Flat Earth

[sirazimuth]

What's even funnier is a dufus rational thinking person who doesn't even understands the non-existence of God a sky fairy, poking fun of reality that two others are trying to clarify between themselves.


FTFY

AKA .... two wackaloons in a pissing contest, debating which sky fairy version is correct , etc, etc.... (see my previous post)

[1714794902]

1714794902

[1714794902]

1714794902

[1714794902]

1714794902

[1714794902]

1714794902

[1714794902]

1714794902

[serbad]

So what happened to the waters from above the firmament that were so.?

And where did the universe come in or is that the same thing in your book?

The waters are still there. Keep in mind the standard understanding of the universe as astronomy describes, and read your answer here:

Since you seem to enjoy twisting what the Bible says, you aren't any different than the anti-God atheists.

You skip right on by the place where God made the sky... verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters.

Because God was working with the waters on Earth, He simply calls them the waters under the sky. He never says that he left the waters above the sky together in one sea, or that the waters above the sky were not in other parts of the sky. After all, if you were on one of those spheres of water, it would seem that all the other spheres of water were above the sky, as well.

The Bible isn't there for its description of the shape of the earth. But you can tell that the earth is something like a sphere if you read all the parts together. Then, modern (and some not so modern) technology proves that the Bible is right.

Besides, if you were so Bible inclined, and such a righteous person, you would at least give me the benefit of the doubt, for saying things that are easily right, even if they are not. You treat me like I am a sleazebag, something a Bible person wouldn't do. So, you prove that you are misusing the Bible when you do this, because you are being unrighteous.

With regard to this link, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5222193.msg53798756#msg53798756, The heavens are God's throne. You sit on a throne, like God sits on the heavens... outside of the universe, sitting on the shell of the universe. But the earth is His footstool, because He has made Himself to exist within the universe, and to walk upon the earth with men... in the form of Jesus.

You are missing it quite badly.

verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters. ??

I think ive found your problem.!

You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.

This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

[notbatman]

Most of the terraplanistas' arguments are easily refutable and come from a deeply anthropocentric and simplistic conception of the universe . On the other hand, the vision proposed by science requires a certain level of abstraction; that is, we cannot observe with the naked eye, nor experience through our own experience the phenomena that govern the universe. In fact, this is precisely what makes us human: the physical limitations that we present, which prove precisely that we are not the center of the universe and probably not the only beings that inhabit it.

You're tripping balls dude, the mad impossible spinning carnival ride that is the heliocentric model exists only in your head.

[BADecker]

verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters. ??

I think ive found your problem.!

You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.

This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.

"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.

[BADecker]

Most of the terraplanistas' arguments are easily refutable and come from a deeply anthropocentric and simplistic conception of the universe . On the other hand, the vision proposed by science requires a certain level of abstraction; that is, we cannot observe with the naked eye, nor experience through our own experience the phenomena that govern the universe. In fact, this is precisely what makes us human: the physical limitations that we present, which prove precisely that we are not the center of the universe and probably not the only beings that inhabit it.

You're tripping balls dude, the mad impossible spinning carnival ride that is the heliocentric model exists only in your head.

Perhaps you should get off your "mad impossible spinning carnival ride," and realize that the heliocentric model is not a mad impossible spinning carnival ride.

[serbad]

verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters. ??

I think ive found your problem.!

You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.

This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.

"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.

You didn't quote verse 6 of genesis.!! Thats why i dont agree  with you.!.... Where did the mud come from.? Which verse.?


edit:
Not only but also the word "sky" isnt even mentioned till.
Deuteronomy 33:26
There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky

I put it to you sir. That you are reading the wrong book and that therefore you have no basis or frame of reference on which to make claim in this world.

1 Samuel 2:8
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.

[BADecker]

verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters. ??

I think ive found your problem.!

You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.

This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.

"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.

You didn't quote verse 6 of genesis.!! Thats why i dont agree  with you.!....

You are so very observant. Thank you for informing me of what I didn't do. But why should I quote verse 6? You already did it! As a favor to you, if you really wanted me to, I could copy your verse 6 quote, and paste it right here, just so I quoted it like you did. But to what purpose?

Where did the mud come from.? Which verse.?

