Does Modern Science Align with the Bible?

Lulav · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
This part I won't respond to here because it's related to another thread you posted that's outside the scope of my OP here.

Only the last sentence out of seven.

Humble Penny said:
The thing is sister that God started this clock way back on Day 4 of creation, and it's been running fine since then. The problem is that man had stayed in so many different directions that brings about the confusion: yet the cycles of days and night still come and go on schedule like YHWH programmed them to. This is why in another thread I claim that Chronology is the foundation of astronomy because it shows us to correctly pinpoint when certain luminary activity should occur. But again this is for another topic of discussion.

Yes his timepiece is correct but the interpretation of it is what I'm speaking of. Like the new moon which is a Sabbath day is given to be when two witnesses can see the beginning of light on it. Not fully dark. Yet many, including NASA claim new moon is the complete dark.

New Moon
This is the invisible phase of the Moon, with the illuminated side of the Moon facing the Sun and the night side facing Earth. In this phase, the Moon is in the same part of the sky as the Sun and rises and sets with the Sun. Not only is the illuminated side facing away from the Earth, it’s also up during the day!

Humble Penny said:
When you consider the words of Moses starting that God made two great lights we must ask ourselves, "What phase of the Moon clearly displays her glorious beauty?" The only answer would be her full moon phase. Therefore if what you claimed about the new moon (i.e. first sliver crescent) being the phase the Moon began on creation, then it wouldn't line up with Genesis 1:14-19 for the reason I started above about the moon being made full.

You're making an assumption about what phase the moon was in at creation.

The fact is that the year begins on the New Moon, not a full moon so I don't see how you render it to begin on a full moon.

'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years.'”

Now the LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, 2“This month is the beginning of months for you; it shall be the first month of your year.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
Yes and on a globe there's no other way to view the convexity of the globe earth unless you're outside. Because when you're on land you don't see a curved, but a straight horizon line.

But your post was implying that I didn’t know the definition of convex and concave which I did provide the correct definition, the very same definition that you provided. That’s why I quoted my post and your screenshot to prove that I did in fact use the same definition you did.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
Hmmm well I've never claimed to know what the actual world looks like. So what you've typed here by lumping me in with stereotypical flat earthers is irrelevant as I've admitted to not being able to tell anyone accurately what the continents or rest of the world looks like since my travels are limited.

Thats the only way such a flight would be possible. I flew from Texas to Korea, to the Philippines then from the Philippines to Dubai, and from Dubai back to Texas. That means I flew all the way around the world traveling west the entire time and arrived back at my original location.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Again a fish eye lans video? The thumbnail shows a concave curve for crying out loud.

Yeah...seems you don't understand that without the fish-eye lens you wouldn't be getting the curves...which means the horizon is actually a straight line...

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
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:

Takeoff

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.

Wrong again, pilots have to constantly maintain their altitude by making slight adjustments constantly throughout the flight either by making the adjustments themselves or thru the use of autopilot features such as altitude hold. Constant changes in wind speed, wind direction, air density, and other contributing factors cause the plane to slightly pitch up & down during flight which requires constant readjustment in order to maintain a desired altitude.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
Yeah...seems you don't understand that without the fish-eye lens you wouldn't be getting the curves...which means the horizon is actually a straight line...

You can’t make that claim based on videos using a fish eye lens. Your making an assumption because a sphere captured with a fish eye lens still has curves.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Just stop while your behind, it’s obvious that the only reason you are here is to troll a Christian website. You don’t believe the earth is flat because your statements are too ridiculous to even remotely be considered as truthful. Nobody is that ignorant.

When God says that He has established the world so that it shall not be moved...I'm siding with God not NASA. And with only two explicit Bible verses stating the earth is circular and not spherical I'll be siding with God and not man. And observation shows me that a flat stationary earth is correct. Jesus Christ said:

"You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

So I will no longer hold to a ball earth now that I know the Bible doesn't support it and as I've quoted in posts #45 and #52 it is pagan based and not observation based along with the heliocentric model.

BNR32FAN said:
Thats the only way such a flight would be possible. I flew from Texas to Korea, to the Philippines then from the Philippines to Dubai, and from Dubai back to Texas. That means I flew all the way around the world traveling west the entire time and arrived back at my original location.

Again this is irrelevant to the shape of the earth because the actual live video footage documented by others that are unedited show we've been lied to about the expanse of the earth, and it doesn't match our modern maps. But that is the extent to which I will speak on maps as I am not a cartographer either.

