- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Using “expanse”, Genesis 1 says God created the expanse to separate the waters below the expanse from the waters above the expanse.
You say that this refers to the space between the sea and the clouds. Okay.
A few verses later we’re told that God created the sun, moon and stars and placed them in THAT expense.
THAT expanse? If so, then:
God separated the waters with an expanse. This expanse cleared the view of the stars so they appeared in that expanse. Just think ‘sky’.
Or God created the stars in an expanse just as there is an expanse between sea and clouds.
Or there was only water and God separated this water so that the top layer is beyond the cosmos itself and beyond the James Webb telescope to see it.
Here’s the thing. None of these require a flat earth.
If the water above the raqia is your best argument, then you have not only failed, you have failed spectacularly.
But God called the raqia – heaven and there are levels to heaven.
Deal with it and instead show us how you can bring the sun back because it is local. Lol.
Your too blind to see you lost this debate. But keep embarrassing yourself Mike. That said, please don’t give up your day job.
But The throne of God is not in the raqyia*, that’s for sure.
He was on His throne, in His Heaven BEFORE creating our Raqyia called “Heaven”
Maybe. But is heaven created or not. Does God live in heaven like we live on earth, or did he create heaven. If the latter, then God was outside creation when he made creation which includes heaven. Common sense and scripture tells us that not even heaven can contain him.
Proclaimer: Place two basketballs next to each other. They are both globes right. So there are angles in play and you can get that result. You would only see it always above if the earth and moon were 2D.
Once again you were bamboozled by the third dimension and the angle of sunlight probably confused you further.
Let’s see if you can follow this. (Maybe ask your 12 year old to help you.)
So imagine that the moon rotates like your fantasy ball earth. The sun would rise at 6 am, and set at 6 pm. At 12 noon, the sun would be directly overhead – 90º above the horizon, right? And at both 6 am and 6 pm, the sun would be a 0º above the horizon, because it’s right on the horizon at sunrise and sunset, right?
So how many degrees above the horizon would the sun be at the halfway point between sunrise (0º) and high noon (90º)? It would have to be at 45º above the horizon, right?
So in my photo above, if Person A was at the terminator line (6 am spot) watching the sun rise, he would see the sun right on the horizon. And if Person B was in the center of the moon (12 noon spot), he would see the sun directly above his head… straight up in the sky. And if Person C was where the astronauts supposedly were (9 am spot), they would see the sun at 45º above the horizon. So I ask you… is this earth 45º above the horizon or not?
I’m sure you’ll need a little more help, so here is a cartoon of the earth…
I’m sure you can understand that the guy at the 6 am spot is seeing the sun rise, the guy at the 6 pm spot is seeing it set, and the guy in the dead middle is seeing the sun at high noon, right?
But the guys at the ends of the blue and red lines would see the sun 45º above the horizon. The problem is that the red line represents where the astronauts were when that photo of earth from the moon was taken. So they would have seen the earth 45º up in the sky – not the 10º above the horizon that it is in the photo.
For them to take that photo of the earth from the moon, the astronauts would have had to be at the green dot in my cartoon above. They were not.
Any questions?
Gene: You said, “NO”, to my question about the ISS “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION” that anyone can see for themselves traveling around our earth 24/7 , 365 days a year , transmitting it’s view of this earth to us, EVERY SECOND of every day . NOW sense your a real “honest person” as you present yourself, then please proceed to tell us , what is that thing we “all can see” for ourselve going around this earth . WHAT IS IT MIKE?
What’s the matter, Gene? It seems you don’t like it when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine, huh? Now, wouldn’t it be better if we ALL just gave REASONABLE answers to questions around here?
You want to talk about the ISS? Great. It’s one of my favorite subjects. But I want you to explain how the waters can be above the very thing the luminaries are IN without also being above the luminaries that are IN the thing the waters are ABOVE.
Now, I asked you a question, and you gave an unacceptable answer. So I asked you for clarification – a REASON how you could have possibly concluded that the waters above the thing the luminaries are in DON’T have to also be above the luminaries that are in that thing.
Instead of doing that, you asked ME a question. And so I gave you the same kind of unacceptable answer you had given me – to see how YOU like that kind of crap. And it’s clear that you DON’T like it, do you?
So, you go ahead and tell me your REASON for why the waters above the thing the luminaries are in DON’T have to also be above the luminaries that are in that thing, and I will talk to you about the ISS until the cows come home.
