- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
No. Many scientists do not believe in Evolution as they have faith. They believe God created the earth and the earth is a globe planet like the others and revolves around the sun. No problem for them and no problem for us. God has demonstrated his eternal nature and power in his own creation. His creation seems endless and eternal from our perspective and it was he who stretched out the heavens.
You say otherwise. God made a very finite snow globe with warm areas and didn’t stretch out the heavens but place one heaven made of glass in a very finite dome shape.
Not buying into it. Too ridiculous.
And the argument that a finite snow globe shows we are loved by God and the centre of the universe is silly. If God’s eternal nature and power makes you feel insignificant, then it should. But then you should look at the wonders of the atom and realize that he cares much for the small things. Even a sparrow doesn’t die without him knowing about it.
God still loves you more than you can imagine even if he has trillions of planets in trillions of galaxies or heavens. An eternal God will love you with eternal love no matter whether you are the only living being made in his image or whether there are trillions of beings made in his image. To an eternal God no amount of finite anything is going to exhaust his love.
Mike: Now keep in mind that you can just do what you’ve been doing, and repeat: “Duh Mike, the Hebrew has nothing to do with a scripture that was written in Greek.” Of course then anyone reading this will know that you are not only stumped, but also acting very childishly. Your choice, Mr. self-professed seeker of TRUTH over and above being right.
T8: Time is precious and gets smaller by the day, so I refuse to waste my time on something completely irrelevant.
Well then, I guess we got our answer, didn’t we? You are stumped and acting childishly. My point is VERY relevant to the discussion of the Greek word “duno”. Of course you realize that, and know that to answer my question about the 34 Bibles that translated a Hebrew word that means “go in” as “go down” or “set” would mean admitting that they all added their own heliocentric bias into the text, erroneously translating the Hebrew word based on their personal worldview.
But you’re not running away from this that easily, sunshine. You want just Greek? Okay then. The Greek word in the verse you touted as your proof is “duno”, correct? These are the TWO major definitions of that word given by two of the most famous Greek-to-English scholars who ever lived, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott…
A. cause to sink
B. go in
So again, a very simple question concerning ONLY the Greek word “duno”…
Can that GREEK word be translated as “Don’t let the sun GO IN while you’re angry…”
In other words, is it even remotely possible to translate “duno” as “GO IN” in Ephesians 4:26? Yes or no, please. (That shouldn’t “waste” too much of your precious time.)
T8: God still loves you more than you can imagine even if he has trillions of planets in trillions of galaxies or heavens.
God loves those who faithfully believe His word and do His will. So what did God Himself say about the world He created for us? And do you suppose it’s a matter of believing His word and doing His will to call what He Himself said about the world “silly”? Do you think it pleases Him that the ONLY reason you do so is because you hold the word of flawed godless men in higher regard than you hold His word? Hmm….
Your last post is meaningless. It assumes God’s word teaches the Earth is flat and all the bodies in the universe revolve around us placing man at the centre of everything. There are no scriptures that back this up, so stop pretending to be offended that most Christians have somehow placed the science above scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the Bible or the science are in conflict because the Bible doesn’t teach us about the arrangement of sun’s and planets. In short, you can believe scripture and much of science at the same time.
If we were on a high speed train throwing a tennis ball between us, I could say that we were throwing a tennis ball at each other at a very slow speed in order to catch the ball. But an observer outside the train would say that the ball was travelling at 200+ km/h and that it was not travelling slow at all.
So who is right? Both observations are right and not in contradiction because you need to consider there are at least two contexts.
The Bible says there is no God. But the context says, the fool has said in his heart. Context is very important Mike.
Flat Earthers just need common sense. Yes the sun goes down from our perspective. No it doesn’t go down when viewed from space. SIMPLE.
Continuing on from the above post, wisdom is what we need in order to rightly divide the evidence and the Word of God. If you lack wisdom, then someone could argue all day that we were not throwing a tennis ball to each other because no one can catch a ball consistently that is travelling at 200km /h. You could introduce math to prove your point and you could get the best catcher in 5he game to see how fast a ball must be travelling before he cannot catch it. But all that evidence is irrelevant because the catches are also travelling at 200km/h.
