- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
Were you given the law? Are you a Jew?
We are not under law but grace.
The Lord of the Sabbath is my Lord.
What about you?
Nick: Hi Mike,
The Word is indeed from ancient times.
The Word was in the beginning with God and was God.
The Vessel chosen by God, prepared by grace for a life of service to God.
But without his anointing at the Jordan Jesus would have just have been a faithful and pious man.
Let’s see if your interpretation aligns…
Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
- Did the word of God (as you imagine it) have an origin?
- Did the word of God (as you imagine it) come from Bethlehem?
- Is the word of God (as you imagine it) the ruler over Israel?
On the other hand, the “vessel” did have an origin, did come from Bethlehem, and is the ruler over Israel. It is that one whose origins were from ancient times – even from Micah’s day.
David: I’m in the boring middle of Canada….
Hey David, another of the points made in that video was if the earth is flat with the sun moving over us, the sun would shrink in size as it moves further away. And it does…
Usually we don’t see it this way, because the air acts as a lens. So as the sun shrinks due to perspective, the atmosphere magnifies it, and so it usually appears to remain the same size as its setting. But if you are in a cool, dry climate, you’ll see it shrink as it moves away.
T8 also said that if the earth was flat, we’d be able to zoom a setting sun back into the sky. I showed him videos of people doing exactly that, and never heard back about it. So my point is that people keep saying, “Well if the earth was flat, A!” And then we show them A, and they just pretend like it didn’t happen.
So now the questions are:
- Why would the setting sun shrink in the helical model?
- Why would we be able to zoom the setting sun back into the sky on the helical model?
Andrew: I do believe the earth is round but if it is flat it really doesn’t effect my life or thoughts, or faith too much.
If the earth is a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the curvature would drop away from the observer at a rate of 8 inches per mile squared. (That’s the heliocentrists’ math, not the flat earthers’ – who don’t believe there is any curvature).
At 60 miles away from you, the drop would be 2166 feet…
This photo of Chicago was taken from 60 miles away…
That means the very peak of the tallest building in Chicago (Willis Tower at 1729 feet) should be a whopping 437 feet below the curvature – hidden from view. Yet we can not only see most of the Willis Tower, but most of the Chicago lakefront in general. This is undeniable proof that the earth can’t be a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. The heliocentrists know that this is impossible, and so have claimed it is a mirage. They claim light is refracting over the curve, and so we’re not seeing Chicago, but a refracted image of it. They have zero proof of what they claim, but have no choice but to claim it nonetheless. Btw, here’s what refraction does to Chicago in real life…
Three points…
- Notice how the buildings are magnified due to the lensing effect of the air.
- Notice how the mirage part is an inverted image of the original, ie: it’s flipped upside down.
- Superior mirages (as they are called) are real and observable, but in each and every case, the original object is also in the image.
So we can learn from just one photo that the earth is not a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. And there are literally thousands of images on the web where we can clearly see objects that simply couldn’t be seen if the earth was a ball. They claim “refraction” for each one, but have no way of proving it. What else can they do? They also claim “refraction” in the many cases when we can see both the sun and the eclipsed moon in the sky at the same time. They say we’re not really seeing the sun and the moon, because they are over the curve and out of sight. Instead, we are seeing the refracted images of the sun and the moon projected up over the curve. This isn’t science, Andrew… it is hand waving post hoc absurdity designed to hold on to a dogma that the actual observational evidence destroys.
Anyway, without even lifting another finger, the fact that we can see too far already disproves the ball earth. But we’ve lifted hundreds of more fingers anyway – each of them hammering yet another nail into the heliocentric coffin. Did you watch my video on top-down eclipses? What do you make of that phenomenon?
Gene, scriptural truth teaches that the sun was created on day 4 after the earth was created. Is that what you believe?
No Digger,
The bible says: God called “the light” he created on day 1 “Day” – that my friend is “the sun” – DAY 1
The focus of Day four is the sky more specifically the nighttime sky
____________
God bless
Ed JD4T: …they were bouncing lasers off the moon before they even allegedly placed a reflector there.
On this day, May 9, in 1962, a pulse light laser beam sent by a team of scientists from MIT successfully bounced off the moon, the first lunar laser ranging experiment. Later similar experiments used a reflector left on the moon’s surface by the Apollo 11 mission to increase accuracy.
The whole laser thing is propaganda…
- They were already supposedly doing it long before there was a reflector on the moon.
