- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 4 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Adam: There were day and night, separated by evening, before the sun existed…
Proclaimer: Later in day 4 where you incorrectly place the sun, is then talking about the sky and the placement of the sun and moon.
Don’t you mean “where THE BIBLE incorrectly places the CREATION and placement of the sun into the firmament”?
You’re not arguing against Adam here. You’re arguing against God’s own description of how HE created our world.
Here are some major problems with your… I hesitate to call it an “argument”, because it’s not really a bonafide, evidence-supported argument at all…
1. God told Moses that He MADE the sun on day four. You can’t rationally explain how God MADE something on day four that already existed.
2. Where exactly WAS the sun before God “placed it in the sky”?
3. Where can we read about this “water vapor” that blocked the sun before day four – or God’s act of removing it so that the sun could be seen from earth?
4. Who was around to see it on day four anyway? Nobody. So why “unveil” it on that particular day?
5. Your entire “argument” relies on your idea that the sun must be the source of the “light” in Gen 1:3. You’ve already been shown that New Jerusalem will have day and light without the sun – and you scoff at that scriptural teaching. What about this verse?
Psalm 74:16… You have prepared the light and the sun.
Will you scoff at that one also?
If you can answer even one of these points SCRIPTURALLY (as opposed to your own imagination concocting things to fit your own narrative), we will certainly listen to what you have to say.
Until that time, your self-congratulatory chest-beating pat on your own back (DEBUNK STATUS: Successful.) rings hollow, and makes people feel sorry for you.
Adam: The continued existence of planet earth in its current form is evidence that the sun did not stand still for a day (Joshua 10:13). Science says it would be enormously destructive for the earth to cease rotating on its axis.
Proclaimer: Read this from the Smithsonian where they contemplate that the sun stopping also fits with the sun not shining.
The Smithsonian concludes that it was a solar eclipse. Pretender, in his zeal to “gather around him a great number of teachers to say what his itching ears want to hear”, agrees. But consider…
1. Joshua wanted more hours of daylight to continue his victory over his enemies. Would a solar eclipse – which provides mere minutes of DARKNESS – do what Joshua wanted?
2. The Bible reports that the sun was over Gibeon, and the moon was over the the Valley of Aijalon. In the heliocentric model, can a solar eclipse occur when the sun and moon are in different locations in the sky?
3. The Bible reports that both the sun and the moon stood still for “about a whole day”. Does that describe a brief solar eclipse?
Logical thinking is all that is required.
Pretender: DEBUNK STATUS: Successful.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11… The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
Psalm 74:16… You have prepared the light and the sun.
Will you scoff at that one also?
If you can answer even one of these points SCRIPTURALLY (as opposed to your own imagination concocting things to fit your own narrative), we will certainly listen to what you have to say.
Until that time, your self-congratulatory chest-beating pat on your own back (DEBUNK STATUS: Successful.) rings hollow, and makes people feel sorry for you.
I always appreciate your right method of arguments on this Forum. The above are the reasons why I was describing our traditional Christianity as hiding its head in the sand thinking itself as more intelligent and most scientific in its thinking.
Proclaimer: So gadam.
What is your new no1 flat earth verse?
I wait with bated breath.
Hey Adam, hit him with Gen 7:1 (“the floodgates of heaven were opened”) and Gen 8:2 (“the floodgates of heaven were closed, and the rain from heaven stopped”), because it’s funny to watch him try to explain the floodgates of heaven as clouds.
Adam: The problem is with the Biblical authors who were Flat Earthers because they were not having so many insights what we have today through scientific discoveries.
This is the claim Pretender used to make early on in this thread. But then I made him realize that the Biblical authors are said to have been inspired by Holy Spirit to write the things they did, and Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away before one jot or tittle of the OT would.
Now that he realizes that his first “ignorant goat herders describing a world from their own primitive perspective” argument makes us ask why then we should believe ANYTHING these ignorant goat herders said, he has changed his mission to one of saying nonsensical things in an effort to convince the rest of us to PRETEND along with him that when the Bible clearly says things like “six days”, or “made the sun on day four”, it really means “six epochs of hundreds of millions of years” and “evaporated a water vapor allowing the sun to be seen on day four”.
I think Gene is the only one he’s gotten to pretend along with him so far.
Adam: 1. The Bible says in Gen 1: 16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Gen 1:16-17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth.’
Very good, Adam. Pretender, can you read that? Both the sun and the moon give THEIR OWN light – as is reiterated in many verses all throughout the Bible.
Pretender, can you see that God placed THEM (3rd person masculine plural) in the firmament of heaven to shine THEIR light upon the earth?
