Love the way he can pause his presentation (7:00) and jot down an idea that has come to him on the spot, and he is not under any pressure to keep rolling. Wish I was at ease like that.
This is, for the most part, terrific material (especially for those reluctant to give any kind of 'testimony' in their daily ~secular~ life), and this is the first of these I've come across that goes beyond "Columbo Part 2". Thanks for uploading these 3rd and 4th sections of his talk.... Here's why I was moved to ~comment~ at this point. Around 48min into this one, Greg K. accommodates BigBang-ism with the glib observation (via WLC's book) that "a Bang 'requires' a Banger, so there!". That merely kicks the same can down the road a bit, ~but~ it has the consequence, intended or not, of accepting the very notion of 'BigBang-ism' itself: now you're immediately faced with the impossible onus of aligning the Genesis order and description of creation (not to mention similar descriptions in Psalms, Job, Isaiah) with BigBang-ism's own order of events....or to mumble something about how "it's ~all~ 'figurative', then", which you know is a lie. It's no wonder that the Foundation of every bogus Secular Materialist would-be Explanation for ~everything~ IS the BigBang Universe; uniformitarian geology relies on it, as does Evolution-ism, all 'outer space' Fantasies, etc, etc. Despite us all having been born into the from-birth indoctrination/'matrix'/'Great Deception' in which we find ourselves, Good Bereans can still deduce the Truth about such things via the rudiments of physics/reality: The 'big-bang paradigm' itself demands the presuppositional 'understanding' (belief) that we're all on one of many ~spheres~ in a Copernican ~solar system~. Most of us seem to believe that....since we were told as much since infancy, and since the grown-ups were all in seeming agreement about it, right? Most of us (with TVs and/or computers) are still shown from 5 to 100 'world globe' images every day. What does the actual 'physics of Reality' show us? According to ~reality~, the physics of light maintains that 'oblique' light ONLY reflects across flat, shiny surfaces--and NEVER across convex or concave ones. Since it's an immutable Law of Physics, you can even demonstrate it to yourself whenever you wish (with, say, a MagLite and a shiny, flexible piece of construction paper). Now~~~~remember when you went to the beach at dawn/dusk (as the case may be) and saw the beautiful, iconic *surface reflection* run from the far horizon right up to the surf at your feet? Well, that's by-golly IMPOSSIBLE on ~any~ 'sphere', as we just demonstrated. So, why DO you go along with this 'BIgBang->galaxies->solar systems->'spheres' nonsense? I suspect you just don't feel like jeapordizing your place in the Secular, deceived World that tells you that God is ~fake~ and the BigBang is ~real~. The actual Truth (as Told by God) makes liars of Heliocentrists, and 'Evolution-ists' as well.....
@@oswaldcobblebot Thanks for the interest (I can only hope I've placed what Greg K. calls "a pebble in your shoe" lol). Yours is a common question (from thoughtful people); it intimates that the irreconcilable debunk of the 'globes in space' paradigm provided by the properties of light I discussed above is unassailable physics, and this caused you to review to yourself (and present one of here) the Observations we've all been told constituted 'empirical evidence' of the heliocentric paradigm. That's what we tend to do, after all, when new, *contrary* to our beliefs information appears: unable to dispute factual info/proof, we reconsider (often for the very first time) what we've ~been~ Told previously ("Yeah, but.......what about the so-called Coriolis Effect, then? What about 'ships going over the horizon'? [this one is quite similar to the one you asked, actually, and has the same answer] Why do we have 'satellite internet', then?", and so on). The point I'd like to make (before I respond to your question about a specific sea-level observation of the Sun[!]) is that, just like with the 'Copernican paradigm', an inability to explain 100% of observations does not falsify the paradigm; that can only be done by demonstrating physics impossibilities and/or interior contradictions of one's paradigm. In other words: if I ~couldn't~ explain "How do we see the sun going behind the horizon then", my failure to do so would in no way mitigate or dismiss the physical Impossibility of oblique light reflecting across the surface of a *sphere* ......obviously (but worth mentioning!). With that said, here's a consonant-with-Reality answer for your question (and a way to demonstrate it to yourself and others; I'm big on experiments/observations that people can do ~themselves~ [instead of simply accepting the results/values that 'perceived Authority' proffers for public consumption]): Most everyone has noticed, when watching the Sun 'go down' the last few inches (as it were) of