- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
- Nick: Still waiting for a definition of firmament, pillars etc.Firmament:
13c., from Latin firmamentum “firmament,” literally “a support or strengthening,” from firmus “firm”…
used in Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma “firm or solid structure,”
which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament…
in Syriac meaning “to make firm or solid,”…
Pillar:
an upright shaft or structure, of stone, brick, or other material, relatively slender in proportion to its height, and of any shape in section,
used as a building support, or standing alone, as for a monument…
Hi Mike,
In the context of Gen 1 the formless and void earth may not be the earth we know now.
Was the earth we know now created before the sun?
Hi Mike,
You said the FIRMAMENT had a consistency alike to molten glass did you not?
How does that fit with your definition?
Hw does the definition of the PILLARS of the earth fit with scripture?
Hi Mike,
Scripture must be understood spiritually and using scriptural witnesses.
Do you have any witnesses to your confident assertion?
Perhaps you have misread other things?
Nick: You said the FIRMAMENT had a consistency alike to molten glass did you not?
Job said that, not me.
Nick: How does that fit with your definition?
Just fine…
Nick: How does the definition of the PILLARS of the earth fit with scripture?
Like this…
My turn… Can measuring shadows in two places on earth determine its shape?
Dig 4…..GEN 1-2…HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A CREATION DAY TIME PERIOD AT ALL, BUT JUST SHOW WHAT GOD CREATED IN THE “BEGINNING”, OF OUR WHOLE UNIVERSE, AND IT’S CONDITION WHEN HE STARTED HIS CREATION plan for the earth and life on it. He needed first to position the earth in the already existing heavens and ferment, which he had alread created perhaps billion of years before and our sun and other planets just righ in our solar system. After the big ban he caused. So when he positioned the sun and moon and the big protector planet Jupiter, without which the earth could not exist over a year at most, our solar system had to be placed a certain way for time periods to function as the now do on earth. That is when the first day started working, it’s when it all started to function as it need to for God to bring about the rest of his creation on this earth.
But God’s time period is different, “A thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years with God, another words to God a single day is a thousand years to us.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Nick: Scripture must be understood spiritually and using scriptural witnesses.
Do you have any witnesses to your confident assertion?
Yes. God, Moses, and Jesus.
God Himself equated our working six days and resting on the seventh to Him creating the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six days, and resting (literally “ceasing”) on the seventh.
Moses recorded the things God created in a day by day chronological order, ending on the sixth day.
And Jesus said that God created them male and female from the beginning of creation.
But a better question for you and Gene is: What valid reason do you offer for inserting a bunch of extra time into Genesis, or altering the order of the things created?
Gene, who told you those things? Surely a straightforward reading of Genesis won’t lead anyone to billions of years, protector planets, a big bang, or a sun, moon and stars existing before the earth. So where did you learn them?
Hi Mike,
Neither does scripture teach that the earth is flat.
So how can you claim some sort of divine authority for this idea?
Hey, who’s going to answer my question? I see that Nick, T8, Gene, Kathi, and Anthony have all posted since I asked it. It was concerning the very first claim made by T8’s video and Anthony’s article… both of which are going to debunk the flat earth. The first claim is that intelligent people have known for over 2000 years that the earth is a sphere. They knew such a thing because a guy named Eratosthenes measured the difference in shadows at two locations on the earth. Not only was he able to deduce that the earth was a sphere from these two shadows, but he was even able to correctly calculate its circumference. That’s quite a feat when all you have to work with is two shadows. The only problem is that it is a lie. There is no way anyone could ever determine that the earth even had a curve to it, let alone that it was a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference from two shadows.
But in 1980, Carl Sagan told millions of TV viewers that the difference Eratosthenes recorded in the shadows could ONLY happen on a ball. And those people and their kids have been repeating this lie ever since. How could the most brilliant cosmologist and most famous scientist of the day claim as a fact something that is blatantly wrong? Was he really less brilliant than everyone gave him credit for? Was he purposely lying? Did this 3rd century BC experiment even happen at all, since the 1980’s show Cosmos is the first time anyone can find any mention of it.
