- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Great meme, Danny. “Grabbity” is do dang powerful that it can hold that 200 ton ocean liner upside down to a ball – against the massive centrifugal force produced by the ball spinning 1000 miles per hour! – but tiny little gnats can move effortlessly against this powerful force.
Also, consider rainclouds. A thunderhead is said to hold up to 2 BILLION POUNDS of water, but grabbity is powerless over it. All that weight just floats around in the sky until it’s time to drop its payload. Nonsense.
But keep those memes coming. If Proclaimer thinks copying and pasting memes is “debunking” things, then let’s have a meme war and “debunk” the ball earth.
Possibly the most intelligent scientist of all time…
“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.” – Nikola Tesla
Gene: 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.
Now where have I heard this kind of lame argument before? Oh, that’s right…
Gene: Mike…….if you truly believe such a mountain does exist then please take a second and tell us where it is. What’s so hard about that?
Proclaimer: Mike, show us the mountain
#mikeshowusthemountain
Mike, what is the name of the mountain range?
Mike, is the reason for such a mountain not existing have anything to do with pollution? Lol.
Hey Proclaimer, is this a valid way of discussing/debating scripture? You guys might as well ask me where the Tower of Babel is, since the Bible says it existed.
Of course now you’re in a bit of a predicament, aren’t you? Because you surely don’t believe Gene’s nonsense about the Tree, and you would surely argue along with me that Gene saying, “Oh yeah? Well then SHOW me the Tree!” is an ignorant, childish, and just plain silly argument, right?
But then if you were to come out and say those things that you know to be true, it would expose your own ignorant, childish, and just plain silly “Mike, show us the mountain” crap, right? 😅
“Never interfere with an enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.” – Sun Tzu
Danny, another thing about your meme…
I bought a Nikon P900 for less than $500 that can zoom way in on the moon. Here’s one of my own photos…
This is zoomed in all the way on the edge of a crescent moon. Now if I can do that with a $450 camera, just imagine what NASA could do with the $54 million we give them every single day. Surely they would indeed be able to zoom in on an ocean liner at the bottom of the ball, then zoom back out, and zoom back in again on the jet flying sideways on the right side of the ball like your meme suggests.
Of course they won’t do that. Heck, they can’t even put a couple of $200 GoPro cameras – that stay on and recording for the entire duration! – on their rockets, so we can see the earth getting smaller and smaller (and spinning) on their way to the moon or wherever.
NASA has been at this for over 60 years now. Still no camera on the moon that just records the earth in real time. Still no cameras on the rockets that record it leaving the earth or getting closer to the ISS or whatever. All we get are cameras that show ascension from the earth to the height of a typical high altitude balloon, and then the SpaceX feed ALWAYS switches to cartoons, and we never see those camera feeds again… until the rocket has descended to that same weather balloon height on its way back down – where it miraculously lands perfectly on a barge tossing around in rough seas!
And people like Gene and Proclaimer are blinded to this nonsense. They never even bother to ask themselves, “Hmm… Why exactly WOULDN’T they just put a couple hundred bucks worth of cameras on the rockets that stay transmitting video during the ENTIRE mission – instead of cutting off during the ‘space’ portion, and turning back on when they’re back in the atmosphere?”
Proclaimer: Back to Jesus, he could physically look to the four corners.
But only if the earth was flat.
Proclaimer: 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.
I see. So Jesus relayed a VISION that he had, and since he occasionally went up a mountain to get away from it all, he decided to lie to his apostles and make up a story that the devil LED him up a very high mountain and SHOWED him all the kingdoms of the world? Okay, sparky.
Proclaimer: Your argument here is what I would expect from a 5 year old.
Mark 10:15… Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.
Proclaimer, all of your arguments against the Biblical teachings center around a self-image that you are so educated and so enlightened, and that those taking the Bible for what it actually says are children or from the “dark ages” – whatever that is.
It’s always the same crap…
Bible: God created the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4.
Proclaimer: Everyone knows that the sun had to exist for there to be light on Day 1 – therefore the Bible was obviously just telling fanciful stories to an ignorant, childlike people.
But that’s okay. I’ve had you on the ropes and embarrassing yourself for months now… to the point that you’ve had to continually break your own forum rules, pretend that you can’t find an answer that is one day and one post removed from your question, and generally do anything and everything you can to hide from the slap down the Bible has been giving you.
And all of that nonsense was for naught in the end… as you’ll eventually see.
Mike: But the “clear space” must have the sun, moon, and every single star IN it… and also have waters ABOVE it.
Please reconcile.
Proclaimer: …clearly there is an expanse between the sea and clouds. Sometimes the most simple explanation is the truth.
This is from a translation that renders it the way you want it to be…
Genesis 1 Berean Standard Bible…
6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8God called the expanse “sky.”