the evening sky, that it angles 'down' and to the right. This can look like an 'optical illusion' at the beach, but elsewhere, where there are handy topography features, trees, buildings etc at the horizon for reference, it's more obvious. This observation can be made from anywhere in the world, in either hemi'sphere' (and we were Told all our lives that it's the 'globe's direction of spin relative to their heliocentric Sun's current alleged size and distance). So far, so good? What ~no one~ has ever seen (but is generally *assumed* , as in your question's wording), is the Sun going 'behind' any horizon/'terminator'/visual 'edge'; just like with the 'ships going ~over~ the horizon' thing. The Sun, shrinking away at distance as per 'one-point perspective' (like everything else does, as well), starts to disappear from the bottom, distort mildly into a 'sunny-up egg-yolk' shape (if you're watching it set over water), then disappear completely, still casting diffuse light in that 'western' quadrant of the sky. Objects above a plane surface (in our case, phone poles, building tops, the Sun, etc) appear to get shorter/'go down' as ~distance~ increases. Over water, surface water-vapor/humidity/fog accrues as the distance you're looking through (at ever-lowering angle) increases: the ship "disappears" from the hull upwards, until finally the last bit of mast or conning tower is 'gone'....it is (the entire ship) actually STILL THERE, but merely hidden in the (at this point) *miles* of fog through which you're looking. Since the Sun is far brighter[!] (as well as far higher lol) than a ship, the effect happens at a far greater distance. That's either ~provable~, or else it's just as valid or invalid an explanation for our observation as is your 'understanding' that the Sun (and the ship) go "behind" the 'convex' surface of your 'globe'. Fortunately, a Direct Proof is available (which wasn't for most people for most of prior history); let's try it...... Not everyone's in a position to buy/borrow a long-zoom infra-red camera, but they do exist. If you can't get your hands on one, I imagine you can look through the IR lens of others who've posted their observation-vids of YT and elsewhere (if you do, you'll see the ship 'go over the horizon', it zooms up and the ship *reappears* , 'goes over' again, zooms back up, and there's the yellowish heat-signature silhouette of the ship AGAIN, repeat, repeat. If we're on a ~sphere~, then all types of 'zoom optics' are *magical devices* that have the power to Pull Retreating Vessels *Back* Over the Horizon....without the ship's occupants being the wiser, it would seem. If the world is a plane (as the oceanic surface-reflections prove), there is no 'curve' over which the ship/Sun passes, and with sufficiently-powerful zoom optics we can observe a ship, or a Sun, long after the naked eye tricks the believer's mind that it's gone 'behind' the world. The fact is, you can buy a camera at Wal*Mart et al (such as a Nikon P-900/P-1000 type [digital mega-zoom]) even without IR) and "pull ships back over the horizon" lol...or, in our case, treat yourself to multiple sunsets in the same evening by zooming it back 'above the horizon' each time it disappears. They're not cheap ($800-1000 or so), so here's a suggestion: put one on your card, go make your own observations at the beach, at pre-dusk......then return it in proper condition for a refund in a couple of days(!). I suggest that, before you take it back, you take it out on a clear night away from city light and pick out a star or 'planet': zoom all the way up on it (you have to go slowly or you'll lose it), and treat yourself to an amazing "Psalm 19:1 View" of what the luminaries ~really~ look like. Thanks again for your interest in the topic of (ultimately) validating God's Word through ~real~ Science, despite the antics of the world-wide Great Deception we were Warned to ~expect~........
@@hippiekarl7 Dear hippiekarl7 , thank you for your elaborate answer. I totally agree about making my own conclusions and keeping an open mind. I was asking about the sun going behind the horizon, but you jumped to ship and Nikon P900 example, which I have researched a lot and it is not the same as the sun case. Sun is a major light source, as are stars - if nothing blocks our view of it, it should be always visible. I have studied perspective, perspective shrinks light-emitting objects, but does not hide them. Heck, you can even see someone striking a match at night at a 10 kilometer distance at night. So the only solution is that the sun goes behind the curvature of curved earth-plane. You can not Nikon-zoom it back into the view. And speaking of Psalm 19:1 it is far more impressive to see the scale and size of cosmos He has made for us to live in, rather to think that we are on a flat plane under a bowl with little bright dots on it. It is much more consistent and adequate tostimony to His power and Glory which is unlimited.
