Satan has a lie for everyone

Jahrule

Well-known member
Remember the thread I initiated for media showcasing content that surpasses the usual standards of awareness? Well, this post takes the opposite stance. Robert has previously highlighted how everyone seems to have a falsehood they believe in, and that observation is undoubtedly accurate. I've previously recommended the Truth Unedited YouTube channel, hosted by Ron, someone I hold in high regard. However, I must express disappointment this time. Ron recently released a video that does not deserve praise. Shockingly, it appears that Truth Unedited aligns with the flat earth belief.

Even in the context of Satan having a lie for everyone, this revelation is quite surprising. Although I haven't watched the entire video, I initially considered the possibility of a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A quick glance at the comments section under his video confirms his flat earth claims. It's unlikely that everyone in the comment section shares this belief coincidentally. Regrettably, Ron is indeed a flat earther.

 

Jahrule

Well-known member
The following is the comment I left on his video. No response as of yet.

The Bible uses highly symbolic language in order to communicate a point about deeper truths. It is not meant to be a lesson in geology or any other scientific discipline. The Bible says a lot of things that are not meant to be taken at face value, similar to how drinking the blood of Christ and eating his flesh doesn't mean we're supposed to become cannibals, nor does having angels posted at the four corners of the Earth mean that the world is a square.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
I would also like to know how you would respond to someone who claims the bible supports a flat earth.
 

Carl

Well-known member
Even in the context of Satan having a lie for everyone, this revelation is quite surprising. Although I haven't watched the entire video, I initially considered the possibility of a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A quick glance at the comments section under his video confirms his flat earth claims. It's unlikely that everyone in the comment section shares this belief coincidentally. Regrettably, Ron is indeed a flat earther.
I watch Ron's videos... he usually has great content. I don't agree with his views on some things, but he's genuine and he makes me think. I'm not a flat earther, but I am a skeptic of science as we know it. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inspired word of God (except where Paul said he wasn't speaking for Jehovah, and admitted to inserting his own opinion). It can be very difficult to reconcile Genesis Chapter 1 with modern science. The 3 verses that cause me to question things are Genesis 1:6-8 "Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

The Bible clearly tells us there is water above and below the heavens (skies)... how this plays out is anyone's guess, but it only causes me more confusion when I think about it. Did all the water come down when Jehovah caused the flood? Is there still some up there? I don't give it much thought anymore, because it doesn't matter to me. If Satan tries to pull off some fake alien deception, I don't think anyone here will fall for it regardless of our scientific beliefs. I look forward to learning the facts real soon.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
I watch Ron's videos... he usually has great content. I don't agree with his views on some things, but he's genuine and he makes me think. I'm not a flat earther, but I am a skeptic of science as we know it. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inspired word of God (except where Paul said he wasn't speaking for Jehovah, and admitted to inserting his own opinion). It can be very difficult to reconcile Genesis Chapter 1 with modern science. The 3 verses that cause me to question things are Genesis 1:6-8 "Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

The Bible clearly tells us there is water above and below the heavens (skies)... how this plays out is anyone's guess, but it only causes me more confusion when I think about it. Did all the water come down when Jehovah caused the flood? Is there still some up there? I don't give it much thought anymore, because it doesn't matter to me. If Satan tries to pull off some fake alien deception, I don't think anyone here will fall for it regardless of our scientific beliefs. I look forward to learning the facts real soon.

It's crucial to recognize that what we perceive as clarity may not always be so. The events described in Genesis 1:6-8 may not convey the message we assume. Often, humans tend to impose their modern understanding onto ancient texts, a practice particularly problematic when interpreting the creative days of Genesis. At this point in genesis, it's only the second day of creation; animals haven't even been created yet. It's unlikely that the Bible is making a specific claim about the composition of a Kent Hovind water canopy.

I firmly believe that the creative days of Genesis provide a high-level overview of the creation of the physical world. This tendency to take certain parts of scripture at face value is a trap that young earth creationists and flat earthers fall into. The Bible isn't intended to serve as a scientific textbook. For me, there are no conflicts between my beliefs and established scientific truths. I know that Jah created everything, and if Jah is true, the real facts will always align with how he created this universe, even if it differs from our assumptions.

I'm open to the idea that God may speak in highly symbolic language not meant to be taken literally. Jesus, much like Jah, employed this approach regularly. It's possible that the Earth didn't even have a breathable atmosphere on day 2 of creation. Speculating about the wording and making assumptions about the flood is largely conjecture on our part.

