- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
- Posts
Like what? I debunked your “multiple raqias” argument.
Nope. Your being stupid again.
You have not debunked my multiple heavens idea and God called the raqia – heaven.
You have no answer. Cat got your tongue again?
waters above the heavens
Could be first heaven. There are at least three.
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.
Scripture has debunked most of your ideas Mike.
Proclaimer: Mike you guys claim to bring back small boats from over the supposed curve. Great. Now for something easier. Bring back the sun.
Cat got your tongue?
Not at all. I’ve already addressed this many times. Find one of those posts, QUOTE what I said to you, and then respond to what I said. You do it that way, and I’m happy to have a lengthy and respectable discussion about this issue.
See, here’s the thing… I’m not going to post a response, have you completely ignore it, only for me to post another response every time you decide to bring the same thing up again.
So, you brought it up. I posted a response a month ago. Then you brought it up again, and I posted another response. And then a third time, and a fourth. I will NOT keep doing that.
On the other hand, if you find one of those other times that I addressed it, QUOTE my words, and then question me on the argument I made or expose my argument as faulty, we can keep discussing it to your satisfaction.
Do you understand my rules? Good. Now don’t bring it up again unless your post includes AND ADDRESSES some my previous responses to it.
Can you see that CLOUDS are explicitly mentioned as something OTHER THAN the “waters above heaven”? YES or NO?
David or whoever is praising God and is speaking from his own understanding. Whether it is the waters above or the waters from above is not that clear IMO. According to the Psalmist, the clouds cover the heavens. So when you look up and see clouds, then the heavens being spoken of could well be what is below the clouds. I think that is the first heaven. Further, we know that God called the raqia – heaven.
7 Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving;
Sing praises to our God on the lyre,
8 Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who provides rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountains.Not at all. I’ve already addressed this many times. Find one of those posts, QUOTE what I said to you, and then respond to what I said. You do it that way, and I’m happy to have a lengthy and respectable discussion about this issue.
Nope, neither you or any other flattie has a video of bringing back the sun after it has gone over the curve. Deep down you know this is true. But keep lying to yourself Mike if you want. But that makes you the loser right?
Pretender: Nope. Your being stupid again.
You have not debunked my multiple heavens idea and God called the raqia – heaven.
You have no answer. Cat got your tongue again?
Multiple times and in multiple ways, Sport. But I tell you what, don’t make this claim again until you are ready to INCLUDE my arguments in your post, and debunk them.
See, when YOU make an argument, I break it down into segments. I quote a piece of YOUR argument, and my rebuttal to it. Then another piece of YOUR argument, and my rebuttal to it. And so on and so forth – sometimes breaking your post up into 10 different segments so that it’s clear that I’ve included and responded to all of your claims – and debunked them.
Why don’t YOU try that in the future? Don’t make a claim, ignore my debunking of that claim, and then come back and make the claim again saying that I HAVEN’T debunked it. Put your money where your mouth is, Sonny. Quote my responses to your multiple raqias argument, and then debunk MY responses one at a time.
Here, I’ll give you a freebie…
1. How many raqias are actually mentioned in the Bible?
2. Can there be more than one of them if it is always singular and preceded by the definite article (ie: always “THE raqia”)?
3. Can there be more than one of them if it is many times called “THE raqia OF heaven”?
4. Can “the heavens” be “the raqias” when David clearly distinguishes “the heavens” from “THE raqia” in Psalm 19…
“The heavens declare the glory of God… AND… THE raqia shows His handiwork.” ?
So there ya go, Champ. Don’t ever bring up your “multiple raqias” idea again until you have ADDRESSED and DEBUNKED all of these 4 points above. Understand? Quote my #1, directly address and debunk it. Then quote my #2, directly address and debunk it. Then quote my #3, directly address and debunk it. Then quote my #4, directly address it and debunk it.
Do that FIRST, and THEN we can talk more about it. Until that time, your “multiple raqias” idea has been thoroughly and scripturally debunked.
How many raqias are actually mentioned in the Bible?
As many as the contexts.
How many heavens?
As many as the contexts too.
And God called the raqia – heaven.
Boom!
“The heavens declare the glory of God… AND… THE raqia shows His handiwork.” ?
If the raqia is called heaven, but lets say specifically a part of the heavens, then good. That doesn’t prove the earth is a floating pizza does it? It would only mean that the raqia was then the first and second heavens. So context would explain which one. This supports what I have been saying all along.
Proclaimer: …waters above the heavens
Could be first heaven…
Scripture has debunked most of your ideas Mike.
I see. So “waters above the heavens” (PLURAL) could mean “waters above the first heaven” (SINGULAR)? Is that your argument here? It’s like I’m talking to a freaking idiot. Hey, put your 12 year old son on the phone. Let me talk to a reasonable person for a while.
I see. So “waters above the heavens” (PLURAL) could mean “waters above the first heaven” (SINGULAR)? Is that your argument here? It’s like I’m talking to a freaking idiot. Hey, put your 12 year old son on the phone. Let me talk to a reasonable person for a while.
