- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 18 hours, 58 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
I think this site will greatly help you understand why there are the three types of shadows, penumbra, umbra, and ante-umbra.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/shadows.html
Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra: Why Are There 3 Shadows?
On their journey through space, the Earth and the Moon cast 3 different shadows causing different types of solar and lunar eclipses. Why are there 3 shadows?
The Moon’s umbra, penumbra, and antumbra.
Eclipse Type Depends on Shadow Type
If the Moon’s shadow falls on Earth, we get to see a solar eclipse; the Earth’s shadow falling on the Moon results in a lunar eclipse. However, there are different types of solar and lunar eclipses. A solar eclipse may be total, partial, or annular; a lunar eclipse may be total, partial, or penumbral.
The type of eclipse we experience depends on the type of shadow that is involved. Both the Moon and Earth cast 3 shadows:
The umbra is the shadow’s dark center portion, while the penumbra and the antumbra are different types of half-shadows.
Shadow Experiments
To understand why the Earth and the Moon have 3 types of shadows, let’s start on a smaller scale. The number and types of shadows created by an opaque object depend on its size in relation to the size of the light source. However, their absolute size is irrelevant, so a basketball illuminated by a large lamp produces the same shadows as the Moon illuminated by the Sun.
So imagine that you are in a windowless room with 1 light source and 1 round object that casts a shadow, say, a basketball. Both the light source and the basketball are at the same height as your head. You are standing on the side of the ball exactly opposite to the light source, facing it, so the order is: light source – basketball – you.
A punctual light source creates only an umbra. 1st Experiment: Umbra Only
Rule: If the light emanates from a punctual light source, the object casts only 1 type of shadow: an umbra.
Let’s say the light source is a tiny flashlight pointing into your direction. If you look into the direction of the lamp from behind the basketball, it is entirely invisible as the ball blocks the view and the light rays don’t reach you. The ball’s shadow is uniform, it only has an umbra.
If you move to the side, the flashlight immediately becomes visible as soon as you leave the shadow.
2nd Experiment: Umbra and Penumbra
A light source with a larger surface area creates 2 shadows. Rule: If the light source is not punctual but has a larger surface area, a 2nd type of shadow appears around the object’s umbra: the penumbra.
Now the light source is a round lamp that is a little smaller in diameter than the basketball. If you line up with the lamp and the ball, no light is visible because you are within the ball’s umbra. However, as you move to either side, part of the light source becomes visible. That’s the penumbra.
If you move further to the side until you can see all of the lamp’s surface, you have left the penumbra.
3rd Experiment: Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra
If the diameter of the light source exceeds that of the object, an antumbra appears. Rule: If the diameter of the light source is larger than the diameter of the object, a 3rd type of shadow appears where the V-shaped umbra ends: the antumbra.
In this experiment, the light source is another round lamp, but this time it has twice the ball’s diameter. Imagine once more that you are looking at the lamp from behind the ball. As long as you are fairly close to it, the ball’s apparent size exceeds the lamp’s apparent size. You are within the umbra, and the lamp is invisible.
However, as you move away from the ball, its apparent size decreases. At some point, the basketball will appear smaller than the lamp. A ring of light will appear around the ball as the outer rim of the lamp comes into view. You have just entered the basketball’s antumbra.
3 Shadows, 6 Types of Eclipses
Our solar system resembles the set-up of the last experiment. The Sun is a very large light source, its diameter exceeding that of both the Earth and the Moon. This means that, on their journey through space, both objects produce all 3 types of shadows.
Depending on which shadow type is involved, we can experience 3 different types of solar eclipses and 3 different types of lunar eclipses on Earth:
Umbra Eclipses
The umbral shadow can produce the following eclipses:
- Total solar eclipse – the Moon’s umbra falls on the Earth’s surface, and the observer is within the umbra.
- Total lunar eclipse – the Earth’s umbra completely covers the Moon.
- Partial lunar eclipse – the Earth’s umbra covers only part of the Moon.
Penumbra Eclipses
The penumbral shadow is involved in these eclipses:
- Partial solar eclipse – the Moon’s penumbra falls on the Earth’s surface, and the observer is within the penumbra.
- Partial lunar eclipse – the Earth’s penumbra covers the area of the Moon’s visible surface that is not covered by the umbra.
- Penumbral lunar eclipse – the penumbra covers all or part of the Moon, the umbra misses it.