While I understand that people may disagree with my interpretation of Genesis, I believe it covers a broader timescale than most JWs acknowledge, except perhaps for me. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but hey, if Jah crafted me out of play dough in an afternoon, I'd still accept it and be happy for my existence. I find no issues reconciling my beliefs with science, and the key, I believe, is to appreciate the benefits of speaking in parables, as Jesus did
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
It's crucial to recognize that what we perceive as clarity may not always be so. The events described in Genesis 1:6-8 may not convey the message we assume. Often, humans tend to impose their modern understanding onto ancient texts, a practice particularly problematic when interpreting the creative days of Genesis. At this point in genesis, it's only the second day of creation; animals haven't even been created yet. It's unlikely that the Bible is making a specific claim about the composition of a Kent Hovind water canopy.

I firmly believe that the creative days of Genesis provide a high-level overview of the creation of the physical world. This tendency to take certain parts of scripture at face value is a trap that young earth creationists and flat earthers fall into. The Bible isn't intended to serve as a scientific textbook. For me, there are no conflicts between my beliefs and established scientific truths. I know that Jah created everything, and if Jah is true, the real facts will always align with how he created this universe, even if it differs from our assumptions.

I'm open to the idea that God may speak in highly symbolic language not meant to be taken literally. Jesus, much like Jah, employed this approach regularly. It's possible that the Earth didn't even have a breathable atmosphere on day 2 of creation. Speculating about the wording and making assumptions about the flood is largely conjecture on our part.

While I understand that people may disagree with my interpretation of Genesis, I believe it covers a broader timescale than most JWs acknowledge, except perhaps for me. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but hey, if Jah crafted me out of play dough in an afternoon, I'd still accept it and be happy for my existence. I find no issues reconciling my beliefs with science, and the key, I believe, is to appreciate the benefits of speaking in parables, as Jesus did
The issue about the creative days has a good argument in the factual science we have now. If I recall correctly watchtower did an article on it in late 1960s or early 70s, but regardless of them, the description of the creation is remarkable for its accuracy. The waters above the earth is a good question - and its proof is to be found in the biblical descriptions, and especially so in that of the complete circumference of the globe having vegetation. The fact that such was possible is reflected within textual descriptions of life on earth and the weather, and various other issues. If my memory serves me well, the water above the earth would be between 5 and 7 miles - roughly where the van Allen belt sits today and which is significant in itself but significant so in that if you wanted to balance several billion tons of water above the earth, that would be the place to do it. A significant marker is that the human lifespan reduced at the same time as the flood. One has to ask why. If you do, there is an answer there also.


However, the narration of the creative days has a far more significant issue - again, watchtower has passed over it superficially, and that is the creation of light. Einstein proved that fact that darkness is the natural state of the universe. Jehovah is portrayed as being above the formless waste of the earth and its waters - the first thing he created was light. But light is not the sun of course, which is a generator of light: light is the law by which light is produced, what it does, and how it is achieved - e.g., it’s reaction on chlorophyll can produce sugars. Light is made up of a spectrum and of which some parts are visible to us, others not. Imagine if all were visible, and we may have insight into the brilliance of Jehovah.

These things are hardly conjecture - the evidence is within the laws that govern life and that have been extant since the moment Jehovah formed them. Admittedly, we know little of these laws and their construct, but of what we do know, the scientific expression of the creative days cannot be described in any other way factually. Light is a substance. It is affected by gravity and applied in the right way, can cut the hardest substance with an accuracy that can barely be measured. There is of course, a problem with science and it is that we do not understand it all. So one should be cautious in letting man speak as to its explanation. If we read the bible as it is written, and along with it apply understanding of how the science fits the word of the bible, the clarity of the genesis account is stunning in its simplicity. It we let the account speak to us, far from being incredulous, it provides a description that only a master in science could describe with such elegant, modest flippancy, so breathtaking in its sequential accuracy. There remains only one major issue about the waters existing above the earth, and that is, that if Jehovah intends to restore them to their rightful place, using the waters that are upon the earth, then the reduction in sea level will reunite England with France. I am not sure if I could cope with that but I’m sure Jehovah will come up with a solution.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
The issue about the creative days has a good argument in the factual science we have now. If I recall correctly watchtower did an article on it in late 1960s or early 70s, but regardless of them, the description of the creation is remarkable for its accuracy. The waters above the earth is a good question - and its proof is to be found in the biblical descriptions, and especially so in that of the complete circumference of the globe having vegetation. The fact that such was possible is reflected within textual descriptions of life on earth and the weather, and various other issues. If my memory serves me well, the water above the earth would be between 5 and 7 miles - roughly where the van Allen belt sits today and which is significant in itself but significant so in that if you wanted to balance several billion tons of water above the earth, that would be the place to do it. A significant marker is that the human lifespan reduced at the same time as the flood. One has to ask why. If you do, there is an answer there also.


