Flat Earth Theory.

d taylor said:

It is a remembrance just like the verse states.

Click to expand...

The word means "make present". It doesn't mean "memorial".

BNR32FAN said:

So I’ll ask again did Judas receive eternal life as a result of receiving the Eucharist from Jesus Himself?

Click to expand...

Don't read one verse in isolation from others.

Jipsah said:

How long is a "day" for God? Read Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Ansd please, spare me the "that doesn't count for Creation: rubbish or the "Oh, then a day is 1000 solar years flapdoodle". God isn't stuck in time as we are. Your silly notion of God being ruled by the clock is shot to pieces by the testimony of God's Creation itself!

Click to expand...

All you do is play games with the word of God. You run from the discussion with your pathetic drive by two sentence replies that never actually address the passages I present because you can’t. Both of those passages are referring to God’s omnipresence, they have nothing to do with the creation days recorded in Genesis, but none of that matters to you. You don’t care what the verses actually say all you care about is winning an argument. That’s what’s most important to you. You’re twisting the word of God to fit your agenda because there’s absolutely nothing in the entire Bible that supports your claim that the six days of creation were not six literal days. You’re just pulling that out of NOWHERE! Is that how you interpret the Bible? You just make up whatever interpretation suits you even tho there’s nothing to support it. Let’s apply your ridiculous logic to other areas of the scriptures. Oh Jesus is God so He wasn’t dead for 3 days He was dead for 3000 years. God commanded that we work for 6000 years then rest on the 7000th year. Do you see how outrageous that sounds? Does Genesis 1:5 say then there was evening and there was morning one day FROM GOD’S PERSPECTIVE? Does it say there were 1000 evenings and 1000 mornings 1000 days? Nobody applies a thousand years to any of the other 2,579 times the word day is referred to in the entire Bible for some unknown reason these particular 6 days are somehow special. We all know what makes them so special, science makes them special. That’s the whole reason why you don’t object to any of the other references to the word day except for these specific 6 days because you can’t possibly fathom how science could possibly be wrong so you have to resort to twisting the creation account out of context in order to reconcile it with science. Well guess what science says a person can’t come back to life after being dead for 3 days either. What now, are you going to twist the death and resurrection of Christ to coincide with what science tells us? How far are you willing to go to hold so dearly to what scientists say? Are you going to have to give up your faith at some point because you believe they know more than the word of God?

prodromos said:

Don't read one verse in isolation from others.

Click to expand...

If you have a problem with the way I used that verse then please by all means present it. Point out exactly what was wrong with the way I used it. Your statement means nothing if you are t willing to indicate exactly how I misused the verse.

Jipsah said:

Explain the geological evidence, then. But unless you want to evoke a horse laugh, don't trot out the asinine "God made everything lool old" crud.

Click to expand...

I have explained the errors in the dating methods numerous times here on CF. The problem with the dating methods is that scientists are assuming that there was no isotopic decay in materials when they were created. They believe that everything began with no isotopic decay present in them. My position is that the entire world was subjected to forces and energies that we have no comprehension of and we have no way of knowing how materials would react in those conditions. The creation account according to the Bible was a miraculous event. It’s not supposed to be explainable by science any more than the resurrection of Christ is, otherwise they wouldn’t be miracles. Maybe when you discovered there was a discrepancy between science and the Bible instead of just jumping to twisting the word of God you should’ve looked into the dating methods to see if there was any viable reasons how scientists could be wrong. Why would twisting the word of God be your first choice when faced with that dilemma?

prodromos said:

The word means "make present". It doesn't mean "memorial".

Click to expand...

anamnésis

Jipsah said:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree every Christian should partake of the Holy Communion but the fact is, it doesn’t guarantee eternal life. I would imagine that Paul and Timothy received the Eucharist, wouldn’t you?

”For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.“
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭23‬-‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

It certainly sounds like Paul received the Eucharist here. Yet Paul said this to Timothy in a letter.

