possible for two people to say the exact same thing and for one to be lying and one to be not lying.

I believe the Earth is round.  If I say the Earth is round, that isn't a lie regardless of what the truth is.  If I say the Earth is round, and it is truly flat, than that is called ignorance.

Quote

It is also quite telling that you didn't refute my comment about you trolling this website.  Of all things to resort to name calling, you would think that would be the one.

Why would I repeat myself? You have made your views clear. You reject God's word and refuse to accept correction, or even so much as listen to it. It says a great deal that you feel the need to bring it up again. I explain God's word, and you find any excuse to reject Him.

[/quote]
Heh, why would you repeat yourself?  You do realize that is all you do, right?  I could probably take every post you have made on here, eliminate the repetition and fit it on a half sheet of paper.

I am more than willing to accept correction; I just need more than your word for it.  You have provided your interpretation of God's word.  That is what I have rejected.  You have had ample opportunities to substantiate your claims that the definition of moon has changed, but have failed to do so.  Just one source that doesn't require your interpretation.  If the word moon, doesn't really mean moon in the OT, what does it mean.  What is it referring to?  It clearly isn't stars, as there is word for that.  So there was some other object in the night sky called moon, that for some reason doesn't exist anymore.

If God is so clear, then why do we need to manipulate the definition of words used in it or make strong assumptions to "correctly interpret" it.  That my friend, is far from clear. 

Why is this argument repeated so often when I have already dealt with it?

Probably because you haven't really dealt with it, which is probably because your really, really wrong.

Moon is likely a repurposed word. It means the light at night

you mean like the Moon?

the sum of starlight. This is clear by context

No.  No it isn't.  In no way is this clear by context.  You say the word used in the old testament meant something else at the time of its writing.  You've offered absolutely no proof or evidence of this.  You just say it is and we are supposed to take your word for it.  Not Gods word, your's.  The hebrews had a word for the moon, which is what was used in the original text and was then translated into english as The Moon.  We know the hebrew word meant moon due to its use in other texts to refer to... guess what... thats right, The Moon.

Furthermore, using the word moon to describe the vague light of the stars doesn't really work as the Hebrew language has a word for that.  אור כוכבים means Star Light.  It doesn't make sense for god to describe everything else in detail, using specific words to indicate what is being made, when, and how, but then suddenly decide to hijack the word used for Moon to describe something that the hebrew language already had a word for.  Unless you're suggesting God was being deliberately misleading.

We know that the moon came into being 2000 years ago

Actually we know for a fact that it's been around a lot longer then that.

the Bible is very clear on this topic.

No it isn't.  It's made painfully clear by the bible that the Star of Bethlehem was a star, what with them using the word for star and everything.  Plus, there was already a word for Moon already in existence, as previously discussed, and the bible very clear does not refer to it as the Moon of Bethlehem.

Also, no other text from the era makes any mention of a Moon suddenly springing into existence out of nowhere.  The Romans, who controlled most of the known world at the time, were very good at keeping records and had a decent education system for it's time in place.  There were a great many learned and literate people who would have witnessed this moon suddenly pop into the night sky and would have recorded it.

We have plenty of Roman writings from before and after Jesus's birth.  Strangely, writings from before his birth clearly indicate there being a moon and describing it's motion through the stars and it's phases as some Romans were big fans of Astrology which they got from the Greeks who also had a word with a solid definition for the moon.

No other object matches the description.

A star does.  A star matches the description nicely.  The star appears and Magi from the west travel east as they feel the star signifies something great.  The star does not give the location of Bethlehem to the Wise men.  King Herod does that.  The Wise men simply say they have seen a star that heralds the birth of the King of the Jews.  Seeing as they were astrologers and that stars were their business, they would know a star was.  If it was the moon that had suddenly appeared, they would have said, "King herod, we're looking for the King of the Jews because of that giant honking new light in the sky that dominates all of the stars."

The Bible is our record of this. Few records exist of that long ago: we have the barest fragments. It is not suspicious at all that some things are lost, especially with demons seeking to hide the truth.

Um, no.  We have tons of records from that time.  Poems, books, music.  Hell, professors are digging their way through Roman accounting books.  Now has a ton of stuff been lost?  Sure.  But we don't have only the "barest fragments" thats for sure.  The Romans loved to write stuff down and before them we have writings from the Greeks.

God is clear. To deny it is willful ignorance.

God is clear.  Hopefully one day he relieves you of your ignorance.

Probably because you haven't really dealt with it, which is probably because your really, really wrong.

This is what you claim, but your only justfication is that you believe the moon existed.

You just say it is and we are supposed to take your word for it.  Not Gods word, your's.

This is a lie, you simply reject God's word. This your choice, but do not claim otherwise.

Furthermore, using the word moon to describe the vague light of the stars doesn't really work as the Hebrew language has a word for that.  אור כוכבים means Star Light.

Are you familiar with the word 'synonym'?

It doesn't make sense for god to describe everything else in detail, using specific words to indicate what is being made, when, and how, but then suddenly decide to hijack the word used for Moon to describe something that the hebrew language already had a word for.  Unless you're suggesting God was being deliberately misleading.

Why would the language have a word for something that didn't exist?

No it isn't.  It's made painfully clear by the bible that the Star of Bethlehem was a star, what with them using the word for star and everything.  Plus, there was already a word for Moon already in existence, as previously discussed, and the bible very clear does not refer to it as the Moon of Bethlehem.

Willful ignorance. This has been explained to you.

Also, no other text from the era makes any mention of a Moon suddenly springing into existence out of nowhere.

Answered multiple times. Willful ignorance.

