Not at all.  I’ve already addressed this many times.  Find one of those posts, QUOTE what I said to you, and then respond to what I said.  You do it that way, and I’m happy to have a lengthy and respectable discussion about this issue.

Nope, neither you or any other flattie has a video of bringing back the sun after it has gone over the curve.…[Read more]

 Can you see that CLOUDS are explicitly mentioned as something OTHER THAN the “waters above heaven”?  YES or NO?

David or whoever is praising God and is speaking from his own understanding. Whether the clouds are above or in the midst is not really conclusive. According to the Psalmist, the clouds cover the heavens. So when you look up and see c…[Read more]

Proclaimer: Mike  you guys claim to bring back small boats from over the supposed curve. Great. Now for something easier. Bring back the sun.

Cat got your tongue?

Not at all.  I’ve already addressed this many times.  Find one of those posts, QUOTE what I said to you, and then respond to what I said.  You do it that way, and I’m happy to have a le…[Read more]

waters above the heavens

Could be first heaven. There are at least three.

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

Scripture has debunked most of your ideas Mike.

Like what?  I debunked your “multiple raqias” argument.

Nope. Your being stupid again.

You have not debunked my multiple heavens idea and God called the raqia – heaven.

You have no answer. Cat got your tongue again?

Proclaimer:  Sounds like clouds to me.

Ha!  You were posting the answer to my question WHILE I was still posting the question!  😁

Okay then, let’s talk more about the clouds in the MIDDLE of the sky being the waters ABOVE the sky…

Psalm 148 is waiting for you…

Pretender…

1.  Can you see that the psalm is broken up into “things of heav…[Read more]

Proclaimer:  I have never said this is the only interptetation. I have simply put forth a few views that you couldn’t debunk.

Like what?  I debunked your “multiple raqias” argument.  I debunked your “clouds in the MIDDLE of the sky are the waters ABOVE the sky” argument.  And I debunked your new desperation attempt “okay the waters might be above…[Read more]

Now, about that “water outside the universe”.  No go, Champ.  God opened the windows of the firmament and allowed some of the waters above to flood the earth.  Impossible in the “waters outside the universe” safety device that you just invented out of desperation.

Sounds like clouds to me.

Mike  you guys claim to bring back small boats from over the supposed curve. Great. Now for something easier. Bring back the sun.

Cat got your tongue?

Mike, you are  desparately drawing at straws. Instead  get your camera gear and bring back the sun. Challenge us with facts. We will never believe the ramblings of a nutter. Give us something substantial to work with. But I guess you can’t right?

Notice how the first line doesn’t quite match the second. “You were RIGHT all along… but you have also been WRECKED by the facts!” 😁

Nope.

I have never said this is the only interptetation. I have simply put forth a few views that you couldn’t debunk. And I still think one particular view makes more sense than the others both biblically and sci…[Read more]

Proclaimer:  Further, in the Jewish calendar the year is 5783.

Yep, the world is about 6000 years old right now – give or take a few hundred.

Hi Jodi.  Happy Sunday.

It’s more likely than not that Micah 5:2 speaks of Jesus’s literal origins being from very ancient times.  I understand and acknowledge that you don’t WANT that to be the case, but it remains the most logical straightforward understanding of the Hebrew text.

It’s also more likely than not that John 8:58 has Jesus a…[Read more]

AD doesn’t mean after death or after Christ. It means Anno Domini, the year of our lord. That is his birth.

Pretender: …even if you are right about the raqia thing, it doesn’t prove a flat earth. I admit it is possible that there could be water outside the universe…

 

You have been totally wrecked with the facts, but just ignore them.

Notice how the first line doesn’t quite match the second.  “You were RIGHT all along… but you have also been WR…[Read more]

LU:  Mike, Jesus is claiming to be the elohim of Psalms 82:8.

No he’s not, based on his own reply to the Jews.  When he references Psalm 82, he mentions only that other spirit sons of God were also called gods.  He doesn’t mention the “O God” in verse 8 – so whether or not that particular “O God” is Yahweh or His holy servant Jesus is ir…[Read more]

Sorry to burst your bubble Mike, but even if you are right about the raqia thing, it doesn’t prove a flat earth. I admit it is possible that there could be water outside the universe, but I seriously doubt it. So if this is the best you can do, then you might want to take up another hobby.

You have been totally wrecked with the facts, but just…[Read more]

Hi Gene,

Psalm 148 clearly distinguishes clouds as something OTHER THAN the waters above heaven.

What is your response to that Biblical fact?

Mike……Your grabing straws again, no one IN THEIR RIGHT MIND,  believes, the earth is “flat” !  Only a complete “IDOIT” would “EVER BELIEVE”  that, in todays world, with all the proof that are available to everyone, every “SINGLE” day,   END OF STORY!

ANYONE who reads  Genesis 1:1 , can easely tell that the “heavens”, and the “earth” were…[Read more]

Mike: Therefore, the waters above are not only above the raqia, but also above the luminaries that are IN the raqia.

 

It doesn’t matter if you call it “skies”, because then the luminaries would be IN the skies and the waters would still be ABOVE the skies.

 

Pretender: Great, let’s call it skies then.

 

God makes some sky between the water…

[Read more]