- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi All,
I have become convinced that the place we live isn’t at all what we’ve all been told. There is overwhelming observational evidence to support my conclusion, but let me just start with these…
Genesis 1…
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so…
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hi Mike. Good to hear from you again.
A tip. When you attach an image, it should be then possible to add the image later to your post using the Add Media button.
You just attach the image, publish, then edit the post and use the Add Media button.The forum by default stops users from posting images I guess because it is too open for abuse, but it is frustrating and I was not able to disable this or enable image posting. But I found this code that allows attachments. Then I noticed that once you attach an image, it is in the site’s media area and becomes available to you to add it into the actual post when you edit the post.
Hi Mike. My post is going to start 2 steps back and ask some bigger questions before getting into the details of each theory.
I have actually watched a couple of Flat Earth videos and have read the memes you posted to let you know that I am listening.
First off, why can’t the current understanding fit with these descriptions found in the Bible and if today’s view is wrong, why the conspiracy anyway? The current view gives God more credit because it is way more amazing. Many of the men that helped us come to the current view were Christians who were persecuted by ungodly institutions.
Spreading out the sky sounds a lot like an expanding universe for example. The firmament above could be the atmosphere which is partially transparent to us, but we only view a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond that is space which scientists believe is an actual substance like water because space has weight, thus it looking like glass which is transparent.
There are so many ways you can view the Universe because if it is true that we are all moving, then things look different from where you are looking. Only God sees it as it is. Why can’t the galaxies for example be the heavens, each galaxy a heaven. There are so many possibilities. Could each star be a stargate? God creates a world and when that world is advanced enough, they figure out their sun is a gate to other suns and they can explore their galaxy. Then when they are advanced enough, they find out that the black hole in the centre of each galaxy is also a portal to another galaxy. Or could it be that only massless creations (spirits) can travel to these?
I diverge. But here’s the thing. Your brain is in complete darkness inside your skull and yet you see light. Your sensory organs take in waves from the spectrum and convert them to electromagnetic waves into your brain and it is your brain that creates the picture of reality that you see. It is so subjective. When you see the person next to you, that picture of that person is inside your head. So what is the Universe really?
Well think of a whole bunch of waves. Think of signals. The picture you see on that old TV is not actually real. What is real is the signals it receives. The conversion is done in the box. Same with reality. Physicists today admit that the only theory that makes sense of the universe and quantum world is if the universe is digital. In other words, if there are pixels in the real world and nothing smaller than that. If so, and with the result of quantum experiments, the best explanations is these pixels are generated and compiled by consciousness. It could turn out that the universe is consciousness, and what we see is the object reality of that. The question is, did the universe create consciousness or consciousness the universe. We know the latter.
Now to my point. If the world is flat and hell underneath and a dome above, that is absolutely true. That is how we see it. If we create telescopes and microscopes, and see that the earth is sphere, and the qubits as pixels, then that too is real. Not contradictory at all. Just a different perception now. We know that nothing can travel faster than light that has mass. So what does it look like to massless life forms? No time? Heavenly? More light? All the spectrum visible and not just the tiny part we perceive.
So to conclude. My view is the universe has many different ways it can be viewed and they are all subjective. Perhaps there is an angel sitting in my room even though I cannot detect it. Thus, the sun sets and yet it is the earth going round the sun and the sun round the galaxy and galaxy round the universe. All very fickle because that which you call reality is compiled in your brain like a camera compiles light into a photo. Does it really look like that without an observer? Do signals look like the final picture your brain compiles. I tell you something, the famous Double Slit experiment makes you ask these things. Perhaps I can post that here without diverging from the subject too much?
Hi Mike.
You may have seen this. I post this because the argument is that the earth is the centre while science says the sun is. But even that idea is subjective because the sun supposedly flies through space. If we add more information the perspective changes. But in all, I think they are all correct as models depending on what data you include. If you are travelling at a different speed then things look different again.
Okay. Here is one of the more popular rebuttals against a flat earth. This popped up on my Facebook wall and while it is meant as humour, it does explain the rebuttal well. So why is it that we have round stars/suns and wandering stars/planets are also round. But not the Earth. I suppose the argument is that it is the centre so it is unique.
