- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
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?t
That would be true if the moon was flat and facing Earth. But it is a sphere, so it would be true if you were on the equator. Chances are they were not on the equator though.
Hi Mike and Dig, God bless. Good morning you guys must be on the other side of the flat Earth your posting, when I’m sleeping it’s a wonder you guys don’t fall off. Lol. k let’s talk about a fix Earth Mike: The Bible clearly and undeniably describes a fixed earth with a sun, a moon, and stars as lights in a firmament. × Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span> What better way to do this than for them to falsely claim that the Bible says things that are patently not true<span class=”js-canadianQuestion”>?</span>This technique is a very common strategy in attacking the Bible There are few Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address the heliocentric geocentric question<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>In each instance there is considerable doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Some of these verses are in the poetic books, such as the Psalms<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>It is poor practice to build any teaching or doctrine solely or primarily upon passages from the poetic books, though they can amplify concepts clearly taught elsewhere<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>It is also important not to base doctrines upon any passage that at best only remotely addresses an issue<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>That is, if cosmology is clearly not the point of a passage, then extracting a cosmological meaning can be very dangerous. in the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution. Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who claims that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (<i>mowt</i>) is in the <i>niphal</i> stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring<span class=”js-canadianAbout”> about </span>change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Virtually all that we know of ancient science and cosmology comes from the Greeks. Most of them were geocentrists<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. two other evidences for heliocentrism. One was the discovery of four moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also obvious that its motion does not leave behind the moons of Jupiter. God bless,In Anthony.</span>
My phone apparently is messing up sorry I have no computer right now this is hard to do with a phone. Going have to wait till I get my computer back this is to frustrating with my phone God bless, later In Him Anthony.
Mike…Here is one not just for you but everyone here to think about, instead of this FLAT EARTH GARABAGE.
John 16:13,..”Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into “all” truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come”.
If you understand this then you should know, who was speaking and “when” he was speaking, the man Jesus, or GOD the Father speaking through the man Jesus.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Let’s just admit the Antarctica is a frozen continent that has been visited, mapped, and probed continually for years. People fly over it, takes tours there, and there is a ton of video and photographic evidence of such activity.
So how many people have actually touched the dome or photographed the actual dome structure? I think I saw one video that had supposed proof of the dome being visible behind the clouds. But to the trained eye, it clearly was grain from the camera film or could have been the result of changing the hue too much in the video to highlight features. The colour was off, so I suspect it was the latter.
How is this even a debate?
Once we can admit the Antarctica is a continent, then we can seriously look into other claims. But if the FE theory relies on Antarctica being an ice wall surrounding the flat disk, then the theory falls flat and is a nonstarter.
I believe that American Astronauts have indeed landed on the moon…and I honor their courage.
Here is a testimony from Charlie Duke about his faith. He is one of the astronauts that has walked on the moon.
Hi Mike,
Jesus was the great prophet that Moses and Peter spoke about.
’For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ 2 Peter 1.21
Of course he was more than a prophet being fully blessed in all the gifts of the Spirit.
Hey t8, did you see the vid I posted on the last page? It has a NASA Goddard ex-employee who’s job it was to collect data to map Antartica. Just watch the first 12-15 minutes. The data is still not there! It has not been mapped. The other ex-NASA employee said that she was told that the earth was a plane (flat). Let me know what you think. Blessings.
I haven’t don’t this but if you have binoculars and are near a lake or oceon anywhere on the planet, supposedly you need only watch a boat and the further it gets away, you don’t just see it getting smaller as you would on a flat surface but see the bottom of the boat disappearing as it gets further away. Almost as if it suggest it is on a curved surface.
Correct Nick, and yet he said that we wouls greater works then he did,
John 14:12….Verly, verly, I say you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he “ALSO DO”; and “Greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the my Father verse, 13, and whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, (WHY)?, THAT THE (FATHER) may be glorified in or through, the son.
All who have tbe comforter abiding “in” them understand this.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Hi Dig4truth,
Would you mind giving me your response to the Charlie Duke testimony video that I just posted after you have watched it? It is less than 3 minutes. I’m trying to find the shorter ones since the 4 hour video of scientific information with three astronomers and a lunar eclipse seems to be not worth your time. May I mention that it is a video with a pause feature. It can be seen bits at a time 😉 It seems that you are seriously wanting to learn, I think it may have info to help.
Blessings,
LU
Hey David, this short 4 minute video will explain why the bottom disappears and why it looks like it is going down over a horizon. Remember, that this is a known, testable and repeatable example of science. If we make conclusions without taking this into consideration then our result will not be accurate.
