- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
I think we can declare that the Flat Earthers lost this debate. They fell flat like the shape of their bogus earth.
II Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
May I suggest that you read the Scripture knowing that it is the Word of God.
May I suggest to you that Jesus is a lion, but doesn’t roam the plains of Africa. Or that leaders are horns but do not literally grow from goats or rams.
Dig deeper Diggy. Upgrade your spade.
But if you want to believe that Satan is a literal snake creature and a dragon dinosaur type creature that is fine, but the earth is still a globe just like the other planets and moons we observe.
Ok then you don’t think there was a literal serpent in the Garden. What about a literal Adam? Was he just another metaphor?
T8: It could be that as the atmosphere darkens, a third of the angelic host are cast down.
So the atmosphere will darken and block out a third of the stars in the sky at the same time that a third of the angels are cast to the earth? Sounds forced to me, like someone’s doing a lot of reaching.
Why do you suppose Jesus would talk about the actual sun (not shining), and the actual moon (refusing to give HER light) – but NOT be referring to the actual stars falling to the earth? Note that he didn’t say the stars would be blocked by a cloud, or that they’d stop shining in the sky.
It seems clear that something visibly falls from the sky – and Jesus calls that something “the stars”.
Do you remember when Jesus said he saw Satan fall to the earth like lightning? And do you remember when Enoch said, “… some of the stars rise and become lightning but do not lose their form” ?
Have you seen what stars actually look like? They look like lightning that retains it’s form…
They don’t look much like huge nuclear fireballs, do they?
So the atmosphere will darken and block out a third of the stars in the sky at the same time that a third of the angels are cast to the earth? Sounds forced to me, like someone’s doing a lot of reaching.
A lot of events take place in the Tribulation of those days. Not an overreach at all. A possibility that I don’t write off.
Why do you suppose Jesus would talk about the actual sun (not shining), and the actual moon (refusing to give HER light) – but NOT be referring to the actual stars falling to the earth? Note that he didn’t say the stars would be blocked by a cloud, or that they’d stop shining in the sky.
Mike, your bias has stopped you from thinking straight. When you give it means someone receives. We no longer receive that light because the sun can’t give it to us. So many possibilities here like a darkened atmosphere that doesn’t allow given light through to us.
The crazy thing here is you believe your perspective of everything is the truth. You see a flat world from your perspective thus the world is flat for everyone even God. But now the sun doesn’t give its light to the people of earth and it is because the plug got pulled, not because of dust blocking the light from our perspective. You are all for trusting your perspective until it doesn’t agree with your point of view.
It seems clear that something visibly falls from the sky – and Jesus calls that something “the stars”.
Angels can look like light. Angels of light. Scripture refers to angels as stars. The angels are cast down to Earth. Seems simple to me.
Do you remember when Jesus said he saw Satan fall to the earth like lightning? And do you remember when Enoch said, “… some of the stars rise and become lightning but do not lose their form” ?
And then his tail also dragged down one third of the stars / angels.
They don’t look much like huge nuclear fireballs, do they?
You know the answer. A better telescope.
Here is our star which is much easier to capture than other stars that are much more distant.
Looking very nuclear fireballish to me.
Imagine if there was a group of people in the world that believed the sun was flat. Think about how you might feel a bit sorry for such people right. That is how most people feel about those who believe in the Flat Earth. BTW, did you guys take me up on that challenge to debate the Hollow Earth Cult. I was thinking you if Flat Earthers debated Hollow Earthers, you could each get a good look at each other and both might ask good questions about themselves.
I think we can declare that the Flat Earthers lost this debate. They fell flat like the shape of their bogus earth.
Not so fast on that T8,
The problem I have, with what their saying, is they provide
no adequate answers for the exculpatory evidence.
Until then, for me their idea falls short.Explaining their take on Gen. 1:4 does nothing for me either,
as the sun being mentioned in verse 4, seems to be a reiteration
of the Sun being created on day 1, after call “day” is from Sunlight.I also seen a picture my brother said he took 7.5 miles up,
and son of a gun, there is a slight, but noticeable curvature.
Of course that does not rule out that they may have “a slight”
parabolic aspect to the windows on the airplane – what say you Mike?____________
God bless
Ed JSome amateur guy took photos of the Andromeda Galaxy. Looks like a galaxy to me and not just a big LED bulb embedded in the glass dome.
Then again, he could be a lizard shape shifter who is perpetuating the conspiracy.
