Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[dad]

By that logic you or him doesn't know if Krishna or Thor was real either. But it's reasonable to believe they were fiction. Believers can say it's real all day but it's not supported by scholars.

What the fact was was that it was recorded in Scripture and not something I made up.

Can you give an example of some scientists hating other beliefs and denigrating them?

It is science...not scientists. The parts of science that claim to deal in origins put out stories that are very opposed to Scripture, obviously.

Just because someone doesn't believe something that isn't hating and denigrating?

True. That someone may just be ignorant or misinformed or etc. Here we are dealing with systematic claims of so called science. Also on this forum, we have seen posters denigrating the bible and creation and believers.

Ecco doesn't think god lied about creation he believes they are writings made by men, same as any other religious scripture. And the men did not yet understand biology and other sciences. While you may disagree that seems fairly easy to comprehend?

It so happens that poster also routinely expresses anti bible/God views rather than addressing issues here. I do not really care what he or anyone else believes. The issue is offering beliefs as science!

 

[ecco]

The fact that Scripture records John being carried away across time to the future is not made up or a story, it is Scripture.

Then why don't you quote the passages you are referring to? Are we to take your word for it, like you want us to with everything you post?

Since God talked directly to Moses, it is not reasonable to claim that some peek at the creation of Genesis may not have been given to him.

May have been? May have been certainly implies that you do not know. Is this where you are going to make up another far fetched story?

You need to simply admit you do not know, which is very hard for evos I know.

I know that Jack chopped down the beanstalk.
I know the other Jack tumbled down a hill.
I know Humpty Dumpty fell off a wall.

But I don't know what fairy tale you are referring to. That isn't at all hard for me to admit. See - I just admitted I do not know what fairy tale you are referring to. So, once again, you lied.

 

[dad]

Then why don't you quote the passages you are referring to? Are we to take your word for it, like you want us to with everything you post?

They are found in the short book of Revelation. That is the last book in the bible in case you have trouble finding it.

May have been? May have been certainly implies that you do not know. Is this where you are going to make up another far fetched story?

Knowing the way God operated in the bible, it is a reasoned assumption that Moses, who directly talked to God may have been given glimpses of what he was writing about.

But I don't know what fairy tale you are referring to. That isn't at all hard for me to admit. See - I just admitted I do not know what fairy tale you are referring to. So, once again, you lied.

Then do not debate what you know nothing about, another good tip for evos!

 

[sooda]

They are found in the short book of Revelation. That is the last book in the bible in case you have trouble finding it.




Knowing the way God operated in the bible, it is a reasoned assumption that Moses, who directly talked to God may have been given glimpses of what he was writing about.



Then do not debate what you know nothing about, another good tip for evos!

Apocalyptic literature was very popular for about 300 years. Revelation is an older Jewish piece that was adapted.

 

[ecco]

Actually is everyone got saved, we all would be in heaven already. So cut the hate speech and focus on debating substance. We get it that you seize up and cannot speak reasonably when it comes to other religions, but this is a public forum.

Debating substance? You want to talk about debating substance? You? You make up stories that no one -atheists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, believes. When you have something of substance to discuss, bring it on.

So that means God lied about creation??

Not at all. It means that the relatively ignorant mortal men that wrote the stories that were compiled into what you call scripture made up stories just like you make up stories to justify their stories. You want to believe the stories of bumpkin goat herders who thought they could set the spots on goats and sheep by having certain trees nearby when they were bred.

This is the kind of nonsense you believe in. It's beyond childish.

 

[ecco]

They are found in the short book of Revelation. That is the last book in the bible in case you have trouble finding it.

You stated:

The fact that Scripture records John being carried away across time to the future is not made up or a story, it is Scripture.​

It is noted that you could not cite the passage that supports your comment. Rather than accuse, I'll ask - did you lie?

Knowing the way God operated in the bible, it is a reasoned assumption that Moses, who directly talked to God may have been given glimpses of what he was writing about.

Saying "it is a reasoned assumption" is just as weak as your previous comments. Why do you need to assume anything? You claim to know the Bible.

Then do not debate what you know nothing about, another good tip for evos!

You have confused knowledge with a need to agree with you.

However, you do not take your own advice. For example, you make comments about time that are completely nonsensical. When asked for scripture to support your Biblical comments, you duck and dodge.

 

[dad]

Apocalyptic literature was very popular for about 300 years. Revelation is an older Jewish piece that was adapted.

