Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

[7thMoon]

Are you saying that it is "useless" at the North pole of a globe earth?

Use it useless at the North pole.

 

[GaryA]

At least take pictures of the dome to show everyone else. How come there are no pictures?

How come there is not a single authentic intact non-composite non-conceptual unretouched photograph of the whole earth in existence anywhere?

Before asking any more silly questions, how about answering this one with a real actual bona-fide photograph of the whole earth from space...

 

[GaryA]

Before asking any more silly questions, how about answering this one with a real actual bona-fide photograph of the whole earth from space...

Neither will you find a real actual bona fide photograph of a satellite in space. Every-last-one is a 'conceptual' picture.

Why are there no real actual bona fide photographs of satellites in space?

The only [communication] satellites [above us] are hanging from very large balloons floating high in the sky.

Do the research - wake up!

 

[Sculpt]

I really didn't want to get into this discussion; however, I feel that I should point out that rain would be the common normal occurrence since the very beginning of when the current system came into existence/operation. The question is - when did that occur?

By virtue of the 'physics' involved, it stands to reason that it has rained ever since clouds first formed in the open firmament above.

If it was creation week, then it has rained since then.

If it was the flood ['event'] itself that somehow caused it to come into existence/operation, then it has rained [only] since then.

The question to answer is - when did clouds first appear in the open firmament above?

Well, in our discussions about if the Flood rains came from the 3rd heaven (Romans34's assertion) ... the question of when it first rained is really irrelevant. If it rained before the Flood, that's not directly a reason to exclude the possibility of waters coming from the 3rd heaven, for those who want to believe it. And if it first rained during the Flood, there's no reason to conclude it came from the 3rd heaven, especially because I don't see anyone suggesting today's rain pores from the 3rd heaven.

I agree with your assertion, "By virtue of the 'physics' involved, it stands to reason that it has rained ever since clouds first formed in the open firmament above. If it was creation week, then it has rained since then." I really don't understand any reason to desire to doubt that.

I think there is scriptural reason to believe it rained before the Flood. We have an interpretation of Gen 2:4-7:

"4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

First of all, WHEN was this? Before God created man, the 5th day, and also when God created man, 6th day.

First of all, what's the difference between the mist rising up from the earth watering the whole of the earth -- and clouds that rain down and water the whole earth? Elevation? Or maybe nothing at all? Mist and clouds are the same substance: water vapor. In fact, the verses may not be indicating a difference in elevation at all. Where else is this hebrew word for mist used?

The hebrew word here is וְאֵ֖ד, translated here (KJV) as mist. That word וְאֵ֖ד is also used Job 36:27, translated in the KJV as vapour:

26Behold, God [is] great, and we know [him] not, neither can the number of his years be searched out. 27For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: 28Which the clouds do drop [and] distil upon man abundantly. 29Also can [any] understand the spreadings of the clouds, [or] the noise of his tabernacle?

Here we read, this same word mist/vapour, causes it to rain. And so, one might read Gen 2:6 as God caused it rain on the garden for Adam to work.

In this context, I would read Gen 2:4-7 as: It hadn't yet rained and there was not a man to till the ground. But then, there went up a mist and watered the whole face of the ground. And God created Adam. That is, it hadn't yet rained, and then it did rain.

But as I said, there doesn't seem to be any reason for anyone to want to propose it didn't rain before the Flood. No where does the Flood story read it hadn't rained before. It just reads it rained. It doesn't relate that anybody was surprised it rained. Does anyone think rain is useless? If rain was created for the Flood, why would it still be raining? I just can't fathom the reason for the notion.

 

[Romans34]

Neither will you find a real actual bona fide photograph of a satellite in space. Every-last-one is a 'conceptual' picture.

Why are there no real actual bona fide photographs of satellites in space?

The only [communication] satellites [above us] are hanging from very large balloons floating high in the sky.

Do the research - wake up!

They could also be found mounted in a 747 jet, or the like.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Neither will you find a real actual bona fide photograph of a satellite in space. Every-last-one is a 'conceptual' picture.

Why are there no real actual bona fide photographs of satellites in space?

The only [communication] satellites [above us] are hanging from very large balloons floating high in the sky.

Do the research - wake up!

Just stop. For what reason are you trolling?

If the earth wasn't spherical, why were the scientists able to calculate the path of the recent total eclipse down to the second and also the exact path it travelled? They calculated everything based on the earth being a sphere, not a flat sheet of earth.

If you keep lying to yourself and others, God will confirm that in the hardness of your heart and somehow all that deception you've stewed up will just blow up in your face. I don't know why you'd do that but you'll just be hurting yourself for the dumbest reason. Smh....

Whether you're saved or not, we all will give an accounting to God of all the things we did on earth. Would you honestly still tell Him to His face that He's wrong - to tell Him the planet HE made is a flat sheet of earth and not the sphere He made all along, even if He shows you clear proof that the earth is a sphere?

Anyway, if you want to keep being silly now, I won't stopped you. I've said my piece.


🎣

 

[GaryA]

Mist and clouds are the same substance: water vapor.

Are you sure that the mere existence of mist was sufficient? Are there other factors involved?

