- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks for changing the name of the thread to a more appropriate one, since the Biblical earth certainly hasn’t been “challenged” in this thread – as Proclaimer’s title suggested.
Hmmm. Yes your comment has highlighted a potential problem. While the name is better for SEO, I can already see that you are taking advantage of the name change by saying that the topic hasn’t been challenged when you know full well that Flat Earth has been absolutely annihilated. It makes me wonder if you are trying to stop FE debunk posts by changing the subject by enforcing the rule that we should stick to the topic.
I will think about this. One idea is to split this topic into two on a per post basis. One for FE and the other for the creation days and other biblical passages that relate to the earth, sun, moon, stars etc. That one could be called Biblical Cosmology. This way the content will match the topic titles.
Further debunk of the local sun
I took this photo about 10 years ago from Paekākāriki Hill lookout.
If this was as FE’s say, a local sun, then how is it suppose to light up half of the world. Seriously look at the range of those rays. It only makes sense if the sun is millions of miles away and huge. Then such a small sun can light up the whole planet, except for that part that is not facing it.
Further, why is the sun lower than the clouds? It is lighting some clouds from below.
Finally, crepuscular rays is merely perspective of that huge and distant sun. So the FE map has the sun always facing the earth and the argument that you can follow corpuscular rays in order to prove a local close sun is not only flawed, it is stupidity of the highest order.
This is satire. But FEs think this is real.
The sad thing about his video is he makes better points than most flat earthers.
Lol.
Proclaimer: That said, I am not necessarily arguing that Jesus went up a hill and got a 360 degree view of these ancient kingdoms. I’m just making the point that it could be physically possible.
But only on a flat earth… not the ball you believe we live on.
Proclaimer: God cleared earth’s atmosphere to make the planet habitable. So that there was a separation of waters below and above. That is, seas clear air / firmament and clouds above. Even to this day we have water under the earth on the surface, and in the atmosphere. The waters below and above.
Mike please read this slowly and multiple times to save repeating questions.
Oh, I’ve heard your “gaseous atmosphere” story so many times that I can quote it verbatim. The problem is that it doesn’t work, as I clearly pointed out already…
Mike: 1. Can you see that the firmament supports waters that are above it? What exactly are the waters above “the sky” that are being supported by the sky?
And remember that even if you call the firmament “sky”, the waters are ABOVE the firmament that God named “heaven”, not IN it.
Do you see that BIG font, Proclaimer? Clouds are IN the sky – not ABOVE the sky. The sun, moon, and stars are IN the thing (firmament/”sky”) that SEPARATES the waters above from the waters below.
So is the sun BELOW the clouds? If not, the “sky” that is below the clouds cannot possibly be the “firmament/sky” that SEPARATES the waters above from the waters below, can it?
Please try again. Also, don’t forget the other two questions from that post…
Mike: 2. Also, if “heaven” already existed in Gen 1:1 like you claim, why would God have to create “heaven” on Day 2?
Please address this point, Proclaimer. Thanks.
3. Why does your interpretation rely on God creating heaven AFTER heaven already existed, God creating earth AFTER earth already existed, and God creating the sun, moon and stars AFTER they already existed?
Please make sense of this for us, Proclaimer. Thanks.
Mike: Can you see that God named the firmament “HEAVEN” – not “the sky”?
Proclaimer: And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Notice different translations say sky / expanse/ firmament?
Yep, I certainly do notice that many more recent translations, in trying to keep with “modern cosmology”, doctor the Bible.
But do YOU notice my point that even if you call it “expanse” or “sky”, you still have to deal with the fact that the sun, moon, and stars are IN the firmament/expanse/sky, and that there are waters ABOVE the firmament/expanse/sky that the sun, moon, and stars are IN?
I’m asking you what these waters are that are ABOVE the firmament/expanse/sky that contains the sun, moon, and stars.
What is your scripturally sound answer to my question?
Proclaimer: Later on a space was created that divided the waters to below and above. As mentioned before, this clear space also placed the sun, moon, and stars into view. It doesn’t have to be a glass dome. It just means an expanse.
But the “clear space” must have the sun, moon, and every single star IN it… and also have waters ABOVE it.
Please reconcile.
Gene: Mike…….Do you understand what medaphors are… ?
Yep.
