May 24, 2018 at 10:57 am #829316AnthonyParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 845
Mike come on now Rob Skiba do you know that he said:
“no wild beasts are so hostile to men as Christians” come on please. God bless I’ll be praying for you God bless. In Him AnthonyMay 24, 2018 at 12:20 pm #829318
Anthony: Key in this discussion is the firmament.The Hebrew word rāqîa‘ is translated as firmament in the King James Version…The word is a noun that derives from the root rq‘, meaning to stamp out. An example of this action is to stamp or pound a metal into thin sheets… From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.
So far so good. I will add this info that I posted earlier in the thread…Brown-Driver-Briggs
רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳רEzekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י‘s throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 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 הַשָּׁמִיִםGenesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺPsalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
So far we all agree it refers to something solid that is beaten/spread out – like gold or molten glass. Notice above that it is used as the base/support for God’s throne, and was regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it. That is also my understanding.
Anthony: Unfortunately, some people reason that since this is an action frequently done to a metal, the thing being stretched out must have some physical property common with metals.
I make no such claim, nor have I heard anyone else make it.
Anthony: Not all metals are hard; and gold, which is involved in the best example illustrating the Hebrew root from which the Hebrew noun rāqîa‘ comes, definitely is not hard.
Molten glass – as Job describes the firmament – isn’t “hard” either. But molten glass and all metals are “solids” – and that is the point.
Anthony: It is more likely that the intended meaning of rāqîa‘ is related to the process of stamping out, not a physical property of the thing subjected to the process.
If it is a masculine noun, per Brown-Driver-Briggs above, then it is decidedly not more likely that the intended meaning was that of a verb.
Anthony: This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render rāqîa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.
Of course we all know that is not the reason. The reason the more modern translations use “expanse” is that godless men of the world were able to shame Christian translators into thinking that the original Biblical meaning of something solid was silly, because it wasn’t in line with the story scientism tells us about our endless vacuum universe.
Anthony: The first use of the word rāqîa‘ in the Bible probably is helpful in deciphering its meaning. This is found in (Gen.1:6-7)
And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters and let it be separating between waters and waters.’
Um… just up and translating it as “expanse” has nothing to do with “deciphering its meaning” – especially when you already know it is a noun that refers to something solid. When tropical fish stores put dividers in the tanks to separate different kinds of fish (for example, to separate tetra waters from molly waters), don’t they use something solid – like Plexiglas? They don’t separate the Siamese fighting fish from the sword-tails with an “expanse”, right?
I gotta tell you, so far we’ve learned that the word is a noun that refers to something solid, that the Hebrews understood the firmament as something solid, and that the only evidence offered by Anthony’s source is that he doesn’t want it to be something solid.
Anthony: Before declaring an end to Day Two in (Gen.1:8) And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;’…
You haven’t yet provided any reason for a raqia to be translated as “expanse”, so let’s leave it at, “And God called the firmament heaven…” for now.
Anthony: There are several observations that we can make from this passage. First, the waters that God divided were the waters mentioned in (Gen. 1:2)
Anthony: It is clear that the waters that God separated below must refer to surface water (mostly oceans) on the earth.
It is most certainly not clear that the waters below were oceans. God hadn’t created dry land for there to be oceans, lakes, and rivers yet. The heaven and the earth were water at this time. The firmament separated the waters from which the earth was about to be formed from the waters of heaven, that still remain on the other side of the firmament.
Anthony: But what are the waters above the rāqîa‘? How we answer that question will depend upon what we understand the rāqîa‘ is. Notice that God equated the rāqîa‘ with heaven.The Hebrew word šāmayim is translated as “heaven” most of the more than 400 times it occurs in the Old Testament, as it is here.
Interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, we find reinforcement of the equation of the rāqîa‘ with heaven.At least eleven verses in the Old Testament speak of God stretching out the heaven’s (Job 9:8) Stretching out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, Day Two, God made the rāqîa‘, something that is spread or stretched out. Furthermore, God called the rāqîa‘heaven.The stretching of the heavens probably refers to when God made the rāqîa‘.
