- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
You mean kind of like the Fibonacci Code?
Explain why the Heliocentric model puts them into much simpler and obvious circular orbits?
A huge coincidence?
I guess when God created the flower orbits, he later discovered that they would align in perfect orbits around the sun if you put the sun at the centre of everything. Wow he thought, what a coincidence. Seriously Mike, address the elephant in the room.
Plus, I don’t think the Fibonacci Code draws even flower petals, it’s more about spirals.
Mike, you go on about the Globe Earth photos and composites looking fake, but the Flat Earth ones are the ones that look fake to me.
D4T: How can Mercury be visable in your simple model?
It can’t, but here’s how they explain it…
They say at the right time in the orbits, green dude can see Venus just after sunset, and orange dude can see Mercury just before sunrise… or something like that. But I found this to be an even better argument…
I love The Potter’s Clay videos. In this one, he scales the size of Mercury down to the size of a 747, and then uses the same numbers to scale down the distance we’re said to be from Mercury to the distance of the cruising altitude of the jet. In the end, seeing Mercury with the naked eye at the distance they tell us it is away from us is equivalent to seeing a 747 flying over you at 269 miles high with the naked eye. I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t see jets anymore at 7 miles. I can only make out the chemtrails they’re constantly spraying on us. So I doubt very seriously that anyone can see a jet 269 miles away from us using only their eyes. Yet that’s what we have to believe in order to believe we can see Mercury with the naked eye 48 million miles away from us.
I’ve queued the video to the 1:54 mark, and you need only watch to 2:34… less than a minute guys. Give it a look-see, and let us know how you explain it.
Mike…if you had an apsolute measurement of the distance between where that camera was when that picture was taken it would be exactly what the mathmatic calulation of the earth drop says. Man it’s hard to believe you even can consider the earth is FLAT, WITH THE TONS OF PROOF IT A SPHERE WE LIVE ON. O and by the way David never said the sun goes around the earth by travling around it, he was refering to the sun light moving around the earth, (AS THE EARTH TURNS) WHICH MAKES IT APPEAR THAT WAY. He was using his linited knowledge at that time, if he were alive today he would know that it is the earth spinnung that causes the sun to look like it is traveling around the earth, most all the ancient world believed that the sun went around the earth. IF We were to go back to the ancient times we also would believe that, but we have tons of proof now that is not the case. Come out of the darkness into the light of truth, Before you become a complete fruit cake MAN!
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Nick: 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?
Hi Nick, I asked you two questions. Please answer them directly and honestly before making any other comments to me. I’ve made them red this time so you don’t miss them…
Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
- How many days are we to work before taking a day off?
- And more importantly, what is the reason God Himself gave for giving us this schedule?
Eddy J: No Digger,
The bible says: God called “the light” he created on day 1 “Day” – that my friend is “the sun” – DAY 1
So “the sun” is “the light” God created on day one? Do a check and see if the Hebrew word for “light” on day one is the same word for “sun” on day four. Let us know what you find. Scripture tells me God both made the sun and placed it in the firmament on day four. You say otherwise. I will stick with what scripture says.
Hi Mike,
You are a bit behind with the questions I have asked you.
Do those first then you can resume your education of your elders.
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) YesYou didn’t used to. 🙂 But anyway, you can see by your “No”, “No”, “Yes” response that you are misaligned with scripture. Because according to scripture, the answer is “Yes” to all three. So whoever is ruling over Israel right now is the same one who came from Bethlehem, but also had an origin from ancient days. You’ll have to align your understanding of “the word” so that it can fit all of those criteria.
T8: 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?
The lens effect always counts. But when the air is dry and cool, the effect is much less.
T8: 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..
You mean as opposed to top down eclipses and seeing objects that should be miles below the curvature – which are hard for people to understand? 🙂 Our vision is limited – even with powerful scopes. This is due to the limitations of our eyes, the thickness of the atmosphere, and visual perspective…
That last one’s for David, who asked why the bottom of thing disappear first. The football field is obviously not a round ball, right?