Mike: Why do you suppose Jesus would talk about the actual sun (not shining), and the actual moon (refusing to give HER light) – but NOT be referring to the actual stars falling to the earth? Note that he didn’t say the stars would be blocked by a cloud, or that they’d stop shining in the sky.
T8: Mike, your bias has stopped you from thinking straight. When you give it means someone receives. We no longer receive that light because the sun can’t give it to us.
You apparently missed the point. When Jesus says the sun will be darkened, we believe that through some means (dark clouds, God lessening the power of the sun, our eyes growing scales like Paul’s, whatever) the ACTUAL sun in the sky will be darker than it usually is, right?
And when he says the moon will not give her light, we believe that through some means, the ACTUAL moon in the sky will no longer shine as usual, right?
So when he says the stars will fall from the sky, we should believe that through some means, the ACTUAL stars that are currently in the sky will fall from the sky, right? This is the part we’re circling around. I’m trying to get to the bottom of why you believe the ACTUAL sun in the sky will go dark, and the ACTUAL moon in the sky will cease giving her light, but the ACTUAL stars we see in the sky will NOT fall from the sky like Jesus says.
Now, you can say Jesus is talking about angels as stars – which is fine. But that means the stars we see in the sky ARE angels, and when they fall to the earth, they will no longer be in the sky. It also means they are not huge nuclear fireballs billions of light years away, but living sentient creatures. I believe the stars are living creatures, because that’s the only way 7 of them could have transgressed the commands of God and have darkness reserved for them forever…
Jude 1:13
…wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
Enoch 18
12. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. 13. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, 14. The angel said: ‘This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. 15. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. 16. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated (even) ⌈for ten thousand years⌉.’
There are seven wandering stars who transgressed God’s command. You think they are planets. Those who wrote scripture think they are sentient beings who will be severely punished because they rebelled against their God and started running their own courses across the firmament instead of the courses God appointed for them. Who’s right?
Anyway, that’s besides the point. The point I’m trying to make is this…
- Jesus says the sun will go dark. You believe that he is talking about the ACTUAL sun that we see in the sky going dark by one means or another.
- Jesus says the moon will not give her light. You believe that he is talking about the ACTUAL moon that we see in the sky going dark by one means or another.
- Jesus says the stars will fall from the sky. You DON’T believe that he is talking about the ACTUAL stars we see in the sky falling to the earth.
I’m trying to point out this disconnect. I’m trying to point out that the only reason you accept the first two as the ACTUAL sun and moon, but don’t accept the third as the ACTUAL stars is because you’ve placed the fantasies of godless men ABOVE the written word of God. And let’s be honest here… that IS the only reason, right? Because if you had a Biblical worldview in which stars (living beings or not) were lights in the firmaments, then you’d accept the third part of Jesus’ words with the same zeal as you accept the first two parts. But godless men have convinced you that they know more than our Lord, and therefore Jesus must have been an ignorant, mistaken goat herder like everyone else in the Bible who simply didn’t realize that stars CAN’T fall to the earth because they are gigantic nuclear fireballs that couldn’t get within a million miles of earth without burning it to a crisp.
T8, do you SEE your disconnect? Because it’d be so much easier if you could just admit what we all already know you’re doing – and then we could move on from it.
T8: Angels can look like light. Angels of light. Scripture refers to angels as stars. The angels are cast down to Earth. Seems simple to me.
You need to take a stance. Are the stars we see in the night sky angels or not? If they are, then STARS will fall to the earth as the angels (who are those stars) are cast to the earth. If the stars we see in the sky are NOT angels/sentient beings, then according to Jesus, those non-sentient stars in the night sky will fall to the earth.
Get it yet? Either way, the STARS we see in the night sky WILL fall to the earth in the end times… whether or not they are sentient beings. That is the point. In the Biblical model, Jesus can be true and this can happen. In your model, Jesus is a liar because stars cannot fall to the earth.
So who’s the liar? Jesus? Or the godless men who’ve convinced you that stars are huge nuclear fireballs billions of light years away? No more twisting and reaching, okay? Just Jesus’ words with their most logical meaning (ACTUAL sun goes dark, ACTUAL moon stops shining, and ACTUAL stars fall to the earth) versus the words of godless men who make Jesus a confused and ignorant liar. Make a choice.
Mike: They don’t look much like huge nuclear fireballs, do they?
T8: You know the answer. A better telescope. Here is our star which is much easier to capture than other stars that are much more distant. Looking very nuclear fireballish to me.
