Flat Earthers gather in New Zealand

Flat Earthers hold a conference in Auckland, with speakers from around the globe.

Flat Earth celebrities have flown across the globe to speak at the Flat Earth Expo in Auckland, New Zealand. Flat Earthers believe that we live on a flat plane rather than the accepted globe model. Flat Earthers also believe that most evidence to the contrary is controlled by a giant conspiracy of which NASA is at the forefront.

The Flat Earth model has the north pole in the centre of a flat circular disc and the South Pole as not existing at all. Instead, they believe that Antarctica is a giant encircling ice wall that hems in the world’s oceans. They point out that nearly all of us have never visited Antarctica, thus we rely on the testimony of a few who claim to have visited the frozen continent, and who are mostly lying to us and are part of the conspiracy. Flat Earthers are quick to point out that it is illegal to visit Antarctica. Whether this is true or not, the fact is, it is illegal to do a number of things in any protected wilderness areas of the world of which Antarctica is a special one.

This conference in Auckland comes with a huge opportunity. Flat Earthers flying to New Zealand from the Northern Hemisphere have a unique opportunity to prove to themselves that the Earth is not flat and instead the mostly accepted globe. They only need to travel via South America to New Zealand and note the hours spent getting there will be way less than their Flat Earth model would have you believe. You see, the Flat Earth disc with no south pole has New Zealand, Australia, South America, and Africa many times apart in distance from each other as the globe suggests, simply because, instead of reducing down to a single point we call the South Pole, the area of land in the Southern Hemisphere expands out to the giant ice wall circumference of the whole disc. This projection is similar to how we view Canada, Russia, or even Antarctica on most world maps where they are many times larger on these maps than they are in reality . This is because maps have difficulty projecting a 3D globe onto their 2D canvas. In essence, the Flat Earth model is a 2D construct as it is a flat surface albeit disc shape, so it has the Southern Hemisphere as being much larger in area than it really is.

Sitting in an isolated spot in the Southern Hemisphere, New Zealand gives these Flat Earthers travelling to Auckland the unique opportunity to debunk their own belief. But how many will actually test this out? I am thinking perhaps a few, but most of these guys will just be looking forward to rubbing shoulders with their Flat Earth brothers when they get here and on-route looking out toward the flat horizon because they are simply not flying high enough to see the curve.

Viewing 20 posts - 601 through 620 (of 6,414 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #825921
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Nick: “The creation of light and darkness in Gen 1.3 does not need a created sun. You do not need the Sun to have light. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. 1jn 1.5 And at the end there will be no need for a sun because God gives light. Is 60.19, Rev 22.5”

     

     

    Nick, I couldn’t have said it better. I even tried before I read this post.

    God is light. What that means is beyond my pay grade but I do acknowledge it! Thanks for pointing it out in such an “enlightening” way!

    Shalom

     

    #825922
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    I’m glad we are talking about Genesis because this seems to be one of the main reasons for believing in a Flat Earth. I believe that Genesis doesn’t rule out either model and if I or we can prove this, then it will boil down solely to science.

    This discussion needs to take place here because the focus of these forums is scripture and the Flat Earth is a theory that needs to be tested. But science is good too. Science means knowledge and knowledge is important.

    #825923
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    What are the heavens that God created in the beginning if it doesn’t include stars? Anyone?

    #825924
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Nick:  You have not explained what is scripturally meant by pillars.

    When the prophet Samuel says, For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them”, is there any reason for me to assume something other than the normal definition of pillar?  If so, what is that reason?

    #825925
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Nick: LU has shown a possible spiritual meaning for pillars

    and we know light and darkness have spiritual meanings so perhaps so has firmament?

    No doubt there are countless spiritual meanings behind much that is said in the scriptures.  But take the tree of life, for instance.  Is there any valid reason to think it wasn’t a real tree in the Garden of Eden?  I mean, it could be a spiritual metaphor instead of a real tree – if someone had a desire to consider it as such.  But is there any valid reason to do so?  I find none.  Likewise, I find no valid reason to consider the pillars of the earth, upon which God set the world, to have anything other than the normal everyday meaning of pillars.  If you have a valid reason to consider the tree of life or the pillars God set the world upon spiritual metaphors, let’s hear that reason.

    #825926
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Mike:  Nick, does scripture say God set the earth on pillars?  A simply yes or no will suffice, but I already know to expect some snarky condescending comment or another question instead of an answer.

     

    Nick:  Your definition of firmament included the floor of the earth.

    but your picture only showed a glassy roof?

    What gives?

    Can I call it or what?  🙂  What’s this now, the 4th question or the 5th, while still waiting for the simple yes or no from you?  Oh well, that has been your way since I’ve known you, and I’m very used to it by now.

    Nothing gives.  Did you read the origin of the word “firmament” that I posted for you?  It fits both the firm support of the floor of the earth, and the firm support of the molten glass that separates the waters above from the waters below.  The Hebrew word for both is raqia…

     

    Brown-Driver-Briggs

    רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳רEzekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμαᵑ9firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —

    1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347Ezekiel 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 itGenesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 (“” הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִםGenesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺPsalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).

    Pay attention to the words I made green.  And feel free to add your input to these things in a normal, respectable, discussion-like manner.

     

    #825927
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    t8: “What are the heavens that God created in the beginning if it doesn’t include stars? Anyone?”

     

     

     

    It does include the stars but not until day 4. Would there not be a need for an expanse (firmament) to place the stars in before the stars were created?

     

     

    #825928
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Nick, here’s one of the scriptures highlighted in my last post…

    Ezekiel 1

    22And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other…:

    26And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

    So the winged creatures were just below the firmament, while God’s sapphire throne sat on top of it.  Now compare…

    Exodus 24:10

    And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in clearness.

