Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[Allison]

Consider adding to your question: what makes the sunlight visible further from higher elevation. You can see drones capturing two or more sunsets by recording one, then racing upwards to see another, repeated until the drone reaches it's maximum height.

I don't think it's anybody's intention to gang up on a person for their beliefs. If attacking a scientific concept, you have to be ready to defend your hypothesis - no hard feelings are intended. Often, if you're hearing the same thing from many sources, with evidence supplied and invitations to experiment and learn for yourself, it's a good sign that what the people are saying is true.

That's a great drone video, by the way. But you do know that would work on a flat earth too, right? Because elevation increases perspective, or distance of visibility, right. But did you notice how the horizon rose with the rise in elevation?

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

[braingrunt]

I don't think it's anybody's intention to gang up on a person for their beliefs. If attacking a scientific concept, you have to be ready to defend your hypothesis - no hard feelings are intended. Often, if you're hearing the same thing from many sources, with evidence supplied and invitations to experiment and learn for yourself, it's a good sign that what the people are saying is true.

That's a great drone video, by the way. But you do know that would work on a flat earth too, right? Because elevation increases perspective, or distance of visibility, right. But did you notice how the horizon rose with the rise in elevation?

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

[Allison]

That's a great drone video, by the way. But you do know that would work on a flat earth too, right? Because elevation increases perspective, or distance of visibility, right. But did you notice how the horizon rose with the rise in elevation?

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

[justme]

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

If I may interject. The difficulty here is that we live on a very large earth. (true regardless of if it is flat or spherical) So the curvatures involved are hard too comprehend or perceive with the naked eye. The radius of the earth, as known to the ancient greeks, is almost 4000 miles. So our eye level of 6 feet, if you are tall, or even 300 feet on your amusment park ride is absolutely dwarfed by comparing 4000 miles to 300 feet. The effect is there though. I could walk you through the trigonometry if you like. So the portion of the large sphere that we can see from 6 feet is virtually (but not quite) flat.

[braingrunt]

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

[justme]

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

[nvr]

That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.

The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Only if you had buildings, hills, or trees in the way could you say you could see more when moving up in a flat-world scenario. A pool of water at the edge of a flat world would be visible from the center. Only, its details would be limited to a very thin slice of viewpoint, indistinguishable from horizon. If you took a hot air balloon up, you'd be able to look down and the pool of water would simply take up more of your view and be more visible. It would have been visible at all times, though.
The video showing the drone catching multiple sunsets very simply demonstrates Earth's globe characteristic - just as flying west and seeing multiple sunsets does as well.
Why, if God lives on a globe, and if our own moon is a sphere (look at close-up amateur photos of moon in its different phases to clearly see this) would our world be the only one that is flat? Did you read a scripture to this effect someplace?

[braingrunt]

I don't know what you're talking about. If you take issue with my words, go ahead, but I think we have all experienced seeing greater distances (of ground) from higher elevations than we can see from the ground. That's not having a greater perspective? Fine.

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

If I may interject. The difficulty here is that we live on a very large earth. (true regardless of if it is flat or spherical) So the curvatures involved are hard too comprehend or perceive with the naked eye. The radius of the earth, as known to the ancient greeks, is almost 4000 miles. So our eye level of 6 feet, if you are tall, or even 300 feet on your amusment park ride is absolutely dwarfed by comparing 4000 miles to 300 feet. The effect is there though. I could walk you through the trigonometry if you like. So the portion of the large sphere that we can see from 6 feet is virtually (but not quite) flat.

Theodolites can and do measure curve over just a thousand or so feet https://youtu.be/ZlP3njwf6h0
Globe Deniers tried to get other surveyors to contradict this. Chris Van Matre was their man last I knew. But he was shown by other surveyors to be not fully competent.

[larsenb]

No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.

I've learned to keep scriptural renditions largely separate from my science after a long, hard fought effort, which has had some rough consequences.

"Limitations of vocabulary"! It's the simplest wording there is. The waters are "above" the firmament. It can't be misinterpreted. If you can't trust such simple language, you can't trust anything in all of scripture. Is the Second Coming also subject to the same "limitations"?

Is it so hard to admit that people put science ahead of the creation narrative?

Is it so hard to concede that the Pearl of Great Price seems to say that, at least at face value, even if you're free to add on that you personally don't interpret it that way?

Without delving into the whole subject, I assume firmament means the solid earth. Correct? Now waters above this firmament could possibly refer to oceans/lakes/etc., that reside above the solid earth. Or perhaps to the moisture in the air, governed by temperature/dew points, and how buoyant clouds are.

How do you read "waters above the firmament"?

[captainfearnot]

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Good point. I never realized this before, but the fact that the Apollo astronauts were able to continue to use geometry during the supposed moon landings (rather than being forced to switch over to lunometry) proves that they must have been on earth the whole time.