All good except that last line, where the writer again attempts to use a Hebrew noun as a verb. At least he qualifies it with “probably”. Besides, the raqia denotes only one of the three heavens… the solid one.
Anthony: Heaven generally is understood as being above us.
Of course there is no “above us” in the heliocentric model, because what’s above me right now in America is below T8, Nick, and miia in NZ.
Anthony: Depending on the context, the word can refer to that which is immediately above us, where flying birds, clouds, and rain are.
Yes, that is the first heaven – which is never referred to by raqia, since it is not solid.
Anthony: It also can refer to the realm of astronomical bodies.
That would be the second heaven… the only one of the three that is designated by a Hebrew word that refers to something solid. But “astronomical bodies“? Where in scripture can I read about those? Because all I’ve read about in scripture are lights that God placed in the firmament, ie: the sun, the moon, and the stars. Are you guys able to see that, just like when he translated a noun as the verb “spreading out”, the author is once again taking liberties with what the scriptures actually say, and importing his own worldly ideas – like astronomical bodies – into them?
Anthony: Finally, it often refers to the abode of God. “Heaven” has all these meanings, both in modern use and in the Bible. Does the rāqîa‘ refer to all of these meanings, or just some of those meanings?
Yes, three heavens, but only one of them referred to by raqia – the solid one that separates the other two.
Anthony: The other appearances of the word rāqîa‘ in the Genesis 1 creation account can help in answering this question. The next use of the word rāqîa‘ is in the Day Four account of creation (Psalm 104:2),Covering himself [with] light as a garment, Stretching out the heavens as a curtain, where it appears three times. Each time it appears in conjunction with the Hebrew word šāmayim. The best way to express this relationship in English is with the prepositional phrase, “expanse of heaven.” This construction emphasizes, lest there be any doubt, that the thing mentioned in the Day Four account is the thing that God made on Day Two. (Gen.1:14-19)
I have no idea what that even means, since I wasn’t able to find the word raqia in Psalm 104:2. All the author has done here is try to import his own translation, “expanse of heavens”, in for a word that clearly refers to something solid. But there is nothing in the above that supports his claim. I’m baffled by that entire paragraph, and can’t for the life of me figure out what point he’s even trying to make.
Anthony: God made the lights and set them in the firmament of heaven.It is clear here that the lights are the heavenly bodies, the greater and lesser lights, and the stars also Therefore, the firmament of heaven (the rāqîa‘) is where God placed the heavenly, or astronomical, bodies. Today we would call this outer space, or simplyspace.
What? How in the world is it “clear” that the lights are heavenly “bodies”? He still hasn’t offered any reason… only claimed it. And now he is taking raqia, which refers to something solid, and calling it “outer space”. Where did that come from? I can’t read about “outer space” or heavenly “bodies” in scripture, can I? Can’t you guys see that this guy hasn’t actually supported his claims scripturally – but has only imposed worldly views into the Bible when the Bible clearly doesn’t even support them?
Anthony: The most natural understanding of the Day Four creation account is that all heavenly bodies are located in the rāqîa‘.
If we get rid of his unscriptural word “bodies”, and retain the scriptural word “lights/luminaries”, the above line is spot on.
Anthony: As an aside, some flat-earthers…argue that the stars are embedded in a dome above the earth (the rāqîa‘), but they hold that the sun and moon (the greater and lesser lights) are below the dome while still above the earth… However, the Hebrew text (and even the English text) does not permit this. The masculine plural pronoun of v.17 refers back to the sun, moon, and stars collectively, and the verse does not distinguish as to their placement.