In your mind that could be the case.

 

[dad]

Debating substance? You want to talk about debating substance? You? You make up stories that no one -atheists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, believes. When you have something of substance to discuss, bring it on.

Despite your lack of ability to deal with it, neither ancient history nor Scripture is me making up stories.
So, yes, provide substance to your religious claims, that you like to misname science.

Not at all. It means that the relatively ignorant mortal men that wrote the stories that were compiled into what you call scripture made up stories just like you make up stories to justify their stories.

If God did or did not inspire/write through men you would be in no position to know. Save the misdirected venom.

You want to believe the stories of bumpkin goat herders who thought they could set the spots on goats and sheep by having certain trees nearby when they were bred.

There we go again with ignorant hate speech.

This is the kind of nonsense you believe in. It's beyond childish.

Personal attacks hateful off topic sewage...par for the course apparently for you.

 

[sooda]

In your mind that could be the case.

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version ...
historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the …

 

[dad]

You stated:

The fact that Scripture records John being carried away across time to the future is not made up or a story, it is Scripture.​

It is noted that you could not cite the passage that supports your comment. Rather than accuse, I'll ask - did you lie?

I thought you were aware of the basics, but since you plead ignorance, no problem.
Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit:

1 And I saw.... 2 And I saw....

Re 5:11 -And I beheld, and I heard


It goes on and on about what he was seeing and hearing in the future.

 

[dad]

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version ...
historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the …

I see. I thought you meant some Jewish document upon which the book was later based. You are just talking about some early copy...so?

 

[sooda]

I see. I thought you meant some Jewish document upon which the book was later based. You are just talking about some early copy...so?

You have a reading problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a reading problem.

Some Christians are highly selective of what they choose to believe in the Bible.

 

[dad]

You have a reading problem.

Better than a writing problem or comprehension problem I guess.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

If anyone claims that I'd like to see how they explain how the stars were IN the firmament.

Ask gnostic, for it was his/her opinion that the "firmament" was a reference to the atmosphere.

 

[dad]

Ask gnostic, for it was his/her opinion that the "firmament" was a reference to the atmosphere.

Well, the stars are not in the atmosphere. So whatever he or she says doesn't much matter.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Your post shows a bias. Don't be silly. You want to treat the mythical characters Adam and Eve as if they were real.

I don't believe it is silly to have a bias considering that everyone has one.

I think it's silly to try and fault someone for having bias or pretending that you yourself do not have it.

I believe that Adam and Eve were real people for many reasons, including among them the fact that the scriptures describe them as such.

However, I don't see where I mentioned my beliefs concerning Adam and Eve in my latest post.

Where in my last post do you believe I displayed a bias, exactly?

And it is not just the Genesis account that describes a firmament as being solid. We may not know exactly what they meant, but one can get a fairly clear picture by reading the various stories of the Bible.

This is simply your opinion/interpretation of the Genesis account, which you are entitled to, but having it does not give you or anyone the authority to claim that the Genesis account, or any other book claiming to be scripture, was in error.

Lastly the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is you just admitting to going with the interpretation that you like the best. It is not an answer.

No, this is you claiming that your false interpretation of my answer is not an answer.

The scriptures claim that the faithful can come to know the truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You do not have to believe it, but that doesn't change what the scriptures teach.

Anyone can claim it was the Holy Spirit that guided them. It is a worthless claim.

Who decides what ideas have worth?

The scriptures claim that the faithful can come to know the truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Practically an admission that you are wrong in doing so.

I'd be interested in seeing you try to explain this conclusion.

Unless someone can prove the truth of their belief, without a shadow of any doubt, then they are wrong?

So can you try again or do you admittedly have nothing?

There is no need to "try again" because I have already given you my answer.

I am completely confident in the Holy Spirit's willingness and ability to guide me throughout my life.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Why would anyone assume that?

Ask gnostic.

Haven't you reprimanded me in the past for not reading an entire conversation before commenting?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Well, the stars are not in the atmosphere. So whatever he or she says doesn't much matter.

Exactly.

He/she was claiming that the Genesis account was incorrect because he/she interpreted "firmament" as "atmosphere" and that the stars were not in the atmosphere.

That's what led me to say that all that gnostic did was discredit his/her own interpretation, not the Genesis account.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Is that anything like: "Da Debil made me do it"?

Not really.