”It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.“
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If Paul denied Christ and Christ denied him would he still receive eternal life because he received the Eucharist? He didn’t receive it in an unholy manner, yet he says right here that Christ would deny him and Timothy if they were to deny Him. Is a person saved no matter what they do after receiving the Eucharist in a holy manner?

BNR32FAN said:

Yes I believe you are correct the expanse or raquia wouldn’t be the atmosphere it’s the waters above the expanse that would be the atmosphere. My mistake.

Saying that the days have a different meaning other than a 24 hour period of time ignores both the surrounding context and the grammatical usage of the word Yovm which is never used in reference to anything other than a 24 hour period of time or daytime as opposed to nighttime. This misconception that Yovm can be used in reference to an age or an era derives from Strong’s Concordance’s error in where James Strong encompasses all of the variations of the word Yom into one category and provides the definition of all of the variations in one place without distinguishing which definition applies to which variation of the word Yom. I discovered this error by searching the word “day” in the Old Testament and looked up each verse in Biblehub.com and found an anomaly. In ever case where the word day is used in reference to and age or an era the word Beyovm is used not Yovm, and in every case where Yom is used in reference to a 24 hour period or daytime the word Yovm is used never Beyovm. Yovm means day or daytime, Beyovm means “in the day”. In every single case of Yom being used in reference to an age or an era you’ll see the term “in the day” not just “day”. The Hebrews used the word Yom pretty much the same way we use the word day today. Today we might say things like “back in the day” or “in my father’s day”, that’s exactly how the Hebrews used the word Yom in reference to an age or an era. We would never use the word “day” in reference to an age or an era that didn’t include the words “in the” or “in” followed by a subject of reference and the Hebrews didn’t use the word Yom in such a manner either. Furthermore we would never use the word day in reference to an age or an era with a number value attached to it. The first day or the second day etc, etc, would never be used in reference to an age or an era today and it was also never used in the Hebrew language that way either. We would also never use the term “evening and morning” when referring to an age or an era and the Hebrews didn’t use Yom in that manner either. If you want you can easily check the validity of this by doing a bible search for the word day and checking each verse in biblehub.com to see which variation of Yom is used in each verse like I did. I’m fascinated with Bible study, it is a passion of mine so I love learning and discovering new things about the Bible and I enjoy doing things like this in my spare time. Most people aren’t interested in doing things like this they’d rather just believe what they believe and go about their way. To me it’s like assembling a puzzle, I enjoy putting the pieces together to get a better picture of what the scriptures actually teach. I’ve presented this argument several times in discussions like this and I don’t know if anyone has actually taken the time to attempt to prove me wrong. Maybe they started and gave up after a while or maybe they did actually search all the verses that use the word day and didn’t want to admit I was right. So far no one has neither confirmed or denied my findings. The only way anyone can justify refuting it is to present a verse that uses the word Yovm that is clearly used in reference to an age or an era or to present a verse that uses the word Beyovm in reference to a 24 hour period.

Click to expand...

Grammatical meanings of "yom" are not too relevant. Its just a literary device in the creation myth/drama.

What matters more is that there is no flat earth, that the sun, the moon and the stars are not in any firmament, but in the space, that the solar system is not geocentric, that the universe is much bigger and much older than the Genesis 1 implies, that we are not of literal dust etc.

BNR32FAN said:

Ahh I see what’s happening here, you’re choosing the most ridiculous definition possible to create a false narrative. Did you find this on an atheist website, because this seems like their type of argument and I’m not saying this in a derogatory manner but surely you would have to admit that this is exactly the type of argument that an atheist would take on these verses, the most ridiculous translation possible. I mean we can do this all day long and present verses that are obviously using metaphors like Jesus is a door, Jesus is a lamb, etc, etc but I’ve actually demonstrated numerous logical reasons why the word day cannot be interpreted metaphorically after you posted this so hopefully that will sufficiently answer your question here.

Click to expand...

