Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does the Hebrew (רָקִיעַ raquiya = firmament, vault of heaven supporting waters above, considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above) matter? Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

What changes whether the words are in Hebrew or English?

Also, IIRC, the verb used to describe the firmament being "spread out" is actually more accurately translated as "hammered out" - i.e. it has the connotation of spreading out by beating or hammering, like a sheet of metal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know I've read the Bible before, right? This includes the curse of Ham, who was not a black man, and admonitions for slaves and masters alike to be Christian in outlook and practice. The passages of the NT you are referring to discuss salvation and eternal life but not protesting--indeed, the NT never advocates protesting abortion, homosexuality, drug abuse, slavery or crucifixion.

Since you say you've read the Bible, you'll know that this isn't true. Paul advocates slavery when he tells escaped slave Philemon to return to his master. That's one example that comes immediately to mind.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does the Hebrew (רָקִיעַ raquiya = firmament, vault of heaven supporting waters above, considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above) matter? Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

What changes whether the words are in Hebrew or English?

If what you say regarding raquiya is true, why do tens of thousands of Jewish, Christian and atheist Hebrew and religious scholars vehemently disagree?

And are you an Italian American? Do I tell you what the real ravioli is? Where was your Bar Mitzvah held? Were you circumcised in a hospital or in your home eight days after you were born, as I was?

You are telling me what the Hebrew really says?

How about I tell you what "vault of heaven supporting waters above" might mean? It could mean "vault of the troposphere" or "vault of primordial waters now in the seas" or "massive water flow outside the visible edges of the universe" or other things.

How about I tell you, by the way, that if you keep insisting the Bible is wrong when it says there is water in the skies above Earth, I'm going to gently disagree? How about if you tell me the firmament, as in the word "firm" could be describing "like, you know, a metal dome" or like, you know, gravity holding the troposphere in place around the Earth, so we don't like, asphyxiate?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please repeat your comment or question and I'll address it

"Christians bitterly fought against abolition. You seem to want to call them non-Christians (or not saved) for that reason. I have no reason to do that. Of course they are Christians, and I have no reason to believe that anybody needs to be saved or that that phrase has any meaning." (My comment and your reply are at Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument )

IANS wrote: "So what if a Christian is a hypocrite? Is he then no longer a Christian? Is that your contention?"

I didn't see he's no longer a Christian. But a biblicist would define a born again as a Christian and a hypocrite as an unsaved person labeled as a Christian by others.

So there are unsaved Christians? Is that your opinion? Do you count yourself among the biblicists?

Do you have examples of pastors who beat and raped slaves Monday through Saturday?

Not handy. Do you?

Frankly, I can't name a single pastor that might or might not have owned slaves. Is it your contention that none did, or that if they did, that none beat and raped them?

You're trying very hard to protect the reputation of your religion from skeptics that have no reason to try to do that, making that an impossible task. We see it with all of its blemishes.

You would need to convince the skeptic to see things through a faith based confirmation bias as well, one that tries to rationalize and justify the internal contradictions, unkept promises, failed prophesies, intellectual and moral failings of the deity described therein, and the errors of history and science found in the scriptures, as well as the failures of those living as Christians.

Here you are telling me more or less that a slave owner was a hypocrite for owning slaves or supporting slavery, and not born again. If so, you are implying that the Bible instructs him not to own slaves. Is that your position?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If what you say regarding raquiya is true, why do tens of thousands of Jewish, Christian and atheist Hebrew and religious scholars vehemently disagree?

I don't know that tens of thousands of people disagree or that it would matter if they did.

What kinds of scholars are these? People that can read Hebrew without a translator? Why would they know more than the source I got that information from, or the hundreds of translators that have contributed to the dozens of English translations available, or even you or me? The words speak for themselves.

And just what is the issue for you regarding the firmament of Genesis? What it was claimed to be and do?

Here is a description of biblical cosmology described by RF poster Thumper:

"The ancient Hebrew Bible imagined a a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water (the Tehom) with the heavens (shamayim) above, the sky (firmament), earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.

"According to the myth, God created the firmament as a solid dome to protect the Earth from the cosmic ocean (Tehom). There is even reference in Psalms to God having to do battle with the Leviathan to create the firmament.

