cinepro Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 It is official LDS doctrine that Eve being created from the rib of Adam is figurative BTW.CFR that this is "official LDS doctrine".
shalamabobbi Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Thus is your opinion, which differs from other scientists.Kent Hovind is not a scientist..
shalamabobbi Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 CFR that this is "official LDS doctrine".Well I am simply assuming that what we are taught in the temple is doctrine..
Hughes Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Kent Hovind is not a scientist..Good to know. I don't think I claimed he was though.
cinepro Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Well I am simply assuming that what we are taught in the temple is doctrine..Probably isn't a good idea to base a definition of doctrine on an assumption. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) shalamabobbi:I don't believe that Temple Ceremonies are technically doctrine(though there obviously is doctrine in them), but I wouldn't put too fine a point on it. Edited August 29, 2011 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Hughes:The main pushers of ID is the Discovery Institute, a pseudoscientific gang with a political agenda. For what real scientists know about evolution See:http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
Alan Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) "Real scientists" know very little about evolution. They guess quite a lot, suspend or ignore known scientific laws in order to peddle their atheistic agenda, cross their fingers and hope no one notices, they even lie (there have been a number of hoax's over the years, some perpetrated by so called scientists) in the face of evidence to the contrary.Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the well known fairy tale the frog turns into a handsome prince in a split second. We all recognise this as a fairy tale because we know that amphibians don't turn into humans.........except of course that is exactly what evolutionary theory says happened. The only difference is the timescale. But a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter what you want to call it. Edited August 29, 2011 by Alan 1
jo1952 Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) jo1952:While I'm sorry that anyone losses faith in Jesus Christ. To use science as the excuse to loose faith is silly. I guess if you're looking for an excuse ANY will do. There are 100's if not thousands of active scientists in every discipline that are also active faithfull LDS. Further do Jews loose faith in God, because Pi isn't exactly three? Do Christian loose faith in Christ because the earth doesn't have four corners? Do Christians loose faith because the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Do LDS loose faith because Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong about man in space, and landing on the moon? Why on Gods' green earth should a LDS loose faith because someone didn't have an accurate understanding of what science actually says?Actually I have not claimed science as an excuse for losing faith. Even in my response to Calmoriah, I asked him for clarification of his post. Please reread my posts concerning this. What I DID say is if an interpretation of science does not persuade a person to believe in Christ, then that interpretation cannot be of God. Do you see the distinction? Here, again, are two of the verses I quoted:Moroni 7:16-17 16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. 17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."To persuade to believe in Christ" is pointing to someone's desire to come to Christ; not the failure of someone's faith who already believes in Christ. I believe Moroni's teaching can be applied directly to what is happening with interpretations of science which categorically change or throw out major events taught in scripture. For a person who already has strong faith in Christ who then chooses an interpretation of science which changes scripture, most likely (hopefully) their choice to believe that interpretation is not going to affect whether or not they will continue to believe in Christ. But that is NOT the test Moroni is giving us to "know with a perfect knowledge" something is of God or not. The test is, if that interpretation which has effectively thrown scripture under a bus gives cause for a non-believer to question the veracity of the Word of God, then that interpretation is NOT of God. IOW, this is how the non-believer views this: He is being introduced to the Gospel and has been reading scripture in his seeking and deciding if he is going to exercise faith or not. At the same time, he sees how believers themselves have thrown out or changed scripture according to interpretations of science. This causes him to question the rest of scripture because, if believers are tossing scripture under the bus, how is he supposed to be able to discern if ANY of scripture has any veracity? As a result, he is persuaded NOT to believe in Christ - he never takes that leap of faith because the very people trying to convince him to exercise faith are themselves effectively teaching him that not all scripture can be trusted or believed. The very fact that if "evidence" provided by science causes anyone to choose an interpretation of those findings which throws out scripture, or causes such major reconstructions of what they believe scripture is teaching, then that interpretation CANNOT be of God for the very reason it does not persuade a person to believe in Christ. I don't care if that interpretation does not affect the faith of someone who is already a believer. That interpretation cannot be of God because it has failed to persuade a non-believer to believe. Thus, that interpretation is false; it is of the devil. It is yet one more subtle tool for the devil to use in his never-ending 24/7 battle against God. When leaders of the Church teach us to gain as much education and knowledge as we can, I am certain they realize that the knowledge we pick up can only be from one of two places; either the camp of God OR the camp of Satan. We need to be able to determine which camp man's knowledge originated in because knowledge of what is evil helps us to make the right choices just as much as knowledge of what is good helps us to make the right choices. Fortunately God has provided an excellent way for us to know "WITH A PERFECT KNOWLEDGE" if what we are learning is of God or if it is of the devil. We don't have to even try to make an "educated guess"; we don't need to take a vote; we don't need to ponder and pray and study about it; we don’t need to use any scientific methods to test it. If knowledge we have learned does not persuade someone to believe in Christ, then that knowledge is NOT OF GOD. Period; no ifs, ands, or buts. It seems pretty clear to me that if man’s knowledge causes him to re-write or throw out major events recorded in scripture, that this action is absolutely a manifestation of what Moroni is teaching us; it is NOT of God. Regards,Jo Edited August 29, 2011 by jo1952
