Four corners flat earth

[AmericanChristian91]

So the genealogy is fictitious?

Which genealogy of Jesus?
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And there are differences between them. Let's just say I don't think biblical genealogies had the same motive as modern ones (who try to be as historically accurate as possible ex specially with the understanding of genetics). since there were other factors (theological, etc) in why the biblical ones were created.

 

[Hammster]

Which genealogy of Jesus?
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And there are differences between them. Let's just say I don't think biblical genealogies had the same motive as modern ones (who try to be as historically accurate as possible ex specially with the understanding of genetics). since there were other factors (theological, etc) in why the biblical ones were created.

Your convenient opinion has been noted.

 

[now faith]

Jesus did refer to Noah and other parts of Genesis, that does not
Mean he thought the book was history. If I make reference to an audience about Moby Dick, the characters in it and events, to
Make a point I am trying to teach, the fact that I mentioned them does not
Mean I think the book happened. Just because I can talk about captain Ahab as if he were real does not make him so.

Well Peter certainly knew about the flood:

1 Peter: 3. 19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


As far as Moby Dick for a Bibical analogy,seem a bit like a hasty generalisation.

 

[now faith]

A circle has only two dimensions; a sphere always has three. Therefore a circle is flat, not spherical. God created a dome and set it over the flat earth (picture in your mind a cake plate with a cover over it—or a covered plate of food delivered to a hotel room by room service).

Genesis 1:6. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
12. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
15. and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
18. to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20. And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." (NRSV)

Genesis 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Genesis 7:11 describes the opening of the windows of the heavens; that is, windows in the dome so that the water above the dome (see Genesis 1:6) could fall to the earth as heavy rain for forty days, largely contributing to the flood. Remember the cake plate with a cover over it. Plates are flat—not spherical—and can be covered with a dome like the dome that God created to cover the flat earth.

What is the relationship between the North and South poles?
What is a axis?

You are comparing a cake plate with a lid,to a basketball.

I suppose the satellites that orbit the earth,providing GPS systems to cell phones are in the dome bouncing off the sides.

 

[now faith]

"I believe the bible, except for the parts I don't believe".

Well maybe it's a cafeteria that we may pick and choose the good stuff.

 

[Bluelion]

Jesus did refer to Noah and other parts of Genesis, that does not
Mean he thought the book was history. If I make reference to an audience about Moby Dick, the characters in it and events, to
Make a point I am trying to teach, the fact that I mentioned them does not
Mean I think the book happened. Just because I can talk about captain Ahab as if he were real does not make him so.

Yeah except Jesus and Peter and i believe even Paul make references to the events being real. Now if you present moby dick as being real then it would be safe to say you view it as real.

I like how you compare the word of God to a fictional book is this your view?

I am still waiting for some one to answer my question, how do you know what is real and what is not?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yeah, because that's never been dealt with before:

You Asked: Are the Differing Narratives of Peter’s Denials Reconcilable? | TGC | The Gospel Coalition

Nice deflection, though.

Craig L. Blomberg, the author of the article referenced above, was either very careless in reading the four accounts in his Greek New Testament, or he was purposely dishonest. For example, he writes,

“Luke calls this second individual heteros (the generic use of the masculine form of another word for “another&#8221, thus not specifying the individual's gender (Luke 22:58).”

This is absolutely false! Luke 22:58 reads,

και μετα βραχυ ετερος ιδων αυτον εφη και συ εξ αυτων ει ο δε πετρος εφη ανθρωπε ουκ ειμι.

The NASB, 1995, translates this verse as follows:

Luke 22:58. A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” (NASB, 1995)

In this verse, the Greek word translated as ‘saw’ is not really a verb—it is a participle! Participles are verbal adjectives and all Greek participles are declined as adjectives and conjugated as verbs. Adjective are declined to express number, case, and gender. Verbs are conjugated to express voice, mood, tense, number and person. Therefore, the Greek participle translated as ‘saw’ in Luke 22:58 tells us the gender of the second person to whom Peter denied Jesus—and that gender is masculine rather than feminine as Blomberg falsely alleges. Therefore, Luke’s account differs from that of Matthew and Mark regarding the sex of this person. Blomberg ignores other discrepancies as well—and if you look carefully, you can find them for yourself.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yeah except Jesus and Peter and i believe even Paul make references to the events being real.

When teaching the doctrine of original sin on this message board, I always teach it from the perspective of Adam being a real person, but most of my readers know that I do not believe that Adam was an historical person. I am not lying or being dishonest—I am teaching a spiritual truth using a story that my readers are familiar with. Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews may very well have been doing the same kind of thing. Teachers call this using a “teaching device.” Parables are another kind of teaching device.

