the myth of flat earth debunked again

[contratodo]

Where are the wheels of these chariots, or are you now claiming they are figurative chariots?

And where are the wings of the wind or is that figurative too?

The Psalmist never indicates he is referring to wind above the sky, nor does he refer to clouds above the sky. He says "the wind" and "the clouds". This obviously refers to the wind we feel and the clouds we see, not your imaginary ones. You are inserting these meanings yourself and adding to the Scripture.

It does not say "chariots of the clouds", that is you saying that.
The passage says

Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: Who maketh the clouds his chariot: Who walketh upon the wings of the wind

"He makes the clouds His chariot."

So the clouds themselves are His chariot, yes the clouds we see, the sky we see is above the clouds,
Gods city is above the sky.

No need for wheels or to try to make something figurative that is plainly stated.

"He walks upon the wings of the wind."

So He walks above the wind. Yes, the wings there are figurative, He is above the wind.
The sky is above the wind, and Gods city is above the sky.

"He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters." You don't like that one I assume, but it comes first.

That is the firmament, the sky, the dome, laid in the water.

On top of the firmament is the city of heaven, we know this due to Revelation 22.


The passage has some figurative statements, but also contains literal statements:

Who covers Himself with light as with a garment:
who stretches out the heavens as a curtain


And is following the same order given in Genesis.
Marking it as a passage about Gods creation.

 

[contratodo]

5 years later his theory was proven to be completely false.

By who, show me the video, or some link to the explanation of how his theory was proven false.
You saying so is just you saying so.

 

[Phil G]

It does not say "chariots of the clouds", that is you saying that.
The passage says

Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: Who maketh the clouds his chariot: Who walketh upon the wings of the wind

"He makes the clouds His chariot."

So the clouds themselves are His chariot, yes the clouds we see, the sky we see is above the clouds,
Gods city is above the sky.

No need for wheels or to try to make something figurative that is plainly stated.

"He walks upon the wings of the wind."

So He walks above the wind. Yes, the wings there are figurative, He is above the wind.
The sky is above the wind, and Gods city is above the sky.

"He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters." You don't like that one I assume, but it comes first.

That is the firmament, the sky, the dome, laid in the water.

On top of the firmament is the city of heaven, we know this due to Revelation 22.


The passage has some figurative statements, but also contains literal statements:

Who covers Himself with light as with a garment:
who stretches out the heavens as a curtain


And is following the same order given in Genesis.
Marking it as a passage about Gods creation.

It says He makes the clouds His chariot, in other words the chariot is made of clouds i.e. chariot of clouds. A chariot has wheels, otherwise it's not a chariot. Therefore His chariot is figurative.

As regards the wind, now you don't believe the Bible according to your interpretative technique. You claim the wings are figurative. That's not what God says. There is no qualification of the wings being figurative. It's a plain straightforward statement that God walks on the wings of the wind.

The fact is God speaks figuratively at times. You pick and choose which words are figurative and which are not. That's called interpretation. And that means your claim that the Bible says the earth is flat and all your other claims are just your interpretation. Case closed.

I'm not going to waste any more time on your obvious deceptions, so blather away till your heart's content.

 

[Estrid]

I've got thick skin

It isn't something I read anywhere. It just made sense to my engineering mindset.

I agree. Even the standard dimensions changed depending on whose fore-arm or foot was being used as the baseline.

As we keep having to tell flat earthers, the Bible is not written to be a science textbook. The Word of God is true, but not in the sense that they believe.

You did fine up to the last sentence, re that which
is demonstrable as being so, or, not so.

True it's no textbok though my question is how wrong
it can be and still be right.

I don't trust people who just make things up,
make statements contrary to fact and are otherwise
less than honest.

As in I don't trust the bible- writers to be in any way
wise, insightful or truthful.

I'm open to being corrected in even the smallest degree but so far that's my perception.

