- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nick: “Could Peter walk on water? No that was impossible. He agreed and sank.”
Actually he did walk on water for a while. Where did you learn that it was impossible because Yeshua did it too without sinking? He even reached down and pulled Peter up out of the water!
You must have been listening to the scientists and not the Word of God.
Think about a stack of Jenga blocks stack up in a car. Now that car turns a corner – what happens? CRASH!
Centrifugal force! (At maybe 15 to 20 mph and not 1,000+ mph)
Take the Jenga challange!
Dig….you cant tell why the blocks never fell over. It because all the gravitional pull is straight dowm the center line and transfers to the main supporting leg. But let him go past center and down come all his blocks, i would put money on it. It’s like when a person balances himself on one leg same principle applies. This is all just smoke and mirrors, you people use to decieve with.
Heres your formula, explained, not that it would do any good.
A right triangel has three sides, side A, side B, side C. I HAVENT LOST YOU SO FAR HAVE I?
formula… Side C = the square root of, side A squared + side B squared.
Just type in the pathagram theram, on the Internet and there is all kinds of sites that give you the exact fornula. My computer does not make the symbols need to give you the exact formula. But what i have described is apsolutely it.
Let say, side a = 24 ft and side b = 7 ft what would side c =
Side A Is 24×24=576 square feet
Side b is 7×7 = 49 square feet
The total A+B = 625 square feetWhats the square root of 625 feet? Its 25
Side C = 25 feet.
I apsolutly do not know how much simpler it can be made for you. You are either playing games or you must be dumber then a bag of hammers. No wonder you are so easly decieved by these Flat Earthers, and Conspiracy therist.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Congratulations Gene, you’ve figured out a triangle.
Now how about a sphere? With a circumference of the earth’s? A few examples? Unless you think the earth is a triangle.
Gene: “”you cant tell why the blocks never fell over. It because all the gravitional pull is straight dowm the center line and transfers to the main supporting leg. But let him go past center and down come all his blocks, i would put money on it. It’s like when a person balances himself on one leg same principle applies. This is all just smoke and mirrors, you people use to decieve with.”
Gene, no disrespect but that is the opposite of centrifugal force. The fact that the weight is staying over the center point proves there is no centrifugal force on it. That’s the point!
A center line of weight does keep things upright but centrifugal force “forces” the weight to be moved from the center point – that’s the point! Ergo – Jenga!
So the question remains, what is keeping the 1,000 + mph centrifugal force at the equator from forcing the Jenga blocks to come crashing down?
What negates the centrifugal force on earth?
T8: So the lunar eclipse is not the shadow of the Earth on the moon, rather the moon which is a light turning off or kind of dimming itself. Maybe rebooting the light.
Maybe. This is what’s called a lunar wave, or pulse. Look it up on YouTube, as there are many amateur photographers who have captured them. What it is, I don’t know, but your use of the term rebooting brought it to mind…
Here’s a video that has nine of them from different photographers…
T8: Wow, Mike. That is a desperate answer. First off, you have no proof, and secondly, it is probably the best answer you could come up with if you reject the earth casting a shadow.
That the moon is its own light is a desperate answer? Rather, it is the scriptural answer. And top-down eclipses (and selenelions) are all the proof anyone needs to know it’s not the earth causing the shadow on the moon… at least on those occasions. And if not on those occasions, what valid reason do we have to believe the earth causes the shadow on any occasion?
T8: The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.
Judging from your explanation, you seem to think I’m talking about measuring the temp on a clear night versus measuring it on a cloudy night. I am not. I am talking about having one object half in direct moonlight and the other half shaded from the moonlight, and recording the different temperatures at the same time. There are hundreds of amateur experiments to choose from. This one is only a minute and a half…
Mike: Jehovah told us that He created two lights – the greater to govern the day, and the lesser to govern the night.
T8: There you go being literal again and assuming that which is not written.
Which part of my blue words above is not written?
T8: Remember though, David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the sun rises, so you have to throw out the Flat Earth model now right?
No he didn’t.