"Above the Firmament was the dwelling place of God (the shamayim). The firmament itself was a solid inverted bowl over the earth which extended down to touch the Earth at the horizon, colored blue from the heavenly ocean above it. The raqia had "windows" to allow for rain, snow, etc.. In the flood story the "windows of heaven" were opened to allow the waters of Tehom to enter. The waters for Noah's flood entered when the windows of the firmament were opened. "

"The "ends of the earth" were the extreme edge of the circular horizon where the vault of heaven was supported on mountains. Although there are other passages suggest that the sky rests on pillars or supports (Psalms, et.al.). And there's mention of "gates" where wind, rain, snow, etc. were allowed in and where in Revelation we have 4 angels standing at the 4 corners of the earth, holding back the 4 winds."

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

And are you an Italian American? Do I tell you what the real ravioli is? Where was your Bar Mitzvah held? Were you circumcised in a hospital or in your home eight days after you were born, as I was?

You are telling me what the Hebrew really says?

No more or less than you

How about I tell you what "vault of heaven supporting waters above" might mean? It could mean "vault of the troposphere" or "vault of primordial waters now in the seas" or "massive water flow outside the visible edges of the universe" or other things.

It means what it says. Where scripture is specific, it is clear. Elsewhere, it is vague and means nothing in particular - whatever you want it to mean. There is no "might mean."

There is no troposphere in the Bible.

How about I tell you, by the way, that if you keep insisting the Bible is wrong when it says there is water in the skies above Earth, I'm going to gently disagree?

You wouldn't be disagreeing with me. I'm well aware that the atmosphere contains H2O.

How about if you tell me the firmament, as in the word "firm" could be describing "like, you know, a metal dome" or like, you know, gravity holding the troposphere in place around the Earth, so we don't like, asphyxiate?

What is your point?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It does look different from the outside, which I why I get weary of people telling me what Jews and Christians "really" believe, sure.

Is somebody telling you what you believe? I missed that.

Is it a problem?

Many of the commandments in the Bible refer to rights. For example, you shall not be unkind to the Egyptian, for you were once a resident in his land. Note the perceived difference between that and "Kill some Egyptians, the dirty Jewish slave owners that they were!"

I don't see a right there, just words from old books that never mattered, like raquiya, chug and yom. Christians ignore them at whim.

Rights require human laws and governments willing to enforce them.

I don't distinct who is a sincere question based on the slavery issue, I already gave my reasoning--the people who love and adhere to God's Word. "I love the Bible where it says, "treat one's neighbor like oneself" so come over here for your whuppin'" makes NO sense at all. NONE. Please don't tell me both interpretations of loving one's fellow man/neighbor as for slavery and against slavery are valid. That would be like me saying the Flat and Elliptical Earth camps are equally interpreting the data well!

Sorry, but no. If you were a slaver with a bullwhip that loved Jesus, you were a still a Christian. Those people belong to Christianity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not sure they do. The believers who don't accept that the floodwaters came from "floodgates of Heaven" generally do so by accepting the story as non-literal.

I wrote and SKEPTICS. Skeptical atheist historians/religion scholars/Hebrew scholars.

You are also claiming special knowledge that the passage is referring to say, outer space instead of the troposphere. There is water in our near atmosphere!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since you say you've read the Bible, you'll know that this isn't true. Paul advocates slavery when he tells escaped slave Philemon to return to his master. That's one example that comes immediately to mind.

I didn't use the word "advocates" but the word "protests". Paul told Philemon to return and didn't advocate peaceful or violent rebellion. However, he wrote the owner, noting he had led the owner to Christ and to treat with love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wrote and SKEPTICS. Skeptical atheist historians/religion scholars/Hebrew scholars.

Actual skeptics don't think there was a literal worldwide flood at all.

You are also claiming special knowledge that the passage is referring to say, outer space instead of the troposphere. There is water in our near atmosphere!

Not outer space; a solid dome. It's a very different model of things than the one we currently operate under.

And it isn't special knowledge. There are plenty of sources out there that you could look at to see the cosmology that ancient peoples assumed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Christians bitterly fought against abolition. You seem to want to call them non-Christians (or not saved) for that reason. I have no reason to do that. Of course they are Christians, and I have no reason to believe that anybody needs to be saved or that that phrase has any meaning." (My comment and your reply are at Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument )



So there are unsaved Christians? Is that your opinion? Do you count yourself among the biblicists?



Not handy. Do you?

Frankly, I can't name a single pastor that might or might not have owned slaves. Is it your contention that none did, or that if they did, that none beat and raped them?

