Does Modern Science Align with the Bible?

[Lulav]

Yes again, and that's the very reason why whether or not Pythagoras was a pagan is irrelevant. We shouldn't toss out mathematical truths just because those who discovered them may have had religious beliefs we do not agree with.

In another example akin to what I previously said to Dani'el, the zero is credited as a Muslim/Arabic discovery: would that now make everyone who uses the zero in numbers and calculations a Muslim? (I'm not actually directing that question to you, just dropping some logic bombs : ) ).

In all of history until Abraham all were pagans. Only those knowing the one true God would not be pagans.

But as far as the Muslim zero thing, do we have them to blame for computer coding and the bad side of the coin of computers?

 

[Humble Penny]

To all new and current readers of this thread while there's a ton to read and sort through I thought I should take this time to point back to my OP and make my stance clear:

God's Word is the standard of Truth and everything must submit itself to His Wisdom. Therefore if a pagan happens to speak truth then we can't deny it since it's in accord with God's Word. If they speak falsehood however then we must reject it because it goes against His Word.

While this might sound easy at first we don't have clear signs hanging on everything telling us what's true and what's false by simply looking at it. If this were so we wouldnt need investigators or forensic detectives.

That said I created this thread as a challenge for us to put our scientific and mathematical beliefs in the fire to see if they come out as gold or are burned up as rubble.

With this said let's look at the claim in modern science that it seven days of the week are determined by the rotation of the moon around the earth, is this true according to God?

This claim falls on its face right from Day 1 of creation for the Sun, Moon and stars weren't present until Day 4. In addition to this we see Genesis 1:1-2:3 informs us clearly that 1 Week = 7 Days because God worked for six days and rested on the seventh day (cf. Exodus 20:8-11). And what's more the earth isn't said to be moving from the beginning of it's creation, and from what we can observe in nature the earth is at rest while the luminaries clearly revolve around the earth. And if this wasn't enough when Joshua was at war with the Amorites we read this:

"Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, 'O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.' Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel."
Joshua 10:12‭-‬14 NASB1995 (emphasis added mine)

How does Jasher read?

"And when they were smiting, the day was declining toward evening, and Joshua said in the sight of all the people, 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, until the nation shall have revenged itself upon its enemies.'
And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Joshua, and the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens, and it stood still six and thirty moments, and the moon also stood still and hastened not to go down a whole day.
And there was no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."
Jasher 88:63-65 (emphasis added mine)

It is clear that the Sun moves around the earth along with the Moon and stars. Or will we argue against God's chosen men when they speak of the circuit of the sun and it's movement?

"When the sun came up God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on Jonah’s head so that he became faint and begged with all his soul to die, saying, 'Death is better to me than life.'"
Jonah 4:8 NASB1995

"From the rising of the sun to its setting The name of the Lord is to be praised."
Psalms 113:3 NASB1995

"He made the moon for the seasons; The sun knows the place of its setting."
Psalms 104:19 NASB1995

"Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat."
Psalms 19:4‭-‬6 NASB1995

"Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again."
Ecclesiastes 1:5 NASB1995

"The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar."
Genesis 19:23 NASB1995

It's clear from Moses and the Prophets that the Sun moves around the earth.

 

[daq]

In all of history until Abraham all were pagans. Only those knowing the one true God would not be pagans.

But as far as the Muslim zero thing, do we have them to blame for computer coding and the bad side of the coin of computers?

Yes, they are to blame for all of your computer woes.

 

[Humble Penny]

Yes again, and that's the very reason why whether or not Pythagoras was a pagan is irrelevant. We shouldn't toss out mathematical truths just because those who discovered them may have had religious beliefs we do not agree with.

In another example akin to what I previously said to Dani'el, the zero is credited as a Muslim/Arabic discovery: would that now make everyone who uses the zero in numbers and calculations a Muslim? (I'm not actually directing that question to you, just dropping some logic bombs : ) ).

Posts #35 and #40 make it clear what my OP is stating. Otherwise you offer an erroneous argument as it's clear that numbers and letters in and of themselves aren't evil, the argument being posed is in my OP and by our fellow brother is that not all of what is taught in the world is true because most of the conclusions arise from pagan beliefs and mystery schools.

