- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
- Posts
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!
Thank you. but I never denied such in the first place. I simply stated that God called the raqia – heavens. Accepting that would be real progress. I have accepted it. Personally speaking, and God is my witness, my opinion was the raqia being most likely the first and second heaven. And I have argued with this in mind and said that context would determine which one. You have never heard me state that the throne room of God is raqia. I have alluded to the possibility by stating that God called the raqia – heaven, but never stated it specifically as a truth that the highest heaven is raqia.
Honestly Mike, your words are the words of someone who lost. Losers often become picky and make assumptions that are not true to try and make their opponent look wrong once their arguments have failed.
Pretender: Blah, blah, blah… bring back the sun… blah, blah, blah.
I’ve explained my rules, right? You refused to follow them, right? The subject is closed UNTIL you follow those rules. End of story.
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.
Once again you are making false assumptions. Read my post again. I am stating that men say things in the bible that are not true, but historically true. So it is possible that even a man of God may state something from his limited understanding and such may not be for establishing doctrine. That said, I am also not saying he is wrong. I am trying to remind you that you need to be critical, reasonable, and understand the context. But you lack all these. I speak the truth about this Mike. I think it is time for you to meditate on your current state of being and ask God for help.
Pretender: Personally speaking, and God is my witness, my opinion was the raqia being most likely the first and second heaven.
Okay. I guess it’s fine by me if you want to think the ONE raqia is BOTH the first AND second heavens. Just remember that it still all boils down to one very simple thing…
The sun, moon and stars are IN the raqia, and the waters above are ABOVE the entire raqia. Not “in the middle of the raqia”, but ABOVE the raqia itself.
So if you think the raqia is the first and second heaven together, then you just need to tell us what the waters ABOVE the first and second heaven are.
I’ve explained my rules, right? You refused to follow them, right? The subject is closed UNTIL you follow those rules. End of story.
Let me translate this for you. You cannot bring back the sun.
I wonder why? Maybe because the heliocentric model is true and you cannot bring back the biggest physical light in the cosmos from our point of view. Yet somehow, your compatriots can bring back small boats.
Something isn’t adding up is it?
Lol.
Mike, the more you argue, the more I win.
You are making me more of a winner.
But I don’t take the credit myself because I have to admit that arguing for the truth is easy.
Telling lies and more lies to cover those lies is difficult.
This is why you are consistently losing mike.
I win, you lose.
Pretender: I am stating that men say things in the bible that are not true…
We’re talking about a writer OF scripture making HIS OWN claim about our Biblical earth. We’re NOT talking about a writer of scripture QUOTING Satan or someone else telling a lie.
You are trying to conflate the two, and I’m merely exposing your flawed plan.
So focus ONLY on the claims that the writer of Psalm 148 made – ON HIS OWN, not quoting someone else – about there being waters above the heavens. Is that CLAIM true or false?
Pretender: I am also not saying he is wrong.
Okay, then you ARE saying he is right. Great. Then please tell us what and where these waters above the heavens are. Thanks.
The sun, moon and stars are IN the raqia, and the waters above are ABOVE the entire raqia.
Nope. That raqia is the division created by the waters only.
God had already created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
Sky is what we see when we look up. It is obvious that the clouds are in the sky and stars are in the sky. Speaking of the waters, one layer of water is above the raqia. And speaking of the stars, they are in the raqia.
Further, clouds cover heaven and God called the raqia – heaven. So that points to the first heaven at least.
These are the facts.
Pretender: I win, you lose.
Really?
Mike: Here’s a way you and I can actually have a respectable discussion about this issue.
Pretender: NO! I’m not interested in an actual discussion about it because I know you’ll just keep exposing my faulty premise like you already did when you addressed it the first four times!
But sure, Tiger… you’re the big winner here. 😉👌
Okay, then you ARE saying he is right. Great. Then please tell us what and where these waters above the heavens are. Thanks.
Nope. I am reminding you that you need to be careful about establishing doctrine from such words. If we did that with all words in the bible, then we would need to craft a doctrine about Jesus having a demon. That is the point. The fact that you cannot grasp my point only further reinforces to us that you cannot fathom many things.
Tiger: I am the winner
Mike: Here’s a video of a man who is a potential shapeshifter. Look at his eyes when he blinks.