So this is how this debate has played out. You produce all these videos using good camera gear and calculators, but you lack the wisdom or common sense to see the context. We see this error time and time again and thus it comes as no surprise that no one here takes you seriously, except those who have already bought into this.
This is sad because people once took you seriously here with regards to your points on there being one God the Father. Yes many resisted you on this, but they took you seriously. As it is written, “a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!” and so it is that you even ruined that which you had.
Well then, I guess we got our answer, didn’t we? You are stumped and acting childishly.
God is my witness, your words here are error. You are deluded on this point and that alone points to the possibility of being deluded on other points. This is simply not true. I refuse to debate the meaning of a word that is not even mentioned. It is irrelevant. If you had your way, I would spend all my spare hours of the day going down rabbit holes.
It’s like the Trinity, you need to add extra biblical sources to make the argument. Pointless and a waste of time. I am willing to talk about the Greek word in the text. That is fine.
T8: …you need to add extra biblical sources to make the argument.
Lol. So you’re saying that Strong and Briggs & Driver were inspired writers of scripture? 😁 No T8, they were just men trying to figure out meanings of words in a very ancient language that has not been spoken in almost 2000 years. In most cases, a particular word was in the scriptures enough times that they could piece together a meaning from the various contexts of many scriptures. In certain cases – like the word translated as “Godhead” in older Bibles – that word was only in the Bible one time, and so they had to search extra-Biblical writings for more context, or go with their best guess. It is the same with the Greek word “duno”. It is only in the scriptures once. AHH… but it is in the writings of Homer MANY times. And in the writings of Homer (same language) it has two base meanings…
A. cause to sink
B. go in
My question is simple. Is it even remotely possible that the Greek word in Ephesians 4:26 could be translated as “go in”?
My latest referral. It debunks 4 points you have made many times. Although, I have previously debunked these myself, here you can see 4 debunks for the price of 1.
My question is simple. Is it even remotely possible that the Greek word in Ephesians 4:26 could be translated as “go in”?
Of course it is remotely possible, but I think unlikely.
Firstly, the sun appears to us as going down and to this day we say the sun goes down even though we know from outside our own perspective, it isn’t going down. I do not see the ancients being any different to us in this regard.
Secondly, even if it meant ‘go in’, it could still be going in to a chamber below the horizon. ‘Going in’ does not rule out ‘going down’. For example, I could say I am going in to the pool and this terminology would still work even if the pool was sunken into the ground right? Let’s face it, it is easier to go in to something when it is below you. If it is above you, then you have to go up first. If it is level with you, then yes you can go in, but you should see the chamber you are going into because it would have to be bigger than the moon itself. Regardless, the sun goes down from our perspective and our language is our perspective.
All that aside, the translators overwhelmingly say “go down” or “set”. I don’t have any issue with this because I have no agenda here to push. But you with the agenda are forced to go for an alternate meaning no matter what the chances of that is. This means I cannot trust your argument because what is paramount to you is not the facts, but the conclusion you believe. You then simply twist everything to your view just like the Trinitarians do. Funny how you debated them and saw right through their BS, but now you do the same thing. What’s up with that?
Mike: Is it even remotely possible that the Greek word in Ephesians 4:26 could be translated as “go in”?
T8: Of course it is remotely possible…
Then I rest my case. There is no scripture in the entire Bible that explicitly says the sun “rises”, “sets”, or even “goes down”. There are a ton of English translations that say things like that – but no actual Hebrew or Greek text that does so.
Did you watch that video I linked? Oh, and have you heard the University of Alaska just released their findings on World Trade Center Building 7 (which collapsed on 9-11 despite not even being struck by a plane)? They have concluded that fire in no way, shape or form could have caused the collapse – but only a simultaneous complete failure of every load-bearing column. In other words, the building was “pulled” (a term for controlled demolition teams dropping huge skyscrapers safely into their own footprint) – just like the owner of it slipped and said just days after 9-11. “There was already so much death that I told them to pull it.”
