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

[VARob]

Nothing of the sort. If you understand maths or basic geometry and trignometry, you'll understand why the Wikipedia excuse doesn't hold weight.

Don't forget optics, and that light can be refracted.

 

[Magenta]

Nothing of the sort. If you understand maths or basic geometry and trignometry, you'll understand why the Wikipedia excuse doesn't hold weight.

More dodge from you. Your claim -and you say it or very similar things repeatedly- is that only NASA is responsible for people being deceived into believing a heliocentric model, which includes by extension a spherical earth, which has been believed since before Jesus walked this world. You ought to stick to true apologetics. You are good at that. This flat earth shtick? Not so much.

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.

 

[Moses_Young]

Don't forget optics, and that light can be refracted.

If the light were refracted to that degree, the moon wouldn't be in the sun's shadow, now, would it?

And what evidence does Wikipedia have that it is light refraction? None.

 

[VARob]

If the light were refracted to that degree, the moon wouldn't be in the sun's shadow, now, would it?

Yes, it would.

And what evidence does Wikipedia have that it is light refraction? None.

sigh.

 

[Fundaamental]

If the light were refracted to that degree, the moon wouldn't be in the sun's shadow, now, would it?

And what evidence does Wikipedia have that it is light refraction? None.

Jesus refers to all heavenly bodies having a body and a seed.

Jesus was refering to the stars and plannets as different types of heavenly bodies, that differ in splendor.

This makes good reasoning for a plannet being a star, since heavenly bodies are also referred to stars,

Since earth differs in splendor, than earth could be classed as a heavenly body and a type of star.

But you say earth can't be a plannet, but on what basis ?.

 

[Moses_Young]

More dodge from you.

Not dodge at all. The selenelion disproves the Heliocentric explanation of the eclipse. Just because Wikipedia makes an excuse about refraction neither means this excuse works in reality (it doesn't), nor that Wikipedia has any evidence to claim refraction even if it did work (it doesn't). It's simply muddying the waters to make people who don't do their own research think the problem for the unproven theory of Heliocentricity is solved by Wikipedia's explanation. It's not.

Your claim -and you say it repeatedly- is that only NASA is responsible for people being deceived into believing a heliocentric model, which includes by extension a spherical earth, which has been believed since before Jesus walked this world. You ought to stick to true apologetics. You are good at that. This flat earth shtick? Not so much.

I guess we disagree on most of this as well.

 

[VARob]

You're responsible for a good chunk of my red Xs.

 

[VARob]

The selenelion disproves the Heliocentric explanation of the eclipse. Just because Wikipedia makes an excuse about refraction neither means this excuse works in reality (it doesn't), nor that Wikipedia has any evidence to claim refraction even if it did work (it doesn't). It's simply muddying the waters to make people who don't do their own research think the problem for the unproven theory of Heliocentricity is solved by Wikipedia's explanation. It's not.

deny, deny, deny. Based on what?

 

[Moses_Young]

deny, deny, deny. Based on what?

Burden of proof. It's not on me to disprove Wikipedia's explanation. It's on Wikipedia to prove it. I can see why you're a Heliocentrist if you always put the Burden of proof on the one questioning the claim. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one disputing it.

For example - what evidence of refraction has Wikipedida collected at every selenelion, and at different locations? Refraction is very strange if it works from all locations and directions at every selenelion, yet it must, if Wikipedia's claim is correct. How many degrees does the measured refraction account for, and why - if the light is refracted so much (it won't be) - is the moon still dark, given that the refraction would cause the light from the sun to now reach the moon, refuting Heliocentrisms very explanation of the eclipse in the first place?

 

[Dino246]

It depends on what you mean by gravity. The propensity for things to fall downward is an established fact, but the birds and insects flying or not can be explained by buoyancy and density.

Bouyancy and density are dependent on gravity. If you think otherwise, you are free to propose an alternate hypothesis for testing.

