Water canopy check, and mate!

[235U92]

Do you make these kinds of posts as a joke, Dad? Can you actually be this scientifically inept?

 

[dad]

Dad, you mean something like this?: http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/OTcosmos.jpg

This is a pre-scientific cosmology. [Sounds like paganistic hodgepodge to me? Greek legend?] What is it based Do you also want us to believe that the sun, moon, and stars used to hang right above the globe and then suddenly were blown out into space and expanded exponentially so that we could still see them sometime during that flood? [Did I say the cosmos had some kind of blow job? No. All I said was the water canopy is possible when we have it in the influence of the greater universal laws, rather than the box.]

.

 

[dad]

Do you make these kinds of posts as a joke, Dad? Can you actually be this scientifically inept?

Show me some science that precludes the complete universe? All you can show is an ineptness that is cosmically comical, if you try to limit all to the box.

 

[Praxiteles]

Creationists do more harm to creationism than evolutionists ever could.

And to Christianity than atheists ever could.

lucaspa used to be fond of saying it: creationists are the militant atheists' best friends.

 

[dad]

Don't you think the fact that it is a physical impossibility is a pretty good clue that it didn't happen? D'oh! [No, all the physical applies to is a totally temporal, and petite part of the wonderful completeness that is forever the spirit, and the physical.]

Oh nooes!1 [Yes, has a nice ring to it]

If you can back it up with anything other than your assertion, then do so. As it stands right now, your claim has no credibility other than simply taking your word for it. [God's word counts for something, and He indicates the physical only will pass away. He indicates a spiritual is real, He even admits to being a spirit!. Billions believe in a spiritual as well, and with a billion good reasons. To deny it, has no credibility other than simply taking your word for it. ]

.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Devine intervention created the world, and the universe. The normal stste of affairs is, and will be the eternal spiritual/physical one. Because we now are in a temporary physical only state, that can't be used to determine how it worked before the split.

But your only reason for thinking that a 'split' occured is that your interpretation of genesis violates the laws of physics, and that your intepretation cannot be wrong. So (in your mind) physics must be wrong.

 

[Battie]

Nope, Dad, what I showed you was Hebrew. Other cultures had their variations of it, but this is the Hebrew cosmology you're looking at.

 

[dad]

But your only reason for thinking that a 'split' occured is that your interpretation of genesis violates the laws of physics, [No. The bible is full of details of spirits, and a spirit world, including heaven! The spirit world is also, as I say, known time immemorial, throughout history as well! True, this latest clue, and application of rock solid principles was a result of thinking about the flood. 2+2=4 So a known source of water from above, minus physical only science limitations, + God's Own word, and man's own experience, = a pre split complete laws at work. Simple] and that your intepretation cannot be wrong. So (in your mind) physics must be wrong. [Not at all, it is right, where it applies, in the box!]

Now consider this formula well, as it contains a key of understanding that can help unlock real mysteries.

 

[dad]

Nope, Dad, what I showed you was Hebrew. Other cultures had their variations of it, but this is the Hebrew cosmology you're looking at.

The part that said "the heaven of fire for greeks and others" must have threw me. It was not a bible based picture, as I can see? It is one interpretive leaning, that I doubt was embraced by those with the Spirit of God.

 

[Battie]

The part that said "the heaven of fire for greeks and others" must have threw me. It was not a bible based picture, as I can see? It is one interpretive leaning, that I doubt was embraced by those with the Spirit of God.

What? This is precisely the vision you would have us believe! This is your firmament! Now all of a sudden it's not biblical?

And it is found in the Bible. That's what the expanse in Genesis 1:6-8 is. The Hebrews did not understand science. This proves it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "interpretive leaning." If think this picture is unique, it may help you to know that every picture of Hebrew cosmology I've seen resembles this, and this is the same cosmology that I learned in my ancient literature class. This is for real.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

No. The bible is full of details of spirits, and a spirit world, including heaven! The spirit world is also, as I say, known time immemorial, throughout history as well!

Except not ONCE has then been any solid evidence that it exists. Every single time someone is called out on it, they're shown to be frauds to mistaken.

2+2=4 So a known source of water from above,

This is only your interpretation of what the bible says.

minus physical only science limitations,

And your metaphysic rantings are limited in that there is no actual evidence that what you say is true, only speculation and posturing.

+ God's Own word, and man's own experience, = a pre split complete laws at work

This is your evidence? This is your math to backup your claim?
Come on, you can do better.

Not at all, it is right, where it applies, in the box!

You didn't adress my point.
Is it possible that your interpreation (and thus your baseless conclusions) are wrong?

The part that said "the heaven of fire for greeks and others" must have threw me. It was not a bible based picture, as I can see? It is one interpretive leaning, that I doubt was embraced by those with the Spirit of God.

And I suppose god himself told you that YOUR 'interpretive leaning' is the only correct one?

Puhlease.

 

[dad]

What? This is precisely the vision you would have us believe! This is your firmament! Now all of a sudden it's not biblical? [An 'expanse', yes. There are differing veiws as to it's precise meaning. For example, Walt Brown seems to feel that the expanse or firmament was actually seperating the waters under the earth from those on the surface, I think. So, there are several variations.]

And it is found in the Bible. [Of course, but the 64 dollar question is, what is it talking about?] That's what the expanse in Genesis 1:6-8 is. The Hebrews did not understand science. [Why would we expect them to be well versed in the physical only latter day so called science of the box? As if it were all that importat!. On the contrary, it is a fading, temporary, doomed to extinction, passe thing!] This proves it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "interpretive leaning." If think this picture is unique, it may help you to know that every picture of Hebrew cosmology I've seen resembles this, and this is the same cosmology that I learned in my ancient literature class. This is for real.