However, the narration of the creative days has a far more significant issue - again, watchtower has passed over it superficially, and that is the creation of light. Einstein proved that fact that darkness is the natural state of the universe. Jehovah is portrayed as being above the formless waste of the earth and its waters - the first thing he created was light. But light is not the sun of course, which is a generator of light: light is the law by which light is produced, what it does, and how it is achieved - e.g., it’s reaction on chlorophyll can produce sugars. Light is made up of a spectrum and of which some parts are visible to us, others not. Imagine if all were visible, and we may have insight into the brilliance of Jehovah.

These things are hardly conjecture - the evidence is within the laws that govern life and that have been extant since the moment Jehovah formed them. Admittedly, we know little of these laws and their construct, but of what we do know, the scientific expression of the creative days cannot be described in any other way factually. Light is a substance. It is affected by gravity and applied in the right way, can cut the hardest substance with an accuracy that can barely be measured. There is of course, a problem with science and it is that we do not understand it all. So one should be cautious in letting man speak as to its explanation. If we read the bible as it is written, and along with it apply understanding of how the science fits the word of the bible, the clarity of the genesis account is stunning in its simplicity. It we let the account speak to us, far from being incredulous, it provides a description that only a master in science could describe with such elegant, modest flippancy, so breathtaking in its sequential accuracy. There remains only one major issue about the waters existing above the earth, and that is, that if Jehovah intends to restore them to their rightful place, using the waters that are upon the earth, then the reduction in sea level will reunite England with France. I am not sure if I could cope with that but I’m sure Jehovah will come up with a solution.

You never disappoint, Barnaby. I, too, believe the Bible is remarkably in line with science. As I stated, I see no conflict with science. The only conflicts arise when humans start to fill in the blanks of understanding based on their own knowledge, which, as you pointed out, is limited. In all honesty, the Bible likely was not meant to educate us in science.

Furthermore, when I say "science," I am referring to the process of the scientific method. I don't mean XYZ is true because a science guy said so. Our physical world is designed in such a way that we can make observations, collect data, and make predictions based on models to determine what is most likely true or false.

When it comes to God's word, on the other hand, that is different. The process of science is designed to help us compensate for our own biases from within this physical sandbox world, and God is not part of our world. So trying to merge our spiritual beliefs with science is like trying to use carbon dating to test materials that have no carbon in them. The issues surrounding sin and God's sovereignty were of the utmost importance. That is why we have the Bible. It's meant to teach us about the things we cannot ascertain from analyzing merely the physical world.

Does Genesis fit into a scientific model? Of course. It just wasn't meant to be an exhaustive explanation for how the physical world was created, only that it was created.
 

Cristo

Well-known member
I watch Ron's videos... he usually has great content. I don't agree with his views on some things, but he's genuine and he makes me think. I'm not a flat earther, but I am a skeptic of science as we know it. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inspired word of God (except where Paul said he wasn't speaking for Jehovah, and admitted to inserting his own opinion). It can be very difficult to reconcile Genesis Chapter 1 with modern science. The 3 verses that cause me to question things are Genesis 1:6-8 "Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

The Bible clearly tells us there is water above and below the heavens (skies)... how this plays out is anyone's guess, but it only causes me more confusion when I think about it. Did all the water come down when Jehovah caused the flood? Is there still some up there? I don't give it much thought anymore, because it doesn't matter to me. If Satan tries to pull off some fake alien deception, I don't think anyone here will fall for it regardless of our scientific beliefs. I look forward to learning the facts real soon.
Carl, when you get to the bottom of it, the atmosphere is essentially water in a different form. When Jehovah separated the expanse, to me that simply means he created the atmosphere within to live in. Dividing the waters is an apt way of saying it because when you divide something you always get a smaller number. We see the ocean waters because there are so many H2O molecules, however the air contains much, much less.