Adam: Today we know that sun have its own light but the light of the moon is reflected light from the sun but bible is saying that That moon have its own light.
No, we don’t know that today. A ball in space (moon) being illuminated by a single light source (sun) would necessarily have a specular highlight (hot spot), and a feathering off from light to dark going around the ball. For example, search images of “earth from space”…
The same effects that we see in all those ILLUSTRATIONS of the earth (falsely called “real photos”) would be seen on the moon too. Instead, we see the moon looking as if it is a lamp being illuminated from the inside. The part that is lit up is EQUALLY illuminated throughout, ie: no hot spot and no feathering – but the same brightness from edge to edge…
This is an actual photo of the moon. Where is the specular highlight? Where is the feathering off of light around the curve of the ball? In the interest of driving home your point that God literally called the moon a LAMP, and in the interest of irony, here is a globe lamp that people can purchase…
Do you see the similarities? No specular highlight and no feathering off around the edges – JUST LIKE THE MOON!
Now go look for NASA images of asteroids – which are also alleged to be rocks lit by the sun, just like the moon. See if you can find one without specular highlights and a feathering from light to dark around the edges. See if you can find one that looks like it glows from the inside like the moon does.
Adam, since the actual scientific observations indicate that the moon IS it’s own lamp like the Bible says, could it be that the Bible is actually right about that claim?
Adam: 2. In Hannah’s prayer of thanksgiving, she says, “The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them He has set the world” (1 Samuel 2:8, ESV). The pillars of the earth also appear in the book of Job. In answering his friend Bildad, Job talks about how God’s mighty power disqualifies any man from contending with Him: “They could not answer him one time out of a thousand” (Job 9:3). Job describes God as one who overturns mountains and “shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble” (verse 6, ESV). Also in Psalm 75:3 Asaph quotes God: “When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars” (ESV)…..Was the Earth founded on Pillars?
Pretender pretends that the pillars of the earth are “good, upstanding people” – even though Ps 75:3 distinguishes the pillars from the inhabitants of the earth. That way, he can pretend that these verses don’t describe a flat and stationary earth. 😉
From inside the dome, you see the light appear where it hits the inside of the dome – even if the actual source is not directly in line with you and where you see the light appear.
Your answer is smoke and mirrors. But let’s run with it.
The first problem is that you need to come up with a complicated answer whereas the heliocentric model is really simple and this one single model makes all phenomena simple like the orbits of wandering stars for example. The heliocentric models turns their orbits into simple circles or ovals rather than spirals that sometimes see the wandering stars going backwards. Truth usually makes things simpler mike. And as Einstein put it, if you cannot explain it simply, then you don’t understand it.
The second problem is the consequence of a dome reflecting the Southern Cross. This reflective quality as a solution for the Southern Cross’s visibility but it would have massive consequences. For example, the sun would reflect all over the dome allowing sunlight to shine into areas during night time hours. So just as we see the moon during the day and night, we would also see the sun during the hours of night which obviously does not agree with reality. A reflective dome would also allow many more locations north to see The Southern Cross and many more locations to the south to see the North Star for example. I could go on with the problems that this hypothesis creates, but I’ll leave it here with a succinct conclusion.
The Personal Dome Theory creates more problems than it solves. And even this so-called solution could equally reflect the Southern Cross away from us rather than toward us. Why only toward us. And does it make any difference anyway. As the stars in the sky have to fit somehow. If you skew it one way, then it has the opposite effect at the other end. So really no difference in the end. You still have to explain how people on three continents can see The Southern Cross at the same time. I know when I look up into the sky at the stars I focus on the Southern Cross as I know that one. And I cannot ever remember not finding it. t seems to be there no matter what time I look up. If there is a time when it is not there, I would suggest from my own experience that would be brief.
And the small window problem you mention where people from three continents viewing the Southern Cross at the same time for a brief period is also irrelevant. Because you can easily launch a boat from each of the outer two continents toward the night to increase the window. And you would then still need to explain why two people can see the Southern Cross at the same time even if they are a little closer to each other on boats offshore from Australia and South America.
The Personal Dome theory is to put it frank, ridiculous. Like so many other models floated by flerfers, it requires its own unique model to sort of explain the phenomena (as you call it). In fact flerfers require different models to explain each phenomena. Trouble is, you can only have one model and the only single model that explains everything is the Heliocentric model.
It has to be said that no lie is 100% true and the Heliocentric model perfectly explains all observation. Only the truth is 100% true. Your models might work for one or two things at a time, but you lack a model that explains all. All your different models cannot be true as they are contradictory. If they only explain one or a few things at a time and you need other models for other phenomena, then the models are not modelling the truth and reality. They are rather trying to answer difficult questions with an unsatisfactory answer.