What you have provided is simply the flight time which tells me nothing about the shape of the world. This means the flights claimed by other flat earthers is irrelevant to proving the shape of the earth or whatever map they want to make use of because neither side has actually given us a fully live panned out view of the earth for everyone to see.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Wrong again, pilots have to constantly maintain their altitude by making slight adjustments constantly throughout the flight either by making the adjustments themselves or thru the use of autopilot features such as altitude hold. Constant changes in wind speed, wind direction, air density, and other contributing factors cause the plane to slightly pitch up & down during flight which requires constant readjustment in order to maintain a desired altitude.

That's only during turbulent flights...when the weather is good, which it generally is, pilots have been known to sleep at the wheel. And it's clear that this supposed gravitational force doesn't have any affect on the plane because if it did then should experience the plane pointing down instead of going straight...

But I guess you'll not understand that an airplane is called such because it's an object in the air going over a plane surface.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
Yeah...seems you don't understand that without the fish-eye lens you wouldn't be getting the curves...which means the horizon is actually a straight line...

Here’s a video of the earth both with a fish eye lens AND WITHOUT a fish eye lens.

You can skip to 3 minutes into the video to see this screenshots I took. Notice the straight lines on the space station are not distorted and they still show the curvature of the earth.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
You can’t make that claim based on videos using a fish eye lens. Your making an assumption because a sphere captured with a fish eye lens still has curves.

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.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
When God says that He has established the world so that it shall not be moved...I'm siding with God not NASA. And with only two explicit Bible verses stating the earth is circular and not spherical I'll be siding with God and not man. And observation shows me that a flat stationary earth is correct. Jesus Christ said:

"You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

So I will no longer hold to a ball earth now that I know the Bible doesn't support it and as I've quoted in posts #45 and #52 it is pagan based and not observation based along with the heliocentric model.

The Bible doesn’t refute a spherical earth. Your interpretation is the only thing refuting a spherical earth not the scriptures. There is only one truth, it is not subjective, so when you quote scriptures to promote the idea of a flat earth it does not line up with truth and is therefore a deception and not scriptural.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Here’s a video of the earth both with a fish eye lens AND WITHOUT a fish eye lens.

You can skip to 3 minutes into the video to see this screenshots I took. Notice the straight lines on the space station are not distorted and they still show the curvature of the earth.

View attachment 322862
View attachment 322863

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.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
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.

@BNR32FAN Otherwise brother you and everyone else who believes in a globe still need to explain the lack of numerous satellites supposedly orbiting the earth...but never can be seen in all of these videos.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
That's only during turbulent flights...when the weather is good, which it generally is, pilots have been known to sleep at the wheel. And it's clear that this supposed gravitational force doesn't have any affect on the plane because if it did then should experience the plane pointing down instead of going straight...

But I guess you'll not understand that an airplane is called such because it's an object in the air going over a plane surface.

This is just an outright lie. Have you ever flown a plane before? I have, I flew a T6 Texan in Kissimmee Florida and in perfect weather and it does not fly straight holding its altitude. If a pilot was to fall asleep in that plane it would crash because it doesn’t have an autopilot feature. It’s a WWII training plane for fighter pilots.

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
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.

No fish eye lens? REALLY? I just watched the very first two seconds of the video and noticed this.

One second the land is flat behind the guy and the next it’s a valley? You have no honesty in you, do you?

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
This is just an outright lie. Have you ever flown a plane before? I have, I flew a T6 Texan in Kissimmee Florida and in perfect weather and it does not fly straight holding its altitude. If a pilot was to fall asleep in that plane it would crash because it doesn’t have an autopilot feature. It’s a WWII training plane for fighter pilots.

So you're saying that after turning the nose to go up...after I let go of the stick the plane of its own accord will not continue going up but turn itself down?

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
No fish eye lens? REALLY? I just watched the very first two seconds of the video and noticed this.

View attachment 322865
View attachment 322864

One second the land is flat behind the guy and the next it’s a valley? You have no honesty in you, do you?

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.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
No fish eye lens? REALLY? I just watched the very first two seconds of the video and noticed this.

View attachment 322865
View attachment 322864

One second the land is flat behind the guy and the next it’s a valley? You have no honesty in you, do you?

Humble Penny said:
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.

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

BNR32FAN · Nov 8, 2022

Humble Penny said:
@BNR32FAN Otherwise brother you and everyone else who believes in a globe still need to explain the lack of numerous satellites supposedly orbiting the earth...but never can be seen in all of these videos.

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.

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.

Humble Penny · Nov 8, 2022

@BNR32FAN Have you found it strange that with all the money NASA gets every year that they've never once invested into a plumbing system in the supposed space station?

BNR32FAN said:
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.

Where you so upset? Vent your rage at NASA not me: I'm just calmly exposing their lies without resorting to illuminati like a ton of people do and I'm staying objective by using pro-glober footage. Still it's odd to never once capture any satellites in video or photos...

Does Modern Science Align with the Bible?

Y'shua is His Name

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency