- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Rev 1:20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Exactly. So if there doesn’t happen to be an interpretation for whatever reason such as shutting the words up till the end, then your rule is always take it literally?
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.” (Psalm 74:16-17)
Sorry, I should have said that stars are sometimes interpreted as angels. But you should have got that anyway based on my other posts.
T8, why is it that every time I refute you with Scripture you come back with the exact same argument that was debunked and more importantly – without any scriptural support? This is really shameful!
I want to prove your statement here is wrong. Please provide me the details and I’ll look into it.
T8: What we are told in scripture is that there is the earth and above it is the firmanent which separates water from water. Science basically says the same thing. Above earth and sea is air that thins out.
So “air” is “the firmament”? Is that what you’re attempting to claim? Why not actually read this article that I’ve posted here before? It’s very short and not from a flat earther… https://biologos.org/articles/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that%E2%80%99s-not-the-point?gclid=CjwKCAjw0vTtBRBREiwA3URt7utGEigHu7m0KCngzOkJvEfI55377o446QzDQRpBk1qeasvRVMkPjBoCfBUQAvD_BwE
Or better yet, read and believe scripture…
Job 37:18
Can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?Is “air” as hard as a mirror of cast bronze, T8? A simple yes or no will suffice. And since the answer is most assuredly “no”, a simple “I’m sorry Mike. I was an idiot for trying to imagine that ‘air’ could be considered ‘firm’ as a way to trick the Bible into telling me what my ears are itching to hear” will suffice.
Thanks in advance for that HONEST acknowledgement, which will undoubtedly lead to your next HONEST acknowledgement that the Bible clearly teaches of FIRM vaulted dome covering the earth, in which are the sun, the moon and the stars… exactly as the writer of that article I linked, every single serious Biblical scholar, Moses, and YHWH have said from the beginning.
Mike: According to your model, every single star is WAY bigger than our tiny earth. Jesus says the stars (definitely plural, presumably all of them) will fall to the earth.
IF you took Jesus’ pronouncement that the stars will fall from the firmament to the earth as LITERAL – would you still say that there is no contradiction between the Biblical model and the heliocentric model? YES or NO?
T8: You say that all stars will fall (lol)…
It is Jesus, not me, who said the stars will fall to the earth in the end days. Your repeated “lol’s” show us that you do NOT take Jesus’ pronouncement literally. Okay… but I asked you IF you DID take Jesus’ words literally, would you still say that there is no contradiction between the Biblical model an the heliocentric model. I would still like an answer to the question I actually asked. Understand? We see and acknowledge that you DON’T take those words literally. But I still want to know if you’d still claim no contradiction if you DID take them literally. What is your answer to the question I actually asked?
Now… as for your extremely lame attempt to say Jesus could have been talking about any old lights in the sky falling to the earth… do you really believe that? Are you seriously thinking that when Jesus and all the writers of scripture talked about the stars in the sky, they were talking about different lights than when we talk about stars in the sky? Do you suppose that when scripture writers talked about YHWH creating the sun, moon and stars, they were talking about the sun, moon, and “meteor showers”?
T8: …a trip around the world is only possible in a globe. You would argue that going around the world is following the grooves on a record…
So then you refuted your own claim, right? Because yes, circumnavigation east to west is possible in either model. Ahh… but north to south circumnavigation is ONLY possible on a globe. So why do you suppose millions of people have circumnavigated the earth east and west, but NOBODY – in the entire history of the world – has EVER circumnavigated our “globe” north and south? Hmm…
T8: …but satellites are imaging earth 24/7, so do you not find it strange that not one of them has a photo or video of the edge of the disk or the dome wall? Isn’t that the real damning evidence of satellite photography for the Flat Earthers? Not one pic or video of a disc, an edge, or a wall. Surely there would be hundreds of videos or photos?
That is indeed interesting, right? Where exactly IS the edge of the disk according to our understanding?
