- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Really? Joshua wanted more daylight so “the nation could take vengeance upon its enemies”, and God acted on his command by making the sun and moon STOP shining? Also, in what world has anyone ever seen a moon shining during the day of a solar eclipse? So in his effort to “gather around him a great number of teachers to say what his itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3), T8 apparently lost track of his common sense.
Mike, did you read my posts. I gave a number of views that could be possible. Eclipse is only one of them. Did I not also say that God who programmed the Matrix could alter our reality even time if he wanted. He is an unlimited God after all. Further, I believe that creation is the result of consciousness and because consciousness is perception, then God can freeze, alter, change his own physical laws whenever he wants. He is not subject to them himself right. He is not even bound by time. If so, surely he could even make one day have twice the time from our perspective if he so wished. That is, time from the perspective of Joshua and time from the perspective of the sun and earth movements could have been different than usual. I mean we even notice time going fast and dragging on from our own perspective too, but perhaps nothing like what Joshua asked for.
So let’s go back to the original point which was that this text doesn’t say the Earth was flat. The End.
Let me tell you about a story where God changed reality for me.
Many years ago, I picked up my brother from the airport after he arrived from Bali. As I was driving him home, I was so engaged in conversation, that I didn’t notice the lights turn red and the traffic came to a standstill. Coasting along I realised too late and hit the car in front of me. The car shuddered from the impact. At this moment I knew that reality is reality but I prayed anyway as I had nothing to lose at this point. I asked God to change this reality. After this quick prayer, I got out of the car and proceeded to inspect the damage and the driver got out of his car and took a look and got straight back into his car as if he didn’t care. I saw zero damage and got back in the car and told my brother. He said that I never hit the car, rather I just stopped suddenly. He seemed unconcerned about the whole thing while I was quite shaken. I have driven for many decades and even back then I had around 10 driving experience under my belt including a driving job I did for years. I know a crash or impact from breaking suddenly and to this day it does seem that God changed my reality. I did consider that I just perceived it all wrong, but I remember my prayer that God change my reality.
I believe that if Joshua wanted extra daylight, God can do this. It’s just that you think he needs to literally slow the sun down from spinning around the Earth. But Joshua possibly needed extra daylight, if so, there are a number of ways this could be accomplished. Just as the sun doesn’t literally go down even though it is written, so it is that many miracles God can happen without having to work in the way you understand scientifically. God is outside our reality and his view is not our view. He has ways that we cannot perceive.
T8: I’m no rocket scientist, but I would have thought that your confusion is resulting from relying on 2D to fully explain 3D.
Wait… are you suggesting that a video using 3D graphics is actually a 3D thing? Surely you’re aware that it is also a 2 dimensional image we’re looking at, right? Anyway, the video did a fine job of explaining exactly what my moon videos explain. So why would you post it? Unless you think there is some discrepancy between what I’ve said and what your video said. If so, please point it out to me. And if not, posting a video you probably didn’t even watch as an “answer” to the moon questions I’ve been asking only goes to show that you are incapable of addressing the observational problems I brought up.
Of course that’s what you’ve been doing since the beginning of this thread, right? We bring up a valid point that we’ve actually looked into and given some thought, and you post a random video as your “answer” – not even aware that your video either matches what we said in the first place, or doesn’t even address the point we brought up.
T8: …the boat that is brought back from being over the horizon was never over the horizon in the first place. It was just too small to see.
For the 15th time now… what is the maximum size boat that could disappear from view WITHOUT actually going over the horizon? A speed boat? Ski boat? Small fishing vessel? Cabin cruiser? Yacht? Navy destroyer? Cargo vessel? Aircraft carrier?
Let’s get the ball rolling with Wiki:
For an observer on the ground with eye level at h = 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m), the horizon is at a distance of 2.9 miles (4.7 km).
Okay, so what size/type of boat do you think will disappear from being “too small to see” BEFORE it gets 3 miles away from you? Let’s just say it is a tiny one-man row boat, okay? Well guess what? At only 3 miles away, that tiny row boat will be 6 feet behind the curve according to globe mathematics. Get it? At only 3 miles, the very top of that tiny 2 foot tall row boat will be behind 4 feet of curve. In fact, the very top of that row boat would be 6 inches behind the curve at only 2 miles – since that calls for 2.5 feet of drop!
There is no boat known to man that will disappear from being “too small to see” before it has gone over the curve. ANY boat that is far enough away that it is unobservable to the naked eye absolutely must be over the curve according to the spinning ball earth theory. So when we are able to zoom ANY boat back into view, we are zooming that boat back up over the curved horizon… according to the theory to which you subscribe.
Questions?
