Does Modern Science Align with the Bible?

[BNR32FAN]

Do you know the difference between wide angle and fish-eye lens? The guy is using a wide angle lens which means it's a non fish-eye lens video.

Wrong again a wide angle lens is a fish eye lens with less of the fish eye effect. They’re both convex lenses but the wide angle lens has less of a convex to it than a fish eye lens. A fish eye lens is called an ultra wide lens.

Any lens between 35mm and 24mm is considered a wide angle camera lens. Anything between 24 mm and 18mm is considered an ultra wide angle lens. Below 18mm enters fisheye lens territory. Fisheye lenses are common in action sports, but in photography and film can cause unwanted wide angle lens distortion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can educate yourself from a journalist article by FORBES on the difference between wide angle and fish-eye lenses:

Fisheye Or Wide-Angle Lens For Travel

I know what the difference is, a wide angle lens has less distortion but still has distortion. A fish eye lens is simply an ultra wide lens. The screenshots I posted from your video prove that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sad to see people desperate to believe in lies so bad they'll fall for anything...here's an uncut video from a high altitude balloon with no fish-eye lens reaching what NASA would call the stratosphere, and keep in mind this is shot by a pro-glober:

Sorry but NASA is lying to you and everyone else...the sooner you can accept that the easier it will be.

You never did address the fact that the video and screenshots from that video I provided contains both straight lines and the curvature of the earth. Are you just going to ignore that proof?

 

[dani'el]

I've been higher than the mountain in an airplane and seen videos of high altitude balloons higher than the mountain you've climbed: and none show a curved earth. As regards your flight path argument we can make it void by I serving that airpilots only correct their altitude at two points in the entire trip:

1. Takeoff
2. Landing

If the earth were truly a globe then the pilots would constantly need to be correcting their flight path by pointing the plane nose down: because if it kept flying straight it would eventually end up in space. Otherwise trying to prove the earth is a globe or disprove it being a plane with flight paths is pretty useless as we don't have a live, unedited, fully panned out view of the earth to show us the true shapes of the continents.

OK, last post here; and it addresses things from several posts- I chose this one to quote because it says we are getting ridiculous. I too have been up in planes. The horizon gets even farther, as one would expect with a globe.

Pilots do adjust continually as needed. But since your earth is out of scale they do not have to keep "adjusting their nose."

The scale of both your ship and the earth are WAY off. However large ships do disappear over the horizon somewhat gradually- just nothing like you illustrate. I was in the Corps; I've been on ships and seen big ships and the horizon of the ocean.

I've been over halfway round the world, but others beat me to circumnavigation by a few years so it doesn't matter that I didn't get to do that:

The first circumnavigation of the world was in 1519-1522. The Spanish vessel Vittoria (Nao Victoria), commanded by Juan Sebastián de Elcano was part of the Magellan expedition and made it back to Spain to claim first place.

The first aerial circumnavigation of the world was in 1924 by four aviators from the United States Army Air Service. It took 175 days, covered over 26,345 miles, and traveled east to west.

In 1930, Australian Charles Kingsford Smith and three other crewmembers completed the first circumnavigation by flight traversing both hemispheres.

But, if the earth is flat in your mind, then it is flat. Good luck traveling very far though. Just remember to keep your nose down ...

 

[Humble Penny]

Wrong again a wide angle lens is a fish eye lens with less of the fish eye effect. They’re both convex lenses but the wide angle lens has less of a convex to it than a fish eye lens. A fish eye lens is called an ultra wide lens.

Any lens between 35mm and 24mm is considered a wide angle camera lens. Anything between 24 mm and 18mm is considered an ultra wide angle lens. Below 18mm enters fisheye lens territory. Fisheye lenses are common in action sports, but in photography and film can cause unwanted wide angle lens distortion.

I know what the difference is, a wide angle lens has less distortion but still has distortion. A fish eye lens is simply an ultra wide lens. The screenshots I posted from your video prove that.

You never did address the fact that the video and screenshots from that video I provided contains both straight lines and the curvature of the earth. Are you just going to ignore that proof?

Here's another link from reputable photographers discussing the difference between fish-eye and wide angle lenses with pictures...it's sad you still can't tell the difference:
https://www.adorama.com/alc/wide-angle-and-fish-eye-lens-buying-guide/

OK, last post here; and it addresses things from several posts- I chose this one to quote because it says we are getting ridiculous. I too have been up in planes. The horizon gets even farther, as one would expect with a globe.

Pilots do adjust continually as needed. But since your earth is out of scale they do not have to keep "adjusting their nose."

The scale of both your ship and the earth are WAY off. However large ships do disappear over the horizon somewhat gradually- just nothing like you illustrate. I was in the Corps; I've been on ships and seen big ships and the horizon of the ocean.