Gene: Adam and Ever were not told to not “eat” of the fruit of a “real tree”, but God was telling them not to “Take” to themselves” (as you do when you eat something) , to produce from themselves the knowledge of good and evil. Like a tree that produces it’s own fruit…
You have fallen off your rocker, Gene.
Genesis 3:6… When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
1 Timothy 2:14… And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
I will not entertain your nonsense on this matter any further. Maybe you could just get back to telling me how Jesus lied when he said the devil took him up a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world.
Proclaimer: I can already see that you are taking advantage of the name change by saying that the topic hasn’t been challenged when you know full well that Flat Earth has been absolutely annihilated.
😄😅😆 Dude, just because I no longer expose every single one of your memes and videos as mindless fluff doesn’t mean that they’ve ceased being mindless fluff. For example, you recently posted this nonsense…
The harsh B&W exposure quality in that image might represent what the moon would look like if it really was illuminated by a single light source as you claim, but it doesn’t at all represent what we all see when we look up at the moon.
Here’s a nightlight you can buy on Amazon…
And here are a couple actual photos that I took of the moon…
So yeah, all of the mindless fluff you post here is easily defeated, but right now I have bigger fish to fry.
Proclaimer: I will think about this. One idea is to split this topic into two on a per post basis. One for FE and the other for the creation days and other biblical passages that relate to the earth, sun, moon, stars etc. That one could be called Biblical Cosmology. This way the content will match the topic titles.
From the Wiki “Biblical Cosmology” page… “The ancient Israelites envisaged the universe as a flat disc-shaped Earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology
So yeah… the title “Biblical Cosmology” most certainly includes the scriptural teaching that we live on “a flat disc-shaped Earth”, and therefore works perfectly for the title of this thread. Leave it as it is, thanks.
Cherry-picking
So yeah, all of the mindless fluff you post here is easily defeated, but right now I have bigger fish to fry.
Hahahahaha!
No answer to these hundreds of truth bombs with each absolutely debunking the flat earth. And the one time I post one for pure humour, you pick on that one. This is the gold standard of defeat.
Israel’s Iron Dome
2000 years from now there will be a group of people called Iron Domers. According to them, because iron is a metal, it means Israel was under a metal dome in the 21st century. And their ancestry can be traced back to Flat Earthers.
Wow, you nailed it. Lol. You could also make the argument that the earth is a light too using this brilliant experiment.
But do you think it would be possible to turn the light off, place it in darkness, then shine a spotlight on it and get a similar result? Asking for a friend.
All joking aside. Here is another picture of the moon. Looks a bit like a spherical rock with craters to me when you zoom in further.
Stars in the expanse
But the “clear space” must have the sun, moon, and every single star IN it… and also have waters ABOVE it.
Please reconcile.
Nope.
When you look up, you see the stars in the firmament. You do not see it as millions and billions of miles from our planet until you send up a space probe. You then realise how distant. Of course, mathematically and scientifically you can calculate that. The stars look to be on the same plane. That is how it is viewed from our perspective using our eyes.
In a similar way, the sun goes down, trees move when we are in a moving train, and the moon seems to follow your car when you are driving.
Truly to this day though, the water below and above is divided by an expanse.
But your theory of the waters above opens the possibility of going to heaven in a submarine. Have you thought about a GoFund Me campaign to fund such a trip? Drill through the ice wall, slide the sub through, hit the waters, then go up using your theory of downity.
Further, you are basically saying that there is water below, above, and above again and below again. Whereas, if you use simple observation, you can see that there exists even to this day subterranean water, sea, and clouds. And clearly there is an expanse between the sea and clouds. Sometimes the most simple explanation is the truth.
Seeing the four corners of the earth
But only on a flat earth… not the ball you believe we live on.
Incorrect again Mike.
If you are surrounded by four empires and they exist to the utmost boundaries of the known world, then you do not need to see every square inch of them to see them. I visited a natural wonder called Iguazu Falls in South America. From there I could see Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay at the same time. Back to Jesus, he could physically look to the four corners.
But the scripture might not even be literal. It could be that he had a vision and the high mountain was simply where he use to go to get solitude.
Your argument here is what I would expect from a 5 year old.
I will not entertain your nonsense on this matter any further. Maybe you could just get back to telling me how Jesus lied when he said the devil took him up a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world.