Makes you wonder who dishes this stuff out to schools.

 

[Battie]

Makes you wonder who dishes this stuff out to schools.

My Christian professor at my Christian college?

Oh yes, my mind is being poisoned...

And again, Dad, why are you suddenly arguing against the very thing you were trying to prove? The Hebrews believed in a firmament just like the one you're talking about. Shouldn't you embrace that?

 

[dad]

Except not ONCE has then been any solid [Solid means box. Solid means physical. To a spirit, the spirit world is solid, and the temporal one here is of little consequence, soon to be no more. ] evidence that it exists. Every single time someone is called out on it, they're shown to be frauds to mistaken.


This is only your interpretation of what the bible says.

And your metaphysic rantings are limited in that there is no actual evidence that what you say is true, only speculation and posturing. [Yes, there is evidence the bible is correct, and of a supernatural. Unlike Granny and the creator Speck!]


This is your evidence? This is your math to backup your claim?
Come on, you can do better. [ E=MC2 is a small formula as well, the trick is to understand the numbers, not use big ones!]


You didn't adress my point.
Is it possible that your interpreation (and thus your baseless conclusions) are wrong? [ Yes]




And I suppose god himself told you that YOUR 'interpretive leaning' is the only correct one? [When we lean on God, the outcome is destined to be superior!]

Puhlease.

.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

n 'expanse', yes. There are differing veiws as to it's precise meaning. For example, Walt Brown seems to feel that the expanse or firmament was actually seperating the waters under the earth from those on the surface, I think. So, there are several variations.

Ah, but you see that is the correct one.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Why would we expect them to be well versed in the physical only latter day so called science of the box? As if it were all that importat!. On the contrary, it is a fading, temporary, doomed to extinction, passe thing!

Hmm. I think I've got you pegged. You're no different from the average 'god-o-the-gaps' believer.
Science cannot explain the supernatural, and people claim the supernatural exists (people claimed that god's caused natural disasters, which has been shown to be wrong), so therefore science can never explain the supernatural.
Don't you think its a bit hasty think that, given the supernaturals track record?

 

[dad]

My Christian professor at my Christian college?

Oh yes, my mind is being poisoned...

And again, Dad, why are you suddenly arguing against the very thing you were trying to prove? The Hebrews believed in a firmament just like the one you're talking about. Shouldn't you embrace that?

Are you talking about the water canopy? Or is it some interpretation of a sort of metal nonsense type thing?

 

[Battie]

Are you talking about the water canopy? Or is it some interpretation of a sort of metal nonsense type thing?

Yes, I'm talking about your water canopy. The only reason anyone thinks that's plausible is that they misinterpret the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews.

The graphic I showed you is the only support for your idea, and you yourself dismissed it as "paganistic hodgepodge."

 

[Hydra009]

Don't you think the fact that it is a physical impossibility is a pretty good clue that it didn't happen? D'oh! [No, all the physical applies to is a totally temporal, and petite part of the wonderful completeness that is forever the spirit, and the physical.]

Newsflash: the Earth is subject to the laws of physics.

If you can back it up with anything other than your assertion, then do so. As it stands right now, your claim has no credibility other than simply taking your word for it. [God's word counts for something, and He indicates the physical only will pass away. He indicates a spiritual is real, He even admits to being a spirit!. Billions believe in a spiritual as well, and with a billion good reasons. To deny it, has no credibility other than simply taking your word for it.]

In essence: "Lots of people believe in God, and this supports my belief in the Vapor Canopy." Listen to what you're saying.

You're still advocating an unsupported assertion, now you're just adding the appeal to numbers fallacy (and a non sequitur, at that) on top of it.

 

[dad]

Ah, but you see that is the correct one.
Prove me wrong, I dare you. [No need. If you agree to the basic concept here, of the thread, we can then fine tune, however. ]


Hmm. I think I've got you pegged. You're no different from the average 'god-o-the-gaps' believer. [Sorry if I'm not up on the loonie tune theories. I don't believe in any gaps, just 6000 years. And a known spirit world, that has known effects on the physical!]
Science cannot explain the supernatural, [Amen, and amen, thank you. The box has it's limits!] and people claim the supernatural exists (people claimed that god's caused natural disasters, which has been shown to be wrong), so therefore science can never explain the supernatural.
Don't you think its a bit hasty think that, given the supernaturals track record? [Your detection of an absolute proven quantity, you mean. The track record of science detecting it's way out of a paper bag is dismal]

.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Solid means box. Solid means physical. To a spirit, the spirit world is solid, and the temporal one here is of little consequence, soon to be no more.

Thats alot to type when you're saying "No".
Strike One: You don't have anything beyond your own speculations.

Yes, there is evidence the bible is correct, and of a supernatural. Unlike Granny and the creator Speck!

Out with it then. I should remind you that once you 'prove' the supernatural it ceases to be supernatural, and becomes natural.
Strike Two: Again, your interpretation of the bible, which you have admited could be wrong. Sounds to me like your ideas are no more stable than the science you claim to be limited.

E=MC2 is a small formula as well, the trick is to understand the numbers, not use big ones!

You didn't even provide a forumula to test. Only your speculations and interpretation.
Could you explain how E=MC2 would be changed by your idea?

Yes

Thatta boy. It wasn't that hard was it?

When we lean on God, the outcome is destined to be superior!

Sounds nice, but doesn't answer the question.
Why is your interpretation correct, and others wrong?
I wanna see some justification.