Genesis 2:4
4 These are the toldoth ha-shamayim and ha-aretz in their being created, in the yom [that the] LORD God made Eretz [no article] and Shamayim [no article]

Eretz and Shamayim, (without the article) were not both created in a single yom in the previous chapter, (which, imo, is still the same passage in the above text).

Shamayim is/are named by Elohim when it/they were created, in Yom Sheni:

Genesis 1:6-8 KJV
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven [Shamayim, no article]. And the evening and the morning were the second day [Yom Sheni].

Eretz is named by Elohim when it was created, in Yom Shelishi:

Genesis 1:9-13 KJV
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; [Eretz, no article] and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day [Yom Shelishi].

Thus, because of the statement in Genesis 2:4 quoted above herein, the yamim of creation in the first chapter of Genesis all occur in one yom: the yom wherein Elohim Almighty created Shamayim, Eretz, and all their host.

Right away, in the very beginning, yom has multiple meanings. This is because Yom is Light, just as Elohim says in Genesis 1:5 where He calls the Light, Yom. If therefore Yom is Light then yom, when it is used for an increment of time, can used for any increment of time. If therefore yom can be a day, then yom can surely also be used for an hour: for yom is not any particular increment of time, but is used in a general way for increments of time, for Yom is instead, Light. And this Light is the Light which Elohim Almighty called forth to shine out of the darkness, (Genesis 1:3). The Yom Light is therefore much more important than the greater light, the lesser light, and the stars which were themselves created in Yom Rebii.
[...]
Moreover your commentary regarding Genesis 2:7 fitting only the sixth day is just your opinion. The context surrounding the first creation actually fits much better with the third day of creation. There was not yet any plant of the field in the earth, and there was not yet any herb of the field sprouted up, and immediately after the first man Adam is formed, and given the breath of life, and becomes a living soul, Elohim plants a garden. This fits the third day much better and this pattern shows up in the parables of the Master all over the place, (Matthew 13 is a good place to start looking for this pattern).

Just as Paul says, the first man Adam became a living soul, (and this is Genesis 2:7), and the second man is from the heavens, and the Psalmist agrees that this is Genesis 1:26-28. What is it then? From the very beginning, ha-adam was recreated in the image and likeness of Elohim, and only then is/are he/they named Adam, (and this also is provable by the Hebrew text and the usage of the definite article).

This interpretation of yours would cause Scripture to contradict itself, for if all of creation occured in one day as you claim, then there would be no need for Moses to state the end of each of the six days of creation; in addition to this you'd have to also change Exodus 20:8-11 where Moses makes it clear that God created everything in six days as is plainly stated in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Instead the plain reading of the text in Genesis 2 makes it clear that God created man with the purpose of putting him to work in the garden since there was no one originally to care for it.

So then, as has been said before, if you can say that the creation days represent thousand-year days, as you have now said again in this post, then you are engaging in a special pleading argument if you choose to ignore the fact that they can also be counted as thousand-year days right there in the text in the way they are written.

As regards this other erroneous claim of yours I made it clear in my previous posts in this thread, and my other works on this site, that the Days of the Week prefigure and symbolize seven periods of 1,000 Years. By the way you're interpreting what I've said we can prove your words to be incorrect with the story of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness for 40 Years which God chose because of the same number of days that the twelve spies went into Canaan, did the spies scout Canaan for 40 Days or 40 Years? The context is clear that they were there for only 40 Days. And this can be proven decisively because Moses was 80 Years old when he led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 7:7); and at his death Moses died at the close of the 40 Years wandering in the wilderness with Israel (Deuteronomy 1:3-4, 31:1-2).

In a similar manner we know that each of the days of the week are normal 12 Hour Days because Adam is only 230 Years old when he begets Seth, and he is 930 Years old at his death: therefore from the creation of Adam to his death marks the first 1,000 Years of the world. This clear reading renders all of what you said erroneous and fallacious.

 

[Humble Penny]

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".

 

[daq]

Posts #35 and #40 make it clear what my OP is stating. Otherwise you offer an erroneous argument as it's clear that numbers and letters in and of themselves aren't evil, the argument being posed is in my OP and by our fellow brother is that not all of what is taught in the world is true because most of the conclusions arise from pagan beliefs and mystery schools.

