- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike, context is how you can determine the exact meaning
Proclaimer, what are the waters above the place where God set the sun, moon and stars?
It’s called the sky or the heavens. Both words encompass the area between the waters and then the stars. In fact, there are at least three heavens.
Let me bring this down another level of simplicity for you.
- I think we agree on the waters below.
- The waters above could be the clouds and there is sky or an expanse in between them.
- Above that is stars etc which happen to be in the sky or heavens too.
- Finally, the dwelling place for God is in heaven.
So the sky or heavens can be used to describe everything from where birds fly to galaxies, to even the very dwelling place of God. And you will know by context. Don’t know about you, but this sounds like three heavens to me and that explains your question.
Now that I have repeatedly answered your question, how about showing us a video of you bring back the sunset.
You haven’t answered this at all.
In fact you are avoiding this for some strange reason.
Lol.
Do it now please.
Chop chop.
I know you have some great camera gear.
No excuses.
Why don’t they turn the spacecraft around and show the earth?
Earth and Moon — the first of its kind ever taken by a spacecraft — was recorded September 18, 1977, by NASA’s Voyager 1 when it was 7.25 million miles (11.66 million kilometers) from Earth. The Moon is at the top of the picture and beyond the Earth as viewed by Voyager.
Your welcome.
Proclaimer: 1. I think we agree on the waters below.
2. The waters above could be the clouds and there is sky or an expanse in between them.
3. Above that is stars etc which happen to be in the sky or heavens too.1. The waters below are the seas and the great deep that feeds them. (God caused the fountains of the great deep to burst open to overfill the seas and flood the earth in Noah’s day.)
2. The waters above cannot possibly be the clouds. First of all, clouds aren’t made of water – which is a liquid. Secondly, even if you want to consider the air/atmosphere beneath the firmament as the first heaven (which is fine), then you have to acknowledge that the clouds are IN the heavens – not ABOVE them.
3. Yes, the sun, moon, and stars are IN the heavens – not ABOVE them.
So we’re still left with the same exact question I’ve been asking you for months…
Psalm 148:4… Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
Proclaimer and Gene… if the clouds, the sun, the moon, and all the stars are IN the heavens, then what are the waters ABOVE the heavens?
The Biblical description of our world looks something like this…
The only flaw in this image is that the sun, moon, and stars are supposed to be IN the firmament, while the artist drew them below it. Other than that, this is the Biblical description of our world – as described in the Bible.
You can see in this image that there are waters ABOVE the sun, moon, stars and clouds. What are those waters in YOUR worldview of a spinning ball and galaxies and endless space, etc?
Mike……This earth has four levels of atmosphere, these “layers” are , the “Tropospher”, “Stratosphere”, “Monosphere”, “Thermosphere”. EACH ARE IN THE SKY, OR HEAVENS. each have there own band of existence. Our “earths” sky is made up of “layers” . Each contain waters, at verying levels, that suround our earth. Each has it’s own atmosphere, of existence and as you go up you pass through them, until you enter space where a perfect vaccum exists, and even in space there are planits that contain water many do to a verying degrees, even the tail of comets are water vapors, of ice, like Halley’s Comet. So yes there are waters above our sky, or heavens, and are layers of waters in our earth’s heavens, or sky, even in space itself. What does that have to do with your “flat earth” BS? ANYWAY?
Peace and love to you and yours………gene
Okay, continuing on with my presentation…
If we live on a ball, then the horizon is set distance away – depending on the height of the observer…
I didn’t make this graphic. It is from one of the many earth curve calculators that you can find online. The blue arrow represents the observer and his height. The red arrow represents the object the observer is looking at across a certain amount of distance. But the most important thing is the black arrow that points to the horizon. On a ball, the horizon is a FIXED location where the curve of the ball PHYSICALLY prevents you from seeing past it. (You can see objects beyond the horizon that rise up over it – but you can’t see the bottom of those objects because the curve of the ball itself is BETWEEN you and the bottom of the object.
