Does the Bible support the idea of a spinning ball earth flying through space, or is that a Satanic, Masonic lie?

[Moses_Young]

Another peice of trash you have posted. How is this related to substantiating your claim of a flat earth? Apparently, you don't believe in the flat earth crap either but post garbage for your own personal amusement.

He's simply claiming all (or many) cultures had the belief that Earth was flat. It's only NASA, through their fraudulent photographs (and billions of dollars of stolen taxpayer funds for spreading the propaganda), that have changed the belief in Western culture to a Heliocentric model.

 

[RaceRunner]

An infinite number. That's why the answer of Heliocentrists is always "You need to be higher to see it" or "The Earth is so big you can't".

 

[RaceRunner]

Another peice of trash you have posted. How is this related to substantiating your claim of a flat earth? Apparently, you don't believe in the flat earth crap either but post garbage for your own personal amusement.

Do you believe earth curvature can be measured, and, if so, how? Can you prove the earth has curvature?

 

[Fundaamental]

Do you believe earth curvature can be measured, and, if so, how? Can you prove the earth has curvature?

yes here's a good source for you.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth

And heres an even better in-detph question to your answer.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-measure-the-curvature-of-the-earth

 

[RaceRunner]

yes here's a good source for you.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth

And heres an even better in-detph question to your answer.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-measure-the-curvature-of-the-earth

What is the distance after 273.4 miles until earth curvature can be measured?

 

[Fundaamental]

What is the distance after 273.4 miles until earth curvature can be measured?

Your question makes no sense friend.

You asked if the earths curvature could be measured

Now your asking an entirely different question that makes no sense, earth curvature has to be measured at a set distance.

Which is the distance from the earths equator to its circumference .

 

[Magenta]

He's simply claiming all (or many) cultures had the belief that Earth was flat. It's only NASA, through their fraudulent photographs (and billions of dollars of stolen taxpayer funds for spreading the propaganda), that have changed the belief in Western culture to a Heliocentric model.

Aristotle was the first to really attempt to prove that the Earth was spherical. It is a topic he discusses in
great detail in book II of his work On the Heavens, engaging with the various arguments that preceded him,
using philosophical arguments and observations of the natural world (On the Heavens [written in 350 BC], 2.14):

How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes​

which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind straight, gibbous, and concave-but in ​

eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the ​

eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore ​

spherical. Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, ​

but also that it is a circle of no great size. By the end of the fourth century BC, the idea of a spherical ​

world was more common place than any other answer – and Aristotle’s work, in particular, would ​

strongly influence scholastic views on this question right through ancient and medieval Europe. ​

source​

 

[tourist]

He's simply claiming all (or many) cultures had the belief that Earth was flat. It's only NASA, through their fraudulent photographs (and billions of dollars of stolen taxpayer funds for spreading the propaganda), that have changed the belief in Western culture to a Heliocentric model.

There are many space agencies besides NASA. All of the other planets are round so why would he earth would be flat. Round earth dimensions regarding circumference have been provided through the centuries. Countless jounals have documented evidence whether fraudulent or not has been provided. Countless photographic evidence has been provided from many sources besides NASA.

It is still not clear to me from the numerous threads and posts of flat earth peeps on whether or not the earth is round in shape, or square or rectangle or other shape,, and what are the physical dimensions of such a flat earth. Where is the documented evidence of expeditions to the edge and the physical characteristics therein? Where is the photographic evidence, whether accurate or fraudulent supporting theses proofs? All there is are some drawings someone with a good imagine provided. The flat earth argument is not credible or persuasive.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Look at the meme they use for the sun being close they have pictures of the sun with a glass with holes in the bottom.

We live on earth and everything is so close we can't see the curve because the planet is too big for a single human to observe the complete horizon from one single spot.

But when we leave earth and are hundreds of miles away from earth, we can see.

It's mathematics.

When people say flat earth, those are people who were never bright in school and the only real education they have is from the internet.

And we all know how true the internet is. It's designed for the less intelligent.

