Flat Earth Theory.

[Apple Sky]

A childish reply.

No, I meant it.

 

[Phil G]

​

Polaris Proves the Flat Earth​

What a droney boring load of rubbish. He is not even addressing the real evidence, just some gobbledygook that he is using to obfuscate from proven facts.

If you actually speak to an amateur astronomer who uses an equatorial mount to view objects over a period of time, or a night sky photographer who uses such a mount (rather than listen to someone who only tries to ridicule a spherical earth rather than come up with any actual evidence of his claims), they will tell you, and and show you, that in order to keep an object or sky area in the field of view of a telescope or camera, the mount MUST be aligned exactly with the North Celestial Pole (in the northern hemisphere). In order to do this, the mount MUST be aligned in such a way that Polaris is off center, because it is NOT directly north. As I showed you before and will again, Polaris rotates around a center point in the sky, the same center point that ALL stars rotate around in the northern hemisphere. This is a proven fact. If amateur astronomers/sky photographers aligned their mounts to Polaris as if it is directly north, their equatorial mounts would not work as they should.

See how Polaris rotates around a center point in the sky which is directly above the North Pole in the star trail photo below. The center point is marked with a green dot (I say this because FE people tend to miss the obvious!) Polaris is NOT in the center and so is NOT directly above the North Pole.

 

[trophy33]

No, I meant it.

You mean many things that do not exist.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, I am saying it because you do not care about how to work with it properly, you prefer a youtuber to tell you or your own intuitive reading, which is wrong. You ignore or dismiss people who actually study the era, culture and language of the Bible.

Well I'm bound to when you think most of the passages in the Bible are metaphors, which you seem to be picking & choosing.

 

[Phil G]

We don't have to understand Hebrew & Greek to know what is written in the Bible.

You do if you try define Hebrew words, like 'raqia' as 'firmament', when the word does not have such a clear definition.

 

[Phil G]

Well I'm bound to when you think most of the passages in the Bible are metaphors, which you seem to be picking & choosing.

You and all other FE proponents are adept at 'picking and choosing' which words or phrases are to be literal or metaphor.

 

[trophy33]

Well I'm bound to when you think most of the passages in the Bible are metaphors, which you seem to be picking & choosing.

And now a shocker - ancient people preferred non-literal genres. Now what. Will you ignore that or be upset because of that?

If you are ignoring that, you are ignoring the majority of the Old Testament as such.

If you take the Bible seriously, you must understand the people and the culture it originated with. Not to ascribe your own meanings to their words.

 

[Apple Sky]

If amateur astronomers/sky photographers aligned their mounts to Polaris as if it is directly north, their equatorial mounts would not work as they should.

No, it would never work on a spinning ball.

NOT in the center and so is NOT directly above the North Pole

I'll say it again, yes it is.

 

[Apple Sky]

You and all other FE proponents are adept at 'picking and choosing' which words or phrases are to be literal or metaphor.

We are very adept at the truth in the Bible.

 

[trophy33]

We are very adept at the truth in the Bible.

No, you do not care about the Bible. You do not respect it enough to actually learn to understand it.

You may read it, but you have no idea what you are reading.

 

[Phil G]

No, it would never work on a spinning ball.



I'll say it again, yes it is.

The equatorial mount ONLY works on a rotating sphere. It is physically impossible for it to work on a flat earth. Ask anyone who actually understands how it works.

And no Polaris is NOT directly above the North Pole. It is pointless to say that it is because that is like saying you don't have a head. It's that obvious!

 

[Phil G]

We are very adept at the truth in the Bible.

No, you are very adept at misinterpreting the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You ignore or dismiss people who actually study the era, culture and language of the Bible.

And what is the language of the Bible?

I say it is Jacobean English.

What do these studiers say?

You do not respect the Bible enough to learn about it.

Can these studiers read a real 1611 Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do if you try define Hebrew words, like 'raqia' as 'firmament', when the word does not have such a clear definition.

It's not our job to go defining Hebrew words.

God took care of that in 1611.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you take the Bible seriously, you must understand the people and the culture it originated with.

Why?

I don't know a lick of Greek or Hebrew.

Are you saying I can't take the Bible seriously?

 

[Phil G]

It's not our job to go defining Hebrew words.

God took care of that in 1611.

Oh dear, translators are not God.

 

[trophy33]

Why?

I don't know a lick of Greek or Hebrew.

Are you saying I can't take the Bible seriously?

If you do not care what is actually meant by the text, you do not take the Bible seriously. Lazy reading according to your personal understanding is not seriousness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh dear, translators are not God.

Okay.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[trophy33]

And what is the language of the Bible?

Hebrew, Greek. But Bible is more than just a language, its also about the cultural meanings of the words, ideas and concepts you must understand to translate it and to read it properly.

I say it is Jacobean English.

Another silliness comparable to Flat Earth or the YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you do not care what is actually meant by the text, you do not take the Bible seriously.

Really?

Can you explain Hebrew poetry to me, and tell me what the three main types of Hebrew poetry are?

Lazy reading according to your personal understanding is not seriousness.

Whose personal understanding should I use then?

Yours?