The Fixed Earth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Waters above the heavens most likely refers to the ancient sky-dome flat-earth belief, that there were actually water outside of the hard sky dome firmanent that would pour down causing rain when one of the portal sky-dome windows would open. Meteorology and our understanding of how rain forms and why has come a long way since then.
Bible describes rain coming from clouds, in fact the water cycle is discussed in the Bible, your interpretation of Scripture is obviously misguided, apparently deliberately so.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
Bible describes rain coming from clouds, in fact the water cycle is discussed in the Bible, your interpretation of Scripture is obviously misguided, apparently deliberately so.
As misguided as yours? :

"Praise Ye Him, sun and moon, Praise ye Him all you stars of light, Praise Him ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created. He hath stablished them for ever and ever." Psalms 148:3-4

You obviously think the author of scripture was so dumb that they did not know what ice was, and instead, called it water.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
As misguided as yours? :

"Praise Ye Him, sun and moon, Praise ye Him all you stars of light, Praise Him ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created. He hath stablished them for ever and ever." Psalms 148:3-4

You obviously think the author of scripture was so dumb that they did not know what ice was, and instead, called it water.
Ice is water.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
The Hebrew word for waters in that verse is mah'-yim. It means liquid water. Had the scripturse intended to say ice, a better word would have been used to mean ice such as keh'-rakh .
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
The Hebrew word for waters in that verse is mah'-yim. It means liquid water. Had the scripturse intended to say ice, a better word would have been used to mean ice such as keh'-rakh .
Matar = Rain

Mayim = waters always in a plural sense.

There is a theological difference, the latter has historical, metaphysical and eschatological aspects to it, these all have to be considered, and through contemplation, prayer and study, the word reveals it's deeper meanings.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
It's very cold out there in deep space, I think it would be taken as a given that water would freeze.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
There is a theological difference, the latter has historical, metaphysical and eschatological aspects to it, these all have to be considered, and through contemplation, prayer and study, the word reveals it's deeper meanings.

Yet it means liquid water. If it was supposed to say ice, it should say ice, otherwise either God's Word is wrong, or you are wrong.

It's very cold out there in deep space, I think it would be taken as a given that water would freeze.
Then the author didn't know that it was cold in space, and so that is scientific knowledge lacking on their part, given they had never travelled there before.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Yet it means liquid water. If it was supposed to say ice, it should say ice, otherwise either God's Word is wrong, or you are wrong.



Then the author didn't know that it was cold in space, and so that is scientific knowledge lacking on their part, given they had never travelled there before.
Well the Bible is written by God in fact, now you often stated 'Snail your total lack of belief in the Bible, the Author of the Bible is God Almighty let me make that quite clear. God knows the temperature in the outer universe, He has given His word in the Bible, it's that simple, you can fight against it all you like for the purpose sophistry and conjecture, it does not chane the fact that stars are water crystals and not firey suns, secular science is wrong and the Bible is correct, the stars are frozen water crystals.

mayim has other meanings, now I told you if you were to study you would find this to be true, a Strong's reference is laymans reference, it does not give a full theological and linguistic translation of Hebrew into English, if you investigated the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament - R.Laird Harris. Gleason L Archer, Jr. Bruce K. Waltke. .You may learn something.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
Well the Bible is written by God in fact, now you often stated 'Snail your total lack of belief in the Bible, the Author of the Bible is God Almighty let me make that quite clear. God knows the temperature in the outer universe, He has given His word in the Bible, it's that simple, you can fight against it all you like for the purpose sophistry and conjecture, it does not chane the fact that stars are water crystals and not firey suns, secular science is wrong and the Bible is correct, the stars are frozen water crystals.
I have often stated my lack of belief in your interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. Unless you are too blind to realise that your interpretation is not the only one. This is one example of you not taking the bible as it reads, but fitting your interpretation to it. You hypocritical amateur. Water is water, but if you want to call God a liar by saying it is ice or should say ice, go right ahead. Or that the authors of scripture are stupid in that they didn't realise that the water above is ice and not liquid water as they say it is.



mayim has other meanings, now I told you if you were to study you would find this to be true, a Strong's reference is laymans reference, it does not give a full theological and linguistic translation of Hebrew into English, if you investigated the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament - R.Laird Harris. Gleason L Archer, Jr. Bruce K. Waltke. .You may learn something.
There are words for ice if the author intended to say the ice above the heavens. But he didnt, he used the word for liquid water. You allege it means ice, but it means water, therefore you are wrong. Mayim almost always means liquid water, and this is supported by http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ36.html

Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.15 Had the water in Genesis 1:6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.”

