- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Waters & The Sky
Mike spouted:
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.
Great, let’s call it skies then.
So there is a sky and a watery planet. Then God makes some sky between the waters, so instead of one water there is clearly a layer between two waters. Now the atmosphere is clear and you can see the luminaries in the sky. That works right.
How do I know that there is a watery planet and sky?
Because in the beginning, God had already created the heavens and earth. How do we know? Two solid reasons.
- It says this exact thing in the beginning of Genesis.
- And the rest of Genesis assumes the existence of the earth. This means the heavens were already created just like the earth.
Good night Flatties.
One more
On a flat earth, how can the Tropic of Capricorn have less circumference than the equator?
Definitely good night.
Proclaimer said……..”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.”
Apsolutely right Proclaimer, I know that from first hand experience, thats exactly the way church denomations work, They Capture people by giving them the idea they know more about the truth of God then they do, and once that happens, they have control of your mind , and your money also. Thats why they love “novice” , like Berean, IMO, being a novice is not wrong , we all were that way at one time, but to let anyone OR DEMONATION, keep you that way , will limit your growth.
Peace and love to you and yours Proclaimer……….gene
Pretender: God called the raqia – heaven. Is there just one heaven.
There is just one raqia. Stars are IN it, and waters are ABOVE it. Trying to conflate raqia and heaven exposes your desperation as much as when you try to insert a bunch of illegitimate words for raqia.
The bottom line is that you can call the raqia “expanse”, “sky”, “heaven(s)”, “space”, or even “a vegemite sandwich” – and it still doesn’t matter because the fact remains that the stars are IN whatever you want to illegitimately call it, and the waters are still ABOVE whatever you want to illegitimately call it.
The Biblical Earth has waters ABOVE the stars. Your Scientism worldview can’t possibly have waters above the stars. The Bible is the truth, and your Scientism is full of lies against God and actual science. End of story.
Pretender: I am certainly not buying the Mike interpretation of Genesis and the bible.
It is irrelevant to truth whether or not you “buy” it. Facts don’t care about your feelings, Pretender.
Pretender: Or there was only water and God separated this water so that the top layer is beyond the cosmos itself…
This is the ONLY argument you’ve made on the “waters above the raqia” issue that even has a chance of aligning the Bible and Scientism. Unfortunately for you, it is shot down by the fact that God opened the floodgates in the raqia to let the waters above the stars flood the earth in Noah’s day. Your suggestion would call for waters coming from billions of light years away – through the freezing vacuum of space – just to flood a tiny insignificant speck in the great vastness of the universe. Not very compelling.
Pretender: If the water above the raqia is your best argument, then you have not only failed, you have failed spectacularly.
If you and Gene could debate the issues like intelligent adults, the raqia part would have been settled in a day or two, and we would have already moved onto (and past) the dozens of other issues where the Bible and Scientism conflict. Unfortunately, I’m debating these things against a couple of deceptive and unintelligent knuckleheads, and so each issue drags on and on and on because you two are incapable of just simply giving direct and honest answers to the simple, direct, and scripture-supported points we make.
I’ll give another perfect example in my following post…
Pretender and Gene (As Seen on TV) Balthop…
FACT #1… The Hebrew word “yowm” – just like our English word “day” – can be used idiomatically to refer to a general, unspecified period of time, ie: “back in the day of Abraham Lincoln”.
FACT #2… The plural word “days” has never – in the Bible or in the entire history of mankind – been used in that same idiomatic manner. For example, you can say “back in the days of Abraham Lincoln”, and while the phrase itself refers to an unspecified period of time, the plural word “days” still refers to a multitude of individual literal days during which Abraham Lincoln lived on earth. In other words, the phrase does NOT refer to a multitude of individual “unspecified periods of time” – but to LITERAL days that occurred during a general, unspecified period of time.
FACT #3… Yahweh Himself told Moses and the Israelites – TWICE (Ex 20:11, 31:17) – that He created heaven, earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days (plural). Since there is no idiomatic use for the plural word “days”, these are undeniably six LITERAL days.
FACT #4… In both of those Biblical direct quotes from God, Yahweh also makes it irrefutably clear that He most certainly means six LITERAL days by directly and explicitly EQUATING the six days of creation with the six LITERAL days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest.
FACT #5… We learn from Genesis 1 that each and every one of these six days contained exactly one evening and one morning – just like every literal day has done since God created days. This adds to the above and makes it beyond any doubt whatsoever that the days of creation were six LITERAL days.
FACT #6… Any time in the Bible – or in history in general – that the word “day” is modified by a number (ie: Day 1, the Second Day, the Fourth Day, etc), it ALWAYS refers to a LITERAL day. For example, “back in the day of Abraham Lincoln” refers to a general period of time, while “back in the THIRD day of Abraham Lincoln” refers to the LITERAL third day of his life.