And “pulling” a building requires MONTHS of work before we all get to watch the guy push the detonator and see the building fall perfectly straight down on itself. Crews cut angles into support beams, meticulously place powerful explosives at just the right place and amount, and have them all wired together with intricate timer systems so each place explodes at precisely the right time after the dude pushes the detonator. So while awake people have known for years that 9-11 was a pre-planned inside job where buildings were purposely brought down by controlled demolitions, maybe people like you and Gene can finally start opening your eyes and paying attention. After all, if it wasn’t pre-planned, it sure would have been hard for the BBC reporter to tell her nation that building 7 had collapsed – 20 minutes before it actually did… and while it was standing up directly behind her when she was reporting that it had already collapsed!
Let me know if you’d like a link to the U of A report – since the mainstream media hasn’t said a peep about it yet. They must figure that if the people who only get their info from MSM don’t KNOW it’s out there, they can’t look at it and come to their own conclusions about 9-11… the day when aluminum airplanes, that can be crushed from hitting a bird, somehow flew right in (and back out) of solid steel and concrete buildings… all planned and executed against the most powerful military force in the world – by a rag-tag band of terrorists with box cutters and their leader who was hiding in a cave in Afghanistan at the time.
Then I rest my case. There is no scripture in the entire Bible that explicitly says the sun “rises”, “sets”, or even “goes down”. There are a ton of English translations that say things like that – but no actual Hebrew or Greek text that does so.
Good. You rest your case. If that is your argument, I believe you have lost this one as well.
That word is translated as ‘down’ and ‘set’ in most Bibles and dictionaries. But you say it also has this other meaning. So that means there is a small chance that your meaning could be right but that is also only true if this meaning is actually possible as you say. I’m taking your word for it now because I haven’t got time to check everything out. Now let’s assume your meaning is legit and it can also meant that and in this instance it actually means that despite it meaning ‘down’ or ‘set’. Then you still have a problem because something that goes in can still be going down too. “I jumped into the pool” for example.
But look at your language. You think your case is settled and you have won. lol. Far from it. The odds are severely against you with this one.
On a final note, even today we still say the sun is going down. If you remove the bias you might just see this one for what it is.
Did you watch that video I linked? Oh, and have you heard the University of Alaska just released their findings on World Trade Center Building 7 (which collapsed on 9-11 despite not even being struck by a plane)? They have concluded that fire in no way, shape or form could have caused the collapse – but only a simultaneous complete failure of every load-bearing column. In other words, the building was “pulled” (a term for controlled demolition teams dropping huge skyscrapers safely into their own footprint) – just like the owner of it slipped and said just days after 9-11. “There was already so much death that I told them to pull it.”
And that makes the Earth flat because?
Flat Earthers want to live in a Science Fiction movie
Is the motivation to believe in the Flat Earth to be the hero in their very own scifi movie like The Truman Show?
I think many have this kind of fantasy.T8: And that makes the Earth flat because?
The 9-11 stuff is just to show that us “wacko conspiracy nuts” are the ones with their eyes open – as opposed to blinded by mainstream indoctrination. You call us nuts about 9-11, the moon landings, chemtrails, etc. But we are the ones who pity those who refuse to remove their blinders. The truth will always out… eventually.
On the other hand, my video was an incontrovertible proof that the heli model simply cannot work. You should really follow the series I’ve been putting together. There’s a ton more to come. In a nutshell, the ball earth mathematicians said it would be a minimum of 54 minutes from the peak new moon position before someone on the terminator line could see the moon. Of course, this is how solar eclipses work… with people on “the edge” of the earth seeing an eclipsed sun rise, then people in “the middle” of the earth seeing an eclipsed sun at high noon, and then people on the “other edge” of the earth seeing an eclipsed sun set, right? The people on the “edges” can’t see the moon when it’s in the “high noon” position, right?
So then I hit them with lunar eclipses – which are the equal but opposite alignment of sun, earth, and moon. So the same should apply. People on the edge can’t see the moon when it is at “high noon”. Ah… but during lunar eclipses, people on BOTH “edges” can see the eclipsed moon WHILE the people in “the middle” of the earth can also see the eclipsed moon at “high noon” position.