 

[contratodo]

The fact is God speaks figuratively at times. You pick and choose which words are figurative and which are not. That's called interpretation. And that means your claim that the Bible says the earth is flat and all your other claims are just your interpretation. Case closed.

I'm not going to waste any more time on your obvious deceptions, so blather away till your heart's content.

So you won't address Psalms 104:2 ?
And the first part of verse 3?

Those are not figurative, and clearly the passage starts out with the same order given in Genesis.

The Bible paints a very clear picture of what creation is like, because God knew what the end time deceptions would be.
The truth of God, sets us free from the deceptions of this world.

I am going to stand on the word of God, and by that I'm not talking about one or two verses, but the totality of what it says about creation.

If you believe that is all wrong,
I don't see how you can claim to believe the Bible concerning Jesus,
perhaps His death and resurrection is just figurative too?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What you refer to here is the vanishing point caused by the angular width of objects being smaller than our eyes can discriminate. Others have already posted photos of large objects (islands) which are much larger than the minimum our eyes can discriminate, yet they are obscured from our view by the horizon caused by the earth's curvature, not because of some arbitrary 'maximum distance' we supposedly can't see beyond.

Are you seriously telling me that this guy has been confusing vanishing point with horizon?

But still, I've shown that he said that the limit of human sight is 3 miles and he's still not commented on it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If you believe that is all wrong,
I don't see how you can claim to believe the Bible concerning Jesus,
perhaps His death and resurrection is just figurative too?

Not wrong but a different style of speaking, like poetry, epic story or even stories like Job or Jonah. No need to take it all literal. How does one decide literal from figurative? I think that is where one's church is helpful for leadership.

 

[Estrid]

So you won't address Psalms 104:2 ?
And the first part of verse 3?

Those are not figurative, and clearly the passage starts out with the same order given in Genesis.

The Bible paints a very clear picture of what creation is like, because God knew what the end time deceptions would be.
The truth of God, sets us free from the deceptions of this world.


View attachment 345630

I am going to stand on the word of God, and by that I'm not talking about one or two verses, but the totality of what it says about creation.

If you believe that is all wrong,
I don't see how you can claim to believe the Bible concerning Jesus,
perhaps His death and resurrection is just figurative too?

It isn't ALL wrong.
That's the Vice of overgeneralizing.

There's inaccuracies, there's things not literally true.

There's also- as Jesuit priest here in Hong Kong told me-
that God gave the gift of brains because He wanted use to USE them!

Literal v figurative is a place to apply ye brain.

Nobody thinks Jesus was a sheep. Or had a doorknob.

That's easy enough: some is harder. Like " Flood".

What's to be made of such a story?
The proof that there was no worldwide flood is so
clear that no reasonable / informed person thinks its literal.
So what is it about? Good occasion for using God's gift!

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you seriously telling me that this guy has been confusing vanishing point with horizon?

He has got just about everything else scientifc wrong. I can't speak to his scriptural assessments, but I have my suspicions based on reasoned arguments from others.

 

[pgp_protector]

He has got just about everything else scientifc wrong. I can't speak to his scriptural assessments, but I have my suspicions based on reasoned arguments from others.

We know what's going on, just this site has rules that prevent us from calling it out.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Even inside of a flat straight building as you look down a hall there is a horizon.

That would have to be a very , very large building.

 

[prodromos]

By who, show me the video, or some link to the explanation of how his theory was proven false.
You saying so is just you saying so.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon in July of 1969. They were followed by Pete Conrad and Alan Bean in November of the same year, then Alan Shepard and Ed Mitchell in January 1971 and Dave Scott and Jim Irwin in July of the same year. They were followed by two more landings in the following year

There have been many more probes sent to the moon's surface.

Every Mission to the Moon, Ever

It only takes a couple days to send most spacecraft to the Moon, so it's not surprising that humans have sent more missions there than anywhere else. The…

www.planetary.org

 

[BeyondET]

Lol,z at you.

