lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps when God said...let there be light, God lit up.
Read Gen 1:6-8 and you will see that God made Adam's firmament, which He called "Heaven" on the 2nd Day. At the beginning of the 3rd Day, God put water from under the firmament, into the firmament and dry ground appeared on top of the water. Gen 1:8-9 Find ANY solid container, put water in and then dry ground on top, and the dry ground will be Flat. Amen?
Like a light bulb, you mean?
Like a shekinah light bulb.....or perhaps that's the moment God created the angels....
That's what comes of taking metaphor's literally, isn't it? God emits electromagnetic radiation - the latter belonging very much to the created realm.
Why would it not be literal? Are you saying God shekinah glory....is made up of electromagnetical radiation? To be honest I don't know what it is made up of.
Of course, but they haven't been. A theory is not a theory if it is not falsifiable. And of course a theory is not a theory if it is ever falsified. Creationists quite often think that if a theory is falsifiable that it is wrong. What that actually means is that if the theory is wrong it can be shown to be wrong.Are these theories falsifiable?
Yes, there is nothing wrong with calling it a belief system. Though technically it is more of a "lack of belief system".No it's not a deity. That's true. It is a belief system though. Every one in the world needs a belief system about the world to function in it.
For example You must have beliefs about animals.
Do you eat them.
Can you kill them for sport.
Do you need to be kind to animals ?
and so on.
God said, "Let there be light."
Big bang theory posits that the universe came from a singularity and rapidly expanded in more or less the same pattern we see now. I believe the source of that origination to be what was called "light;" that the entire universe (except the earth) formed from God's original creation. The Scriptures make no reference to what happened on day four other than that the sun, moon and stars were there and no other mention of "light" was recorded.
The events of Genesis are referenced over 300 times in the New Testament alone. Jesus quoted extensively from the Scriptures and said that man must live by "every word which comes from the mouth of God." He referenced Adam and Eve, called Noah by name and treated the writings of Noah as the authorized word of God. If Jesus, who was there, believes in the creation, should not His followers believe as well?
I wrote that in POST 12# so your not telling me anything new.A Christian needs to understand that there are some commandments given in the Old Testament that do not apply now that we are in the age of grace. What is the best way to know which commandments are for Christians, and which commandments have a spiritual meaning but that should be left in the Old Testament where they were given? The way to find that out is by studying the New Testament. The New Testament is a fulfilment of the Old Testament. The New Testament also is an explanation of the Old Testament. There are many, many quotations and references from the Old Testament that are found in the New Testament, followed by explanations of those quotations and references. Therefore, in a way we can say that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament. The New Testament explains to us which parts of the Old Testament are to be kept and followed by Christians. The epistles in the New Testament are written to Christians in order to tell Christians exactly what they should be doing as they attempt to live by faith for their Saviour in this world. Nothing has been omitted or missed. The Holy Spirit did not leave anything out when He gave us the New Testament. Therefore, if you want to know if a particular commandment applies to Christians, simply look for that commandment in the epistles of the New Testament.
????
Aman777 said: ↑
Read Gen 1:6-8 and you will see that God made Adam's firmament, which He called "Heaven" on the 2nd Day. At the beginning of the 3rd Day, God put water from under the firmament, into the firmament and dry ground appeared on top of the water. Gen 1:8-9 Find ANY solid container, put water in and then dry ground on top, and the dry ground will be Flat. Amen?
The firmament was hollow since God called it Heaven (air). It also floated as the following verse, speaking of the Scoffers of the last days, will NOT believe:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
See? Adam's firmament was made in the midst of water and floated. God called it Heaven because it was filled with Air until God placed water in the bottom of the hollow firmament. Then He put dry ground on top of the water to an elevation of 22.5 feet at the top of the highest mountains of Adam's Flat Earth. Gen 7:20
This also confirms that God made THREE firmaments or Heavens since Adam's firmament was made on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and the other Heavens (our Cosmos and the 3rd Heaven ll Cor 12:2 ) were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 This also agrees with the following verse:
Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Greek-Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally)
This also explains WHY the first Stars didn't light up until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Adam's world didn't have a Sun, Moon, nor Stars, since Jesus provided the light for Adam's Heaven just as He will provide the light of the 3rd Heaven. Rev 21:23 The first Stars were made in our 2nd Heaven and NOT in the first nor 3rd Heavens.
God's Holy Word is Literally True IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?