T8: I decided to look at Flat Earth vs Globe Earth photos or composites, and the Globe Earth wins.
I’d imagine so – with a 52 million dollar a day budget. And that’s just the Americans. The other nations soon found out how much money they could steal from their citizens, so now almost everyone has an astronomical CGI budget to work with. I’m glad you’re coming around to the fact that they are CGI composites.
T8: 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.
T8, for weeks I’ve been saying, “WHAT? WHY?” Remember? I’m still saying that. If I consider the sword coming out of the mouth metaphorical, why on earth would I then HAVE TO consider the stone with which David slew Goliath as metaphorical as well? I can’t believe you’re still setting up this straw man. Listen closely…
Yes, some things in scripture are metaphorical and idiomatic. NO, that doesn’t mean they all have to be.
Yes, some things in scripture are literal. NO, that doesn’t mean they all have to be.
Can you seriously not understand this? Because you’re still making the same lame argument that D4T and I have already corrected you about numerous times. You’re implying that if I take the creation days as literal, then I must also take the hour of judgement as a literal hour. And that’s complete nonsense. Surely you can see this, right? And it’s not “cherry picking” to say the sword is metaphorical but the stone was real. If it is, then we all do it because nobody thinks everything in scripture is literal, and nobody thinks it’s all metaphorical.
T8: 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.
Why is there a discrepancy? Are you saying God could not make a literal 24 hour day without the sun? As if God NEEDS the sun, or He can’t make a day?
T8: The creation event like prophecy is not the same as a recorded event in history right?
This is the crux of the matter. Why would you think the creation event is like prophecy? The vast majority of Hebrew scholars who study these things say that the Genesis account is written as a literal historical account, and cannot be confused with the writings of prophecy or poetry. Look at the articles on this Google search page…
https://www.google.com/search?ei=qn0UW7yBH8-EtQWPhoq4CA&q=is+genesis+written+as+historical+narrative&oq=is+genesis+written+as+historical&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30k1.4901.77479.0.80182.134.82.40.2.4.0.342.10458.0j39j12j3.54.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..43.83.8282…0j35i39k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1j0i20i263k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i3k1.0.paAxhF7egqw
You’ll have a hard time finding a bonafide Hebrew expert who’ll say it was anything but an historical account… whether or not they believe it is true. So of course I think it’s real history. I think it is the literal account of how God created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in 6 days – just like it clearly says. Jesus took it as literal when he said, “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6) Not “millions of years after creation”, but from the beginning of creation.
T8, I’ve asked this already, but have yet to receive an answer. Please answer it this time…
What scriptural reason can you offer for thinking the days in the creation account are not literal days, or that the sun wasn’t created on day four? Take note, I’m not asking for other scriptures you can import to cast doubt on the clear and straightforward language of Genesis. I’m not asking for your own personal opinion that God is dependent on the sun in order to make days for us. I’m asking for the scriptural reason that would make you even consider importing those other scriptures, or offering your own opinions on what God needs to make a day.
Do you understand what I’m asking? Let me make it even clearer…
Joshua 6:15
On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times…
Surely you wouldn’t even think of importing 2 Peter 3:8 into this verse, and suggesting that this seventh day was really a seventh “stage” of indeterminate length, right? I’m asking for the scriptural reason you would do that in Genesis 1.
Sunsets prove the Globe Earth or that the Earth is not flat
T8: 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..
You mean as opposed to top down eclipses and seeing objects that should be miles below the curvature – which are hard for people to understand?
We get nice sunsets here and I photograph them sometimes. The sun doesn’t really change in size, but obviously it is a bit further away than being immediately overhead in both models. But if I had a video camera with wide angle lense, then yes I could make the sun look proportionally smaller as it goes under the observable horizon just as I made Mt Ruapehu proportionally bigger with the right lense. But I have never ever seen the sun go to the size of a star and disappear which is what would happen if the Earth was flat and the sun did a circuit over the disk. This lack of observation alone is proof the earth is not flat.
