the scripture of Genesis Water above, and water below the heavens ?

[OakWood]

 

If the earth was flat, the atmosphere would bend the horizon upwards, so that it would seem like we are living in a bowl. 

To the untrained eye the earth is flat. Even the slightest curve can be seen in a couple of samples you gave. From that height the earth is still a very vast planet showing an extended horizon. 

 

No it wouldn't. The naked human eye can only see to the point of convergence, but if you were curious you would have investigated this. But you're not because your mind is already closed. Condemnation without investigation is a sign of ignorance.

[Floatingaxe]

 

The hebrew alpha-bet is in pictographs, and the hebrew pictograph for bet - is a house or tent or architect. Im not surpised you dont know this.

In otherwords its a letter and word that is used to represent creation, hence why we find this to be the very first letter and pictograph in the bible, becuase its going to describe the architecture of creation.

"Bet" in its prefixiv means "in" suggesting God to also abide in the house or in his creation.

When we look at the first letter of the bible being "Bet" its an plosive sound indicating force and power with the silent invisable force of aleph (hence why you dont see the first word of the bible to be aleph)

The reason for this if you notice that the hebrew word for Father is "AV" who created the universe and is spelled with two Hebrew letters, (aleph) and the (beyt), God our Father was an invisible silent force before He spoke out the very first letter and word for creation which so happens to be Gods light. Let there be light.

Further if we examine the word Bereshith , the word is derived from shoresh (rosh), which means head or chief.

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth - what we have is God the head of his house, head of his creation, head of his tent. The head of the universe. Who not only abided outside of His house (outside of creation because there was nothing we know of that was created before but also now in His house (In His creation).

God created a domain where humans and angels may dwell, this domain or house or tent or creation is the entire universe as we are not subject ONLY to the planet earth to dwell in.

Hence in the beginning God created the Heavens and earth as its a creation account of the entire universe.

 

 

No you not understanding the issue clearly, in the creation of the greater and lesser lights Gen 1:16, the writer of Genesis was aware that two prominent gods worshiped in the ancient Near East were the sun and moon.

In Egypt the sun was associated with several important gods, as you should be well aware Amun-Ra, Ra, and Aton.

Canaanite worshipers knew the sun as Shemesh. 

The author of Gen 1:14-19 makes the case that the Creator God is on a different plane than the sun and the moon. They are only the greater and lesser lights. No one should acknowledge them as deities or confuse them with God. They are simply creations not creators.

This is why you see the contrasts be emphasised between Gods light and the greater light and lesser light in the creation account and why the creation of these lights is also unusally long Gen 1:14- 19 in the context of the creation account.

You fail to take the context of the cultural background....using the words greater and lesser light is an attempt to De-emphasis the deity concept of the sun, moon and stars....Moses was still refering to the sun, moon and stars and not just their rays.

For example the sun rises from the east....as you know the sun doesnt rise, the earth rotates round it.

The contrasts of the word light being used throughout the creation account from let there be light all the way to the greater and lesser light attests to the cultural issues from Israels neighbor's.

Your water canopy theory is not scriptual period and shows a complete lack of what God is trying to show and tell us in Gen 1, there is no other God but him, he is the light, the creature of his house - bet 

Isa 66:1

This is what the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

Earth is Gods footstool and the universe is His armchair in his house, His tent, His creation.

 

Bingo!

[OakWood]

 

Shabbat shalom, OakWood.

Kan just made a VERY good point. These ships don't SINK as they disappear beyond the horizon, nor do they RISE out of the ocean as they come back into view from beyond the horizon! Also, two other things come to mind:

First, how is it possible for people in one part of the earth to have night while other people in another part of the earth have day? Wouldn't the sun be visible, although at varying angles, from ALL parts of a flat earth? How would it ever become night if the sun didn't sink below the disk of the flat earth? But, wouldn't that make it night for ALL?!

Second, although I'll grant you the "fish-eye lens" picture above, you are also neglecting mountains and clouds in the distance, which will also be making up that horizon!