II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word (u#dwr) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the earth and the water out of which the earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1:6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.15 Had the water in Genesis 1:6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.”

II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word (u#dwr) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the earth and the water out of which the earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1:6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.
may = water
mayim = waters (plural)

Found only in plural form, occurs 580 times.

Many liberal critics ('Snail) draw a crude picture of biblical cosmology in which "waters on high" are contained by a solid firmament, being permitted to fall to earth by "windows", this is just misuse of the Bible, basic misunderstanding, usually deliberate.

1 Corinthians 15:40 - "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestrial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41. There is one glory for the sun, and another glory for the moon, and another glory for the stars."

Paul says they are different.

Peter says "water" not "waters"! thats the first point OK, there is a difference, plus we must consider like Paul the difference between a celestrial body and a terrestrial body, we see how the star glory is different to the sun's glory, they are never decribed as being the same, the Bible never describes the stars as being other suns, that is our starting point; stars are not suns, they are not firey balls produceing heat, they are different to the sun, they are also fixed, the have been 'stablished' but they move, they have a set path and as we read in Job they have been 'sealed', this is meaning a stopping of movement, water, liquid water moves, is fluid, to seal it, to stop it, it would be frozen, crystallized and from this crystallized water light is produced, How? I don't know...I know lazers can be made from rubies, crystal stones are higly reflective, but I just don't have the ultimate answer to how the stars are producing light, but the Bible is clear that they are associated with waters and are different to the Sun.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
Sounds to me like someone is fixated on the novel and has parked their brain.
 
A

Astronut

Guest
Your computer and camera are designed to be able to enhance the mirage to varying degrees, this is really for aesthetics, they only make the illusion more colourful more contrasted, brighter, it is artificial enhancement,m the technology has been designed that way, many pictures can be enhanced to appear quite beautiful and interesting with vivid colours, much astrophotography is really just abstract art rather then an accurate depiction of astronomical phenomena.
I always aim to take my pictures in such a way as to make them the most accurate depictions of astronomical objects that I can make; every picture, astronomy or otherwise, is a depiction that differs from what your eye would see to varying degrees. Simply doing a longer exposure can make a picture brighter, but that doesn't make it a "simulated image."
My explaination is consistant.
No, you now have two very different explanations.
They don't often appear as perfect round dots.
If my tracking and optics were perfect, they would. Stars always the same shape as the other stars around the same area, and when the tracking works properly they're always perfect little dots. Meanwhile, spectra reveal that the stars are made of various elements such as hydrogen, helium, and carbon, but never water ice.
Well the images would and do assume consistant shapes.
There's no reason at all why they would form spiral structures if it were some refractive illusion. Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence of any gravitational or other lensing in any of the images I've presented.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
There's no reason at all why they would form spiral structures if it were some refractive illusion. Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence of any gravitational or other lensing in any of the images I've presented.
In fact I am going by the images you have presented that you have taken yourself, and these images I have decided are optical illusions- a result of 'gravitational' lensing, I am sure I can find more problems with the astro-images given the time, gravitational lensing is the obvious.
 
A

Astronut

Guest
In fact I am going by the images you have presented that you have taken yourself, and these images I have decided are optical illusions- a result of 'gravitational' lensing,
"You" have decided... well who made you an authority on gravitational lensing, and since when are you an expert on astrophotography? Where's the proof of your claim? I know my images quite well, there's no gravitational lensing in any of these.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
His authority is the Google god. The internet is always right you know, whether a good old NASA conspiracy or what not.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
"You" have decided... well who made you an authority on gravitational lensing, and since when are you an expert on astrophotography? Where's the proof of your claim? I know my images quite well, there's no gravitational lensing in any of these.
Greetings,

You uploaded your photos as evidence of the existence of galaxies existing as clusters of stars, the photos are mirages, mirages caused by gravational lensing, this is then enhanced by camera and computer processes including multiple layering of images on top of each other and digital contrasting which leads to a false representation that is falsely labelled. What is being described as a distant galaxy of stars is nothing more than a telescope picking up distortion of light.

If you study what I have told you, then you will realize that you are in error, and that the Bible is absolutely right on all astronomical matters, once you use the Bible as your basis you will have a better and clearer insight into the nature of the Lord's universe.

Peace be unto you.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
Cup,

You are correct in beginning with the Bible. However, your interpretation or failure to understand the nature of the Hebrew language as well as figures of speech has caused you to accept some really goofy ideas.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Cup,

You are correct in beginning with the Bible. However, your interpretation or failure to understand the nature of the Hebrew language as well as figures of speech has caused you to accept some really goofy ideas.
Slepsog,

It makes no difference whether I translate from Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek into Latin or English the result is consistant with what I have stated, to be exact the manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament are the oldest surviving OT manuscripts - they support a spherical earth in a Geocentric universe, there is only one inhabited world and this is it!

