FLAT EARTH
- Thread starter mcubed
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
It is a subject that was beat to death, over and over, before you even joined. So it's not like you're bringing anything that hasn't already been said repeatedly.
And people could say the same about you, that nothing they say will convince you to look at things differently. I watch these threads spin in circles, both providing scientific and historic data to prove their points. Neither having any intention on hearing. Most flat earthers accuse people that don't believe of being closed minded, but they blatantly reject anything that counters their belief as well. No one is willing to change, on either side.
Ultimately, whether we believe the earth is round or flat, God is still God and in control. Salvation comes through Him and Him alone. The rest is irrelevant.
And people could say the same about you, that nothing they say will convince you to look at things differently. I watch these threads spin in circles, both providing scientific and historic data to prove their points. Neither having any intention on hearing. Most flat earthers accuse people that don't believe of being closed minded, but they blatantly reject anything that counters their belief as well. No one is willing to change, on either side.
Ultimately, whether we believe the earth is round or flat, God is still God and in control. Salvation comes through Him and Him alone. The rest is irrelevant.
S
You're right.
It does become argumentative. We both may be wanting to be right, and neither of us wants to "change."
You do have to realize something. All flat earthers at one point were globers. WE have changed already and we are just trying to show our brothers what we have seen.
Thats all really.
I know, we sound crazy, obsessed, and delusional. But we are actually sane human beings trying to share some eye opening stuff.
I know both sides have their evidence, you said it yourself. There is a big difference though... the evidence that we have found, we can test at home.
This with along other associated things about the subject lead us to do what we do.
It does become argumentative. We both may be wanting to be right, and neither of us wants to "change."
You do have to realize something. All flat earthers at one point were globers. WE have changed already and we are just trying to show our brothers what we have seen.
Thats all really.
I know, we sound crazy, obsessed, and delusional. But we are actually sane human beings trying to share some eye opening stuff.
I know both sides have their evidence, you said it yourself. There is a big difference though... the evidence that we have found, we can test at home.
This with along other associated things about the subject lead us to do what we do.
J
That's because it's "apart of serving God" being unshaken when people come striving to have us doubt God's word,satellites and things of a worldy nature aren't to be a child of God's focus,are focus is to "Trust" God/Jesus and do right by him,no interpretation of God's word is perfect from a lamen's point of view,but the point is to let the holy spirit guide us to what is right,not people,not images,I have been very analytical too but have realized "serving God" isn't about finding "the truth" it's about "accepting the truth" Jesus Christ.
This world has many secrets true enough but,our focus ought to be upon "spreading God's word" and "helping others come to God" not contemplating each and every creation,there's a point in time where you have to just "believe" instead of figuring out God's word yourself,and even then there are mysteries but,our first concern is to share "what we do know" not what we "think we know",and trust God/Jesus for "answers" because "people" will give you lies and seek you to become foolish,or give truth but then want something in return,God/Jesus gives "wisdom" freely to those that seek it and are humble with him.
This world has many secrets true enough but,our focus ought to be upon "spreading God's word" and "helping others come to God" not contemplating each and every creation,there's a point in time where you have to just "believe" instead of figuring out God's word yourself,and even then there are mysteries but,our first concern is to share "what we do know" not what we "think we know",and trust God/Jesus for "answers" because "people" will give you lies and seek you to become foolish,or give truth but then want something in return,God/Jesus gives "wisdom" freely to those that seek it and are humble with him.
Kreis has multiple meanings. Primarily it means "sphere"
Other meanings include: circle, circuit, cycle, district, ward, constituency, and round
But you see, with how translating works you look at the original text(or in this case copies of original text), where we see the Hebrew word "Khug" and we compare it's meaning to words in the language in which we are translating that most closely equates the same abstract meaning.
"Khug" literally meaning "sphere", therefore the meaning of the German word "Kreis" contextually, logically, and genuinely must also mean "sphere". This is not complicated. The original word means "sphere" translating into different languages the words mean "sphere", yet you still argue for a flat Earth model, that not only contradicts all known scientific data, but primarily contradicts the very words of the Bible, which testifies to us as being "G-D breathed".
In conclusion: your scholarship is poor, your level of theological study is called into question, and your standing in direct-blatant-willful contradiction of irrefutable scientific and biblical facts leaves you with no credibility to your claims.
Other meanings include: circle, circuit, cycle, district, ward, constituency, and round
But you see, with how translating works you look at the original text(or in this case copies of original text), where we see the Hebrew word "Khug" and we compare it's meaning to words in the language in which we are translating that most closely equates the same abstract meaning.
"Khug" literally meaning "sphere", therefore the meaning of the German word "Kreis" contextually, logically, and genuinely must also mean "sphere". This is not complicated. The original word means "sphere" translating into different languages the words mean "sphere", yet you still argue for a flat Earth model, that not only contradicts all known scientific data, but primarily contradicts the very words of the Bible, which testifies to us as being "G-D breathed".