You're trying very hard to protect the reputation of your religion from skeptics that have no reason to try to do that, making that an impossible task. We see it with all of its blemishes.

You would need to convince the skeptic to see things through a faith based confirmation bias as well, one that tries to rationalize and justify the internal contradictions, unkept promises, failed prophesies, intellectual and moral failings of the deity described therein, and the errors of history and science found in the scriptures, as well as the failures of those living as Christians.

Here you are telling me more or less that a slave owner was a hypocrite for owning slaves or supporting slavery, and not born again. If so, you are implying that the Bible instructs him not to own slaves. Is that your position?

My position is that the indentured servitude of OT Israel and Rome was not the slavery of the modern period. The abolitionists protested the mistreatment (and kidnapping) of slave workers. Slaves were kidnapped from Africa and elsewhere. Kidnapping is punishable in the OT by execution!

I have no doubt that there is a strong correlation between the born again experience and being a person transformed by love. Loving people were abolitionists. You made a comment about raping on Sunday between sermons so I asked which pastors were slavers and rapists that you know of.

You should know I don't find the statement, "Christians are as bad as everyone else" compelling in terms of all persons need salvation, but salvation will not eradicate all individual evil until the judgment day and the rapture.

There's a difference between the OT ritual of releasing a servant who loves you, however, who has their ear pierced to show they want to covenant with you forever, or Abraham, who begged God to make Eliezer, his slave, his firstborn and the owner of all of his immense wealth and household--and 18th century Nazi rapist/butcher/slaver/murderers/demonized horror shows, who didn't know the Lord Jesus Christ from a hole in the head.

But let's not go down this path any longer--you tell me atheism keeps one out of prison and that atheists are wonderfully moral and ethical folk. Atheists, the older they get, are the meanest people I deal with--and I've dealt with plenty. God is a Son of Love, and either you are moving towards his orbit or out past Pluto where the devil dwells.

I don't require you to tell me slavers were born again, Hitler loved Jesus, Stalin wasn't an atheist and Darwinist, etc. I know people by their fruit just as the Lord told us!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know that tens of thousands of people disagree or that it would matter if they did.

What kinds of scholars are these? People that can read Hebrew without a translator? Why would they know more than the source I got that information from, or the hundreds of translators that have contributed to the dozens of English translations available, or even you or me? The words speak for themselves.

And just what is the issue for you regarding the firmament of Genesis? What it was claimed to be and do?

Here is a description of biblical cosmology described by RF poster Thumper:

"The ancient Hebrew Bible imagined a a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water (the Tehom) with the heavens (shamayim) above, the sky (firmament), earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.

"According to the myth, God created the firmament as a solid dome to protect the Earth from the cosmic ocean (Tehom). There is even reference in Psalms to God having to do battle with the Leviathan to create the firmament.

"Above the Firmament was the dwelling place of God (the shamayim). The firmament itself was a solid inverted bowl over the earth which extended down to touch the Earth at the horizon, colored blue from the heavenly ocean above it. The raqia had "windows" to allow for rain, snow, etc.. In the flood story the "windows of heaven" were opened to allow the waters of Tehom to enter. The waters for Noah's flood entered when the windows of the firmament were opened. "

"The "ends of the earth" were the extreme edge of the circular horizon where the vault of heaven was supported on mountains. Although there are other passages suggest that the sky rests on pillars or supports (Psalms, et.al.). And there's mention of "gates" where wind, rain, snow, etc. were allowed in and where in Revelation we have 4 angels standing at the 4 corners of the earth, holding back the 4 winds."

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?



No more or less than you



It means what it says. Where scripture is specific, it is clear. Elsewhere, it is vague and means nothing in particular - whatever you want it to mean. There is no "might mean."

There is no troposphere in the Bible.



You wouldn't be disagreeing with me. I'm well aware that the atmosphere contains H2O.



What is your point?

It means what it says. Where scripture is specific, it is clear. Elsewhere, it is vague and means nothing in particular - whatever you want it to mean. There is no "might mean."

There is no troposphere in the Bible.

Of course there is. There are three biblical heavens: the birds of Heaven, the stars of Heaven, the Heaven of God. Would you like hundreds of verses describing clouds and rain, as if you didn't know the Bible writers knew there was water in the clouds?

Solomon describes the transpiration/evaporation cycle, the interconnectedness of the world's oceans and more, all long before 20th century science!

I disagree with Thumper's cosmology if it is Talmudic. I disbelieve much of Talmud, Kabbaleh, Mystic Zohar and other nonsense my Jewish people promulgate, unfortunately.