Hughes Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Hughes:The main pushers of ID is the Discovery Institute, a pseudoscientific gang with a political agenda. For what real scientists know about evolution See:http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Is your point that you disagree? You don't think that there are real scientists who support ID or a global flood model? Or do you just think that I need to know more about what "real" scientists "know" about evolution? And that somehow answers the questions posed? "Real scientists" know very little about evolution. They guess quite a lot, suspend or ignore known scientific laws in order to peddle their atheistic agenda, cross their fingers and hope no one notices, they even lie (there have been a number of hoax's over the years, some perpetrated by so called scientists) in the face of evidence to the contrary.Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the well known fairy tale the frog turns into a handsome prince in a split second. We all recognise this as a fairy tale because we know that amphibians don't turn into humans.........except of course that is exactly what evolutionary theory says happened. The only difference is the timescale. But a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter what you want to call it.Agreed.
Zakuska Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 "Real scientists" know very little about evolution. They guess quite a lot, suspend or ignore known scientific laws in order to peddle their atheistic agenda, cross their fingers and hope no one notices, they even lie (there have been a number of hoax's over the years, some perpetrated by so called scientists) in the face of evidence to the contrary.Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the well known fairy tale the frog turns into a handsome prince in a split second. We all recognise this as a fairy tale because we know that amphibians don't turn into humans.........except of course that is exactly what evolutionary theory says happened. The only difference is the timescale. But a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter what you want to call it.The one that really throws me for a loop is how easily Netwon got thrown out the window in the past 20 years or so.In School they told me, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but now they are telling me that all matter was created in the first few seconds of the "big bang".Yet they some how forget that even in the big bang theory... it all started from an infintesiamlly dense particle that exploded. Well... even that is something being created from something else.
shalamabobbi Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) IOW, this is how the non-believer views this: He is being introduced to the Gospel and has been reading scripture in his seeking and deciding if he is going to exercise faith or not. At the same time, he sees how believers themselves have thrown out or changed scripture according to interpretations of science. This causes him to question the rest of scripture because, if believers are tossing scripture under the bus, how is he supposed to be able to discern if ANY of scripture has any veracity?The same way you determine the veracity of those scriptures where Jacob places rods into the water trough to cause the cattle to breed offspring with a certain coat. Better not throw this under the bus! Else you are being influenced by Satan.If knowledge we have learned does not persuade someone to believe in Christ, then that knowledge is NOT OF GOD.This is getting silly. So when a civil engineer learns structural mechanics, it is not of God because it does not persuade anyone to believe in Christ..There is a difference between the words immoral and amoral. Basketball doesn't convince anyone to believe in Christ. I guess it is of the devil..Edit to add:I close friend of mine recently declined further investigation of the church when she decided there was a strong anti-science bent among the local membership. I tried to explain that it was not the official position of the church, that most members in Utah are from farmer stock, etc., but though it wasn't as bad as say walking into a Penticostal church in a rural area of South America, as I did once on my mission, it was still noticeable enough to her to end the discussions. So I guess your mileage may vary on this point.. Edited August 29, 2011 by shalamabobbi