View attachment 343511

The angle of incidence varies because the Earth is spherical.

In that bottom photo the piercing sunlight is in different angles. That only happens on a sphere. If the earth was flat that wouldn't happen.

 

[prodromos]

The angle of incidence varies because the Earth is spherical.

In that bottom photo the piercing sunlight is in different angles. That only happens on a sphere. If the earth was flat that wouldn't happen.

Actually it because the gaps in the clouds through which the sun is shining are far distant, so perspective is causing them to appear to converge, just like railway tracks. When viewed from a high altitude, those rays are all parallel.

 

[BeyondET]

Actually it because the gaps in the clouds through which the sun is shining are far distant, so perspective is causing them to appear to converge, just like railway tracks. When viewed from a high altitude, those rays are all parallel.

The gaps are in clouds that are on a sphere. That's why the light is angeled shinning through the gaps. The gaps have nothing to do with it. Using railroad tracks on a sphere isn't a good example.

Technically sunlight isn't parallel

 

[Phil G]

The gaps are in clouds that are on a sphere. That's why the light is angeled shinning through the gaps. The gaps have nothing to do with it. Using railroad tracks on a sphere isn't a good example.

Technically sunlight isn't parallel

The gaps in the clouds only allow the sun’s rays to be visible. The angle that they are seen is to do with distance & perspective in the same way as railway tracks. All parallel lines diverge towards the observer. After travelling 93 million miles, the sun’s rays are effectively parallel because of their small arc when they hit the earth. They are at most a little over 0.5 degrees to each other.

 

[prodromos]

The gaps are in clouds that are on a sphere. That's why the light is angeled shinning through the gaps.

Big nope there

The gaps have nothing to do with it. Using railroad tracks on a sphere isn't a good example.

Technically sunlight isn't parallel

By the time it reaches the earth, it pretty much is. The maximum angle between light from one extreme of the sun to another is minuscule over that distance.

 

[contratodo]

The proof that there was no worldwide flood is so
clear that no reasonable / informed person thinks its literal.

There is plenty proof that there was a flood.
Please inform me of the proof otherwise, my main point with sentiments like the above, is that your not speaking like a Christian.
If the Bible is so figurative, was the death and resurrection of Christ figurative?

If we believe that Christ actually rose from the dead, then all the other "fanciful" things in the Bible can not be very far fetched.
Either the Bible is your anchor of truth or it is not.
If it is not, you will very likely go along with the world, when they tell you the Bible is wrong,
and that Jesus is really just a humanoid alien from the first 'planet' that 'evolved'.

 

[contratodo]

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon in July of 1969. They were followed by Pete Conrad and Alan Bean in November of the same year, then Alan Shepard and Ed Mitchell in January 1971 and Dave Scott and Jim Irwin in July of the same year. They were followed by two more landings in the following year

There have been many more probes sent to the moon's surface.

To me it looks clearly like those guys were lying, and felt bad about the fact that they had to lie in public

Years later when asked if they would swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon,
most of them had negative reactions, one even running away in fear.
"Astronauts gone wild" by Bart Sibrel.


Starting at 2:07 in the following video, Don Pettit says they destroyed all the old technology they had
and to go to the moon now they would have to start over.

 

[contratodo]

That would have to be a very , very large building.

The horizon line we see anywhere, has to do with perspective.
The door at the end of the hall is not smaller than the door closest to us, even though it looks so.
Same for the lights and lockers.
What we see is due to perspective. This is true with the sun and moon also, as they travel far away from us.

Horizon.

Yes vanishing point, the same principle applies as we look at things outside.


As stated before, one could not look all the way to the other side of the Gotthard tunnel,
even though it is perfectly flat and level the whole entire way.
Your eye would only see so much, before the vanishing point.

Can anyone explain what they did to account for the "curvature" of the earth as they built the 35 mile long Gotthard tunnel?