There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water — water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3).
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
Carl, when you get to the bottom of it, the atmosphere is essentially water in a different form. When Jehovah separated the expanse, to me that simply means he created the atmosphere within to live in. Dividing the waters is an apt way of saying it because when you divide something you always get a smaller number. We see the ocean waters because there are so many H2O molecules, however the air contains much, much less.

There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water — water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3).
That's right. You technically can't have life without humidity. It makes sense contextually because plant and animals life didn't come until after this phase of creation.
 

Carl

Well-known member
Carl, when you get to the bottom of it, the atmosphere is essentially water in a different form. When Jehovah separated the expanse, to me that simply means he created the atmosphere within to live in. Dividing the waters is an apt way of saying it because when you divide something you always get a smaller number. We see the ocean waters because there are so many H2O molecules, however the air contains much, much less.
I believe there may have been a water canopy up there before the flood... which would have kept the planet a uniform humidity and temperature. I don't think there's an ocean up there now, but I can't say that with 100% confidence... more like 99.9999%.
 

Carl

Well-known member
The issue about the creative days has a good argument in the factual science we have now. If I recall correctly watchtower did an article on it in late 1960s or early 70s, but regardless of them, the description of the creation is remarkable for its accuracy. The waters above the earth is a good question - and its proof is to be found in the biblical descriptions, and especially so in that of the complete circumference of the globe having vegetation. The fact that such was possible is reflected within textual descriptions of life on earth and the weather, and various other issues. If my memory serves me well, the water above the earth would be between 5 and 7 miles - roughly where the van Allen belt sits today and which is significant in itself but significant so in that if you wanted to balance several billion tons of water above the earth, that would be the place to do it. A significant marker is that the human lifespan reduced at the same time as the flood. One has to ask why. If you do, there is an answer there also.


However, the narration of the creative days has a far more significant issue - again, watchtower has passed over it superficially, and that is the creation of light. Einstein proved that fact that darkness is the natural state of the universe. Jehovah is portrayed as being above the formless waste of the earth and its waters - the first thing he created was light. But light is not the sun of course, which is a generator of light: light is the law by which light is produced, what it does, and how it is achieved - e.g., it’s reaction on chlorophyll can produce sugars. Light is made up of a spectrum and of which some parts are visible to us, others not. Imagine if all were visible, and we may have insight into the brilliance of Jehovah.

These things are hardly conjecture - the evidence is within the laws that govern life and that have been extant since the moment Jehovah formed them. Admittedly, we know little of these laws and their construct, but of what we do know, the scientific expression of the creative days cannot be described in any other way factually. Light is a substance. It is affected by gravity and applied in the right way, can cut the hardest substance with an accuracy that can barely be measured. There is of course, a problem with science and it is that we do not understand it all. So one should be cautious in letting man speak as to its explanation. If we read the bible as it is written, and along with it apply understanding of how the science fits the word of the bible, the clarity of the genesis account is stunning in its simplicity. It we let the account speak to us, far from being incredulous, it provides a description that only a master in science could describe with such elegant, modest flippancy, so breathtaking in its sequential accuracy. There remains only one major issue about the waters existing above the earth, and that is, that if Jehovah intends to restore them to their rightful place, using the waters that are upon the earth, then the reduction in sea level will reunite England with France. I am not sure if I could cope with that but I’m sure Jehovah will come up with a solution.
I brought up this topic with my son last night, and his take is that Genesis 1 is poetic, not literal. This made me think about how we're supposed to understand the Bible... is it to be taken as literal or figurative? I'm a black & white kind of person when it comes to sin, faith and undeniable Bible truths, but I also realize the Bible has some gray areas where Jehovah allows for conjecture in order to test our faith. The Bible is definitely NOT a technical manual, but more of mystery that requires faith to understand. I'm currently watching a documentary about Bible scholars who've lost their faith. Long story short... if you approach your faith scientifically, you stand a good chance of losing it, but if you approach it with a submissive heart, it only grows stronger.