This is a TWO way street, Gene. The ball is in YOUR court. When you give an ACCEPTABLE answer to my question, I will do the same for yours.
Gene: Mike is still trying to play his smoke and mirror games with you, the true fact is that the word raqia, simply means, in English, the Sky, or Heavens, which simply means whats out or up there, from the earth, we live on.
Okay Gene, then all you need to do is tell me about the waters that are ABOVE the “Sky/Heavens/What’s out or up there”, right?
Knowing that clouds are IN the “Sky/Heavens/What’s out or up there”, and not ABOVE the “Sky/Heavens/What’s out or up there”, we also know that they can’t possibly be the waters that are ABOVE the “Sky/Heavens/What’s out or up there”, right?
So what exactly are these waters that are ABOVE the “Sky/Heavens/What’s out or up there”?
Berean: This is what Genesis 1 teaches.
Proclaimer: Bahahaha! Great comeback Berean. You roasted me.
This little exchange sums up the entire debate quite nicely. There are people pointing out what God’s written word actually says about a matter, and other people LAUGHING at what God’s written word says about it – as if “this is what the scriptures say” is some kind of a joke or something. Shame.
Proclaimer: Thanks gene. Mike is definitely batting for the other team.
You got that right. And if I ever think of joining the anti-scriptural team that you and Gene are on, please just put a bullet in my head.
Mike: Using “expanse”, Genesis 1 says God created the expanse to separate the waters below the expanse from the waters above the expanse.
You say that this refers to the space between the sea and the clouds. Okay.
A few verses later we’re told that God created the sun, moon and stars and placed them in THAT expense.
Proclaimer: THAT expanse?
Yes, THAT expanse. According to scripture, there is only ONE raqia. That’s why it’s distinguished FROM “the heavens” and is even called “the raqia OF heaven”. So if you want to erroneously call the raqia “expanse”, then you must make your arguments align with there being only ONE “expanse” – which has luminaries IN it and waters ABOVE it.
If you call it “skies”, then there are luminaries IN the skies and waters ABOVE the skies. If you call it “the heavens”, then there are luminaries IN the heavens and waters ABOVE the heavens. If you call it “space”, then there are luminaries IN space, and waters ABOVE space.
So repeatedly changing what you want to call the raqia has never helped your case, dude. You’re just spinning your wheels and going nowhere. You can call it “pizza” if you want to, because it won’t change the fact that the luminaries are IN the pizza, and the waters are ABOVE the pizza.
Proclaimer: God separated the waters with an expanse. This expanse cleared the view of the stars so they appeared in that expanse. Just think ‘sky’.
Okay, but then what are the waters ABOVE the “expanse/sky”?
Proclaimer: Or God created the stars in an expanse just as there is an expanse between sea and clouds.
So you are inventing a SECOND “expanse” that is contradicted by scripture?
Gen 1:7… Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament…
Gen 1:14… Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven…
Can you see that in verse 7, God made THE raqia that has waters above it? Can you see in verse 14 that God made and placed the luminaries in THE raqia that has waters above it?
Where exactly are you seeing a SECOND raqia between verses 7 and 14?
Now also consider…
Psalm 19… The heavens declare the glory of God, and THE raqia shows His handiwork.
Are you seeing a SECOND raqia here? Nope. But are you seeing that the raqia OF heaven is different than “the heavens”? Yep. How about this one…
Psalm 148:4… Praise Him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
Are you seeing that there are waters ABOVE the heavens here? Yep. Now consider the rest of this Psalm…
Can you see that the psalm is broken into two parts… the first concerning the things of the heavens that should praise God, and the second concerning the things of the earth that should praise Him? Look at the things in the “heavens” category. We have sun, moon, stars, and the waters ABOVE the heavens, right? Now look at the things in the “earth” category. We have snow, hail, winds and…. CLOUDS, right?
So it’s clear to see that CLOUDS were not considered part of the “heavenly realms”, but part of the “earthly realm”. And that is only one reason that they cannot possibly be “the waters above the heavens”. The other reason is that the waters are ABOVE the raqia that the luminaries are IN, and therefore the “waters above” must also be ABOVE the luminaries themselves.
Now if only Berean, Danny and I were talking to someone who would say, “Wow guys, thanks for pointing that out to me. I’m going to have to adjust my worldview and get it back in line with what the Ultimate Truth, God’s written word, teaches us!” But instead we’re talking to people who LAUGH and continually scream to get me banned when we point out what the scriptures actually teach. Such a shame.