I’ll finish off these undeniable FACTS with a quick comparison…
Back in the day of Abraham Lincoln, the US Legal System was young, but in six days he created the commonly accepted legal terminology still used today.
The singular word “day” refers to the general period of time during which Lincoln lived on earth. The plural word “days” – especially when modified by the number six – undeniably refers to six LITERAL days during the aforementioned general period of time.
Back in the day of Noah, God caused it to rain on earth for forty days.
The singular word “day” refers to the general period of time during which Noah lived on earth. The plural word “days” – especially when modified by the number forty – undeniably refers to forty LITERAL days during the aforementioned general period of time.
Back in the day when God created our world, He created heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days.
Once again, the singular word “day” refers to the general period of time during which God created our world. The plural word “days” – especially when modified by the number six – undeniably refers to six LITERAL days during the aforementioned general period of time.
Pretender and Gene, keep in mind that these are simply undeniable FACTS, and that facts don’t care about your feelings or your personal wishes for the Bible and Scientism to align.
The Biblical FACTS of the matter are that God most certainly, irrefutably, and undeniably created heaven, earth, sea and everything in them during the course of six LITERAL days – each of which contained a single evening and a single morning.
On the other hand, Scientism tells a story about a big bang and billions of years.
Only one of the two CONFLICTING accounts can be the truth. Which one is it?
Berean: The raqyia of Genesis 1 IS SPECIFIC AND FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE THE SUN, THE MOON AND THE STARS EVOLVE ON IT (UPPER LAYER) AND THE BIRDS ALSO. NOT FORGETTING THE CLOUDS (BOTTOM LAYER)
Proclaimer: What is the main proof you have to support this? Keep it simple please.
Berean: This is what Genesis 1 teaches.
Proclaimer: Bahahaha! Great comeback Berean. You roasted me.
Mike: 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: 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.
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.
So all of these accusations against US (“you misunderstand”, “lacks any critical thinking”, “the sort of answer you get from a kid”, “I believe both him and danny are not very intellectual”, “no ability to reason”) are actually better directed at yourself because they stem from YOUR misunderstanding that Berean’s original comment was even remotely related to your understanding that Gen 1:1 means the heaven and earth already existed – when in reality he was talking specifically about the raqia of heaven?
Let me spell it out for you, dummy. Berean CORRECTLY pointed out that the raqia was created for a specific purpose (dividing the waters below the raqia from the waters above the raqia), and that the sun, moon and stars run their God-appointed circuits over the earth IN that very raqia.
You asked for his proof of this. And he CORRECTLY told you that this is what Genesis 1 teaches.
Everything he said to you was CORRECT. But then you laughed, as if him telling you that this is what the Bible teaches was silly, or some kind of a joke to you.
And then YOU went on a tangent of condescending insults against him and me because you INCORRECTLY got it in your head that Berean was talking about your INCORRECT understanding that Gen 1:1 says heaven and earth already existed – when in reality Berean was only talking about the raqia of Gen 1:7 and 1:14.
It’s very funny for me when a person so filled with pride over what he only imagines is some kind of intellectual superiority that he possesses goes on a tangent against other people – only to find out in the end that HE is the one who was guilty of all the crap he accused the other guys of. 😁😂😅
Anyway, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you all of a sudden keep popping your “Gen 1:1 says the heaven and earth already existed” nonsense into a lot of your responses where that issue wasn’t even being discussed. (I realize that this is because you are trying to put as much distance between you and your failed raqia arguments as quickly as possible, and feel a quick change of subject will do the trick.) Don’t worry, we will definitely be addressing that misunderstanding of yours again soon. (That’s why I’ve been repeatedly asking why your and Gene’s understanding has God creating light after it already existed, creating heaven after it already existed, creating earth after it already existed, and creating the luminaries after they already existed. This isn’t because I DON’T want to talk about that issue, but because I DO want to talk about it.) But everything in due time, Pretender. We’ve just barely finished up with your humiliating defeat on the raqia thing, and I’ve already moved onto the plural “days” thing. Once you suffer your inevitable humiliating defeat on that, we can move on to your inevitable humiliating defeat on Genesis 1:1.
Pretender: 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.
Yep, it really IS that simple. That’s why Berean and Danny both posted information on this subject for you… information that you ignored despite Danny throwing it back in the thread and tagging you 3 or 4 times after he first presented it.
But you ignored it because it hurt your argument, and instead focused on your usual mindless fluff pieces in which you go out of your way to hurl insults at us that are much better suited to yourself. And that’s when he correctly called you out for being the liar and idiot that you truly are, and asked you to cancel his membership here.