That is pretty much what has happened here.
Mike: Okay, then you ARE saying he is right. Great. Then please tell us what and where these waters above the heavens are. Thanks.
Pretender: Nope. I am reminding you that you need to be careful about establishing doctrine from such words.
Actually, you’re trying to stall. Just tell me plainly if the writer of Psalm 148 was right or wrong about there being waters above the heavens.
He would be right if we are talking about the first heaven. He does also say that the clouds cover the heavens after all.
If he is talking about the second heaven, then he may or may not be right. But if he was right and there is water outside the cosmos, then we haven’t discovered it yet. But this has no bearing on the shape of the earth, so you have lost. This is not evidence the earth is flat is it.
Back to the drawing board Mike. Take as much time as you need.
Mike: The sun, moon and stars are IN the raqia, and the waters above are ABOVE the entire raqia.
Proclaimer: Nope.
Okay, here we go again…
Genesis 1:7… Thus God made the raqia, and divided the waters which were under the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia.
Very simple question: Does this scripture say there are waters above the raqia itself? Yes or No?
Genesis 1:14-17… Then God said, Let there be lights in the raqia of the heavens… God set them in the raqia of the heavens…
Very simple question: Does this scripture say God placed the luminaries IN the raqia of the heavens? Yes or No?
Now, an HONEST man would just simply answer these questions directly and honestly. But what will Pretender do? 🤔
Pretender: He would be right if we are talking about the first heaven…
And what does the context tell us? He has intentionally broken the psalm up into “things of heaven” and “things of earth”. The sun, moon, stars and waters above the heavens are all listed in the “things of heaven” category, while he lists clouds, not only in the “things of earth” category, but also as something OTHER THAN the waters above the heavens.
So… Was he talking about the first heaven when he mentioned the waters above the heavens? Come on, Tiger… you can do this.
Pretender: If he is talking about the second heaven, then he may or may not be right.
He is CLEARLY talking about the second heaven… but we want a DEFINITIVE answer from you. Was the writer of Psalm 148 right or wrong when he spoke of waters above the heavens?
Pretender: But if he was right and there is water outside the cosmos, then we haven’t discovered it yet.
What do you mean “if” he was right? Are you saying it’s possible that he was WRONG? Yes or No?
Mike, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Life is short and we will meet our maker soon enough.
But you can only change while you are here.
Be wise and take advantage of the time you have left.
At some point, all that precious time will be gone.
What do you mean “if” he was right? Are you saying it’s possible that he was WRONG? Yes or No?
David would not have been a perfect man. He may be right or wrong if he had an opinion on the cosmos and was referring to the second heaven specifically.
In that case, I cannot verify it if would be true because Webb Telescope has not imaged a water layer outside the cosmos itself. If that happens, then I could be definite in my answer. But even if there was a water layer outside the cosmos, he could still be referring to the first heaven where there is also a water layer.
Regardless, the earth is not flat and you have offered no verifiable evidence to prove your beliefs regarding that. Your raqia ramblings have zero bearing on the shape of our planet.
So yes, you have lost. You have no argument.
Either bring back the sun or take a long hard look in the mirror.
Genesis 1:7… Thus God made the raqia, and divided the waters which were under the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia.
Very simple question: Does this scripture say there are waters above the raqia itself? Yes or No?
Genesis 1:14-17… Then God said, Let there be lights in the raqia of the heavens… God set them in the raqia of the heavens…
Very simple question: Does this scripture say God placed the luminaries IN the raqia of the heavens? Yes or No?
Mike, this has been answered a ton of times. Stop being a mental case about it and accept my answers as my answers.
- If the biblical word can only mean ‘above’ then yes, the scripture would be stating that. It might have other meanings for all I know. If it is ‘above’ only, then he could be referring to the first heaven. After all, clouds cover the heaven/s according to another patriarch – David.
- I think yes, but I believe they already existed, but they appeared in the raqia. Placement of something and creation of something is two different things.
God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. And verse 2 is about a formless earth. So earth already existed from Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 we see earth being mentioned again. So that means the heavens already existed too.
Simple.
I know you will try and refute or ignore the truth of the matter, but that is your decision. I only respect the truth and the truth is that the earth already existed, thus the heavens did as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
