- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
I just wanted to point out that making a comparison to our sun and the other “stars” is not biblical. Our sun was created in a unique way. It has a special role. It could very well be close to what we are told about it. The other stars should not be compared to it in my opinion.
The site uses an antispam filter called: Akismet Anti-Spam.
I’ve turned it off. Hopefully rogue members do not start posting porn and the like.
I suspect that many posts are thought of as spam here because we are constantly copying and pasting content in quotes and then replying to it.
Given that, turning off the spam filter might be best.
There appears to be multiple posts with the same content. This was probably flagged as spam, although I’m not sure why the first post was flagged. I’ll leave the multiple posts above and you can tell me which ones you want deleted. Just quote the number.
Umm… why would you assume the sun ISN’T flat?
Why wouldn’t you assume the sun is a sphere. We travel around it and it is always sphere. Never see any straight lines, corners, flat areas.
T8: Why wouldn’t you assume the sun is a sphere. We travel around it and it is always sphere. Never see any straight lines, corners, flat areas.
Do we really travel around it? How do you know? How could you definitively prove that claim? Because until you can, it remains a baseless claim… which brings us back to: Why would you assume that the sun ISN’T flat?
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?
The sun is distant from us Mike. Yet when the sun’s rays hit our skin, we still call that the sun. Sunblock for example doesn’t block the sun 93 million miles away. It blocks some of its rays when it hits our skin.
If the sun is darkened, then you have two options.
- The sun itself is not giving its light or full light
- The sun appears dark because something is blocking out the sun.
Both are possible. Your arguments that state it must be this and it must be actual stars falling to the ground just show how narrow minded you are.
My observation is those who have fully subscribed to a theory, they tend to be narrow minded and argumentative.
This is one reason I am open minded about prophecy and scripture. I can change my mind if the evidence is presented.
I feel like as an open minded person that the Flat Earth doctrine is extremely weak and there is a huge trove of evidence that debunks it. It has as much going for it as the Hollow Earth or any other obscure far-fetched belief.
Do we really travel around it? How do you know? How could you definitively prove that claim? Because until you can, it remains a baseless claim… which brings us back to: Why would you assume that the sun ISN’T flat?
When the sun is at the centre, the wandering planets orbits become simple elliptical orbits like ours. It’s so simple that it would be way too much of a coincidence that such simple symmetry would be a coincidence. Of course, with the heliocentric model, we can also predict eclipses and the like with 100% accuracy. The math is based from the heliocentric view and you can picture the math with the heliocentric view. The Flat Earth has no such prediction model. The truth tends to be 100% accurate.
Even in an eclipse you can see that the shadow has a curve.
So much evidence that not even this topic can cover it all.
But of course you just write it all off because shape shifting lizards right?
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?
It’s called perspective. I’ve been pointing this out to you for a while now.
From our point of view, we are stationary and everything is going around us. Like a train, you either see a world whizzing by or you see a train whizzing by depending on whether you are in the train or outside the train. Both are true and not contradictory. Similarly, we can see Earth from the surface or from space.
It’s really easy to comprehend and you don’t need to be Einstein or Newton to grasp it.
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!
Okay even if Science is not your forte, try and understand it like this.
At sea level the PSI is higher than it is higher up in the atmosphere. There is not a huge disparity of pressure with two adjacent layers, but a gradual loss of pressure meaning each tiny slide or layer is not that different to the previous one.
Take the ocean. Pressure is intense at the bottom of the ocean compared to the top or just below seal level. But dive down a bit and you can notice the change in pressure after a few feet not only with your eardrums but your body can detect it too. But it becomes intense as you head further down until you are killed by the pressure. But where do you observe high pressure water getting sucked intensely toward lower pressure in water above?
And given that air has less pressure than water, has anyone observed water being stripped away from the surface into the air like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking it out? Sure, water is being lost at the surface, but not in the way your collapsing tanks and other extreme examples you are using as proof. In fact, scientists say that the atmosphere is actually being sucked out very slowly, but IMO it would be more like the surface of the ocean evaporating into the air or maybe even less because the difference between these two layers is very tiny.
Of course we know that water being stripped off the top of the ocean will come back down eventually, but that doesn’t negate that the atmosphere is slowly being lost above us, but slow enough that it will not affect humanity. Scientists even speculate that Mars lost its atmosphere over the eons and epochs of time and this could happen to Earth too. Who knows, but God will create a new Earth, so we are unlikely to see that happen if we believe scripture.
The heavens declare the eternal nature of God
Flat Earthers want us to believe that an eternal God made a small disk with a glass roof and that this truth is hidden from us by demonic shape shifting lizard people who blink funny and eat flies when you are not looking at them. They say that millions of lizards and people are part of this conspiracy to hide this earth disk and dome by spending trillions of dollars to make us believe that the universe is almost eternal, amazing, and incredible. In the meantime, many see this near eternal universe and are in awe at its creator. Nevertheless, trillions need to be spent for some reason to downgrade God’s work on creation from something that only an eternal God could create to something that an alien species could make or even something that men could make perhaps in another thousand years.
Zooming in on Andromeda
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.
Hi Mike,
That language is symbolic, it is not saying the Sun and Moon are gone.
No Night there is also symbolic of ‘darkness’, as in evil, not nightimeDid 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?
Ok Mike,
Where’s the mathematical model for explaining how NZ gets a longer sun-cycle during our Winter?
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.
No need for the sun is a bit different to no sun.
People who have NDEs often talk about how everything emanates light.
