@Asforme&myhouse He is our mana from heaven
Euphemisms, imagery, metaphors, all still mean something. Yet there isn't a single metaphor used in the creation account.So He is literally bread?
Euphemisms, imagery, metaphors, all still mean something. Yet there isn't a single metaphor used in the creation account.
To call the Antichrist the beast, doesn't mean that he is a literal beast, but that he is one, in some way. This is what it means to understand language. If a man runs like a cheetah, of course he doesn't, it is impossible to, but it does mean that he is very fast like one.
Jesus isn't literally bread, but he is our mana from heaven, sent by God. He is like the bread that the israellites needed to live, when they were in the wilderness.
Yet none of this has anything to do with that. Unless you believe the creation account is just one big metaphor. But by that point, you get to pick and choose what is literal or not. Ken Ham surely doesn't believe that Genesis is a metaphor, and not meant to be taken literal.
I don't see how God putting a firmament in water could be made into a metaphor. Especially as it is consistent throughout the bible all the way to the book of Revelation.
Yeah agree to disagree to all of that. I laid out in plain terms how all that is biblically wrong. I started with the understanding you have of the world, and chose what the bible says, over it. We don't have to agree at all. It's all good bro.I think you are doing what you accuse others of doing with “science”. You’ve painted a picture in your mind of what you think the text is depicting and that mental picture blocks your ability to see it from any other perspective. The other side could be doing that too, however, it makes far more sense to interpret what we read taking what we can see and study into account. You are interpreting what you read about creation based on something that cannot be seen or studied or tested. If I told you that watermelons are blue on the inside until you break the skin, how would you prove me wrong? You couldn’t disprove what I said, but it doesn’t necessarily make my statement true. Likewise what you are saying hasn’t been observed or demonstrated, we just have to take your word for it. The statements in Genesis fit perfectly fine with a globe and a canopy of water around it that came down during the flood. There is nothing there that would indicate infinite water in all directions, that is your imaginative presumption. In fact the text mentions the surface of said water indicating it was not infinite. Since it is not infinite then what prevents it from simply being a canopy? Or by the same token the entire solar system and galaxies could exist within an outer shell of water beyond the edge of the known universe. You don’t even offer any proof of the shape of the earth and say that it isn’t important, but that just seems lazy to me. If the globe model is a lie that denigrates Scripture then why don’t you do the work of seeking out the truth and bring forth the evidence scientifically. If it was known for centuries that the earth is just the set of the Truman Show and that fact has been concealed by evil men, then go disprove it with actual evidence. If the satellite photos are doctored or edited wouldn’t it be the frontier of discovery to send up your own satellite or balloons and document what is really there? What see and observe of the universe fits Genesis. If you want to change people’s minds and change the current state of understanding, bring some evidence.
No, you chose one interpretation of what the Bible says. To illustrate:I started with the understanding you have of the world, and chose what the bible says, over it.
The concepts that the creation account is entirely metaphorical (standard theistic evolution), largely literal but using some metaphorical language (standard creationism), and completely literal down to the last word (your perspective), are three different interpretations of what the Bible says. All proponents of all three of them stand firmly on the words of scripture and say "this is what the Bible says". You have not simply chosen what the Bible says, you have chosen your interpretation of what it says.Euphemisms, imagery, metaphors, all still mean something. Yet there isn't a single metaphor used in the creation account.
Ok, please explain to me this passage...No, you chose one interpretation of what the Bible says. To illustrate:
The concepts that the creation account is entirely metaphorical (standard theistic evolution), largely literal but using some metaphorical language (standard creationism), and completely literal down to the last word (your perspective), are three different interpretations of what the Bible says. All proponents of all three of them stand firmly on the words of scripture and say "this is what the Bible says". You have not simply chosen what the Bible says, you have chosen your interpretation of what it says.
The question is therefore not just "what does the Bible say", the question is "what do those words MEAN". Obviously these interpretations can't be all true. Which is most reasonable?
You agree that metaphorical language is used some places in scripture. Where is the line between metaphor and fact? That is a matter for legitimate debate, not outright dismissal.
As what you are saying is but one interpretation of scripture, and you have presented zero evidence that this interpretation is correct other than asserting it is so, at this stage the only reasonable thing to do is to reject it in favour of another interpretation which aligns with more evidence.