If there is anything in particular that you still are having trouble understanding then don't hesitate to ask, the Bible has all the answers that you need.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
Cup,

I have no problem believing that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the Universe. But I do not believe that our universe is limited to one solar system, or that stars are not suns for their own galaxies. I believe the earth is fixed in its habitation. But I do not believe that it is stock still and everything else is moving around it.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Cup,

I have no problem believing that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the Universe. But I do not believe that our universe is limited to one solar system, or that stars are not suns for their own galaxies. I believe the earth is fixed in its habitation. But I do not believe that it is stock still and everything else is moving around it.
Coming to grips with an entire cosmology - the basics of which I have roughly outlined in this thread, is very difficult, much of what I state along with the Bible is in total opposition to everything us humans in the 21st Century have been taught to believe, we have been presented with a certain definition of the universe from when we first opened our eyes and never in the entire history of the world has so much time and resources gone into the promotion of concept, a universal concept and this idea, this concept is founded on a premise; that is that the universe is incredibly vast and is ever expanding from a single point of origin, this point of origin was originally nothing, but after an explosion everything in the universe came into being, structure and complexity adapting and evolving over long periods of time by chance, and chance alone. This is a very ancient theory and it came be traced back to the 'Cosmic Egg' theories of the Jewish Kabbahla, it can also be found in Phoenician and Babylonian theologies, it most certainly did not begin with a Galileo, Copernicus or a Darwin, who were themselves not particularly good scientists, they have just recieved the most amazing amount of worldly support and privilege for what were essentially unproven, radical and abstract ideas, but, but they had one thing that was in their favour, and that was that they were anti-Christian and anti-Bible and most of all the were totally secular, there was no need for any moral order or law in a universe where there was no Creator present, and the Earth was nothing but an insignificant planet in the outskirts of an insignificant galaxy in a massive and populated universe that just happened into being by blind chance.

If you look at the night sky you will notice that all the stars revolve around the earth, no matter wher you stand on earth - the night sky revolves around you as the viewer, however at the north pole almost directly above the north pole is the north star, this position is called 'polaris'. The north star is only visible in the northen hemisphere and because it has always been used by humans for navigation, polaris was of course one of the initial factors for determining a spherical earth, although very early humans the likes of Adam, Enoch and Noah and Shem were in direct correspondence with God so would have known much more than we do today because we are cursed and 'cut-off' at this late stage.

Now look at the night sky in relation to polaris, this page can tell you a bit;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Star

You will notive by observation and tracking the paths of the stars around polaris that their movement around the celestrial pole is concentric circular, this observation of star trials which can be clearly seen in photos of the celestrial northen night sky without any of the astrophotography gimmicks that are often used, but it is clear to see with your own eyes and God given reason that the structure of the universe is NOT like what is commonly held to be true, it is impossible to observe what we do at the north polaris if the earth was in orbit at 90,000 km an hr round the sun, that is just not we witness, the north star cannot be see to move, it holds its position for thousands of years, fixed above the earth, the only way this can be reasoned is if the world is stationary along with the north star. Now the north star changes with the presession of the equinoxes and this all fits in with Geocentric Cosmolgy.


The only thing holding back Geocentric astronomy and Biblical cosmolgy is the world, this corrupt, vile false beast system that is run entirely by the arch Angel Satan, it's his world at the moment, he is the father of lies.

What I have learnt is that you can never underestimate the deceptive powers of Satan and just how many people he is able to decieve, there is a new awareness of God coming into being on earth and it will not be found where most christians think it will be found. I think that most christians are just playing christian, I don't think they really have the courage to fight the entire world for the promise of His return, I think most christians today live in fear of worldly rejection, they pay God lip service and bow before the world, Bible says you must hate the world, I hate the world, I hate all the dispicable lies, I hate all the injustice, I hate all the acting and lying, I hate all the meaningless violence, I just hate the entire rotten corrupt vile system, and the the sooner God sends it all to Hell the better! Because it deserves Hell, that's what this world deserves, there won't be much that survives the fire, it will all burn, because we humans have created a monstrosity, it's so ugly it makes me feel physically sick, it stinks to the nostrils of God and it must only be His infinite mercy, His far - reaching wisdom, patience and mercy that keeps Him from destroying us all right now.

So it does not suprise me that the rest of the world does not believe me, in fact I would be worried if my ideas were popular, if I was recieving awards and adulation and worldly recognition, I would be concerned, I really would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.