- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 23 hours ago by
.
- Posts
T8: If [the lunar wave] is legit, it could be interference of some kind. Interference takes place in the atmosphere. Could also be the video software… Could be heatwave between the camera and moon or maybe it is similar to the background radiation you see on an old TV set.
Looks to me like an electromagnetic pulse… like somebody set off a high altitude EMP bomb, and we’re seeing the shock wave as it passes in front of the moon. I have no point to make about the lunar waves because I don’t know enough about them. I only brought it up because you made me think of it when you mentioned (sarcastically) that maybe the moon reboots. Maybe it does. Enoch says it does – in so many words – so maybe your sarcastic comment is actually accurate.
T8: As for the moon, yes your answer is desperate because a large body that reflects light is still a light. It doesn’t have to be the source of the light to be a light.
Okay… now we’re getting somewhere.
- Do you think my understanding of the sun as its own light source is also “desperate”?
- If not, what makes my understanding of the moon as its own light source “desperate”?
- What scriptural reason do you offer for understanding the sun as its own light source, and the moon as an object that merely reflects the sun’s light?
And I still want a DIRECT and HONEST answer to the following…
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.
Mike: Which part of my blue words above is not written?
T8, I completely understand your reasoning that an object which reflects another’s light can still be considered a “light”. I understand that, and have asked three questions above to glean some more info about that. So I don’t need you to repeat that in various different wordings. I just want a simple, straightforward, honest answer to the bolded blue question above. Thanks.
I take it we are going to ignore the log (videos on previous page) and concentrate on the specks,
Dig, the answer is the same for the projectile gun.
Everything we think is straight including the ground is slightly curved, but not enough to notice.
The atmosphere revolves with the Earth.
So travel for long enough and you go over a notable curve. But only noticeable if you measure because it is a very big curve.
Remember, an eternal circle is a straight line. So a really big circle is also a straight line from our perspective.
There is no workable Flat Earth model that the airline or satellite industries can use.
Remember, when you fly in a plane, calculations are done based on a globe.
For that reason, I would not fly with Flat Earth Airways. That airline would gain altitude and then head for outer space if they travelled in a straight line. Of course the reality is they wouldn’t because the plane wouldn’t have what it takes to reach orbit.
Kathi: Birds DO fly in the expanse/firmament. The expanse stretches from the earth to the end of outer space wherever that is.
Mike, God called the “raqia” “shamayim” therefore…raqia = shamayim (Gen 1:8). Now all I have to do is show you that birds fly IN the shamayim and this discussion is over and you need to admit that birds do indeed fly IN the firmament/expanse/raqia/shamayim.
Now you’re making the same mistake Gill made in that excerpt you posted. How many heavens are there? Three. Birds fly in the first heaven. The sun, moon and stars are in the second heaven (the firmament). And God resides in the third heaven. It is never said that birds fly in the firmament, and now that you realize you were wrong about Gen 1:20, you’re reaching.
Besides, as I said in my last post, from the moment you said these words…
I can understand how the ancient people would perceive that there must be something solid to hold up the water above the expanse and that the earth was flat. That was then, this is now after much evidence to the contrary.
… the debate was already over. That’s why I said in that last post…
Okay, we can agree that the ancient cultures, including the Hebrews, perceived the firmament as something solid, and the earth as flat with sun, moon, and stars orbiting it overhead. And since that is the case, isn’t it more likely that the people from that ancient Hebrew culture who described these things in the scriptures described them as they perceived them? And while that makes the rest of your points null and void, I will address them nonetheless…
So if the ancient cultures, including the Hebrews who wrote the scriptures, perceived the firmament as solid and the earth as fixed on pillars with luminaries orbiting it overhead, then that would be the perception they conveyed in the scriptures they wrote. You can say they were wrong and that we know better today… but you can’t honestly say that these people, who believed the firmament was solid, wrote a scripture that says birds fly in that solid firmament. And you can’t honestly say that they conveyed the firmament as an “expanse”, because you have already agreed with all the scholars that they believed the firmament was a solid structure that separates the waters of heaven from the sky where the birds fly, and in which the sun, moon, and stars carried out their prescribed orbits.
Here’s another snippet from that BioLogos author who believes wholeheartedly in the secular heliocentric cosmological model…
To make a distinction between what ancient texts say and what it is presumed people actually thought is hard to justify. The only reason to argue this way is because it is already concluded that the biblical description of the sky and modern scientific observations cannot be fundamentally at odds.
