You see it differently but you provide no basis or reason for your interpretation which I find to be quite lacking. Your choice.
Your interprtation, as you call it, is very narrow and limited.
Upvote
0
You see it differently but you provide no basis or reason for your interpretation which I find to be quite lacking. Your choice.
Wj
Why tell the reader the obvious? It wasn't obvious to you was it? I had to explain it to you.
If you tell a person go down south that road and the road is sloping down in a southward direction, all you are doing is giving them accurate directions - redundancy is irrelevant. I would have no problem giving such directions but apparently you do.
Indeed God's Word is our assurance. So how do you explain how the birds, sun, moon and stars are all placed in the firmament?
Indeed magnification works. But if the celestial bodies are placed in the firmament they are by necessity smaller and closer to the earth what we are told. Magnification works just as well with smaller, closer objects. So you choose basic science or the Bible? Your choice.
I have two post-graduate degrees including one from seminary so I'm somewhat capable of "believing" something through my own research, critical thinking, and analyses. This process is something that we should all be able to do but there are things that we simply take for granted because we have been taught so from an early age. For example, some of us believed in Santa Claus because we were told that he exists by our parents - until we found out otherwise at a later age. Some of us who did not grow up in Christian households, had to study the Bible before believing the claims of Christ and coming to faith. So it is with the heliocentric model of our earth. From the time we first entered grade-school, a globed-earth probably sat there in the classroom. When we went to the movie theater as kids, a Universal Pictures movie one show a globed earth before the movie started. The germane question is: Is the heliocentric model accurate based on the weight of empirical evidence and Scripture or is the geocentric model accurate based on the weight of empirical evidence and Scripture? It doesn't hurt to ask this question for yourself does it? In this internet age of easily available information, this topic is not difficult to explore.
Because?Your interprtation, as you call it, is very narrow and limited.
Indeed God exists as the triune God consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus appeared on earth in the flesh to atone for our sins on the cross and His blood is the only sufficient propitiation for sin that all who believe and obey Him should not perish but have eternal life. That's what I believe.Again friend... do you know God exists and if so what was the first thing that brought you to this knowledge?
Indeed God exists as the triune God consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus appeared on earth in the flesh to atone for our sins on the cross and His blood is the only sufficient propitiation for sin that all who believe and obey Him should not perish but have eternal life. That's what I believe.
As far as flat earth goes, my interest was triggered by first noting a controversy between heliocentric vs. geocentric universe as viewed in the following film documentary.
Your perception of redundancy is my perception of stating accuracy. Nothing about going down South to Gaza is incorrect or inaccurate as the scripture speaks for itself. You have consistently maintained that going down South has to refer to a southward direction. That is simply not true as the scriptures themselves clearly contradict your false notion. Have you not noticed just a few verses earlier in Acts 8:5? It states that Philip went DOWN to the city of Samaria. How can go down mean SOUTH when the city/region of Samaria is NORTH of Jerusalem?? Please explain this discrepancy, if you can.Look. I know Jerusalem is hilly. I have seen music videos by Joshua Aaron. In his music videos, he has aerial shots of Jerusalem. Yes, it is true, I do not live there; But telling me this fact of "going down South" if I did live there would be like telling me to breath oxygen. It would be redundant information.
Besides, we both know this have nothing to do with the Scriptures. You can right now prove to yourself beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is round by launching your own camera into space with a weather balloon. It might take some trial and error. You may not be as lucky as the guy in the video I shown in post #156 but you can do this. Please watch the video. He records his camera going up into space and seeing that the Earth is round. So all this arguing over the obvious that the Earth is round is futile. Everyone knows the Earth is round by the many evidences all around them.
Your reference to three heavens is quite irrelevant as you have managed to avoid explaining how the birds, sun, moon and stars are all placed IN the firmament. Moreover you manage to twist the scriptures and conflate the Hebrew word for heaven which is shamayim with the Hebrew word for firmament which is raqia. Two different words!The firmament is generally another word for "sky" (but can also refer to outerspace).
The Bible mentions that there are three heavens.
Jesus said that no man ascends to Heaven except Himself, when He said,
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13 KJV)
In other words, no man has ascended physically to Heaven but Jesus (i.e. the Son of Man).
Yeah, but what about Elijah?
I believe confusion arises on this point because people do not understand that there are:
Three Heavens
The Scripture mentions three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2), not just one!
The First Heaven:
The first heaven is earth's atmosphere where birds fly (Genesis 1:20, Jeremiah 4:25;34:20,Lamentations 4:19, Zephaniah 1:3). One of the Hebrew words for 'heaven' is shamayim. This same word is translated as 'sky' in the Scripture, as can be seen by comparing Genesis 7:3, "fowls also of the air," with Genesis 7:23, "fowl of the heaven." The word 'sky' and 'heaven' are used interchangeably from the same Hebrew word (Psalm 8:8). So the first heaven is synonymous with 'heights' or 'elevations.'
Here are other examples to illustrate the first heaven. Exodus 19:20 says the Lord was on top of Mount Sinai when he called Moses up there, and God describes Mount Sinai as 'heaven' (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36). Here, everything above the ground is called 'heaven'.
Another example of the first heaven is in Amos 9:1-3, where God states that at the time of this judgment, nobody will be able to flee away (verse 1), even "though they climb up to heaven" (verse 2). This "heaven" is defined in the next verse, verse 3, as climbing to the top of Mount Carmel.