Dani'el responded that Pythagoras being a pagan is indeed relevant. Even though he did not quote me it was clearly my post to which he was referring because I had just made the point that it was not relevant whether or not Pythagoras was a pagan. So now I would say the same to you: if Pythagoras was a pagan and you believe this is relevant to whether or not you should accept the Pythagoras Theorem as a mathematical truth then you also should be fair, balanced, and upright in your judgment across the board in all your thinking. Therefore it is also relevant whether or not any of the other modern tools you use were invented, discovered, theorized, or calculated by pagans. Was your phone made in a pagan country by pagans? You yourself have now made that question relevant by your response.

This interpretation of yours would cause Scripture to contradict itself, for if all of creation occured in one day as you claim, then there would be no need for Moses to state the end of each of the six days of creation; in addition to this you'd have to also change Exodus 20:8-11 where Moses makes it clear that God created everything in six days as is plainly stated in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Instead the plain reading of the text in Genesis 2 makes it clear that God created man with the purpose of putting him to work in the garden since there was no one originally to care for it.

I fully disagree with your opinion. In fact the entire opening creation account is spoken word creation. To imagine that Elohim would take six 24-hour days to speak the words in the passage when I can read them in less than one hour is preposterous. Did He stop speaking and take pauses during the nights too? Would that not be rest? There is no rest and there is no night or darkness in the six yamim of creation.

If a yom can be a day then it can also be an hour. It doesn't appear that you are comprehending what I have said and presented. You already admit that a yom can also be a thousand years: so a yom can be a day, or a thousand years, but not an hour?

How do you suppose there are twelve hours in a day? The Master doesn't specifically state that there are twelve hours in a day: it is a question, a question to which he anticipates an affirmative answer, meaning that he is pointing his talmidim, (and us), to the scripture to find the answer. I can tell you now, having already studied this out and having been shown in the scripture, that this teaching comes from the Torah.

As regards this other erroneous claim of yours I made it clear in my previous posts in this thread, and my other works on this site, that the Days of the Week prefigure and symbolize seven periods of 1,000 Years. By the way you're interpreting what I've said we can prove your words to be incorrect with the story of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness for 40 Years which God chose because of the same number of days that the twelve spies went into Canaan, did the spies scout Canaan for 40 Days or 40 Years? The context is clear that they were there for only 40 Days. And this can be proven decisively because Moses was 80 Years old when he led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 7:7); and at his death Moses died at the close of the 40 Years wandering in the wilderness with Israel (Deuteronomy 1:3-4, 31:1-2).

I have no problem with any of this and it doesn't disprove what I have presented from the scripture.

In a similar manner we know that each of the days of the week are normal 12 Hour Days because Adam is only 230 Years old when he begets Seth, and he is 930 Years old at his death: therefore from the creation of Adam to his death marks the first 1,000 Years of the world. This clear reading renders all of what you said erroneous and fallacious.

I entirely disagree with your opinion and I know it to be false from the scripture including the Prophets. The sacred calendar day amounts to seven yamim in a yom, which includes the daily sacrifices and the three hours of prayer based on the opening creation account. The civil calendar day is twelve yom in a yom; and that is also according to the Torah.

Moreover you never actually addressed what was posted from Genesis 2:4 and I am beginning to think you might not even realize the full import of what it actually says. Even if you choose to ignore what I posted about it, it still says "in the day", singular, not days. There is no way around this and that is WHY it is written the way in which it is written. Those who will hear will hear.

 

[daq]

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".

So according to this reasoning heliocentrism is to be rejected? If that is the case then you've now made my point here better than I could have done.

 

[Humble Penny]

So according to this reasoning heliocentrism is to be rejected? If that is the case then you've now made my point here better than I could have done.

So then prove from Scripture that these pagan names are assigned by God to the sun.

 

[daq]

So then prove from Scripture that these pagan names are assigned by God to the sun.

Huh? So what? Why would I need to try to prove something that isn't true? Neither do I use such names for the sun.

It is rather up to you to prove that those pagan names refute the heliocentric model. Those pagan names are irrelevant.

 

[Humble Penny]

Huh? So what? Why would I need to try to prove something that isn't true? Neither do I use such names for the sun.

It is rather up to you to prove that those pagan names refute the heliocentric model. Those pagan names are irrelevant.