Yep… all of that because of something that you now agree is “Simple”. But as usual, let me dumb it down for you…
Heaven WAS created. Therefore, since God was NOT homeless before He created heaven, God was dwelling somewhere OTHER THAN the heaven that He created.
Now here’s where you have a lot of your comprehension problems, so listen carefully…
When God created the raqia and named it “heaven”, it was the ONLY THING that was referred to as “heaven”. It was the solid structure that separated the waters below it (from which the earth was eventually formed) from the waters above it. God then created the luminaries and set them INTO that one and only heaven.
You still with me? Or have I lost you already?
Now… over time, it became common to refer to the atmosplane where the birds fly and where clouds are as the “first heaven”, and to the solid structure of the raqia where the luminaries are with waters above them as the “second heaven”, and to God’s dwelling place – ABOVE the waters that are ABOVE the raqia and therefore ABOVE the luminaries – as the “third heaven”.
Since God’s dwelling place is ABOVE the waters that are ABOVE the raqia that the luminaries are IN – and those waters are the very TOP of our created world – it stands to reason that God’s dwelling place, while now commonly accepted as “heaven” or “the third heaven”, is NOT a part of the physical creation He made for us.
(Read that last paragraph again – as many times as needed for it to sink in.)
See? You were right… Simple. Which means that Berean and Danny were also right when they tried to show you these things weeks ago and you just ignored them.
The only problem is that they simply don’t have the 14 years of practice with you that I have. They are definitely learning how to deal with you, but have not yet mastered the art of having the patience of Job, and being willing to keep repeating the same thing a thousand times – each time dumbed down a little more and eventually adding cartoons – until you get to the point that you’re basically saying, “The cow says moo”. And then, when you finally dumb it down so far that even 3 year olds are rolling their eyes at you, Pretender will finally say, “Oh… now I get it! The cow says moo! Why didn’t you just say that in the first place?” 😂
Yep… it has always been just as “Simple” as you said above. It’s just that it takes US a very long time of patience and painstaking work to get you to the point that you UNDERSTAND just how “Simple” it was all along.
Mike: Berean, 👍🙂🙏😁
Proclaimer: Translation: As long as you support flat earth and myself, I will give you a thumbs up.
See, this is what 14 years of practice does for me. I immediately recognize that your mindless insult-laden fluff piece is your way of admitting defeat while trying to keep your prideful superiority complex intact.
Translation: Mike posted a BRILLIANT commentary on Psalm 148, pointing out that the psalm is broken up into “things of heaven” and “things of earth”, and that CLOUDS are not only among the “things of earth”, but are explicitly distinguished from ‘the waters above heaven” – and therefore can’t possibly be the waters above heaven. There’s no way I can attempt to refute, or even argue against the points he made, since the proof is right there in the scriptural words themselves, and so I have no option but to completely IGNORE his post entirely, and try to somehow find fault and hurl an insult over the fact that Berean THANKED Mike for his brilliant commentary, and Mike thanked Berean for his thanks. That way we’ll be talking about the insult, and not about the undeniable facts in Mike’s brilliant post.
Hey Pretender, I have a better idea… Why don’t you be a man for once and take a stab at actually ADDRESSING my Psalm 148 post instead? After all, I made it into a cartoon just for you…
Pretender…
1. Can you see that the psalm is broken up into “things of heaven” and “things of earth”? YES or NO?
2. Can you see that CLOUDS are explicitly mentioned as something OTHER THAN the “waters above heaven”? YES or NO?
3. Can you see that CLOUDS are listed among the “things of earth”, and not the “things of heaven”? YES or NO?
4. Can you understand that both #2 and #3 eliminate CLOUDS from being the waters ABOVE heaven? YES or NO?
(And now, Berean and Danny, we begin the dance. With any luck, I’ll have Pretender and Gene nailed down to a DIRECT and HONEST answer to these very simple Yes or No questions sometime in 2025. 😎)
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 waters, so instead of one water there is clearly a layer between two waters. Now the atmosphere is clear and you can see the luminaries in the sky. That works right.
What did I just say above? You freaking quoted my words, and then asked a question that was already answered by my words that YOU quoted! 🤣
If you want to ERRONEOUSLY call the raqia “sky” or “skies”, then you must STILL accept that the luminaries are IN it while the waters above are ABOVE it.
Are clouds ABOVE the “sky/skies”, Pretender? For months you and Gene have been arguing as if “above our heads IN the sky” means the same thing as “above the sky”. But even a three year old can understand that there isn’t one sky that is between the earth and the clouds, and then a DIFFERENT sky that is above the clouds. It’s all one sky, dude. And clouds are IN it – not ABOVE it.