A star does.  A star matches the description nicely.  The star appears and Magi from the west travel east as they feel the star signifies something great.  The star does not give the location of Bethlehem to the Wise men.  King Herod does that.  The Wise men simply say they have seen a star that heralds the birth of the King of the Jews.  Seeing as they were astrologers and that stars were their business, they would know a star was.  If it was the moon that had suddenly appeared, they would have said, "King herod, we're looking for the King of the Jews because of that giant honking new light in the sky that dominates all of the stars."

The star moves visibly across the sky. It is clearly the moon.

How do you know you are correct?  From my point of view I am correct and you are refusing to accept correction, which is a sign that you have a hardened heart.  Are you implying you are God and not a man?  Stating the Star of Bethlehem is your words and nowhere to be found in the Bible.

All you offer is willful ignorance and foolishness. The Bible is clear, as you have been told, as it has been quoted, and as you have been taught. You choose to ignore this: god gave you free will, but do not claim God does not teach this, for He clearly does.
I know I am correct because I rely on God's word, not man's.

Quote

Living things did not exist. Foolishness.

Are you saying that God had never intended to create living creatures?  I think he had a grand plan and you are taking a single step out of context.

Here, a further example of your lies. Day and night are defined by God's light: there is light and darkness when light did not exist. After this, you believe God created the Sun to define an entirely separate system of day and night, and then He creared life. So life did not exist at this point in time, and would not exist at this point in time, and would not exist during this cycle of day and night which you inexplicably believe is not the cycle of day and night, for the Sun does not exist.
Foolishness is your choice, but you make your hardened heart apparent to all.

That was your definition, not mine.  Are you confusing who said what?  Good thing there is a transcript of everything that we have said.  You should go back and review it before making baseless accusations. 

I suggest you do the same.

As I said earlier, the light in Genesis 1:3-5 is just light, he hadn't created the Sun yet.  As I said, the Bible clearly defines a day by light and dark.  Who is willfully ignorant now?

A question is posed, and you ignore. You cannot ignore God so easily.

Yes, I am a man.  No, I do not think I am wiser than God.  Seriously, go look up the definition of lie, you keep using it incorrectly. 

I call you a liar because you claim things which you know to be falsehoods. You claim knowledge you gain from man is better than that given by God. You claim i say things I never uttered, and claim I have not answered a question which has been answered multiple times.

Heh, why would you repeat yourself?  You do realize that is all you do, right?  I could probably take every post you have made on here, eliminate the repetition and fit it on a half sheet of paper.

Acknowledge and accept my answers and God's word rather than repeating an answered question perhaps.

I am more than willing to accept correction; I just need more than your word for it.  You have provided your interpretation of God's word. 

I have provided God's word, and God's word alone. Interpretation is man's work, when we began to seek ways to disregard God's word.
Pray to God. You claim all I offer is my interpretation: have you asked Him? Pray and feel the truth. if your heart is open, you will know.

If God is so clear, then why do we need to manipulate the definition of words used in it or make strong assumptions to "correctly interpret" it.  That my friend, is far from clear.

I have never claimed any such thing. This is a further lie on your part. I have justified my statements clearly, and we do not need to manipulate the definition of a word, merely accept that the meanings of words alter with time, and it is clear from the Bible alone what and when these meanings are.

Yeah, done with this.  I feel like I am trying to argue a point with an 8-year-old. I am not here for you to constantly insult.  You are either very young, have low intelligence, suffering from a mental illness of some sort, a troll, or a combination thereof.

Yeah, done with this.  I feel like I am trying to argue a point with an 8-year-old. I am not here for you to constantly insult.  You are either very young, have low intelligence, suffering from a mental illness of some sort, a troll, or a combination thereof.

Ecclesiastes 7:9 Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

Quote from: Kogelblitz on September 29, 2015, 02:08:04 PM

Quote from: Testify on September 29, 2015, 11:48:29 AM

Quote from: Kogelblitz on September 29, 2015, 11:15:33 AM

I dont understand what the debate is about, and what this have got to do with flat earth. Can you please elaborate?

People, such as you and Jadyyn, dislike the religious debates that arise when I speak of my model. This thread is a place to discuss anything relating to it: I clearly believe the world is flat, and this is the topic of the thread.
I will continue to answer questions when posed, but if you don't want religious discussion to overtake your thread, ask here.

Allright! Let me ask you this. If you have to believe in god to go to heaven, what happened to the billions of people who lived out their lives before religion was invented?

You do not have to believe in God, you have to follow Him.
God revealed Himself to the first humans, and they taught their descendants. There was no 'before religion was invented.' There were only peoples who were deceived by demons and who follwoed false idols and Gods, such as the golden calf.
All are given a final chance to follow God, when they meet Him. It is far easier when you follow Him in life, however, to accept all He says at that moment. It is all or nothing, then.

That doesen't make sence, how would they know how to follow him if they didnt know him? And what about advanced humanoids before homo sapiens like homo erectus and neanderthalis? They never met god just because they weren't humans? Im sure there was a time between the moment we started using tools and crafts and when we invented god. and what about indigidous people in africa, Asia, and america specially in rainforests and islands isolated from society, who never was presented to god, how will they know how to follow god if no one told them?

Many people have complained that the debates that begin after I answer a question posed by them often prove derailing or overwhelming. I will not apologize for offering God's answer to their question, nor will I for the actions of others. I answer the questions I am posed.

In future however, if you wish to ask about or criticize some aspect of what I have stated in another thread, about God's view of the shape of the Earth, please do so here. I will respond if you post elsewhere, but this is for the benefit of the posters of the threads.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

Hypocrites and liars are welcome, as they should be, but I will not waste time on repeating myself.

Hey, I use the same verse you chose as a signature. Cool