Understanding biblical cosmology isn't essential. Ken Ham shares plenty of great things, I just think he's wrong here. To me, he just doesn't know that he doesn't know. I've been there myself on the exact same topic. He isn't apart of some conspiracy or something setting out to deceive people, he is just swept up in cultural thought. For any apologist I'm sure it is hard to come to these conclusions, surrounded by academics. There are actually some apologists that know that the scriptures say this, yet deny the truth.
I love the man wholeheartedly, he is my brother. I would sit and eat and laugh with him any day of the week. The same with you, even if we disagreed about this. Christ is what unites all of us.
Mudflood and mountains/cities that look like they’ve been melted from possibly Armageddon:What evidence of a major cataclysm are you talking about? Do you mean all the geological evidence of a global flood that most would say was evidence of the flood of Noah?
If earth was recreated during this time, how come it is not mentioned in any historical writings? There are vast numbers of historical writings from the past 2000 years. Has every single historical record been falsified?
Thanks man, but I just don't need the video. The scriptures alone are enough to inform my worldview. They're good to get the ball rolling for others, I appreciate you though.
This video does a good job of exposing the deception and showing evidence of the flat earth model.
I meant that video for someone else. That’s completely fine if we don’t agree on everything. I’m the same way - scripture comes first.Thanks man, but I just don't need the video. The scriptures alone are enough to inform my worldview. They're good to get the ball rolling for others, I appreciate you though.
Some of the other things you wrote I don't agree with. The whole second coming thing. I definitely don't, and we can speak on that one of these days maybe in a private message. Tataria and mudflood I've looked into. Seems interesting but not totally convinced.
You realize we don’t have one photo from outer space that shows the earth, right? Each and every picture is cgi. Nasa means deceive in Hebrew. NASA doesn’t even have the technology to get to the moon anymore. “They lost it.” They even mistakingly said it’s impossible to go to outer space because of the radiation. The van Allen belts. They have to solve those challenges first before sending anyone up there. I have the videos of these comments - straight from nasa.I think you are doing what you accuse others of doing with “science”. You’ve painted a picture in your mind of what you think the text is depicting and that mental picture blocks your ability to see it from any other perspective. The other side could be doing that too, however, it makes far more sense to interpret what we read taking what we can see and study into account. You are interpreting what you read about creation based on something that cannot be seen or studied or tested. If I told you that watermelons are blue on the inside until you break the skin, how would you prove me wrong? You couldn’t disprove what I said, but it doesn’t necessarily make my statement true. Likewise what you are saying hasn’t been observed or demonstrated, we just have to take your word for it. The statements in Genesis fit perfectly fine with a globe and a canopy of water around it that came down during the flood. There is nothing there that would indicate infinite water in all directions, that is your imaginative presumption. In fact the text mentions the surface of said water indicating it was not infinite. Since it is not infinite then what prevents it from simply being a canopy? Or by the same token the entire solar system and galaxies could exist within an outer shell of water beyond the edge of the known universe. You don’t even offer any proof of the shape of the earth and say that it isn’t important, but that just seems lazy to me. If the globe model is a lie that denigrates Scripture then why don’t you do the work of seeking out the truth and bring forth the evidence scientifically. If it was known for centuries that the earth is just the set of the Truman Show and that fact has been concealed by evil men, then go disprove it with actual evidence. If the satellite photos are doctored or edited wouldn’t it be the frontier of discovery to send up your own satellite or balloons and document what is really there? What see and observe of the universe fits Genesis. If you want to change people’s minds and change the current state of understanding, bring some evidence.
Could you provide any evidence for this? Everywhere I see nasa or nasah in the Hebrew texts it is translated as some form of carry, take, pardon, or sustain. I don't see it ever used to mean deceit or anything similar.Nasa means deceive in Hebrew.
The way we know what important words in scripture mean, is to let scripture interpret scripture. The obvious example being the word "yom" for day. In a lexicon, that word can mean a day, or a longer period of time. The reason we know that in Genesis 1 it means a day is because God intentionally defines it for us in Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here the word "yom" is defined as being the light portion of the light/dark cycle we call a day. So we know that creation truly occurred in six literal 24-hour days, because there is no ambiguity.“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”
Genesis 1:6-9
I see how you're seeing firmament. To lay out some points. We know the firmament is hard because it is placed into water, and then after there are two bodies of water being separated. These two bodies of water is spoken of in the verse I asked you to explain. Pardon me if I threw too many questions at you. The first verse I asked you to explain was Gen 1:2.@b_ce, you've asked a lot of questions, I'm not going to address every point, just jump to the heart of the matter.