That’s what you guys are doing. You think you know today how the world is, and you recognize that the Bible describes it completely differently. And so you are trying your best to force the Bible into describing it the way you think it is – because you can’t stand for the scriptures to conflict with the “truth” of how scientism has described our world. Okay @T8, pay attention here…
But this logic cannot be pressed very far, even within Genesis 1. For example, are we to say that the Israelites actually knew better than to think that the moon was a “lesser light to govern the night” (v. 16) corresponding to the light-giving sun, the “greater light to govern the day”? Did they look up and think, “Well it looks like the moon is a light-producing body that gives off less light than the sun, but something else probably accounts for its light. Let’s just call the moon a ‘lesser light’ without committing ourselves to making any pronouncement on reality.”
It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true…
The arguments for a non-solid raqia can only gain traction by swimming against the strong current of what we know of the ancient world.
https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point
So I understand what you guys are doing by trying to force the scriptures to say the sun “rises” and “sets”, and by trying to force them to say birds fly “in” the raqia. And I understand why you are doing it. But it will never work, because the Spirit-inspired writers of scripture (and God Himself) described the world as they believed it to truly be. That description is at odds with the scientism description we’ve all been indoctrinated into our entire lives. We just have to decide who will be our ultimate authority… God and those He inspired to write the scriptures? Or godless men whose purpose all along has been to separate us from God, and convince people that we are insignificant accidents on an insignificant little rock in the midst of trillions of other insignificant little rocks just like us in a vast emptiness of a universe that accidentally created itself from nothing, and for no reason.
D4T: Can you put those arguments into your own words…
That’s exactly what I was going to say, D. Instead of continually posting hours of videos that “debunk everything any flat earth has ever said in the history of the world”, T8 needs to pick what he thinks is the best VERIFIABLE argument made in any of these videos, and lay it on us. Then we can discuss it in our own words.
Anyway, I have to stop for the night, and will try to catch up on your posts tomorrow.
How many heavens are there? Three.
Paul was caught up to the Third Heaven. That doesn’t mean there are only three. To say it does, is to assume he was taken to the highest heaven.
That’s what you guys are doing. You think you know today how the world is, and you recognize that the Bible describes it completely differently
Yes what is it with this. The sun sets in scripture and in the Flat Earth model, the sun doesn’t set. Time for a new model to agree with scripture right?
So if the ancient cultures, including the Hebrews who wrote the scriptures, perceived the firmament as solid and the earth as fixed on pillars with luminaries orbiting it overhead, then that would be the perception they conveyed in the scriptures they wrote. You can say they were wrong and that we know better today… but you can’t honestly say that these people, who believed the firmament was solid, wrote a scripture that says birds fly in that solid firmament. And you can’t honestly say that they conveyed the firmament as an “expanse”, because you have already agreed with all the scholars that they believed the firmament was a solid structure that separates the waters of heaven from the sky where the birds fly, and in which the sun, moon, and stars carried out their prescribed orbits.
Where does it say solid structure. Is it near the verse that says Jesus has a double edged sword (metal sword) coming from his mouth? That is what is written right?
If Jesus comes back not with a metal sword coming form his mouth, then the Bible is wrong?
Please, some common sense is in order.
So I understand what you guys are doing by trying to force the scriptures to say the sun “rises” and “sets”, and by trying to force them to say birds fly “in” the raqia.
Well yes, it is no secret we are pointing out the cherry picking nature of when you can take something literal vs using something as a model to describe something else.
If you set a rule, then it applies to you too. If you fail your own rule, then you need to go back to the drawing board right?
If the sun circuits on a Flat Earth is the only explanation as to how the sun circuits, then when it sets, the Flat Earth model fails.
Can you put those arguments into your own words…
Can’t you put them into your own words? Or you prefer others to do it for you? Who has the time to convert this whole topic into our own words?
Further, it is not about debating skills with the one having the best skills wins. It is about the truth winning, no matter which side we fall on. So a clear video with evidence should be acceptable. The videos are clear for all to see. Clearer than anyone of us can explain it.
But yes, lots of questions, so I don’t mind picking one question out of the first video for now.
Mike,
The firmament/raqia/expanse is “heaven/shamayim according to scripture. You agree that the birds fly in the first heaven which is firmament/raqia/expanse/shamayim but you don’t realize it. All the layers of heaven in between the waters on earth and the waters above the expanse are in what you translate as firmament, Mike. The birds indeed fly in the firmament. The word firmament does not mean solid, obviously birds are not flying in a solid.
Furthermore, I do not think the sky appears solid. I can see how the ancient people thought that there was a barrier and possibly a very thin barrier to keep the water above the expanse from spilling into the expanse and that the barrier is much farther than the stars are.
Why is your barrier, that keeps out the water above the expanse, so thick that it must encompass the entire outer space. Why isn’t it a thin barrier that encapsulates the created dimension?
If your sun, moon and stars are in a solid dome, how are they moving around the earth?
