Flat Earth Theory.

[trophy33]

The Bible will always confuse you.

You seem to be pretty confused both about the world and the Bible, yes.

What you fail to understand is The Bible defines The Bible.

If this is the approach that made you believe in a flat earth, then its obviously a wrong approach and you must find a better one.

The flat earth was disproven without any doubt. You need to suffer from some psychological problem to really believe that so many common people from so many countries, of so many religions and of various ages (even children can send a balloon up to document the curvature) are lying and, in the same time, to ignore so many (both natural and technological) phenomena that are not possible to explain with a flat earth cosmology.

And, BTW, you need only a stick, watches and two distant places to do your own experiment. Do it. Or send your own balloon. Its not that hard:

 

[Apple Sky]

Did you notice that there is not the word "firmament" in that verse? To suggest by David's verse that there is still a firmament- an encasement of water above the earth- even after Noah's flood.. is not honoring the truth of scripture.

The heavens of heavens is the highest heavens where God resides.

The translators had quite a task to translate Hebrew. There was no commas or semicolons, no periods.

They didn't know that "[the] waters [that be] above the heavens" could be written as "the waters above, the heavens." The Hebrew word translated heavens is Ha shamayim.. mayim is the word for waters.

Look at Genesis 1:7-8 God called the expanse [Heb. samayim] = sky. The sky above has clouds that make rain.

How anyone can get from David's verse that it refers to a firmament is not reading scripture correctly but rather substituting what the scripture says for what they want it to say and support their eisegesis flat earth theory. And not acknowledging natural observation reality which is otherwise called science.

In the Hebrew Old Testament , the word used for "firmament" is "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kē'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface.

When the deluge occurred God opened up the windows of heaven to let the waters through. The Bible doesn't mention that all the waters above poured down.

Also look up the word ringwoodite.

It turns out there's a huge supply of water 400 miles underground stored in rock known as 'ringwoodite'. Scientists previously discovered that water is stored inside mantle rock in a sponge-like state, which isn't a liquid, solid or a gas, but instead a fourth state.

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Strong in Him]

I know that all the base materials were created by God, but you were on about computers, x ray machines etc.

Only because the statement was made that planets do not exist because they are not mentioned in Genesis.
My point being that we use/have many things today which are not mentioned in Genesis - or anywhere else in Scripture.

What I'm trying to say is that it may have been these fallen angels who produced all these items by teaching men,

It wasn't.
We are made in the image of God and everything we have comes from God.
Fallen angels are demons - there is no Biblical evidence that demons taught humans anything.

Apparently God rebuked them for passing all this info onto mankind

Is this from one of those "lost books of the Bible" that you seem so keen on reading?

plus their pact they all made to mate with the daughters of men, which resulted in giants being born & the fallen angels ending up in chains until judgement day. Genesis 6........

Genesis 6 does not mention "fallen angels" teaching mankind about computers.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Bible will always confuse you. In that you understand The Bible through outside sources,

Commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Atlases and so on are invaluable in helping us to understand Bible culture, language and background.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek - not English. Jesus spoke Aramaic - which was translated into Greek. The Bible was then translated into Latin before it was in English.
Scripture interprets, and confirms, Scripture; yes. But it's not the Bible's job to teach us Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic/Latin. Nor about the culture etc of the time. The Holy Spirit leads us to Jesus and reveals God to us; he does not give language lessons. So how do you suggest that we learn what was written in the original text without outside sources?

 

[Apple Sky]

Is this from one of those "lost books of the Bible" that you seem so keen on reading?

Yes - The Book of Enoch;

They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: Jude 13

The planets are the wondering stars, and these stars are the fallen angels who left their first estate.

 

[prodromos]

Yes - The Book of Enoch;

They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: Jude 13

The planets are the wondering stars, and these stars are the fallen angels.

Why do you fix on the "wandering stars" and ignore the "wild, foaming waves"? If they are literally stars then they are literally waves as well, so it is obvious that you pick and choose what you want to read as literal and what as symbolic.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes - The Book of Enoch;

They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: Jude 13

The planets are the wondering stars, and these stars are the fallen angels who left their first estate.

The book of Enoch is not Scriptural.
It doesn't matter that it's mentioned in Scripture - assuming it's the same book. The Holy Spirit did not inspire people to include the book of Enoch in God's word.

And stars cannot wonder; I'm not even sure they can wander.

 

[Apple Sky]

And stars cannot wonder; I'm not even sure they can wander.