Also, how in the world could ADDING a layer of water in the middle of the sky make it EASIER to see the luminaries? Can you see the stars better on a clear night – or a cloudy night? 🙄
Your cloud theory has been thoroughly, scripturally, and repeatedly debunked, Sport. Psalm 148 and Psalm 19 are just the icing on the cake. Directly address those two psalms, and we’ll keep talking about it. Do that not, and it’s time for you to accept your failure, apologize profusely for all the unwarranted insults you’ve hurled at us, and move on to your next imminent failure about the plural word “days”.
Pretender: Because in the beginning, God had already created the heavens and earth…
Slow down, Tiger. We’ll get back into that failure of yours soon enough. First, DIRECTLY and HONESTLY address my last post on Psalm 148… or just be honorable enough to admit that your cloud theory has failed. Then, attempt your first of what I’m sure will be many diversions about my post on “days” from this morning. And then, after you’ve spent all the time you can diverting and deceiving on the “days” issue, we can get into your “God had already created the heavens and earth” misunderstanding once again.
Chop, chop.
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 the first part of God’s creation, just as “in” the beginning” says, and means.
Proclaimer is 100% right, you on the other hand are 100% wrong.
Back to the loony ben , Mike , they let you out to early. IMO. Mike you need to remember the from the “EGALES”, “don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy”.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike………gene
Hi Gene,
Psalm 148 clearly distinguishes clouds as something OTHER THAN the waters above heaven.
What is your response to that Biblical fact?
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 ignore them. To any same person, you lost this ages ago and destroyed any credibility you had as a teacher. You’re done.
You are just showing us how stupid you can be in every post. At least there is some entertainment factor. You are that person who thinks they can sing in X Factor.
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 WRECKED by the facts!” 😁
We call that a non-sequitur (the latter doesn’t logically follow the former).
I would have loved to see your acknowledgment followed by a very long and sincere string of apologies for calling us every name in the book, ridiculing us, and costing us MONTHS of our time just to eventually arrive at the same place we could have been in two days if you had only directly and honestly addressed our points in the first place. But it is what it is, right?
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.
Why not go all in on this newfound honesty thing, and just openly acknowledge that the Biblical account of our world simply doesn’t align with the Scientism account of our world?
After all, you’ll end up there eventually anyway – after a few months of kicking and screaming about the six literal days of creation, the fact that the sun moves over the earth, not the earth around the sun, and a bunch of other stuff I can bring up to show the many contradictions between the Bible and Scientism. So why not just save us both a lot of time and acknowledge this fact now?
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 scientifically.
But not one view including your view of water outside the cosmos is exclusive to the flat earth model.
Need I remind you that you have lost because water outside the cosmos has zero bearing on the shape of our planet.
Back to the drawing board Mike. Lol.
Mike, you are desperately 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?
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?
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. The simplest explanation of waters above the expanse is clouds. The basic meaning for the expanse is the sky. The clouds can truly be said to be above the sky/atmosphere and yet at the same time in the sky/atmosphere if the context includes the stars above. The Book of Proverbs speaks of God establishing the clouds in the sky at the creation.
When He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep
It also appears that the pre-Flood earth may have had a water vapor canopy that covered the planet. Scientifically speaking, there are many examples of gigantism in the fossil record. Further, mammoths have been found completely frozen in tundra. A sudden change in climate? The pre-flood world seems to be a world where the climate was warmer and a climate more beneficial to life in general. If so, then there the waters above was more profound than today.
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 the entire cosmos after all” argument with Noah’s flood.
Name the one that I DIDN’T debunk.
Sounds to me that after acknowledging that you were wrong all this time, you didn’t like the taste of it when you went back and read it a second time, and so you are now trying to flip-flop once again like you’ve been doing for months already.
Dude, you lost. Either come to grips with it and honestly admit it, or get to addressing Psalm 148 that clearly distinguishes the clouds as something OTHER THAN the waters above heaven.
If you want to keep going with your nonsense on the raqia issue, I’m game. I have the patience of Job when it comes to bringing you to your knees like I told you I would when you started telling lies about the Bible.
So what’s it going to be, Champ? Did you concede the point with a “well it still doesn’t mean the earth is flat” comment? Or do you still have a little “clouds are the waters above” fight left in you?
I’m not going anywhere. Bring it.
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 heaven” and “things of earth”? YES or NO?
2. Can you see that CLOUDS are explicitly mentioned as something OTHER THAN the “waters above heaven”? YES or NO?
3. Can you see that CLOUDS are listed among the “things of earth”, and not the “things of heaven”? YES or NO?
4. Can you understand that both #2 and #3 eliminate CLOUDS from being the waters ABOVE heaven? YES or NO?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
