• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Interesting thread.

Scripture does not say the Earth is Round as in ball. Isaiah used the Hebrew Word chug, so did proverbs. It means as a complete circuit. Dur would mean a spherical ball.

You do know that is not quite correct do you not?

Chug means a vault or a horizon. Yet when we talk of a ship on a horizon we understand that we are talking of a round earth. A horizon simply means the extent of your vision due to a spherical nature.


All stars spin in a circle when viewed with time lapse photography no matter where your at on the Earth. This would be impossible on a rotating ball but at the poles.

All stars spin in a circle only around the north pole - precisely because it is a rotating ball. If you looked out perpendicular to the equator (as you do at the poles) - all stars would come into view and then disappears from view as they passed the horizon.

Scripture does not say the Earth is flat, but it does say it has ends, and is stationary.
Because the horizon is the extent of your vision - its ends. The word for stationary also means in the sense that it will always exist.

All views from above Earth, even in a plane are flat unless a fish eye lense is used in which the earth goes from convex, to concave, to flat.

And yet you insist it is not ok to describe it is a circle. since from space it appears as exactly that? As does the moon.


Simply a misunderstanding of not understanding photography. The exposure is adjusted to obtain photographs of the earth or moon - not for taking pictures of the stars. If you wanted pictures of the stars the exposure would need adjusted and then the earth or moon would become a white blob. Defeating the whole purpose for which those pictures were taken.


No they simply show the power of the human imagination to not bother to research photography and exposure times. If I increased exposure time to include the faint stars compared to the light reflected from the earth - the earth would be but an undistinguished bright blob of light.


So those satellites we put into orbit are not really there, even if you use thier GPS signals and cummunication abilities every day????


In your conspiracy theory where you are attempting to do the same thing you complain about?

2) NASA knows that the earth is filled with Evolutionist. They will hold onto that idea, no matter the evidence. All that is left to deceive is Christians and the remaining nut cases.

NASA could care less about evolutionist theories. It has nothing to do with the science to launch spacecraft into orbit.


I'll tell you what. Take a beach ball, place the camera 4 inches from it. Prove to me you can take a photo of the entire beach ball in one image. When you can do that come back and talk to me about it again.


If you say so.

http://deanetr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/earth-from-the-moon_1024x768_429811.jpg


Show me that picture? I can guarantee if anyone Photoshopped it it is the nut jobs claiming it's a NASA photograph.

Show me this on Devon Island????

https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/images/full/mars/vlpan22.jpg

This is as close as it gets and is not even similar.

https://a2-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/123/fce30c85141949db8692205245e75749/300x300.jpg

I spent 12 years working with photoshop in the printing industry.

And don't you mean a duck?

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/zT_Yjgg5oJ8/...-uploademail&sigh=w_726HIUtbj34XIvBhnKp2kdYzg

Next you will be twelling me Bigfoot is on Mars - oh wait - they already are.

http://www.theblisspages.com/images2/marisa.jpg


Technology in 1973 is not the same as it is today.

But please point me to the actual article where these people say this. Not a blog site where other people claim other people said things.

Astronaut Allen Bean the 4th man to walk on the moon said He knew nothing of any radiation belt, citing they had yet been discovered.

In 1963 - again - we have better technology now. He was also talking about the Skylab mission in 1973, because Skylab is below the Van Allen belts - not above it. In 1973 we were not even sure of the extent of those belts. All satellites orbit below them, because the radiation in the belts can short circuit electronics if not properly shielded. Also they are torpodal in shape - and all Apollo mission were launched to pass through the thinnest portion of these belts so exposure would be at a minimum.


You'll believe anything anyone tells you as long as it's not NASA telling you, right?????

What is for certain, NASA and the rest of the governments do not want us to know what is actually above us. If we knew, it would not only destroy the theory of the Big Bang, but Evolution would go down with it, all in one day.

We already know the Big Bang and evolution is false simply because they are wrong about what redshift actually is.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

And because evolutionists ignore the observational evidence.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species.

Next you'll be telling me little green aliens come from space but there's no way they can get through the radiation belts - remember. And the world is flat. Or that in its center lives an entire race of little green men?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

You can actually take a camera with you if you wish.
(This is not government run.)
http://www.virgingalactic.com/

- Camera - right side
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I doubt scientists spend a considerable amount of time in their fields considering what interpretation should be taken from a translation of a book of myths.

I doubt many consider it such.
 
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
I doubt many consider it such.
At least 90 percent of them do.

For a scientists to be religious which way do you think is more likely? does a scientist become religious or does a religious person become a scientist? I can't see many scientists becoming religious (some yes) but I can well see a few religious people becoming scientists, in fact I think most religious people who become scientists lose their faith, some don't but most do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

And from whence would you have gotten that information? Assuming that it is not just an expression of your own prejudices, as much as anything else.
 
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
And from whence would you have gotten that information? Assuming that it is not just an expression of your own prejudices, as much as anything else.
Just by living and reading about all sides and not just one.
Here is another one for you, Believers in Christianity are dying quicker than new believers can be made.

http://www.pewforum.org/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You do know that is not quite correct do you not?

Chug means a vault or a horizon....

Not quite in and of itself, but it can mean that and does in many contexts. In fact I'll agree with you the Isaiah passage is likely speaking of the spherical sky that surrounds the earth.

What you're missing though, is that earth (erets) really just means land. it can refer to the entire lands everywhere, or a specific land. And land is definitely not flat, as it has hills and valleys. It also has ends. They call them coastlines today.
 
Upvote 0