May 22, 2018 at 10:54 pm #829255
four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth. At the very least, they reason, this shows that the Bible writers believed one of the flat earth cosmologies of the ancient world, thus proving that the Bible is not inspired, but that the people who wrote the Bible merely reflected the worldview of their times. There are some examples of flat earth cosmologies from the ancient world, but they always consisted of a flat, round earth. A circle was considered a much more perfect shape than a square, so none of the ancient flat earth cosmologies involve a square earth. If a square flat earth were the cosmology of the Bible, then it would have been at odds with every other ancient flat earth cosmology. Therefore, this attempt by the skeptics to claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth does not square (pun intended) with the facts of history.
If the verses that mention the earth’s four corners do not refer to a flat earth, then to what do they refer? Scripture of the day. Dan.20:20-21
The tree that thou hast seen, that hath become great and strong, and its height doth reach to the heavens, and its vision to all the land,
21 and its leaves [are] fair, and its budding great, and food for all [is] in it, under it dwell doth the beast of the field, and on its boughs sit do the birds of the heavens. V.18 This dream I have seen, I king Nebuchadnezzar;May 22, 2018 at 11:02 pm #829256
Dig read this k.God bless In Him AnthonyMay 22, 2018 at 11:08 pm #829257Dig4truthParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 440
Anthony, you cannot have vision “to all the land” on a sphere. You can however, on a plane earth.May 23, 2018 at 1:07 am #829258
hi Dig, the point is you would have to believe that the earth is square with corner . A square. Flat earth but you don’t. have you been reading what I been writing? About the tree, it was a dream Dig .May 23, 2018 at 6:18 am #829261
Mike Dig, God bless. I’m going to answer a few of your questions you guys have alot, I have no vides to send you Just words in my Bible I have maps but there on flat paper, lol anyways I’ll start with the firmament hang with me .
The cosmology of the flat earth holds that a dome covers a circular, flat earth, with its edge resting on the earth beyond the ice wall of Antarctica. The stars are affixed to this dome, while the sun and moon are above the earth but beneath the dome. Some have called this a snow-globe cosmology, because of its resemblance to a snow-globe. Supposedly, this is the cosmology that the Bible teaches. Ironically, skeptics make the same argument, but their intent is to discredit the Bible. Few flat-earthers appear to be aware of this fact or the irony. Let us examine the Scriptures that supposedly support this cosmology.
Key in this discussion is the firmament. The Hebrew word rāqîa‘ is translated as firmament in the King James Version. It appears a total of 17 times in the Old Testament, with over half of the occurrences (nine times) in chapter 1 of Genesis alone. The word is a noun that derives from the root rq‘, meaning to stamp out.An example of this action is to stamp or pound a metal into thin sheets. This is a common practice with gold, because gold is so malleable. Gilding is the process of attaching gold leaf to objects, giving the impression that the objects are pure gold. For instance, the Ark of the Covenant was gilded with gold leaf over acacia wood (Exodus 25: 10-11).
And they have made an ark of shittim wood; two cubits and a half its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height;
11 and thou hast overlaid it [with] pure gold, within and without thou dost overlay it, and thou hast made on it a ring of gold round about.
leaf can be pounded or rolled so thin that bright light can be seen through it. From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.
From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.
From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.
Unfortunately, some people reason that since this is an action frequently done to a metal, the thing being stretched out must have some physical property common with metals. Metals often are hard, so, according to this reasoning, the rāqîa‘ must be hard. This certainly is the sense of the archaic English word firmament, which has a common root with the word firm. However, is this the intended meaning? Not all metals are hard; and gold, which is involved in the best example illustrating the Hebrew root from which the Hebrew noun rāqîa‘ comes, definitely is not hard. Therefore, it is questionable if the rāqîa‘ is something that is hard. It is more likely that the intended meaning of rāqîa‘ is related to the process of stamping out, not a physical property of the thing subjected to the process. The process has the effect of spreading out a substance, or possibly making the substance thin. This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render rāqîa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.
The first use of the word rāqîa‘ in the Bible probably is helpful in deciphering its meaning. This is found in (Gen.1:6-7)
And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.’