 

[Moses_Young]

Aristotle was the first to really attempt to prove that the Earth was spherical. It is a topic he discusses in
great detail in book II of his work On the Heavens, engaging with the various arguments that preceded him,
using philosophical arguments and observations of the natural world (On the Heavens [written in 350 BC], 2.14):

How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes​

which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind straight, gibbous, and concave-but in ​

eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the ​

eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore ​

spherical. Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, ​

but also that it is a circle of no great size. By the end of the fourth century BC, the idea of a spherical ​

world was more common place than any other answer – and Aristotle’s work, in particular, would ​

strongly influence scholastic views on this question right through ancient and medieval Europe. ​

source​

Research selenelion. A selenelion is a lunar eclipse where the moon and sun can both be seen above the horizon. But according to Heliocentric theory, a lunar eclipse occurs because the moon moves into a position whereby the sun's light is blocked from reaching the moon. Clearly, this observation disproves the just-so explanation provided by Heliocentric theory. Remember, it only takes one exception to disprove the rule, and although there are others, the selenelion is probably the easiest one for a beginner to get to grips with.

 

[Dino246]

Remember, it only takes one exception to disprove the rule

If you believed this, you would reject flat-earth theory.

 

[Moses_Young]

There are many space agencies besides NASA. All of the other planets are round so why would he earth would be flat. Round earth dimensions regarding circumference have been provided through the centuries. Countless jounals have documented evidence whether fraudulent or not has been provided. Countless photographic evidence has been provided from many sources besides NASA.

Earth is not a planet (a planet is a "wandering star"). Whether the planets or stars are round has nothing to do with Earth's shape, much like the zebras and tigers at a zoo don't make the zoo visitors either zebras or tigers. Round earth dimensions regarding circumference are not necessarily accepted, nor easily testable.

It is still not clear to me from the numerous threads and posts of flat earth peeps on whether or not the earth is round in shape, or square or rectangle or other shape,, and what are the physical dimensions of such a flat earth. Where is the documented evidence of expeditions to the edge and the physical characteristics therein? Where is the photographic evidence, whether accurate or fraudulent supporting theses proofs? All there is are some drawings someone with a good imagine provided. The flat earth argument is not credible or persuasive.

It doesn't matter. Flat Earth is the observation. In science, we go with the observation unless something proves that the observation is incorrect (e.g. there is a science behind mirages). This has not been done for the Earth's shape - the best we have are some fraudulent photographs by an organisation which has taken billions of taxpayer funds to explore the moon and space, and yet the more we find out about this organisation, the more lies we discover.

That there are other space agencies now is beside the point. They work together, even if you don't believe it. Science is about testability and repeatability - not trusting purportedly independent organisations which work hand-in-glove with the governments of the world.

If you believed this, you would reject flat-earth theory.

You haven't offered this. Just convenient Heliocentric theories about movements of the heavenly bodies that even your own Heliocentric theory can't adequately explain the observations for.

 

[VARob]

Research selenelion. A selenelion is a lunar eclipse where the moon and sun can both be seen above the horizon. But according to Heliocentric theory, a lunar eclipse occurs because the moon moves into a position whereby the sun's light is blocked from reaching the moon. Clearly, this observation disproves the just-so explanation provided by Heliocentric theory. Remember, it only takes one exception to disprove the rule, and although there are others, the selenelion is probably the easiest one for a beginner to get to grips with.

Selenelion
A selenelion or selenehelion, also called a horizontal eclipse, occurs where and when both the Sun and an eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time. The event can only be observed just before sunset or just after sunrise, when both bodies will appear just above opposite horizons at nearly opposite points in the sky. A selenelion occurs during every total lunar eclipse—it is an experience of the observer, not a planetary event separate from the lunar eclipse itself. Typically, observers on Earth located on high mountain ridges undergoing false sunrise or false sunset at the same moment of a total lunar eclipse will be able to experience it. Although during selenelion the Moon is completely within the Earth's umbra, both it and the Sun can be observed in the sky because atmospheric refraction causes each body to appear higher (i.e., more central) in the sky than its true geometric planetary position.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

 

[Moses_Young]

If you believed this, you would reject flat-earth theory.