Here is an example of my posts on the doctrine of original:

Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Paul argues here that we all sinned in Adam, the proof being that we all die, including those who lived before the Law was given, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, the ONLY sin for which those who sinned before the Law was given would have paid the penalty of death is he sin that they committed in Adam. Although the Law had not yet been given when Adam sinned, he was specifically told by God,

Gen. 2:16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Eve, and then Adam, sinned because they were tempted and allowed themselves to be seduced by the powers of darkness. The consequence is that they were cast out of the garden and lost their immortality. Paul tells us that we sinned in Adam and ultimately die as a consequence. He does not say anything about two kinds of sin. All kinds of sin were committed before the Law was given—including Cain having been murdered by his brother Abel—but no sins were imputed to anyone until the Law was given; that is, no sins except for the sin of Adam. In theology 101, this is known as the “doctrine of original sin.”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well maybe it's a cafeteria that we may pick and choose the good stuff.

Which one of the four different accounts of Peter’s denial of Jesus is “the good stuff,” and which ones should we leave behind in the cafeteria? I vote for the account written by Luke, even though it expressly contradicts the accounts by Matthew, Mark, and John. Why do I believe Luke’s account rather than the accounts by Matthew, Mark, or John? Primarily for this reason:

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Well Peter certainly knew about the flood:

1 Peter: 3. 19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Lets say you are right, Peter not only was using the flood story to teach, but also believed in the event himself. I would argue that does not prove the flood account was a factual historical event.

Just like how the belief of ancient cosmology by the biblical writers (which makes sense for the time), such as flat earth or sun rotating around the earth, etc, does not make ancient cosmology factual truth.

But it just goes to show that God allows peoples understandings of the world/past (even if it is incorrect to modern day standards) to be shown in the bible, and uses these beliefs to help teach his word.

Peter could be wrong on scientific matters (and also historical details that are not about Jesus's resurrection), of course that does not diminish what God is trying to teach to us through Peter, because the importance that is being taught relates to theological/spiritual truth (and facts related to Jesus and salvation).

 

[Bluelion]

When teaching the doctrine of original sin on this message board, I always teach it from the perspective of Adam being a real person, but most of my readers know that I do not believe that Adam was an historical person. I am not lying or being dishonest—I am teaching a spiritual truth using a story that my readers are familiar with. Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews may very well have been doing the same kind of thing. Teachers call this using a “teaching device.” Parables are another kind of teaching device.

Here is an example of my posts on the doctrine of original:

Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Paul argues here that we all sinned in Adam, the proof being that we all die, including those who lived before the Law was given, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, the ONLY sin for which those who sinned before the Law was given would have paid the penalty of death is he sin that they committed in Adam. Although the Law had not yet been given when Adam sinned, he was specifically told by God,

Gen. 2:16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Eve, and then Adam, sinned because they were tempted and allowed themselves to be seduced by the powers of darkness. The consequence is that they were cast out of the garden and lost their immortality. Paul tells us that we sinned in Adam and ultimately die as a consequence. He does not say anything about two kinds of sin. All kinds of sin were committed before the Law was given—including Cain having been murdered by his brother Abel—but no sins were imputed to anyone until the Law was given; that is, no sins except for the sin of Adam. In theology 101, this is known as the “doctrine of original sin.”

You never answered my question think this is the fourth time I asked how do you know what is true and what is not?

How is it a person can claim to be christian why rejecting it core beliefs? If Adam was not real neither was Jesus, and that means i am Not real, in fact all of mankind is not really here.

 

[Hammster]

I'm sure the original readers of Genesis thought "I know the creation account isn't real because God wouldn't have actually created all of this in six literal days (even though it's affirmed in the Ten Commandments). Hopefully, in a few thousand years someone will come along and tell us what REALLY happened."

 

[AmericanChristian91]

You never answered my question think this is the fourth time I asked how do you know what is true and what is not?

How is it a person can claim to be christian why rejecting it core beliefs? If Adam was not real neither was Jesus, and that means i am Not real, in fact all of mankind is not really here.

Jesus existing, the rest of mankind including myself, does not need a historical Adam to exist. The YEC view of Adam is also not a core belief that christian have to believe in order to consider themselves christians.

 

[Bluelion]

Jesus existing, the rest of mankind including myself, does not need a historical Adam to exist. The YEC view of Adam is also not a core belief that christian have to believe in order to consider themselves christians.

ahh but Adam being real and the father of mankind is a core belief as is first sin. It is the foundation of redemption and why we need it, A person can not repent if they do not even believe they are from Adam there for they can not accept Christ if they do not believe in the account of Genesis. God says i will put animosity between you and the woman seed you will strike His heel and He will bruise your head. This is the account of Jesus on the Cross and salvation coming to man and defeat of satan. If a person do not believe Adam and Eve were real people they can not be aware of their own sin and human sinful nature. The foundations for Jesus on the cross and salvation is not there. As we know if you pull a foundation out from a house the whole house falls down.

So you see it is a core belief. If a person deny The First Adam they deny the second Adam Christ. With out the first Adam there is no Jesus the second Adam, because Jesus is from the Bloodline of Adam. From Seth to Adam and Eve. So you see a Person can not Believe in Christ with out Adam, and That person can not repent from their sin and be saved with out believing Adam is real person.