Could be, except the plural and singular argument you just made is another topic.
7 Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving;
Sing praises to our God on the lyre,
8 Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who provides rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountainsHey, put your 12 year old son on the phone. Let me talk to a reasonable person for a while.
As long as you don’t mind him laughing. You have provided my family free entertainment, so I guess he could thank you for that.
Mike: Can you see that CLOUDS are explicitly mentioned as something OTHER THAN the “waters above heaven”? YES or NO?
Pretender: David or whoever is praising God and is speaking from his own understanding.
Atta boy! I knew I could get you there again if I remained persistent enough. Phew!
So then what you’re saying is that this particular line of the Bible is WRONG, right? It does NOT reflect the reality of our world, but was a mistake made by an ignorant goat herder who was just telling thing the way he understood them in light of his primitive flat earth worldview, right?
Please say it again… louder, prouder, and more clearly for us. Thanks.
Clouds above / in the heavens
“Drip down, O heavens, from above,
And let the clouds pour down righteousness;
Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit,
And righteousness spring up with it.
I, the Lord, have created it.Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving;
Sing praises to our God on the lyre,
Who covers the heavens with clouds,“Look at the heavens and see;
And behold the clouds—they are higher than you.“He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.Mike: I’ve already addressed this many times. Find one of those posts, QUOTE what I said to you, and then respond to what I said. You do it that way, and I’m happy to have a lengthy and respectable discussion about this issue.
Proclaimer: Nope…
Suit yourself. The three people who read this thread (out of the 5 total members of this forum) have now heard what you need to do, and how you refuse to do that. I will just ignore any future “bring back the sun” posts from you, because it’s clear that we COULD have that discussion if only YOU were willing to.
I tend to steer clear of wild goose chases.
The important thing here is you cannot bring back the sun because it has set. Even scripture says the sun sets. You say it means something else, but refuse to bring back the sun and put this to bed. But you are happy to show small boats brought back into view that never went over the horizon in the first place.
Mike, you are debunked. You lose. You look stupid. I am not sure how else to say it. But you have zero proof of the flat earth and have been shown indisputable proof that the earth is a globe.
So then what you’re saying is that this particular line of the Bible is WRONG, right?
Recording what a person says does not make the bible wrong.
The Pharisees said, “Jesus uses the power of Beelzebul to force demons out of people.
However, I am not even saying that David was wrong. He says clouds cover the heavens. Thus the context of heavens is below the clouds.
He may or may not be wrong. I’m reminding you that you do not read the bible as stating all statements made as 100% truth. The truthful part sometimes is the history not the statement. Otherwise the bible teaches that Jesus had a demon. You need to read the bible through different eyes mike. Your eyes are not working. You are lacking in critical thinking and have no ability to reason. Your processes are flawed deeply.
Mike: “The heavens declare the glory of God… AND… THE raqia shows His handiwork.”
Proclaimer: If the raqia is called heaven, but lets say specifically a part of the heavens, then good.
Notice how you’re speaking scripturally now. You’re correctly calling it THE raqia, and distinguishing it FROM “the heavens” in general by acknowledging that it is a particular part OF “the heavens”. That’s BIG progress!
Proclaimer: That doesn’t prove the earth is a floating pizza does it?
Nope… it doesn’t.
Proclaimer: It would only mean that the raqia was then the first and second heavens. So context would explain which one.
The raqia is the particular part of heaven that has the sun, moon and stars IN it, and the waters ABOVE it.
So if you claim it is the first heaven and that the clouds are the waters above it, then you must also claim that the sun, moon and stars are between the sea and the clouds.
On the other hand, if you claim it is the second heaven, where the sun, moon and stars actually are, then you’d be correct – but you’d also have to come up with what the waters above the sun, moon and stars are in your model.
That’s really all there is to it after all this time, Pretender. It’s all there has ever been to it. Don’t you feel a little silly for dragging something so simple out for months?
Pretender: Blah, blah blah… bring back the sun… blah, blah, blah.
You know my rules. Get to it or leave it alone.
It proves deep down, you have no confidence in your own theory. If you did, you would bring back the sun and the whole world would be in wonder. But you would prefer not to win, but instead argue about a raqia that in itself is zero proof that the world is flat.
I’m not buying it. But I can clearly see the ramblings of a man who lost.
Pretender: Recording what a person says does not make the bible wrong.
The Pharisees said, “Jesus uses the power of Beelzebul to force demons out of people.
And what’s wrong about that Biblical statement above? Are you arguing that the Pharisees DIDN’T say what the Bible records them as saying?
Pretender: You are lacking in critical thinking and have no ability to reason.
BOOMERANG! More insults from a person who is literally speaking about HIMSELF! 😅😂🤣
Only a clown would think that the Bible recording what the Pharisees actually DID say is somehow the Bible being wrong.
Now, back to Psalm 148… did the author say, “The devil says there are waters above the heavens”? No. The writer of Ps 148 made HIS OWN claim that there are waters above the heavens, and that clouds are not those waters, but distinguished FROM those waters.
So… was the writer of that psalm wrong or not?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