@@oswaldcobblebot Hi~~~I didn't get a notification when you answered; I just now looked back in on the vid, and our topic. Hope you're still interested in the physics of Reality.... You phrased your question (as so often happens these days lol) with your conclusion as one of its presuppositions; hence the answer you got. You didn't ask about whether or not the Sun 'goes over a horizon' as per the naked-eye illusion, but "why it DOES". Since I've demonstrated with God's immutable Laws of Physics that the oceans are quite specifically "FLAT and SHINY", your actual question above is, well, nullified, by having its premise debunked. You asked why the Sun was 'seen' to go behind a 'curvature' we've *already proven does NOT exist* . Moving objects that recede to the horizon, like it or not, ~does~ include both the ship ~and~ the Sun. You may be still trying to 'mentally calibrate' this *reality* based on the comical values for solar size and distance given you in the heliocentric belief-system. Just as Aristophanes noted after his famous Observation (of the two 50-miles-apart wells' interior shadows at the same moment), that it proved *either* "a curved Earth and distant Sun, or a flat one with a locally-circling Sun. His observation can, of course, be repeated with an incandescent bulb over a table (like they play cards at; with same-sized cup-holder depressions). Your 'globes in a Solar System' paradigm was first postulated with the 'distant' Sun FOUR million miles away from us (did you know that?), not today's *93* , and guess what?! The 'math', Newton's Calculus, ~still worked~! The point is that our demonstrably-planar world's Sun is, compared to your silly 'nuclear powered' (ha, ha) multi-million-miles-away one, is local (no more that some 4,000 miles max), circles above the world, and is ~electrically~ powered (ie 'full-spectrum radiation'). Direct observations at 'eclipse totality' disprove the Accepted model, and validate the electrical one. Here's some more *indisputable* Physics that invalidates your 'globe Earth' belief (cuz "2 or more witnesses" right?): If you've ever held a compass, you probably know we live on a Magnet, with 2 poles....you were Told that it's a gyroscopic 'bar magnet', with N/S magnetic and nearby geographical Poles. 'Evidence' appears to be auroras in the North: indicators of a toroidal electrical field ('Van Allen Belts' to you, right?). You might or might not remember this from school (but you can look it back up!), but your 'globe Earth's "molten iron core" contradicts its *possibly* being a magnet (and we KNOW it IS one). Molten iron is ~far~ above the so-called 'Curie Point' (at which a metal can even take, let alone hold, a magnetic potential/gauss!). Thus, we live on some ~other~ type of Magnet; your 'globe's molten metal core NEGATES your ~required~ 'gyro bar-magnet' Belief. We have a magnetic field that cannot exist on your 'spinning gyro bar magnet'. That's a second Witness....God's actual Creation is obviously (since it IS magnetic, and our compasses DO work) a so-called 'donut-magnet': N pole in the center, S pole the entire outer circumference. This IS consonant with the Laws of Physics ~and~ the auroral observations in the North and 'South'. If your paradigm was correct, for that matter, your compass *would* point South when south of the 'equator'. God's actual Magnet is the one where your compass ~always~ points North. Here's a third Witness, for good measure (if you're still here lol): In your 'solar system', regardless what 'celestial direction' meteorites/bolides appear from, there will *always* be geographical places on it from which the 'meteor shower' will appear at the horizon and travel 'up' the sky. Oddly (to you), this observation has NEVER been made. Ever. By anyone. When I lived near Boston, MA, USA I used to stay up and watch the annual Perseid and Leonid 'showers' before dawn: they always appeared from 70-75 degrees up the sky, and traversed from NE to SW......amber, blue, bright green. I knew someone who saw them from Hawaii (big island) around 9:00PM their time. On a ~sphere~, especially one of the heliocentric paradigm's dimensions, the viewer in Hawaii would've HAD to see them appearing from the HORIZON and travelling UP the night sky. They did not (and no one EVER has). This, too (their seeing the same 70-75 degree-high NE-SW travel as I did a third of the way 'around' your 'globe' from them) debunks the 'globe model'......as does the 'oceanic surface reflection' thing, and the 'impossible bar magnet' thing. I understand your ~resistance~ toward making your own observations with a suitable zoom-camera: you can't debunk the observations made with them, and just aren't quite ready to give up your lifelong fantasies about 'outer space'.....I get it. God's reality isn't worth getting laughed at by your likewise-happily-deluded family and friends. We both know that God has Claimed *all along* , however, that the world He made is "fixed, immovable", "on pillars" (that oversit Tartarus and the Underworld), and fixed under a Dome/firmament, with waters Above it. As one of the Shepherd's lost sheep, found, I was delighted to discover that He wasn't LYING about it. I'm surprised you still prefer to call Him a ~liar~ in your heart (where you prefer your 'space-religion/belief' to the proofs of Physics *and* the Word of your Maker). I don't simply 'believe' in God's Creation; I can be a 'good Berean' and PROVE it with the fundamentals of physics.....which you (nor anyone else) can DISprove, but you still prefer your popular secular Belief System (which, among other things, 'coincidentally', serves to Magnify 'the planetery gods of old', and to minimize our own Place in Creation...hmmmmm). Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they ~have~ been fooled" Let God be true, and every man a liar; grow a pair and look through a zoom lens at a sunset.....and a star/planet of your choosing. P.S. Do you believe you could see that kid strike the match at night from FIFTY miles? Me, either~~~but's that's a proportional scaling of you thinking that you can see Tycho Crater (the Moon's familiar single biggest 'feature'), when it's claimed in your paradigm to be 50 miles across and 250,000 MILES away. For that matter, if it's another 'sphere', and lit by a "distant Sun" (like heliocentrism maintains), then where's the ~obligatory~ highlight at its closest point to the Light Source?! Oops! That's about ~four~ (or so) Witnesses, now...... Believe in your sphere's so-called 'Coriolis Effect'? You can debunk it by downloading free a military FM/TM; I suggest a USMC Sniper's Manual. Unlike what Holly-wood depicts, this manual will teach you to aquire a target at ANY range with nothing but good old "windage, elevation, and bullet-drop". How do you suppose that works at, say, a mile away in a random direction, on a sphere spinning 1,000mph from W-E?! Did you think there's some 'smart-gadget' to plot one's own lat/lon and direction, then that of the target, then calibrate one's scope to this information? I think the target's long gone by then, for one thing~~~but, the fact is, the USMC Sniper's Manual ~would~ discuss the 'coriolis effect' if there was such a thing. The manual would be useless without it. Ultimately, choosing to believe you're on a ~sphere~ even AFTER you've proven that over 70% of it is shiny and *flat* (like God said Himself lol) via immutable physics fundamentals, and in spite of EVERY possible 'surface observation', means you're experiencing what's called Cognitive Dissonance these days: reality disproves your beliefs at every turn, but you irrationally cling to them nonetheless. I do wonder what God makes of so many 'professing Christians' who believe that their Creator is a Liar, and that they actually came to be in an un-scientific, comically self-contradictory "BigBang-ism universe of infinite dimension". That's why God's Dome, for example, explains parabolic rainbows (and circular 'sun-dogs'), while your 'globe model' is totally stumped. Ditto the 'impossible' echoes from thundercracks when a thousand miles from any sonically-reflecting mountains. Seven now, eight Witnesses? Everywhere you actually look, Reality verifies God's set-up, and refutes yours. This may be a lot to chew on at once, but I could still show you what NASA and the military use when it Really Matters (flight characteristics of asymmetrical airframes [ie damaged aircraft they'd prefer to recover]): their formulae are all based on "flat, non-rotating Earth"......these docs are available as pdf files (they're not ~secret~ per se; they're simply buried amid a ton of mundanity). I've come across a number of them and have links to many, but I suppose that if you don't have a huge, uncomfortable Reality Pebble in your shoe by now, further confirmation of God's actual Creation arrangement won't put it there, either (cuz Outer Space is sooooooo cool, right?). Why do you think 'globe' images are constantly put in your face, everywhere, almost since birth?! You're not meant to even consider the various glaring contradictions in your Belief System (you've actually been trained, as were we all, to 'point and laugh' in ignorance when anyone ~does~ point out Physics *impossibilities* rampant in the Belief System). It takes more fortitude/conviction than most can muster to stand up for God, for Reality and Truth.
@@hippiekarl7 Ok, first of all, thank you for taking time to answer. I have looked into your argument about reflection and it's at first interesting, but turns out to be false. Large water bodies gave ripples and waves and are not "flat". The same phenomenon can be observed also with streetlights on a curved bridge with a wet surface - same effect. So there's that. Please do your own research on it and come back. Do not just believe blindly what FE sources say. But you HAVE to answer my question about the sun and horizon thing. And no, my question is not nullified as it is what you and I see with the naked eye as reality - the sun GOING BEHIND THE HORIZON. You can't just say there is no such thing as the horizon and leave it at that. What do you mean by saying that is "naked-eye illusion"? And please, let's keep our conversation to the point and not bring other subjects in, as interesting as they could be. And please do not assume my position on other things, for example, I too think electric universe theory explains suns full spectrum and element generation, magnetism and stars far better than the mainstream standard model, but that is not the point in our conversation about the shape of the Earth, as EU theory works brilliantly with spherical planets, so you can't have it as any proof of flatness of the Earth.) And let's keep our talk civil, and not call me names and"me having "your 'space-religion/belief'. Let's just talk. So please, how to you rationalise for yourself the fact that you see the Sun disappearing FULL SIZE, not shunked smaller, bottom first, behind that line where the sky meets the ocean? That is my pebble in your shoe.
asking respectfully: what translation of the bible do you prefer to read? I have stumbled upon versions of verses that say something opposite of each other.how do you deal with that? What do you think about this?
NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV should all be pretty solid - you can always compare them and there are tools online to explore the original words and meanings if you come to a word that seems to be rendered differently in different translations. No single English version is going to be a perfect translation of the original language.
I wonder why people who don't believe even care to watch this and comment? If you want a debate there are plenty of those on You Tube. This isn't a debate.
@@millionairemafia9610 Not much. I mean really King Tut left his body. Good enough for me. A grave site with names and bones wd be nice. Caesar and Alexander left us battle sites and coinage. It wd be nicer if Mr Koukl wd respond.
@@robertlight5227 but how would Jesus leave a body if he was resurrected? You say that would be good enough for you, but that would actually debunk the entire resurrection in the first place, wouldn't it?
