- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 2 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Gene, you assume gravity and then attempt to interpret the text to fit. At least you said in your opinion (IMO).
If gravity holds everything together then how will God disrupt it? Rather it is God that holds everything together and at His will He can let it go.
Psalm 104:5-9 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. 7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. 8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.Hab 3:11 Sun and moon stood in their places; They went away at the light of Your arrows, At the radiance of Your gleaming spear.
If these pillars are literal, then Jesus has a literal double edged sword coming out of his mouth and locusts with the faces of men will appear in the end times.
Nick: Hi Mike,
You clearly do not understand the Spirit.
How did you come to that conclusion? Was it by divine revelation… or from your own mind?
Nick: …God spoke through the prophets…
Yes. Do you suppose that means the prophet’s eyes rolled back in his head and he was as a mindless zombie while the very voice of God roared through his mouth? Or do you suppose that the idiom “God spoke through the prophets” means that God let certain men know what things they were to say to the people? Of course it is the latter, as I will show you in a minute.
Nick: …he whom God has sent speaks the words of God.
There you go. Notice that the “HE” whom God sent is the one doing the actual speaking. “He” is speaking words God gave him to speak, but it is “HIM” doing the talking.
Nick: The bigger challenge to to see where Jesus spoke for himself.
Not a challenge at all. Here you go…
John 6:35-38
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life… But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe… For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
Who was talking there? Who had these people seen? Did they see the spirit? Who came down from heaven with his own will that was different from the Father’s, but resolved to do the Father’s will over his own? Does the spirit have a will of his own that is distinct from the Father’s? Is the spirit even a son of the Father?
Now I know your tendency will be to wander after other scriptures that you think supports your idea… but let’s just stick with this four verse passage for now, and see if you can tell me who said the words above. The Father? The spirit? The Son? Who said those things?
Did God break the law of gravity by Jesus ascending to heaven?
A silly argument. A plane flies not because it breaks the law of gravity but by aerodynamics. Jesus rose from the dead is not breaking the laws of gravity. There are many other laws and there are spiritual laws. The soul that sins will die, but there is life eternal in Christ Jesus. See that? A law has its way, but can be superceded by another law.
Ask yourself why an object falling off a cliff obeying the law of gravity suddenly stops? Did it break the law of gravity or is it that electromagnetism is many times stronger.
Psalm 104:5-9 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.If the earth won’t totter forever and ever then I wonder how it will stagger like a drunkard, fall and not rise again? Could be it’s all just poetical language kind of like Moses talking plainly with God face to face.
I wasn’t making any argument for or against gravity T8 but if gravity is a law then Jesus certainly broke it if he physically flew away above the clouds.
Kathi: If you believed as I do that the begetting of the Son was done on day one when God said “Let there be Light,” the Firstborn of all creation, then you would further believe that all things made IN heaven and ON earth, visible and invisible, would be after that Light came forth on day one.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
But were the heavens and earth actually created at this time? I gather from scriptures, like Proverbs 8:27 that you quoted, that creating the heavens and earth amounted to creating a whole bunch of water, called “the deep” in 8:27 and in Gen 1:2…
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit/wind/breath of God was hovering over the waters.
In my understanding, at this point, God had only created the waters (the great deep) that would become the heavens and the earth. (2 Peter 3:5) It was after this that God “inscribed a circle on the face of deep” that would become the earth. So at this point, it was still just a bunch of heavenly water (the deep), with the outline of the earth possibly marked out in one place within those waters. And after that, God created the firmament to separate the waters that would be “heaven” from the waters that would be “earth”. But between creating “the deep” and distinguishing heaven and earth as two distinct things with a firmament, God called for there to be light. Could that light have been the begetting of Jesus?