7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
the beginning of the Day Two creation account. The Day Two creation account begins with God’s declaration that there be a rāqîa‘ to divide the waters from the water, it tells us that God made the rāqîa‘ and divided the waters that were below the rāqîa‘ from the waters that were above the rāqîa‘. Thus, the word rāqîa‘appears three times in this verse. Before declaring an end to Day Two in (Gen.1:8) And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second the rāqîa‘“heaven.” Therefore, the Hebrew word rāqîa‘ appears five times in the Day Two account.
There are several observations that we can make from this passage. First, the waters that God divided were the waters mentioned in (Gen. 1:2) It is clear that the waters that God separated below must refer to surface water (mostly oceans) on the earth. But what are the waters above the rāqîa‘? How we answer that question will depend upon what we understand the rāqîa‘ is. Notice that God equated the rāqîa‘ with heaven. The Hebrew word šāmayim is translated as “heaven” most of the more than 400 times it occurs in the Old Testament, as it is here.
Interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, we find reinforcement of the equation of the rāqîa‘ with heaven. At least eleven verses in the Old Testament speak of God stretching out the heaven’s (Job 9:8) Stretching out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, Day Two, God made the rāqîa‘, something that is spread or stretched out. Furthermore, God called the rāqîa‘heaven. The stretching of the heavens probably refers to when God made the rāqîa‘.
Heaven generally is understood as being above us. Depending on the context, the word can refer to that which is immediately above us, where flying birds, clouds, and rain are. It also can refer to the realm of astronomical bodies. Finally, it often refers to the abode of God. “Heaven” has all these meanings, both in modern use and in the Bible. Does the rāqîa‘ refer to all of these meanings, or just some of those meanings?
The other appearances of the word rāqîa‘ in the Genesis 1 creation account can help in answering this question. The next use of the word rāqîa‘ is in the Day Four account of creation (Psalm 104:2),Covering himself [with] light as a garment, Stretching out the heavens as a curtain, where it appears three times. Each time it appears in conjunction with the Hebrew word šāmayim. The best way to express this relationship in English is with the prepositional phrase, “expanse of heaven.” This construction emphasizes, lest there be any doubt, that the thing mentioned in the Day Four account is the thing that God made on Day Two. (Gen.1:14-19)
14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:’ and it is so.
16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary — and the stars — for the rule of the night;
17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over day and over night, and to make a separation between the light and the darkness; and God seeth that [it is] good;
19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day fourth.
commanded that there be lights in the firmament of heaven.(V.14)the command that they be for lights in the firmament of heaven’s states that God made the lights and set them in the firmament of heaven. It is clear here that the lights are the heavenly bodies, the greater and lesser lights, and the stars also Therefore, the firmament of heaven (the rāqîa‘) is where God placed the heavenly, or astronomical, bodies. Today we would call this outer space, or simply space.
The most natural understanding of the Day Four creation account is that all heavenly bodies are located in the rāqîa‘.
As an aside, some flat-earthers appear to make a distinction here that is unwarranted. They argue that the stars are embedded in a dome above the earth (the rāqîa‘), but they hold that the sun and moon (the greater and lesser lights) are below the dome while still above the earth (this conforms to most flat earth cosmologies today). This requires artificially distinguishing the stars from the greater and lesser lights in so that it is only the greater and lesser lights that are placed in (that is, inside) the rāqîa‘ in (v.17) while the stars are effectively placed on the surface of the rāqîa‘. Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of (v.17)(and possibly (Gen. 1:17-18)as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.” That is, God placed the sun and moon inside the firmament, much as one might place an object inside a container, such as a box. The box does not indicate the object’s location but merely contains the object. However, the Hebrew text (and even the English text) does not permit this. The masculine plural pronoun of v.17refers back to the sun, moon, and stars collectively, and the verse does not distinguish as to their placement. The most natural understanding of the Day Four creation account is that all heavenly bodies are located in the rāqîa‘. Again, today we call this space.
Well that’s enough for now. IlI’ send more. God bless, In Him Anthony.May 23, 2018 at 7:39 am #829267NickHassanParticipant
- Topics started 284
- Total replies 70,743
The face of the waters.
The face of the deep.