Now, let's think about this for a moment using standard trigonometry: The earth, if a sphere, is said to be 24,902 miles in circumference at the equator. That would put the radius of the planet from its surface to its center at 3,963.3 miles. Roughly speaking, that would translate to 20,926,099 feet. Where a person is standing, a person's height to his eyes would be slightly lower than his overall height, but let's just say it is 6 feet for simplicity. That would make a right triangle of one leg being 20,926,099 feet and a hypotenuse of 20,926,105 feet. What would be the angle from the person to the horizon, where the right angle would be?

An old Indian once taught me that the answer to most trigonometry questions was found in the phrase, "SOH CAH TOA!" That is,

the Sine of an angle was equal to the length of the side Opposite from the angle divided by the length of the Hypotenuse;
the Cosine of an angle was equal to the length of the side Adjacent to the angle divided by the length of the Hypotenuse; and
the Tangent of an angle was equal to the length of the side Opposite from the angle divided by the length of the side Adjacent to the angle.

Therefore, the sine of the angle we've been asked to find is equal to the side Opposite from our angle, 20,926,099 feet, divided by the Hyponetuse, 20,926,105 feet. So, the sine of our angle is 20,926,099 feet / 20,926,105 feet = 0.999999713276792. Taking the arcsine of this value, we get 89.9566... degrees - "eye level." And, that angle would be the same all the way around us in a circle.

The cosine of this angle would be 0.000757262394219285, which would be the side Adjacent divided by the Hypotenuse. Multiply both sides by the length of the hypotenuse, and we get 15,846.55 feet / 5280 feet per mile = 3 miles. Past the 3-mile point, our vision of the ship would be cut off by the earth's bulk.

Now, let's do the same thing for 20 miles up.

Nothing would change the radius of the earth, but the Hypotenuse would now be the radius + 20 miles.
Therefore the sine of the angle is equal to the side Opposite from our angle, the earth's radius of 3,963.3 miles, divided by the Hypotenuse, the earth's radius of 3,963.3 miles + 20 miles = 3983.3 miles. Therefore the sine of the angle would be 0.994979007724451, and taking the arcsine of this value would give us 84.256 degrees. Because all of the detail is below us with little above us by sky, we're NOT going to tell there was much difference from the 90 degrees to the horizon, and that would be a true for the same angle completely around us in a 360-degree circle! Therefore, we would see (at practically eye-level) a straight horizon! The cosine of this angle is 0.100083835796131 and multiplying by our hypotenuse of 3,983.3 miles, we can now see 398.66 miles to the horizon, almost 400 miles! But, 400 miles to our right and 400 miles to our left is still only 800 miles and is only 0.032126 of the whole earth's circumference!

So, what has changed? NOTHING ... except, for a slight depression of our viewing angle which would ONLY be noticed if one was looking across the top of a level! Because the horizon is a circle 360 degrees around you, you are seeing the circle EDGE ON IN ALL DIRECTIONS! You would NEVER see the "curvature of the horizon" because YOU'RE STANDING ON IT!

You're not standing on the horizon when you're 100,000 feet above it.

Please explain to me why the horizon remains a straight line no matter how high you go instead of quoting the trigonometry of a ball Earth that does not exist. Its a simple question. On a sphere the horizon would eventually drop and you would see a curve. That's plain enough for anybody to understand. You are using complicated mathematics that is not necessary. And get that ball out of your head.... I understand that it's not easy to de-program a brainwashed head, it was hard for me too. But try it and don't let your fears conquer you.

[hmbld]

 

You're not standing on the horizon when you're 100,000 feet above it.

Please explain to me why the horizon remains a straight line no matter how high you go instead of quoting the trigonometry of a ball Earth that does not exist. Its a simple question. On a sphere the horizon would eventually drop and you would see a curve. That's plain enough for anybody to understand. You are using complicated mathematics that is not necessary. And get that ball out of your head.... I understand that it's not easy to de-program a brainwashed head, it was hard for me too. But try it and don't let your fears conquer you.

It was explained very clearly that 100,000 feet up is almost nothing in relation to the size of earth, 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, Kan et al.