I've been over halfway round the world, but others beat me to circumnavigation by a few years so it doesn't matter that I didn't get to do that:

The first circumnavigation of the world was in 1519-1522. The Spanish vessel Vittoria (Nao Victoria), commanded by Juan Sebastián de Elcano was part of the Magellan expedition and made it back to Spain to claim first place.

The first aerial circumnavigation of the world was in 1924 by four aviators from the United States Army Air Service. It took 175 days, covered over 26,345 miles, and traveled east to west.

In 1930, Australian Charles Kingsford Smith and three other crewmembers completed the first circumnavigation by flight traversing both hemispheres.

But, if the earth is flat in your mind, then it is flat. Good luck traveling very far though. Just remember to keep your nose down ...

In post #123 I readily admit the picture isn't to scale and used it as a simple demonstration of the fact that if the earth is curved then we shouldn't be able to zoom into the far distance to bring ships or other objects back into view which have "dipped below the horizon" according to a globe model. The video I shared of a pro globe person shows that this isn't the case. This is yet another proof refuting the globe earth.

 

[Humble Penny]

A low altitude for a satellite orbiting the earth is 13.000 miles spread that out around the globe and the circumference is 81,681 miles. So if there were 1,000 satellites orbiting the globe in a perfectly straight line with the equator they would be spread out 81 miles apart. Here’s a picture of the friggin GRAND CANYON at 30,000 feet which is only a mere 5.68 miles. Can you spot the Grand Canyon in this photo? Is the Grand Canyon bigger than a satellite? I’m no geologist or rocket scientist but I believe the Grand Canyon is a tad bit bigger than a satellite.

View attachment 322867
So if I can’t spot the Grand Canyon for 5.68 miles away do you think you can spot a satellite from 81 miles away? Not to mention that satellites aren’t in a straight line around the earth they’re spread out over the Norther and Southern Hemispheres and that’s just the low orbit satellites we haven’t even included high orbit satellites. So you 100,000 feet videos are a mere 18.94 miles. That’s a long way from 13,000 miles.

The hyperlink in post #156 is from NASA where they state low earth orbit is ~1,200 Miles/2000 Kilometers which means at some point in these various videos and photos scattered across the world we should've seen some satellites..but they just never seem to appear...

Post #155 shows how many satellites are supposedly in low earth orbit...yet we see know satellites...and wouldn't you know...pilots aren't told ever to wait for certain satellites to pass before they take off into the air...conclusion? We've been lied to and no satellites exist in the air as we've been told.

 

[Humble Penny]

What does the Word of God tell us about the nature of our world and the shape of the earth?

Therefore anything going against the Word of God, which is Truth, is false. Therefore I have claimed in this thread that the heliocentric model is pagan which I will demonstrate below.

Is heliocentrism based on any truth or a mythological pagan idea? Let's read the words of Copernicus himself:

“in the middle of all sits the Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe; Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle around him.”
Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres (1543 AD)
​

So we see this so-called science of ours is not based in the Word of God but the mystery school of Trimegistus and Hermes. Yet many fools praise this man to the skies for his supposed "wisdom".

Let's expose more of the paganism and evil behind the heliocentric model by consulting the words of a well known philosopher by the name of Karl Popper:

“Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun, rather than the Earth, in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations, but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature. Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.”
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge p. 187 (emphasis added mine)
​

How sad...one would think that the disciples of the heliocentric model would at least bother to study the origins of their doctrines. What's worse is that believers in the body of Christ fall prey to these wolves in sheep's clothing....

But I guess promoting pagan lies is "not a salvation issue?"

 

[Humble Penny]

What does the Word of God tell us about the nature of our world and the shape of the earth?
View attachment 322878 View attachment 322879 View attachment 322880 View attachment 322881 View attachment 322882

Therefore anything going against the Word of God, which is Truth, is false. Therefore I have claimed in this thread that the heliocentric model is pagan which I will demonstrate below.

Is heliocentrism based on any truth or a mythological pagan idea? Let's read the words of Copernicus himself:

“in the middle of all sits the Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe; Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle around him.”
Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres (1543 AD)
​

So we see this so-called science of ours is not based in the Word of God but the mystery school of Trimegistus and Hermes. Yet many fools praise this man to the skies for his supposed "wisdom".

Let's expose more of the paganism and evil behind the heliocentric model by consulting the words of a well known philosopher by the name of Karl Popper:

“Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun, rather than the Earth, in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations, but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature. Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.”
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge p. 187 (emphasis added mine)
​

How sad...one would think that the disciples of the heliocentric model would at least bother to study the origins of their doctrines. What's worse is that believers in the body of Christ fall prey to these wolves in sheep's clothing....