Mike…….Seening you believe in a actual “tree” , that produces fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, please take a moment and tell us where and what knid of actual tree that is? Surely you can tell us seeing you believe such a actual tree does exist.
The word “tree” in Geneis is used as a “medaphor”, just like where just Jesus used it , when he said this,applying to a human beings, …. “for a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit: neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, for “every tree is known by it’s own fruit it produces” ,
The word “eat” and “drink” are used as a “medaphors” also, just as Jesus used it that way also, saying, ……..John 6:53…..“verely, verly i say unto you, except you “eat” tge flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you: whoso “eats” my flesh , and “drinks” my blood , has eternal life; and i shall raise him up at the last day. He that “eats” my flesh and “drinks” my blood, dwells in me and i in him. As the Living Father has sent me and i live by the Father: so he that “eats” me he shall live by me. This is that “bread” that came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that “eats” of this bread shall live forever. ALL OF THAT WAS WRITTEN IN A “MEDAPHORIC” language, we don’t literly eat Jesus flesh nor drink his actual blood. These thing must be understood in a “SPRITUAL” SENSE.
THE SCRIPTURES are full of Medaphors from Genesis to Revelations . No there is no “actual tree” that produces the knowledge of good and evil, Mike, They became the trees that produced “FROM THEMSELVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL , JUST LIKE A REAL TREE , produces it own fruit, so did Adam and Eve , when they took to themselves by “eating”, of the knowledge of good and evil themselves, they started producing from themselve their own fruit of good and evil, they became themselves their own “trees”, producing their own fruits themselves.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike………gene
Proclaimer: Cherry-picking… No answer to these hundreds of truth bombs with each absolutely debunking the flat earth.
None of them have ever debunked the Biblical teachings on the age, origins, or shape of the world God created for us. But you are correct that I don’t have the time or patience to meticulously debunk each and every one of the “hundreds of truth bombs” you copy and paste here… just so you can run away from my debunk to copy and paste a bunch of others that are equally silly.
Be reasonable, Proclaimer. You can copy and paste a meme or video link in 2 seconds, while I would have to spend a LOT more time than that debunking it.
For example, 2 seconds for you to copy and paste that moon meme, right? How much time did I have to spend searching for and uploading my own photos, the photo from Amazon, and writing my rebuttal? All of that took me about 20 minutes – compared to the 2 seconds it took you to copy and paste the meme. And that was because I intentionally “cherry picked” one that WOULDN’T take me hours to debunk. A lot of your copy and pastes would require a LOT more time and effort on my part to adequately explain your misunderstanding.
Don’t you think I could just copy and paste a billion FE memes here too? Is that what you want? A meme war? I’ll think about it. In the meantime, here’s a perfect one for Gene (I Saw It On TV) Balthrop…
Proclaimer: All joking aside. Here is another picture of the moon. Looks a bit like a spherical rock with craters to me when you zoom in further.
And here are photos I took with my phone just this morning…
Even in that last photo, where the camera had to adjust down the brightness of the moon so much that it turned the bright blue morning sky into pitch black, you can still see that the moon glows, and does not look like the B&W high contrast photos you keep showing.
I don’t deny that the sun is related to the moon, or even that sunlight hits the moon. Enoch says the sun charges the moon. What I’m trying to point out is that the moon can’t possibly be lit solely by the sun. The moon glows evenly from edge to edge, and objects hit by a single light source don’t do that. The moon never has a specular highlight (bright spot), while objects illuminated by a single light source always have a specular highlight, and the lighting fades off gradually in all directions from the specular highlight…
In fact, NASA and other artists even show this specular highlight on their PAINTINGS of earth that they call “real photos”…
Notice the specular highlight, and the gradual fading of light to dark before the complete darkness of the terminator line. They DESIGN these images like this because they understand that this is how a ball lit by a single light source WOULD look. The problem is that the moon NEVER looks like this.
The moon never has a specular highlight, and the part that is illuminated at any time is illuminated EQUALLY throughout… no fading off from light to dark towards the edges.
Proclaimer: But do you think it would be possible to turn the light off, place it in darkness, then shine a spotlight on it and get a similar result? Asking for a friend.
Absolutely not. In no circumstances would a single light source make that moon nightlight glow like it does in the Amazon photo. So now what? Asking for a friend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