If so, it would mean that “the deep” (the waters that would become both the heaven and the earth once God separated them with the firmament) were created before God called for there to be light. But I can’t think of any scripture this would directly contradict (John 1:3?), because although God created the raw materials (the waters God would separate into “heaven” and “earth”) before He brought forth Light, He had not yet “inscribed the circle/laid the foundations” of the earth, or “established the heavens” AS the heavens (distinct from “earth”) until Light was there with Him. Up until the time He brought forth the light, it was just the waters from which He was about to establish the heavens as distinct from the earth by creating a firmament that would distinguish them as two different things.
So are you okay with God creating “the deep” before Jesus was there with Him? Also, we know the angels were there when God did lay the foundations of the earth, and the creation of myriads of sons of God going without mention between “Let there be light” and “Let there be a firmament” seems odd to me. How about you? Because that’s the main thing keeping me thinking that Jesus and the angels were already in existence before God even created “the deep” that would become the heavens and the earth.
Kathi: The heavens are still being prepared after day one.
Gen 1:6Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Yeah, I see that now. They weren’t distinguished as “heaven” and “earth” until God separated the waters above from the waters below (inscribed the circle/established the heavens) and made them separate things. In a rare occasion on a Bible discussion forum, a person has had their understanding altered. I now see that the raw materials and light were created on day one, but the raw material didn’t actually become “the heavens” and “the earth” until day 2 – with the creation of the firmament to separate the two. Iron sharpening iron. See why I wanted you over here? 🙂
Kathi: Prov 8: 27“When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,28When He made firm the skies above,
Loving that version of 28. 🙂
Kathi: I’m glad to see that use of “brought forth”in regards to Jesus as distinguished from “created.”
We can fight about that another time and another place. 🙂
Mike,
Thanks for your kind response as well and the vids concerning satellites. I take it you agree with many of the conspiracy theories out there. Do you listen to Alex Jones? I used to quite a bit but he’s on while I’m working now. I don’t buy into a lot of the theories but enjoy listening to him when I can. And I’ve got a program I just recorded on the dvr about the moon landings. The fellow who did “A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon”, -which I haven’t seen yet, is on the show which was on AHC channel today. It’s called Chasing Conspiracies-The Cold War in Space.
T8: I have proof of the Antarctica living here in New Zealand…
No you don’t. You have proof that there exists a very icy place that requires traversing 200 foot ice cliffs to get there, and that has some little outposts here and there. But you have no proof it is the continent that has been vaguely described to us.
Besides, I already drew a little Antarctica into the flat earth map, and showed that even if it existed, it wouldn’t hurt us. I maintain that it doesn’t, but will stick to discussing things you and I can know for sure by personal observation.
T8: Honestly Mike, do you believe this is all a scam and the people are all actors?
How many of them need to know? If I put you on a ship and sailed it to some island and told you we had arrived at Madagascar, how would you know you were somewhere completely different? All these guys see is a huge ice wall and plateau as they’re arriving. We could tell them it was a continent… OR a huge wall encircling the earth, and they’d never know the difference. When you fly somewhere and arrive at your destination, you see that you’re approaching land. You can’t tell it’s Britain, or whatever, because you only see a little bit… not the entirety of Europe. 🙂
T8: Go back and read it again and you will know what comes after ‘And?’.Your comment alludes to you not reading the post properly, missing the point completely, or are intentionally ignoring it and belittling the argument made.
I didn’t read it completely, nor have I any interest in doing so. I realize that you have no choice but to hang on to Antarctica for dear life, because what else do you really have to offer except “pictures from space”? But since you cannot prove that Antarctica is a continent (which wouldn’t mean the earth was a ball even if it was), there is no point in discussing it. Have you any actual OBSERVATIONAL proof to offer us that the earth is round? You know… something we can all see with our own eyes?
In the meantime, these snippets are from Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball…
In 1773, Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive ice wall Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“‘Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don’t know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region – indirectly, to be sure – but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles – a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” – William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe.”
“During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.” Captain Ross also wrote of the Antarctic ice wall as, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet about the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
T8: Invest a few minutes to watch this video and you will see how you can see the full moon during the day.