Proclaimer: Or there was only water and God separated this water so that the top layer is beyond the cosmos itself and beyond the James Webb telescope to see it.
Now you’re getting it! The waters – according to God’s written word – were indeed separated into “below the raqia that the stars are in” and “above the raqia that the stars are in”.
Are you finally coming to grips with this fact?
Pretender and Gene (I Saw It On TV) Balthrop…
1. According to scripture, is there only ONE raqia? YES or NO? (If “NO”, please include your scriptures that speak of more than one raqia OF heaven – not more than one heaven.)
2. According to scripture, are the sun, moon and stars IN the very thing that the waters are ABOVE? YES or NO?
Moses used the Hebrew word “raqia” to describe the thing that the luminaries are in and the waters are above. The 70 experts in the Hebrew OT that produced the LXX used the Greek word “stereoma” – which describes a SOLID structure.
3. Is it plausible that Moses used a word that meant “open expanse”, but then 70 experts in the Hebrew Bible and the Hebrew language mistakenly mistranslated it with a Greek word that meant “solid structure”? YES or NO?
4. Is it plausible that Moses knew about the ball earth, planets and outer space and so wrote it as “open expanse” – but then between the time of Moses and the LXX scholars, people came to stop believing in the ball earth and so the LXX translators PURPOSELY translated it as “solid structure”, even though they knew that Moses wrote it as “open expanse”? YES or NO?
5. OR is it much more likely that Moses used a word that meant “solid structure”, and therefore the 70 experts in the Hebrew language and the Hebrew scriptures simply translated raqia into a Greek word that also meant “solid structure”? YES or NO?
Mike……EVERYONE knows, when you look up into the “skys/ heavens, you can see the stars, the sun, moon, and EVEN clouds , that contntan water and rains on this earth, only an apsolute idiot, would not know that, IMO.
MIKE, You pointed the gun at your own head and pulled the trigger a long time ago , no one needs to do it for you , you did it yourself. LOL. Face the truth Mike your simply a “BS,er”. Proclaimer has shot you down a hundred or thousand times, not to even mention the others like myself, and Jodie has also, on the other thread .
SORRY MIKE, time to look in the mirror and face the truth, about what your “really” about, yourself, and getting your own way, has nothing to do with honest and truthful dialogue at all, much like your mentor.
Peace and love to you and yours……..gene
Gene: Mike……EVERYONE knows, when you look up into the “skys/ heavens, you can see the stars, the sun, moon, and EVEN clouds , that contntan water and rains on this earth…
Yes Gene. But the waters above are above the stars, so they are not clouds. Listen once again…
God created the raqia to separate the waters below the raqia from the waters ABOVE THE RAQIA ITSELF.
Then God created the luminaries and put them IN the raqia that has the waters above it.
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.
If you call it “heavens”, then the luminaries would be IN the heavens while the waters would still be ABOVE the heavens.
Your and Pretender’s word-swap game simply doesn’t work, Gene. In the end, whatever the luminaries are IN, the waters are ABOVE. It doesn’t matter what you want to call that thing.
The correct translation is “firmament”, as it undeniably refers to a solid structure that supports waters above it… but you can call it a pinochle card if you want to, because it would still mean that the luminaries are IN the pinochle card while the waters are ABOVE the pinochle card – and therefore also ABOVE the luminaries that are IN the pinochle card.
Dude, there are waters ABOVE the stars according to the Biblical worldview. Are there waters above the stars according to YOUR worldview? If not, get a new worldview that aligns with the truth of the Bible.
Yes Gene. But the waters above are above the stars, so they are not clouds. Listen once again…
God created the raqia to separate the waters below the raqia from the waters ABOVE THE RAQIA ITSELF.
Then God created the luminaries and put them IN the raqia that has the waters above it.
Therefore, the waters above are not only above the raqia, but also above the luminaries that are IN the raqia.
It’s not as you say. God called the raqia – heaven. Is there just one heaven. It might seem like that from other verses as it just says heaven and you could argue that. But it also says “third heaven”. You need to be able to reason Mike. But you cannot do that it seems. I am certainly not buying the Mike interpretation of Genesis and the bible. You start with a view that the world is a pizza and all else follows. That is where you err. You have lost the ability to think critically. And what is a fool Mike? Is it a person who lacks intelligence? No. It is a person who made themselves stupid. God does not create us as fools. People do that to themselves.