A better telescope? Lol. The P900 has an 83x zoom – orders of magnitude greater than any telescope before the 1960’s. In other words, when godless men were first using primitive telescopes to paint the picture of your fantasy worldview, they were seeing at perhaps a 2x zoom. Also, you can see what the stars actually look like with 83x zoom in that video, right? I’ve photographed Mars with the P900 and even the P1000 (125x zoom!) and it looks the same – like “lightning that cannot lose its original form”. And finally, if the stars look like “lightning that cannot lose its original form” with an 83x zoom, do you seriously think that even a 1,000,000x zoom will change it from “lightning” to a fireball or a rocky planet? Come on, man. Zooming in closer on lightning will not change the lightning to something else.
As for your “photo” of the sun, you’ll need to learn how to distinguish CGI from actual photography. Nobody but NASA has ever seen that “fireballish” sun. Look man… you have been shown what stars actually look like close up. You can see what they truly are. You can either accept actual footage of the stars – or blindly believe in NASA’s CGI. It matters very little to me.
T8: Imagine if there was a group of people in the world that believed the sun was flat. Think about how you might feel a bit sorry for such people right. That is how most people feel about those who believe in the Flat Earth.
Umm… why would you assume the sun ISN’T flat? Do you have proof that it isn’t? Of course not. So why would anyone feel sorry for anyone who believes that? Their belief would hold just as much validity as any other belief – since the fact is that NONE OF US actually know anything about the sun except that it is a big light in the sky that brings warmth to the earth.
According to scripture, it is a light that governs the day and runs a circuit around a stationary earth that is fixed on pillars and is unmovable. According to scripture, it’s movement around the earth can be halted by God. According to godless men, it is a huge fireball around which the earth orbits.
As for me and my house, we will worship and believe YHWH. You, of course, have free will to do otherwise.
Ed: The problem I have, with what their saying, is they provide
no adequate answers for the exculpatory evidence.
Until then, for me their idea falls short.There is nothing for us to re-prove, Ed. Do you understand that the heliocentric model is only a MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCT? Did you know that famous cosmologist George Ellis said, in 1985, that he could construct a mathematical universe with the earth at the center and NOBODY could disprove it with observational evidence? That was in 1985, man… long after we supposedly sent men and many cameras into outer space! Did you know that both Einstein and Newton said that whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is merely a choice of how one wants to believe? So any “exculpatory evidence” is the result of building a model based on observations, and then claiming that the observations prove the model. It’s circular reasoning. For example, I filmed the total lunar eclipse of 7-27-18. I know that I can film that same exact eclipse from that same exact location 54 years and 34 days later. But the thing is that I don’t know this because the earth is a ball and NASA told me so. I know it because God created a clock in the sky for the express purpose of calculating the seasons and days and years. The earliest recorded instance of people calculating these regularly-occurring eclipses and other signs in the sky is from the ancient Babylonians – more than 4000 years ago. The Antikythera mechanism was from before Jesus walked the earth, and it is a very intricate “sky clock” that “predicted” solar and lunar eclipses, and a bunch of other celestial signs. Google “saros cycle” and “antikythera mechanism”.
The point is that these ancient people didn’t believe in the heliocentric model – nor is such a belief necessary to “predict” these signs in the sky. So the bulk of your “exculpatory evidence” is a matter of CLAIMING that the eclipse 54 years from now is BECAUSE OF the heli model, and then noting that the eclipse did occur, and so the heli model must be right.
Ed: Explaining their take on Gen. 1:4 does nothing for me either,
as the sun being mentioned in verse 4, seems to be a reiteration
of the Sun being created on day 1, after call “day” is from Sunlight.But you and I had a long discussion about this privately, right? And I showed you, using scriptures, that the sun GOVERNS the day – but is not the cause of the day or the light itself, right? For example…
Revelation 21:23,25
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
As you can clearly see, there will be both DAY and LIGHT in New Jerusalem… but there won’t be a sun. So I truly don’t know why you can’t get your head around this, but I know I tried for weeks to make you see it. LIGHT is one thing. DAY is another. And the SUN is yet another. The sun is not necessary for there to be light, nor day. So knowing this, you should have no problem simply believing God’s own account (told to us through His servant Moses) that He created LIGHT first – and then 4 DAYS later – He created the SUN.
Ed: I also seen a picture my brother said he took 7.5 miles up,
and son of a gun, there is a slight, but noticeable curvature.