But I guess promoting pagan lies is "not a salvation issue?"

A simple challenge to globe adherents who wish to hold onto the globe and heliocentric model...explain why the ancient Babylonian eclipse tables we have are accurate to this day when they are using a geocentric, stationary, plane earth model? If the astronomical events which occur in the heavens can only do so on a globe then we should've actually expected the ancient Babylonian eclipse tables to be in error instead of being accurate.

 

[Humble Penny]

When Job spoke here was it literal or allegorical?

What does reality show us in this high altitude balloon video?

Looks like Job was telling the truth just as Moses was...which means we can trust the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 since we can observe all of these things occuring in nature.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So then the horizon should never have straightened itself out multiple times in all the videos I shared but it did. And without the fish-eye lens globe adherents still fail to explain why the observer doesn't have to look down at the horizon when ascending in altitude; in reality the horizon always rises and falls relative to the observer.

Horizon? A flat earth shouldn’t have a horizon. Oh and when you have a horizon that is bending from concave to convex of course there will be a middle point where it is straight.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Pilots do adjust continually as needed. But since your earth is out of scale they do not have to keep "adjusting their nose."

Actually pilots do have to keep adjusting the nose but it’s not because of the curvature of the earth it’s because of variances in wind speed, wind direction, air density, and a few more contributing factors that cause variations in lift on the control surfaces. On most planes you can fine tune this by adjusting the trim to make it less of a burden to control but even then you will eventually start to drift up or down, left or right. That’s why they invented things like speed hold, altitude hold, pitch hold, heading hold, level hold, etc because planes don’t just fly straight on their own. These systems make corrections in flight similar to a cruise control on a car.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The hyperlink in post #156 is from NASA where they state low earth orbit is ~1,200 Miles/2000 Kilometers which means at some point in these various videos and photos scattered across the world we should've seen some satellites..but they just never seem to appear...

Did they say that’s where they orbit satellites? No because the orbit will decay to fast and they will burn up in the atmosphere.

 

[Humble Penny]

Horizon? A flat earth shouldn’t have a horizon. Oh and when you have a horizon that is bending from concave to convex of course there will be a middle point where it is straight.

The optical effect you described only occurs with special lenses known as wide angle and fish-eye lenses. Yeah as to your horizon comment I'm beginning to think you're going dilusional and breaking down from the programming frying your brain...both globe and plane models of the earth have horizons. How they behave in each model is what differentiates the two.

Actually pilots do have to keep adjusting the nose but it’s not because of the curvature of the earth it’s because of variances in wind speed, wind direction, air density, and a few more contributing factors that cause variations in lift on the control surfaces. On most planes you can fine tune this by adjusting the trim to make it less of a burden to control but even then you will eventually start to drift up or down, left or right. That’s why they invented things like speed hold, altitude hold, pitch hold, heading hold, level hold, etc because planes don’t just fly straight on their own. These systems make corrections in flight similar to a cruise control on a car.

Don't know where you're getting your information from but the Israelis during the 1967 Six Day War we're able to fly in straight lines without making any adjustments except for when they had to maneuver through valleys and get around mountains. Your explanation also fails to explain why fighter jets can be clearly seen flying in straight lines for long periods of time without auto pilot...and for anyone who's seen planes from the ground can see them constantly flying in a straight line...and some planes can be seen more clearly flying straight when they leave behind smoke trails.

Did they say that’s where they orbit satellites? No because the orbit will decay to fast and they will burn up in the atmosphere.

Yeah looks like you don't like to read so here's some other links from NASA showing that many of the satellites are in low earth orbit:

Catalog of Earth Satellite Orbits

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/growing-low-earth-orbit-economy

Post #155...if you bother to read and go there will also show a helpful graphic stating how many supposed satellites we have orbiting Low, Mid, and High Earth Orbit.

 

[Humble Penny]

Since my expertise is in history and chronology I will not attack modern science from any other vantage point than those, and will use common sense and observation to refute the lies. Again I will push the quotes from Nicholas Copernicus and Karl Popper who both admit readily that the globe model and heliocentric model aren't based on scientific observation but pagan religious beliefs:

Is heliocentrism based on any truth or a mythological pagan idea? Let's read the words of Copernicus himself:

“in the middle of all sits the Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe; Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle around him.”
Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres (1543 AD)
​

So we see this so-called science of ours is not based in the Word of God but the mystery school of Trimegistus and Hermes. Yet many fools praise this man to the skies for his supposed "wisdom".