In conclusion: your scholarship is poor, your level of theological study is called into question, and your standing in direct-blatant-willful contradiction of irrefutable scientific and biblical facts leaves you with no credibility to your claims.
S
1. I never claimed to be a scholar, much less a theologian.
2. My forte is in the scientific and technical fields, I am a PE. All of the claims I have made can be supported through math, observation or both.
3. Since when do people agree on biblical interpretations?
4. Again, Mainstream science should be questioned.
S
I want to share what I posted on another thread, it might be relevant.
"I understand why Christians can easily believe that evolution is a farce; that is mainly because the bible is very clear and literal about the creation of man. Most people will not argue against this.
Now, I believe the bible is also quite literal when it comes to describing the structure of the earth. I also believe that these descriptions are in the word because of the deception that God had foreseen.
Just humor me for a minute here...
In Genesis 2:7, the narrative tells us that God formed man literally from dust, breathed the breath of life into the nostrils, and that dust became a living being.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Just as this statement is literal, so would this passage from psalms 148:4 describing part of the structure in which we live in.
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
This is literally saying that there are waters above the heavens correct? If we can agree that man was literally created from dust, and live was breathed on him, then we can also say that this passage literally states water to be above the heavens.
Now, just like the evolution theory disregards completely that man was initially created in the image of God himself, the modern globe agenda does the same thing. Science does not acknowledge there to be water ABOVE the heavens.
Psalms is not the only passage that supports this view.
Genesis 1:6 tells us that God set the firmament to divide the waters from the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
We all know that in the beginning the earth was void and without form, also that the land and the waters were not separate, everything was sort of all over the place, until of course our wonderful God brought everything into order. This proves that the genesis 1:6 account is part of the creation and part of the structure which we live in.
If all of these accounts are true, then why has not science told us that there is a firmament keeping the heavenly waters out?
Just like evolution tells us we came from a fish or monkey, the globe model tells us we live in a spinning ball, floating in the universe, protected by a fragile and thin atmosphere.
The bible literally tells us that the earth is standing on fixed pillars as see in the 1 Samuel 2:8 passage
8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them
Let's look at an other similar passage that mention the pillars...
Job 9:6
6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.
So this is what I believe to be biblical proof of the motionless, enclosed earth system....
The globe system is very different from any of these literal accounts right out of the word of our Lord God Jesus Christ and creator."
P
There is absolutely no reason to interpret this figuratively, unless you were trying to force it to match what "science" claims. A literal interpretation disproves the globe, so the deceived rationalize that "it's impossible to be literal, it must be figurative because science has told me so and science can't possibly be wrong because of those videos, images, and honest smiling worldly authority figures".
They do the same with the word for "circle", a discussion you also had on this thread or the other. They claim both sphere and circle are possible interpretations, and even though those that translated The Bible hundreds of years ago decided that the context and meaning better fit circle, they now claim "sphere" is correct, because to hell with context and meaning, because science confirms the proper interpretation for us!
They do the same with the word for "circle", a discussion you also had on this thread or the other. They claim both sphere and circle are possible interpretations, and even though those that translated The Bible hundreds of years ago decided that the context and meaning better fit circle, they now claim "sphere" is correct, because to hell with context and meaning, because science confirms the proper interpretation for us!
P
That photo is from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
Watch the video, is it plain as day the entire video was "tweaked" too?
If it's plain as day, it must be very easy for you to explain the "tweaking". The only reason it's plain as day to you is that the video and image would make your current beliefs impossible. Someone must have tweaked it not because there is evidence of that, but what it represents is "impossible" so it has to be tweaked or else it would challenge your beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
Watch the video, is it plain as day the entire video was "tweaked" too?
If it's plain as day, it must be very easy for you to explain the "tweaking". The only reason it's plain as day to you is that the video and image would make your current beliefs impossible. Someone must have tweaked it not because there is evidence of that, but what it represents is "impossible" so it has to be tweaked or else it would challenge your beliefs.
Last edited:
S
Watch the link of the video of which I took a screen shot.
No edit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
S
You are absolutely right.
It can definitely be a reverse fish eye..
Except that when there is turbulence, the frame remains distortion free, unlike a fish eye that warps the edges of the frame under the same conditions.
If you have a go pro or similar fish eye cam test it and you will see what I mean.
In the same video you shared the camera actually flips, turning your beloved curve into a concave image.....
Last edited by a moderator:
P
I don't understand what you mean.
You claim it may not have been tweaked, and then immediately say "no doubt" it uses the fish eye effect.
It's clear the video you posted was using the fish eye effect before the balloon even left the ground, and it was clearly using it when it reached heights barely off the ground.
The video I posted showed no signs of a "fish eye" effect whatsoever.
Can you explain what you mean?
You claim it may not have been tweaked, and then immediately say "no doubt" it uses the fish eye effect.
It's clear the video you posted was using the fish eye effect before the balloon even left the ground, and it was clearly using it when it reached heights barely off the ground.
The video I posted showed no signs of a "fish eye" effect whatsoever.
Can you explain what you mean?