T8: And worse, while you say the creation is strictly 24 hours even though that word can mean ‘period of time’, you then say the sun is not rising or setting in that psalm. So you have to deny two meanings in one verse. The other word which you would assume means ‘west’ given your context doesn’t even mean ‘west’. This favours my argument as it means “to its setting” or “unto the going down”. Who is the sucker now? lol.
The Hebrew word “yowm” can mean EXACTLY what the English word “day” can mean. It can mean a 24 hour period. It can mean a general period of time, as in “back in the day of Abraham Lincoln”. It can mean just the 12 hour period of daylight within a 24 hour day.
But please tell me your reason for NOT considering it a 24 hour period in Genesis 1.
As for Psalm 113:3, here is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as “setting” in many English Bibles…
Strong’s Concordancemabo: entrance, a coming in, enteringOriginal Word: מָבוֹא
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: mabo
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-bo’)
Short Definition: entranceNAS Exhaustive ConcordanceWord Origin
from bo
Definition: entrance, a coming in, entering
NASB Translation
come (1), enter (1), entrance (13), entry (1), place of its setting (1), setting (5), sunset* (1), west* (1).Brown-Driver-Briggs
מָבוֺא noun masculine Jeremiah 38:14entrance, a coming in, entering;
Zechariah 8:7 NAS: and from the land of the west;
Ezekiel 46:19 NAS: Then he brought me through the entrance,
Ezekiel 33:31 NAS: to you as people come, and sit
Ezekiel 26:10 NAS: your gates as men enter a city
Does the second one mean “he brought me through the sunset”? Does the third mean, “you people – sunset and sit”? Does the fourth mean, “as men sunset a city”?
Hi Dig4,
You stand on your petty mound of intellectual superiority and hurl contempt at others.
While ignoring the weightier matters.?
T8: So does this verse not mean firmament or what. I didn’t read your post where you supposedly debunked this.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The Hebrew is, “in the face of the firmament”.
[in the open firmament of heaven] This rendering scarcely reproduces the sense of the Hebrew words, which literally mean “in the face of,” or “over against, the firmament of heaven.” The idea is that winged things are to fly “above” the earth, and “in front of” the vault of heaven. The R.V. margin, on the face of the expanse of the heaven, is cumbrous and obscure. The meaning seems to be that the flight of winged things shall be in mid air, “in front,” as it were, of the solid “firmament of heaven,” which was not remote. The winged creatures would continually be visible against the sky.
…and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the firmament.”
In the open firmament.—Literally, upon the face of the expanse of heaven—that is, in front of it, upon the lower surface of the atmosphere near to the earth.
T8: Can you not see how you have become like the Trinitarians you use to debate> Sad but true it seems.
Start with the premise and all evidence that proves the contrary is just a misinterpretation, mistranslation, fake, false, etc.
T8, how do Trinitarians become Trinitarians in the first place… in your opinion?
T8: For example, my photo of Mount Ruapehu alone debunks your quoted statement. But you will just ignore that possibility because the Earth is flat.
Interesting that you accuse me of what I see you doing. It’s obvious that you could see Mount Ruapehu with your own eyes that day, right? And it’s obvious that all of us can see Mount Ruapehu in your photograph, right? I believe that’s because you saw and photographed the actual Mount Ruapehu. But why exactly do you believe you photographed a refracted image of it instead? What is the reason you invoke refraction in this case?
T8: Those models are that, models… But knowledge increased…
When exactly was the knowledge concerning the firmament versus a vast vacuum of space first increased? And how exactly was that accomplished?
T8: Well of course it doesn’t look like that planet that NASA shows us because NASA send craft close to the subject and spend millions doing so, whereas you have to contend with atmospheric moisture, distance, and heaps of zoom on a thousand dollar video camera. If you could shoot NASA quality footage of heavenly objects in our Solar System, then why would NASA spend millions to ge the same images. lol.
You mean like this NASA quality footage?
[video width="1920" height="1080" mp4="https://heavennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-Dark-Side-of-Moon-1.mp4"][/video]
Have you ever known cloud formations to remain exactly the same for over 5 hours straight?
Gene: If actual photoes from and movie picrures from the ISS, isn’t good enough for you…
Gene, what convinced you the earth was a sphere before we had those photos and pictures from the ISS?