It’s beyond 60° S latitude, right? And what does 60° S mark? The boundary of the Antarctic Treaty, right? You know, the boundary that regular people like you and I can’t go beyond and explore freely. Sure, you can take a cruise to a pre-chosen ice shore, where you are told you are on the continent of Antarctica – but must stay with the group and in designated areas. So am I allowed to hire a private jet and explore that region of earth freely? Not a chance. Here’s a great video where a member of the truth community did extensive research into what’s involved for you and I to try to explore this “continent” – or anywhere south of 60° S…
So no… you and I are not allowed to send up a balloon or fly or boat or anything close to the edge of the disk to see it for ourselves. BUT… the powers that shouldn’t be ARE allowed to show us all the exciting space satellite details of this pristine continent of nothing but ice that countries have been studying for decades, right? So let’s see what kind of stuff they show us about this wonderful ICE and SNOW that has been of such interest to scientists and militaries for the past 100 years… so much so that they must protect it from the ones who pay their salaries. This is a zoomed in view of near Mount Ruapehu from Google Earth…
You can see individual trees, roads, and even fairly detailed houses. Okay, now here’s a distant shot of Antarctica…
Note the dark area closest to NZ – where the military bases are. Now let’s get a little closer…
Notice the patchwork squares, some lighter and some darker. Strange. But follow the mountain range from the military base farther inland. See the point where the shadows on the mountains change from black to blue? Now I’m going to zoom in to the break between black shadows and blue shadows…
Whoa… what just happened here? It’s like we jumped from realistic aerial photos to some 1980’s pixelated video game. With all the space satellites taking photos all over the globe 24/7 as you say, why wouldn’t we have the same quality inland Antarctica as we do on the coast? And the ENTIRE “continent” is like this on Google Earth, T8! There are fairly detailed photos of certain spots on the coast – but all the inland areas are pixelated nonsense. Now look at the flat earth map above. In my worldview (the Biblical one), wouldn’t it make sense that the coasts of the Antarctic (that circle the entire disc) would be real – while the alleged inland portions of this alleged “continent” wouldn’t exist at all? Could that be a valid reason why Google Earth doesn’t have any detailed space-satellite images of any inland portions of this “continent”? And just to cap my point off, here’s the “south pole” – the middle of the “continent” on Google Earth…
NOW’S the time for one of your “lol’s”, T8! Instead of laughing at Jesus’ words about stars falling to the earth, why not try laughing at this crap instead? 😁🤣😂 Remember, there are 13,000 space satellites up there taking pictures – not to mention the thousands of satellite balloons floating all over the place up there. Can we seriously not get a single decent detailed shot of the interior of this “continent”? But at the same time, there ARE detailed images of the coastlines, right? Take off the blinders already, man. 😉
So “air” is “the firmament”? Is that what you’re attempting to claim?
I’m saying it could be the atmosphere if the definition is it separates water from water.
But by that definition, it could also be space itself. Water is not only found here on earth, but is or on many other celestial objects. Comets are mostly water ice for example.
Another option is the atmosphere in Genesis was different. It says that water came down and now the planet is mostly ocean leading us to believe the atmosphere was different.
The only difference from you Mike is, you insist it is made of glass and sits above a pizza. lol.
In case you were not aware, the atmosphere is an actual thing. You can think of it like a glass dome as it protects us to some degree.
One more option I can think of now which probably ticks all the boxes is the firmament is everything outside earth. That is the atmosphere and outer space. When we look up from earth we see through the atmosphere to outer space and objects orbiting there. I don’t see why we wouldn’t have a name to explain all that and firmament sounds good enough to me. It’s just these days we tend to break it down into atmosphere and space.
It is Jesus, not me, who said the stars will fall to the earth in the end days.
Read my post again. I am questioning your assumption that every single star will fall to earth literally.
The text doesn’t say that.
So why do you suppose millions of people have circumnavigated the earth east and west, but NOBODY – in the entire history of the world – has EVER circumnavigated our “globe” north and south? Hmm…
Too easy. Because it is inhospitable.
The further south you go in NZ the colder it becomes (generally). So it stands to reason that if you head south from there, it will keep getting colder until it is unbearable and you will die. Same goes for someone sailing up the coast of Alaska and keeps going north. I experienced the same phenomena (lol) in Norway when I was above the Arctic.