The so called planets are the wondering stars.

 

[Apple Sky]

The Holy Spirit did not inspire people to include the book of Enoch in God's word.

Then why is Enoch mentioned in the book of Jude & Genesis ?

 

[prodromos]

The so called planets are the wondering stars.

Wandering, not wondering.

 

[trophy33]

Then why is Enoch mentioned in the book of Jude & Genesis ?

If I wrote a book and call it The book of Abraham, will you accept the claims in it, just because I used a famous name?

 

[Phil G]

Then why is Enoch mentioned in the book of Jude & Genesis ?

When non-canonical books are mentioned in the Bible, this does not give them the same authority as the Bible.

 

[d taylor]

Commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Atlases and so on are invaluable in helping us to understand Bible culture, language and background.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek - not English. Jesus spoke Aramaic - which was translated into Greek. The Bible was then translated into Latin before it was in English.
Scripture interprets, and confirms, Scripture; yes. But it's not the Bible's job to teach us Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic/Latin. Nor about the culture etc of the time. The Holy Spirit leads us to Jesus and reveals God to us; he does not give language lessons. So how do you suggest that we learn what was written in the original text without outside sources?

-

​

You completely miss my point. I was not talking about Bible commentaries or other sources that take the Bible and its content and teach The Bible.

What i was addressing is taking science, history, etc.. and using these fields to turn The Bible in creation and history accounts to neat little metaphorical stories and not actual literal events or creation description accounts.

You just ask this trophy33 poster (or others or maybe even you) if she/he believes the flood account was an actual event that flooded the whole earth or that Adam was an actual person created by God, etc...

 

[Apple Sky]

Wandering, not wondering.

Oops -My concentration must have wandered off there for few posts

 

[trophy33]

You just ask this trophy33 poster (or others or maybe even you) if she/he believes the flood account was an actual event that flooded the whole earth or that Adam was an actual person created by God, etc...​

Oh, you can ask me directly, do not be afraid.

No, there was no global flood in the meaning of the whole planet being covered. Mesopotamian people had no such concept. When they said "the whole earth", they meant the whole earth known to them, i.e. Mesopotamia.

Regarding the story as such, it may refer to some real event in the Mesopotamian prehistory, but it has also some obvious symbolic/mythological elements incorporated to it.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, there was no global flood in the meaning of the whole planet being covered. Mesopotamian people had no such concept. When they said "the whole earth", they meant the whole earth known to them, i.e. Mesopotamia.

The mountains and rock faces we find world wide, are what I believe to be the remnants of the Giants from the great flood of Noah, we see giant faces, animals & mushrooms etc.

Colossus and many ancient statuary was originally really alive. The evidence is quite sufficient to make this claim.

 

[Strong in Him]

Then why is Enoch mentioned in the book of Jude & Genesis ?

There may have been more than one Enoch. Just as there was more than one Mary, John or James.
Being "mentioned" in Scripture doesn't mean that everyone with the name was inspired, or even a follower of God.

 

[trophy33]

The mountains and rock faces we find world wide, are what I believe to be the remnants of the Giants from the great flood of Noah, we see giant faces, animals & mushrooms etc.

Colossus and many ancient statuary was originally really alive. The evidence is quite sufficient to make this claim.

Youtube is not a credible source, at least the channels you pick for your posts are not.

 

[prodromos]

Colossus and many ancient statuary was originally really alive. The evidence is quite sufficient to make this claim.

The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that you see what you want to see.

 

[Strong in Him]

You completely miss my point. I was not talking about Bible commentaries or other sources that take the Bible and its content and teach The Bible.

Ok, but you were talking about outside sources, and the Bible interpreting itself.

What i was addressing is taking science, history, etc.. and using these fields to turn The Bible in creation and history accounts to neat little metaphorical stories and not actual literal events or creation description accounts.​

The creation accounts are not metaphorical. God created the universe, end of.
But they were written in the language, and in such a way, that the people of the time could understand. Genesis is not a scientific document, nor was it dictated by God with reference to future scientific discoveries.
Added to this, God is outside time.

None of that means that the fact that God created us, and all living things, is false.

You just ask this trophy33 poster (or others or maybe even you) if she/he believes the flood account was an actual event that flooded the whole earth or that Adam was an actual person created by God, etc...

You can ask trophy33 that yourself.
Of course Adam was a real person and the flood was a real event, That's the problem - if we say that Genesis isn't a literal, scientific account, we get accused of doubting the whole Bible.