Now right off the bat, you must realize that this “expanse” that God named “sky” SEPARATES/DIVIDES the waters above from the waters below, right? So if your answer is that clouds are the waters above, then you must acknowledge that clouds aren’t actually IN the expanse that God named “sky” – but ABOVE it, right?
Moving on…
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky…
16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
17God set these lights in the expanse of the sky…
And now you must acknowledge that the sun, moon, and stars are IN the expanse God named “sky”, while still acknowledging that the clouds are the waters ABOVE this expanse called “sky”.
Is that what you believe, Proclaimer? That the sun, moon and stars are IN the “sky expanse”, while the clouds are ABOVE the “sky expanse”?
So even using a translation that butchers the meaning of “firmament” and “heaven” by using “expanse” and “sky”, your story simply doesn’t work.
Proclaimer, will you be honest enough to admit that your “clouds” theory doesn’t work after all?
Lol. Lots of new posts here. Skimming through reveals a load of rubbish. I’ll skim through again later to see if there is anything worth responding to.
Great news because I didn’t really want to waste my time on all that other nonsense. What your posting now is shameful for your age. It’s what you would expect from a child. Time to start the Flat Earth writing as that would be far more productive at this point.
Underneath a Solid Sky?
Does Genesis 1 teach the sky was solid like some critics claim? What does the original Hebrew say?
Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. Several Bible versions, such as the New King James, translate this word as firmament.
The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.
However, other versions of the Bible, such as the New American Standard, translate raqia as expanse. But which is the correct term to use? Where did the word firmament come from? The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC at the request of the Egyptian pharaoh) translates raqia into the Greek word stereoma, which connotes a solid structure. Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the Egyptian view of cosmology, which embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault (after all, they were doing their translation work in Egypt!). Later, this Greek connotation influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate around AD 400, he used the Latin word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support). The King James translators merely transliterated this Latin word—and thus was born the firmament.
But what does the Hebrew word actually mean? The Hebrew noun raqia is derived from the verb raqa, which means “to spread abroad, stamp, or stretch.” This word is used in the Old Testament in several places for the stamping out of metal into a sheet. Gold is a good example of this process. Gold is malleable and people use a hammer or other tool to flatten and stretch it into very thin sheets (e.g., Numbers 8:4). However, we must remember that the context always determines the meaning of a word, not just the etymology of the word or how it may be used in other verses.
So, we need to ask ourselves, why did the author use this word to describe the expanse? What property did the author intend to be understood by the word raqiya? It is possible that the author intended to get across the solid nature of the expanse. However, what if the intended understanding was the stretched out nature of the raqiya rather than its hardness? This understanding is consistent with the terminology of many other verses, such as Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens. The Hebrew word used in these verses for heaven is not raqiya, but shamayim (literally “heavens”). However, in Genesis 1:8 God explicitly calls the expanse “heaven,” thus equating raqiya with shamayim. If the stretched out nature of the raqiya is what is intended, then firmament may not be the best translation; expanse is more accurate.
The context of Genesis 1:6–8, 14–22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky (atmosphere and heavens or space) above the earth, as even the sun, moon, and stars were placed in them. In fact, in modern Hebrew raqia is the word used for sky, and there is no connotation of hardness.
Genesis 1 is perfectly worded for what the author wanted to communicate. It says nothing more than God created the sky and its constituent elements, while remaining completely silent about what those elements were. It really depends upon where one starts: if one starts with the presumption of a solid dome, one will read that into the text. However, if one starts with a modern conception of sky, the text permits that understanding as well, and, hence, there is no contradiction.
So does the Bible contradict our scientific view of the cosmos. Not at all. Of course it contradicts Atheism, but science isn’t suppose to take sides here as even Atheists will tell you that they have no clue as to what started everything. Suffice to say however, the most brilliant scientific minds of all time believed in a God.
Are Flat Earth Teachers of good character?
So now that we know the bible actually agrees with modern science in many aspects, including concurring with the expanse of heaven, I thought it good to look at the teachers and prophets of Flat Earth to see what manner of men they are. After all, the arguments for flat earth have been debunked here and proof that the earth is a globe is undeniable and documented here.
As we know, we judge a tree by it’s fruit. So if Flat Earth is fruit, from what kind of tree does this doctrine come? From my own experience, I have found Flat Earthers to not be that honest. They regularly ignore great arguments that debunk them and really only attack arguments that are weak or even meant as jokes. They simply brush off any truth like water off a ducks back. They will simply sift through the evidence of the globe earth and pick on only the weak arguments, instead of letting the winds of truth blow them in the direction of truth. In short, I have found FE’s to not be lovers of truth, rather manipulators of facts to suit their bias.