The general rule is that for an average person (about 5′ 10″ tall) standing up, the horizon is 3 miles away…
On a ball earth, this is set in stone. The horizon for that 5′ 10″ tall person standing at ground level cannot possibly be less than 3 miles, or more than 3 miles. If that person kneels down, the horizon will be about 2 miles away. If that person lays on their belly, the horizon will be about 1 mile away.
Beyond the horizon, objects in the distance start dropping off below the curve of the earth – so the observer can see less and less of the bottom of them the further they are away from him. And there are two mathematical formulas that determine that rate of drop off. One is the Pythagorean Theorem, and the other is Spherical Trigonometry. Both of the methods produce the same results.
There is also a “rule of thumb” that makes it easy for laypeople to calculate accurate results up to 400 miles away – results that match both the Pythagorean and Spherical Trigonometry methods. That rule is 8″ per mile² (eight inches per mile squared).
That rule of thumb is based on the observer height being zero – as in eyeballs right on the ground. For example, with eyes on the ground, at one mile away, 8 inches of a distant object are hidden behind the curve of the earth. At 2 miles away, 32 inches are hidden (8″ x 2² = 32″). At 3 miles away, 6 feet are hidden behind the curve of the earth (8″ x 3² = 72″/6′).
So let’s say you’re looking at Chicago from 55 miles away, and your camera is right on the ground at sea level.
The rule of thumb is 8″ x 55². So 55 squared (55 x 55) is 3025. Multiply that by 8 inches. 3025 x 8 = 24,200 inches. Now divide that number by 12 to get feet. 24,200 ÷ 12 = 2016 feet.
So 2016 feet of Chicago will be hidden behind the curve of the earth. And since the tallest building in Chicago is only around 1800 feet, the very top of Chicago would still be 200 feet below the curve from the observer. The observer would see NONE of Chicago.
But here’s the thing… As soon as flat earthers scoured the earth with their cameras and proved over and over and over that objects that WOULD BE hidden from view if we lived on a ball WEREN’T hidden from view at all, the ball earthers countered with a completely FABRICATED claim that refraction (atmospheric distortion) can magically lift these objects up and over the curve of the ball and place them – without any distortion – on top of the horizon so that it just LOOKS LIKE we are seeing the actual object on the horizon.
Don’t get me wrong… refraction is a real thing. It’s just that refraction distorts, mangles, and flips objects that you can already see in your line of sight. It doesn’t take an object that is BEHIND an obstruction (like the physical horizon on a ball earth) and project those objects up and over the obstruction so that they appear to be setting perfectly on top of the obstruction.
Despite that fact, every time the flat earthers presented scientific evidence of an object that couldn’t possibly be seen from that distance on a ball, the ball earthers just kept shouting, “Magical refraction makes everything okay!”
But then the Black Swan landed…
Gene: …even in space there are planits that contain water many do to a verying degrees, even the tail of comets are water vapors, of ice, like Halley’s Comet. So yes there are waters above our sky, or heavens, and are layers of waters in our earth’s heavens, or sky, even in space itself. What does that have to do with your “flat earth” BS? ANYWAY?
I’m on a Bible discussion forum discussing BIBLICAL cosmology, Gene. You might consider that “BS”, but I don’t. You also seem a bit confused. Do you think the stars and planets and comets are ABOVE the heavens (plural)?
Because you seem to be saying that our atmosphere IS “the heavens”, and that “space and planets and comets” are ABOVE “the heavens”.
Is that what you meant to say?
Introducing the Ball Earth Destroying Black Swan
This is a 43 second long video I made almost 4 years ago. The entire thing is a Nat Geo segment where they “proved the ball earth” at Salton Sea in California. Please watch it…
For those who can’t afford 43 seconds to seek truth, the main point is right there in the image above.
The Nat Geo crew and the other ball earth scientists there claimed that the stripes on the flag were disappearing as the boat moved farther away from the observers because the boat was going over the physical horizon of the ball earth, and dropping off on the other side of the curve.