Hi Mike,
I’m glad to see you are back. Yes, the flat-earth stuff is compelling.
But how do they account for blood moons?_____________
God bless
Ed JI don’t know how to quote a post here, but thanks for the welcome back, Ed. BTW, me being a mod way back when never stopped you from yelling at me. 🙂
I don’t know why the moon is occasionally red, but I know it can’t be the story we’ve been told. Space.com says,
“During a full eclipse, however, something spectacular happens. The moon is fully in Earth’s shadow. At the same time, a little bit of light from Earth’s sunrises and sunsets (on the disk of the planet) falls on the surface of the moon. Because the light waves are stretched out, they look red. When this red light strikes the moon’s surface, it also appears red.”
Interesting phrase, “disk of the planet”. 🙂 But the point is that a lunar eclipse is supposed to be when the earth is between the sun and the moon, and makes a shadow on the moon. I’ve attached a little GIF of this last blood moon Jan 31, 2018 that I took myself. (Sorry for the quality, it was taken from my phone.) Anyway, the sun is about to rise behind me as I filmed. So if the earth blocking the sun is what is causing the shadow on the moon, the moon should should be bright on top, and shadowed on the bottom, right? The sun cannot be shining through the earth and lighting up the bottom of the moon, while at the same time the earth is causing a shadow on the top, right? Or am I tripping?
Here’s a better example than my poor quality GIF. Just watch from 2:45-3:30…
Hmm… even my snapshot is too big to upload. I could resize it to 512kb, but it already looks crappy at 1.27mb. 🙂 I guess you’ll have to take my word for it for now. But you can look online and see all kinds of photos of the Jan 31st blood moon, and you’ll see what I mean.
Mikeboll64. ….when pictures taken from space of earth it shows as round, not flat, so how do does the flat theory account for that? I do think we are moving in a vortex , the earth has three movements going on at one time, it spins on its axes at 24000 mph, it rotates around the sun at about 67,000 mph, and also moving through the galaxy at i don’t know how many mph.
But Mike we can view these plants and the are round in shape right?
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Hi Mike,
Welcome back.
It depends on definitions.
Do you know of the biblical definitions of
FOUNDATIONS, PILLARS, CHANNELS, CORNERS, THE DEEP, FIRMAMENT etc?
Without forming such a foundation we are not able to build anything.
Belief is amazing. I realise that a zealot is unable to be unconvinced by men.
Hey T8, so good to talk with you again. I’m happy you are still running this site after all these years. Good on you, bloke. Okay, you’ve hit me with a lot, so let me give some brief answers now, and then I hope to walk you through the steps of how I came to believe we don’t live in the universe the scientists have created for us. Otherwise it will be a never-ending, “Well what about this? What about that?”, and it’ll be hard to make any headway.
@T8: “why can’t the current understanding fit with these descriptions found in the Bible”
For one, are the sun, the moon and the stars all simply lights IN the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below, like the Bible says? For example, God says the moon is a light in the firmament to govern the night. Men say the moon is a rock that gives off no light of its own, but merely reflects the sun’s light. There is observational evidence that the moon is it’s own source of light, and that we have been lied to by those men who say it is a rock. But let’s hold off on that for a moment. For another, did Joshua command the sun and moon to stand still in the sky… or the earth and moon to stop spinning and rotating around the sun? If one takes the scriptures as truth, the sun and moon were moving over the stationary earth, and Joshua commanded them to stop moving.
@T8: “why the conspiracy anyway?”
Imagine if our world truly was a stationary plane covered by a glass-like dome within which a very local sun, moon and stars moved upon their God-appointed circuits. If we were shown this, would there be anyone on earth who would believe that our world and the life therein were mere accidents of nature? Not a chance. There would likely be the same arguments over who the Creator/Intelligent Designer is… but nobody would question that we and our world were designed. No godless big bang theory, no godless evolution, no godless Lawrence Krauss saying “forget Jesus – the stars died for you!”
@T8: “The current view gives God more credit because it is way more amazing.”