DEBUNK STATUS: Successful
Pretender pretends that the pillars of the earth are “good, upstanding people”
Nope. Again you err. If people can be pillars, then there is no reason to believe that the earth sits on stilts just as people are not stilts. Spiritually minded people will understand what it means. Carnal men will only see a physical pillar. Likewise, when Jesus returns he will have a samurai coming out of his mouth rather than understanding what it means to have a sword coming from your mouth. Such is the foolishness of a carnal mind. It is not equipped to discern spiritually minded things.
DEBUNK STATUS: Successful
You’re not arguing against Adam here. You’re arguing against God’s own description of how HE created our world.
Nope. God’s own description say The Day he created the heavens and earth. And this including light took place BEFORE the conclusion of Day 1. I have stated the facts. You have to ignore these biblical verses in order to put creation of the Sun in day four. The sun is both part of the heavens and is also light. Maybe you are unaware of that. Day four is talking about the sun and moon being visible in the firmanent / sky.
Of course you will just continue to preach the sun’s creation on Day four despite the scriptures saying otherwise. You will only say it to prove the earth is a pizza and gadam will concur so he can write off the Bible as a lie. So congratulations on your works of iniquity Mike.
DEBUNK STATUS: Successful
Where is the feathering off of light around the curve of the ball?
Your moon theory is easy to explain. I took a video of the moon with feathered edges, so that debunks you. The obvious explanation is feathering is caused by atmospheric distortion and that some cameras are better than others at handling that. If a camera is outside the atmosphere or is able to cut through distortion using certain wavelengths then the image will be crisper. There are other techniques. I have a phone that takes either a long shot or many shots and melds them together. So it can take the best parts and put them together as not all of an image is distorted at the same time.
To conclude, the further out the planet, the better the camera you need. So if I have a camera that can take a crisp photo of the moon, then I am betting it won’t take a great image of Saturn or Mars.
The obvious conclusion then is it being about the camera the location of the camera, and the atmospheric conditions.
So here is the feathering I experienced with my own video camera?
DEBUNK STATUS: Successful
Of course you will just continue to preach the sun’s creation on Day four despite the acripturesvsaying otherwise. You will only say it to prove the earth is a pizza and gadam will concur so he can write off the Bible as a lie. So congratulations on your works of iniquity.
Sorry brother, I don’t write off the Bible that’s big allegation. I only want to properly understand these ancient writings from their own days and not with our religious fundamental bias.
Good gadam
Then do you acknowledge that it is written “in the day God created the heavens and earth”.
Also, do you acknowledge that it also says that God created the heavens and earth as well as light before the conclusion of Day 1?
And what is your new no1 flat earth verse.
I look forward to your reply.
Hi Proclaimer
I don’t agree on everything with Mike, far from it, but all the same I give him reason to say that
the luminaries (sun, moon and stars) WERE DONE ON THE FOURTH DAY…. IT SEEMS SO OBVIOUS TO ME FROM THE TEXT….And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15] And let them be lights in the firmament of heaven to lighten the earth: and it was so.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he also made the stars.
[17] And God placed them in the firmament of the heavens to give light to the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Berean. You believe that because that is what you were taught.
Read from Genesis 1:1 onward and what you will see is that clearly the heavens and earth, and light causing day and night were done and dusted before the end of Day 1. It’s written clear as day, no pun intended.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
So the heavens, earth, light, day, and night were already established. Can you see that?
If so, then what is Day 4 about?
Well considering the first few verses, what fits is that the sun and moon became visible in the firmament / sky. Further proof can be seen in the purpose for the lights in Day 4. Yes, it was for light as well obviously, because whether you can see the lights or just see the light rays only, both conditions are still for lighting. But the difference is that the luminaries can now actually be seen in the firmament and they serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years. This was not the case in the previous days. In other words, the luminaries are a giant calendar and clock as seen when you look up into the night sky.
If you want to put the creation of the sun as opposed to making the sun visible in the firmament, then you now have to contend with two suns or two different lights for day and night. The light that caused day and night cycles on day 1 vs the same thing on day 4. If you want to hold to the day and night being created in day 4 onward, then you have to explain day 1 too which I have not heard anyone explain.
Some say that during the new earth that God will be the light and there is no need for the sun so that could have been the case with the earth when it was first created. Maybe. The difference is with God’s light is that there is no night as specified in the new earth. But clearly this world has night right in the period known as Day 1.So it is not the same.