    A paved work of sapphire stone under God’s feet is compared to the body of heaven?  What is the body of heaven? Now compare…

    Genesis 1:8

    And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

    It seems to me the “body of heaven” is the firmament, which is a solid object that the winged creatures were beneath, while God’s throne and feet rest upon it from above.

     

    #825929
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Kathi:  t8, I get that. I have a problem with Mike calling Sagan a liar. Neil doesn’t call him a liar. Sagan was actually on to the truth and could have used a third well to satisfy the theory. Neil goes on to satisfy the theory of a spherical earth anyway through the rest of the video.

    I enjoyed watching you two work together to answer all the questions you were asking me.  🙂  I didn’t call Sagan a liar, but instead pointed out that he clearly told millions something that wasn’t true, ie: a lie.  Eratosthenes lived in the 3rd century BC, when the entire world considered the earth to be flat and stationary with a local sun, moon, and stars that moved around them in a solid dome-like firmament.  In that kind of world, the difference in the shadows is easily explained… and in fact exactly what one would expect.  So if the shadows matched exactly what one would expect on a flat earth with a local sun, how in the heck did this guy use those expected results to conclude something completely different?

     

    Can you see that something’s just not right with this story?  As if seeing shadows that everyone already expected caused Eratosthenes to all of a sudden say, “Hey, the sun’s not close by, but millions of miles away… which means the earth is a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference!”

     

     

    #825930
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Dig4truth

    you said:

    Actually Mike didn’t call anyone a liar, he said that the conclusion was a lie.

     

    Mike:  “But in 1980, Carl Sagan told millions of TV viewers that the difference Eratosthenes recorded in the shadows could ONLY happen on a ball. And those people and their kids have been repeating this lie ever since.”

    I think you missed this part:

    Mike said

    “I just pieced together a 1 minute video that shows Sagan lying, and Tyson telling the truth…”

    #825931
    Lightenup
    Participant

    I just saw this…unbelievable response from Mike regarding the Christian astronaut that lives on the space station for months at a time and said the earth is round.

    Mike’s partial post:

    miia:  Hey LU, I saw that video of the Christian who went to space, but quickly discounted it because anyone can claim to be a Christian (you must have googled the same as me: Christian astronauts).

    2 Corintians 11:13-15

    For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

    Mike were you calling the astronaut a servant of satan?

    #825932
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike were you calling the astronaut a servant of satan?

    Imagine being that guy.

    What do you do for a living ?

    I’m a satanist astronaut.

    What exactly is that?

    Oh, I just fake spacewalks and stuff.

    #825933
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    Do you realize that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a globe guy?

    #825934
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    you said:

    I didn’t call Sagan a liar

    Yet you said this:

    “I just pieced together a 1 minute video that shows Sagan lying, and Tyson telling the truth…”

    #825935
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8:  …isn’t the point that the third well proves the sphere earth and thus Sagan was right about the sphere earth?

    If a third well could prove a sphere (it can’t), then why in 2000 years has nobody done it?

    #825936
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8: Hey Mike, I found a competing photo to my one, so mine is not so special after all. I feel sad now.

    Yours is way better… especially for my purposes.  I will be using it in a video soon.

    #825937
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    If a third well could prove a sphere (it can’t), then why in 2000 years has nobody done it?

    Tyson laid his cards on the table and basically said something that anyone can prove.  Pretty sure if this was a load of crock that he wouldn’t mention something that is easily testable.

    You say why hasn’t anyone tried it. My answer is who knows how many people have tried it. It looks very simple and something that would for example be a good exercise to do in a science class at school. I might mention it to my son as a possible experiment he can do at school. And surely the fact that this is easy to do means the chances are it has been done heaps, However, I do not know anyone personally that has performed this and neither do I know of anyone in the world who has done this. But then, on a planet containing 7-8 billion or whatever, then I cannot say for sure that not one person has ever performed this experiment and it is unlikely that no  one has ever performed it, especially given this video probably got international coverage.

    Here is a web page outlining how to perform the experiment.
    https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct2.html

    #825938
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Right t8, a worthy profession…a satanist astronaut…NOT!

    Here is the CHRISTIAN astronaut with many pictures of the curved earth from the space station. He mentions what it was like to spend Christmas day up there directly over Israel, he talks about the LORD. We need more videos of him on here.

    #825940
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike, I think that Sagan and others assumed the Flat Earth view still had the sun as distant like the Globe Earth model. If so, then are there any lies here?

    Can you show me where Sagan assumed a close earth in the Flat Earth model?

    Also, in ancient times, did they believe sun is a rotating 32 miles sphere located about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth?

    I tend to agree that a close small sun would produce similar shadow angles in both models, but here is a question that you may know the answer to. Are the shadows exactly the same angle for both models. That is:

    1) A flat earth disk with a rotating 32 miles spherical sun located about 3000 miles above;
    2) A globe earth with a diameter at around 4000 miles going around the sun 29 million miles away that has a diameter of 864,938 miles?

    If they are, it seems like a coincidence. If not, then this experiment would be easy to do for many people. Like I said, a good exercise for students to do as a project, or for laymen to do to prove it for themselves. Most people won’t do it because they have little reason to doubt the globe earth.

    #825941
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Thanks for the video on those Christian astronauts. Interesting thing is, you never really hear about Christian Evolutionists, although knowing how crazy this world is there are probably a few.

    Mike, why are there Christian astronauts who concur with the current scientific view? They have a testimony and it is not very polite to write them all off as liars and workers of deceit surely.

Viewing 20 posts - 601 through 620 (of 6,414 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account