The Black Swan is the observation that if it is the horizon that is causing the bottom of the boat to start disappearing, then the horizon can’t possibly be BEHIND the boat in the distance!
And the best part of the Black Swan is that the ball earthers can’t claim “magic refraction lift” to save themselves. Because you can’t very well say refraction is lifting the object up and over the horizon when the horizon is visible in the distance BEHIND the object that is supposedly being lifted up and over it!
Now add to that the fact that the horizon on a ball earth is a PHYSICAL line that is set in stone. For example, the camera in the Nat Geo video was about a foot off the water. And, from the same earth curve calculator I used in the previous post…
Notice that these calculators are based on a ball earth the size that Scientism tells us it is. And on a ball of that particular size, a camera/eye height of 1 foot means the PHYSICAL horizon caused by the curve of the earth MUST BE 1.22 miles away from the observer.
In other words, that boat in the video and screenshot MUST BE 2.1 feet beyond the curve of the earth. It HAS TO BE, because the horizon HAS TO BE 1.22 miles away. The horizon cannot be 2.3 miles away. Or 43 feet away. Or 10 miles away. The horizon on a ball of that size MUST BE exactly 1.22 miles away from an observer at that height off of sea level.
And that means the horizon CAN’T POSSIBLY BE way off in the distance, well BEHIND the boat. Especially when they are claiming that it is the horizon that is blocking the bottom of the boat!
Now, since I made that video, my friend Ben from the Taboo Conspiracy YouTube channel has been presenting tons of much better Black Swans than this one. Here is just one example. It is a 2 minute video that shows five different undeniable Black Swans…
Hi Mike
Hi mike
I’m not against everything you say But the outline of the schematic diagram you posted (#937543RESPONSE) shows us a spherical-shaped set….
IS THIS THE CASE OR AM I WRONG…?Conclusion of my presentation… for now.
The Black Swan observations prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we don’t live on a ball. On a ball, the physical horizon is set in stone, and MUST BE a certain distance from any observer, based on their height above sea level.
When we see objects that are well beyond that physical horizon – objects that would be blocked by the horizon if we lived on a ball – then we know the earth is not a ball. But the ball earthers claimed that we’re actually seeing mirages being projected up and around the ball – not the actual objects themselves. (Remember the meteorologist saying that we weren’t seeing Chicago, but a mirage.)
The Black Swan observations prove those claims to be what we knew they were all along… BS. Because if an object is being projected up and over the physical horizon that is set in stone, then we couldn’t possibly see the horizon BEHIND those objects.
Case closed. We don’t live on a ball, people. We live in the world God and His messengers described for us in the Bible. End of story.
Proclaimer, can you REFUTE the fact that the horizon cannot be what’s hiding the bottom of a distant object if the horizon is clearly visible BEHIND the object it’s supposedly hiding the bottom of?
Berean: Hi mike
I’m not against everything you say But the outline of the schematic diagram you posted (#937543RESPONSE) shows us a spherical-shaped set….
IS THIS THE CASE OR AM I WRONG…?The artist tried to portray a circular disk earth with a half-sphere dome over the top of it. Consider…
Proverbs 8:27… I was there when He established the heavens, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep…
The Bible often describes our sky as a “vault”. Google “vaulted ceilings” and see what that is.
Also, every astronomer acknowledges that the lights in the sky appear as if they are moving over us in a half-sphere dome that covers a flat earth. That’s what planetariums are… a flat and stationary observing area with a domed ceiling that they project moving lights on.
Of course these same astronomers say that this is just how it appears to us, and that we really live on a spinning ball. But they all clearly describe what we “appear” to see in the sky the way the Bible describes what is ACTUALLY going on.
Did you follow that?
Scientism astronomers: Yes, it indeed APPEARS as if we live on a flat and stationary plane with a domed sky over us like the Bible describes… but that’s just an appearance, not reality, because we actually live on a spinning ball instead.