Also, notice how the bottom of the sun disappears and not the whole thing due to being too small. This was taken from the same vantage point as my Mt Ruapehu image, except, I was looking out toward the Tasman Sea and obviously Australia was too far to see.
Nick: 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.
Let the scriptures guide you… instead of the other way around. Here’s what we know from Micah 5:2…
- One will come out of Bethlehem.
- This same one will rule over Israel for God.
- This same one who will (future tense) come out of Bethlehem originated (past tense) in days of old – from Micah’s perspective.
So whoever you decide that “one” is, all three of those things must apply to him/it. Understand? You cannot break it up and say, “Well, this part applies to God, and this part applies to the spirit of the anointing, and this part applies to the vessel Jesus”. All of those things must apply to whoever/whatever you decide that “one” is.
I’d imagine so – with a 52 million dollar a day budget. And that’s just the Americans.
I would way prefer to spend my 52 million on drilling through the dome than keeping a conspiracy alive that is suppose to make people not believe in God but doesn’t stop anyone from believing in God. Humans are curious, who wouldn’t want to spend that money on seeing what is on the other side.
I never met one person that said to me they don’t believe in God because the world is a globe. How many have you met?
Gene: Mike…if you had an apsolute measurement of the distance between where that camera was when that picture was taken it would be exactly what the mathmatic calulation of the earth drop says.
They do have the absolute measurements, and guess what? The mathematically calculated drop just isn’t there. There’s nothing too hard about this, Gene. For example, if the boat should be completely over the horizon at 6 miles, and we can use a zoom lens to show that the entire boat is still right there, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the rest. It does, however, take someone who finds truth more important than pride. Like Mark Twain so aptly said…
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
You hit the nail on the head with that one.
T8: I have never ever seen the sun go to the size of a star and disappear. That alone is proof the earth is not flat.
I see… so first you challenged me that the sun would shrink if the earth was flat. I showed you video proof of exactly that. Then you said we’d be able to zoom the sun back up into the sky if the earth was flat. I showed you video proof of exactly that. Now we need to see the sun shrink to the size of a star? 😀 Why? Rather, I think you need to start paying more attention to the things I’m showing you.
T8: Also, notice how the bottom of the sun disappears and not the whole thing due to being too small.
Like I said, pay better attention. I just addressed this three posts ahead of your post questioning it.
Notice how the man walking away isn’t really disappearing over a curve – yet he is disappearing from the bottom up. It’s our perspective, man. I’m getting really tired of answering the same questions from you over and over again. Listen…
- Atmospheric lensing.
- Perspective.
- Limitations to our vision.
Now, instead of me answering the same points over and over – how about you address that top-down eclipse video for the FIRST time?
T8: 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.
Again, pay attention. Look at the post (I think third from the top of this page), and tell me if the man walking away is disappearing over the curvature of the earth. Seriously, tell me if he is, so I know I won’t have to deal with this same crap another hundred times.
Hi Mike,
You are applying your principles of human logic to the spiritual word of God.
And you misquote the verse.
…FOR ME TO BE RULER IN ISRAEL.
God is the ME.
Mike: You mean kind of like the Fibonacci Code?
T8: Explain why the Heliocentric model puts them into much simpler and obvious circular orbits?
You don’t even know the model to which you blindly subscribe. Copernicus said they were circular orbits – but then that didn’t match the observations, so they had to change them to elliptical orbits. Btw, the Ptolemy geocentric model worked fine for 1500 years before Copernicus, and the flat earth Babylonians were predicting eclipses from ancient times. In fact, the NASA website still relies on the ancient Babylonian saros cycles to predict eclipses. Were you aware of that?
And to top it off, here is a quote from 1995, by a famous cosmologist who even co-wrote a book with Stephen Hawking…
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.“
Read every single word of that, keeping in mind that it was said in 1995 – long after we supposedly went to space and were able to observe the true nature of the universe – and 2000 years after all intelligent people supposedly knew the earth orbits the sun. Are you beginning to understand yet? You have stories. You have mathematical equations. We have observational evidence. Guess which holds more weight?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