Oh, and give that 3 mile horizon thing some thought the next time you’re seeing Mount Ruapehu or some other distant object from ground level. Ask yourself if the distant object is REALLY only 3 miles away from you. Because if it’s not, then you are seeing well beyond the 3 mile horizon that must be the case if we lived on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
Do you understand that? Not only does the ball earth REQUIRE a drop of 8 inches per mile squared… it also REQUIRES your horizon to be at 3 miles away while you are standing on the ground. Now I know you can probably think of hundreds of times you saw boats on the ocean that were way farther than 3 miles from you. But you couldn’t possibly have really seen them, because it is impossible in your model. Yup… that’s the hard and fast mathematical rules of the theory you so vehemently defend over the words of Holy Scripture. Still feeling good about that model when you know for a fact you’ve seen farther than that?
T8: It’s just that you think he needs to literally slow the sun down from spinning around the Earth.
It’s not a matter of me thinking God needed to do it that way. It’s a matter of me believing the scriptures that say God did do it that way.
I still want an HONEST and DIRECT answer to WHY it CAN’T be EXACTLY as the scripture clearly describes it.
I want you to say it, T8. I want to hear you say that it can’t be the way the scriptures say it is because godless men have convinced you that the scriptural way is an impossibility, and you trust them over God’s written word. That is the reason, after all. And we all already know it. But I want you to be the honest man you claim to be and ADMIT what we all already know.
Can you do that? Or does saying the words out loud – even to yourself – cause there to be a pit in your stomach?
T8: Earthshine claim? All objects reflect light.
The question has to do with where the reflected light came from.
T8: Just put the Earth back about double the distance and there you have it.
Oh no… did you just use your own brain to solve a problem for the first time in this thread? Kudos! That is a point well made. I should not use that particular diagram to make my point because according to the helical model, the moon is closer to the sun during times of earthshine – and this guy has the moon farther away from the sun. I formally and humbly withdraw that diagram, and any arguments made on behalf of it – because you have shown them to be erroneous. So let’s get back to the other diagram, as compared to my waxing gibbous earthshine photo…
Locate the waxing gibbous moon on the diagram. Notice the moon’s position as compared to the earth and the sun. Notice the side of the earth that is lit by the sun during the waxing gibbous phase. Notice the side of the moon that is unlit during the waxing gibbous phase. Take a moment to consider these things.
Okay, how can sunlight hitting the right side of the earth reflect off the earth to light the left side of that waxing gibbous moon? Because the only option for me seeing the unlit part of the gibbous moon in my photo is that sunlight reflected off the day side of the earth and hit the dark side of the moon, right? After studying the diagram, is that a possibility? Consider the path the light rays would have to take to go from the right side of the earth to the left side of the waxing gibbous moon.
Now recall the first diagram I posted yesterday, where the science teacher said moonshine happens during CRESCENT moons. That’s easy to imagine from that diagram, right? But what about that 1st quarter moon? Could the right side of the earth light the left side of that moon? How about the 3rd quarter moon?
And if the earthshine story doesn’t even work on a 1st quarter or 3rd quarter moon, it dang sure can’t work on any phase in between those two, right? Yet according to timeanddate.com, the moon in my photo is waxing gibbous, and 61% illuminated.
So what’s lighting up the dark side if it can’t be reflection from the earth? Or better yet… could earthshine possibly be the source of the light hitting the back side of my waxing gibbous moon? What say you? And why?
Think about it Mike.
If the sun directly lights up the moon and the earth and some of that light bounces back to the unlit portion of the moon, then that effect is never going to be uniform every time. Just as we see the a full moon, crescent, and no moon, there would obviously be times when the sun lights up more than a crescent in the moon and reflects partially on the Earth from which some of that light bounces back to the unlit portion of the moon. Remember that the moon and the earth are moving constantly, so you will get different portions of things all the time.
Wait… are you suggesting that a video using 3D graphics is actually a 3D thing?
It represents the reality better. Still has its problems obviously because 3D is still really 2D but made to look 3D.
So what’s lighting up the dark side if it can’t be reflection from the earth?
I would say the Earth is lighting it.
Oh no… did you just use your own brain to solve a problem for the first time in this thread? Kudos!
Thank you. Did I win a prize?
It’s not a matter of me thinking God needed to do it that way. It’s a matter of me believing the scriptures that say God did do it that way.
But from our perspective. If it wasn’t from our perspective, then we may not understand it or notice it. God gives us a taste of reality but a limited one. After death, we will see things much more clearly. We will see the bigger picture. I’ve said this before, but your idea that your view is the only view is rather silly. Even between you and myself we have different views. I am guessing that sometimes we can both see the moon at the same moment, but it would look different.
Okay, how can sunlight hitting the right side of the earth reflect off the earth to light the left side of that waxing gibbous moon?
Mike, if you have a problem picturing how this can occur then work it out yourself. What is the point attacking the idea when it is just your limited mind that is the problem. I just did a short demo to myself with 3 soccer balls. It was easy to see how I could see half the moon and see how light could reflect back toward the dark side of the moon. And that was on the same plane too.But I am not going to make a video about it because I do not doubt a globe earth for 1 minute so do not see the need to do that. Plus, you would just say ‘humbug’ anyway. I encourage you to do this yourself.
