Does the Bible support the idea of a spinning ball earth flying through space, or is that a Satanic, Masonic lie?
- Thread starter DaninNY
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Does not require this. There is no logic in your reasoning here.
Depends on the TRUE speed of light and the stars TRUE distance from us.
God could have done things either way or both ways or some other way. I was not there.
That is referring to angels.
Ken Ham is interested in serious science and truth, not goofing around with humorous stupidities like we do.
Depends on the TRUE speed of light and the stars TRUE distance from us.
God could have done things either way or both ways or some other way. I was not there.
That is referring to angels.
Ken Ham is interested in serious science and truth, not goofing around with humorous stupidities like we do.
That is absolutely correct!
This is something that Ball Earthers use to try to make fun of Flat Earthers.
No Flat Earther worth their salt will tell you that the earth is a flat disc/disk.
We do not know what the exact shape of the 'underside' of the earth is; however, we do know that there is something there - as opposed to nothing - which is what there would be if the earth were a disc/disk.
(Oh - and, you are using it here to attempt to move the focus away from what the Bible does actually say about the earth.)
This is something that Ball Earthers use to try to make fun of Flat Earthers.
No Flat Earther worth their salt will tell you that the earth is a flat disc/disk.
We do not know what the exact shape of the 'underside' of the earth is; however, we do know that there is something there - as opposed to nothing - which is what there would be if the earth were a disc/disk.
(Oh - and, you are using it here to attempt to move the focus away from what the Bible does actually say about the earth.)
-
1
- Show all
I am aware of freemasonry and was being ironic with the point about stonemastons. Socrates was stonecutter and was called a tekton. https://www.abarim-publications.com/DictionaryG/t/t-i-k-t-om.html
But tekton was also used specifically for carpenters when listed with other trades in the LXX.
I still don't get why a round earyh would have to be a masonic conspiracy.
But tekton was also used specifically for carpenters when listed with other trades in the LXX.
I still don't get why a round earyh would have to be a masonic conspiracy.
The bible says no such thing. This is a belief unsupported by the bible (also by science).
If Heliocentricity is true, God would have stopped the Earth, not the sun.
The following passages (and others) do not allow for the Heliocentric theory.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Joshua 10:13 “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
If the stars are millions of light-years away (as required by Heliocentricity), *and* the Earth is between 7,000 and 10,000 years old (as required by scripture), *and* God created the light photons enroute to Earth (as you assert would maintain consistency between Heliocentricity and scripture), then the light-photons we are seeing are not representative of any real stars, as these are still millions of light-years away. This is as philosophically unsound an argument as claiming each of us lives our lives in a different reality, or God created fossils in the Earth in order to test man's faith, or that history doesn't exist and we all came into being just moments ago with built-in memories of our histories. Not within the realm of science to disprove, but certainly not beliefs supported by scripture.
The speed of light has been tested fairly reliably to be in the order of 3E08m/s. As I've noted, if the stars are much closer (and they are), then the Heliocentric theory fails (and it does).
He could have, but I argue it's not in His character to build images of things that aren't actually there, such as stars millions of light-years away indicating events that would have happened before the creation. Certainly, there is no scriptural support for this.
Which part?
Matthew 24:19 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Ken Ham is interested in serious science and truth when it comes to evolution. Not when it comes to the shape of the Earth. Although the methodology of determining serious science and truth for both topics is the same.
If Heliocentricity is true, God would have stopped the Earth, not the sun.
The following passages (and others) do not allow for the Heliocentric theory.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Joshua 10:13 “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
If the stars are millions of light-years away (as required by Heliocentricity), *and* the Earth is between 7,000 and 10,000 years old (as required by scripture), *and* God created the light photons enroute to Earth (as you assert would maintain consistency between Heliocentricity and scripture), then the light-photons we are seeing are not representative of any real stars, as these are still millions of light-years away. This is as philosophically unsound an argument as claiming each of us lives our lives in a different reality, or God created fossils in the Earth in order to test man's faith, or that history doesn't exist and we all came into being just moments ago with built-in memories of our histories. Not within the realm of science to disprove, but certainly not beliefs supported by scripture.
The speed of light has been tested fairly reliably to be in the order of 3E08m/s. As I've noted, if the stars are much closer (and they are), then the Heliocentric theory fails (and it does).
He could have, but I argue it's not in His character to build images of things that aren't actually there, such as stars millions of light-years away indicating events that would have happened before the creation. Certainly, there is no scriptural support for this.
Which part?
Matthew 24:19 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Ken Ham is interested in serious science and truth when it comes to evolution. Not when it comes to the shape of the Earth. Although the methodology of determining serious science and truth for both topics is the same.
Why do you believe this? Do you believe light can be seen at any distance? Have you never been camping and tried to see a weak torch light beyond several hundred meters?
Where do you think the below symbol comes from? It shows exactly what you describe.
The rising and going down of the sun are just figures of speech. Strictly speaking, on a globe Earth, the sun will never go down either as the sun will always be above the globe, but from a different position - it's simply a matter of perspective, whether you believe in Heliocentricity or accept that Earth is flat.
This is as much a disproof of ball-Earth, as if a flat circle doesn't have four corners, a sphere certainly doesn't. It could be the Earth is a circle within a rectangle. It could be a metaphorical passage. But either way, it doesn't lend scriptural support to Heliocentric theory over belief that the Earth is flat.