You must recognize that valid Hebrew scholars continue to disagree in what are the correct Genesis interpretations and meanings. It would be disingenuous to suggest there was a giant conference where they all agreed the firmament is a giant dome of metal or whatever horse-poop. The very word "firmament" implies gravitational firmness to my mind!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My position is that the indentured servitude of OT Israel and Rome was not the slavery of the modern period.

The slavery of the Bible allowed for owners to beat their slaves to death, as long as they didn't die too quickly.

Exodus 21:20-21:

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

The abolitionists protested the mistreatment (and kidnapping) of slave workers.

The abolitionists protested OWNING PEOPLE AS PROPERTY along with mistreatment, kidnapping, etc.

Slaves were kidnapped from Africa and elsewhere. Kidnapping is punishable in the OT by execution!

Kidnapping of an Israelite or someone else's slave, maybe. In other situations, kidnapping is endorsed:

Numbers 31:17-18:

Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man. But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours.

Deutoronomy 20:10-15:

When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here.

I have no doubt that there is a strong correlation between the born again experience and being a person transformed by love. Loving people were abolitionists.

In my experience, the strong correlation is between humanism and abolitionism.

You made a comment about raping on Sunday between sermons so I asked which pastors were slavers and rapists that you know of.

As you may recall, not every Southerner owned slaves. In fact, only 1 in 11 did. But the major molders of public opinion did own slaves. This was true of educators, doctors, politicians, and preachers. Indeed, Richard Furman – the originator of the Biblical defense of slavery was one such pastor. In South Carolina, for instance, 40% of Baptist preachers owned slaves.

Slavery & the Southern Churches

You should know I don't find the statement, "Christians are as bad as everyone else" compelling in terms of all persons need salvation, but salvation will not eradicate all individual evil until the judgment day and the rapture.

The conflict comes out of the idea that the indwelling Holy Spirit will cause the person who has accepted Christ to act in accordance with the will of God.

There's a difference between the OT ritual of releasing a servant who loves you, however, who has their ear pierced to show they want to covenant with you forever,

... or because you own his wife and children...

or Abraham, who begged God to make Eliezer, his slave, his firstborn and the owner of all of his immense wealth and household--and 18th century Nazi rapist/butcher/slaver/murderers/demonized horror shows, who didn't know the Lord Jesus Christ from a hole in the head.

If the countless Christians who owned slaves or supported slavery didn't know Christ, why should we think that you do? Outwardly, there's no sign that suggests you're any more godly than they are, and both you and they have just as many quotes to support your positions.

But let's not go down this path any longer--you tell me atheism keeps one out of prison and that atheists are wonderfully moral and ethical folk. Atheists, the older they get, are the meanest people I deal with--and I've dealt with plenty.

Consider the possibility that this is because you're especially unpleasant to atheists and they respond in kind.

God is a Son of Love, and either you are moving towards his orbit or out past Pluto where the devil dwells.

I don't require you to tell me slavers were born again, Hitler loved Jesus, Stalin wasn't an atheist and Darwinist, etc. I know people by their fruit just as the Lord told us!

BTW: what's YOUR fruit? Most of what I've seen from you is snark and church-state violations, though I realize that a person's posts on a forum don't necessarily reflect everything about them. Still, the fruits you've shown here sure seem to have come from a nasty tree.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is somebody telling you what you believe? I missed that.

Is it a problem?



I don't see a right there, just words from old books that never mattered, like raquiya, chug and yom. Christians ignore them at whim.

Rights require human laws and governments willing to enforce them.



Sorry, but no. If you were a slaver with a bullwhip that loved Jesus, you were a still a Christian. Those people belong to Christianity.

I don't ignore the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek. I was both Bar Mitzvah and studied ancient Greek at university. I simply understand when the jury is out on a word like raquiya, which is a different issue.

If I'm a slaver with bullwhip who was born Episcopalian but hated Jesus, am I also still a Christian? Do I belong to Christianity if I hate Jesus Christ? Where do you draw a line?

I draw it at something like, "Lord Jesus, your Bible is true, every Word. I love you, Lord. Help me help others in need, let me kind, giving, merciful, punish rapers and slavers, Lord!"

Did you not see my OP on rape being ALWAYS wrong? Do you still not know skeptics who don't believe absolute truth can exist (it shatters their worldview) cannot say RAPE IS ALWAYS WRONG?