Antumbra Eclipses
The antumbral shadow can only cause 1 type of eclipse:
- Annular solar eclipse – the Moon’s antumbra falls on the Earth’s surface, and the observer is within the antumbra.
Also, about the red moon, it has to do with the light rays that aren’t canceled out by the atmosphere and the nearness of the earth to the moon as far as I can tell. Different light waves have different wave lengths.
T8: If the earth is flat, why can’t we see forever?
Because we can only see as far as the moisture/dust/pollution in the air allows us to see. I made a time lapse this morning of the daytime moon fading into the sky before it “set behind the curve of the earth”. The video is a little jerky, as I am still learning how to work the equipment, but you can see the moon just fade away at the end…
I also took a series of photos a while back documenting the moon getting dimmer and dimmer while it was still very high in the sky…
But the answer to why we can’t see forever on a flat earth is because the condition of the air just won’t let us. It does, however, allow us to see objects a heck of a lot farther away than we could if we lived on a spinning ball 25,000 miles in circumference – as my Mount Ruapehu and Superstition Mountain videos clearly show… as well as the thousands of other long distance videos and photos you can find on the web.
Kathi: The moon is not above you, it is in front of you and behind the earth, the sun is about to come up behind you and it is in front of the earth. The moon is on its orbit from 5 degrees below the ecliptic plane to 5 degrees above the ecliptic plane. That would show a moon eclipsing from the top down. It would look the opposite on the Southern Hemisphere.
I think at this point you’re just parroting words you heard. 🙂 In this first image, the sun is about to shine behind me in the east, while I’m looking at the moon ABOVE ME (as in: in the sky and higher than I am) as it is setting in the west…
Now, from that position, if the sun can only hit one half of the moon because the other half is blocked from the sun’s rays by the earth, which half will the sun light up? The top half? Or the bottom?
In this image, I’ve taken the first image and swung the sun around to the left so it is the closest thing to us. Then the earth and me, and then the moon furthest away from us…
We are looking at my back as I look forward and above me at the moon. 🙂 Again, if the arrangement is such that only half of the moon is being hit by the sun, and the other half is being blocked from the sun’s rays by the earth, which half of the moon will the sun be lighting up? The top half? Or the bottom half?
Here is a real image I just took in an effort to help you understand this…
I made the moon red so it stands out better. I am the camera. The earth is below me, and the moon is above and in front of me. I’m watching it set in the west, and the sun hasn’t yet risen behind me in the east. Again, if the moon was in eclipse mode, and half of it was being lit by the sun while the other half was being shadowed by the earth, which half of that red moon would be the half lit by the sun? The top half? Or the bottom half?
Here is one of the actual photos I took that morning…
The blurry blob right below the moon is the top of the palm tree you can see clearly in the previous photo.
Kathi, this isn’t that tough of a concept. A few moments after I took that photo, the entire moon was blood red. And you’ll agree that this was because I and the earth were, at that time, directly between the moon and the sun, right? So as the moon was going down in front of me, it was moving progressively to the point that the earth was more and more directly between it and the sun, until it was finally directly between the two right? So now let’s just play that last few moments backwards, and bring the moon back up out of the direct shadow of the earth. As we bring the moon back up to where the sun is starting to hit part of it, which part will the sun hit first? The top – which will be the first part coming back up out of the earth’s direct shadow and into sunlight? Or the bottom, which will be the very last part of the moon to come back up out of the earth’s shadow and into sunlight?
Of course it would have to be the part that came up from the earth’s shadow first, right? I mean, if one part is still in the shadow of the earth, and the other part is out of the shadow and into the sunlight, the part that’s in the sunlight is the part that will be lit by the sunlight, right? And that will be the top – as it is the part that came back up out of the earth’s shadow first.
Okay, now just play the same event forward again. As the moon is dropping down INTO the earth’s shadow, the first part of it to enter the shadow of the earth (which is below me) will be the bottom. The top will be the part that remains lit the longest, since it is the part that drops into the earth’s shadow last. Do you understand now?
It has nothing to do with someone somewhere else on earth seeing it differently. It has nothing to do with 5 degrees this and ecliptic that. It has only to do with me standing on top of one ball that is beginning to block the light source from the second ball as the second ball DROPS behind the first. So when DROPPING the second ball behind the first, the BOTTOM of the second ball will receive the shadow first. If RAISING the second ball behind the first, the TOP of the second ball will receive the shadow first. If bringing the second ball behind the first from left to right, the RIGHT will enter the shadow first. If from right to left, the LEFT will receive the shadow first. Understand?