The face of the earth.
How do these relate to your theory?May 23, 2018 at 8:14 am #829268GeneBalthropParticipant
- Topics started 42
- Total replies 16,545
Mike….Jesus did speak through his own mouth at most of the time, but there were times when the Father spoke also through his mouth. Or haven’t you ever read this,
Matt 10:20…For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh, “IN” OR “THROUGH” YOU.
NOW DO YOU STILL DENY GOD THE FATHER ACTUALLY DID SPEAK DIRECTLY THROUGH JESUS’ MOUTH?
Here is another one for you WONDER ABOUT Mike,
Matt 23:37…..O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto you, how often would (I) have gathered your childern together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not. 38, Behold, your house is left unto you desolate 39, For (I) say unto you, you shall not see me henceforth, till you say, belessed is he that comes in the name of the LORD.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..geneMay 23, 2018 at 9:34 am #829269
Your last post was very good. Thanks for that. So the firmament is basically space. Can you refute that Mike or Dig4Truth?May 23, 2018 at 9:35 am #829270LightenupParticipant
- Topics started 63
- Total replies 10,307
Good work @anthony !
Did you write all of your post or copy some of it off a website? If you got it off a website, can I have the link?
Thinking through all that, there is some type of water above the heavens. I wonder if “living water” has something to do with that water. God is the fountain of living water. The Spirit is referred to as living water. I’m betting there is a connection here. If we substitute ‘Living Water’ for ‘Spirit’ in Gen 1:2 it can read:
Gen 1:2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Living Water of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
So when we read about the expanse separating the waters, maybe the heavens are separating the realm of the earth and the realm of the Spirit.
Verses about the water of life:
Rev 7:13Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15“For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. 16“They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; 17for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”
Rev 22:1 1Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life,as clear as crystal,flowing from the throne of God and of theLamb, 2down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month.
Rev 22:1 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.” 17TheSpiritandthebridesay,“Come!”Let the one whohearssay,“Come!”Andlet the one whois thirstycome,and the one whodesiresthe waterof lifedrinkfreely.
We are told that the Holy Spirit is the living water here:John 7:37-39 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.This Psalm mentions the “waters that are above the heavens:”Psalm 148:1
Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! 2Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all stars of light!
4Praise Him, highest heavens,
And the waters that are above the heavens!
5Let them praise the name of the LORD,
For He commanded and they were created.
6He has also established them forever and ever;
He has made a decree which will not pass away.
So, I think there is something about Living Water (the Spirit) being above the heavens with the waters (created spirits). God is above the heavens and He is also in the heavens and on earth. I’m gonna be thinking about this for a while. Thanks Andrew for the prompt.
Blessings, LUMay 23, 2018 at 11:13 am #829273
Nick: Hi Mike,
The Spirit is the bread of life.
The Spirit spoke through the human vessel, Jesus, the anointed one.
Okay, let’s break it down and see if your explanation works with that John 6 passage. First up…
Then Jesus declared…
John tells us that it was Jesus who said the words in John 6:35-40. You say the Spirit said them. Who is correct?May 23, 2018 at 11:35 am #829274
John tells us that it was Jesus who said the words in John 6:35-40. You say the Spirit said them. Who is correct?
Mike you are good at this and should stick to this kind of thing IMO. That is refute and correct using scripture. Some people need it.
As for the FE, while you are making the best case possible, I feel you need to be more open to the counterevidence and admit good arguments against FE. But no matter how good the argument, if it is not true, you ultimately will not prevail in that battle.May 23, 2018 at 12:14 pm #829276Dig4truthParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 440
Here is an interesting video of two ex-NASA employees that believe in a plane earth.
Several points are made that struck me as profound.
At 35 minutes it is rather lengthy but at least it’s not 4 hours! ; )May 23, 2018 at 1:06 pm #829277
T8: Mike, my first guess is the sun is not behind the viewer but below or to the left or right.
Okay… why do you say that? Do you think the shadow on the moon could be explained if that was the case? Please explain.
T8: If the sun is exactly behind him, then there will be a logical explanation.