The quotations are from biblehub.com, search for "kidneys" and you can verify it in Hebrew. Yes, its ridiculous that our emotions or consciousness is in kidneys, in the same way as its ridiculous to believe in the flat earth or that the sun is in our sky etc. But those concepts are in the Bible, because the Bible was written partly in the bronze age and they did not know better.

No, its not from an atheist website, its a common knowledge, at least in people who know some biblical cultural background.

BNR32FAN said:

If you have a problem with the way I used that verse then please by all means present it. Point out exactly what was wrong with the way I used it. Your statement means nothing if you are t willing to indicate exactly how I misused the verse.

Click to expand...

I gave you my response in post #1000 which you responded to in post #1015. I don't see any point in any further back and forth as you have a significantly different interpretation of Scripture regarding the Eucharist and I'm not about to get into an argument over things I consider to be precious and holy.

Jipsah said:

Both of which require the sun.

Click to expand...

God is light -

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:3

He created the sun & the moon on the fourth day.

BNR32FAN said:

Why must we assume that Moses had a vision that encompassed the entire 50 chapters of Genesis in meticulous detail spanning over 2000 years when we know that he had two way conversations with God on numerous occasions?

Click to expand...

We do not have to assume anything. There are many possibilities and none is verifiable. What is verifiable is our reality, though. And Genesis 1/2 is not a literal description of reality. Cold, technical description of reality was not even used in their times, anywhere on the planet. People preferred stories, myths, symbols.

BNR32FAN said:

What verse are you referring to in your second paragraph? Is your argument that we should treat the scriptures the same way we would treat any other pagan mythology? Is your official position that there is no difference between pagan mythology and the scriptures?

Click to expand...

It was not about any specific verse, it was about the creation story as a whole, possibly also about the flood and other Old Testament stories.

Mythology is mythology, as poetry is poetry or science is science or philosophy is philosophy. It may be pagan or not pagan. The usage of Elohim in some places may be a reference to some older pagan sources, but the overall biblical creation story (or stories, as the chapter 2 seems to be a different one) is monotheistic in its nature.

Apple Eye said:

This is no proof that the pictures are real.

Click to expand...

There is no proof you are real.

The pictures are the proof of the globe as your posts are a proof you exist. If you claim they are hoax or CGI, then prove your claims and stop lying like a child.

trophy33 said:

There is no proof you are real.

The pictures are the proof of the globe as your posts are a proof you exist. If you claim they are hoax or CGI, then prove your claims and stop lying like a child.

Click to expand...

Your the one who's putting them out there claiming they are real, well prove it. You can't can you ?
Before I'd have posted them, I'd want to know every thing there was to know about them, especially if my claim was that they were real.

Apple Eye said:

Your the one who's putting them out there claiming they are real, well prove it. You can't can you ?
Before I'd have posted them, I'd want to know every thing there was to know about them, especially if my claim was that they were real.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with logical thinking.

Your posts are a proof you are a person.
Photos of the globe are a proof its a globe.

I can claim your posts are not real, that they are generated by a bot, but without a proof, it would be a lie.
You claim those pictures are hoax and CGI. Without a proof, you lie.

However, the nature of your posts contains some indications you are just a bot, while the photos contain no indication of a hoax or of CGI. So it would still be a safer bet to claim you are a bot than to claim those photos are hoax and CGI.

Apple Eye said:

Your the one who's putting them out there claiming they are real, well prove it. You can't can you ?
Before I'd have posted them, I'd want to know every thing there was to know about them, especially if my claim was that they were real.

Click to expand...

please define real photos

BNR32FAN said:

So I’ll ask again did Judas receive eternal life as a result of receiving the Eucharist from Jesus Himself?

Click to expand...

While it is up to Christ Pantocrator to decide what to do with Judas Iscariot*, it should be stressed that partaking of the Eucharist does not preclude someone from committing complete apostasy in the future, and indeed someone can partake of the Eucharist unworthily, as Judas clearly did, and doing so is dangerous (1 Corinthians 11:27-34). Indeed it is possible that it was because of having partaken of the body and blood of our Lord unworthily, without confessing to Christ our True God the sins he had committed, such as embezzling from the disciples’ purse of which he had fiduciary responsibility, that this contributed to the circumstances of his demise. The real tragedy of Judas is that he never sought the forgiveness of God, even after having betrayed Him.