- That reflector would be covered by space dust by now.
- The beam they shoot from earth spreads out so much that it’s basically hitting half the moon by the time it gets there – and so what good is the reflector?
- The return beam spreads out even more on its way back, to the point that the scientists say it is usually only one single photon that hits the receptor.
Really? One single photon? How do you know that’s the particular photon that went to the moon and back? 😀 It’s all silliness. And the NASA fanboys are like the guys who learn the entire Klingon language. It’s not real, but they soak up every tidbit of trivia about it they can, and parrot whatever the godless men of scientism tell them, because they think it makes them sound smart and knowledgeable.
1) Did the word of God (as you imagine it) have an origin?
2) Did the word of God (as you imagine it) come from Bethlehem?
3) Is the word of God (as you imagine it) the ruler over Israel?Hi Mike,
I like y/n questions
1) No
2) No
3) Yesmiia: But why can’t we take the seven days of creation as seven literal days? The Sabbath is on the seventh literal 24 hour day. The “one day for a thousand days” quote is obviously not literal…
Those who adhere to what the scriptures actually teach do indeed take the days of creation as six literal days. And while I agree with you that the “one day for a thousand” is a way of saying God is outside of time as we know it, it wouldn’t matter if it was literal – because it wouldn’t have any more to do with Genesis 1 than it has to do with Exodus 10:22…
So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days.
Maybe Egypt was really dark for 3000 years! 😀
I fear that the reason they try to bring that scripture up with Genesis 1 is because they love praise from men more than praise from God. (John 12:43) I don’t say that to be mean, but God clearly gave us the schedule of working six days and resting on the seventh BECAUSE He Himself worked for six days and rested on the seventh. So the ONLY reason they’d have to try to mangle the scriptures is because they believe what men have told them over and above what God Himself told us. There simply is no other reason for them doing it.
Usually we don’t see it this way, because the air acts as a lens. So as the sun shrinks due to perspective, the atmosphere magnifies it, and so it usually appears to remain the same size as its setting. But if you are in a cool, dry climate, you’ll see it shrink as it moves away.
T8 also said that if the earth was flat, we’d be able to zoom a setting sun back into the sky. I showed him videos of people doing exactly that, and never heard back about it. So my point is that people keep saying, “Well if the earth was flat, A!” And then we show them A, and they just pretend like it didn’t happen.
And yet, when it comes to photos of far away objects or bringing the sun back for a very short time, suddenly lens effects don’t count? And as for bringing the sun back, try putting a powerful scope on it the whole time. Should be possible on a Flat Earth and that would be proof that people could understand and take seriously..
miia: Hi Mike, is it possible for the Earth to be a stationary unmoving sphree, with the Sun and moon and stars revolving around the earth?
If it was, we wouldn’t be able to see Chicago from 60 miles, or shoot lasers 20 Km across a lake. There would also be no up or down, so heaven couldn’t really be “up”. And there would be no pillars on which God set the earth. This would be impossible on a ball earth…
So would this…
And even this…
But miia, maybe it’s better to ask what reason you have to suspect the earth is a stationary ball.
One of the biggest complaints about pictures of the globe earth is the fact that they are usually photoshopped. However, not all photoshopped images are fake, some are more accurate. I am a photographer and I might look at a beautiful sunset with deep reds and oranges, but the photo doesn’t quite capture its magnificence. A little photoshop can correct that. Of course, when satellites scan the earth’s surface, they do not do it all at once and they might not even covers the whole surface, but leave gaps. Photoshop or software is needed in order to create a composite. That said, I decided to look at Flat Earth vs Globe Earth photos or composites, and the Globe Earth wins. This is the best Flat Earth composite or graphic I could find. Looks a bit fake to me. What do you think?
T8: Show me the math and the 100% correct predictions using it. I bet it is you who cannot prove your explanation of up and down for material objects. Whereas, there are tons of real examples of gravity’s correct predictions.
It’s called density, and the math has already been done. Here’s quick visual…
The denser object will fall down through the less dense medium. Notice the different objects all stop when the density of the medium equals their own. Only the metal bolt makes it all the way down through the densest of the media.
Also, what has gravity “predicted”?
And finally, coming up with post hoc figures to match what you’ve already decided to be the case is child’s play for learned mathematicians. I’m asking you to prove that such a thing as gravity exists at all. Can you do that or not?
