- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Speaking of which, here’s where we are right now…
- 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?
So that’s a total of four easy-to-answer questions that should take you no time at all. Tick-tock…
D4T: It isn’t a smart projectile it’s a dumb projectile, it just goes really really fast! Where’s the curve! Huh?
And yet another great example of empirical science. I don’t know if you listen to Mark Sargent’s weekly podcast, but he has so far interviewed over a dozen military members who have hands on experience with missiles, guidance systems, submarines, and you name it… and they’re telling their own experiences of performing tasks like firing rail guns and how there is never any allotment for any curvature.
Taboo Conspiracy just posted one last week about a guided missile that traveled miles and miles above 3 feet above the ocean to hit its target. It never adjusted for any bulge in the water, and it never hit one. Only 56 seconds…
T8: 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.
So many things wrong with so much of what you said here – but I can’t touch it until you finish what’s already on your plate.
T8: 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?
Or time for you to find me the Hebrew word that actually refers to a sun “setting” or “rising”. Yeah… let’s start there. Tick-tock…
T8: Where does it say solid structure.
All throughout the scriptures and all throughout centuries of scholarly writings. The heliocentrist source I quoted for Kathi yesterday said the idea of translating raqia as “expanse” didn’t even come up until the renaissance… so about the time of Copernicus, when people first started scrambling to twist the scriptures into saying what scientism told them was the truth.
Kathi: Mike,
The firmament/raqia/expanse is “heaven/shamayim according to scripture.
Yes.
Kathi: You agree that the birds fly in the first heaven which is firmament/raqia/expanse/shamayim but you don’t realize it.
No.
Kathi: 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.
No, there is no “expanse”. There is a firmament that God created to separate the waters above (which the third heaven where God and the angels dwell still consist of) and the waters below (out of which God formed the earth). So our oceans, land masses, and air were all formed from waters that were once connected to (a part of) the waters that still exist in heaven. The firmament is the solid structure that still to this day separates our oceans, land masses, and air from the waters of heaven. It is the second heaven, with the first being the air in which birds fly, and the third being the waters above the firmament where God and the angels dwell. Birds fly in the first heaven. The sun, moon and stars are in the second. God and the angels are in the third.
Kathi: The word firmament does not mean solid, obviously birds are not flying in a solid.
Before we keep going back and forth on this issue, can you refute these points made by the heliocentrist writer I quoted yesterday…
The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
The noun raqia is derived from the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
The solid nature of the raqia is well established. It is not the result of an anti-Christian conspiracy to find errors in the Bible, but the “solid” result of scholars doing their job.
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6 extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9 firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י‘s throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 (“” הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָר Daniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
Can you refute any of those red words from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon using scripture or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
This is the bottom line of what I want to know from you and @T8:
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the earth to be stationary, and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the sun and the moon to be two different lights in the firmament? YES or NO?
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the firmament to be a solid structure that enclosed the earth as a dome, with birds flying under it, the sun, moon and stars in it, and God’s throne resting on top of it? YES or NO?
Mike,
you asked:
This is the bottom line of what I want to know from you and @t8:
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the earth to be stationary, and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the sun and the moon to be two different lights in the firmament? YES or NO?
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the firmament to be a solid structure that enclosed the earth as a dome, with birds flying under it, the sun, moon and stars in it, and God’s throne resting on top of it? YES or NO?
My response:
- I don’t know.
- I don’t know.
- No.
All of the other things you ask, including this:
According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
I have refuted this already by showing you that the birds fly in the heaven which is raqia according to Gen 1:8
6And God said, Let there be a firmament (raqia) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament (raqai), and divided the waters which were under the firmament(raqai) from the waters which were above the firmament(raqai): and it was so. 8And God called the firmament (raqai) Heaven.
Then, just a few verses later…
20And 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 (raqai) of heaven.
The word “firmament” cannot mean solid if the birds are flying IN IT.
God speaks to us from our own experience
When we say the sun rises or sets, we are describing what we perceive without any of us actually thinking that the sun literally rises or goes down. This is true of both Globe and Flat Earthers today. King David or Solomon may have thought this was literal because they saw it that way and probably just assumed that was how it actually was outside their own perception too. Through science, we know differently, but still agree it appears to do this from our perspective, hence why we still speak in these terms today.
We also know the moon is a “lesser light that dominates in the night. Through science we also know that sunlight reflects off this huge body giving us that lesser light. Did people in ancient times or antiquity look up and think that the moon was a lesser light because something else accounted for that light? Why would they think that. It took some smart people to work that one out too.
All we can take for granted in scripture is the moon is a lesser light which is exactly true from our perspective. We speak of moon light as not being as great as sunlight by reason of the brightness only. You cannot commit anymore than that regarding the origin of that light in scripture. Science of course has revealed that part to us and many other things. It is written that knowledge shall increase and men will go to and fro. A simple but accurate picture of today.
Back to the sun going down. We know it is not how it happens outside of our own perspective, yet the Bible references the going down of the sun a number of times. You can only draw two conclusions from that.
- The Bible and King David and Solomon were wrong.
- The Bible is written in a language we are familiar with and in a perspective we are familiar with.