The writer has finally made a very good and valid point. If scripture is our authority, then we can’t have the stars in the firmament, while the sun and moon are floating around underneath it, in the first heaven. And he is correct that many flat earthers have held this view. What he hasn’t mentioned is that many of them have been aware of this problem for a while – and not only from a scriptural perspective, but from an observational one. We are in the process of learning how it all works (we haven’t had 500 years of scientists funded by trillions of tax dollars like the heliocentrists), but many have already produced some good videos of how the sun and moon that we see are projected images of the real sun and moon. Kind of like Batman’s Bat Signal is not the actual spotlight, but its projected image in the sky…
Or think of the sun reflecting off a tall building with mirrored windows. You can see the sun in those windows, and even feel heat equal to the sun itself – but the reflection isn’t really the sun. This would explain the crepuscular rays that D4T brought up earlier, and also explains the many different perspectives on the sun in the sky. For example…
If I am the one taking that picture, the reflection comes right to my feet. But if you are standing 20 feet away, you can’t see it come to my feet, because you have your own reflection coming to your own feet. And the same with another person 40 feet away, and so on. Similarly, we are all also seeing our own version of the sun, from our own perspective. Btw, do you see how the reflection goes all the way from the sun to the observer in a continuous line? That’s not possible on a ball earth either, because there are miles of curvature between the observer and the sun that the reflection can’t get over, and so the observer would only see the last tail end of the reflection closest to him…
Notice in the bottom right image how the breaking waves break the reflection as well. The reflection cannot follow its continuous path to the observer if there is a wall of water in its path. And the ball earth requires a huge wall of water to be between that observer and the sun.
Anyway, there are videos of people doing experiments with those half-dome magnifying glasses photographers use (to represent the dome). They move the actual light source around on the dome, and record the results. Here is a screenshot from one of them…
Imagine the yellow ring is the firmament itself, which contains the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun (penlight) is the actual source of the light, but inside the dome, we see the sun as the smaller light I circled within the first heaven where the birds fly. Anyway, we can talk more about that later.
Anthony: Well that’s enough for now. IlI’ send more. God bless, In Him Anthony.
Okay, but please read it first using discernment, to see if the source is actually saying something of value, or just trying to import his worldly beliefs into the scriptures without offering a single scriptural reason to do so. Because this response took me two hours, and I won’t have that kind of time to invest in every novel that you copy and paste into the thread.May 24, 2018 at 12:32 pm #829323
I just spent over two hours doing that last response, so I hope you guys (especially Anthony, T8 and Kathi) read every word. I won’t do that again. I refuse to spend that much time addressing a huge volume of information that someone else took 3 seconds to copy and paste. I only did it this time because T8 and Kathi seemed so impressed with it, and I wanted to make sure they knew it all amounted to a bunch of unscriptural nothing in the end.
Next time, Anthony, break it down into manageable sections, and put it in your own words. Otherwise I won’t even bother reading it, let alone responding to it.May 24, 2018 at 12:43 pm #829325
Mike….Jesus did speak through his own mouth at most of the time…
Thank you for acknowledging that. Nick told me that I wouldn’t be able to find a scripture when it was Jesus doing the actual speaking. But as you pointed out, he is mistaken.
Gene: …but there were times when the Father spoke also through his mouth.
Gene: Or haven’t you ever read this,
Matt 10:20…For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh, “IN” OR “THROUGH” YOU.
NOW DO YOU STILL DENY GOD THE FATHER ACTUALLY DID SPEAK DIRECTLY THROUGH JESUS’ MOUTH?
Gene: Here is another one for you WONDER ABOUT Mike,
Matt 23:37…..O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets… how often would (I) have gathered your childern together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings…
That is Jesus speaking about something he longed to do when he was in heaven… before he emptied himself to be made in the likeness of a man.May 24, 2018 at 12:44 pm #829326
Yes don’t bother.
You waste so much energy preaching this worldly stuff.May 24, 2018 at 12:46 pm #829327
T8: Mike you are good at this and should stick to this kind of thing IMO. That is refute and correct using scripture. Some people need it.
As for the FE, while you are making the best case possible, I feel you need to be more open to the counterevidence and admit good arguments against FE. But no matter how good the argument, if it is not true, you ultimately will not prevail in that battle.