Checkmate, globeists.

[Allison]

No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.

I've learned to keep scriptural renditions largely separate from my science after a long, hard fought effort, which has had some rough consequences.

"Limitations of vocabulary"! It's the simplest wording there is. The waters are "above" the firmament. It can't be misinterpreted. If you can't trust such simple language, you can't trust anything in all of scripture. Is the Second Coming also subject to the same "limitations"?

Is it so hard to admit that people put science ahead of the creation narrative?

Is it so hard to concede that the Pearl of Great Price seems to say that, at least at face value, even if you're free to add on that you personally don't interpret it that way?

Without delving into the whole subject, I assume firmament means the solid earth. Correct? Now waters above this firmament could possibly refer to oceans/lakes/etc., that reside above the solid earth. Or perhaps to the moisture in the air, governed by temperature/dew points, and how buoyant clouds are.

How do you read "waters above the firmament"?

No, I think firmament is understood to be our atmosphere, or better yet, the dome that encases our atmosphere. And that is what confuses a lot of people, and they'll try to assert that the clouds are the waters above the firmament, but I personally don't believe that. I'm trying to remember some other thing a friend of ours had to wrest "waters above" out of something else going on...it might have been something like moisture being found in space, or on planets in space or something. To me, it was ridiculous.

I have some thoughts about what those waters probably are, but it might be casting pearls before a herd of wild boars here, so I'll just say that I believe there is a dome covering with moving luminaries. That's me though, it's not a model; it's a belief. You asked a scriptural question.

[Allison]

Yes because we live on a globe. On a flat surface going up in elevation would not help you see farther (barring the caveats I already stated)--on a flat surface, you could still argue that going up would "increase your perspective" by helping separate foreground from background, and perhaps by un-squashing horizontal detail. But again it absolutely could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

[justme]

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I will publicly say that I do believe in the moon landings, NASA and Space Program.

Indeed it would just seem dishonest of me to be a STEM professor and teach if I didn't believe what I am teaching.

It would be like if a biology professor at BYU taught evolution without believing it. The faithful LDS professors I know do believe in evolution.

For the sake of this thread discussion though I have tried to leave out NASA based arguments and stick with geometry and trigonometry in my musings of difficulties with flat earth models.

[justme]

No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.

I've learned to keep scriptural renditions largely separate from my science after a long, hard fought effort, which has had some rough consequences.

"Limitations of vocabulary"! It's the simplest wording there is. The waters are "above" the firmament. It can't be misinterpreted. If you can't trust such simple language, you can't trust anything in all of scripture. Is the Second Coming also subject to the same "limitations"?

Is it so hard to admit that people put science ahead of the creation narrative?

Is it so hard to concede that the Pearl of Great Price seems to say that, at least at face value, even if you're free to add on that you personally don't interpret it that way?

Without delving into the whole subject, I assume firmament means the solid earth. Correct? Now waters above this firmament could possibly refer to oceans/lakes/etc., that reside above the solid earth. Or perhaps to the moisture in the air, governed by temperature/dew points, and how buoyant clouds are.

How do you read "waters above the firmament"?

No, I think firmament is understood to be our atmosphere, or better yet, the dome that encases our atmosphere. And that is what confuses a lot of people, and they'll try to assert that the clouds are the waters above the firmament, but I personally don't believe that. I'm trying to remember some other thing a friend of ours had to wrest "waters above" out of something else going on...it might have been something like moisture being found in space, or on planets in space or something. To me, it was ridiculous.

I have some thoughts about what those waters probably are, but it might be casting pearls before a herd of wild boars here, so I'll just say that I believe there is a dome covering with moving luminaries. That's me though, it's not a model; it's a belief. You asked a scriptural question.

This dome, is it a hemisphere as the name seems to imply? What is the radius? Is it the same as the radius of the flat earth? Does that put the sun within several thousand miles? Is that what is meant by the luminaries?

I ask because this sounds like models that the greeks used to work with and I am wondering if that is still the current thought among some.

[justme]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

[Allison]

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I will publicly say that I do believe in the moon landings, NASA and Space Program.

Indeed it would just seem dishonest of me to be a STEM professor and teach if I didn't believe what I am teaching.

It would be like if a biology professor at BYU taught evolution without believing it. The faithful LDS professors I know do believe in evolution.

For the sake of this thread discussion though I have tried to leave out NASA based arguments and stick with geometry and trigonometry in my musings of difficulties with flat earth models.

Thank you for answering, JustMe! And what are you, a math professor? Do you believe in evolution too, then? No judgment here, I promise.

[justme]

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I will publicly say that I do believe in the moon landings, NASA and Space Program.

Indeed it would just seem dishonest of me to be a STEM professor and teach if I didn't believe what I am teaching.