Another example is where the Scripture speaks of the "dew of heaven" (Genesis 27:28,39,Deuteronomy 33:28, Daniel 4:15-33; 5:21). The first heaven, from which dew comes, means the atmosphere, where the clouds and the wind roam. Therefore, everything above the ground is called 'heaven."
Another Hebrew word for the first heaven is 'shachaq.' This same word for heaven (Psalm 89:6,37) is also translated as 'sky' or 'skies' (Deuteronomy 33:26; Job 37:18; Psalm 18:11), and as 'clouds' (Job 35:5; 36:28; Psalm 36:5; 68:34, Pro. 3:20; 8:28).
The Second Heaven:
The second heaven is outer space where the planets and stars exist (Genesis 1:14-17; 15:5;22:17;26:4, Deuteronomy 1:10; 17:3; Psalm 8:3, Jeremiah 8:2; Matthew 24:29). Usually the term "host of heaven" or "firmament of the heaven" is used to describe this second heaven.
The Third Heaven:
The third heaven is literally called "the third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2. This third heaven is what Christ calls his "Father's house" (John 14:2), and both Christ and the Apostle Paul calls it "paradise" (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Revelation 2:7). This is where God and the heavenly sanctuary exist (1 Peter 3:22). This third heaven is also known as the "heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalms 148:4), "The heavenly Jerusalem" (Galatians 4: 26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12), the "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 25:1, James 2:5), the "eternal kingdom" (2 Peter 1:11), the "eternal inheritance" (1 Peter. 1:4,Hebrews 9:15), and the "better country" (Hebrews 11:14,16). The fact that there are more than one 'heaven' can be shown by Psalm 115:16, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S." There are obviously two different 'heavens' being addressed in this one verse.
Since Elijah could not have gone to the heaven of God's throne, then to which heaven did he go? He was not taken to God's heavenly throne (as some imagine). He was actually taken into this earth's atmosphere, the first heaven. There could be no whirlwind in any other place but in the atmosphere surrounding this earth.
Source:
Elijah, Enoch, and Moses
Important Note: Although I quoted part of this article to help explain the three heavens, I do not agree with their interpretation of on Enoch. I believe Enoch was translated or spiritually taken by God and did not see death (as the Scriptures say). So not all the views expressed at this website reflect my views on the Scriptures.
If everyone knows the earth is round, then explain why Auguste Piccard, the Swiss physicist who was the first man to go up into the stratosphere in his own balloon at some 10 miles in altitude, report that he viewed the shape of earth as a "flat disc with upturned edge."
Hopefully, I'm answering what your getting at.I'm sorry, I seem to be communicating poorly here. I am asking you personally. What was the first thing that you can recall that brought you to the place where you personally knew God exists? I'm not asking you to prove to me He exists I already know He does. I'm not asking you to provide documentaries on the topic. I want to know what was the key fact that caused "YOU" to know He exists.
Your reference to three heavens is quite irrelevant as you have managed to avoid explaining how the birds, sun, moon and stars are all placed IN the firmament. Moreover you manage to twist the scriptures and conflate the Hebrew word for heaven which is shamayim with the Hebrew word for firmament which is raqia. Two different words!
raqia - the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
How doJournalist remarks not Piccard. See here:
Auguste Antoine Piccard: The Man Who did NOT see the Flat Earth. • r/flatearth
You are correct as the Popular Science article does not have those words in quotation form. However, I will cite you another source which has Piccard's words in quotation form which should but to rest your objection:Journalist remarks not Piccard. See here:
Auguste Antoine Piccard: The Man Who did NOT see the Flat Earth. • r/flatearth
How do
You are correct as the Popular Science article does not have those words in quotation form. However, I will cite you another source which has Piccard's words in quotation form which should but to rest your objection:
"As we rose, the earth seemed at times like a huge disk, with an upturned edge, rather than the globe that it really is." [The Literary Digest, June 13, 1931, p.7.]
What is interesting about this quote is that Piccard was no flat-earther as his remark demonstrates that he believed in a globe earth, as we were all taught. Yet, his eyes instead of viewing a globe - observed a disk instead.
Your perception of redundancy is my perception of stating accuracy. Nothing about going down South to Gaza is incorrect or inaccurate as the scripture speaks for itself. You have consistently maintained that going down South has to refer to a southward direction. That is simply not true as the scriptures themselves clearly contradict your false notion. Have you not noticed just a few verses earlier in Acts 8:5? It states that Philip went DOWN to the city of Samaria. How can go down mean SOUTH when the city/region of Samaria is NORTH of Jerusalem?? Please explain this discrepancy, if you can.
You said:As far as going up in a weather balloon with a camera is concerned, you have not done your homework. The camera lens used in that video has a fish-eye chromatic aberration which produces an optical distortion causing the photo/video to produce a curvature which you can easily see as the balloon initially takes off. The video therefore proves nothing but bad planning and design if the intended goal was to show the actual shape of the earth. If everyone knows the earth is round, then explain why Auguste Piccard, the Swiss physicist who was the first man to go up into the stratosphere in his own balloon at some 10 miles in altitude, report that he viewed the shape of earth as a "flat disc with upturned edge."
The source of the quote is clearly beside the quote itself.Source of the quote?
"Seemed at times"
"Rather than the globe that it really is"
He still believed it was a globe though!
Your reference to three heavens is quite irrelevant as you have managed to avoid explaining how the birds, sun, moon and stars are all placed IN the firmament. Moreover you manage to twist the scriptures and conflate the Hebrew word for heaven which is shamayim with the Hebrew word for firmament which is raqia. Two different words!
raqia - the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).