Mike, and all,
Will you all post a response to the OP in the “2 Commandment…” topic? Thanks in advance!
You don’t have to post more than once if you don’t want, just answer the OP, ok??? Pleeeeeease!
T8: “Everything we think is straight including the ground is slightly curved, but not enough to notice. The atmosphere revolves with the Earth. So travel for long enough and you go over a notable curve. But only noticeable if you measure because it is a very big curve. Remember, an eternal circle is a straight line. So a really big circle is also a straight line from our perspective. There is no workable Flat Earth model that the airline or satellite industries can use. Remember, when you fly in a plane, calculations are done based on a globe. For that reason, I would not fly with Flat Earth Airways. That airline would gain altitude and then head for outer space if they travelled in a straight line. Of course the reality is they wouldn’t because the plane wouldn’t have what it takes to reach orbit.”
I’m not sure you understand what “line of sight” means. Anyway, you are correct that the curve should be noticable if you measure it. The “measurable” curve would be over 6,600 feet for the rail gun’s range. Do you think it is reasonable to hit a target over a mile of curvature when the projectile goes in a straight line? Keep in mind that the speed at which the projectile travels is way faster than the supposed spin of the earth or the atmosphere that it cuts thru to hit the target.
That’s what you guys are doing. You think you know today how the world is, and you recognize that the Bible describes it completely differently. And so you are trying your best to force the Bible into describing it the way you think it is – because you can’t stand for the scriptures to conflict with the “truth” of how scientism has described our world. Okay @t8, pay attention here…
All your doing is trying to prove the Bible is wrong whether you realise it or not.
The sun doesn’t actually set in the Flat Earth model, and the sun doesn’t circuit in the globe earth model according to you. So no matter what, the Bible is incorrect in either view. Congratulations Mike, good work. I can close down Heaven Net.
But wait. The sun does circuit and go down from our perspective, so it is true after all.
Your logic and judgement when applied to your own theory fails, whereas the way we read scripture, we see harmony with observations from space and with mathematics.
Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of all scientists saw reality in scientific observations, mathematics, and scripture. I do too. You do not, and even your own theory fails the literal test.
When you can come up with a workable model that is not a globe earth and can still make reliable predictions, then I might take you half seriously. At this point, one thing will remain. To get photos and videos of the disk, and then we can call into question all the globe earth photos and videos as well as the whole satellite industry.
Dig said: I’m not sure you understand what “line of sight” means. Anyway, you are correct that the curve should be noticable if you measure it. The “measurable” curve would be over 6,600 feet for the rail gun’s range. Do you think it is reasonable to hit a target over a mile of curvature when the projectile goes in a straight line? Keep in mind that the speed at which the projectile travels is way faster than the supposed spin of the earth or the atmosphere that it cuts thru to hit the target.
I am not sure you are paying attention because the answer is going to be the same answer I have given in the past. At this stage I might need you to confirm you understand the following in bold. And if you confirm that, then just apply that to your own question.If I was on a motorbike throwing a ball and trying to catch it, then the chances are, I will not catch the ball because the atmosphere is not moving in relative terms with myself. But if I was inside a car doing the same thing, then I could easily catch the ball multiple times because the atmosphere I am in is contained in the car and only the atmosphere outside the car is moving in relation to me. Now think of the Earth as that car and outside that car as outer space, (not an exact representation I know). So the atmosphere is contained with the Earth. Thus, whether I was standing on a moving Earth or sitting in a moving car, I will be able to catch the ball multiple times in the same fashion.Now apply this truth to the rail gun. It may well travel further than the curvature or not but it doesn’t matter. Gravity will see that the bullets follow the earth’s curvature as if it were a straight line because the measurement is taken from the earth’s centre to the bullet at each step. Of course, the curvature of the Earth is like an eternal straight line from our very limited perspective anyway, so this is where you confusion creeps in. What you are assuming would happen on a curved earth is the bullet takes off in a straight line thus eventually heading into orbit or that it has no chance of hitting a target beyond the horizon. Of course the reality is gravity is forcing the bullet toward the centre of the Earth at all times and once momentum is being lost it will increasingly head in that direction till it hits a target like a bullseye, Kim Jong-un or the earth.This reminds me of the idea that a person lost in a desert of flat plain will eventually move in a circle without realising it. The bullet moves in a curve that follows the earth if it is perfect orbit. It will fall short of that curve if momentum is not fast enough to escape earth’s gravity but will eventually go into space if its momentum is greater than earth’s gravity so the curve is greater than the earth’s curvature. All this is basic knowledge.GoFundMe Idea #1
Seriously guys. Instead of trying to indirectly put the Bible into disrepute, why not start a GoFundMe page for the following mission.