Of course that does not rule out that they may have “a slight”
parabolic aspect to the windows on the airplane – what say you Mike?Yes. The curvature of plane windows (and pilots’ visors, etc) can give an appearance of curvature when there is none. So can the curvature of camera lenses – especially when they are wide angle lenses. Of course high altitude balloon footage showing perfectly flat horizons should help – since those balloons go as high as 22 miles high. Here’s one from 21,000 feet – 3 times higher than your brother was…
Secondly, surely you can understand that if we could get high enough to see the earth curving on the left and the right, it would also curve away from us straight ahead, right? So the horizon would be way below camera level at that point. Yet the horizon always rises to eye level no matter how high we go – which can only happen with a flat surface.
And finally, here is the most famous globe earther of all, explaining the curved earth in the Felix Baumgartner record-breaking Red Bull jump (25,000 feet up!). Just watch the first 90 seconds…
Ed: The problem I have, with what their saying, is they provide
no adequate answers for the exculpatory evidence.
Until then, for me their idea falls short.There is nothing for us to re-prove, Ed. Do you understand that the heliocentric model is only a MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCT? Did you know that famous cosmologist George Ellis said, in 1985, that he could construct a mathematical universe with the earth at the center and NOBODY could disprove it with observational evidence? That was in 1985, man… long after we supposedly sent men and many cameras into outer space! Did you know that both Einstein and Newton said that whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is merely a choice of how one wants to believe? So any “exculpatory evidence” is the result of building a model based on observations, and then claiming that the observations prove the model. It’s circular reasoning. For example, I filmed the total lunar eclipse of 7-27-18. I know that I can film that same exact eclipse from that same exact location 54 years and 34 days later. But the thing is that I don’t know this because the earth is a ball and NASA told me so. I know it because God created a clock in the sky for the express purpose of calculating the seasons and days and years. The earliest recorded instance of people calculating these regularly-occurring eclipses and other signs in the sky is from the ancient Babylonians – more than 4000 years ago. The Antikythera mechanism was from before Jesus walked the earth, and it is a very intricate “sky clock” that “predicted” solar and lunar eclipses, and a bunch of other celestial signs. Google “saros cycle” and “antikythera mechanism”.
The point is that these ancient people didn’t believe in the heliocentric model – nor is such a belief necessary to “predict” these signs in the sky. So the bulk of your “exculpatory evidence” is a matter of CLAIMING that the eclipse 54 years from now is BECAUSE OF the heli model, and then noting that the eclipse did occur, and so the heli model must be right.
Ed: Explaining their take on Gen. 1:4 does nothing for me either,
as the sun being mentioned in verse 4, seems to be a reiteration
of the Sun being created on day 1, after call “day” is from Sunlight.But you and I had a long discussion about this privately, right? And I showed you, using scriptures, that the sun GOVERNS the day – but is not the cause of the day or the light itself, right? For example…
Revelation 21:23,25
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
As you can clearly see, there will be both DAY and LIGHT in New Jerusalem… but there won’t be a sun. So I truly don’t know why you can’t get your head around this, but I know I tried for weeks to make you see it. LIGHT is one thing. DAY is another. And the SUN is yet another. The sun is not necessary for there to be light, nor day. So knowing this, you should have no problem simply believing God’s own account (told to us through His servant Moses) that He created LIGHT first – and then 4 DAYS later – He created the SUN.
Ed: I also seen a picture my brother said he took 7.5 miles up,
and son of a gun, there is a slight, but noticeable curvature.
Of course that does not rule out that they may have “a slight”
parabolic aspect to the windows on the airplane – what say you Mike?Yes. The curvature of plane windows (and pilots’ visors, etc) can give an appearance of curvature when there is none. So can the curvature of camera lenses – especially when they are wide angle lenses. Of course high altitude balloon footage showing perfectly flat horizons should help – since those balloons go as high as 22 miles high. Here’s one from 21,000 feet – 3 times higher than your brother was…
Secondly, surely you can understand that if we could get high enough to see the earth curving on the left and the right, it would also curve away from us straight ahead, right? So the horizon would be way below camera level at that point. Yet the horizon always rises to eye level no matter how high we go – which can only happen with a flat surface.
And finally, here is the most famous globe earther of all, explaining the curved earth in the Felix Baumgartner record-breaking Red Bull jump (25,000 feet up!). Just watch the first 90 seconds…
T8: Some amateur guy took photos of the Andromeda Galaxy.
You’ve got to be kidding me! You seriously think someone took that “photo” from earth? His setup is linked to a software program dude! His “camera” isn’t picking up anything other than lights in the sky – just like we can all see looking out at the night sky. The rest is all computer-generated CGI!
When the sheep are this gullible, it’s no wonder they believe that a pressurized atmosphere can exist adjacent to the most powerful vacuum ever imagined by man. Oh brother!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