But in my case, the second ball was DROPPING behind the first, and therefore it must absolutely be the BOTTOM of the second ball that begins to get shadowed first. Can you really not understand this? Or is it that you just don’t want to understand it, and so are forced to search Google and try to find irrelevant additional conditions and hypothetical ponderings to muddy the waters? Because the event is simple: One ball dropped behind another ball, which began to block the light source from the ball that was dropping behind it. The shadow must, by necessity, occur from the bottom up on that second ball as it drops behind the first. But it didn’t.
Kathi: Look at this picture, it should help you see the mean temperature chart more clearly.
That won’t be necessary, as the other image you posted works just fine…
In this image, we get to see the equator AND the orbital path the earth takes around the sun. My question was how that orbital path (which is perfectly horizontal in this diagram) could cause the diagonal temperature pattern we experience on earth, which I’ve highlighted in red on the image. What is your answer?
Mike,
If you are the X man in your diagram, then you are in Greenland or maybe Russia. Phoenix is more like at the 10:00 position (think clock), not 12:00 as you have it pictured. The moon is not above you, even if you were at 12:00. Your moon is also not in the correct position. It is on the other side of the earth than the sun. The only place the moon is above someone is at the 0 degree ecliptic point and that is smack dab, directly on the other side of the earth from the sun. You diagram is wrong.
you said:
That won’t be necessary, as the other image you posted works just fine…
Yah, I think it is necessary because you sure aren’t getting it with that Ecliptic plane picture. It does not show the orbital path around the sun. It shows the orbital path of the moon around the earth. Look at the picture that I told you to look at, it shows you the orbital path around the sun.
Kathi: I don’t remember the diagram but I have seen diagrams of the orbit around the sun that were drawn wrong. The last post has the distance between summer and winter appearing the same from the sun. The spring and the fall are closer to the sun. Study the last diagram and see if that doesn’t help you.
I didn’t post a diagram, and you weren’t really engaged in the thread at the time. But you did post a quick Google source response that said it was because the rays hit at an angle and carry the heat further, or some nonsense like that. Here’s a diagram that is not so cluttered…
And here’s what the heliocentric experts at Space.com tell us…
Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle; it is shaped more like an oval, or an ellipse. Over the course of a year, Earth moves sometimes closer to the sun and sometimes farther away from the sun. Earth’s closest approach to the sun, called perihelion, comes in early January and is about 91 million miles (146 million km), just shy of 1 AU. The farthest from the sun Earth gets is called aphelion. It comes in early July and is about 94.5 million miles (152 million km), just over 1 AU.
https://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
So we’re having our summer when the earth is 3.5 million miles farther away from the sun. But, as you can see in the diagram above, we are tilted a thousand miles closer to the sun, so there ya go. 😀 And that was my original question I asked you…
Kathi, how can being tilted towards the sun one thousand miles not only make up for being 3.5 million miles farther away from the heat source, but actually increase the temperature in the northern hemisphere during that time?
And you posted your Google answer about angles and heat carrying further or whatever. So now my question is based on the diagram you posted…
During the southern summer, the earth is at its closest to the sun… AND the south pole is tilted towards the sun. So the southern hemisphere is not only 3.5 million miles closer to the sun, but its also got the thousand mile tilt going for it as well during its summer months. And if we use the same reasoning that your Google source gave about angles and heat travelling farther or whatever, then the south pole shouldn’t even have any ice to speak of during the summer. At the very least, the south should get considerably hotter during its summer than the north. Yet in the arctic, the snow melts, flowers bloom, and all kinds of wildlife roams about. But in the antarctic, you can’t even find a living shrub lower than 60 degrees south latitude – let alone blooming flowers and wildlife.
Are you seeing a problem yet?
Kathi: Mike,
I think this site will greatly help you understand why there are the three types of shadows, penumbra, umbra, and ante-umbra…
Can you show me real tests with a real light source and real objects and real shadows? Because I have no use for diagrams of hypotheticals – like the one you posted last week where the cylinder had a skinny little shadow due to the huge light source. Show me this effect in real life, not in cartoons.
Kathi: Mike,
If you are the X man in your diagram, then you are in Greenland or maybe Russia…
Yeah, I said early on in the discussion that I was moving Phoenix to the top of the ball, to make the diagrams more understandable. If I leave it on the side, I can’t show any relational difference between the sun, earth and moon. It will just be three circles in a straight line.
Kathi: The moon is not above you, even if you were at 12:00.