If so, why are you throwing rape in Christian faces?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actual skeptics don't think there was a literal worldwide flood at all.


Not outer space; a solid dome. It's a very different model of things than the one we currently operate under.

And it isn't special knowledge. There are plenty of sources out there that you could look at to see the cosmology that ancient peoples assumed.

I'm aware of the solid dome model. You'll have to explain to me how besides the inept solid dome model, the Bible says the Earth is round, hanging in space, has pathways that connect the oceans, was formerly one land mass like Pangaea, etc. etc. - there are too many scientific accuracy points in the Bible to disbelieve the author wasn't super-intelligent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I'm a slaver with bullwhip who was born Episcopalian but hated Jesus, am I also still a Christian? Do I belong to Christianity if I hate Jesus Christ? Where do you draw a line?

The Episcopal Church... you mean the one that broke off from the Church of England after the American Revolution?

... as in this Church of England:

Two hundred years after Anglican reformers helped to abolish the slave trade, the Church of England has apologised for profiting from it.

Last night the General Synod acknowledged complicity in the trade after hearing that the Church had run a slave plantation in the West Indies and that individual bishops had owned hundreds of slaves.

Why would we assume that a Christian in a tradition where even the Church itself owned slaves would "hate Jesus" just because he supported slavery as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm aware of the solid dome model. You'll have to explain to me how besides the inept solid dome model, the Bible says the Earth is round,

You know that a flat circular plate is also round, right?

hanging in space,

Hanging... i.e. gravity is pulling down on the Earth?

has pathways that connect the oceans,

You just finished arguing for magic (and fictional) subterranean water passages, didn't you?

was formerly one land mass like Pangaea,

You'd have to show me the specific verse, but people who didn't know about the Americas or Australia would also think that the world was just one land mass.

etc. etc. - there are too many scientific accuracy points in the Bible to disbelieve the author wasn't super-intelligent.

What you see as "scientific accuracy points," I see as creative interpretation.

Edit: your claims are just as bad as that "science in the Quran" nonsense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wrote and SKEPTICS. Skeptical atheist historians/religion scholars/Hebrew scholars.

You are also claiming special knowledge that the passage is referring to say, outer space instead of the troposphere. There is water in our near atmosphere!

Sorry, but biblical cosmology is mythology. It's simply a wrong guess.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My position is that the indentured servitude of OT Israel and Rome was not the slavery of the modern period.

There is no claim that indentured servitude is slavery. The claim is that slavery is slavery.

The abolitionists protested the mistreatment (and kidnapping) of slave workers.

Perhaps. So what? Who were they protesting to? Muslims?

Slaves were kidnapped from Africa and elsewhere. Kidnapping is punishable in the OT by execution!

Please show me how this scripture doesn't contradict your contention that kidnapping in the OT is punishable by death: Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 31:7-18 - New International Version

But let's not go down this path any longer--you tell me atheism keeps one out of prison and that atheists are wonderfully moral and ethical folk.

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't ignore the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek. I was both Bar Mitzvah and studied ancient Greek at university. I simply understand when the jury is out on a word like raquiya, which is a different issue.

If I'm a slaver with bullwhip who was born Episcopalian but hated Jesus, am I also still a Christian? Do I belong to Christianity if I hate Jesus Christ? Where do you draw a line?

I draw it at something like, "Lord Jesus, your Bible is true, every Word. I love you, Lord. Help me help others in need, let me kind, giving, merciful, punish rapers and slavers, Lord!"

Did you not see my OP on rape being ALWAYS wrong? Do you still not know skeptics who don't believe absolute truth can exist (it shatters their worldview) cannot say RAPE IS ALWAYS WRONG?

If so, why are you throwing rape in Christian faces?

I'm not following you. What is this about? What does hating Jesus have to do with any of this? How am I throwing rape in your face? That post made no mention of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm aware of the solid dome model. You'll have to explain to me how besides the inept solid dome model, the Bible says the Earth is round, hanging in space, has pathways that connect the oceans, was formerly one land mass like Pangaea, etc. etc. - there are too many scientific accuracy points in the Bible to disbelieve the author wasn't super-intelligent.

Do super-intelligent authors say round when they mean oblate spheroid,or spherical? A coin is round.

Do they contradict themselves in their descriptions? Are you aware of the immovable earth with edges on pillars? Should we pretend that those words aren't there?

Is the earth hanging? From what?