Just for fun, we could do the same kind of math for how far one could see from the pinnacle of the New Jerusalem, when it sits upon the New Earth. Its pinnacle will extend 1,500 miles above the surface of the earth, which would make our hypotenuse 3963.3 miles + 1500 miles = 5463.3 miles.

The sine of the angle would be 3963.3 mi / 5463.3 mi = 0.72544... making the angle 46.5 degrees. The cosine of this angle is 0.688284706793580, and multiplying by the hypotenuse, would give us 3,760.3 miles. So, since 90 degrees - 46.5 degrees is 43.5 degrees, we would have to look down 43.5 degrees to see the horizon 3760.3 miles away, both to our right and to our left, indeed, all the way around us. It might not appear to be a straight horizon at that point.

[hmbld]

 

I've given you proof. What more do you want? Trying to examine a ball through atmosphere is impossible? Really? What a ridiculous thing to say, when most of the so-called proof of the globe Earth relies on trying to do exactly that. And please don't make me laugh by talking about Google Earth. That's like saying Bugs Bunny is real, I saw him in a cartoon.

Anybody with an inquiring mind would investigate further after the photos that I have shown, but not the mockers and scoffers. You are not mocking me, you are mocking the word of God......... The Bible does not support a spinning Globe Earth. A globe cannot be fixed and have a firmament above it. I now realize that some people will always mock the truth and no matter what proof you give them they will always reject it. You have more faith in your globe fantasy than you have faith in the truth.

I am not mocking you, and I was hoping you knew google earth was just a joke, offered as "proof" same as your proof offered of being 100,000 feet up, it does not stand up to scrutiny.  Now, the atmosphere is not totally clean, there is moisture, dust, etc, and at 100,000 feet there is still some atmosphere, so looking at the horizon, as Retrobyter calculates, we are trying to see through approx 400 miles of dirty atmosphere.  Very difficult on the clearest of days.  Now, there are pictures of earth from outer space, I'm sure you will say they are not real, but if they are, they are not looking down on earth through 400 miles of atmosphere.  The atmosphere is considered to be some 300 miles deep, yet most of it is within the bottom 10 miles, of which our weather patterns are contained in the bottom 7 miles.  So for most of the earth, the picture is trying to see the surface through 7-10 miles of atmosphere, even then it may be cloudy and no land will be visible.   But if you look at the horizon of earth, from these pictures taken from outer space, you are trying to see through hundreds of miles of atmosphere.  The ship example is the easiest though.  The ship does not just get smaller as it sails out to sea, it also drops down.  I suppose it could be some sort of illusion?

[OakWood]

 

It was explained very clearly that 100,000 feet up is almost nothing in relation to the size of earth, 

If 100,000 feet up is nothing in relation to the Earth then all the claims about the curvature being seen at 100,000 feet are also irrelevant. Whenever people point out that they have seen photos showing the curvature of the Earth at 100,000 feet or less, then their claims are invalid because according to you, it's not high enough to be relevant.

You can't have it both ways. It's astonishing how people will back-pedal when confronted with this argument. They'll say that they have been in aeroplanes and have seen the curvature of the Earth and civilian aeroplanes don't fly above 40,000 feet, but when I claim that the horizon is flat even at 100,000, suddenly 100,000 ft.. becomes too low to see any curvature. Make your mind up - your globe-Earth argument is crumbling.....

[hmbld]

 

If 100,000 feet up is nothing in relation to the Earth then all the claims about the curvature being seen at 100,000 feet are also irrelevant. Whenever people point out that they have seen photos showing the curvature of the Earth at 100,000 feet or less, then their claims are invalid because according to you, it's not high enough to be relevant.

You can't have it both ways. It's astonishing how people will back-pedal when confronted with this argument. They'll say that they have been in aeroplanes and have seen the curvature of the Earth and civilian aeroplanes don't fly above 40,000 feet, but when I claim that the horizon is flat even at 100,000, suddenly 100,000 ft.. becomes too low to see any curvature. Make your mind up - your globe-Earth argument is crumbling.....

Well I am not aware of people making those claims, and I thought I stated neither you are I are actually at 100,000 feet to verify any claims.  You provided pictures, which really do not provide the same perspective of actually being there.  