jo1952 Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) First of all, the prophets probably didn't write anything down, but scribes did under the direction of redactors. Secondly, if you understood what ancient ecstatic prophets were really about you probably wouldn't champion them so much. Even modern LDS prophets are prone to disagree, e.g. the debate between James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith over the origin of man. James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith were not given the responsibility by God to write Genesis; Moses was. And certainly, God is not going to take away anyone's free agency for them to choose to believe what they want to believe. Third, we are all prophets for inspiration for ourselves. Prophets speak for the Lord for the populous not necessarily the scientific community. God has not spoken on many scientific areas because he has given us the brains, knowledge, and hopefully the wisdom to deal with them. And finally, it would be a mistake to assume things about a world wide flood scenario that may or may not have happened according to the Genesis account. There might be many factors that you haven't considered, i.e., language, idioms, and the relative cognition of those that recorded the "event".God HAS given us the guidelines, however, on how to decide what is of God and what is of the Devil. We use our brains to collect knowledge; we should be using the guidelines God gave us to determine if that knowledge came from God or not. We have been given those guidelines because we are fallible, regardless of how educated we become concerning secular knowledge. We have our agency to decide to use those guidelines or not.I try never to forget that Satan is the god of the earth; thus any information we may gather from the physical earth, even though we know it was Created by Christ, is STILL absolutely subject to the influence of what the adversary will encourage us to believe about what we have discovered.Regards,jo Edited August 29, 2011 by jo1952
jo1952 Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) I've read all the arguments. That doesn't change the fact that some scientists disagree with other scientists...Hi Hughes!"The generally accepted age for the Earth" - That is the very beginning of the very first sentence of the article. This is an admission by the author that the age of the Earth has NOT absolutely been proven. The purpose of his article was to try to cast doubt on the findings of those who disagreed with his interpretation choice. I do not think this is having the effect on those readers who disagree with him, which Thesometimesaint was hoping for. The article actually affirmed your argument.I find that those who wish to support Biblical events through science are the ones being scoffed at. Sadly, this does not surprise me. Mankind is inevitably fulfilling prophecy. Best regards,jo Edited August 29, 2011 by jo1952
Hughes Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Hi Hughes!"The generally accepted age for the Earth" - That is the very beginning of the very first sentence of the article. This is an admission by the author that the age of the Earth has NOT absolutely been proven. The purpose of his article was to try to cast doubt on the findings of those who disagreed with his interpretation choice. I do not think this is having the effect on those readers who disagree with him, which Thesometimesaint was hoping for. The article actually affirmed your argument.I find that those who wish to support Biblical events through science are the ones being scoffed at. Sadly, this does not surprise me. Mankind is inevitably fulfilling prophecy. Best regards,joThanks. I agree, of course. I ignore scoffing or the belittling such as name calling, "anti-science" and the like. It's typical of folks who don't have the facts to refute those they disagree with. The fact remains that there are scientists on both sides of these issues, including the global flood issue. It's a debate tactic to paint those you disagree with as "small minded" or "unable to understand..." etc., when the reality is that there are smart people on both sides of these issues. 1
shalamabobbi Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 "Real scientists" know very little about evolution. They guess quite a lot, suspend or ignore known scientific laws in order to peddle their atheistic agenda, cross their fingers and hope no one notices, they even lie (there have been a number of hoax's over the years, some perpetrated by so called scientists) in the face of evidence to the contrary.Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the well known fairy tale the frog turns into a handsome prince in a split second. We all recognise this as a fairy tale because we know that amphibians don't turn into humans.........except of course that is exactly what evolutionary theory says happened. The only difference is the timescale. But a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter what you want to call it.note: Off topic gish-gallop post..Would that be like Franktalks suspension of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and quantum mechanics?
jo1952 Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 I don't know what happened to Consiglieri but he offered what I think was the correct view of the Genesis creation account. Something to do with the number seven representing wholeness and completeness. There are many layers of understanding to scripture. The more we study it, i.e., line upon line, etc., as long as we are sincerely seeking, keep our minds open and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we will continue to have those layers of personal spiritual understanding revealed to us.Anyhow we don't tell small children the stork story too much anymore, but that is the way I look at it. The gospel has to be adapted to the least intelligent among us and must be simple to understand. Likely the details of creation are not so simple, so it wouldn't be fair to require understanding it in order to gain eternal life. But the purpose of the creation and the atonement can be explained with a rather simple depiction of it.I believe the Gospel has been presented in a way that all people at every level of understanding can learn from it. We ALL start out as babes in our understanding; we ALL start at the "milk" level. It is Father who determines when we are ready and able to bear more truth revealed to us on a personal level; that is when the Holy Ghost will reveal it to us. The amount of secular knowledge man acquires does not determine whether or not we are ready to have more about the Kingdom of God revealed to us. And certainly, we are left with our free agency to determine if the secular knowledge we are learning is of God or is of the Devil. I will have to disagree with you about both the Creation and the Atonement. I don't think either can be explained with a rather simple depiction of them. However, I don't think we will be penalized if all we were ready to bear and have personally revealed to us in our physical life was a "milk" understanding vs a "meat" understanding.It is official LDS doctrine that Eve being created from the rib of Adam is figurative BTW.CFR please. I am not a scripturian and do not recall where you are getting this from.Regards,jo