While the guy doing the video makes the point that the moon is in line if sight in daylight as much as it is at night, in the diagrams or simulation he shows, you can see at one point the full moon during the day while not being an eclipse.
I watched the entire thing, and what you claim isn’t there. In fact, at 3:15 he says, “When the moon is between the sun and the earth, the sun’s light hits the back side of the moon so we can’t see it.” Here is the diagram at that point in the video…
So I’m not sure what you saw, but that video in no way says there can be a full moon in the daytime. Of course there can’t be, for the reasons he just explained. Yet I have a few pictures of it myself, and there are millions more of them on the web. When I looked into answers for this, the “experts” mostly showed images of moons that looked full in the daytime, and pointed out that the official “full moon” only lasts a millisecond – as if that addresses the point. One guy even had a photo of a moon that looked completely full with a caption that read, “This ISN’T a full moon!” As if a 99% full moon would be visible in the daytime! 😀
The other thing they say is that we can see them in the day only during sunrise and sunset, when the sun is at a high angle from the moon. But that’s nonsensical, because how could it light the entire face of the moon from such an angle? Anyway, this should clinch the matter…
You’ll notice that we’ll have two full moons in Phoenix this year within an hour or so of solar noon – when the sun is at it’s highest point in the sky.
Come on, T8… couldn’t you just please stop and think about this for a minute? I never once thought you’d be one to just blow off concrete evidence like this in favor of absurd claims from men of “science” that you can’t prove, and that don’t even make a lick of sense. I keep waiting for the moment that you say, “You know what, Mike? This goes against everything I’ve believed my entire life, but that is a fantastic and seemingly irrefutable piece of evidence, and it has caused me to want to delve a little deeper into this topic – and with a much more open mind.”
Because once that happens dude, it’s all over for you. You’ll start seeing things for how they really are, as opposed to how we’ve been told they are. Just hurry up and get there.
In the meantime, I’ll ask you to re-examine that picture from your video above – with the sun clear on the opposite side of the moon from us – and tell me how in God’s flat earth that sun could be lighting the side of the moon facing us.
Mike:
Thank you for acknowledging about the heavens being made on day two in a previous post. Now we have to talk about the water…
you said:
But between creating “the deep” and distinguishing heaven and earth as two distinct things with a firmament, God called for there to be light. Could that light have been the begetting of Jesus?
If so, it would mean that “the deep” (the waters that would become both the heaven and the earth once God separated them with the firmament) were created before God called for there to be light.
Ok, I’m just gonna throw this out there but perhaps Jehovah being the fountain of living waters has something to do with it.
Psalm 36:9
8They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You give them to drink of the river of Your delights. 9For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.
Maybe the water came forth out of God and then the birth of the Son happened. Neither was created, both came forth. Perhaps with the water from inside of God came matter and with the Son came Light. Btw, a woman giving birth always has water coming out of her before the baby. Coincidence?? Something to think about.
Gen 1:2
1In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
That word translated as ‘fluttering’ can be translated “brooding.” A definition of brooding is to protect (developing eggs or young). from: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/brooding
Genesis 1:2 (P); hovering over face of waters, or perhaps (see Syriac) brooding (and fertilizing), so JerQuaest. in Gen. ed. Lag. 4 (reading ‘marahaefeth), compare Di Gunk. From here: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7363.htm
So, the Spirit of God is brooding over the waters in anticipation of the begetting of the only begotten Son. Like I said, just throwing that out there. I have had that thought for years. Also, Mike regarding the word for “only begotten,” I’ve read a bit of what you think you learned about that word but I think that can be debunked when realizing the term “unbegotten God” was used for it to describe the Father and “begotten God” was used to describe the Son in some ancient Greek church father’s writings. I would think the actual Greek writers that lived near that time would know what monogenes would mean. You can discuss that in the Firstborn thread if you wanted.
