Forrest Valkai tried his muscle

Secret Science in the Bible? | Reacteria
10th Aug 2022 | Forrest Valkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rmdaqkYlA8

3:45 Thank you very much for ruining an Atheist argument (not saying it was yours btw) saying "miracles were believed by ignorant people who hadn't figured out nature was kind of too regular to produce them" or things to that effect.

They had figured it out (as you are now saying) and in any Theistic philosophy, any genuine miracle is anyway not produced by, only through, nature, by its Maker.

5:03 I agree, the passage refers either to Sun's daily movement around Earth, with the universe, or its yearly movement around the Zodiac, inverse direction to daily movement of the Universe ...

Btw, were you saying that was wrong? What was your best argument for Heliocentrism?

Euler's reference to the perspectives of Selenites and Martians?

Or Michelson Morley?

5:25 [He cited Catholicism dogmatising Geocentrism at Galileo trials]

Yeah, as a Catholic and a fan of Sungenis, I'm fine with that!

Michael Eco

"What was your best argument for Heliocentrism?"

Well the obvious one is stellar parallax. People always forget about heliosynchronous satellites, but that's a simple proof too. My personal favorite is the 67,000 mph redshift of the stars on the eastern ecliptic at midnight, and the concommittant blueshift of stars on the western ecliptic at the same time, and a perfect gradient all the way in between exactly as predicted by a heliocentric model, and inexplicable with geocentric nonsense.

Sungenis? As in Robert Sungenis? The notorious anti-semite who got a fake PhD from a degree mill in Vanuatu? Yeah, that fits. Big Eric Dubay energy right there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "Well the obvious one is stellar parallax."

Unless it's a misnomer for an actual proper movement. Performed by angelic movers.

"People always forget about heliosynchronous satellites, but that's a simple proof too."

You mean like SOHO? How is that supposed to prove Heliocentrism?

"My personal favorite is the 67,000 mph redshift of the stars on the eastern ecliptic at midnight, and the concommittant blueshift of stars on the western ecliptic at the same time,"

Again something angels could perform.

"and a perfect gradient all the way in between exactly as predicted by a heliocentric model, and inexplicable with geocentric nonsense."

Unless the angels were taking Heliocentric astronomers "on a ride" (wake up time by "Apocalypse", as I see events that may be soon).

"The notorious anti-semite"

Who hasn't uttered much antisemitism, last decade ...

"who got a fake PhD from a degree mill in Vanuatu?"

What is your definition of a "real PhD"?

It must come from an "accredited university" ... sorry, but after Popes, Kings and Emperors ceased accrediting universities at the founding, the word is ranging from meaningless to a "mutual cooptation in a club of mutual admiration" ....

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Unless it's a misnomer for an actual proper movement. Performed by angelic movers."

It's not. There's no such thing as angels.

"How is that supposed to prove Heliocentrism?"

Because if the satellite wasn't moving it'd fall into the sun.

"Again something angels could perform."

What's your favorite evidence for angels again?

"Who hasn't uttered much antisemitism, last decade ...'

The man literally denies that the holocaust happened.

"What is your definition of a "real PhD"?"

One that you actually work for, with real classes, and contribute to the world's body of knowledge.

Are you trying to embarrass yourself here? On purpose? Because you're doing a marvelous job.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "It's not. There's no such thing as angels."

Thank you for showing how paradigm-dependent, in this case atheism-dependent your proposed proof is.

"What's your favorite evidence for angels again?"

Retrogrades and "parallaxes" are some of them - these can only happen in geocentric space with things like angelic movers.

"Because if the satellite wasn't moving it'd fall into the sun."

SOHO is closer to Earth than to the Sun. If you ask me, it is moving, namely along with the Sun, around the Zodiac.

"The man literally denies that the holocaust happened."

When did that become antisemitism?

"One that you actually work for,"

Sungenis arguably did.

"with real classes,"

I think there are universities you would consider "real" (since mutually accredited) that give thesis studies per correspondence.

"and contribute to the world's body of knowledge."

When it comes to you and theses like Sungenis', that's a huge domain for your subjectivity.

"Are you trying to embarrass yourself here? On purpose? Because you're doing a marvelous job."

I have been harrassed by people telling me things like that, since I was 13, I am 53 ... does it look as if I care? I actually respect other people more than you (like not involving denial of angels in attempted proofs of Heliocentrism) and care more about what they think than what you think. Just in case you had missed that little detail.

MilesCantRun

@Hans-Georg Lundahl denying the holocaust is basically the peak of antisemitism

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MilesCantRun I don't think so.

Promoting a holocaust would be way worse. And no, they are not the same.

MilesCantRun

@Hans-Georg Lundahl fair point actually

5:28 "torture Galileo to death"

Torture was actually only part of investigation, did so and so believe such and such, while possible death penalties were typically done without too much physical cruelty. You burned to ashes on a stake, sure, but most of the time this happened, you had already been dead by strangulation.