This little exchange sums up the entire debate quite nicely. There are people pointing out what God’s written word actually says about a matter, and other people LAUGHING at what God’s written word says about it – as if “this is what the scriptures say” is some kind of a joke or something. Shame.
Once again you misunderstand. It was his answer, not Genesis.
It lacks any critical thinking and is a general statement that can be interpreted as anything.
The answer is like saying, “no your wrong”, but offerning absolutely nothing to support why.
It’s the sort of answer you get from a kid.
But God wants us to reason together, so it is a terrible answer.
But I do not hold it against him as I believe both him and danny are not very intellectual.
Don’t get me wrong, that is not a sin. We all lack in something, that is why we need each other.
But you need to acknowledge your weaknesses, not pretend you are strong.
And you are taking advantage of their naivety, so that is a stain on your character Mike.
Genesis states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Then what comes next is a good description of God terraforming earth.
At this point, the earth is already in existence, so the heavens must be too.
Remember, it said, in the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and earth. It even mentions heaven first.
So berean’s statement: “This is what Genesis 1 teaches” is what you might expect from someone who has no ability to reason. However, if we take it at face value, it actually debunks your argument Mike.
Genesis 1 is actually saying God created both heavens and earth in the beginning. And do you see the creation of the planet after that? No. So that means the heavens are already there too.
I think this might explain berean is in the SDA. Organisations like that do your thinking for you and attract people who want answers, but not have to seek deeply for them, but have them handed on a plate. So they end up with a form of blind faith because is it not written that some will hear the words, “I never knew you”? Why is that? Because many people’s faith today is not actually in God and his Son, but a denomination. They trust in the men that set that denomination up and who run it. They follow their teachings and make that organisation their source of truth. Problem is, God gives his Spirit to teach us all things. He doesn’t give us a cult or denomination to do that.
Berean, 👍🙂🙏😁
Translation:
As long as you support flat earth and myself, I will give you a thumbs up.
Because it is about me.
Yes, the Lord dwells in heaven.
But are you saying that heaven was not created?
If it was, then before creation God was not in heaven.
Simple.
If heaven always existed and God is inside. Then is heaven bigger than God like earth is bigger than you?
Something for you to meditate on.
Proclaimer
1 Kings 8:27
But will God really inhabit the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you; how much less this house that I built?Jeremiah 23:24
Will anyone stand in a hidden place, Unseen by me? says the Lord. Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? says the Lord.How does God fill the heavens and the earth?
My understanding is that the person of God sits in a sanctuary not made by hands (heaven heavens) (Hebrews 1:3 / 9:11,12) and that by HIS SPIRIT HE CAN BE EVERYWHERE PRESENT IN THE UNIVERSE.
AND SO IT WOULD BE BY HIS OMNIPRESENT SPIRIT THAT HE WILL FILL THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND ALL THE CREATED UNIVERSE AND EVEN BEYOND…Psalms 139
6Such a marvelous science is beyond my reach, It is too high for me to grasp. 7Where shall I go from your spirit, and where shall I flee from your face? 8If I ascend to heaven, you are there; If I lay down in Hades, there you are.…Jeremiah 23:24
Will anyone stand in a hidden place, Unseen by me? says the Lord. Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? says the Lord.God is eternal.
He inhabits creation by his Spirit.
He is outside creation because not even heaven can contain him.
His Spirit flows from the throne of God and the river of life through the paradise of God.
Beyond the throne is God.
The Flat earth sun must be travelling at mach 2.7. Lol.
Flat-earthers like to complain about the equator moving at 1,000 mph due to the earth spinning. of course there is nothing to be concerned about because it only travels at that speed due to the size of the earth. In reality, it does one revolution in 24 hours.
But here’s the thing. If the Sun is over one point on Earth and 12 hours later is at the opposite side, something must be traveling thousands of miles per hour in either model.
The globe earth gets a pass due to the explanation already given. But the flat-earth model once gain fails badly. The sun must travel at 2,050 mph (Mach 2.7) at the outer ring (The Tropic of Capricorn) to cover the distance from one side to the other. But is the sun really travelling 2.7 times faster than the speed of sound?
Here is mach 2.5 looks like which is about how fast the sun travels from one side of the disc to the other in the flat earth model.
But you cannot really notice the sun moving if you stare at it say for a five minutes. Mind you, you may not see anything after that. But the point is that you do not see a local sun scream across the sky do you.
Another successful flat earth debunk.
Your welcome.
Flerfs, don’t forget you can donate to my Patreon to increase the amount of flat earth debunks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
