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

[RaceRunner]

 

[tourist]

The video didn't explain a single thing about sunrise and sunset on a flat earth.

 

[tourist]

That can easily be demonstrated with a beach ball and a flashlight. But maybe that's too much evil science for some people.

You would have to let the air out of the beach ball first and flatten it to perform some goofy flat-earth experiment regarding sunrise and sunset.

 

[RaceRunner]

The video didn't explain a single thing about sunrise and sunset on a flat earth.

The experiment done in the video speaks for itself.

 

[Moses_Young]

the forces of gravity are controlled by magnetic energy in my observation,

As earths magnetic energy becomes weaker,

The gravity becomes stronger for surrounding forces.

I don't think this is accepted by mainstream science. It might be your theory, but I don't believe it's widely accepted, or that it has any proof.

It's how your able to float in space.

No proof of floating in space (or space itself, for that matter). NASA underwater pool walks and green-screen astro-not actor-batics excluded, obviously.

Or heat from the sun is able to make water rise in the form vapor.

Nothing to do with Heliocentric gravity. Density and buoyancy are accepted by Flat Earth, provided gravity only acts downward, as observed.

The forces of gravity are constantly pulling on each other.

When you put forces of gravity like the sun the moon and the earth, and put them in perfect distance of one another, all three will pull on each other.

To say one will not move over the other, doesn't make any sense.

The Futher away plannets, will pull on the plannet nearer to the the sun.

And the further away plannets will pull on something outside of the sun's magnetic field but still have some attraction to the sun.

But neither force of gravity inside the sun's magnetic field or out of the sun's magnetic field will be able to win the tug of war, as it's perfectly balanced.

Each plannet has some type of centre of gravity of its own.


The earth is to small to control all the plannets and the sun

If you use this reasoning

Bigger plannets would be the centre of gravity, rather than the earth

And we would revolve around bigger plannets.

The only logical reasoning is we revolve around the sun.

It like going to the moon
You can still stand on the moon.

But because it's own centre of gravity is verry weak. You can kinda float when you jump.

Which means each position of each plannet and each star all work together, to cause the directional orbit they take.

This is all Heliocentric theory. I can make up a similar theory about the Heliocentric pixies which are the real reason for our observations. One can't use a theory to prove itself. Using Occam's razor, we don't need Heliocentric theory at all. Earth is flat, and stationary, just like the bible states.

the sun is basically a nuclear reactor of massive gas and extreme temps.

Theory again. No proof.

a flat earth would be dead that close.

As above. You can't use heliocentric assumptions and theory to disprove flat earth. Flat Earth doesn't require these superfluous beliefs or unproven assumptions.

also, why is it possible to see Venus and Mercury between the Earth and Sun if Sun is so close?

as close as these pictures are you present, Venus and Mercury should be where the Moon is located.

set the pipe down and do not walk away but run as fast as you possibly can...

Huh? Again, I think you're using Heliocentric theory to try to refute Flat Earth. Venus and Mercury are simply wandering stars, traveling in the firmament around the Earth. They're not between Earth and the Sun anymore than any of the other stars. Happy to explore this point further - I'm not an expert in the movements of the Heavenly bodies, but we don't need to be to observe that Earth has no measurable curvature, nor observable or detectable motion.

 

[RaceRunner]

I don't think this is accepted by mainstream science. It might be your theory, but I don't believe it's widely accepted, or that it has any proof.

No proof of floating in space (or space itself, for that matter). NASA underwater pool walks and green-screen astro-not actor-batics excluded, obviously.

Nothing to do with Heliocentric gravity. Density and buoyancy are accepted by Flat Earth, provided gravity only acts downward, as observed.

This is all Heliocentric theory. I can make up a similar theory about the Heliocentric pixies which are the real reason for our observations. One can't use a theory to prove itself. Using Occam's razor, we don't need Heliocentric theory at all. Earth is flat, and stationary, just like the bible states.

Theory again. No proof.

As above. You can't use heliocentric assumptions and theory to disprove flat earth. Flat Earth doesn't require these superfluous beliefs.

Huh? Again, I think your using Heliocentric theory to try to refute Flat Earth. Venus and Mercury are simply wandering stars, traveling in the firmament around the Earth. They're not between Earth and the Sun anymore than any of the other stars. Happy to explore this point further - I'm not an expert in the movements of the Heavenly bodies, but we don't need to be to observe that Earth has no measurable curvature, and no motion.

DON'T TELL THEM THEIR FAIRYTALE ILLUSION IS JUST A GREEN SCREEN; YOU ARE SPOILING THE BLISS!

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Huh? Again, I think you're using Heliocentric theory to try to refute Flat Earth. Venus and Mercury are simply wandering stars, traveling in the firmament around the Earth. They're not between Earth and the Sun anymore than any of the other stars. Happy to explore this point further - I'm not an expert in the movements of the Heavenly bodies, but we don't need to be to observe that Earth has no measurable curvature, nor observable or detectable motion.

you really do not know the difference between a star and planet.
my own telescope can see the sphere of other planets.
my telescope cannot lie!

 

[Moses_Young]

you really do not know the difference between a star and planet.
my own telescope can see the sphere of other planets.
my telescope cannot lie!

They're both lights, aren't they? But yeah, planets are more circular. I don't have a telescope anymore, but to me the biggest difference between the planets and the stars is that planets don't keep pace with the stars (which move around the Earth in unison). Hence the word "planet", from the original meaning "wandering star".