He gave his location, and the direction he was pointing the camera. You can check them on Google Earth if you’d like. I did. Besides, the eclipse I filmed on Jan 31st, 2018 had the same effect, and was filmed with the same circumstances… the sun was about to rise behind me, and the moon was about to set in front of me.
T8: The debunk videos have proof against many of the observations you have put up here, but not all of them.
When I came here, I was expecting more than, “Here’s a video that answers all your points… see ya!” Besides, none of the many videos you’ve posted have successfully addressed any of my points, T8… let alone offered any “proof” against them.
Don’t forget that virtually all those videos begin with, “Intelligent people have known the earth was a sphere since Eratosthenes… 2000 years ago.” And we all saw how that worked out for the ball earthers, right? Then they’ll usually hit the “boats disappearing over the horizon” bit – which is also a 2000 year old argument that has been consistently and thoroughly debunked by zoom lens cameras. The last video you posted was by a guy named TigerDan. He made some great flat earth videos, and had a lot of followers on YouTube. You can see him at the 1:15 mark of the video below telling an interviewer that if he ever turns up saying he’s changed his mind about the earth being flat, know that he’s being tortured.
Shortly after he made that comment, he came out with some “I changed my mind about flat earth” videos, one of which you posted, and then he disappeared altogether. Anyway, I came here for discussion – not to have lengthy videos thrown at me and be told they address all my points. If you feel they do, then bring up the best point in any of the videos right here on the thread, and we’ll discuss it.
Right now, I’m wanting to know how the moon can eclipse from the top down. Of course it absolutely can’t, and all you need is a few minutes thinking about it to realize it can’t. See if this helps…
Can you really not see how if the sun is what’s lighting the moon, and the earth is what’s causing the shadow, it is impossible for the shadow to be on the top while the bottom is lit (from the perspective of a viewer on earth)? Do you see how this diagram puts it… with the part closest to the earth in the shadow, while the top is still lit by the sun? Why? Because that’s the only way it could be. This one even shows what we should see from earth as the eclipse progresses…
Notice that EVERY phase has the shadow on the bottom, while the top is the lit part. You will never find a diagram from NASA or anyone else showing the bottom part lit and the top part eclipsed. Why? Because it can’t possibly happen that way in the heliocentric model – or with any two balls and a light source. It is impossible for one ball to be shading the top of the other ball while the light source somehow shines through the first ball to light the bottom of the second. Do you really not understand this?
Do it at your home right now. Take any two balls and a light source. Arrange them so the ball closer to the light (Ball 1) will cast its own shadow on the other ball (Ball 2). Move them around in any configuration you want to. Bring Ball 2 up from the bottom. Or over the top. Or from either side. Or move the light source all over the place instead. It doesn’t matter. You will NEVER find a scenario where where the part of Ball 2 that is closest to Ball 1 is lit – while the part farther away from Ball 1 is shadowed by Ball 1.
Let me know the results of your experiment.May 23, 2018 at 1:28 pm #829280
T8: The small and big earth is easily explained by the lense being used. I use zoom lenses and wide angle all the time.
Fantastic. Then take a photo of someone or something in the foreground, with a discernible object in the background. Use the zoom, then the wide angle… or anything in between. Let’s see if you can make the object in the background 30 times larger with one lens than with the other. You won’t be able to.
Besides, I’ve already shown the evidence that both of those earths were Photoshopped into the images… so it’s a moot point. How about the angle of the earth in the first one? Do you understand that the astronauts all landed on the part of the moon that always faces the earth? Do you understand that any image of the earth from standing on the moon would be taken straight up – at 180 degrees? There is no way someone on the earth side of the moon could see both the earth and the horizon of the moon in the same photo. Agreed?May 23, 2018 at 1:36 pm #829281
Let’s see if you can make the object in the background 30 times larger with one lens than with the other. You won’t be able to.
Haven’t I done this already with the Mt Ruapehu photo? I’m pretty sure I took another image that day with my normal lense, but I probably deleted it. Suffice to say, the zoom lense greatly increased the size of the mountain compared to the naked eye and standard camera lense.May 23, 2018 at 1:44 pm #829282LightenupParticipant
- Topics started 63
- Total replies 10,307
Has anyone watched this documentary called “In the Shadow of the Moon?” I thought it was fantastic.May 23, 2018 at 1:57 pm #829283
Kathi: Here is a four hour video of a lunar eclipse on June 15, 2011, hosted by the Astronomer Bob Burnam, Astronomy Editor of “The Old Farmer’s Almanac.”