Anyway, I thank you for your interest – or for at least giving a listen. I’m not here to force anything on anyone. I’m just laying out the facts of the matter – Biblical and scientific – for anyone who’s interested.
Cheers
3. Yes, the sun, moon, and stars are IN the heavens – not ABOVE them.
God is too. Yet he is above the stars.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Which heaven is the question. Does God dwell where birds fly Mike? Or is God above the stars. Are the stars above the clouds? The answer is yes to both. Why aren’t you arguing that God is at the same level as the stars in your dome?
You’re getting all confused by not understanding the layers of heaven. Paul understood when he said he was caught up into the third heaven.
You think there is one heaven Mike. This leads you to a number of errors and stupid questions about the order of things.
In my experience in looking at flerfer science, is it’s based on misunderstanding.
Mike this rubbish you are posting about black gannets or whatever is an attempt to sidetrack the perfectly reasonable request for you to bring back the sun after sunset, using your awesome camera gear.
Until you do that, your barrage of posts will be seen for what it is
Start planning the proof of no curve by bringing back the sun.
Whilst you have already lost this debate, your avoidance of seeking this proof tells me that deep down, you know you can’t do it. You are scared and too proud to admit the truth. You have invested too much in the lie at this point to repent.
Proclaimer: You think there is one heaven Mike. This leads you to a number of errors and stupid questions about the order of things.
Genesis 1:7… And God made the raqia, and divided the waters which were under the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia.
1. Proclaimer, does there exist something called the raqia that divides the waters under it from the waters above it? Yes or No?
Genesis 1:16-17… God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the raqia…
2. Proclaimer, did God set the sun, moon, and stars in the raqia? Yes or No?
Please directly answer these two very simple questions (for which the answers are right there in the scriptural text) with a simple Yes or No?
Thanks.
Proclaimer: Mike this rubbish you are posting about black gannets or whatever is an attempt to sidetrack the perfectly reasonable request for you to bring back the sun after sunset, using your awesome camera gear.
We call it the Black Swan. It is undeniable proof that we don’t live on a ball – even if we never offered a single other piece of evidence to support our case (of which there are hundreds). This one single observational phenomenon – all by itself – ends any pretension that we live on a ball once and for all.
But feel free to refute it. Offer a valid reason/explanation for being able to see the horizon behind the object that is supposed to be hidden by the horizon. Heck… at least ask a question or two about it to show that you’re interested in truth instead of just parroting propaganda.
The fact that you are willing to blow off this undeniable proof without a single word says a lot about who you really are.
As for it being “an attempt to sidetrack the perfectly reasonable request for you to bring back the sun after sunset”, you are confused in more ways than one.
First of all, I already showed you how the horizon on a ball works. If the sun sinks even an inch below that physical line, it could not be zoomed back up into the sky. And then I showed you two different videos where the sun was partially below the horizon, and was zoomed back up into the sky. So your reasoning is faulty. That’s why you’re on this “COMPLETELY below the horizon” kick that you parroted from one of your memes. And why you couldn’t even tell me what the horizon is on a ball.
If you knew the truth about either, you’d recognize that ANY PART of the sun that went below the horizon on a ball couldn’t be zoomed back up into the sky – and therefore recognize the “COMPLETELY below the horizon” demand as the scam that it is.
But not you. You don’t even realize that this challenge is based on the fact that a lot of people have zoomed a partially set sun back up into the sky. The maker of your meme knows that though – and it is the impetus for him changing the goal posts.
Secondly, you don’t yet understand how perspective works.
Thirdly, you can’t seem to comprehend that there is a very dense layer of air adjacent to the surface of the earth – and it is impossible to see horizontally through hundreds and thousand of miles of it. Here’s one of my own photos…
Can you tell me why point #1 is so much clearer than #2? And why 2 is clearer than 3? And so on all the way to point #7 – which if you zoom way in, you’ll see points to a little mountain that is nearly invisible?