That POST 68but, I actually look at a few translations now a lot. NIV is my main. Then KJVO and sometimes New King James. Or I go to that website where there are a few translation if it's really controversial
An example of this is in the creation poem day 2 is the word Firmament(KJV) vault(NIV) expanse(NASB)
The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6). Keil and Delitzsch offered this definition in their monumental commentary on the Pentateuch: “to stretch, to spread out, then beat or tread out...the spreading out of air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere” (1980, 1:52).
In an article discussing the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6-8, Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” because it “not only is inaccurate but also has fostered unjust criticism that the Bible erroneously and naively pictures the sky above the earth as a solid dome” (1991, 11[4]:14). Strictly speaking, of course, “firmament” is not actually a translation of raqia at all, but rather, more accurately, a transliteration (i.e., the substitution of a letter in one language for the equivalent letter in another language) of an “unfortunate translation.” Allow me to explain.
The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek produced by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. at the behest of the powerful Egyptian pharaoh, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for inclusion in his world-famous library in Alexandria) translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the then-popular Egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy [they were, after all, doing their translating in Egypt for an Egyptian pharaoh] that embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault. Unfortunately, those Hebrew scholars therefore chose to render raqia via the Greek word stereoma—in order to suggest a firm, solid structure. The Greek connotation thus influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support—from which the word “firmament” is transliterated) to reflect this pagan concept (McKechinie, 1978, p. 691).
In his Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , Old Testament language scholar W.E. Vine stressed:
While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers [of the Old Testament—BT] were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67).
Raqia denotes simply an expanse, not a solid structure (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:2218). Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word. For example, Numbers 16:38 juxtaposes raqia and pahim (plates), suggesting literally an “expanse of plates.” Here, “plates” specifies the actual material involved in the expansion. In Genesis, “heavens,” not solid matter, is given as the nature of the expanse (Genesis 1:8,14,15,17,20). The original context in which raqia is used does not imply any kind of solid dome above the Earth.
Expanse wins. Firmament (KJV) wrong Egyptian translation.
That POST 68
The ancient Hebrew words interpretation means an expanse not a firmament. Firmament implies a solid border or top dome . Expanse doesn't. Therefor what you just said is based on a false interpretation of the word firmanent.
Of course, but they haven't been. A theory is not a theory if it is not falsifiable. And of course a theory is not a theory if it is ever falsified. Creationists quite often think that if a theory is falsifiable that it is wrong. What that actually means is that if the theory is wrong it can be shown to be wrong.
As Adam's firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago, it released the Ark into our world. This completely dissolved Adam's flat Earth in the Lake as the solid firmament sank into the biggest Lake in Turkey. Our Planet was NOT destroyed but Adam's world was, exactly as Scripture details it. The problem comes because ancient men did NOT know what we know today in these last days because God hid His Truth from them. ONLY the people of the last days, with the increased knowledge available today, can possibly understand. God told Daniel HOW He hid His Truth from ancient Jewish Theologians.
None of that nonsense about sola scriptura nowadays. Works of pure fiction will do just as well.
Medieval Catholicism has absolutely nothing to compare with creationists who have their backs up against the wall.
Since I support what I post with the Agreement of Scripture with Science and History, sola scriptura is alive and well. Medieval Catholicism, like ALL ancient theology, does NOT agree with what is actually written. It's all a part of God's perfect plan which insures that ONLY by the Gift of Faith from God Himself, Eph 2:8 can anyone truly understand God's Holy Word. Amen?
Because the situation you just described would end up in a population bottleneck. There is a very limited amount of genetic diversity with only the genetic material of Mr. and Mrs. Noah and that of the sons three wives. That is the genetic diversity of only 5 people at the most and we know that the human population never dropped below the thousands. The same applies to other life.Why do you think a 'bottleneck' would be evident if all the creatures, including man, included the largest, and probably the best, variety of genetic differences extant in that day? Recall that "all the families of the earth", meaning all manner of peoples sprang from the family of Noah. All manner of animals would also be possible from the stock that survived the flood.
We don't have our backs against the wall.Medieval Catholicism has absolutely nothing to compare with creationists who have their backs up against the wall.
We don't have our backs against the wall.
We aren't the ones attacking the veracity of the Scriptures.
We don't need anything proven to us. We have the word of God. That's all the proof we need. If we have questions, we have our clergy or the Holy Spirit to guide us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?