You have two choices. Either Genesis has a contradiction or the explanation I just gave. And my view is further solidified by the luminaries being used as a calendar and clock. That points to the fact that before this, you could not see the luminaries directly including the sun, but only the light rays of the sun.
Take Venus for example. You could almost apply Genesis 1:1 to that planet. On Day one you have the heavens and Venus already created as well as light / the sun. Now imagine making the planet habitable. Well that would mean you need to clear the dense atmosphere to the point where you can see the luminaries. And to aid in that process, you could put plants on the planet for a lengthy period of time and they would slowly clear the atmosphere. Scientists hold to the view that something like this happened on earth and Genesis does not actually contradict that view. It only contradicts if you place the Sun’s creation of Day 4 and then you also have to contend with a biblical contradiction according to day 1.
Mike doesn’t seem to be able to understand this, but maybe you can. He doesn’t even understand that day and night are caused by the Sun and not God as there is no darkness in God. Mike’s mindset is set back in a time when men of science were thrown into prison by ignorant religious men. We can only thank God that we are under his thumb and men like him. Burning witches and treating science as evil is a primitive mindset. Whereas, I think it is wonderful that God let man explore our surrounding slowly. A revelation that unravelled over the millennia showing the eternal works of the Father.
Berean. You believe that because that is what you were taught.
God IS my teacher.And he does it THROUGH DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS, AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKS TO ME.
NOW , FIRST DAY LIGHT , I HAVE NO RESPONSE . THE BIBLE SIMPLY SAYS LIGHT IS AND LIGHT WAS, AND THAT’S IT. LIKE MANY, I CONSIDERED IT COULD BE SUNLIGHT, AND YES…BUT WE HAVE NO PROOF.
FOR GOD EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU BELIEVE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
AND THEREFORE TO CREATE LIGHT GOD DOES NOT NEED LIGHTS SINCE HE CAN DO ANYTHING AS HE WANTS, AND WHEN HE WANTS.NOTE: I don’t even know what Adventists in general specifically believe about the light of verse 3.
I must have read things in the past for sure, but it didn’t stick with me to the point of telling me anything very clear.
So for me, the thought that God can EVERYTHING and that in a framework of great Wisdom, satisfies me more than all (human) theories.God bless
So you do not have an answer as to what caused day and night before the first day concluded. Great. That simply means you haven’t thought about it before or have, but do not have an answer. Therefore, I am simply providing a possible answer. Everything has an answer and if we seek, we find.
But from the text, you can at least see that the day and night on the first day was at least not suitable as a calendar and clock until Day 4. Ask yourself why.
On that note, we already had day and night before Day One. Thus, Mikes teaching that each day is strictly 24 hours long now has this extra contradiction because before the day concluded there was already days and nights.
Yourself and Mike have no explanation. I do have an explanation. I am not saying I am correct. But I have an explanation that fits with the bible and science and it is reasonable.
Let us reason together if you are able.
Proclaimer
Exactly, I have no other answer than: WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.
THAT IS TO SAY: “LET THERE BE LIGHT, AND THE LIGHT WAS.”
And as I told you, FOR GOD EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, AND HE DOESN’T NECESSARILY NEED LIGHTS TO CREATE LIGHT. AND SO I DON’T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS….
I HOLD TO THE LITERAL 24 HOURS AND THE CREATION OF THE LUMINAIRES ON THE 4TH DAY.So you admit to gaps in your understanding. That is okay.
What I can tell you is that people who say that Genesis and science are at odds cannot prove such. Both can agree if you study the text. While one or the other may be wrong, the point is that you can actually read the bible and science books about the order of creation and they agree. so it is a lie to say without a doubt that they are at odds. all that is at odds could be the way you read the bible.
So, I think those that teach that Genesis is at odds with the order of creation from a sceientific point of view are doing a great disservice. I can tell you that many are put off the Bible because they are told that it teaches differently when it actually doesn’t.
Take gadam for example. He has come to the conclusion that the Bible is myth and Mike just adds more myth and gadam eats it up. They bounce off each other but the sad part is Mike is helping gadam to lose his soul because he is providing the ammunition that gadam needs in order to reject the Bible and it’s central message. Very sad. Mike thinks flat earth and young earth turn people to God. It is the opposite. Same goes for the Trinity, it turns Muslims off the gospel. These things are in the least not necessary and in the most, lies from the Devil.
Please do not be like that Berean. Think about the souls you could affect. Love will drive you to the truth and cast away pride in your own understanding. If you have gaps in your theology, then do not be foolish and fill them in with ignorant statements that will turn people off faith.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