Hire an aircraft that can carry lots of fuel along with a pilot. Fill the plane with Flat Earthers equipped with video cameras. Go to Christchurch in New Zealand where most aircraft takes off when visiting Antarctica, and head off to Antarctica and just keep going. Make sure the souls aboard are brave. Try to do a live feed if possible via YouTube. The plane might need a radar or some kind of sensor that will pick up the dome when approaching. If it picks it up, fly close and get videos of it. Then fly back. Mission accomplished.
If however, no dome is detected and you fly from one coast to another, you land in Capetown South Africa and will then have the answer and again, mission accomplished. You will then know that Antarctica is continent as we knew all along.
If you are afraid that the plane will crash into the dome and thus there will be no proof because you will not return, then send two planes. One at a long distance ahead, but within line of sight. If the first plane bursts into a flames, then it probably hit something that could be a dome. Turn the second plane around or go closer but not as far as the first place travelled and get footage, then return. If you think no Flat Earther is going to enter the first plane, then put Globe Earthers in there. Many will volunteer to see the wonders of the Antarctica including myself, so long as the pilot is a reputable one. You could even charge a ticket price to fund the first plane and include a complimentary glass of wine and caviar. Seriously, how much would this cost? Probably less than trying to send a rocket into space perhaps because you are not trying to escape earth’s orbit.
But you will say that no one can go there because it is patrolled. Well that would be good too. You would get footage of some of the 10,000 or so patrol boats and if you keep filming with GoPros, you may be asked to turn around and land somewhere and then you would have filmed some of the staff who work to keep the true nature of Antarctica hidden.
How about it? Sounds like a winwin to me. And how many Flat Earthers are there in the world? Millions as this community seems to suggest. $5 each then to get the answer.
Kathi: If the moon had its own light, an eclipse would not be able to take it away but when the moon is fully in the solar eclipse or fully in the lunar eclipse stage, the moon’s surface that faces the earth is completely dark for a relatively short time.
Kathi, as for your full lunar eclipse point, I made some new diagrams of the top-down eclipse I witnessed in January. In this first one, you can see what I should have observed. The earth comes between the sun and the moon, and its shadow starts to be cast from the bottom of the moon towards the top – as more and more of the moon slinks into the earth’s shadow…
But this next one is what I and thousands of others actually witnessed…
Can you see that there is simply no way the shadow from the earth could first appear on the top of the moon, and the move progressively downwards? It absolutely MUST occur on the lowest part of the moon first, and then move progressively upwards as the moon moves farther and farther into the earths shadow. That is how timeanddate.com shows it, and how every astronomy site in the world shows it…
Notice how the lit part is on top, while the bottom gets shadowed by the earth. I and many others documented the exact opposite of that. And on this one…
…notice how the red part is on the bottom, while it’s brighter on the top. I and many others documented the exact opposite of that. I have photos and video of the moon being red on top, while the bottom is bright white. Compare my “What I Actually Observed” image above to the timeanddate images of what we should see. Are you finally beginning to understand the glaring dilemma here?
As for your other point, solar eclipses only occur during new moons, when the moon isn’t lit up in the first place. So if it is the moon passing in front of the sun that causes the eclipse, there’s no reason we should expect to see the moon lit up, when it wasn’t lit up before it passed in front of the sun.
The answer to your post above Mike could be in this video.
Please ignore the insults and glean out the facts.
T8: Pay attention Dig. I said to ignore the insults…
So you have one compilation where we have to ignore the insults, and another compilation called “WORLD OF BATSHIT”? Jesus said we would know them by their fruits. Maybe you could find some sources that display better fruit. But that’s up to you. I’m not watching any more of your videos anyway, because I tried to have a point-by-point discussion of the very first one you and Anthony presented on this thread, and you two couldn’t even stick around long enough to finish the discussion on the very first globe “proof” in that very first video. Remember? It had to do with Eratosthenes. And you couldn’t bring yourself to admit the FACT that there is no possible way to determine the shape of the earth (let alone its circumference) from two shadows. I even posted a video of your poster boy Neil DeGrasse saying exactly that – but you still wouldn’t acknowledge the fact so we could move on to the next point in the video.
And this has been your M-O for the entire thread. Sad, really. You’ve hurled a whole bunch of ridicule, accusations, and insults at us – but you can’t seem to actually follow any given point through to its logical and empirical conclusion. And so now, I have to just keep repeating questions from 10 pages ago – over and over again – until you (hopefully) finally give a DIRECT and HONEST answer to them. Time will tell, because I’m not going to stop until you either kick me off the forum, pretend I’m not here (like Gene and Nick have done 😀 ), or answer those questions in an honest and straightforward manner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