Things in the sky are above me, Kathi.
Kathi: Your moon is also not in the correct position. It is on the other side of the earth than the sun.
Yes, that is what my diagrams show. The second one I even put into words how the sun was closest, then me and the earth, and then the moon furthest away from the viewer.
Kathi: The only place the moon is above someone is at the 0 degree ecliptic point and that is smack dab, directly on the other side of the earth from the sun.
Are you serious? If you are in the middle of a huge forest, are the treetops “above” you? Or would you have to be inside of a tree trunk in order to have one treetop “above” you? Birds fly ABOVE me, Kathi. Clouds move across the sky ABOVE me. Planes fly overhead ABOVE me. I never said the moon was 180 degrees exactly and directly above my head. It was in the sky. I had to look UP to see it. That makes it ABOVE me. You have the photo and the video, right? Is the moon in the sky above the 60 foot palm tree from my perspective? Then it is ABOVE me. This is just semantics.
Kathi: You diagram is wrong.
My diagram is spot on. It’s just that you can’t address the problem. But I’ll go ahead and work on another one incorporating Google World and timeanddate.com’s eclipse image that we’ve posted here a hundred times if you think it will help. I’ll spin AZ to the top on Google World, and then position the sun and moon exactly as they do in the timeanddate diagram. Do I really need to do that?
BTW, your model’s claim that the sun and moon must be directly opposite each other in relation to the earth is a ludicrous claim to begin with. You want to know why? Because for centuries people have been observing and documenting total eclipses occurring while the sun and moon are both visible in the sky. They even came up with the fancy name “selenelion” for it. You know what their explanation is? We don’t actually see the real sun and moon as they’re rising and setting. Instead, we see a refracted image of a sun and a moon that is already behind the curvature of the earth. Therefore, when we see selenelion eclipses, we are seeing a refracted image of a moon being eclipsed above one horizon, and a refracted image of the sun above the other horizon. Two problems…
- At what point during a sunset do we stop seeing the “real” sun that we’ve seen all day, and begin to see the “refracted” sun? Have you ever witnessed the sun split into two different suns as it was rising or setting? How about the moon? So the story is laughable, because all we ever see is the one and only sun moving off into the distance and out of view. And the same moon that we can watch come over the horizon and into the sky is the only moon we’ll see until it disappears again. There isn’t some refracted image of a moon that rises first, and is followed up by the “real” moon that then skirts across the sky. It is only one moon and one sun that we see, start to finish.
- Their story says a total lunar eclipse must have the sun and moon at opposite centers of the earth. So when we see a selenelion eclipse where we see the sun and the moon both above the horizon and in the sky, it means the sun must be 90 degrees from actually rising and the moon must be 90 degrees farther than when it actually set. In other words, these refracted images of the sun and moon are projecting themselves thousands of miles from the real locations so we can see them in the sky while the sun and moon are really at opposite sides of the earth. Like this…
Do you think that’s rational, Kathi?
Kathi: Yah, I think it is necessary because you sure aren’t getting it with that Ecliptic plane picture. It does not show the orbital path around the sun. It shows the orbital path of the moon around the earth.
I looked at your picture, and it doesn’t show the equator heat signature. Your first image does show the orbital path around the sun, as indicated by the horizontal red line that says “Ecliptic Plane”. But maybe you’ll like this one better…
The same question stands…
How can the center of the earth’s ecliptic plane (highlighted in yellow) not have the warmest annual mean temperatures? And what process would cause the warmest annual mean temperatures to follow the diagonal pattern of the equator (highlighted in red) – which has no relation to the ecliptic plane?
Mike…The question was if you were given a ride on the ISS, and saw that the world was truly round, would you believe it? Would that proof cause you to become a atheist?
Your interputations of the creation event, is just yours but many others don’t see it that way at all. But the creation event was not what i was asking you about.
Please answer the question directly if you can. I just want to see how far down the road you have gone to deny reality, even if you saw it with your own eyes. Would you still think it was some kind of conspiracy, to make you believe the earth was round, even if you were seening it with your own eye, would you then denounce the FE theory.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
The thing is Mike, no one here is an expert on astronomy and eclipses and your topsy turvy eclipse doesn’t even prove the Earth is flat and you repeat this so called evidence as if it is your best example.