Let me know if you find one talking about how the moon eclipsed from the top down on Dec 10th, 2011 and Jan 31st, 2018. (There are probably more, but those are the only two I know of right now. There are many instances, however, of lunar eclipses when both the sun and the moon are visible in the sky – above the earth’s horizon. That”s just as impossible if the earth is what’s causing the shadow on the moon.)
Kathi: Near midway Dr. Duncan Copp was a guest to discuss his various documentaries including “In the Shadow of the Moon” where the astronauts talk about those who think they didn’t walk on the moon.
Did they discuss how the flag was wet, when water can’t exist on the moon? Or how it would have been impossible to see both the earth and the moon horizon in a single photo? Did they discuss if they could see stars? And if so, did 40% say yes, 40% no, and 20% I don’t remember – like in real life? 🙂 Kathi, the moon landing has been so thoroughly debunked from every conceivable angle that it’s hardly worth discussing any more, but I’m going through the motions anyway. What rebuttal do you offer for the flag image I posted, and the 4 arguments I made concerning it? And while we’re at it, how do you know anyone has been on the moon? Seriously… how do you KNOW it?
Kathi: They debunk the flat earth.
Funny how everybody in every video you guys post debunks the flat earth – yet you guys can’t even address the most basic points I’ve brought up so far, like…
- The Bible clearly and undeniably describes a fixed earth with a sun, a moon, and stars as lights in a firmament that move around us.
- There are thousands of photos online taken by all kinds of people all over the world (not just flat earthers) that clearly show objects that would be impossible to see from that distance if the earth was a ball 25,000 mile in circumference.
- It is impossible to have a full moon during the daytime in the heliocentric model, yet Timeanddate.com list two of them coming up this year in Phoenix, and there are thousands of photos of them as well.
- It is impossible for the earth to eclipse the moon from the top down in the heliocentric model, yet I’ve shown undeniable proof that it’s happened at least twice.
- It is impossible for there to be water or “wetness” on the moon, and to see the earth and the moon’s horizon at the same time, yet I’ve offered up a photo in which both of these things happen.
- I’m still presenting the gyroscope information, but we’ll add that one to the list soon.
- Among the many points D4T has made, the impossibility of having a pressurized atmosphere adjacent to a perfect vacuum and the impossibility for water to curve when it’s settled rank right up there.
We keep presenting, and you guys keep refusing to discuss the things we present. You only want to keep posting videos and telling us they completely debunk the flat earth. Tell you what… since you apparently watched that 4 hour video, why not bring up the very best debunking proof it had to offer, and let’s discuss it here. Then we can move on to the next… and the next… and so on. Go ahead – bring on the best one, and let’s see if it holds water… curved water that is. 😀May 23, 2018 at 2:11 pm #829284
T8: Your last post was very good. Thanks for that. So the firmament is basically space. Can you refute that Mike or Dig4Truth?
Not much to “refute”, since it was basically some dude saying he thinks “raqia” is better translated as “expanse”. He makes a few mistakes though, and although I’ve already addressed some of it early on in the thread, I’ll address Anthony’s source tomorrow. Have fun doing the ball experiment tonight. I’m excited to find out what you learn.May 23, 2018 at 3:39 pm #829285NickHassanParticipant
- Topics started 284
- Total replies 70,743
Why are you confused?
Who said the words spoken to Jesus in Mk 1.?
If you can understand how demons speak through men why do you not recognise the words of the Spirit in the mouth of Jesus?May 23, 2018 at 4:05 pm #829286
But Mike was talking about Jesus saying things that obviously were Jesus speaking and talking about himself. So is that Jesus speaking, the Spirit speaking, God speaking, or what?
BTW Mike, you will be hard pressed to get a yes / no answer or a clear answer out of Nick as he prefers to replace an honest explanation as to what he believes in or out of season with an accusation about you probably not being led by the Spirit. This is how he rolls these days.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.