If we go with 2), then we have to assume that God doesn’t speak literally in his language and view of everything to us, because if he did, we would not know what he was talking about. Mostly, God speaks to us from our own experiences. He reveals reality to us in a certain way filtered by the bodies he gave us. So he intended our experience to be that way, so of course he is going to relate that way to us. It doesn’t make it a lie or not true. But we will get new bodies and see clearly and not through a glass darkly anymore.
Batshit Advice
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 fruit
Be wise Mike. I am not saying this Atheist is a man to be admired or to aspire to. I am saying ignore the manner of this man and look only at this arguments against the Flat Earth and the Moon hologram etc. He is thorough in his analysis, and hence why he feels the need to insult people who haven’t grasped many of these facts.
It’s a bit like what I tell my kids. They are both footballers (soccer). While together we will analyse great players and great plays, I am always careful to also say, that I am not necessarily endorsing their lifestyle. But to only take their great success in football and look at what they did right. Ignore the part about the lamborghini and 21 girlfriends.
As a Christian, I am free to learn from anyone. And God has even used Satan to teach me some lessons in life. I am not holier than thou if you know what I mean. I take advice and lessons from all kinds of sources. Just like I can eat meat sacrificed to idols if my heart is pure and only for him.
Rail Guns and Tennis Balls
and they’re telling their own experiences of performing tasks like firing rail guns and how there is never any allotment for any curvature.
Do you take into consideration the outside air rushing past your 100 km/h speeding enclosed car as you throw a ball in the air and catch it. How come you never see people calculating anything to work out where the ball will be after 1 second or so at that speed. No, you just throw the ball as if you were standing still on Earth because both the moving car and moving earth have atmosphere that move with them.
When you can grasp this, then it seems that half your questions will simply go away.
You either cannot grasp it in which case, I would recommend changing your job here, or you can grasp it, but hate losing a debate so will ignore it because winning a debate is more important than truth. I certainly hope it is the former because the latter would not reflect that good on your character.
As for the rail gun. I am not sure how powerful it is, but it could be like any gun and gravity has an effect on projectiles that goes down to the centre of the earth. Thus the same height is measured by that direction, not a completely flat horizontal line as assumed. So it may be possible to shoot over the curve given the way gravity works.
I seem to have underestimated the power of the rail gun. Attached is the patent. Part of the patent description incorporates the nose up followed by the nose down descent. Probably needed so it won’t shoot too high and miss the target.
Mike, great diagrams of the moon’s eclipse. Yes, I listen to Mark’s videos and I enjoyed the one you posted on the railgun!
Mike and Dig, are you people still playing “here we go around the maw berry bush”. 😊
Why not just believe the tons of proof that clearly show the whole world, that the earth is indeed round.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Gene, you constantly bring up these “proofs” but fail to present it. Is there a reason for this? Are you holding back to unload an arsenal of evidence?
So go ahead and give it your best shot! Present a few of the “proofs” that you cling to.
What I can clearly see is that anytime the curve is measured – it isn’t there. Is that a “proof” according to your science?
Please, show me the curve!
Someone said:
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the earth to be stationary, and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the sun and the moon to be two different lights in the firmament? YES or NO
Did the ancient Hebrews consider the firmament to be a solid structure that enclosed the earth as a dome, with birds flying under it, the sun, moon and stars in it, and God’s throne resting on top of it? YES or NO?
My answers:
- Don’t know. Probably. It looks that way from our perspective, so it is true in that sense.
- Yes. They are two different lights. I have dozens of lights in my house, that are all powered by the same electrical source. Having the same source of energy does not negate that the lights are different. Outside I have a number of solar lights all powered by the sun.
- Don’t know. That would be assuming too much if they thought that. Genesis seems to describe what we see and experience, but what we see is not all that there is. For example ‘all that we see is made from things we cannot see’ according to scripture. Maybe through science we have discovered some of the these things we cannot see directly. Further, knowledge shall increase and as for our understanding of the universe, it is far more wonderfully made than anyone in antiquity thought. But God does that. He hides things and let’s those who seek discover his wonders.
Dig….just go look at the ISS images as it travels around our earth 27/7, i realize you people think it’s all a worls conspiracy of some kind, but you all fail to tell us what wxactly is that conspiracy, what purpose is there behinf any conspiracy theories you people saying.
Why not start there, becaus space travel has been going on sence the 60’s, thats almost 60 years ago. Enlighten us a little as to “WHAT CONSPIRACY THEORIES ” please. How could it go on for 60 years?
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
D4T: Mike, great diagrams of the moon’s eclipse. Yes, I listen to Mark’s videos and I enjoyed the one you posted on the railgun!
Thanks! 🙂 I’m also working this top-down eclipse dilemma on the Quora question answering site right now.
I want some answers, man! Lol. I finally got a chance today to listen to the interview of the guy with two Masters Degrees in physics that you sent me, and I’m currently in the middle of the one you posted a long time ago with the two NASA employees. Did you catch this week’s Globebusters? They went through that recent “20 Questions Flat Earthers Can’t Answer” video that David posted here a while back… and answered every question. It’s a 4 hour program, but well worth it… as Globebusters always is.
I’m back to 12 hour days for right now, so I’m beat by the time I get home from work. It doesn’t help that it’s been well over 100 degrees in Phoenix, and I’m outside in the direct sun for the majority of the day. But I’ll try to catch up with the thread over the weekend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