*It is of course very widely expected, he does not seek nor is granted forgiveness, but I pray that God will have mercy on everyone, because the more people he has mercy on, the more likely I will be forgiven for my manifold sins and wickedness.

BNR32FAN said:

Saying that the days have a different meaning other than a 24 hour period of time ignores both the surrounding context and the grammatical usage of the word Yovm which is never used in reference to anything other than a 24 hour period of time or daytime as opposed to nighttime. This misconception that Yovm can be used in reference to an age or an era derives from Strong’s Concordance’s error in where James Strong encompasses all of the variations of the word Yom into one category and provides the definition of all of the variations in one place without distinguishing which definition applies to which variation of the word Yom. I discovered this error by searching the word “day” in the Old Testament and looked up each verse in Biblehub.com and found an anomaly. In ever case where the word day is used in reference to and age or an era the word Beyovm is used not Yovm, and in every case where Yom is used in reference to a 24 hour period or daytime the word Yovm is used never Beyovm. Yovm means day or daytime, Beyovm means “in the day”. In every single case of Yom being used in reference to an age or an era you’ll see the term “in the day” not just “day”. The Hebrews used the word Yom pretty much the same way we use the word day today. Today we might say things like “back in the day” or “in my father’s day”, that’s exactly how the Hebrews used the word Yom in reference to an age or an era. We would never use the word “day” in reference to an age or an era that didn’t include the words “in the” or “in” followed by a subject of reference and the Hebrews didn’t use the word Yom in such a manner either. Furthermore we would never use the word day in reference to an age or an era with a number value attached to it. The first day or the second day etc, etc, would never be used in reference to an age or an era today and it was also never used in the Hebrew language that way either. We would also never use the term “evening and morning” when referring to an age or an era and the Hebrews didn’t use Yom in that manner either. If you want you can easily check the validity of this by doing a bible search for the word day and checking each verse in biblehub.com to see which variation of Yom is used in each verse like I did. I’m fascinated with Bible study, it is a passion of mine so I love learning and discovering new things about the Bible and I enjoy doing things like this in my spare time. Most people aren’t interested in doing things like this they’d rather just believe what they believe and go about their way. To me it’s like assembling a puzzle, I enjoy putting the pieces together to get a better picture of what the scriptures actually teach. I’ve presented this argument several times in discussions like this and I don’t know if anyone has actually taken the time to attempt to prove me wrong. Maybe they started and gave up after a while or maybe they did actually search all the verses that use the word day and didn’t want to admit I was right. So far no one has neither confirmed or denied my findings. The only way anyone can justify refuting it is to present a verse that uses the word Yovm that is clearly used in reference to an age or an era or to present a verse that uses the word Beyovm in reference to a 24 hour period.

Click to expand...

For the record, a small Hebrew lesson may help to clear up some ambiguities here.

Hebrew words are not like English words: a single Hebrew word may require four or more words in English to give the same meaning. This is because the definite article, one or more pronominal affixes, and a prepositional prefix may all be included in a single word. Finer points of grammar may imply words like "of" or "am/is/are" which must also be added. Thus, for example, the single word "Bereshit", the first word in the Bible, properly becomes "In the beginning" in English (and it should actually be "in the beginning of"). Notice that "be" prefix: that is the preposition "in/among/at" in Hebrew (exact translations of Hebrew prepositions depend on context, as there are only a handful of prepositions in Hebrew, whereas English has dozens).

Apart from these prefixes and suffixes, which typically do not stand alone in Hebrew (there are standalone pronouns which can be used), Hebrew words are intrinsically connected to a three-letter root, called its shoresh (pl. shoreshim). The word "yowm" in Hebrew has the root letters yod-vav-mem, and the Brown-Driver-Briggs (familiarly known as the "BDB") definition for this word can be seen HERE. Notice that in its sixth sense of meaning the definition is "time", and within this definition, the concept of "year" is also included. So, while "yowm" is most often meaning and translated as "day," it can also be either time or year.