If a person can not believe Adam is real how can a person believe Jesus is God and not just a man? How can a person believe He arose from the dead?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Our core beliefs rest in Jesus being the son of God and dying on the cross for out sins. If a belief in an historical Adam is so important then it would have been put into the nicene creed. The fact is that various other interpretations exist within Christianity in how to view Adam, not just your YEC interpretation. There is a reason you don't have to accept a literal Adam, nor belief the earth is only 6000 yrs old, to be a christian. Our faith does not rest on Adam existing or not, but on the son of God. And yes you can see how sinful humanity is (go look at all of those examples of genocides and wars throughout history) and why we need saving, even if you believe the fall of man started because a population sinned, not only 2 people.

 

[mikedsjr]

Our core beliefs rest in Jesus being the son of God and dying on the cross for out sins. If a belief in an historical Adam is so important then it would have been put into the nicene creed. The fact is that various other interpretations exist within Christianity in how to view Adam, not just your YEC interpretation. There is a reason you don't have to accept a literal Adam, nor belief the earth is only 6000 yrs old, to be a christian. Our faith does not rest on Adam existing or not, but on the son of God. And yes you can see how sinful humanity is (go look at all of those examples of genocides and wars throughout history) and why we need saving, even if you believe the fall of man started because a population sinned, not only 2 people.

The Nicene creed doesn't say Apostle Paul was a real person either. It's a wonderful thing that we aren't required to believe everything rightly in Scripture to get to heaven. But to claim Scripture doesn't speak of Adam as a real individual really takes a blind eye to statements made of him throughout Scripture. To say a population sinned is to deny what Scripture really says about how sin began. To recast Scripture this way requires a person to say Scripture is faulty.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Nicene creed doesn't say Apostle Paul was a real person either. It's a wonderful thing that we aren't required to believe everything rightly in Scripture to get to heaven. But to claim Scripture doesn't speak of Adam as a real individual really takes a blind eye to statements made of him throughout Scripture.

We know from the study of the Bible itself and other ancient literature that Genesis 1 – 11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends. The Bible describes, in detail and in many places, the earth as being a round disk covered by a dome. The Bible describes a world-wide flood through which eight humans and hundreds of thousands of land animals were kept alive by a big boat while pretending that hundreds of thousands of kinds of marine life survived without so much as a lifejacket! The Bible describes a world-wide flood through which eight humans and hundreds of thousands of land animals were kept alive by a big boat while pretending that the ecosystems necessary for the survival of the humans and animals after the flood remained in tact without so much as a single miracle. The Bible describes Nimrod and his people building a tower out of bricks held together by bitumen in the land of Shinar—a tower to be so tall that it would reach beyond the dome into heaven. God becomes so alarmed by this that He and unspecified other persons go down to the earth from heaven and make Nimrod’s people forget how to speak Hebrew but know how to speak languages that had hitherto not existed. The trouble was, of course, that each individual could now understand only one of these newly created languages. This was supposed to make building tall towers and doing grand things impossible when in fact it was not a significant hindrance. Why didn’t one of the persons that went down to the earth with God tell Him that the plan would not work and that in the future the tallest buildings would be built by men and women speaking a wide spectrum of languages but still finding ways to communicate with each other?

Personally, I find it more than a little unsettling that some people believe that God was not allowed to communicate with us using epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends. If God was not allowed to communicate in the manner that He chose to, was He really God?

 

[mikedsjr]

princeton, Again you reject authority of Scripture. Turning Scripture into spiritual lessons instead of what it actually states. You have no grounds for your stance, as a Christian, that Genesis 1-11 is redacted collection of epic tales. You've pretty clearly have stated Scripture can not be trusted.

Luke 3 clearly demonstrates a genealogy that includes Adam. Romans 5 clearly demonstrates death clearly began at Adam sin. 1 Corinthian 15 clearly demonstrates We all die due to Adam's sin and that Paul truly believe Adam being the first human. 1 Tim 2 clearly demonstrates Paul believe Adam was the first human formed and then Eve and Eve was decieved first. Jude clearly states that Enoch was 7th down from Adam. Hebrews 11 clearly demonstrates, in the line of faithful individuals, Abel's sacrifice was more acceptable than Cain's. Clearly real sacrifices. 1 John 2 clearly says Cain murdered his brother. Jesus in Matthew 23 certainly believe the blood of Abel was spilt. 1 Chronicles certain believes the individuals from Gen 1-11 were real. Luke, Hebrews and Jude clearly state Enoch was a real person. Jesus clearly believed Noah was real in Matthew 24 and Luke 17. Again Noah shows up in Hebrews faith chapter 11. Even Peter believed Noah was real in 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2. And lets not forget Genesis in all this.

My defense is to point to Scripture as the source of God's word and all is true. To assume empirical science has figured things out is naive. Real truth knows science will line up with Scripture 100%.

 

[mikedsjr]

For instance. Science has clearly proven Adam and Eve were the first humans. Its proven Noah truly existed with mitochondrial eve and y-chromosomal adam.

 

[Bluelion]

Just because you say the Bible preaches a flat earth does not make it true, because you say it is mythology does not make it true. All it shows is a lack of understanding, but instead of people saying they are wrong the say the Bible is, Ahh the Human Ego.