It would be like if a biology professor at BYU taught evolution without believing it. The faithful LDS professors I know do believe in evolution.

For the sake of this thread discussion though I have tried to leave out NASA based arguments and stick with geometry and trigonometry in my musings of difficulties with flat earth models.

Thank you for answering, JustMe! And what are you, a math professor? Do you believe in evolution too, then? No judgment here, I promise.

Yes, I do accept that the basic ideas of evolution are correct. You should know that there are many many faithful member scientists who believe and teach such things as evolution, space travel, heliocentric universe models etc, scores of whose salaries and research is funded by the church through sacred tithing funds and are teaching such things to our children (thankfully). Even general authorities that I have known have no problems with such things.

[Allison]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

[Allison]

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I will publicly say that I do believe in the moon landings, NASA and Space Program.

Indeed it would just seem dishonest of me to be a STEM professor and teach if I didn't believe what I am teaching.

It would be like if a biology professor at BYU taught evolution without believing it. The faithful LDS professors I know do believe in evolution.

For the sake of this thread discussion though I have tried to leave out NASA based arguments and stick with geometry and trigonometry in my musings of difficulties with flat earth models.

Thank you for answering, JustMe! And what are you, a math professor? Do you believe in evolution too, then? No judgment here, I promise.

Yes, I do accept that the basic ideas of evolution are correct. You should know that there are many many faithful member scientists who believe and teach such things as evolution, space travel, heliocentric universe models etc, scores of whose salaries and research is funded by the church through sacred tithing funds and are teaching such things to our children (thankfully). Even general authorities that I have known have no problems with such things.

Yes, I know that and don't judge them. However, we should be careful about reading too much into getting a paycheck from BYU. After all, we've just been learning about a group of BYU Professors who also want to get rid of the Proclamation.

Oh yeah, with Nathan Roberts playing in the background, how would Joshua have been able to stop the Sun and Moon for a day without causing cataclysmic destruction to the whole Earth? Can you imagine the 1,000 mph wind storms and tsunamis that would have ensued had the spin of the Earth come to a halt like that, and then started up again? Just a rhetorical question, no need to dive in unless you want to.

Do you teach math at BYU? UVU?

[Allison]

So who else believes in:

1. Evolution?
2. NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public?
3. The Moon Landings?
4. A new one...Aliens?

[braingrunt]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

Do you really not remember?

I wonder if your memory of that just dumps out occasionally.

[Allison]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

[justme]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

Helaman 12:15 shows Book of Mormon is Copernican.

[braingrunt]

Is this kind of what we are thinking. I just found it on the internet.

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

Yes I believe the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the bible.

You placing limits on its correctness in this arbitrary area, is just another way your bias is determined to reinterpret or dismiss globe evidence.

Hel 12 (apparently a direct reference to the Joshua story you are citing)
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

This trumps in clarity and directness anything the bible has to say about the motions of the sun and earth. BY FAR. This is not a poetic remark. It's the coldest kind of factual statement interjected into a praise prayer.

There are at least two more verses in the BOM which factually assert earth movement, well outside any poetical context. I showed them to you before. Apparently you forgot. I don't know why I keep showing them when you just keep forgetting them. Somebody is stealing some word out of your heart.

So these 3 (and more) verses in modern scripture easily slay 200+ bible verses especially since you're just misinterpreting them. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Also note that most Globe Deniers fall short of a biblical cosmology because they do not believe the sun goes down as the bible says it does. When they do that they sound hypocritical to me.

[Allison]

Who knows? It might be something like that! I can't say.

Here are some thoughts to factor in, and that's not including latter-day scripture:

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

Yes I believe the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the bible.

You placing limits on its correctness in this arbitrary area, is just another way your bias is determined to reinterpret or dismiss globe evidence.

Hel 12 (apparently a direct reference to the Joshua story you are citing)
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

This trumps in clarity and directness anything the bible has to say about the motions of the sun and earth. BY FAR. This is not a poetic remark. It's the coldest kind of factual statement interjected into a praise prayer.

There are at least two more verses in the BOM which factually assert earth movement, well outside any poetical context. I showed them to you before. Apparently you forgot. I don't know why I keep showing them when you just keep forgetting them. Somebody is stealing some word out of your heart.

So these 3 (and more) verses in modern scripture easily slay 200+ bible verses especially since you're just misinterpreting them. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Also note that most Globe Deniers fall short of a biblical cosmology because they do not believe the sun goes down as the bible says it does. When they do that they sound hypocritical to me.

You never answered any of my simple questions, some of which would provide a barometer of the consistency of your faith in the entire scriptural canon, including the latter-day library.

Do you believe in evolution (as taught in modern academia) or not?

Do you believe in the creation as the Bible and latter-day scripture describes?

And, implore you again to leave the venom out or I will discontinue speaking with you, which would be a shame, because this is otherwise a very interesting discussion.