Is the Earth Flat?

[Shrewd Manager]

So ... according to your photo (which doesn't even show the American continents) ... there should be no way east from Africa without coming to the Earth's "edge".

But, of course, we know the travel across the Atlantic Ocean (east of Africa) has been accomplished for centuries ...

You want verisimilitude? Take your pick A Thinker:

 

[A_Thinker]

You want verisimilitude? Take your pick A Thinker:

If you ever rotate a marble slowly, ... you will notice that the patterns and shapes will shrink and grow depending on how direct the view is from your eyes ...

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If you ever rotate a marble slowly, ... you will notice that the patterns and shapes will shrink and grow depending on how direct the view is from your eyes ...

Now I've heard it all. Maybe that explains why you can't see the American continent on the FE pic, it's lenticular!

 

[HantsUK]

You want verisimilitude? Take your pick A Thinker:

Interesting comparison.
Easily found by a quick web search is that the 2012 image was taken by the Suomi NPP satellite which has a low earth orbit. The Suomi NPP has a 55deg field of view of the earth (my calculations, so please check). This is too close to see the full globe, as is apparent. The 2015 image looks to have been taken from a far greater distance, and so can see much more of the earth. As should be expected, a land mass on the 2012 (north and central Americas) will appear larger than on the image of the full earth.

Being charitable, whoever made this comparison does not understand 3D geometry. Others may conclude that they were being deliberately deceptive.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Easily found by a quick web search is that the 2012 image was taken by the Suomi NPP satellite which has a low earth orbit.

Not the Suomi NPP satellite. You sure know your stuff. Is this the one?

Must get hot after a while.

The Suomi NPP has a 55deg field of view of the earth (my calculations, so please check). This is too close to see the full globe, as is apparent.

Too close. How's that? The whole stupid ball is visible, apparently.

The 2015 image looks to have been taken from a far greater distance, and so can see much more of the earth. As should be expected, a land mass on the 2012 (north and central Americas) will appear larger than on the image of the full earth.

Ah, so the ball stays the same but the continents change size depending on distance to the observer. And this effect is called...?

Being charitable, whoever made this comparison does not understand 3D geometry. Others may conclude that they were being deliberately deceptive.

Alright, so it gets worse:

 

[d taylor]

Not the Suomi NPP satellite. You sure know your stuff. Is this the one?

Must get hot after a while.



Too close. How's that? The whole stupid ball is visible, apparently.



Ah, so the ball stays the same but the continents change size depending on distance to the observer. And this effect is called...?



Alright, so it gets worse:

I may try this with the moon and a zoom camera and see what i get. Wonder if i can change the sizes of areas on the moon.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I may try this with the moon and a zoom camera and see what i get. Wonder if i can change the sizes of areas on the moon.

Zoom in on those retro reflectors...see if that cameraman's still there...and the flag!

 

[HantsUK]

I may try this with the moon and a zoom camera and see what i get. Wonder if i can change the sizes of areas on the moon.

Zooming in and getting closer are not the same, and what can be seen will be different.

 

[HantsUK]

Not the Suomi NPP satellite. You sure know your stuff. Is this the one?

Blue Marble, 2012

This url has the 2012 image, and according to the notes it was taken by the Suomi NPP satellite. No idea what the satellite looks like - I was only interested in its altitude.

Too close. How's that? The whole stupid ball is visible, apparently.

It's called 'the horizon'.

Ah, so the ball stays the same but the continents change size depending on distance to the observer. And this effect is called...?

The horizon.
The earth stays the same size. The continents on the earth stay the same size. But how much can be seen changes.

Alright, so it gets worse:

Yes, it certainly gets worse!

At first sight, I wondered why the different images had different sizes for the continents. But when you realise that the 2012 image was taken by a satellite at 824km, you can calculate that this is too low to see the whole earth.

 

[d taylor]

Zooming in and getting closer are not the same, and what can be seen will be different.

That is true, but a floating water ball is not.

I will hand to these deceivers, they sure can create a convincing deception but again they are simply following satans lead.

 

[Paul4JC]

That is true, but a floating water ball is not.

I will hand to these deceivers, they sure can create a convincing deception but again they are simply following satans lead.

That reminds me of Rob Skiba talking about the word deception that literally it is linked to the word for planets and how the Lord Jesus used the same word.


8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. [Luk 21:8 NIV]


4105 planaó: to cause to wander, to wander

Original Word: πλανάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: planaó
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ah'-o)
Definition: to cause to wander, to wander
Usage: I lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.