While we have ample evidence the earth is globe shaped in the form of videos, photos, math calculations and predictions etc, with a mention of other spin off proofs like the continent of Antarctica, ocean distances in the Southern Ocean, air traffic, etc, all you can do is put up a few pieces of supposed evidence that somehow prove the globe is not true, but have nothing to do with proving the earth is flat . You have no videos, no photos, no Antarctic images of the dome, no Flat Earthers sailing around Antarctica and measuring the immense distances they claim exist there, etc.
I will tell you how this will end. Your so-called proofs have an explanation and it will be up to you to accept the huge weight of evidence that God created trillions of planets and stars and the universe is really like his cloak rather than a snow globe sitting on his mantlepiece.
This is where I sit at this stage of the discussion and it is the same view I had at the beginning. Nothing you have presented is compelling enough to make me change my mind at this stage. So far, much of your points are already debunked, but give it time and all will be.
Flat Earthers main evidence seems to be not to prove the Flat Earth, but to debunk the globe. And if the Bible is as literal as you say, then Jesus has a two edged sword coming out of his mouth and the sun sets. The Flat Earth theory you subscribe to has the sun always above the disk. You probably need to change it to the sun setting under the disk to keep in line with your literal thinking.
Wait up. This popped up on my Facebook wall. Taken in the Cook Strait NZ looking toward Antarctica, it seems to show a crack in the edge of the dome. Hmmm. Might sail out there today and take a closer look.
On a more serious note, I saw this on a Flat Earth Bible site.
This is the fruit. Placing the Bible as error because it has been disproven by reason of the Earth not being flat.
Pity some Christians insist that the Bible teaches the Flat Earth. It is a stumbling block now and will affect the preaching of the good news because of its perception of being fake news. That is the end game and the preachers of the Flat Earth are the pawns.
T8….Amen to that brother. All smoke and mirrors, designed to throw people off. Did you notice when i ask Mike if he had a ride on the ISS, around the earth, if he would then believe the earth was Round or lose his faith in God?, he never answered. I wanted to see how far down this road of deception he had gone. Evidently quite far, to where he would not except the truth even if he himself saw it, he would just think it was a trick of somekind.
Man how dangerious this conspiracy stuff is. May God pull him out of this is my prayer for him.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Hi T8,
This is a little snippet of a video I made just for you. It attempts to answer your question about why the bottom of distant objects disappear in photos in which we shouldn’t be able to see any of the object…
Now imagine I shot those bushes over a vast body of water. Can you see how the silver mirage that is hiding the bottom of them would in that case be blue? And a blue mirage directly on top of the blue body of water in the foreground would make it appear as if the blue water itself was obscuring the bottom of the distant object. Here is the entire 3 minute video if you’re interested…
Gene: Mike…The question was if you were given a ride on the ISS, and saw that the world was truly round, would you believe it? Would that proof cause you to become a atheist?
Gene, I have no problem answering your question directly, succinctly, and honestly. But there are 25 questions from me in this thread that you just ignored. So I’ll make you a deal, if you can answer just one of them directly and honestly, I will answer your in the same manner. Here is mine…
All of the above are official NASA images that have been presented to the general public as real pictures of our earth. Which one of them is the real earth, Gene?
Answer that, and I will happily answer yours.
Okay Kathi, I see that you are stumped. I’ll make one more attempt, using Google World and the timeanddate.com diagram. First up is Google World, with Phoenix centered in the middle and the sun and moon added in…
I hope you are able to see why I put myself on top of the ball for my diagrams, because putting me on the side like this doesn’t show the relation of the earth to the sun and moon very well. So in this next one, I just rotated the globe in Google World so that Phoenix was top dead center…
I’ve added a green horizon to indicate that I was looking up at the moon, and the sun was about to rise behind me in the east. You can once again see that there’s no rational way the bottom of the moon from my perspective could be brightly lit, while the reddish shadow was occurring progressively from the top down. Next is the timeanddate.com diagram, except I flipped it so that east is on the right and west is on the left. That is how I’ve done all of my diagrams because that’s the way we’re used to looking at maps and Google World, etc…
If you consider the central continent in the center of the earth to be South America (which it appears to be), then they have placed Phoenix pretty much top dead center – which works out perfectly for me. Again, I am the red X at the top of the ball. I am watching the moon eclipse in the sky above me in the west, and the sun is about to rise behind me in the east. Notice how they have the bottom of the moon (from my perspective) darkened, while the top is still lit up. That is what I should have seen if the light and dark parts were in fact caused by the earth coming between the sun and the moon. So this diagram is pretty much what I should have been seeing that morning. But as you know from my actual photos and videos, I saw the opposite effect. I saw the bottom of the moon brightly lit, and the top of it was being progressively shadowed from the top down.