Actually my quotation of Copernicus in post #45 was to show that his model he presented the pope wasn't based on Scripture but his own pagan beliefs and inclinations. I've done my part in showing that the heliocentric model isn't based upon true science but upon the pagan beliefs of it's proponents.

 

[Humble Penny]

@daq hold onto your pagan model of the world if you wish. All of your unbelief to the contrary won't change the clear fact that the heliocentric model and all associated with it is pagan.

Post #45 shows that in one sweep the pope dragged is dragging everyone to the lake of fire with him.

 

[Humble Penny]

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]

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?"

Why would these pagans and popes lie about all of these things? If one carefully studies the history of the Age of Enlightenment it was nothing more than a strong response by the pagans to fight against the Church and the Word of God for they did not wish to give up their idolatry and repent of their sins. No, instead they played double agent acting as if they were believers on the outside but, secretly they were holding onto all their old pagan ideas...they simply change the outfits and names and put Christian and Jewish ones on...a classic Machiavellian move...

In any case it has been prophesied by our Lord that there will be a Great Apostasy and falling away so, my words aren't to those who wish to hold onto idolatry and paganism, but to those who wish to escape falsehood and follow Jesus Christ who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

 

[daq]

Actually my quotation of Copernicus in post #45 was to show that his model he presented the pope wasn't based on Scripture but his own pagan beliefs and inclinations. I've done my part in showing that the heliocentric model isn't based upon true science but upon the pagan beliefs of it's proponents.

@daq hold onto your pagan model of the world if you wish. All of your unbelief to the contrary won't change the clear fact that the heliocentric model and all associated with it is pagan.

Post #45 shows that in one sweep the pope dragged is dragging everyone to the lake of fire with him.

I entirely disagree with your opinion of your commentaries: you have done nothing to show that "the heliocentric model isn't based upon true science". In fact it appears to me that so far you haven't addressed any of the science, mathematics, or mechanics behind the heliocentric model.

Accusations of paganism, whether true or false, do not refute science and-or mathematics. The socialist minded way of getting people to cancel, ban, or reject something, doesn't work for me.

 

[Humble Penny]

I entirely disagree with your opinion of your commentaries: you have done nothing to show that "the heliocentric model isn't based upon true science". In fact it appears to me that so far you haven't addressed any of the science, mathematics, or mechanics behind the heliocentric model.

Accusations of paganism, whether true or false, do not refute science and-or mathematics. The socialist minded way of getting people to cancel, ban, or reject something, doesn't work for me.

I don't need to address the rest of the supposed science and mathematics of the heliocentric model as the foundation has been proven to be based on pagan religious beliefs instead of scientific observation as claimed by modern "science" in posts #45 and #52.

Anyways here's two independent videos from non-flat earthers launching high altitude balloons at +109,000 Feet in the air:

It's clear from both videos that we don't live on a spinning ball. The second video is clearly using a fish-eye lens as you can see the horizon going from flat to concave, and from flat to convex multiple times....and just look at how close the Sun is to the earth... definitely not the millions of miles away as we are falsely told...

 

[dani'el]

OK ... figuring out the quote function ...

Dani'el responded that Pythagoras being a pagan is indeed relevant. Even though he did not quote me it was clearly my post to which he was referring because I had just made the point that it was not relevant whether or not Pythagoras was a pagan. So now I would say the same to you: if Pythagoras was a pagan and you believe this is relevant to whether or not you should accept the Pythagoras Theorem as a mathematical truth then you also should be fair, balanced, and upright in your judgment across the board in all your thinking. Therefore it is also relevant whether or not any of the other modern tools you use were invented, discovered, theorized, or calculated by pagans. Was your phone made in a pagan country by pagans? You yourself have now made that question relevant by your response.

Pythagoras being pagan does not make his theorem invalid, even to a Messianic believer. Nor does the massive pagan tech industry that made my simple flip phone make it tumah. It's a thing, and the theorem is proven. It is the fact people worshiped the geometric knowledge they possessed to the point he was killed for modifying that knowledge that is relevant.

As to phones, people do tend to worship, bowing at the altar of their fancy, high tech phones. But others use them in their witness for Abishter. However just to be safe (and because I am an unabashed Ludite), I just use a flip phone to talk to people. In fact, I just enabled texting and started talking in that venue about 2 months ago. First time ever I texted; blew the minds of all my friends and relatives! So I think I'm safe, even by your standards!