The same word is linked to the only verse in the bible that uses the word “planets” though all translators were afraid to use the actual word.


13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. [Jde 1:13 NIV]


4107 planétés: a wanderer

Original Word: πλανήτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: planétés
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ay'-tace)
Definition: a wanderer
Usage: a wanderer.

Of course, 1 Enoch 18:14-16, 21:3 makes this even more clear. Many are still ignorant that the word angels is used interchangeably with the word stars in many biblical passages as in Job 38:7 and Rev 1:20. So a literal interpretation could be the deceiving angels whom we call planets.

Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, [Jde 1:6 NASB]

They wandered, they deceived, they abandoned.

They planet-ed!

(Man, I'm growing to love etymology)

 

[d taylor]

That reminds me of Rob Skiba talking about the word deception that literally it is linked to the word for planets and how the Lord Jesus used the same word.


8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. [Luk 21:8 NIV]


4105 planaó: to cause to wander, to wander

Original Word: πλανάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: planaó
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ah'-o)
Definition: to cause to wander, to wander
Usage: I lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.


The same word is linked to the only verse in the bible that uses the word “planets” though all translators were afraid to use the actual word.


13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. [Jde 1:13 NIV]


4107 planétés: a wanderer

Original Word: πλανήτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: planétés
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ay'-tace)
Definition: a wanderer
Usage: a wanderer.

Of course, 1 Enoch 18:14-16, 21:3 makes this even more clear. Many are still ignorant that the word angels is used interchangeably with the word stars in many biblical passages as in Job 38:7 and Rev 1:20. So a literal interpretation could be the deceived angels whom we call planets.

Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, [Jde 1:6 NASB]

They wandered, they deceived, they abandoned.

They planet-ed!

(Man, I'm growing to love etymology)

I have not yet really looked into the angel/star comparison in The Bible.

Right now i do not have a belief either way, being that they are or are not the same.

I do know in The Bible names can be used differently.

One example of this in the Tanakh is The Pre-Incarnate Messiah is called The Angel of The Lord. So i know Jesus is not an angel, but still He was called that.

So i am not sure about angels and stars.

I do know this also, that wandering stars used in The Bible. Can not be a reference to what christians (because of science) has convinced people stars are planets.

Because the stars (that people call planets saturn, jupiter, etc..) do not wander. They show up each night on schedule, i know saturn will be basically in the same place in the sky as it was the night before, etc..

I also believe that what people call shooting stars, i believe could very well be an angel moving across the raqia.

It will be one day great to actually know God's creation

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That reminds me of Rob Skiba talking about the word deception that literally it is linked to the word for planets and how the Lord Jesus used the same word.


8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. [Luk 21:8 NIV]


4105 planaó: to cause to wander, to wander

Original Word: πλανάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: planaó
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ah'-o)
Definition: to cause to wander, to wander
Usage: I lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.


The same word is linked to the only verse in the bible that uses the word “planets” though all translators were afraid to use the actual word.


13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. [Jde 1:13 NIV]


4107 planétés: a wanderer

Original Word: πλανήτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: planétés
Phonetic Spelling: (plan-ay'-tace)
Definition: a wanderer
Usage: a wanderer.

Of course, 1 Enoch 18:14-16, 21:3 makes this even more clear. Many are still ignorant that the word angels is used interchangeably with the word stars in many biblical passages as in Job 38:7 and Rev 1:20. So a literal interpretation could be the deceived angels whom we call planets.

Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, [Jde 1:6 NASB]

They wandered, they deceived, they abandoned.

They planet-ed!

(Man, I'm growing to love etymology)

That's right, it's the sense of 'to lead astray'.

Another popular one is the Hebrew 'nasa' or 'nasha', translated 'to deceive/ beguile', as in 'the serpent hath nasa'd me', or 'had a lend of me'. Employed, it seems, much like 'planao' in the Greek.

NASA in Hebrew | Robs Channel

 

[Paul4JC]

Because the stars (that people call planets saturn, jupiter, etc..) do not wander. They show up each night on schedule, i know saturn will be basically in the same place in the sky as it was the night before, etc..

In one way they don't. The "universal" celestial ball turns in one unison direction, every star keeps its place, except for the planets, they follow their own path. The sun and moon follow a similar path, but they were appointed to do so, IMO, the planets were not. It's interesting that other than Jude's "wandering stars", (and "mars hill" Acts 17:22) there are no planets mentioned in the Bible, only the sun, moon, and stars.