As Galileo was above 60, he could also not be tortured.

Learn some actual history, man!

1992 "admission" was by an Antipope, the real Pope in Topeka was (and remained to his death, Aug. 2 this year) a Geocentric.

5:53 If you know some linguistics, Hebrew (like Latin) uses "Earth" for "dry land" .... and if you look at globes projected out onto flat maps, one actually can map out four corners that dry land has against the Pacific Ocean.

Clockwise, from NE, and with your Russian heritage, you will like this : NE Kamchatka, SE Singapore / Sydney / Hobart, SW Cape Horn and NW Alaska.

All these points were in fact hidden from cultural knowledge of Bible authors, and what if they had been five instead?

5:55 The Earth has edges - well, there are some very solid edges (broken at Panama) between Cape Horn and Alaska, between Singapore and Kamchatka.

The ones in the WE direction are however broken in the rough middle by the Atlantic.

5:58 "that you can see the whole earth from the top of a tall mountain"

Principle : if a scientist can do it with equipment, an angel or demon can do it without equipment.

Satan was showing Christ some TV from later Peking, and the tall mountain was hiding that from other people back then. I guess you refer to Matthew 4 and Luke 4, all that comes to my mind ...

6:11 There is no such thing as "the belief that the Earth is Flat and Stationary" ... there are beliefs the Earth is flat (typically Babylonian or Norse, not Judaeo-Christian) and there is the belief the earth is stationary, has sth to do with "circuit of the sun" but nada of your proof texts for a flat earth-Bible.

Again, learn some real history of ideas and culture!

6:13 There are Flat-Earthers today in above general statement, I should have, of course, stated "no such thing ... for millennia" - Flat Earth society and the late Rob Skiba were not around for that timespan.

7inrain

So please tell us how modern theology figured out that the adjacent passages cited by Forrest were not meant literally. BTW: Galilei was threatened with death by an inquisition court in the 17th century because he claimed that it wasn't the Sun that moved around the Earth but just the opposite. Shows pretty convincingly that at least there were time periods when the church thought the Earth to be stationary.

"Again, learn some real history of ideas and culture!"

Yeah, that's what apologists like to say when they want their own interpretation of biblical texts to be the sole valid reference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@7inrain I wasn't arguing against the Earth being stationary, either in the Bible or reality.

I was arguing the Earth is flat in neither the one nor the other.

And for the record, Galileo and his judges St. Robert Bellarmine (for the early book) or the judges chosen by Pope Urban VIII, were all agreed the Church isn't flat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, the Earth isn't Flat.

7inrain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I was arguing the Earth is flat in neither the one nor the other."

And I want to know what are your sources for being so sure that the biblical texts cited in the video never meant that the Earth was thought to be flat by the biblical authors. You claimed that as a certainty which would be clear the moment the video author "learned some real history of ideas and culture". So where can we find what is to be learned according to you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@7inrain You cannot psychoanalyse the Biblical authors.

You can analyse the text passages and see if they imply a flat disc where we see a globe, and they do not.

And when it comes to how Christendom interpreted these over last 2000 years, how about going to Church Fathers and scholastics? You find one or two early Church Fathers who are Flat Earth, you find St. John Chrysostom who couldn't care less, you find St. Augustine of Hippo who was clearly pro-globe (and explained how Creation Days fitted with a globe Earth : they are all counted in the Jerusalem Time Zone - De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, book I, sorry, not online for free), and his take was universal in the Western Latin Christendom except by far out marges - or you can check out Sacrobosco's work De sphaera - or the ridicule (John?) Philoponos heaped on Cosmas Indicopleustes ... or simply get a recent (70's or later) history of ideas or of culture that refers to the Middle Ages/

7inrain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You cannot psychoanalyse the Biblical authors."

If you admit that this is impossible why do you claim that you know their mindset and deem the notion impossible that they indeed might have believed in a flat Earth, especially when their writings suggests this?

"You can analyse the text passages and see if they imply a flat disc where we see a globe, and they do not."

What is that supposed to mean? If we as the people of the 21st century see a globe that doesn't in any way mean the authors from 3000 or 2500 years ago saw a globe or knew that the Earth is one.

"or simply get a recent (70's or later) history of ideas or of culture that refers to the Middle Ages."

So what? It is well known in history that during the Middle Ages most people were aware of a spherical Earth, contrary to what many today believe of the medieval people.

But this doesn't tell us anything about what the biblical authors deemed to be true. And particularly doesn't it validate the claim that for example the authors of the Book of Job described the Earth as something with edges/corners but that in fact they meant the complete opposite, the Earth not being a flat plane founded on pillars as written in Job ch. 38 but a sphere drifting through space and orbiting the Sun as written nowhere in the bible.