Enjoy!
Hey David, if you watch the last few minutes of this video (start about 10:30) you will add a lot to the previous video.
Much of of the same information in this vid but if you are really seeking the truth it would be worth watching the whole thing.
This is again made by Rob Skiba. He is doing his best to uphold Scripture and true science. Blessings.
Mike Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text. Galileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. Today, most creation scientists read the Bible differently from the contemporary school of biblical interpretation, i.e. higher criticism, and therefore are criticised by the liberal theological establishment and by natural scientists.
Mike,
Regarding your wet flag theory, the flag does not have a normal drying pattern if it were wet. The seams would be darker because they would be thicker and stay wetter than the thin area between the seams but that is not what the picture is showing. I suspect that the photo shopping done on pictures are likely done by flat earthers including the so called wet flag. I believe that the moon and the sun can be both seen at times during the day because of the angle of the orbit of the moon, I have no problem with that.
Do you think that flat earthers are above doctoring their videos and pictures to make it look different than reality?
Mike come on now Rob Skiba do you know that he said:
“no wild beasts are so hostile to men as Christians” come on please. God bless I’ll be praying for you God bless. In Him Anthony
Anthony: Key in this discussion is the firmament.The Hebrew word rāqîa‘ is translated as firmament in the King James Version…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… From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.
So far so good. I will add this info that I posted earlier in the thread…
Brown-Driver-Briggsרָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳רEzekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י‘s throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 (“” הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִםGenesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺPsalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
So far we all agree it refers to something solid that is beaten/spread out – like gold or molten glass. Notice above that it is used as the base/support for God’s throne, and was regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it. That is also my understanding.
Anthony: 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.
I make no such claim, nor have I heard anyone else make it.
Anthony: 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.
Molten glass – as Job describes the firmament – isn’t “hard” either. But molten glass and all metals are “solids” – and that is the point.
Anthony: 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.
If it is a masculine noun, per Brown-Driver-Briggs above, then it is decidedly not more likely that the intended meaning was that of a verb.
Anthony: This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render rāqîa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.
Of course we all know that is not the reason. The reason the more modern translations use “expanse” is that godless men of the world were able to shame Christian translators into thinking that the original Biblical meaning of something solid was silly, because it wasn’t in line with the story scientism tells us about our endless vacuum universe.
Anthony: 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.’
Um… just up and translating it as “expanse” has nothing to do with “deciphering its meaning” – especially when you already know it is a noun that refers to something solid. When tropical fish stores put dividers in the tanks to separate different kinds of fish (for example, to separate tetra waters from molly waters), don’t they use something solid – like Plexiglas? They don’t separate the Siamese fighting fish from the sword-tails with an “expanse”, right?
I gotta tell you, so far we’ve learned that the word is a noun that refers to something solid, that the Hebrews understood the firmament as something solid, and that the only evidence offered by Anthony’s source is that he doesn’t want it to be something solid.
Anthony: Before declaring an end to Day Two in (Gen.1:8) And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;’…
You haven’t yet provided any reason for a raqia to be translated as “expanse”, so let’s leave it at, “And God called the firmament heaven…” for now.
Anthony: 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)
Agreed.
Anthony: It is clear that the waters that God separated below must refer to surface water (mostly oceans) on the earth.
It is most certainly not clear that the waters below were oceans. God hadn’t created dry land for there to be oceans, lakes, and rivers yet. The heaven and the earth were water at this time. The firmament separated the waters from which the earth was about to be formed from the waters of heaven, that still remain on the other side of the firmament.
Anthony: 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‘.
All good except that last line, where the writer again attempts to use a Hebrew noun as a verb. At least he qualifies it with “probably”. Besides, the raqia denotes only one of the three heavens… the solid one.
Anthony: Heaven generally is understood as being above us.
Of course there is no “above us” in the heliocentric model, because what’s above me right now in America is below T8, Nick, and miia in NZ.
Anthony: Depending on the context, the word can refer to that which is immediately above us, where flying birds, clouds, and rain are.
Yes, that is the first heaven – which is never referred to by raqia, since it is not solid.
Anthony: It also can refer to the realm of astronomical bodies.
That would be the second heaven… the only one of the three that is designated by a Hebrew word that refers to something solid. But “astronomical bodies“? Where in scripture can I read about those? Because all I’ve read about in scripture are lights that God placed in the firmament, ie: the sun, the moon, and the stars. Are you guys able to see that, just like when he translated a noun as the verb “spreading out”, the author is once again taking liberties with what the scriptures actually say, and importing his own worldly ideas – like astronomical bodies – into them?