Selenelion
A selenelion or selenehelion, also called a horizontal eclipse, occurs where and when both the Sun and an eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time. The event can only be observed just before sunset or just after sunrise, when both bodies will appear just above opposite horizons at nearly opposite points in the sky. A selenelion occurs during every total lunar eclipse—it is an experience of the observer, not a planetary event separate from the lunar eclipse itself. Typically, observers on Earth located on high mountain ridges undergoing false sunrise or false sunset at the same moment of a total lunar eclipse will be able to experience it. Although during selenelion the Moon is completely within the Earth's umbra, both it and the Sun can be observed in the sky because atmospheric refraction causes each body to appear higher (i.e., more central) in the sky than its true geometric planetary position.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

Don't mind how Wikipedia explains the math away. Do the math yourself. If an observer can see the moon and the sun in the sky, and Heliocentricity says that the reason for the moon being darkened is that it is in Earth's shadow (i.e. Earth is blocking the sun's rays from the moon), these are incompatible facts. Either the observer is lying, or Heliocentricity is wrong. And trust me, it's the latter.

Wikipedia might as well have explained this away by invoking magical selenelion pixies, for all the science involved in its explanation of "atmospheric refraction". If (Heliocentricity is true) and the sun's rays to the moon are blocked enough for the moon to go dark, one or the other of the moon and sun will also be blocked from the observer. But you won't hear this from one of those looking to trick you - these will always invent excuses for why observation doesn't match their theories - you will need to think for yourself.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

7 Verses explains a rotating earth by describing the sun coming up and going down.

A flat disc spinning easily topples over, only a true sphere can continue to rotate without losing balance.

These little clues are so apparent and obvious that someone presenting flat earth has to be a troll.

 

[VARob]

Don't mind how Wikipedia explains the math away. Do the math yourself. If an observer can see the moon and the sun in the sky, and Heliocentricity says that the reason for the moon being darkened is that it is in Earth's shadow (i.e. Earth is blocking the sun's rays from the moon), these are incompatible facts. Either the observer is lying, or Heliocentricity is wrong. And trust me, it's the latter.

Wikipedia might as well have explained this away by invoking magical selenelion pixies, for all the science involved in its explanation of "atmospheric refraction". If (Heliocentricity is true) and the sun's rays to the moon are blocked enough for the moon to go dark, one or the other of the moon and sun will also be blocked from the observer. But you won't hear this from one of those looking to trick you - these will always invent excuses for why observation doesn't match their theories - you will need to think for yourself.

You seem like an otherwise intelligent guy, Moses. I cannot fathom why you believe the earth is flat.

 

[Fundaamental]

Earth is not a planet (a planet is a "wandering star").

I offered a three paged detailed in-depth analogy backed by scripture how earth could be classed as a type of star.

which you gave a barrage of red X's with no reason for your disagreements.

which proves you didn't like the answer and favour your own.

 

[Moses_Young]

You seem like an otherwise intelligent guy, Moses. I cannot fathom why you believe the earth is flat.

That's why I believe it is flat. Although, like I noted previously, this was revealed to me after prayer, not via my own wisdom.

 

[Moses_Young]

I offered a three paged detailed in-depth analogy backed by scripture how earth could be classed as a type of star.

which you gave a barrage of red X's with no reason for your disagreements.

which proves you didn't like the answer and favour your own.

I think the term for your methodology is eisegesis. You are reading into scripture what you want it to say, rather than taking scripture at its word (exegesis). Eisegesis is an invalid methodology for interpreting scripture.

 

[Fundaamental]

I think the term for your methodology is eisegesis. You are reading into scripture what you want it to say, rather than taking scripture at its word (exegesis). Eisegesis is an invalid methodology for interpreting scripture.

nope that's deflecting.

Your assumption is based on earth not being plannet.

Ridiculous

My interpretation was based on scientific quotation by Jesus.

Yours is your own speculation. 😋