shalamabobbi Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 There are many layers of understanding to scripture. The more we study it, i.e., line upon line, etc., as long as we are sincerely seeking, keep our minds open and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we will continue to have those layers of personal spiritual understanding revealed to us.I believe the Gospel has been presented in a way that all people at every level of understanding can learn from it. We ALL start out as babes in our understanding; we ALL start at the "milk" level. It is Father who determines when we are ready and able to bear more truth revealed to us on a personal level; that is when the Holy Ghost will reveal it to us. The amount of secular knowledge man acquires does not determine whether or not we are ready to have more about the Kingdom of God revealed to us. And certainly, we are left with our free agency to determine if the secular knowledge we are learning is of God or is of the Devil. I will have to disagree with you about both the Creation and the Atonement. I don't think either can be explained with a rather simple depiction of them. However, I don't think we will be penalized if all we were ready to bear and have personally revealed to us in our physical life was a "milk" understanding vs a "meat" understanding.CFR please. I am not a scripturian and do not recall where you are getting this from.Regards,joIt is stated to you in the temple when you go through for the first time for your personal endowment..Anyhow to return to a part of your earlier post I would like to bring up the Oklo natural reactor. The reactor happened by chance when the concentration of Uranium was right and surrounding conditions for moderation of thermal neutrons occurred. All the correct reaction products are observed in the surrounding environment, etc.This is a copy of my post on a different forum: In order for a nuclear reactor to work the ratio of U235 to U238 must reach 3%.In nature it is less than 1%. So Oklo is impossible.But don't celebrate just yet.The ratio can be enriched..source:http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/14/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-enriched-vs-depleted-uranium/So now that you have read the source (you did read it didn't you?) you know how to separate isotopes, (by some method that takes advantage of the difference in mass or how much they weigh).If you can think of how nature might do this to create Oklo please explain it to me now..If not, that leaves but one other explanation that I am aware of to account for the difference in concentration between U235 and U238.They happen to decay at different rates.If we had equal amounts of U235 and U238 and wait long enough we find that the U235 disappears faster than U238. The longer we wait the higher the concentration of U238 would become compared to U235. So if the present ratio of U235 to U238 is under 1% and U235 decays faster than U238 how can the Oklo reactor be possible?Think this out for yourself.. If you have to give up, go ahead and read the spoiler..Spoiler: Far enough back in time we will reach a point where the concentration of U235 to U238 will reach 3% or more allowing the possibility of a natural reactor to occur.How far back? (You're not going to like this..)about 1.7 billion years.(see, I told you you wouldn't like it)
Calm Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) Anyhow we don't tell small children the stork story too much anymore, but that is the way I look at it. The gospel has to be adapted to the least intelligent among us and must be simple to understand. Likely the details of creation are not so simple, so it wouldn't be fair to require understanding it in order to gain eternal life. But the purpose of the creation and the atonement can be explained with a rather simple depiction of it.I may have mentioned this before (I usually do) but Brigham Young referred to at least Genesis as "baby stories"......It is official LDS doctrine that Eve being created from the rib of Adam is figurative BTW. Also "days".As far as what the Church teaches about the "days of creation":Length of the Creation The length of time required for the Creation is not known. The term day in the scriptural account of the Creation does not represent a 24-hour period. The Hebrew word yom can be translated as “day,” “time,” or “period.” The Apostle Peter said that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8; see also Abraham 3:4).http://lds.org/manua...eation?lang=eng Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah
jo1952 Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 The same way you determine the veracity of those scriptures where Jacob places rods into the water trough to cause the cattle to breed offspring with a certain coat. Better not throw this under the bus! Else you are being influenced by Satan.I see you justified throwing more of scripture under the bus. Do you believe the various plagues really happened which eventually caused Pharoah to release the children of Israel?This is getting silly. So when a civil engineer learns structural mechanics, it is not of God because it does not persuade anyone to believe in Christ..There is a difference between the words immoral and amoral. Basketball doesn't convince anyone to believe in Christ. I guess it is of the devil..It does seem silly that you would resort to trying to compare the throwing out of scripture with either structural mechanics or the sport of basketball. Edit to add:I close friend of mine recently declined further investigation of the church when she decided there was a strong anti-science bent among the local membership. I tried to explain that it was not the official position of the church, that most members in Utah are from farmer stock, etc., but though it wasn't as bad as say walking into a Penticostal church in a rural area of South America, as I did once on my mission, it was still noticeable enough to her to end the discussions. So I guess your mileage may vary on this point..You do not mention whether your friend already believes in Christ. If she does, then at the very least her interpretation of the findings of science has persuaded her to not even desire to learn the beliefs of the LDS Church. She holds so strongly to the secular world, that she has determined she cannot go to a church that does not support her in her temporal beliefs. She appears to be more concerned with the worldly truth a church may have to teach her, than any spiritual truth they may have to offer. Your story supports my position. Regards,jo