I believe that nothing is outside of Jehovah's creative power. If He wanted to create a giant snow globe, disc shaped, flat Earth, he could. Do I think he did? No. The globe model makes more sense to me, logically and scientifically. That said, I don't make definitive statements I can't prove. I watch a lot of alternative news programs, some have guests on who swear the globe as we're told model is false... and they have all kinds of facts and experiments to prove it. Who I am to tell them they're wrong? I decided to leave this and other topics in my rearview mirror. I enjoy discussing them, but I'm not trying to figure them out anymore. My sole focus now is preparing for what lies ahead spiritually, i.e. the grand deception Jesus warned us to look out for, and physically... food shortages, medical issues, violence.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
I brought up this topic with my son last night, and his take is that Genesis 1 is poetic, not literal. This made me think about how we're supposed to understand the Bible... is it to be taken as literal or figurative? I'm a black & white kind of person when it comes to sin, faith and undeniable Bible truths, but I also realize the Bible has some gray areas where Jehovah allows for conjecture in order to test our faith. The Bible is definitely NOT a technical manual, but more of mystery that requires faith to understand. I'm currently watching a documentary about Bible scholars who've lost their faith. Long story short... if you approach your faith scientifically, you stand a good chance of losing it, but if you approach it with a submissive heart, it only grows stronger.

I believe that nothing is outside of Jehovah's creative power. If He wanted to create a giant snow globe, disc shaped, flat Earth, he could. Do I think he did? No. The globe model makes more sense to me, logically and scientifically. That said, I don't make definitive statements I can't prove. I watch a lot of alternative news programs, some have guests on who swear the globe as we're told model is false... and they have all kinds of facts and experiments to prove it. Who I am to tell them they're wrong? I decided to leave this and other topics in my rearview mirror. I enjoy discussing them, but I'm not trying to figure them out anymore. My sole focus now is preparing for what lies ahead spiritually, i.e. the grand deception Jesus warned us to look out for, and physically... food shortages, medical issues, violence.
I don't think literal vs symbolic is as mutually exclusive as people claim it is. It's not one vs the other. Scripture always literally means something, even when it is figuratively depicted. It is even in our nature to do this. Anybody familiar with computer programming? Even if you're not, hear me out anyway.

Programming used to be super hard. You'd have to learn assembler language or freaking binary code. That was too hard so we created higher level languages that are more like English. The first ones were easier than assembler but still unwieldy, such as C. Now we have even more English like syntax that's easier to understand. Nevertheless, you can still do actual work with high level languages. They abstract a lot of inner details away, although they increase productivity. There are actual real world benefits to abstractions.

Look into Python. I love Python. Today there are even languages higher level than that, like LiveCode, which is about as close to English as you can get, aside from asking AI to code it for you -- now also a possibility. The only reason people lose their faith from science is because people "lean" on their own understanding. Just like in programming, God uses human language to communicate an actual point to us. It is, however, not just about the "words" or the specific sounds used; there is a whole world underneath the hood of human language. People miss this because they get so caught up over the specific words that they miss the point behind them. They literally miss the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited:

Carl

Well-known member
I don't think literal vs symbolic is as mutually exclusive as people claim it is. It's not one vs the other. Scripture always literally means something, even when it is figuratively depicted.
True. Some parts are pretty black & white, whereas others require thinking skills. When we over think and legalize the Bible we get more and more rules and man made interpretations that become overburdensome laws. I'm trying to stick to the Sermon on the Mount and Galatians 5:19-23 "Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
True. Some parts are pretty black & white, whereas others require thinking skills. When we over think and legalize the Bible we get more and more rules and man made interpretations that become overburdensome laws. I'm trying to stick to the Sermon on the Mount and Galatians 5:19-23 "Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
I also like what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, how one day soon it won't just be about churches or temples, where we will worship in spirit and truth. One day the world won't be this confusing corrupt place that it is now.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
I brought up this topic with my son last night, and his take is that Genesis 1 is poetic, not literal. This made me think about how we're supposed to understand the Bible... is it to be taken as literal or figurative? I'm a black & white kind of person when it comes to sin, faith and undeniable Bible truths, but I also realize the Bible has some gray areas where Jehovah allows for conjecture in order to test our faith. The Bible is definitely NOT a technical manual, but more of mystery that requires faith to understand. I'm currently watching a documentary about Bible scholars who've lost their faith. Long story short... if you approach your faith scientifically, you stand a good chance of losing it, but if you approach it with a submissive heart, it only grows stronger.