Understand? Solar eclipses actually work somewhat according to the model, because as the moon orbits around the earth, the edge people see it, then the middle people, then the other edge people. Because the moon has moved from point A to point B to point C during that time. A people can see it when the moon is at point A. B people can see it after the moon has moved to point B. And C people can see it after the moon has moved to point C.
Make sense? Okay then… why isn’t that also the case with lunar eclipses? In the heli model, it absolutely MUST be the same, because the moon is moving the same point A to point B to point C – just on the other side of the earth. So A people shouldn’t see it when it’s at point B or point C. But all people – A, B, and C see it when it’s at point A, point B, and point C. The all see it all the time.
Anyway, I’m on like the 14th video in the series now – so if you’re not understanding this laymen’s version, I suggest you go back maybe 4 videos and catch yourself up. I’ve currently got the ball earthers out there steppin’ and fetchin’ like their heads were on fire and their asses were catchin’. 🤣 (Uneasy Rider by Charlie Daniels Band)
I’ve got them cornered, and backtracking on things they said previously. And all of that was part of a plan to let them refute their own model with their own haughty and condescending words to me. So now that they’re cornered and backpedaling, I get to slowly go in for the kill – again using the words they’re now trying to save themselves with as my witness against them and their model. And not for nothing, one of the globe experts who has been commenting on every video in the series disappeared after that last one that I linked here a couple of posts ago. I suspect he sees it now. He sees how the contradictions between solar and lunar eclipses destroy the model. So… good for him. As for those other rascals who are trying to weasel their way out of it with fancy talk and tricky math… “I’ll get you my pretty… and your little dog too!” 😆😂😁🤣
The 9-11 stuff is just to show that us “wacko conspiracy nuts” are the ones with their eyes open – as opposed to blinded by mainstream indoctrination. You call us nuts about 9-11, the moon landings, chemtrails, etc. But we are the ones who pity those who refuse to remove their blinders. The truth will always out… eventually.
I’m not against all conspiracy theories, just the ones that are debunked or bat shit crazy like shape shifter reptiles walking among us.
On the other hand, my video was an incontrovertible proof that the heli model simply cannot work. You should really follow the series I’ve been putting together. There’s a ton more to come.
What I have observed here in this debate is you taking advantage of the fact that you go the extra 100 miles on things when not many can be bothered or have the time to investigate where you went wrong.
When people dedicate descent time to investigate, it turns out you were wrong. And then you make a new claim and we know you are wrong and you kick and scream about it till someone gets annoyed enough to show your error again and then you make a new point.
In short most people will debunk say three of your points and then lose interest because the corrections do not appear to make you change your way so they just leave you to your own devices in the end because it becomes pointless.
Another point. You go on and on about eclipses, but the reality is it debunks the flat earth not the globe. That is the funniest part I think.
And we can see your error. You assume diagrams are exact when in fact they are only representing the bodies that are in reality millions of miles apart. So you rely on diagrams and angles of things that have been squeezed into a small 2D pictures that are designed to give you an idea of reality and are not there for scientific measurements of distance or angles.
T8….You are right about Mike, but what’s interesting to me is, how some are so predesposed mentally, to believe in these false claims, it’s as if they mentally ignore sound facts to find something inorder to premote the idea they have superior intellect and see things the rest of us “blind” humans can’t see.
I believe it stems from more of a self-elevating and self-permotting complex, like I know better then you do and can see through the deceptions you can’t see. So it’s not even about the truth at all, but about, I know something you don’t, therefore I am smarter then you.
For them to admit the truth is to admit they are not as smart as they think they are, and the humility would be so much they couldn’t bear it, so never think you can win them over no matter how much proof they are given, they will just think you are simply one of those “decieved” ones, who is just not as smart as them, when all along they are the ones decieved.
That is why I ask Mike, if he were given a ride around this earth in space, would he then believe it is round. He never responded, as I recall. I believe he would just think it was a trick of somekind to try to make think the earth was indeed round.
So I believe your chances of getting Mike or Dig4truth, to accept the truth are slim to none.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
