Just Keep Opening Those Sleepy Eyes Reddit
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Can you give a source for that? I couldn’t find one myself.
Again, source? I quickly found a website that directly contradicts that statement, so you’ll have to find something better than just some website that says the same words you just said without any “deeper” evidence.
“simply”, even though this would require light from the stars and sun and moon to bend in incredibly strange and inconsistent ways (that we don’t observe at all on the ground) in order to be visible at the times and locations we see in reality, at the angles we observe.
When was that written? What was our understanding of the word “star”? If the point of that passage was to “paint a picture” of what the world would look like, “stars falling from the sky” could mean anything where a multitude of bright objects starts falling, like a meteor shower or a fleet of aircraft. If it’s that last explanation, why would God want to reveal to humanity that they’d invent flying machines? It might mess up His plan.
Visibility on a globe earth is trigonometric in nature, as opposed to linear, as a simple factor of some “inches per square mile” would imply. That is a misrepresentation of the globe model, the real equations involve trigonometric functions like sine, cosine, and tangent.
If you think God couldn’t do this in a “globe reality” then you underestimate His power.
This could mean any number of things. This could take place at one specific location. It also could involve any kind of bending of space. This is describing a future event and we have no idea how it’ll happen and what this show of power will look like in the specifics.
God using a flat object as a footstool makes just as much sense as Him using a round one. This proves nothing.
This is a past event none of us were around for. And this description does not contradict the globe model. The globe model describes the present to incredible accuracy.
This can be done in a number of ways. You restrict your imagination to thinking that this means “everyone on earth will have a direct line of sight to one particular point”. God can accomplish this thing in any number of ways.
Either light bends to make some stars invisible at certain places and to make the sun and moon invisible at other times and appear at certain angles at certain places on a flat earth, or light in the sky moves in a straight line to let everyone see all of it at once. Pick one.
I do not understand what you are trying to prove with point 8.
Try again.
Edit: Your link doesn’t work, but I found where I think you wanted to direct me to. A lot of these “proofs” are based on misunderstandings of the globe model. I would write out why each of them are either wrong, nonsensical, or require more evidence, but there are youtube videos that do it better than I could in the time and space I have to write this comment. Professor Dave Explains has good videos with sound reasoning on the subject if you can wade through the condescension.
Prophecies of the future do not dictate what the best model for reality is in the present. And they’re often written in a “future proves past” kind of way where we know it when we see it, but until then we can’t predict the details of what’s going to happen. God is all-powerful, His options are endless from our perspective.
That approximation might work well for short distances. I gave it a calculation with the exact formula: radius*(1-cos(2pi*distance/circumference)) and got a similar number, 71.5 miles. But what does this number mean? It means that if you were to place a flat earth on top of a globe and walk along the flat earth for a little under 750 miles (so that “below” you is exactly 750 miles along the round curve), you would be 71 miles away from the curved surface in the direction normal to the plane. I said all that in a weird way because “down” from the flat earth wouldn’t be true “down” in the globe sense. Because as the earth curves, so does the direction we know as “down”. Does it ever say New Jerusalem would be shaped like a perfectly flat disc? Why wouldn’t it be built to curve with the surface it’s made for?
Other 8”/mi^2 misconceptions are clarified here: https://www.quora.com/If-the-earth%E2%80%99s-curve-is-at-8-inches-per-square-mile-how-can-one-see-objects-over-70-miles-away
Do you think it matters to God what the size of the earth is compared to the rest of the cosmos? What’s important is that the place for His creations to exist in is “good”, which would mean hospitable, beautiful, etc. If reality tells us that God made a round earth, in a space decorated by larger, incredibly bright, yet astronomically distant objects, then that had to be the best way to accomplish His goals. Do you think He can’t focus His attention on the earth if the earth is too small?
Hebrew flat earth. Let’s just think about one aspect of it. The dome overhead with the sun on it. The sun moves across the dome, sometimes visible overhead, sometimes lower in the sky, and disappears below the horizon during sunset. So... How do time zones fit in to this model? With modern technology we can easily communicate with friends and strangers all over the world, and together you can verify that right now it’s day for some and night for others. So maybe the sun never goes down below the edges of the dome, and only gets farther away overhead, as some have suggested. Now, why wouldn’t the sun always be visible then? It could shine light like a spotlight, but that idea comes with its own set of issues. Namely, shape. As the sun sets in the “sun gets farther away but never goes below” model, we would expect it to appear elliptical instead of round, getting more and more squished as it gets further away. Perhaps the sun is still a 3d object, so that it looks round from all angles? The problem now is size. The sun doesn’t appear to get smaller as it gets lower in the sky. And the sun would have to accelerate tremendously in order to keep its constant angular velocity from our point of view, and other distant povs don’t corroborate this acceleration, they also see constant angular velocity. (depending on the season and latitude its path might curve across the sky but taking that into account isn’t enough to fix the problems, in fact it just introduces more.) But this really doesn’t work when you consider the moon. We all see the same moon. We all see it rise and set as scheduled. We all see it being same size overhead regardless of location in the world. We all see it perfectly round no matter where it is in the sky.
The only explanation for all of this to be compatible with flat earth is that light somehow bends through the sky to give the appearance that, wait for it... that the earth is round and these are distant round objects. At that point, why the complexity?
If you want to know how I personally reconcile the Bible’s account of creation with the round earth reality, check out creationscience.com.
Obviously it’s a lot easier to imagine the world as a plane than a sphere. But that simplicity rapidly goes away when you stretch it to accommodate all of the weirdness we see in reality, which I tried to point out. The globe model takes a bit more thought investment upfront but you don’t have to stretch it at all to fit the evidence, it pays off in the long run.
The earth spins around relative to the sun, therefore time zones and sunsets.
As for New Jerusalem, I haven’t seen it, and you haven’t seen it. We know it is square, but that doesn’t mean it looks like a cube with flat faces. We don’t know if the height is measuring the wall, the tallest building, some mountain inside the city, or something else. We don’t know if the base is concave. This topic contributes nothing to either argument.
It really doesn’t matter for how long you have let yourself be lied to. You say I misunderstand, but fail to specify what step in my logic I got wrong. By retreating with such a non-answer to all of the issues I brought up, you give the impression that you have no answer, either because you don’t understand your argument as well as you think, or because you don’t want to admit that you are wrong. You need to wake up.