- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Ed: “Both of these ideas mentioned in day 4 refer BACK to the Earth’s rotation
as it correlates to the Heliocentric model of our solar-system as mentioned in day 1.”“Heliocentric” refers to the sun. The sun wasn’t even created until day 4. How then can anything created on day 1 refer to the sun? And here is my burning question; where does it mention earth’s rotation? Spin, spinning, rotate, rotating, turn, turning, around and around, anything?
Ed I can see you are seeking to investigate this matter. Be careful you may find yourself in the Flat Zone! And above all delight in the Lord this Shabbat! Blessings to you and yours! I enjoy your questions and your spirit of peace, the same with t8.
Nick: “The creation of light and darkness in Gen 1.3 does not need a created sun. You do not need the Sun to have light. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. 1jn 1.5 And at the end there will be no need for a sun because God gives light. Is 60.19, Rev 22.5”
Nick, I couldn’t have said it better. I even tried before I read this post.
God is light. What that means is beyond my pay grade but I do acknowledge it! Thanks for pointing it out in such an “enlightening” way!
Shalom
I’m glad we are talking about Genesis because this seems to be one of the main reasons for believing in a Flat Earth. I believe that Genesis doesn’t rule out either model and if I or we can prove this, then it will boil down solely to science.
This discussion needs to take place here because the focus of these forums is scripture and the Flat Earth is a theory that needs to be tested. But science is good too. Science means knowledge and knowledge is important.
Nick: You have not explained what is scripturally meant by pillars.
When the prophet Samuel says, “For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them”, is there any reason for me to assume something other than the normal definition of pillar? If so, what is that reason?
Nick: LU has shown a possible spiritual meaning for pillars
and we know light and darkness have spiritual meanings so perhaps so has firmament?
No doubt there are countless spiritual meanings behind much that is said in the scriptures. But take the tree of life, for instance. Is there any valid reason to think it wasn’t a real tree in the Garden of Eden? I mean, it could be a spiritual metaphor instead of a real tree – if someone had a desire to consider it as such. But is there any valid reason to do so? I find none. Likewise, I find no valid reason to consider the pillars of the earth, upon which God set the world, to have anything other than the normal everyday meaning of pillars. If you have a valid reason to consider the tree of life or the pillars God set the world upon spiritual metaphors, let’s hear that reason.
Mike: 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.
Nick: Your definition of firmament included the floor of the earth.
but your picture only showed a glassy roof?
What gives?
Can I call it or what? 🙂 What’s this now, the 4th question or the 5th, while still waiting for the simple yes or no from you? Oh well, that has been your way since I’ve known you, and I’m very used to it by now.
Nothing gives. Did you read the origin of the word “firmament” that I posted for you? It fits both the firm support of the floor of the earth, and the firm support of the molten glass that separates the waters above from the waters below. The Hebrew word for both is raqia…
Brown-Driver-Briggsרָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳רEzekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י‘s throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 (“” הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִםGenesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺPsalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
Pay attention to the words I made green. And feel free to add your input to these things in a normal, respectable, discussion-like manner.
t8: “What are the heavens that God created in the beginning if it doesn’t include stars? Anyone?”
It does include the stars but not until day 4. Would there not be a need for an expanse (firmament) to place the stars in before the stars were created?
Nick, here’s one of the scriptures highlighted in my last post…
Ezekiel 1
22And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other…:
26And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
So the winged creatures were just below the firmament, while God’s sapphire throne sat on top of it. Now compare…
Exodus 24:10
And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in clearness.
A paved work of sapphire stone under God’s feet is compared to the body of heaven? What is the body of heaven? Now compare…
Genesis 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
It seems to me the “body of heaven” is the firmament, which is a solid object that the winged creatures were beneath, while God’s throne and feet rest upon it from above.
Kathi: t8, I get that. I have a problem with Mike calling Sagan a liar. Neil doesn’t call him a liar. Sagan was actually on to the truth and could have used a third well to satisfy the theory. Neil goes on to satisfy the theory of a spherical earth anyway through the rest of the video.