Joking aside, since my new Mac is more high-tech than probably anything readily available to the public (M2, baby!), I have no problem using tech devices. I'll just never come close to its' potential; but the pagans did a good job keeping things fairly simple, and it is fast! So I'm good with it. I do not however worship it. It does increase knowledge, making more available than I could ever have imagined as a child of the 60's. But I am always aware of the need to pray for discernment, and that knowledge is not wisdom. In fact, knowledge without wisdom is a dangerous thing! So whenever seeking knowledge on the computer I pray to the God I do worship for understanding, discernment, and wisdom.

Simple discernment tells me the relevance here is in how the Greeks of that time saw Pythagorus discovery (which is debated that he actually discovered it as well). So your requirement that I not use any tech devices is invalid. It was not Pythagorus they worshiped. It was that perfect rectangle that he blemished; marred with a congruent triangle.

 

[dani'el]

Accusations of paganism, whether true or false, do not refute science and-or mathematics. The socialist minded way of getting people to cancel, ban, or reject something, doesn't work for me.

That being true (except it being socialist- much as I dislike socialism, they're not the only ones); why do you try to refute the relevance of men who worshiped their view of geometry so much that when given new knowledge, they kill the messenger? The focus is on the math, not the mathematician. He is made irrelevant (they thought) when they killed him.

 

[daq]

I don't need to address the rest of the supposed science and mathematics of the heliocentric model as the foundation has been proven to be based on pagan religious beliefs instead of scientific observation as claimed by modern "science".

Anyways here's two independent videos from non-flat waters launching high altitude balloons at +109,000 Feet in the air:

It's clear from both videos that we don't live on a spinning ball. The second video is clearly using a fish-eye lens as you can see the horizon going from flat to concave, and from flat to convex multiple times.

A simple horizontal sundial and the equinoxes reveal the truth. The following is an image file of one such sundial from a Colorado Springs school that built this sundial as a science project. It is based, of course, on the heliocentric model and works as designed, (even though its gnomon is made in the likeness of a "pagan Egyptian obelisk").

As with any properly made horizontal sundial or shadow plotter the shadow of the sun on the equinoxes will trace out a straight line from due west to due east during the course of those two days. The shadow will begin due west because what we call sunrise, (the "apparent" rising of the sun), occurs on the east, that is, due east on the equinoxes, and that is astronomical equinox, (not equilux as previously mentioned herein).

Thus even the ancient Egyptians, whose obelisks still scatter the landscape of Egypt, could have known the two days of the astronomical equinox if indeed they understood what they were actually observing. That's not to say they definitely understood what this straight line shadow meant on those two days: but there is a better chance that they did understand rather than that they did not. And please remember that Mosheh was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians according to the testimony of Stephen in Acts 7:22.

The straight line running through the middle of the blue and yellow painted sections runs due east to due west, and is the equinox line which the shadow produced from the gnomon traces out on both the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. This image file is from the sundial registry website which I will link below the image file.

Sundial Registry

I sure would love to hear your explanation for the equinoctial straight line shadow of a horizontal sundial from your own non-heliocentric model or perspective.

Moreover please remember that this is empirical ocular-visual evidence and it happens all over the earth on the days of the two astronomical equinoxes. One really doesn't even need a fancy sundial such as this one, for the same thing happens with a stick in the mud, or a rod jammed into a hole in a rock, so long as the stick or rod is standing vertical and straight. In fact, in a single day of shadow plotting, one may easily locate due (geographic) north, and within a few more days of shadow plotting make a simple horizontal sundial in his or her own back yard.

How do you explain the path of the sun causing the shadow of the tip of a vertical post to trace out a straight line and mark out due east and due west, during the two equinoxes, in your non-heliocentric model?

 

[Humble Penny]

A simple horizontal sundial and the equinoxes reveal the truth. The following is an image file of one such sundial from a Colorado Springs school that built this sundial as a science project. It is based, of course, on the heliocentric model and works as designed, (even though its gnomon is made in the likeness of a "pagan Egyptian obelisk").

As with any properly made horizontal sundial or shadow plotter the shadow of the sun on the equinoxes will trace out a straight line from due west to due east during the course of those two days. The shadow will begin due west because what we call sunrise, (the "apparent" rising of the sun), occurs on the east, that is, due east on the equinoxes, and that is astronomical equinox, (not equilux as previously mentioned herein).