At any rate, since Sagan made that ludicrous claim, many citizen scientists have done their own experiments proving him wrong – but to no avail. Finally, about a month ago, Neil DeGrasse Tyson came to the rescue on a show called Star Talk, and exposed the 40 year old lie for what it was. I just pieced together a 1 minute video that shows Sagan lying, and Tyson telling the truth…
So I assert that the first claim made by T8’s and Anthony’s flat earth debunkers was a flat out lie – whether told intentionally or by their own lifetime of misguided indoctrination. And since the Eratosthenes claim is 100% false, so is their condescending claim that intelligent people have known for 2000 years that the earth was a sphere. More like gullible people have illogically believed for 2000 years that the shape of the earth could be determined by two shadows. I was one of those gullible people, so I’m not talking down to you here – just presenting the facts of the matter.
Now, since nobody answered my question, I will offer you the chance to rebut what I’ve said in this post. Your silence on the matter will ensure me that you cannot refute my claims, and you therefore acknowledge that observing the difference in shadows can in no way determine the earth’s shape.
Nick: Neither does scripture teach that the earth is flat.
Nick, does scripture say God set the earth on pillars? A simply yes or no will suffice, but I already know to expect some snarky condescending comment or another question instead of an answer.
Hi Mike,
LU has shown a possible spiritual meaning for pillars
and we know light and darkness have spiritual meanings so perhaps so has firmament?
Hi Mike,
Your definition of firmament included the floor of the earth.
but your picture only showed a glassy roof?
What gives?.
Mike, I am not sure what the issue is with that well experiment. I watched your Youtube video and commented on it regarding this.
So it was established that the 2 wells would produce a similar shadow regardless of a round or flat earth. The person who ran the experiment showed that the Earth could be round, but if it works on the Flat Earth, failed to debunk the possibility of a Flat Earth. So ask yourself, was he using this to debunk a Flat Earth or to prove a Round Earth or to prove a Round Earth was certainly possible. Okay got that so far. Then Neil points out that using a third well proves that the Earth is round and this cannot happen on a Flat Earth. He didn’t say that this guy used 3 wells in his experiment, rather that 3 wells proves the Earth is round.
That is what I got from your video and your written commentary overlayed on the video didn’t quite match the commentary I would have given this video. Of course, I also didn’t watch the original video with Neil, so if you represented the video faithfully, then my answer is the above paragraph. I am not really seeing the reason why you bothered by this.
His experiment showed that the Earth could be round and if so, he gave the circumference. Wasn’t Neil the one in the video that said that a Flat Earth could also produce this result? So at least he is honest about that. But his real point is a third well proves the Globe Earth and dispels the Flat Earth. Are you disagreeing with this?
But in 1980, Carl Sagan told millions of TV viewers that the difference Eratosthenes recorded in the shadows could ONLY happen on a ball.
Okay, I see the issue. Is it possible that Carl Sagan assumed a distant sun as the Globe model has? If so, then he would be right. But Neil points out that IF THE SUN IS CLOSE then you can get the same result on Flat Earth, so he is being honests right?
Flat Earth theories it seems are fluid and today they say the sun is 3000 km or miles away and the disk is travelling up to produce gravity, but was that the held belief when Carl Sagan made his assertion? In ancient times was 3000 km or miles assumed?
For example, I just found out that there are Flat Earthers who claim the disk is stationary and others that say it moves up and that force keeps us on the disk. So Carl may have been addressing a distant sun and Flat Earth model as there may have not been a consistent Flat Earth theory back then.
A good question would be how distant the Sun needs to be before the Flat Earth model fails the three well experiment. Then find out what sort of distant was the held belief by that earlier scientist when he performed the experiment that Carl Sagan spoke about.
Mike,
I am not at all sure why you put up that “shadow in the well” video. I watched the video that yours is a part of and Neil Tyson is NOT a believer in the flat earth. You do realize that, don’t you? He even wrote a book entitled “Astrophysics for People in and Hurry.” One of the chapters is entitled “On Being Round.” He believes the earth is a round sphere, not flat. If it can’t be proven that the earth is spherical with two wells, a third one should have no problem proving that. There is a great defense of the spherical earth when looking at the shadow on the moon. It shows this on the video…the video you only showed a part of. I’m really confused why you would use this video to help prove your flat earth theory. Neil is clearly a globe guy. Here is the video:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