Calm Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) Well I am simply assuming that what we are taught in the temple is doctrine..Also:It also says, speaking figuratively, that Eve was formed from Adam’s rib.http://lds.org/ensig...adam%27s+rib%22This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)http://lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=%22rib+of+Adam%22Even so, some events related in Genesis 1–3 may be figurative in nature. For example, President Spencer W. Kimball taught: “‘And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.’ [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”2 We have another example in the term used to describe the six creative periods. In the book of Abraham, the phases of creation are not called the “day” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13) but “the second time,” “the third time” (Abr. 4:8, 13; emphasis added), and so forth. We therefore learn that periods of time for the Creation may have lasted 24 hours each, 1,000 years, or even millions of years.3 The periods of time are indeterminate in length; as one phase of the creation was finished, the next began. Therefore the age of the earth before Adam and Eve could have been great indeed.4http://lds.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng&query=rib+EvePresident Kimball's remark is quoted over and over again. Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith were not given the responsibility by God to write Genesis; Moses was. Do you believe what we now have in Genesis is in Moses' own words (translated to whatever language we read them in, of course)? Meaning pretty much the same thing as the above post is in your own words?
Calm Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 I see you justified throwing more of scripture under the bus. Interpreting the scriptures differently is not "throwing more scripture under the bus". It is unkind of you to say this.Sincere believers can have different understandings of scripture.
jo1952 Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) It is stated to you in the temple when you go through for the first time for your personal endowment..I don't think we should bring the Temple into this discussion as it is too easy to go too far and wind up getting moderated for revealing what is sacred to us. Suffice to say that our understanding of what is taught there also is learned line upon line in a continual progression. I would offer that the comments presented regarding the differences in what Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith believed about the origin of man shows conflict with your understanding of what is taught in the Temple.Anyhow to return to a part of your earlier post I would like to bring up the Oklo natural reactor. The reactor happened by chance when the concentration of Uranium was right and surrounding conditions for moderation of thermal neutrons occurred. All the correct reaction products are observed in the surrounding environment, etc.This is a copy of my post on a different forum: In order for a nuclear reactor to work the ratio of U235 to U238 must reach 3%.In nature it is less than 1%. So Oklo is impossible.But don't celebrate just yet.The ratio can be enriched..source:http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/14/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-enriched-vs-depleted-uranium/So now that you have read the source (you did read it didn't you?) you know how to separate isotopes, (by some method that takes advantage of the difference in mass or how much they weigh).If you can think of how nature might do this to create Oklo please explain it to me now..If not, that leaves but one other explanation that I am aware of to account for the difference in concentration between U235 and U238.They happen to decay at different rates.If we had equal amounts of U235 and U238 and wait long enough we find that the U235 disappears faster than U238. The longer we wait the higher the concentration of U238 would become compared to U235. So if the present ratio of U235 to U238 is under 1% and U235 decays faster than U238 how can the Oklo reactor be possible?Think this out for yourself.. If you have to give up, go ahead and read the spoiler..Spoiler: Far enough back in time we will reach a point where the concentration of U235 to U238 will reach 3% or more allowing the possibility of a natural reactor to occur.How far back? (You're not going to like this..)about 1.7 billion years.(see, I told you you wouldn't like it)I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. It appears to be more of an effort to take this opportunity to present some of the wealth of your secular knowledge. The information you have supplied is still subject to speculation and interpretation. We do NOT know how old our earth is.Regards,jo Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952
Franktalk Posted August 30, 2011 Author Posted August 30, 2011 I interacted with a flat earther on another board once. He rejected the pictures of the spherical earth from cameras aboard the space shuttle because they disagreed with his literal interpretation of the scriptures. He claimed that because the signals being sent to earth were processed that he didn't trust the images that were relayed. His arguments were very similar to yours in many respects.Flat earth? Is that the best you can come up with?Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.If one follows the axis of the earth northward it does point to an area of space with little stars. And if one does view the earth from space it does appear to hang on nothing.
Recommended Posts