Let's expose more of the paganism and evil behind the heliocentric model by consulting the words of a well known philosopher by the name of Karl Popper:

“Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun, rather than the Earth, in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations, but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature. Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.”
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge p. 187 (emphasis added mine)
​

How sad...one would think that the disciples of the heliocentric model would at least bother to study the origins of their doctrines. What's worse is that believers in the body of Christ fall prey to these wolves in sheep's clothing....

But I guess promoting pagan lies is "not a salvation issue?"

Therefore since the foundation is built upon lies the entire structure is also built upon lies. And for those who wish to continue to adhere to such falsehood will be continually found to breaking the Law of Moses which says:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

And because of this you are convicted as a sinner and condemned to the lake of fire if you do not repent of your wickedness.

 

[Humble Penny]

Here's two links of a dear brother who passed away a few years ago by the name of Jerry Morris. He's the only man I've seen faithfully follow 1 Enoch and it's 364 Day Solar Calendar, the Priestly Order of the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q320, and decisively prove the equinox in 1 Enoch lines up with reality by using an actual sundial:

Fall Equinox September 22, 2015

Spring Equinox March 22, 2016

 

[BNR32FAN]

Don't know where you're getting your information from but the Israelis during the 1967 Six Day War we're able to fly in straight lines without making any adjustments except for when they had to maneuver through valleys and get around mountains. Your explanation also fails to explain why fighter jets can be clearly seen flying in straight lines for long periods of time without auto pilot...and for anyone who's seen planes from the ground can see them constantly flying in a straight line...and some planes can be seen more clearly flying straight when they leave behind smoke trails.

Making empty claims with zero evidence is useless. Like I said I’ve flown a T6 Texan before and I’ve flown countless planes on Microsoft Simulator and none of them will keep flying in a straight line for a long period of time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The optical effect you described only occurs with special lenses known as wide angle and fish-eye lenses. Yeah as to your horizon comment I'm beginning to think you're going dilusional and breaking down from the programming frying your brain...both globe and plane models of the earth have horizons. How they behave in each model is what differentiates the two.


Don't know where you're getting your information from but the Israelis during the 1967 Six Day War we're able to fly in straight lines without making any adjustments except for when they had to maneuver through valleys and get around mountains. Your explanation also fails to explain why fighter jets can be clearly seen flying in straight lines for long periods of time without auto pilot...and for anyone who's seen planes from the ground can see them constantly flying in a straight line...and some planes can be seen more clearly flying straight when they leave behind smoke trails.


Yeah looks like you don't like to read so here's some other links from NASA showing that many of the satellites are in low earth orbit:

Catalog of Earth Satellite Orbits

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/growing-low-earth-orbit-economy

Post #155...if you bother to read and go there will also show a helpful graphic stating how many supposed satellites we have orbiting Low, Mid, and High Earth Orbit.

No I’m not going on some wild goose chase looking for something that doesn’t exist because if it did exist you would’ve posted the link for that particular page.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here's two links of a dear brother who passed away a few years ago by the name of Jerry Morris. He's the only man I've seen faithfully follow 1 Enoch and it's 364 Day Solar Calendar, the Priestly Order of the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q320, and decisively prove the equinox in 1 Enoch lines up with reality by using an actual sundial:

Fall Equinox September 22, 2015

Spring Equinox March 22, 2016

This is why I don’t believe you don’t truly believe that the earth is flat, because at times you exhibit exceptional intelligence then at other times you appear to not even understand the most elementary teachings.

 

[Paul4JC]

Why should I need to do that? I already said I was not referencing scripture when I used that word.

You did use the word planet. I was asking simple questions whether you; 1. refer to the earth as a planet, and 2. if that is biblical?

You can write paragraphs of scientific equations but not address Scripture. You seem to know Greek #8 so I thought you may have Bible knowledge on the subject.

The title thread says, Does Modern Science Align with the Bible? Does planet align?

 

[daq]

You did use the word planet. I was asking simple questions whether you; 1. refer to the earth as a planet, and 2. if that is biblical?

You can write paragraphs of scientific equations but not address Scripture. You seem to know Greek #8 so I thought you may have Bible knowledge on the subject.

The title thread says, Does Modern Science Align with the Bible? Does planet align?

Here is Lulav's question to me:

Yes and the equilux will also depend on where you are, right?

This was my answer:

And yes also, equilux will depend on where you are on the planet, (latitude).

Do you see the words equilux or equinox anywhere in the scripture? Do you see the words latitude or longitude anywhere in the scripture? Are we not allowed to use words unless they are found in the scripture?

As far as the word planet aligning with scripture, yes, it does in my understanding, which I have received by way of observing the creation of Elohim. I do not need to have the word planet spelled out for me in the scripture to understand the observable creation of Elohim.