That’s because each consecutive number points to a mountain that is farther away from me – to the point I can’t even see them. Yes, there are more mountains on that horizon, but they are so far away that I’m looking at them through so much haze that they just disappear into the sky.
With the sun, we’re not only looking through the normal haze and moisture, but also through clouds. That’s right. On a cloudy day, notice that the ones above you seem really high, and ones a little farther look lower, and so on until the clouds merge with the horizon. That’s what the sun “sets” into. Not behind or beyond, but into it.
Here’s a quick peak for you. I have the video queued…
There are a lot more videos where that came from too. All showing a bunch of different visual effects of the sun setting. Sometimes you can see it getting smaller as it moves away. Sometimes it just fades into the cloud/haze deck on our horizon like in that video above. But most of the time it just appears to “set” as the bottom enters the densest part of the haze before the top does.
And keep in mind that we’re not looking at the sun disappear through 30-40 miles like in my photo. Not even through hundreds of miles. We’re seeing the sun set into THOUSANDS of miles of dense, hazy air and clouds.
Anyway, there is a lot more I CAN show you… IF you are interested in learning stuff.
Proclaimer: Whilst you have already lost this debate, your avoidance of seeking this proof tells me that deep down, you know you can’t do it. You are scared and too proud to admit the truth. You have invested too much in the lie at this point to repent.
Dude, you asked me to zoom a completely set sun up into the sky a week ago! And you even said that you know I don’t live near an ocean, right? Yet only a WEEK later you’re like a dog with a bone that you just can’t let go. You’ve asked me about it like 20 times in a week! 😄
Try to be me once, begging and pleading for a YEAR for you to directly answer very simple questions while you continually refuse, make up excuses, break your own forum rules, and ridicule me.
I’ll tell you what, get back to me in a YEAR about zooming the sun. If, at that time, you HAVE finally directly answered most of my points that you’ve been running and hiding from, I’ll think about heading to the Pacific Ocean to see what I can come up with for you. 😎
You can start with your REAL answer to what the waters ABOVE the raqia are.
I’m also anxious to hear any rebuttal you might have to the Black Swan argument I made today.
Thanks.
The sun turns off?
Mike, obviously at that angle there would be some refraction that will cause a number of effects. But at the end of the day, when the earth has gone over the curve, except for refraction which wouldn’t affect the situation for very long, you will never get the sun back. That said, to eliminate refraction, one only needs to wait a little while before zooming in.
And let’s be clear, if the sun goes over the curve and you delay zooming in for say 15 minutes or so, on a flat earth, you should be able to bring the sun back. Even after 1 hour. Why? Because you believe it disappears due to distance. And a zoom lens can zoom in on objects from very long distances, so the sun can be brought back like any other object, unless it is hidden by something such as the curve of the earth. In fact when you bring the sun back, you should be able to wait and do it again and again until the sun was so far away that the zoom lens wasn’t powerful enough.
Moving on. I see what you are trying to say with the sun fade. That the sun can turn off. Let’s run with the sun turning off or fading every single day. If it can just turn off, then wouldn’t the people in that location see the sun turn off while the sun was overhead? Yeah, you need to think such things Mike before embarking on a certain path of thought. Try to imagine where that will inevitably lead you. In this case, right into a brick wall. Ouch!
A prudent person sees trouble coming and ducks; a simpleton walks in blindly and is clobbered.
No excuses Mike
Dude, you asked me to zoom a completely set sun up into the sky a week ago! And you even said that you know I don’t live near an ocean, right? Yet only a WEEK later you’re like a dog with a bone that you just can’t let go. You’ve asked me about it like 20 times in a week!
Look for a plain Mike. I mentioned that too. Even a large lake would suffice. I also said you could post an already existing video. But you have to ask why there are none. And if truth is so important to you and you would never lie about something, then go the extra mile. Drive to a place where you can find out if you have been false teaching or not. Or is it not important enough for you?