Heliocentricity also requires gravity to act in sideways directions and even upwards, but of course, this has never been demonstrated scientifically.

Which does not mean it is not valid and sound. I don't see FE'ers proposing an alternate, testable hypothesis that has not already been refuted.

 

[Moses_Young]

Bouyancy and density are dependent on gravity. If you think otherwise, you are free to propose an alternate hypothesis for testing.

Only gravity in a downward direction. That's not what Heliocentrists believe.

Which does not mean it is not valid and sound. I don't see FE'ers proposing an alternate, testable hypothesis that has not already been refuted.

Burden of proof. Flat Earth is the observation. You can explain Heliocentrism by Heliocentric pixies at the bottom of the garden for all I care, but your hypothesis will be rejected unless you can provide valid evidence, which thus far, you have been unable to.

 

[VARob]

Burden of proof. It's not on me to disprove Wikipedia's explanation. It's on Wikipedia to prove it. I can see why you're a Heliocentrist if you always put the Burden of proof on the one questioning the claim. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one disputing it.

For example - what evidence of refraction has Wikipedida collected at every selenelion, and at different locations? Refraction is very strange if it works from all locations and directions at every selenelion, yet it must, if Wikipedia's claim is correct. How many degrees does the measured refraction account for, and why - if the light is refracted so much (it won't be) - is the moon still dark, given that the refraction would cause the light from the sun to now reach the moon, refuting Heliocentrisms very explanation of the eclipse in the first place?

I'm not going to explain basic science to you here. The answers are out there, if you take a little time to look.

Again, I AGREE that the Bible portrays the earth as flat. It's what the writers of the Bible thought, and they wrote that way.

In the Bible, horses, iron chariots, battering rams, and swords made an army formidable. Do you think they would stand a chance today?

 

[VARob]

Only gravity in a downward direction. That's not what Heliocentrists believe.

"Down" is relative depending on where you're located.

 

[Moses_Young]

I'm not going to explain basic science to you here. The answers are out there, if you take a little time to look.

Thanks. I have a better understanding of science than many, but appreciate we likely won't agree on the science, given our differences in philosophy and where the burden of proof lies.

Again, I AGREE that the Bible portrays the earth as flat. It's what the writers of the Bible thought, and they wrote that way.

I'm glad we can both agree on what the bible states.

In the Bible, horses, iron chariots, battering rams, and swords made an army formidable. Do you think they would stand a chance today?

With God on our side, who can stand against us?

 

[Moses_Young]

"Down" is relative depending on where you're located.

Only in Heliocentric theory. The observation is that down is one direction only.

 

[VARob]

With God on our side, who can stand against us?

While that's definitely true, I think you missed the point.

 

[VARob]

Only in Heliocentric theory. The observation is that down is one direction only.

SMH..

Later.

 

[Moses_Young]

While that's definitely true, I think you missed the point.

Or maybe you did? What army can lose if God has decreed it will be victorious? And what army can win if God decrees it will not?

 

[VARob]

Or maybe you did? What army can lose if God has decreed it will be victorious? And what army can win if God decrees it will not?

One more try..

In the Bible, the weapons of choice included horses, iron chariots, battering rams, seige-works, swords, and more.
Are those still the weapons of choice?

 

[Dino246]

Only gravity in a downward direction. That's not what Heliocentrists believe.

I really don't care what "heliocentrists" believe. Gravity explains phenomena for which you have no explanation. Until you can come up with an explanation that does not depend on the gravity you claim to reject, you are without any valid theory.

Burden of proof. Flat Earth is the observation.

Burden of proof, indeed; "flat earth" is not my observation.

You can explain Heliocentrism by Heliocentric pixies at the bottom of the garden for all I care, but your hypothesis will be rejected unless you can provide valid evidence, which thus far, you have been unable to.

I have made no claim whatsoever regarding heliocentrism, so your accusations are irrelevant... yet again.