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. [Gen 1:16-18 NIV]

He made the moon to mark the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down. [Psa 104:19 NIV]

 

[d taylor]

For me much of this rest on the descriptions given in The Bible of God's creation. True The Bible may not outright state by God, hey i created a flat and stationary earth.

But a christian must simply avoid or out right deny, the given descriptions of God's creation in The Bible.

In The Bible it is plainly stated that God separated bodies of water with a created raqia. It is plainly stated that there is water below the raqia (seas) and water above the raqia.

It is plainly stated that God brought forth the earth (land) from the waters that He gathered into one place. And the English word "earth" in The Bible, never means in Hebrew. A spherical planet covered in water with land areas scattered around on the sphere. Earth simply means: land, ground And God called the dry land Earth

It is plainly stated that God created lights in the raqia, and it is plainly stated that these lights were created to give light on the earth.


Next it is plainly stated that God created two great lights along with the stars. And again it is plainly stated that these lights are placed in the raqia of the heavens to give light on the earth.

There is just no way, without just out right changing what is stated in Genesis 1 to even come close to saying that in Genesis 1,

God is describing a creation of a planet earth, out in space, with the sun, moon and stars thousands, to millions, to billions of miles or light years apart, scattered in an unending outer space.

There is no way to even get from The Bible that the sun, God created is just another star. The sun and moon are plainly stated to be created great lights, that are greater than the stars in their lighting capabilities. Actually the sun is the greater light that lights the day, with the moon and stars as lesser lights working together to give light at night.

But what really exposes the globe lie, is the absurd, idea that water can magically adhere to a floating, moving, rotating sphere.

 

[Paul4JC]

There is no way to even get from The Bible that the sun God created just another star. The sun and moon are plainly stated to be created great lights, that are greater than the stars in their lighting capabilities. Actually the sun is the greater light that lights the day, with the moon and stars as lesser light working together to give light at night.

Indeed, even with the sun being put in a separate category Biblically from stars, people still think it's a star. It's not people! It's the sun. If the stars are like the sun then how do they fall to earth and the earth still remains, as in [Rev 6:13 NIV] and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.

From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera. [Jdg 5:20 NIV]

 

[Paul4JC]

That's right, it's the sense of 'to lead astray'.

Another popular one is the Hebrew 'nasa' or 'nasha', translated 'to deceive/ beguile', as in 'the serpent hath nasa'd me', or 'had a lend of me'. Employed, it seems, much like 'planao' in the Greek.

NASA in Hebrew | Robs Channel

They've been deceiving and teaching their abandoning ways for ages. I put this chart together some time ago. How the nations worship(ed) them as gods.

 

[d taylor]

They've been deceiving and teaching their abandoning ways for ages. I put this chart together some time ago. How the nations worship(ed) them as gods.

View attachment 309019

Like the chart, good work.

 

[JacksBratt]

Interesting comparison.
Easily found by a quick web search is that the 2012 image was taken by the Suomi NPP satellite which has a low earth orbit. The Suomi NPP has a 55deg field of view of the earth (my calculations, so please check). This is too close to see the full globe, as is apparent.

Certainly looks like it took a picture of the whole globe? Or, did they crop it to make it look like a globe instead of showing the entire image?

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense to me.

The 2015 image looks to have been taken from a far greater distance, and so can see much more of the earth. As should be expected, a land mass on the 2012 (north and central Americas) will appear larger than on the image of the full earth.

Again... taken from far away or up close, if you're going to print a pic as "the globe" then you are being disingenuous if you crop it into the shape of a circle and leave parts out.

Being charitable, whoever made this comparison does not understand 3D geometry. Others may conclude that they were being deliberately deceptive.

Nice try... both are presented as a picture of the "globe" in it's entirety and.... circular in shape and .... the continents are different sizes in percentage of the surface.

 

[Paul4JC]

Certainly looks like it took a picture of the whole globe? Or, did they crop it to make it look like a globe instead of showing the entire image?

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense to me.



Again... taken from far away or up close, if you're going to print a pic as "the globe" then you are being disingenuous if you crop it into the shape of a circle and leave parts out.


Nice try... both are presented as a picture of the "globe" in it's entirety and.... circular in shape and .... the continents are different sizes in percentage of the surface.

If these pictures are not foolish enough, I'll tell you what is. They say "Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface." Wow, I mean, wow! No, not that they spent that much time there, but that they could not take 1 photo or video of the earth in that time, yet have hours of "lunar" footage. (That's like going to Yosemite and not taking a picture of Halfdome!) How could they miss it!? Unless of course...