I believe that nothing is outside of Jehovah's creative power. If He wanted to create a giant snow globe, disc shaped, flat Earth, he could. Do I think he did? No. The globe model makes more sense to me, logically and scientifically. That said, I don't make definitive statements I can't prove. I watch a lot of alternative news programs, some have guests on who swear the globe as we're told model is false... and they have all kinds of facts and experiments to prove it. Who I am to tell them they're wrong? I decided to leave this and other topics in my rearview mirror. I enjoy discussing them, but I'm not trying to figure them out anymore. My sole focus now is preparing for what lies ahead spiritually, i.e. the grand deception Jesus warned us to look out for, and physically... food shortages, medical issues, violence.
The truth of the genesis account are found in the laws that govern them. There is no mystery. Though the scriptures do employ figurative instances to make a point, wisdom and understanding point to what is reasonable. There is nothing to be gained in describing the creation in a figurative manner when the theme of the entire book is one of truth.

Given the time span allotted to humankind, figurative explanations are justified and with perfect reasoning too as the apply through the allotted time span. The prophesy also applies the same principle in that they cannot be reasoned upon until the allotted time. But the critical factors pertaining to truth are clear throughout. So there are three parallel approaches that rely on each other in a perfect collaboration in describing all aspects of recovery from sin. Interspersed throughout the text are the gems and explanatory pictures that produce the aesthetic appreciation of the attributes of the spirit that are required of us to practice. One simply cannot have a book more relevant to the entire history of man at the time of their living throughout every eon of history.

It is true that the bible is not technically written as to creation, yet if you look for it, it supplies the fact, but leaves us to search - if we are interested. By that, I simply refer to our own discoveries. And those discoveries are only open to us through our own learning. That learning of itself leads down two pathways - the creative and the evolutionary chaos theory. The study of osmosis is fascinating in its creation. It leads one into every corner of the sustenance of life - but to a dead end if one follows the evolutionary course. No, we cannot find the answer, but you can find an answer, or several along the way that aids faith - that “yes” moment when you realise that creation is the only reasonable answer, a fact, not a theory - such as in your own profession, sight - it does not stop at the eye does it - the blind spot, the optic nerve, the pictures formed in the brain, concept, depth, colour, transliteration into thought, reaction, response, memory, recognition…if you rearview mirror it, you are missing out on the greatest opportunity in the generation of faith still extant in this earth today! (Btw, with the laws created as they are, a flat earth would not be possible if the chosen purpose for it remained as stated).🤣
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
I'm gonna start my own cube shaped earth theory. Then we could call it a perfect square because of math or something.
 

kenmuldoon55

Well-known member
I brought up this topic with my son last night, and his take is that Genesis 1 is poetic, not literal. This made me think about how we're supposed to understand the Bible... is it to be taken as literal or figurative? I'm a black & white kind of person when it comes to sin, faith and undeniable Bible truths, but I also realize the Bible has some gray areas where Jehovah allows for conjecture in order to test our faith. The Bible is definitely NOT a technical manual, but more of mystery that requires faith to understand. I'm currently watching a documentary about Bible scholars who've lost their faith. Long story short... if you approach your faith scientifically, you stand a good chance of losing it, but if you approach it with a submissive heart, it only grows stronger.

I believe that nothing is outside of Jehovah's creative power. If He wanted to create a giant snow globe, disc shaped, flat Earth, he could. Do I think he did? No. The globe model makes more sense to me, logically and scientifically. That said, I don't make definitive statements I can't prove. I watch a lot of alternative news programs, some have guests on who swear the globe as we're told model is false... and they have all kinds of facts and experiments to prove it. Who I am to tell them they're wrong? I decided to leave this and other topics in my rearview mirror. I enjoy discussing them, but I'm not trying to figure them out anymore. My sole focus now is preparing for what lies ahead spiritually, i.e. the grand deception Jesus warned us to look out for, and physically... food shortages, medical issues, violence.
If the earth is flat, why isn’t the moon also flat?
 

Carl

Well-known member
If the earth is flat, why isn’t the moon also flat?
As I said, I don’t believe the Earth is flat. Most FE proponents believe the sun, moon and planets are small and within the dome. I don’t believe this, but the videos they put out are entertaining. They have an answer for every gotcha question it seems. I don’t waste my time on them anymore.

Some people get pretty heated over this topic. My friend got all upset with me even mentioning how the videos make a compelling argument. I said “I don’t believe the Earth is flat… PERIOD… but some of the videos really make you think.” I just don’t understand why this is so upsetting. It’s actually kind of silly. I don’t care if someone believes in FE, I’m not going to judge them. It doesn’t affect my faith. If the FE theory was true, not saying it is, it would prove God’s existence… so it doesn’t bother me, cause either way God is real.
 
Top