Adding a prepositional prefix, or a definite article, etc. does not change the root of the word, nor its meaning--it only adds that additional information to the grammar of the sentence: "hay·yō·wm" = "of the day" in Genesis 3:8 because it has both the definite article "ha" and the prior word is in construct state, adding the "of" relationship; whereas in Genesis 8:5, the expression "in the first day of" actually lacks the word "day" in Hebrew, but the translators thought it necessary to add it rather than saying "in the first to the month." When specifying a specific ordinal number for a day of the month, the word "day" is unneeded in Hebrew grammar, though English usually includes it.

If referring to an age or an era, Hebrew will make the word "day" (yowm) plural, i.e. "יָמִים / yammim." (Yes, that plural is irregular, as it looks like it should be the plural of "sea", which is "yam" in Hebrew. Student beware! Hebrew is full of exceptions, but English is, too, so we cannot stand in judgment.) Note also that the Hebrew -im suffix, which ordinarily denotes masculine plural, gets exchanged for an "-e" suffix when in construct state, which might cause it to appear singular with a pronominal suffix to an unpracticed eye. So "days of Adam" for example will appear as "yame adam."

Regarding your "in the day" expression, it can be a single day, and, without looking at all 491 hits that my search returned, I would expect it usually is. For example, in Genesis 2:2 we see"בַּיּ֣וֹם / bay·yō·wm" which is properly translated as "in the day" because "day" has both the prepositional prefix (bet) and the definite article (somewhat hidden, but seen in the dagesh that is in the bet--this is because the bet supersedes the heh, but the dagesh functions a bit like an apostrophe in English, and can indicate something has dropped out). The same expression for "in the day" occurs in verse 4 to reference the day Adam was created. I expect you would agree it did not take a long age for God to create Adam, but that he was created in the sixth day of the week.

Also, be careful about reading too much into Hebrew vowels. In English, "dog" and "dig" are completely different words; but in Hebrew they might be as similar as "was" and "were". Also, keep in mind that the original Hebrew text was written without vowels: vowel pointings were added by the Masoretes between AD 500 and AD 1100 in order to preserve the language, lest it be lost to history. Most of the time, their additions are well-regarded; but there are times when a small difference could change the meaning in some significant way, and there are discussions about the accuracy of the Masoretes' choices.

d taylor said:

It is a remembrance just like the verse states.

The Meaning of the “Supper” – Grace Evangelical Society

We Believe In: The Lord’s Supper – Grace Evangelical Society

Click to expand...

That’s not what the verse states, it is a mistranslation of “anamnesis” and also gross eisegesis, ignoring John ch. 6 and practically all of 1 Corinthians, not just all of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, and also other Eucharistic passages throughout the Old and New Testaments. This is why we have no record of any one in the early church adhering to Memorialism (for example, St. Justin Martyr of the second century, and other second century and indeed first century Patristic texts all indicate a belief in the Real Presence).

Now there may have been a distinction between their beliefs, and the scholastic concept of transubstantiation bought at a minimum we can assert that the Ante-Nicene belief was in some form of the real presence, at least a spiritual presence like Calvinists believe, but more probably a belief in a bodily presence. And by the 5th century we had metrical homilies like Haw Nurone by St. Jacob of Sarugh and writings by St. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia that make clear that what we partake of is the very body and blood of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos and our Lord, God and Savior.

BibleLinguist said:

Sorry, I'm rather new here so I'm not sure what has been discussed:

Click to expand...

Thank you for the information.

This particular discussion cam about because a forummer wrote "you have no clue what the Hebrew word is describing", and the answer was "yes, I d because I can read English."
I don't (yet) know any Hebrew myself, but I was trying to say that English words/phrases might not always accurately translate, or convey the meaning of, the Hebrew.