But what about their teachers and prophets and the people that head this cult? I googled Eric Dubay as that seems to be a guy that has convinced many to join the flat earth cult. So what manner of man is he? Well it looks bad on the outset. However, I know that many put down good men, so I am aware that this could be a simple case of persecution and slander.
However, I have heard multiple times that he is a Hitler fan. Of course, I do not know for sure if this is true, so I sought out some proof. I found the following, make of it as you will. But I would like to hear your opinion on the man and whether he really is unrighteous, or is he a good man. Here is one argument against him. Feel free to prove this is a lie or not:
Accusation: He is a Hitler fan and anti-Semite. Here is an excerpt from his own lyrics of his own song that is posted below:
“To bring truth to the unwashed masses
Force you to put on your “They Live” glasses
What you see? Was I right? The Earth’s fucking flat – holocaust denied
HITLER WAS COOL AND NOT A BAD GUY
Talmudic Jews have control of your mind
Masons are tools singing shalom L’chaim
The Jesuits too, they’re the Vatican kind
The Presidents come from a royal bloodline
While the Jews choose which fool’s ass is assigned
The government’s leading in mafia crime
The word broken down means control of the mind
They probably will kill me for making this rhyme”
If Eric Dubay convinced you that the earth is flat, then he is your teacher. He has discipled you.
But I strongly encourage you to make Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God your teacher instead. I doubt that Dubay cares about your soul.
Besides Eric, there are other flat earth teachers I could look at too. But I will leave it here and give Mike a chance to defend this man. I am a fair judge and love the truth. So what is your view on Eric Dubay?
@t8
Hi Proclaimer,
You asked Mike: So what is your view on Eric Dubay?
I only accept Eric’s ebook about the flat earth.
I distance myself from what Eric had to say about Hitler, Holocaust and
from Eric’s esoteric world view as well.Nope. That is consistent with distance.
What you need to show is the sun going down like those boats that you guys show, and bring it back.
You can’t do it because the earth is not flat. It is a globe.
And why can you bring the boats back? Because they are too small to see and are not over the horizon to begin with.
This alone wins the debate, even if you ignore all other evidence and proof.
Show me the sun going below the horizon, then bring it back.
If the earth was flat, you could do it.
But you can’t.
Flat Earth loses.
Danny: Hi Proclaimer,
You asked Mike: So what is your view on Eric Dubay?
I only accept Eric’s ebook about the flat earth.
I distance myself from what Eric had to say about Hitler, Holocaust and
from Eric’s esoteric world view as well.Same, Danny. He brought so many people to the truth of our flat earth. I tend to agree with him about Hitler and the Holocaust – but who can be sure now? They’ve lied to us about SO MANY things, and it’s clear that the deep state loves its wars. Dubay’s theory is that Hitler was a pawn and scapegoat – much like Muammar Gaddafi was. And much like Kim is in North Korea right now. There is a pattern that has played out over the centuries: “Let us install a central bank (a la the Federal Reserve) and we’ll make you rich.” But any leader who says no is all of a sudden a crazy terrorist who is butchering his own citizens, and must be attacked and destroyed. (The next leader that they install all of a sudden promotes the need for a central bank in that nation, and sets one up.)
I also tend to agree with Dubay on his belief that there were no such thing as “dinosaurs”… but I can’t say decisively.
I drew the line with him when he started teaching that the story of Jesus was just a rip off of Gilgamesh and other pagan stories that predate the Bible. I was once going to do a LONG video debunking every single claim that the LONG video he posted said on that matter, but never found the time. I did tell him that he was wrong, and should just stay away from the Bible. He told me no. 😅
But then again, if the Bible can’t be questioned or scrutinized, then we are nothing but a cult. I’m still with the Bible for the sole reason that it stands up to that scrutiny, against the claims Adam has made here, against the claims Dubay made, and against the claims of Scientism.
I don’t judge Dubay, nor is that my place anyway. I said my piece to him about Jesus, he refused to relent, and that was the end of it. I still love him and his work on the flat earth.
Cheers
Proclaimer: What you need to show is the sun going down like these boats that you guys show, and bring it back.
I just did show you that. But hey there, Mr. Science… quick question for you. On a ball earth, what is the horizon?
Oh, and btw, your meme isn’t a “zoom in” of the setting sun – as the maker DECEPTIVELY wants gullible people like you to think. It is the same distant photo that has been zoomed in on a computer. Understand? The lower image is just the upper image enlarged.
I just did show you that.
Nope.
You simply showed zooming into the sun when it was not over the horizon to begin with. Show the sun disappearing over the curve, then bring it back. You could do this yourself if the earth was flat. But since you don’t live near the coast, then show me another video of that.
You can’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