I'll give you a hint. It's in Genesis chapter 1, before verse 27. I think you can figure it out if you read it a few times, and at the end of each verse ask yourself, Was there any mud in that water, I mean, verse?

edit:
Not only but also the word "sky" isnt even mentioned till.
Deuteronomy 33:26
There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky

Well, we are talking about the Bible, aren't we? The Old Testament is written in Ancient Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew doesn't have the letters "s, k, y" in it. So, you couldn't find the word "sky" even in Deuteronomy.

If you are talking about a translation of the Bible into English, dig around a little, and you will find the word "sky" in Genesis chapter 1 in many of the translations. However, most of the best translations use the word "expanse" more than they use the word "sky." Only a few use "firmament." Approximately 1 (maybe 2) uses dome. The current NIV uses "vault" and "sky," though older revisions used "expanse" rather than "vault." Don't forget to check verse 8.

See what the Hebrew really says. Use Strong's and an Ancient Hebrew Bible.

I put it to you sir. That you are reading the wrong book and that therefore you have no basis or frame of reference on which to make claim in this world.

Perhaps I am reading the wrong book. I should learn Ancient Greek and read the Septuagint Bible. But whatever... I put it to you, you are probably misreading the right book.

1 Samuel 2:8
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.

Okay. I presume you are talking about the word "pillars." Some translations use "foundations," which is probably more descriptive of the what the Ancient Hebrew is really trying to get across to us.

If you are talking about something else, other than "pillars," let us know.

[notbatman]

Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.

BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.



"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

[BADecker]

Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.

BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.



"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

[serbad]

Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.

BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.



"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

What do you think? Does notbatman kbnow Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

I'd say he knows more than you do.

[BADecker]

What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

I'd say he knows more than you do.

People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?

I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.

[serbad]

What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

I'd say he knows more than you do.

People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?

I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.

Why would you believe the word of nasa and not the word of God as you claim you believe in God?. The waters that were above the firmament which were so. How does nasa explain how the waters that were up there turned into a vacuum?       Surly the correct theory for you is big bang no?

[BADecker]

What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

I'd say he knows more than you do.

People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?

I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.

Why would you believe the word of nasa and not the word of God as you claim you believe in God?. Lets start with the waters that were above the firmament which were so. How does nasa explain how the waters that were up there turned into a vacuum?       Surly the correct theory for you is big bang no?

Why would you think that NASA can speak? People and a few animals speak, not corporations.

NASA doesn't explain anything. People explain things... even about waters.

So, you show that you are deceitful by trying to trick us all into thinking that NASA speaks and explains.

[serbad]

What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?

Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.

Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.

I'd say he knows more than you do.

People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?

I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.

Why would you believe the word of nasa and not the word of God as you claim you believe in God?. Lets start with the waters that were above the firmament which were so. How does nasa explain how the waters that were up there turned into a vacuum?       Surly the correct theory for you is big bang no?

Why would you think that NASA can speak? People and a few animals speak, not corporations.

NASA doesn't explain anything. People explain things... even about waters.

So, you show that you are deceitful by trying to trick us all into thinking that NASA speaks and explains.

Well they have spokesmen and they claim to work in the vacuum of space.

[BADecker]

Well they have spokesmen and they claim to work in the vacuum of space.

Well, take a look at famous pictures of proposed space stations. You know, the bigger better space stations of the past. Take, for instance, this picture of Wernher von Braun explaining a space station:



If you look closely at the picture, you will see why many of these space stations will need spokesmen.

[notbatman]

NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.

[philipma1957]

NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.

show us that spokesperson making that statement.

[BADecker]

NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.

show us that spokesperson making that statement.

Right. And show us the court documents where it was proven to be the truth. If not, maybe it is all hearsay.

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

We don't know what stars are. We are so far away from stars, that for all we know, the ones we see are black holes that we see from one of the poles where light escapes. And the others are black holes we see from the equator, where light doesn't escape because of centrifugal force.

We don't know enough to even guess why we don't see the stars that exist out there.

[serbad]

Imagination not data keeps you dreaming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umeHIxIdKxE

[notbatman]

NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.

show us that spokesperson making that statement.

Audio Interview: https://youtu.be/Qghv4en5res

Link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html