Thanks for the compliment. I believe I am doing exactly the same thing with FE as I am with Nick. You see it differently for now, but I have faith that you’ll come around in the end. Remember that we’ve barely scratched the surface so far.May 24, 2018 at 12:48 pm #829328
D4T: Here is an interesting video of two ex-NASA employees that believe in a plane earth.
Several points are made that struck me as profound.
For example? Would you mind listing one of them for discussion purposes?May 24, 2018 at 12:49 pm #829329
Yes you would think that if you cannot yet hear the Spirit.
It is the natural response.
But the words of Jesus Christ are spirit and are life. Do you agree?May 24, 2018 at 12:55 pm #829330
Mike: Let’s see if you can make the object in the background 30 times larger with one lens than with the other. You won’t be able to.
T8: Haven’t I done this already with the Mt Ruapehu photo? I’m pretty sure I took another image that day with my normal lense, but I probably deleted it. Suffice to say, the zoom lense greatly increased the size of the mountain compared to the naked eye and standard camera lense.
I was talking about the relationship between the foreground and the background. In the first NASA image, we see the horizon of the moon, and the earth is tiny. In the second, we still see the horizon of the moon, and the earth is huge. The size of the earth – in respect to the foreground horizon of the moon – cannot change that drastically by using a different lens. In the latter image, the guy pasting the earth in was just a little smarter than the guy who pasted the earth into the first one. The second guy realized that the earth is supposed to be four times larger than the moon, and that it would be nonsensical to paste in an earth that looked smaller than the moon looks to us from earth.
What explanation do you offer for the wet flag?May 24, 2018 at 12:59 pm #829331
Nick: Hi Mike,
Why are you confused?
I’m confused as to why you said the Spirit said the words of John 6:35-40 when the Apostle John told us Jesus said them. When you tell me which one of you are correct on this matter, we’ll discuss a few other words that are said in that passage.May 24, 2018 at 1:00 pm #829332
T8: BTW Mike, you will be hard pressed to get a yes / no answer or a clear answer out of Nick as he prefers to replace an honest explanation as to what he believes in or out of season with an accusation about you probably not being led by the Spirit. This is how he rolls these days.
He’s been riding dirty like that since I’ve known him. 🙂May 24, 2018 at 1:05 pm #829333
T8: If the earth is supported by physical pillars, and there is a glass dome on top of us, then Jesus has a literal two edged sword coming out his mouth which probably explains why his robe is dipped in blood.
Come on Mike. Imagine if I made the argument that there would be locusts with human heads appearing during the Tribulation. And when you deny literal locusts, I just showed you the scripture. This is how your biblical support verses appear to us.
What makes you think their won’t be locusts with human heads? Besides, I’ve already addressed the red part in an earlier post with these words…
What? Why?May 24, 2018 at 1:07 pm #829334
You are confused because Jesus Christ spoke for God?
For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God.
God spoke through the prophets too.
This is basic stuff.May 24, 2018 at 1:16 pm #829335
T8: That would be true if the moon was flat and facing Earth. But it is a sphere, so it would be true if you were on the equator. Chances are they were not on the equator though.
Here are the alleged landing sites…
Four of them are pretty close to the equator. The earth image in question is from Apollo 11, which as you can see landed directly on the equator. Besides, your point is wrong anyway. Solar noon is when the sun is at it’s highest point in the sky. At that time, nobody on earth can photograph the sun and still have the horizon of the earth in the same picture – because the camera would have to be pointed straight up at the sky. The only exceptions would be from people very close to either pole. The vast majority of the planet would not be able to do it.
Viewed from the side of the moon that faces us, the earth is at solar noon all the time. And as you can see, none of the astronauts landed anywhere near the poles.