Time to front up
Mike said:
- When a day in scripture is qualified as having an evening and a morning, is it more likely than not that it refers to a regular day? YES or NO?
- When days in scripture are accompanied by numbers, such as “the first day”, “the second day”, “the third day”, etc, is it more likely than not that they refer to regular days? YES or NO?
- When God says we must work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE He created for six days and rested on the seventh, is it more likely than not that God is talking about regular days? YES or NO?
I say:
Yes, Yes, Yes.
I say:
In most circumstances this is the case because most cases have a context of everyday life and normal events, but it is not correct in all cases. In most circumstances, an hour is an hour and a week a week. But in the creation event, prophecy, and parables, we do not apply literal meanings usually. So the correct answer is not always. Notice your question says: LIKELY and I am answering yes to that particular wording because scripture records a lot of history where a day is a day. The creation event like prophecy is not the same as a recorded event in history right? Would you argue that Judgement Day 24 hours long?Scripture talks about hours, days, and weeks and they are not always literal. When it comes to John saying he was in the last hour because of the rise of antichrists, then a literal hour has expired right and yet here we are still in the last hour. Explain that? When Daniel talks about a week, many scholars think it is code for years such as Daniel’s 70th week. In the creation event, you both argue that the days are literal 24 hours including the first day when you say the sun was not even created. A huge discrepancy right there.
Simply put, what is going on here is the language. Hebrew has less words than English so words like hour, day, week, sword, etc are used to mean a period of time or power and authority in context. The last hour mention for example could be applying a day for the whole age. The context of the creation event is 6 stages followed by a rest of which our week is an image of. If you are going to be literal about everything, then be literal about the last hour John spoke about, the seventy weeks of Daniel, the sword coming from the mouth of Jesus when he returns, and the locusts with human heads.
At least be consistent, but cherry picking is cheating and people notice it right away.
But I hear you say repeatedly that the creation says had a morning and an evening. But I have addressed this fairly and rightly dividing the word.
You say there was no sun on the first 3.5 days. Even the fourth day had no sun in the morning. Explain that and explain why you are free to cherry pick when you can apply the Dig Rule and when not to.
I bet I do not get an answer to this that is even remotely satisfactory. Prove me wrong.
Hi Mike,
Do you agree that the millennial kingdom is the seventh day?
If so what is your problem with other days being 1000 years?
Hi Mike,
Micah 5.2..
From you one will go forth for ME to be ruler in Israel.
HIS goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.
So the aim is for God to rule Israel.
God rules through His Son as Ps 2 makes plain.
A human vessel had to be born to house the Spirit of the Son.
The man was anointed from above with the Spirit of the Father and the Son.
That man was born in Bethlehem.
WE will come to you.
Kathi, the following is a long rant. I don’t expect any answers to anything I say here.
Kathi: I don’t believe that there are only a handful of pics of earth. I’ve seen several just in quick searches.
You’re talking pictures taken from the moon, right? Because I have so far only found one from Apollo 11, one from 14, and the wet flag one from 17. Let me know if you find others. But remember that there are a lot of them out there where people have added the earth after the fact to create a visually appealing piece of art. The majority of those are not official NASA images.
Kathi: The video camera wasn’t always on the astronauts.
My point was that it was NEVER trained on the earth. Also, in that footage you linked for me, how do you suppose the camera was able to pan around and follow the astronauts?
Kathi: We have satellites and the ISS taking pictures of the earth. I recently saw pictures taken by the ISS over the volcanoes in Hawaii.
We have high-flying objects (balloons, planes, drones, etc.) that take aerial shots from many miles up. We’re only told that they come from objects that orbit the earth. We are not in the position to verify those claims – and the absurd amount of CGI anomalies makes it clear that, at the very least, some of that stuff is being faked. Like the dude who faded to ghost before exiting the door. You never commented on that video. What do you think about that? Do real men fade in and out of ghost form?
Kathi: There are plans of leaving the earth’s orbit.
Fifty freaking years after we did it with the technology of a Nintendo Game Boy, I’d sure hope so! 🙂 But alas, it is always future tense. Every year for a decade we’ve been hearing how citizens will be paying for space trips. And every year it’s supposed to happen, they say “maybe next year”. Kathi, nobody is going back to the moon, because nobody has ever been there in the first place. No one’s going to Mars, or anywhere else in “outer space”.
Kathi: NASA has been busy building and funding the skylab.