Next time get your sources straight and don't make claims for which you have no evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@7inrain My point is that precisely their WRITINGS do not suggest they believed a flat earth.

I do not believe in psychoanalysing dead people, but I do believe in close readings.

"And particularly doesn't it validate the claim that for example the authors of the Book of Job described the Earth as something with edges/corners but that in fact they meant the complete opposite,"

I said nothing about them not believing corners.

A close analysis of corners of what "earth" plus a look at a modern map constitutes my point. Continent sized dry land actually does have four corners against the Pacific.

"the Earth not being a flat plane founded on pillars as written in Job ch. 38"

If you meant verses 4 to 6, it doesn't say "flat plane" there. Pillars refer to the things sticking down from the mantle into the interior magma.

"drifting through space and orbiting the Sun as written nowhere in the bible."

Why would you tack that on to sphere?

The Bible clearly is Geocentric and so am I. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, like St. Robert Bellarmine, and lots of others who believed the earth to be spherical.

7inrain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "A close analysis of corners of what "earth" plus a look at a modern map constitutes my point.

This is seriously your argument? Do you really think the biblical authors would know 3000 years in advance how a map of the Earth would be drawn today? Man, your way of clutching at straws is borderline deluded.

"Continent sized dry land actually does have four corners against the Pacific."

I don't have the slightest idea what that is supposed to mean. How for instance does South America have four corners against the Pacific? This is empty babble.

"If you meant verses 4 to 6, it doesn't say "flat plane" there. Pillars refer to the things sticking down from the mantle into the interior magma."

Clutching for straws again (and the borderline to la-la-land has been properly crossed). And I can confidently say that if you as someone from the 21st century have no frickin' clue of the different layers of the Earth (and even don't care to look it up) then a goat herder from 3000 years ago is absolutely allowed not only to not have that knowledge but to assume the Earth is flat.

The lengths some people are going and the lies they are telling themselves only to justify their beliefs never fails to astonish me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@7inrain "This is seriously your argument? Do you really think the biblical authors would know 3000 years in advance how a map of the Earth would be drawn today?"

Not by natural knowledge available back then. This makes "four corners" a pretty precise prediction.

"Man, your way of clutching at straws is borderline deluded."

If anyone is clutching at straws, it's you. Kamchatka NE, Singapore-Sydney-Hobart SE, Cape Horn SW and Alaska NW are hardly straws. And you don't find anything sticking out far enough between these to make it a five or six cornered figure instead. Saying "how maps would be drawn today" rather than "how physical realities of coastlines are" is clutching at straws on your part.

"if you as someone from the 21st century have no frickin' clue of the different layers of the Earth (and even don't care to look it up)"

I was citing from memory. But some things do stick down from the middle of continental plates.

"then a goat herder from 3000 years ago is absolutely allowed not only to not have that knowledge but to assume the Earth is flat."

The question isn't whether he's allowed to.

The question is whether you can pin him down to it and you can't - not by four corners anyway.

"The lengths some people are going and the lies they are telling themselves only to justify their beliefs never fails to astonish me."

I hope your pointed a finger at a mirror when saying this? Pretty please! Would make you mildly more coherent!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@7inrain Clarification:

"I don't have the slightest idea what that is supposed to mean. How for instance does South America have four corners against the Pacific?"

The Americas - N and S - have two of the corners against the Pacific. Alaska and Cape Horn. The third corner (New Foundland) or possibly third and fourth corner (add Brazil bulge) are against the Atlantic, which is an inland sea compared to the rectangle. It is much smaller than the Pacific. Confer the expressions "land semiglobe" (the rectangle with the Atlantic) and "water semiglobe" (the Pacific).

The other two corners against the Pacific are from the East Side of the Old World, possibly extended to Australia and Tasmania. Kamchatka in the North, Singapore / Sydney or / Hobart in the South. Two plus two make four.

8:29 Ignoring miracles of Flood and Jonah, foremost "legs" of ants would perhaps rationally count as "arms" to some?

After Video

I saw the thumbnail with the famous (and infamous) Flammarion's Woodcut a bit too often to not comment on it, despite it not being mentioned in the video and your building no argument on it.

It features a man in pilgrim's array (roughly speaking) poking his head through a purported sphere of fix stars that's just a half globe dome over a flattish earth like extension.

It has been used more than once to prove people in the late Middle Ages generally believed the Earth was flat, but it's not from a Medieval treatise of astronomy. While the exact origin is disputed, the most probable one to me, it illustrates one of the prophetic books, and a kind of dream vision or dream-like vision - such do not tell us of the prosaically believed cosmology of the ones experiencing it or believing it has a prophetic truth.

Try Ezechiel or Zechariah - I always confuse the two.