This is the false cause logical fallacy. Gravity acts downward on a Flat Earth just as it does on a Ball Earth. However, on a Ball Earth, gravity also acts sideways and upward. This is unnecessary on a Flat Earth. Can you give one repeatable example of gravity acting sideways or upward (i.e. gravity acting in any direction other than downward), as required by Heliocentric theory?
Earth being flat is an observation. It requires no proof - it is simply what we observe. Any other theory requires evidence, of which Heliocentricity is seriously lacking.
Where do you think the below symbol comes from? It shows exactly what you describe.
The rising and going down of the sun are just figures of speech. Strictly speaking, on a globe Earth, the sun will never go down either as the sun will always be above the globe, but from a different position - it's simply a matter of perspective, whether you believe in Heliocentricity or accept that Earth is flat.
This is as much a disproof of ball-Earth, as if a flat circle doesn't have four corners, a sphere certainly doesn't. It could be the Earth is a circle within a rectangle. It could be a metaphorical passage. But either way, it doesn't lend scriptural support to Heliocentric theory over belief that the Earth is flat.
This is the false cause logical fallacy. Gravity acts downward on a Flat Earth just as it does on a Ball Earth. However, on a Ball Earth, gravity also acts sideways and upward. This is unnecessary on a Flat Earth. Can you give one repeatable example of gravity acting sideways or upward (i.e. gravity acting in any direction other than downward), as required by Heliocentric theory?
Earth being flat is an observation. It requires no proof - it is simply what we observe. Any other theory requires evidence, of which Heliocentricity is seriously lacking.
-
1
- Show all
wow talk about not caring if your wrong, but you sir really have excelled in this field.
You've ignored at least 20 good reasons that prove the theories of what your basing your information on don't hold substance to your claim.
Sir are you also going to dismiss Google earth and satellite data, plus live broadcasts from space stations in space.
Are you going to ignor 60 years of documentaries, plus how children are taught at school how our planet works ?
Sir your probably in a 0.1% margin with your belief out of the entire population of aldults on our planet with your beliefs.
Why would you want to be so different to popular belief and proven science ?.
Because the bible said God made the sun stand still and left the earth part out ?.
Sir this is no reason to prove the earth is flat.
You really have lost it friend.
You've ignored at least 20 good reasons that prove the theories of what your basing your information on don't hold substance to your claim.
Sir are you also going to dismiss Google earth and satellite data, plus live broadcasts from space stations in space.
Are you going to ignor 60 years of documentaries, plus how children are taught at school how our planet works ?
Sir your probably in a 0.1% margin with your belief out of the entire population of aldults on our planet with your beliefs.
Why would you want to be so different to popular belief and proven science ?.
Because the bible said God made the sun stand still and left the earth part out ?.
Sir this is no reason to prove the earth is flat.
You really have lost it friend.
A statement of fact does not need to have explicit biblical support. Male humans produce sperm and female humans produce eggs. Two of them, one of each kind, join together to make a zygote; the Bible says no such thing, but it is true nonetheless.
Um, no. God is not limited by physics at all. If He were, the event would not have happened at all.
None of these directly precludes heliocentricity. It's only your misunderstanding of them that does so.
There are scientifically sound explanations for the first two assertions; some people hold to the third but I don't as I see no need for it.
You might think your statement is a valid argument, but it isn't. You are pretending that you have proven (or that someone else has) that stars are closer and that heliocentric theory has been disproven. That's the essence of circular reasoning.
Here I agree with you.
Um, no. God is not limited by physics at all. If He were, the event would not have happened at all.
None of these directly precludes heliocentricity. It's only your misunderstanding of them that does so.
There are scientifically sound explanations for the first two assertions; some people hold to the third but I don't as I see no need for it.
You might think your statement is a valid argument, but it isn't. You are pretending that you have proven (or that someone else has) that stars are closer and that heliocentric theory has been disproven. That's the essence of circular reasoning.
Here I agree with you.
-
1
- Show all
You are making an error of scale. The sun is billions of times brighter than a weak torch, and the degree to which the atmosphere inhibits light is not billions of times greater at the distances under discussion.
This does not come from nor does it describe literal light and darkness; it is a philosophical axiom based (ultimately) on the nature of sin-ridden yet God-created humanity.
This is either sheer arrogance or blatant ignorance. Flat earth is not "an observation" but an interpretation based on misinterpretation of Scripture (for those who believe in Scripture) or science (for those who don't).
I observe conditions in the real world that are consistent with a globe earth and inconsistent with a flat earth.
This does not come from nor does it describe literal light and darkness; it is a philosophical axiom based (ultimately) on the nature of sin-ridden yet God-created humanity.
This is either sheer arrogance or blatant ignorance. Flat earth is not "an observation" but an interpretation based on misinterpretation of Scripture (for those who believe in Scripture) or science (for those who don't).
I observe conditions in the real world that are consistent with a globe earth and inconsistent with a flat earth.
NASA ain't the Holy Bible either. If it is acceptable for you to say that those that believe in a round earth worship NASA then it is also fair to say that those that believe in a flat earth worship the Flat Earth Society. Neither claim is true by the way. Specifically, where in scripture does it state specifically that the earth is flat or round? Nowhere. Let's leave it at that.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
- Status