“Funding” is all they ever do. The entire NASA program is tax payer funded theft. Nothing more and nothing less. What have we gotten in return for the trillions of tax dollars they’ve taken for these programs? Seriously, what scientific achievement have we accomplished in space that has benefited mankind in any way? NASA has given us Velcro… but they didn’t need to be in space for that. Maybe Tang powdered orange drink. Ah… memory foam mattresses! But really, with a world full of starving children, don’t you think those trillions of dollars could have been better spent than on actors running around the ISS in gorilla suits and NFL jerseys? What scientific work do they actually do up there? In what way has that work benefited those of us who pay their way?
Kathi: Have you heard of SpaceX?
Of course. I’ve done a couple videos about them. Why? Don’t tell me you believe they can really land the multi-ton rockets backwards on to barges floating in the ocean? I suppose you believe they really launched a Tesla into space – but fitted it with cameras designed to only work for 24 hours? Come on, now.
Kathi: From what I can tell, Nasa can certainly build another space craft to go to the moon. The old space crafts are no longer available. It takes incredible funding and instead of going to study the moon further, Nasa has been studying Mars.
There goes that funding word again. 🙂 Why on God’s flat earth wouldn’t they be able to go to the moon today if we did it in 69? The very fact that Don Pettit says we’ve lost the technology and you say the old crafts are no longer available makes me want to pull my hair out. Really? In 50 years we couldn’t have come up with BETTER rockets? Are we really to believe they started from scratch and went 5 times within 3 years, but in the 50 years since, we can’t figure out how to do it? As for the funding, are you aware that NASA’s current budget is 52 million dollars every single day? How many years of 52 million a day does it take to build a rocket? And what do you mean “studying the moon further”? What “studies” did we do up there? We drove around in a dune buggy, played golf, and collected rocks that later were tested and found out to be nothing by petrified wood…
Kathi: This article might help you regarding why the moon landings have taken a back seat for a while…
I read about it the day it came out. It’s a soap opera, designed to get gullible people thinking about the heartbreaking disappointment of all those poor men and women who worked so hard on the mission, only to have the plug pulled less than a year before launch date. It’s a bait and switch, to keep you from even thinking about how we did it 5 times in three years, and now have been working on it for 50 years and were still a year away when the mission got cancelled. The intent is to keep you from noticing that these trips to the moon and Mars are always “pretty soon” – but never actually happen. Really Kathi… 50 years, and only a year away from fulfillment, and NASA just up and cancels it because we need to be focused on Mars? And why Mars? Because it’s easier to keep putting that one off for many years into the future. It’s harder to keep pushing back a return trip to the moon when we supposedly did it 5 times in 3 years with only 8 years of planning – all with less technology than you have in your smart phone right now.
Hours and days
John 9:4
As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.Another day for Mike and Dig to explain. What was the date for this one?
Romans 13:11
And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.What hour is this exactly?
T8: Geocentric model… Look how complicated the circuits are…
You mean kind of like the Fibonacci Code?
T8: You have nothing but a Dark Age idea with no proof whatsoever…
Dude, you have no idea how many times D4T and I heard that through the years of doing battle against the godless evolutionists. Except they usually threw in a mention of “ignorant goat herders” to make the insult to the people with whom God spoke even worse.
King David: Anointed with Holy Spirit from God, spoke with God, and inspired by God to rule over Israel and write psalms. Says the sun runs a circuit around the earth.
T8: Inspired by godless men who are big on story telling, but short on observational evidence to back the stories. Says King David was an ignorant victim of the dark, unenlightened age in which he lived. Says the earth runs a circuit around the sun.
Mike said:
That means the very peak of the tallest building in Chicago (Willis Tower at 1729 feet) should be a whopping 437 feet below the curvature – hidden from view. Yet we can not only see most of the Willis Tower, but most of the Chicago lakefront in general. This is undeniable proof that the earth can’t be a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. The heliocentrists know that this is impossible, and so have claimed it is a mirage. They claim light is refracting over the curve, and so we’re not seeing Chicago, but a refracted image of it. They have zero proof of what they claim, but have no choice but to claim it nonetheless. Btw, here’s what refraction does to Chicago in real life…
Actually Mike, this proves the Earth is not flat. You can clearly see the bottom of the buildings are cut off from view. The globe earth predicts that far away objects like ocean liners and buildings will disappear from the bottom first. Any more photo proofs you want to post of the globe Earth?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