I didn’t read it completely, nor have I any interest in doing so.
At least your honest, but it seems like your burying your head in the sand. In short, I made the case that sail times in the Southern Ocean agree with the Globe Earth. On a Flat earth model, the Southern Ocean would be way larger and way too many people would notice it. NZ has islands in the Southern Ocean, it is not like no one ever goes there. There are yacht races that go through here, fishing boats sail here from NZ etc and Japan illegally kills whales here. Planes fly over here and you say there is no proof of a globe earth. If I had to ignore this and the Antarctica evidence, then I might as well not believe in Madagascar or Greenland for the same reason. Can you see how you expect me to not believe in the equivalent of Greenland or Madagascar?
Hi Mike your still trying to make Christian’s look stupid. It looks like you haven’t got any followers yet.
As we have already mentioned, the Bible consistently uses the phrase, heaven and earth, to refer to the universe or cosmos. The prophet Joel wrote:
The sun and the moon will grow dark, and the stars will diminish their brightness. The Lord also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; the heavens and earth will shake; but the Lord will be a shelter for His people, and the strength of the children of Israel (Joel 3:15,16)
This would mean that Gen.1:1 refers to the creation of the entire universe, including the sun, moon and the stars…..
In v. 14 God does not say, Let there be lights . . . to separate, as if there were no lights before this command and afterward the lights were created. Rather the Hebrew text reads, And God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse of the sky separate.’ In other words . . . God’s command assumes the lights were already in the expanse and that in response to his command they were given a purpose, to separate the day from the night and to mark seasons and days and years.. . . It suggests that the author did not understand his account of the fourth day as the creation of lights; but, on the contrary, the narrative assumes that the heavenly lights had already been created in the beginning.
Thus it is not necessary to assume the sun was not part of the heaven and the earth created on the first day.
We must also note that the Bible says there will be light without the sun in the future New Jerusalem.And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Rev.22:8)
The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19)
Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning.God bless. Come to the light my child. In HIM! Anthony
For <b>now</b> <b>we</b> see <b>in</b> a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. <b>Now</b> I <b>know </b><b>i</b>n<b> part</b>, but then I shall <b> know</b> just as I also am <b>know.</b>
It’s all to crazy Mike, come to the light
I hope you understood that I think it’s some kind of math? Lol
T8: Is it a coincidence that when you look at the heliocentric model that wandering stars suddenly have a normal simple orbit around the sun in that model? If the heliocentric model were fake, then how do you account for this astronomical coincidence that happens to place these wandering stars as predictable simple orbits?
I account for it by saying nobody has ever verified that any object in the heavens “orbits” any other object, and that you only believe in this “sudden normal simple orbit around the sun” because you have been told this is true. Can you verify it? Of course not. But we’re also told that Jupiter has a bunch of moons that orbit around it, right? Well I’ve been taking some videos of Jupiter and four of its “moons” for the past week or so, and I’m not seeing anything resembling a “normal simple orbit”. Here are some screenshots…
May 12:
May 13:
May 14:
May 15:
May 16:
By the 16th, the “moon” on the top right from the 15th isn’t even in the frame anymore. It just keeps moving farther away from Jupiter. So I’m pretty sure it’s not orbiting. I’ll try to clean up these photos and to a better side by side comparison – which was my intention when I began to film them. I also have the last two days on file, but could only insert 5 images on the post.
Here are a few I took of the moon last night…
Why can I see the unlit part, when it is supposed to be 238,000 miles away in the blackness of space? This is what we should see from earth…
And here’s what we actually see after I adjusted the camera settings…
I was standing on a moving balcony, so they are a little blurry. But it was just before bedtime, and I was too lazy to go down on solid ground. But in that last photo, you not only see the unlit part of the moon, but can even make out the patterns that we see on the moon in the daytime. How can that be? The sun is supposedly lighting the other side, and the dark side should be just that… dark. As in, unable to be seen from earth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