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

They're both lights, aren't they? But yeah, planets are more circular. I don't have a telescope anymore, but to me the biggest difference between the planets and the stars is that planets don't keep pace with the stars (which move around the Earth in unison). Hence the word "planet", from the original meaning "wandering star".

i understand what you are saying and not totally opposed to it. just pointing out what the telescope reveals. when i began aerospace work i bought me a telescope to watch satellite's. as you're searching around you suddenly see how different shaped many things are. how truly Majestic God's Creation was and still is. but planets have spherical shapes and stars look like blinding fires in the scope. that's a big difference.

 

[Fundaamental]

I don't think this is accepted by mainstream science. It might be your theory, but I don't believe it's widely accepted, or that it has any proof.

No proof of floating in space (or space itself, for that matter). NASA underwater pool walks and green-screen astro-not actor-batics excluded, obviously.

Nothing to do with Heliocentric gravity. Density and buoyancy are accepted by Flat Earth, provided gravity only acts downward, as observed.

This is all Heliocentric theory. I can make up a similar theory about the Heliocentric pixies which are the real reason for our observations. One can't use a theory to prove itself. Using Occam's razor, we don't need Heliocentric theory at all. Earth is flat, and stationary, just like the bible states.

Theory again. No proof.

As above. You can't use heliocentric assumptions and theory to disprove flat earth. Flat Earth doesn't require these superfluous beliefs or unproven assumptions.

Huh? Again, I think you're using Heliocentric theory to try to refute Flat Earth. Venus and Mercury are simply wandering stars, traveling in the firmament around the Earth. They're not between Earth and the Sun anymore than any of the other stars. Happy to explore this point further - I'm not an expert in the movements of the Heavenly bodies, but we don't need to be to observe that Earth has no measurable curvature, nor observable or detectable motion.

your kinda making up a theory of your own.

Because the bible says the earth is fixed to the pillars and doesn't move.

Does not mean the pillars don't move. If you can see the pillars as the earths foundations.

Your theory doesn't prove you right or wrong.

As you view was a general view when there was no Good science to understand the pillars are the foundations.

 

[Moses_Young]

i understand what you are saying and not totally opposed to it. just pointing out what the telescope reveals. when i began aerospace work i bought me a telescope to watch satellite's. as you're searching around you suddenly see how different shaped many things are. how truly Majestic God's Creation was and still is. but planets have spherical shapes and stars look like blinding fires in the scope. that's a big difference.

Stars seem to sort of pulsate, don't they? I always lamented I could never get a clear shot on the stars. Or even planets for that matter, but better glimpses than of the stars. Or even the moon! Everything moves so fast, but I wouldn't have guessed it from using just my eyes.

 

[Moses_Young]

your kinda making up a theory of your own.

Because the bible says the earth is fixed to the pillars and doesn't move.

Does not mean the pillars don't move. If you can see the pillars as the earths foundations.

Your theory doesn't prove you right or wrong.

As you view was a general view when there was no Good science to understand the the pillars are the foundations.

Which theory would that be?

I'm sure there are pillars, but no one's arguing against them yet... Some people are still convinced the Earth is a ball spinning around and traveling at huge speeds in the vastness of space.

 

[Magenta]

Venus and Mercury are simply wandering stars, traveling in the firmament around the Earth.
They're not between Earth and the Sun anymore than any of the other stars.

Are they beyond the sun, then? In your view, of course.

 

[Magenta]

I'm sure there are pillars, but no one's arguing against them yet...

They have been mentioned a number of times...

 

[Moses_Young]

Are they beyond the sun, then? In your view, of course.

I'm not sure. I don't know that scripture says, or that science indicates one way or another. I know that stars have reportedly been seen through the moon.

My guess is that the stars and sun are at a comparable distance. Gary might have a more precise answer.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Stars seem to sort of pulsate, don't they? I always lamented I could never get a clear shot on the stars. Or even planets for that matter, but better glimpses than of the stars. Or even the moon! Everything moves so fast, but I wouldn't have guessed it from using just my eyes.

Agreed and Amen!

most key thing you said: Everything moves so fast, but I wouldn't have guessed it from using just my eyes:

shows rotating. everything is rotating.

 

[Magenta]

I'm not sure. I don't know that scripture says, or that science indicates one way or another.
I know that stars have reportedly been seen through the moon.

My guess is that the stars and sun are at a comparable distance. Gary might have a more precise answer.

So the moon IS made of cheese? Swiss cheese... with holes in it? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Fundaamental]

Which theory would that be?

I'm sure there are pillars, but no one's arguing against them yet... Some people are still convinced the Earth is a ball spinning around and traveling at huge speeds in the vastness of space.

earth is only a small fraction of our plannet.

If the earth moved we really would be in trouble

Which theory would that be?

I'm sure there are pillars, but no one's arguing against them yet... Some people are still convinced the Earth is a ball spinning around and traveling at huge speeds in the vastness of space.

The theory of the earth doesn't move is based upon the whole plannet being earth.
And scripture saying the earth is fixed to its pillars and doesn't move




As you can see the crust is the earth, The pillars are the mantle the outer core and the inner core.

The bible was saying the earths crust does not move.

But the bible doesnt say the earth pillars don't move.

And if you say you understand this, then your just disproving yourself

 

[Moses_Young]

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?

No. They're obsolete. But not really following what you're getting at. Facts don't become obsolete - the fact is that these weapons were still used once. Unless you're saying the Earth was once flat, but now it's not?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

yep, the moon is one gigantic sphere of sour milk that when spinning churned into a solid cream of Chedda!


oops, that was to Magenta's post lol