How far away is this part of the Arizona Desert from you? How long would it take to drive there? The coast is a 5 hour drive. A great investment if it proves you have been teaching lies right? Imagine Judgement Day and knowing that all you had to do was drive for 5 hours to dispel a deception you were under, but you couldn’t be bothered. You will realise how crazy you were right?
Proclaimer: No excuses Mike
You mean you DON’T want me to do for even a week what YOU’VE been doing for a year? Is that what you’re really trying to tell me? 😆
Save your breath. I will get to your burning issue in one year from today… IF you have reasonably addressed the many issues that I’ve raised over the past year on the Bible Vs Scientism topic.
You could start by honoring YOUR OWN rules and answer the ONE question in the Hot Seat thread that’s been waiting for 2 months already.
Or you could start by answering my two simple Yes or No questions about the raqia just five posts before this one.
There are a LOT of places you could start – as you’ve ran and hid and made LAME excuses to not DIRECTLY and REASONABLY address dozens of my solid arguments against your worldview.
Taking 6 weeks and multiple maps, directions, prompts, and pleadings from me to locate an answer that was only one day and one post removed from your question comes immediately to mind.
So this time I intentionally reposted my Hot Seat question to make it the very last post on the entire thread so you can find it. I then told you where it was, and have given you multiple reminders about it. Still, it’s been sitting there unanswered for 2 months so far.
So chop chop. You’ve got a lot of catching up to do before you even pretend to put time demands on me for something that you want. (Something I’ve already explained to you by the way.)
Proclaimer: I see what you are trying to say with the sun fade. That the sun can turn off. Let’s run with the sun turning off or fading every single day. If it can just turn off, then wouldn’t the people in that location see the sun turn off while the sun was overhead? Yeah, you need to think such things Mike before embarking on a certain path of thought. Try to imagine where that will inevitably lead you. In this case, right into a brick wall. Ouch!
A prudent person sees trouble coming and ducks; a simpleton walks in blindly and is clobbered.
Oh my goodness. My jaw is on the floor right now. I can’t even allow myself to believe that you could be so daft as to think I was suggesting that the sun turns off. 😳🤯
And then you have the gall to say these words to ME?
Yeah, you need to think such things Mike before embarking on a certain path of thought. Try to imagine where that will inevitably lead you. In this case, right into a brick wall. Ouch!
A prudent person sees trouble coming and ducks; a simpleton walks in blindly and is clobbered.
Proclaimer, you just walked into YOUR OWN brick wall of stupidity without ducking, and got your own self clobbered. Double ouch!
Dude, the video clearly shows the sun slowing fading into the cloud deck to the point that even the great and bright sun can no longer be seen through the millions of layers of haze. It didn’t set. It just faded into the dense cloud deck as it moved away from the observer.
My new drone arrived this past Thursday. I will also be filming some sunsets from the comfort of my own balcony. In fact, I’m about to film one in about an hour. It’s very clear today (as usual in AZ), but I’m hoping to recreate that effect on a cloudy day. Anyway, it’s something I can film nearly every day without even leaving home (provided I’m home from work before dark).
But think about this and see if you can grasp the concept… Have you ever seen the sun completely disappear behind the clouds on a stormy day? You can’t even see a bright spot where the sun is most of the time when the sky is like that. Now consider that you are only looking up through a cloud layer that is, at max, four miles thick. Now imagine that you are up in the air, even with the clouds, and look horizontally. How many miles of cloud after cloud after cloud are you looking through then? A heck of a lot more than four, right? How many layers of cloud between you and where you’d see the sun set on the horizon? Thousands? Millions?
That’s the cloud deck that is shown in that video. That’s what the sun disappears into, usually from the bottom up, as it moves away from us. That’s what gives it the appearance of “setting” behind something. It’s actually just moving away from us until the point that our perspective says it’s almost on the ground (like distant clouds are “lower to the ground” than the ones closer to you). At that point, it disappears into the cloud deck.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