(Please bear in mind that I use terminology like “poles”, “planet”, “atmosphere”, and make arguments from the point of a ball earth perspective because it makes the discussion flow more smoothly. Surely you know by now I don’t believe these things.)May 24, 2018 at 1:20 pm #829337
For the love of Pete, T8, please fix this going back to the first page crap. 🙂May 24, 2018 at 1:24 pm #829338
Anthony: Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago…
That is exactly what I have come to believe. If your large article has valid scriptural points to make this time, please snip those points out so we can discuss them. I don’t have the time to go through each one of these like I did your first one.May 24, 2018 at 1:26 pm #829340
T8: When I attach an image in one post, it reattaches itself to the next two or three posts. Please fix this too. Thanks for all you do here. 🙂May 24, 2018 at 1:55 pm #829341
T8: Let’s just admit the Antarctica is a frozen continent that has been visited, mapped, and probed continually for years.
If you arrange it so that you and I can rent a team of sled dogs and explore this continent at our leisure, going anywhere on it that we choose, I will admit what you ask. I’ll even pay, T8. You set it up, okay? Until the time that any person can travel anywhere they want on this big block of ice that they’ve been protecting with military power for 60 years, you can’t prove it is a continent at all.
T8: So how many people have actually touched the dome or photographed the actual dome structure?
I’m convinced that is exactly what they’re studying at the ice wall they call Antarctica, and also why they don’t allow regular people to just go there and explore like they’ve been free to do with the rest of the earth for the entire history of mankind. Dude, they’re supposedly protecting ICE with all those military forces. ICE, man! Come on now. Do you really buy that? 🙂
T8: How is this even a debate?
Once we can admit the Antarctica is a continent, then we can seriously look into other claims. But if the FE theory relies on Antarctica being an ice wall surrounding the flat disk, then the theory falls flat and is a nonstarter.
You’ve once again got it backwards, because you have yet to PROVE Antarctica is a continent. You strongly believe it is, but couldn’t even PROVE it to yourself – let alone to others. On the other hand, I can PROVE that the moon can’t eclipse from the top down in the heliocentric model. I can PROVE that we are able to see thousands of objects that would be hidden if the earth was a ball. I can PROVE that there are full moons in the daytime – which is impossible in the heliocentric model.
So once you admit that each of these things, in and of itself, destroys the heliocentric model, we can seriously look into other claims like whether or not Antarctica is a continent, or a huge ice wall dotted with a few scientific outposts here and there. T8, open up Google Earth and zoom in on this continent you keep talking about. Let me know why they’re not showing real images. Here, I just did it for you…
Does that look like real snow to you? Does it look like anything real? It’s just a bunch of blurred pastel colors smeared together like in a painting. But it doesn’t look like that when you zoom into places on earth that really exist, does it? Come to think of it, I’ll have to try NZ, what with all this talk about you guys not being on maps anymore. Maybe you look like a pastel painting when we zoom in on you with Google Earth too. 🙂
Anyway, don’t you think it’s time you seriously consider the PROOFS I’ve been showing you, instead of blathering on and on about something you couldn’t prove exists if your life depended on it?
This has been your main contribution to the thread so far…
Mike: How can we see Chicago from Michigan when, according to the ballers’ own math, it should be completely hidden by the curvature of the earth?
T8: Antarctica… I win! Oh, and here’s a video that debunks everything the flat earthers say.
Mike: How can the moon eclipse from the top down, as you can clearly see in tons of videos – most of them not even from flat earther?
T8: Antarctica… I win! Oh, and here’s a video that debunks everything the flat earthers say.
Mike: How could there possibly be a full moon in the daytime, when the sun is 93 million miles directly behind the moon from our perspective?
T8: Antarctica… I win! Oh, and here’s a video that debunks everything the flat earthers say.
I truly expected better from you, man.May 24, 2018 at 2:15 pm #829343
David: I haven’t don’t this but if you have binoculars and are near a lake or oceon anywhere on the planet, supposedly you need only watch a boat and the further it gets away, you don’t just see it getting smaller as you would on a flat surface but see the bottom of the boat disappearing as it gets further away. Almost as if it suggest it is on a curved surface.
That is incorrect, and I already posted a video in the response I made to your last queries. Did you see that response?May 24, 2018 at 2:31 pm #829345
Please write to Charlie Duke and ask him if he was able to see stars when he was in space. There seems to be some confusion over this matter, as this 2 minute video I slapped together highlights…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.