We read in scripture how God will be in all when all is subject to Christ and he hands it to the Father.
Not hard to imagine how creation will be lit up in God’s glory. A new heaven and earth.
T8: And given that air has less pressure than water, has anyone observed water being stripped away from the surface into the air like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking it out?
Its called evaporation and yes it can be observed. You can read about it here:
Job 14:11 As water evaporates from the sea, And a river becomes parched and dried up,
T8: Scientists even speculate that Mars lost its atmosphere over the eons and epochs of time and this could happen to Earth too.
Careful, your evolution is showing.
T8: If the sun is darkened, then you have two options.
The sun itself is not giving its light or full light.
The sun appears dark because something is blocking out the sun. Both are possible.Agreed. We are on the same page that some process currently unknown to us will cause us to experience a much dimmer sun. We agree that the ACTUAL sun we’re used to seeing in the sky every day will, by some unknown means, appear darker to us.
We also agree that the ACTUAL moon we see in the sky all the time will, by some unknown means, cease to give her light.
My question is why you don’t stay on that same path and agree that the ACTUAL stars that we see in the sky every day will fall from the sky to the earth.
See? That’s the disconnect I was talking about. You know Jesus is talking about the ACTUAL sun and the ACTUAL moon. So why stop midstream and pretend he’s NOT talking about the ACTUAL stars we see in the sky all the time?
And we already know the answer, right? I just wanted you to be crystal clear about what you’re doing – and why.
T8: When the sun is at the centre, the wandering planets orbits become simple elliptical orbits like ours. It’s so simple that it would be way too much of a coincidence that such simple symmetry would be a coincidence.
The model was first proposed with CIRCULAR orbits – which, if you could accept that there was some unknown force causing balls to maintain perfect orbits around other balls for billions of years – would produce the “simple symmetry” you speak of. But the circular orbits wouldn’t align with the observational evidence. For example, we didn’t see the same lunar eclipse at the same place every month or year or decade. And the wandering stars weren’t where they should have been the following year based on circular orbits. So THEN – after the model didn’t match the observations – the mathematicians went back to work reverse-engineering a model that would align with the observations. And they’ve been at it ever since – tweaking the model as necessary through the years, up to this very moment – continually adjusting it to match more observations.
Changing the orbits from circular to elliptical was one of the first adjustments. But that wasn’t enough, and so they also had to tilt the Earth’s rotational axis 66.6 degrees (yes… 666). And that wasn’t enough, so they had to change the orbit of the moon from retrograde (east to west as we see it) to prograde – and speed it up drastically to claim that it really orbits west to east, but the speed of the Earth’s rotation causes us to see it moving east to west. And the changes keep coming. In the last couple of years we “learned” that the atmosphere of earth now extends twice as far as the distance to the moon – meaning that no human has ever left Earth’s atmosphere. And that Mercury is now the closest planet to earth. And that Polaris is now 115 light years (TRILLIONS of miles) closer than we thought. And that what we can see in this vast universe makes up less than 5% of it – with the rest being hypothetical entities called “dark matter” and “dark energy” that we can’t even detect!
See, they need to keep changing the makeup of their mathematical construct because they keep tripping over their own model. If big bang, then rapid dispersal of all matter… therefore dark matter to hold it together. And if dark matter, then rapid collapse of all matter… therefore dark energy to prohibit the collapse.
But let’s talk about the change of the moon’s orbit. During solar eclipses, we clearly see the moon (if that is what’s eclipsing the sun) moving across the sun from west to east – and the shadow moving across the earth from west to east, right? Yet the moon always crosses the sky from east to west, right? Thought experiment: If you see a shadow (cloud, plane, etc) cross over you from west to east, what direction is the object casting the shadow moving over you in the sky? Is it even possible that a cloud can pass over you from east to west, and cast a shadow that passes over you from west to east? Logical thinking.
As for your beloved elliptical orbits, more logical thinking is required. IF there is a force that causes balls in space to orbit other balls in space for billions of years – then it stands to reason that the orbit must be circular. That way the distance of the balls to each other remains constant – and the attractive force would also remain constant. BUT… if a ball came closer to its attracting ball (as in an elliptical orbit), the attractive force would be greater and pull the smaller ball towards the bigger one. Conversely, if the smaller ball moved farther away from it’s attracting bigger ball, the force would be lessened, allowing the smaller ball to break free from the grasp of the bigger one.
Imagine getting a small steel ball to perfectly orbit a larger magnetic ball in a laboratory setting. It would continue it’s perfectly circular orbit as long as other forces (drag, gravity) couldn’t interfere with it. But now imagine our steel ball in an elliptical orbit. The second it came even a millimeter closer to the magnetic ball, it would suck right into the magnet. A millimeter farther away, and it would go flying off across the room – no longer held by the magnetic force.
So your “simple” elliptical orbits were not only invented because the original circular orbits didn’t match observation – but they are nonsensical and wouldn’t even work.
T8: It’s called perspective. I’ve been pointing this out to you for a while now.
No, it’s called “we can’t prove, after decades in ‘outer space’, that the earth orbits the sun”.
That was the point.
T8: Flat Earthers want us to believe that an eternal God made a small disk with a glass roof and that this truth is hidden from us by demonic shape shifting lizard people who blink funny and eat flies when you are not looking at them.
Actually, it is God who gave us the Biblical description of the world He created. And it is Jesus who warned us that the devil would deceive – even the elect if possible – with great signs and wonders. But you go on poking fun at your Lord and your Creator if you think it’s wise. As for me and my house, we will worship and believe Jehovah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