Anthony: 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?
Yes, three heavens, but only one of them referred to by raqia – the solid one that separates the other two.
Anthony: 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)
I have no idea what that even means, since I wasn’t able to find the word raqia in Psalm 104:2. All the author has done here is try to import his own translation, “expanse of heavens”, in for a word that clearly refers to something solid. But there is nothing in the above that supports his claim. I’m baffled by that entire paragraph, and can’t for the life of me figure out what point he’s even trying to make.
Anthony: 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 simplyspace.
What? How in the world is it “clear” that the lights are heavenly “bodies”? He still hasn’t offered any reason… only claimed it. And now he is taking raqia, which refers to something solid, and calling it “outer space”. Where did that come from? I can’t read about “outer space” or heavenly “bodies” in scripture, can I? Can’t you guys see that this guy hasn’t actually supported his claims scripturally – but has only imposed worldly views into the Bible when the Bible clearly doesn’t even support them?
Anthony: The most natural understanding of the Day Four creation account is that all heavenly bodies are located in the rāqîa‘.
If we get rid of his unscriptural word “bodies”, and retain the scriptural word “lights/luminaries”, the above line is spot on.
Anthony: As an aside, some flat-earthers…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… However, the Hebrew text (and even the English text) does not permit this. The masculine plural pronoun of v.17 refers back to the sun, moon, and stars collectively, and the verse does not distinguish as to their placement.
The writer has finally made a very good and valid point. If scripture is our authority, then we can’t have the stars in the firmament, while the sun and moon are floating around underneath it, in the first heaven. And he is correct that many flat earthers have held this view. What he hasn’t mentioned is that many of them have been aware of this problem for a while – and not only from a scriptural perspective, but from an observational one. We are in the process of learning how it all works (we haven’t had 500 years of scientists funded by trillions of tax dollars like the heliocentrists), but many have already produced some good videos of how the sun and moon that we see are projected images of the real sun and moon. Kind of like Batman’s Bat Signal is not the actual spotlight, but its projected image in the sky…
Or think of the sun reflecting off a tall building with mirrored windows. You can see the sun in those windows, and even feel heat equal to the sun itself – but the reflection isn’t really the sun. This would explain the crepuscular rays that D4T brought up earlier, and also explains the many different perspectives on the sun in the sky. For example…
If I am the one taking that picture, the reflection comes right to my feet. But if you are standing 20 feet away, you can’t see it come to my feet, because you have your own reflection coming to your own feet. And the same with another person 40 feet away, and so on. Similarly, we are all also seeing our own version of the sun, from our own perspective. Btw, do you see how the reflection goes all the way from the sun to the observer in a continuous line? That’s not possible on a ball earth either, because there are miles of curvature between the observer and the sun that the reflection can’t get over, and so the observer would only see the last tail end of the reflection closest to him…
Notice in the bottom right image how the breaking waves break the reflection as well. The reflection cannot follow its continuous path to the observer if there is a wall of water in its path. And the ball earth requires a huge wall of water to be between that observer and the sun.
Anyway, there are videos of people doing experiments with those half-dome magnifying glasses photographers use (to represent the dome). They move the actual light source around on the dome, and record the results. Here is a screenshot from one of them…
Imagine the yellow ring is the firmament itself, which contains the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun (penlight) is the actual source of the light, but inside the dome, we see the sun as the smaller light I circled within the first heaven where the birds fly. Anyway, we can talk more about that later.
Anthony: Well that’s enough for now. IlI’ send more. God bless, In Him Anthony.
Okay, but please read it first using discernment, to see if the source is actually saying something of value, or just trying to import his worldly beliefs into the scriptures without offering a single scriptural reason to do so. Because this response took me two hours, and I won’t have that kind of time to invest in every novel that you copy and paste into the thread.
I just spent over two hours doing that last response, so I hope you guys (especially Anthony, T8 and Kathi) read every word. I won’t do that again. I refuse to spend that much time addressing a huge volume of information that someone else took 3 seconds to copy and paste. I only did it this time because T8 and Kathi seemed so impressed with it, and I wanted to make sure they knew it all amounted to a bunch of unscriptural nothing in the end.
Next time, Anthony, break it down into manageable sections, and put it in your own words. Otherwise I won’t even bother reading it, let alone responding to it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