T8: I would say the Earth is lighting it.
I removed everything from the original diagram except the earth and the waxing gibbous moon, hoping it would allow you to see it more clearly…
Did you watch it? Please identify the exact few moments of the video that directly address earthshine lighting the dark side of a gibbous moon. You know, like D4T and I do when we say, “You only need watch 3:45 to 4:10” or whatever. Otherwise you’re just back to your same old lazy tricks…
- Recognize the problem Mike is bringing up.
- Search YouTube for words or phrases like “earthshine” or “gibbous”.
- Copy link for the first video that pops up.
- Without even watching a second of the video, post it as if it addresses the problem Mike brought up.
Mike, the sun has to be below the horizon given the part of the moon that is being lit. But you assume the dark area in view is followed by a sudden drop off thus not enabling light to reflect from the earth to the moon beyond that. Not so. The Earth is way bigger than you imagine. I would suggest the lit up part of the Earth is beyond the horizon and that huge part of the lit up earth is reflecting light back to the moon. Look at the video I posted earlier.
T8: Mike, if you have a problem picturing how this can occur then work it out yourself.
It’s not me that has the problem. It’s the laws of physics. I’m merely the one showing you a gibbous moon with the dark side visible; and the heliocentric diagrams that show where a gibbous moon is in relation to the earth and sun. The rest is just a matter of you either recognizing the impossibility of parallel rays of light doing a couple of U-turns to hit the back side of the gibbous moon or burying your head in the sand.
It’s clear you’ve chosen the latter once again… to which I say, “Enough dammit!” I’ve spent hours on this thread in the last couple of days dealing with your willful ignorance and indoctrination. I have five videos that I need to be working on. So since there is nothing that is going to convince you that actual visible observations defeat your helical model without even breaking a sweat, there is no use in us carrying on. The next post I address from you will be your honest and direct response to this…
I still want an HONEST and DIRECT answer to WHY it CAN’T be EXACTLY as the scripture clearly describes it.
If you’re not explaining why a scripture that says the sun stopped moving in the midst of heaven can’t possibly mean the sun stopped moving in the midst of heaven, I’m not listening. I’ve got more important things to do. My videos don’t reach a ton of people, but a couple hundred truth seekers is a lot better than wasting my time with one ostrich who refuses to take his head out of the sand long enough to give the things we’ve shown him even a moment of open-minded honest consideration before parroting the party line.
Take care, man. I’ve got more important things to do.
I still want an HONEST and DIRECT answer to WHY it CAN’T be EXACTLY as the scripture clearly describes it.
Why is this not exactly as the scripture explains it? Sometimes scripture is written as it is, but from our perspective. The Bible says for example that the sun goes down, yet you would argue that it never goes down on a Flat Earth while we know this to be true on a globe earth. Right?
- Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.
- “When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you
- The sun will go down on the prophets, And the day will become dark over them.
Now ask yourself why shadows lengthen:
“Prepare war against her; Arise, and let us attack at noon. Woe to us, for the day declines, For the shadows of the evening lengthen!
Obviously this is a perspective thing right. It is not that shadows lengthen magically but the angle and position of the sun to the object is low thus blocking out a longer path of light on the earth. And this is subjective because no two people in different locations will see the exact same shadow.
Scripture that records history is written from our perspective Mike. Prophecy is not always written so clearly.
If you’re not explaining why a scripture that says the sun stopped moving in the midst of heaven can’t possibly mean the sun stopped moving in the midst of heaven, I’m not listening.
Explain the sun going down then. Your view is at odds with the sun going down Mike. You can’t cherry pick. If you are going to make a universal statement, then apply it to the sun going down too. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.
T8: Mike, the sun has to be below the horizon given the part of the moon that is being lit. But you assume the dark area in view is followed by a sudden drop off thus not enabling light to reflect from the earth to the moon beyond that. Not so. The Earth is way bigger than you imagine. I would suggest the lit up part of the Earth is beyond the horizon and that huge part of the lit up earth is reflecting light back to the moon. Look at the video I posted earlier.
Okay, one final attempt since you posted this before I posted my Dear John letter…
You had a rare and brief moment of clarity when you pointed out that earthshine would light the dark side of the moon above if we moved the earth to where it was farther away from the sun than the moon is. But during a waxing gibbous moon, the moon is farther away from the sun than the earth is. So imagine this is a diagram of my gibbous moon instead of the crescent moon it was meant to be. In that case you can no longer say, “Move the earth farther away from the sun and it’ll work out fine”, or whatever you said. If it was my gibbous moon in the diagram above, we’d actually have to move the moon even farther away from the sun than where it is now.
So now look at my red wavy line. If you truly believe that parallel light rays can follow the path of that red line to light the dark side of the moon, then you are welcome to that belief, as there is nothing more I can do for you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