I admit that is one of the first things that stymied me when I began to look into this. I was (and still am) completely happy to imagine this vastly huge universe God created – filled will trillions of galaxies, stars and planets – all because He knew we’d eventually create telescopes and space travel and be able to see His handiwork in more detail… constantly discovering more and more intricacies that He created for us, and for His own glory. I also immersed myself in the scientific literature, and was pleased to know that every time the secular scientists think they have the universe figured out, they make a discovery that points right back to intelligent design. Like the cosmological constant being tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power. That’s some serious fine tuning, man. Add that to the hundreds of other precisely tuned parameters the secularists point out, and one would have to be an idiot to think it all happened by chance. Even Alan Guth (the guy who came up with inflation theory because the Big Bang simply wouldn’t work without it) lamented that the CMB (cosmic microwave background) points to earth being the very center of the universe. They have what they call “the axis of evil”, which is how the movements in the vast universe are somehow aligned to the ecliptic of the earth. They call it the axis of evil because they can’t understand how our insignificant little rock could have everything else aligned to it. So yeah, I have no problem with the current model. It’s just that the observational evidence seems to clearly refute it.
@T8: “If the world is flat and hell underneath and a dome above, that is absolutely true. That is how we see it. If we create telescopes and microscopes, and see that the earth is sphere, and the qubits as pixels, then that too is real.”
We have all seen that the earth is flat. I contend that nobody has seen that the earth is spherical. But with that, let me begin my presentation.
@t8: “You may have seen this. I post this because the argument is that the earth is the centre while science says the sun is. But even that idea is subjective because the sun supposedly flies through space. If we add more information the perspective changes.”
Yeah, I’ve seen the video about how we’re flying through space at what amounts to millions of miles per hour in every conceivable direction at once. Interesting that none of us have ever felt any of that motion, huh? We’re spinning around on a ball at over 1000 miles per hour, yet always feel like we’re standing on a flat, motionless plane. More about that later… I’ve got to get this thing started.
@T8: “So why is it that we have round stars/suns and wandering stars/planets are also round. But not the Earth. I suppose the argument is that it is the centre so it is unique.”
Round doesn’t mean spherical. Besides, in the flat earth model, there is no outer space with all those round planets and stars zooming around. Here is a short clip to give you guys the basic idea of the flat earth model.
miia, notice the small and local sun lighting only a part of the earth – as opposed to the image you posted with a large, far-away sun lighting the whole thing at once.
Here are a few shots of stars taken by me with my new Nikon P900 83x zoom camera. It’s hard to keep the camera still on a windy night when zoomed in so far, but you’ll be able to get the idea. Notice that they don’t look anything like huge fireballs, but more light flashing neon lights.
They are all very short clips. The last one is the best IMO. Hit pause/play while watching it. Pretty cool.
@Gene: “Mikeboll64. ….when pictures taken from space of earth it shows as round, not flat, so how do does the flat theory account for that?”
I don’t believe there is a “space”, let alone any real pictures from there. But let’s put that on the back burner for now. I want to start my presentation with the flatness of earth that all of us have seen our entire lives, and then go from there.
Hi Mike,
Welcome back.
Thanks Nick. Good to hear from you after all this time.
It depends on definitions. Do you know of the biblical definitions of
FOUNDATIONS, PILLARS, CHANNELS, CORNERS, THE DEEP, FIRMAMENT etc?
Without forming such a foundation we are not able to build anything.
We can surely delve into that, while remembering not to strain the gnat and swallow the camel. But does the current secular model sound anything like a firmament separating waters above from waters below, in which God has placed a bunch of LIGHTS called sun, moon, and stars – which all move in relation to the earth on circuits God appointed for them?
Belief is amazing. I realise that a zealot is unable to be unconvinced by men.
I don’t know if I should take that as an insult, but how about you let me begin to make my case first, and we’ll just go from there?
Hi Mike,
What does a FIRMAMENT sound like to you?
Should we decide on the meaning?
Does everything in scripture have to be literally true to be truth?
Is God allowed to describe things as man would see them rather than as actual reality?
The sky scrolling upwards (Is 44) or stars being seen to be falling cannot just be just observational?
Scripture focuses on Israel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