D4T: Here’s a thought experiment for you all, imagine a stack of Jenga blocks stacked end to end as tall as you can stack them. Now let’s place them at the equator which is spinning at 1,000+ mph.
What would happen to a stack of Jenga blocks that are stacked to the limit and then moved slightly? Well, exactly what they were designed to do – come crashing down. Any movement will topple them because it takes a lot of balance to keep them stacked.
How about these natural Jenga blocks?
Hi Dig4,
You condemn science while offering your own little scientific experiments as evidence.
When did you lose faith in what you cannot personally see?
When did suspicion start to rule you?
Hi Mike,
You have not debunked where the birds fly, not if you really look at the Hebrew. The word “Firmament” evolved from Greek influence apparently, but was not the Hebrew definition.
And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,…. On which the Spirit of God was sitting and moving, Genesis 1:2 part of which were formed into clouds, and drawn up into heaven by the force of the body of fire and light already produced; and the other part left on the earth, not yet gathered into one place, as afterwards: between these God ordered a “firmament to be”, or an “expanse” (v); something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called; seePsa 104:2 and by it is meant the air, as it is rendered by the Targum onPsalm 19:1 we call it the “firmament” from the (w) word which the Greek interpreter uses, because it is firm, lasting, and durable: and it has the name of an expanse from its wide extent, it reaching from the earth to the third heaven; the lower and thicker parts of it form the atmosphere in which we breathe; the higher and thinner parts of it, the air in which fowls fly, and the ether or sky in which the sun, moon, and stars are placed; for all these are said to be in the firmament or expanse, Genesis 1:17. These are the stories in the heavens the Scriptures speak of, Amos 9:6 and the air is divided by philosophers into higher, middle, and lower regions: and so the Targum of Jonathan places this firmament or expanse between the extremities of the heaven, and the waters of the ocean. The word in the Syriac language has the sense of binding and compressing (x); and so it is used in the Syriac version of Luke 6:38 and may denote the power of the air when formed in compressing the chaos, and dividing and separating the parts of it; and which it now has in compressing the earth, and the several parts that are in it, and by its compression preserves them and retains them in their proper places (y):
and let it divide the waters from the waters; the waters under it from those above it, as it is explained in the next verse; of which more there.
I hope that helps!
Hi Mike,
Regarding the eclipse in Dec. 2011, this site may have some answers for you. You can enter different locations and see how the animated eclipse would appear.
Here is the animated lunar eclipse of 12/2011:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa/phoenix?iso=20111210
Look how different it looked in Singapore:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/singapore/singapore?iso=20111210
So, it appears that where you are watching the lunar eclipse has much to do with how it looks.
Nick, how am I condemning science by doing “little” scientific experiments? Isn’t that kinda what science is?
But let me ask you a question; when did you loose faith in what you can see? And more importantly, when did you loose faith in what God has said is true? Was it because of what the scientists told you?
Dig….Yes, i knew what a right triangel was 0ver 60 yrs ago, and also how to figure the drop in a circles circumference also. So now that you know how to figure the pathagram theram, you should have your answer to how to figure the earths drop. Apply the math, and show your decieved friend Mike also. Do the math, it is easy, and believe the tons and tons of proofs the earth is indeed round.
Everything you people have produced has been explaind clearly by hundred of sites that debuncks everything you people say. But if God blinds a person, they will believe anything, a deluding spirit sent from God, who sends to people who love not the truth, causes them not to except the truth, no matter how much actual proof is given them.
You Flat Earthers are truly not living in reality. This whole thing is nothing but a waste of time and effort. IMO.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Gene, I’m glad you understand the calculation of the earth’s curvature. Could you then explain how the Statue of Liberty can be seen from 50-60 miles away? What is your explanation? Should it be able to be seen in the first place?
At an observer’s height of 10 feet at a distance of 60 miles the hidden curvature should be 2,100 feet! The height of the Statue of Liberty is 305 feet from the base to the top.
(Now this is simple math)
Is 2,100 larger than 305?
The height of the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft. from the base to the torch. With the pedestal and foundation included in the measurement, the full height is 305 ft.
This is called evidence and science.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