I enjoyed watching you two work together to answer all the questions you were asking me. 🙂 I didn’t call Sagan a liar, but instead pointed out that he clearly told millions something that wasn’t true, ie: a lie. Eratosthenes lived in the 3rd century BC, when the entire world considered the earth to be flat and stationary with a local sun, moon, and stars that moved around them in a solid dome-like firmament. In that kind of world, the difference in the shadows is easily explained… and in fact exactly what one would expect. So if the shadows matched exactly what one would expect on a flat earth with a local sun, how in the heck did this guy use those expected results to conclude something completely different?
Can you see that something’s just not right with this story? As if seeing shadows that everyone already expected caused Eratosthenes to all of a sudden say, “Hey, the sun’s not close by, but millions of miles away… which means the earth is a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference!”
Dig4truth
you said:
Actually Mike didn’t call anyone a liar, he said that the conclusion was a lie.
Mike: “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.”
I think you missed this part:
Mike said
“I just pieced together a 1 minute video that shows Sagan lying, and Tyson telling the truth…”
I just saw this…unbelievable response from Mike regarding the Christian astronaut that lives on the space station for months at a time and said the earth is round.
Mike’s partial post:
miia: Hey LU, I saw that video of the Christian who went to space, but quickly discounted it because anyone can claim to be a Christian (you must have googled the same as me: Christian astronauts).
2 Corintians 11:13-15
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Mike were you calling the astronaut a servant of satan?
Mike were you calling the astronaut a servant of satan?
Imagine being that guy.
What do you do for a living ?
I’m a satanist astronaut.
What exactly is that?
Oh, I just fake spacewalks and stuff.
Mike,
you said:
I didn’t call Sagan a liar
Yet you said this:
“I just pieced together a 1 minute video that shows Sagan lying, and Tyson telling the truth…”
T8: …isn’t the point that the third well proves the sphere earth and thus Sagan was right about the sphere earth?
If a third well could prove a sphere (it can’t), then why in 2000 years has nobody done it?
T8: Hey Mike, I found a competing photo to my one, so mine is not so special after all. I feel sad now.
Yours is way better… especially for my purposes. I will be using it in a video soon.
If a third well could prove a sphere (it can’t), then why in 2000 years has nobody done it?
Tyson laid his cards on the table and basically said something that anyone can prove. Pretty sure if this was a load of crock that he wouldn’t mention something that is easily testable.
You say why hasn’t anyone tried it. My answer is who knows how many people have tried it. It looks very simple and something that would for example be a good exercise to do in a science class at school. I might mention it to my son as a possible experiment he can do at school. And surely the fact that this is easy to do means the chances are it has been done heaps, However, I do not know anyone personally that has performed this and neither do I know of anyone in the world who has done this. But then, on a planet containing 7-8 billion or whatever, then I cannot say for sure that not one person has ever performed this experiment and it is unlikely that no one has ever performed it, especially given this video probably got international coverage.
Here is a web page outlining how to perform the experiment.
https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct2.htmlRight t8, a worthy profession…a satanist astronaut…NOT!
Here is the CHRISTIAN astronaut with many pictures of the curved earth from the space station. He mentions what it was like to spend Christmas day up there directly over Israel, he talks about the LORD. We need more videos of him on here.
Mike, I think that Sagan and others assumed the Flat Earth view still had the sun as distant like the Globe Earth model. If so, then are there any lies here?
Can you show me where Sagan assumed a close earth in the Flat Earth model?
Also, in ancient times, did they believe sun is a rotating 32 miles sphere located about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth?
I tend to agree that a close small sun would produce similar shadow angles in both models, but here is a question that you may know the answer to. Are the shadows exactly the same angle for both models. That is:
1) A flat earth disk with a rotating 32 miles spherical sun located about 3000 miles above;
2) A globe earth with a diameter at around 4000 miles going around the sun 29 million miles away that has a diameter of 864,938 miles?If they are, it seems like a coincidence. If not, then this experiment would be easy to do for many people. Like I said, a good exercise for students to do as a project, or for laymen to do to prove it for themselves. Most people won’t do it because they have little reason to doubt the globe earth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