The way we know what important words in scripture mean, is to let scripture interpret scripture. The obvious example being the word "yom" for day. In a lexicon, that word can mean a day, or a longer period of time. The reason we know that in Genesis 1 it means a day is because God intentionally defines it for us in Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here the word "yom" is defined as being the light portion of the light/dark cycle we call a day. So we know that creation truly occurred in six literal 24-hour days, because there is no ambiguity.
The firmament is also defined clearly and unambiguously in the passage that you yourself have cited. "And God called the firmament Heaven". The words "heaven" and "firmament" are synonymous, because "heaven" is simply the name for the firmament. So what is "heaven" (šāmayim, H8064)?
That too we can find directly from scripture. If we look at other instances of the word "heaven", we immediately find that heaven is what the birds fly in (1:20). As a result, flying birds are repeatedly called the "fowl of the air/heaven" (1:26,28,30). And heaven is where the stars and planets are (1:14-17).
In other words, the firmament of heaven is the space above us, including both the atmosphere and the space beyond the atmosphere containing the heavenly bodies. According to Genesis 1 (and many other places in scripture, but Genesis 1 is sufficient), where it is defined unambigously.
Now, I agree it is strange that the word "firmament" is used for this. That word does appear to have the connotation of a hard, thin sheet of something. Yet it cannot be a hard surface, because birds are said to fly in it, and birds cannot fly "in" a hard surface. So we must not rely on lexicons and scholars to define theology for us, we must rely on the Bible. And Genesis itself clearly defines this word as meaning, at least in the context of Genesis 1, the air. Whatever the scholars might say, we have to stick to scripture and trust that.
And God speaks to us from heaven. Now, have you ever heard someone describe hearing the voice of God, or even heard his voice audibly yourself? Whenever this occurs, people describe it as hearing a voice just beside them, out of the air. When the Bible says that God speaks "from heaven", it doesn't mean he shouts down with a megaphone from miles up in the sky. It means that he speaks "from the air".
So where is heaven? Heaven is basically everywhere - everywhere that is not otherwise defined as "earth", everything that you would call "up". Heaven is where God lives, and God is omnipresent - He is everywhere. As the vast majority of the universe is not "earth" but "heaven", we say that God lives in "heaven" - and He speaks to us from heaven, or from the air.
Regarding "Hell", that's tricky to answer as I'm not sure what you mean - the word "hell" is a catch-all term for several different concepts. But it's usually used for Sheol, the grave. The grave is down, because we bury people down in the ground in graves. It's simply the place of the dead, and that place is in the earth. If you however meant the lake of fire when you said "hell", that does not exist yet so we don't need to locate it, I do not know where that will be (though I have theories).
No, because God created the heavens and the "earth". Earth is not water. The earth appears to have been covered in water, but this water had a surface, as the Spirit of God was moving "over the face" of the water. This cannot describe an infinite ocean of water, as that would have no surface (the spirit would be described as moving "through the water" not "over the face of the water"). Nor would it ever be described as "earth" - earth is basically the opposite of water. To me, it reads that He simply created a planet covered in water.The first verse I asked you to explain was Gen 1:2.
iIn that verse there is only water and God. Would you agree with that?
So in creating the heavens and the earth, it is just like when He created man and woman. He lays out the process and then goes into how it is done. Genesis 1 is the summary. Starting from Genesis 2 is how it all went down. In 2 there is only water, the earth is void, right? He is hovering over the face of the water, it is a deep. No earth yet even though it is mentioned in Gen 1. He hasn't gotten to describing just how He placed it.No, because God created the heavens and the "earth". Earth is not water. The earth appears to have been covered in water, but this water had a surface, as the Spirit of God was moving "over the face" of the water. This cannot describe an infinite ocean of water, as that would have no surface (the spirit would be described as moving "through the water" not "over the face of the water"). Nor would it ever be described as "earth" - earth is basically the opposite of water. To me, it reads that He simply created a planet covered in water.