And finally, I’ve tried to match the timeanddate.com image, and adjust my horizon so that the moon could be in the umbra, but I could still be seeing in the sky above me (as opposed to disappearing on the horizon)…
In this timeanddate.com copy-cat, I colored the moon as I observed it… not as timeanddate.com showed it should be.
Kathi, no matter how anybody draws it, it is simply impossible in the helical model for me to have observed a top-down eclipse as the moon was setting in the west and as the sun was about to rise behind me in the east.
I have one more thing to add to this irrefutable proof that the helical model is severely flawed, but I’ll have to do in another post, because four images is the max.
Kathi, this is the picture I took that day with my crappy phone camera…
This is the same thing taken from a better camera. It was sent in to a Phoenix News site…
And this one was taken by my sister, Beth – from only 14 miles pretty much due east of my location!
Now how in the world can I see the moon eclipse from the top down while my sister watched it eclipse from the side only a few miles down the road from me? And you can search 1-31-18 eclipse from Phoenix, and you’ll find local news sites that have collections of photos sent in by local Phoenix residents, and some of them are top-down, while others are side-to-side. Btw, eclipsing from the side as my sister watched the moon set in the west while the sun was about to rise behind her in the east is also an impossibility in the helical model. In our particular situation, the ONLY way the helical model would work is if the moon eclipsed from the bottom up. And it clearly didn’t.
And that means the sun is NOT what was causing the lit part of the moon that morning, nor was the earth causing the darkened part. And this is just one undeniable example of how the helical model fails miserably. The equator versus ecliptic temperature pattern is another undeniable fail. So is the idea that selenelion total eclipses are due to the sun and moon both being above the horizon in refracted form only. And so is the absurd idea that the alleged 23.4 degree tilt is responsible for the seasons. I have briefly touched on these with you, but there are hundreds more examples that I haven’t even brought up yet because it takes so long to discuss just one of them… as you have seen.
T8: …we have ample evidence the earth is globe shaped in the form of videos, photos, math calculations and predictions etc…
Can you confirm the authenticity of the photos and videos? Math calculations you definitely have… in spades. But remember what Nikola Tesla, likely the most brilliant scientist in history, said about that…
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Even Copernicus said he had only created a mathematical model that doesn’t necessarily have any relation to reality. And Einstein said that whether the sun moves around a stationary earth or the earth orbits the sun is just a matter of preference in how one wants to think of it. And as late as 1995, cosmologist George Ellis wrote, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.“
And most recently, “brilliant scientists” have developed the “holographic universe” model – and claim that there is just as much evidence for their model as for the contemporary one. Except we can’t land men and rovers on a holographic moon, right?
Anyway, the point is that mathematical models are a dime a dozen – and in the end don’t amount to Jack squat. As for these “predictions” you constantly bring up after being corrected on them, do you still not realize that these predictions have been in place since the ancient Babylonians? Even the NASA official website says that it’s predictions are based on the ancient saros cycle from eons ago.
Of course you’ll ignore this post like you do all the others, and bring the same dang things up in a week or so, won’t you?
T8: Pity some Christians insist that the Bible teaches the Flat Earth. It is a stumbling block now and will affect the preaching of the good news because of its perception of being fake news. That is the end game and the preachers of the Flat Earth are the pawns.
You are so deeply indoctrinated that you don’t even realize that what you just said was this…
Pity that some Christians take the Bible at its word, and believe the things it says over the stories we’ve been told by men who came later. If we teach that the Bible is correct, and adhere to what it actually says, we will be perceived as spreaders of fake news. That will make it harder to bring people – who already know the Bible is wrong about many things – to Christ. So let’s instead teach what the godless men have taught us, and make excuses for why the Bible is still a good book – despite the writers being confused about how the world really is.
Pity indeed, T8.
Okay, I’m tired of playing this philosophical pondering game with you. You bail on the evidence we provide, ignore when we refute your “evidence”, refuse to bring up the “best proof” in the dozens of videos you’ve posted so we can actually discuss it, and overall just ridiculing and putting down the two of us here that are trying to preach that we CAN take the Bible as truth. So I’m going to start the debate thread I asked you to start at least three times on this thread. You can wax philosophical all you want there… as long as you provide a direct, honest, and succinct answer to my direct questions in the process. I will begin with my first question. After giving a direct and honest answer, you can say whatever you want, and ask me one direct question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