Thus even the ancient Egyptians, whose obelisks still scatter the landscape of Egypt, could have known the two days of the astronomical equinox if indeed they understood what they were actually observing. That's not to say they definitely understood what this straight line shadow meant on those two days: but there is a better chance that they did understand rather than that they did not. And please remember that Mosheh was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians according to the testimony of Stephen in Acts 7:22.

The straight line running through the middle of the blue and yellow painted sections runs due east to due west, and is the equinox line which the shadow produced from the gnomon traces out on both the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. This image file is from the sundial registry website which I will link below the image file.

View attachment 322753
Sundial Registry

I sure would love to hear your explanation for the equinoctial straight line shadow of a horizontal sundial from your own non-heliocentric model or perspective.

Moreover please remember that this is empirical ocular-visual evidence and it happens all over the earth on the days of the two astronomical equinoxes. One really doesn't even need a fancy sundial such as this one, for the same thing happens with a stick in the mud, or a rod jammed into a hole in a rock, so long as the stick or rod is standing vertical and straight. In fact, in a single day of shadow plotting, one may easily locate due (geographic) north, and within a few more days of shadow plotting make a simple horizontal sundial in his or her own back yard.

How do you explain the path of the sun causing the shadow of the tip of a vertical post to trace out a straight line and mark out due east and due west, during the two equinoxes, in your non-heliocentric model?

Couldn't explain to you the movements of the heavens as I never traveled that high nor do I have the means to. What I can say from my own life experience and observations is that shadows move either when the light source or object is moving. However being able to explain the motions of the heavenly bodies is not needed to understand that they have been working just fine without my knowledge of how it happens: in like fashion it's not a requirement to know the inner workings of a car to get your driver's license.

Here's another video from a non-flat earther showing a rocket launch at 200,000 Feet in Phoenix, Arizona. One can see that there is no observed spinning of the earth and that the camera again has a fish eye lense which causes the horizon to go back and forth between straight, convex, and concave:

So while I've provided adequate video evidence to call the heliocentric model into question by showing that there is no spin or curve: it's up to you to provide evidence showing the contrary.

 

[Humble Penny]

@dani'el Hey brother in the videos I posted of the high altitude launches does the sun look like millions of miles away from the earth to you?

 

[dani'el]

It's clear from both videos that we don't live on a spinning ball. The second video is clearly using a fish-eye lens as you can see the horizon going from flat to concave, and from flat to convex multiple times....and just look at how close the Sun is to the earth... definitely not the millions of miles away as we are falsely told...

Wow! Thanks for those! That first video is my back yard! I've climbed some of the mountains highlighted there (in a long past life, sadly). At higher elevations one gets a different perspective. And it looked to me as though the earth is a sphere and the sun (thankfully, since much of my time was in snowfields and on glaciers) certainly seemed to be far away. LOL, come to think of it, the last man on my rope team fell into the bergshrund on Hood when the snow bridge collapsed under him; so maybe it was closer than I thought!

The arc of the sun up here in the (almost) great white north is very pronounced, its' change of path extremely dramatic. So if it is what is going around the earth, its' path is like a roller coaster, not a typical orbit. That or our disc rocks ...

The fisheye lense on the camera made it difficult to read the horizon, since the shape changed whenever the wind blew the camera platform askew. But when level and fairy stable the horizon looked convex; or more to the point, round.

So all in all, I have to go with the idea we orbit the sun, which is a star the perfect (and a very great) distance from earth- right where God put it and us. Two balls whose relationship is governed by the physical forces of gravitational pull and centrifugal force and the mathematical relationships they create. But don't ask me to explain those- I'm just the guy that goes up and looks! And what I see is a ball and a disc in the sky which remains constant in shape no matter where we are in the orbit. So either the disc turns with us in perfect sync (unlikely), or it too is a ball. And yes, my perspective is skewed by being taught modern science in school. But everything they tell us is not a lie. This one it seems they are telling the truth.

Doesn't mean I trust science. I've seen scientists lie and even make fools of themselves when a thinking person is about. But if they lied about everything, they couldn't bury their big lies, hiding them in piles of truth.