At any rate, thank you for causing me to think more about what I think I know is actually only what I've been taught, without proof.  I don't have proof either way, and I've actually tried to follow your reasons, but they, too, fail because you have no proof.  

So I have googled this subject and found some possible answers, but I am curious why, on a flat earth, does the sun rise and set at different times for different continents?

[OakWood]

 

Well I am not aware of people making those claims, and I thought I stated neither you are I are actually at 100,000 feet to verify any claims.  You provided pictures, which really do not provide the same perspective of actually being there.  

At any rate, thank you for causing me to think more about what I think I know is actually only what I've been taught, without proof.  I don't have proof either way, and I've actually tried to follow your reasons, but they, too, fail because you have no proof.  

So I have googled this subject and found some possible answers, but I am curious why, on a flat earth, does the sun rise and set at different times for different continents?

Of course I wasn't there at 100,000 feet and I didn't take the photos myself, but nor were you there when NASA took photos from the Moon. It's the same sort of thing if you think about it. If we can't prove things by ourselves then we should try to listen to those who can especially if there are enough of them to confirm that it is true.

As for your question about how the Sun rises and sets for different times on the continents, well it still rises in the East and sets in the West (moving above us while we are stationary) but it follows a spiral path that moves between what we call the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. I can't provide all the answers short of making a video with diagrams and descriptions. Do you realise how long it took me just to find the photos for my recent post? It took some Google searching, I can tell you... Lol.

I'm not asking anybody to believe that the Flat Earth is true.... I'm asking them to question the Globe Earth. If I provide one example that supports my case, people demand two examples and then three.... and then a hundred. The examples are there but how can I possibly provide them all and display them here on the Worthy forum? I can only point people in the direction to find them for themselves...... one example is not proof but it should be enough to make somebody go out and search for proof.

Imagine that you didn't know whether the World was flat, round or pear-shaped. Imagine that nobody had ever told you. Then using the Bible, some Common Sense, testimonies of other people, and some simple scientific experiments - go out and find out for yourself what the World is shaped like. You may be surprised at the results......

The Earth is not a spinning globe even though the spinning globe theory is very cunning and very convincing to anybody who doesn't really think about it. It's had me fooled all my life so I understand perfectly well anybody who still believes in it. I'm just a foolish as the next man, but once you seriously question it, it starts to fall apart.

 

[hmbld]

 

Of course I wasn't there at 100,000 feet and I didn't take the photos myself, but nor were you there when NASA took photos from the Moon. It's the same sort of thing if you think about it. If we can't prove things by ourselves then we should try to listen to those who can especially if there are enough of them to confirm that it is true.

As for your question about how the Sun rises and sets for different times on the continents, well it still rises in the East and sets in the West (moving above us while we are stationary) but it follows a spiral path that moves between what we call the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. I can't provide all the answers short of making a video with diagrams and descriptions. Do you realise how long it took me just to find the photos for my recent post? It took some Google searching, I can tell you... Lol.

I'm not asking anybody to believe that the Flat Earth is true.... I'm asking them to question the Globe Earth. If I provide one example that supports my case, people demand two examples and then three.... and then a hundred. The examples are there but how can I possibly provide them all and display them here on the Worthy forum? I can only point people in the direction to find them for themselves...... one example is not proof but it should be enough to make somebody go out and search for proof.

Imagine that you didn't know whether the World was flat, round or pear-shaped. Imagine that nobody had ever told you. Then using the Bible, some Common Sense, testimonies of other people, and some simple scientific experiments - go out and find out for yourself what the World is shaped like. You may be surprised at the results......

The Earth is not a spinning globe even though the spinning globe theory is very cunning and very convincing to anybody who doesn't really think about it. It's had me fooled all my life so I understand perfectly well anybody who still believes in it. I'm just a foolish as the next man, but once you seriously question it, it starts to fall apart.

 

Sounds good, but I have not seen where you have shown an example that supports your case.  The suns rays must not travel very far if it spirals and can't shine on the entire flat disc at the same time.  Yes, I did already search Google for it, and tried to put myself in the position of what if I never heard it was a globe, and none of it fits together.  So, I am asking for only one example that supports your case, not two or three.