Too easy.
Flying from Christchurch to the South Pole Station, Antarctica
I suppose this video is fake Mike? lol.
Whoa… what just happened here? It’s like we jumped from realistic aerial photos to some 1980’s pixelated video game.
I remember conspiracy theorists getting all excited about pixelation similar to this but on other parts of the globe and even on the Moon and Mars. They pointed to aliens and the like. But the imagery was eventually updated showing it to be nothing but a digital effect of some kind.
I imagine that Antarctica has a lack of aerial photography because it costs money to rent time on satellites and a lack of clear imaging coincides with areas of low population. Further, while Australia for example has large swathes of land with no population, the imaging is pretty good because Australia is a rich country and probably doesn’t mind spending money to get such imaging. But Antarctica is not a country, so who would pay and for what purpose?
When I look at Africa, guess what, some really bad imaging there too. That probably has more to do with a lack on funding. Zoom in on the Sahara and you will see a band of good imaging and bands of terrible imaging. Lack of funding, lack of population, and lack of reasons to spend the required money to get the imaging in such areas is my guess.
I then googled it part way through this post and it turns out that Antarctica is mapped perhaps even more than other continents.
So the other option is the satellite company that Google gets its imagery from may not have many if any satellites that go over the Antarctica. And let’s face it, no one lives there permanently, so it’s not like there is a huge demand to use Google’s mapping service for driving directions etc. It would just be useful to people studying Antarctica or for people who are curious like you. Not a big market right? So no surprises that it is perhaps last to get good imagery.
And that UN logo turned literal map of the world with no science applied whatsoever is laughable. How can you with a straight face post that map and pass it off as a legit model of the earth. Let’s get real here. No one is buying your leaven anymore Mike.
And the distance between New Zealand and South America is a joke. I have flown this route a couple of times and it is not as distant as this map makes out. Do you really think people wouldn’t have figured that out by now. I’ve flown from Wellington to BA in Argentina then up to Bogota Colombia. But look how much less of a route it would be to go direct to SA if the earth was a meat lovers Pizza with a thick crust. It would be only 5 times the distance from LA to NY instead of 7 times the distance of which both are way off the reality of actually flying that route. And how come I never saw North America out the window on-route because I flew direct to SA from NZ.
Oh that’s right, its a giant CONSPIRACY involving millions of reptile shape-shifters who are hiding the truth from us. lol x2.
I truly feel sorry for any lost person who’s only contact with a Christian is you or Dig. They would get the Flat Earth gospel that they of course reject, and come away with the notion that Christians are really dumb.
Dig you and Mike…..have went into your private chambers and locked the door, no truth can inter in, not even any truth given by thousands if not millions of scientific evidence to the contary. You both are sealed away from the truth in the chambers of your own minds. SAD.
Peach and love to you and yours. ……….gene
T8: I’m saying it could be the atmosphere if the definition is it separates water from water.
And is that the entire definition? Or is it also defined as having “lattice windows” that God can open and close to let the waters above flow through and flood the earth? And as “hard as a mirror of cast bronze”? And as a “vaulted dome” that “rests on pillars”?
How does the atmosphere align with those definitions? And how does your backup idea of “everything outside of the earth” align with the firmament (keyword: FIRM) when we include all of the Biblical definitions? You laugh at my idea of a dome over a “pizza” – but apparently fail to see that a dome can’t cover a ball.
T8, how long before you just honestly admit that the Biblical definitions of the firmament basically describe a snow globe – and that there is no amount of twisting and philosophizing that will allow it to be “the atmosphere” or “outer space” or whatever?
T8: Read my post again. I am questioning your assumption that every single star will fall to earth literally.
The text doesn’t say that.
Nor did I say that. Jesus said the stars will fall to the earth. He didn’t specify how many, or which ones. Now, please stop diverting and answer my flipping question already…
IF you took Jesus’ claim that “the stars fell to the earth” LITERALLY, would you still say that there is no contradiction between scripture and the heliocentric model? YES or NO?
We understand that you DON’T take them literally. I’m asking if you DID, would you still make the same claim. Please answer the question directly and succinctly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