All that really matters is - what brought the current rain cloud system into existence/operation. It was obviously different at the very beginning - for a reason. God had a reason. What was that reason? Do we know? Does the Bible tell us?

What is the likelihood that God would create one system and then change it to another system before creation week had ended? Why not just create the [final] one first/only and let it operate...?

Personally, I think that one of the best things we have to reason with is what @Billyd posted earlier.

Do not ever dismiss anything the Bible says...

 

[Romans34]

. . . the question of when it first rained is really irrelevant.
. . .
But as I said, there doesn't seem to be any reason for anyone to want to propose it didn't rain before the Flood.
. . .
I just can't fathom the reason for the notion.

Herein is the problem of not understanding the purpose for the proposition. It is totally relevant. If it hadn't ever rained from clouds (because they didn't exist) before the flood, then the water had to come from somewhere, namely, "the waters which were above the firmament". That rain would have fallen from above the sun, moon, and stars. Then after the flood, when God had completely changed the 'eco-system' or whatever, both in the heavens and on the earth, He could have introduced the current system of clouds and rain, etc. as previously expressed.

No where does the Flood story read it hadn't rained before. It just reads it rained. It doesn't relate that anybody was surprised it rained.

The "Flood story" doesn't read it had rained before either. And Noah and family wouldn't be surprised by rain if God told them about it before it rained. The rest of the world that died in the flood could have been surprised by it, but then, they were all about to die. [And that would be an example of something irrelevant.]

 

[Sculpt]

I don't think he is saying that the flood waters came from the 3rd heaven. The waters above the firmament are positioned between the 2nd heaven and 3rd heaven.

In other words, the flood waters came from the waters that are above the firmament - "just above" the 2nd heaven. (but below the 3rd heaven)

Yes, I know he is. And that's why Romans34's proposition isn't reasonable.

He just got done stressing he's basing his proposal on the rain coming through the open windows of heaven.

But it clearly reads, "and the windows of heaven were opened"which is where the rain came from. [Where the birds fly is only the first heaven.]

Please tell me we know what a window is and its function, right? The windows of heaven were opened -- so that rain from heaven can go through the opened window and to the surface of the earth. That verse cannot refer to the "waters above the firmament" that separates the 2nd and 3rd heaven. Are we going disingenuously contort to redefine what a window is?

 

[GaryA]

The rest of the world that died in the flood could have been surprised by it, but then, they were all about to die. [And that would be an example of something irrelevant.]

They were too captivated by the rain until they simply did not have time to write anything about it into their memoirs...

 

[Romans34]

Just stop. For what reason are you trolling?

If GaryA was a troll, he'd be trying to flat out discount the proposition without consideration of it, not reasoning with it.

If the earth wasn't spherical, why were the scientists able to calculate the path of the recent total eclipse down to the second and also the exact path it travelled? They calculated everything based on the earth being a sphere, not a flat sheet of earth.

How do you know they calculated everything based on the earth being a sphere? Did you simply believe them because they said so? How do you know they didn't lie? Do you always believe everything you hear without your own understanding? We believe things we are told because we reason them to be consistent with what we've already believed (because we've been told) all our lives. What if in the earlier years of our lives, we were lied to, building lie upon lie, until now we are so brainwashed we don't know this from that?
2 Timothy 2:24-26, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Whether you're saved or not, we all will give an accounting to God of all the things we did on earth. Would you honestly still tell Him to His face that He's wrong - to tell Him the planet HE made is a flat sheet of earth and not the sphere He made all along, even if He shows you clear proof that the earth is a sphere?

Would you honestly still tell Him to His face that He's wrong - to tell Him the earth HE made is a sphere and not the plane He made all along, even if He shows you in His Word clear proof that the earth if a flat plane?

 

[Dino246]

It makes sense to me that "the windows of heaven" refers to "the waters which were above the firmament" just as "the fountains of the great deep" refers to "the waters which were under the firmament".

While that may make sense in its own context, it fails when you consider Malachi 3:10:

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

 

[Magenta]

Herein is the problem of not understanding the purpose for the proposition. It is totally relevant. If it hadn't ever rained from clouds (because they didn't exist) before the flood, then the water had to come from somewhere, namely, "the waters which were above the firmament". That rain would have fallen from above the sun, moon, and stars. Then after the flood, when God had completely changed the 'eco-system' or whatever, both in the heavens and on the earth, He could have introduced the current system of clouds and rain, etc. as previously expressed.

Why is rain falling from clouds being dismissed just because it had never happened before? .

Using that as a reason makes no sense. According to that logic, it
should not have rained at all... since it had never happened before.

 

[Romans34]

Yes, I know he is. And that's why Romans34's proposition isn't reasonable.

I have stated numerous times that the water fell from above the firmament, NOT the third heaven, which is above the firmament.

He just got done stressing he's basing his proposal on the rain coming through the open windows of heaven.

Please tell me we know what a window is and its function, right? The windows of heaven were opened -- so that rain from heaven can go through the opened window and to the surface of the earth. That verse cannot refer to the "waters above the firmament" that separates the 2nd and 3rd heaven. Are we going disingenuously contort to redefine what a window is?

Why cannot the "waters above the firmament" refer to the that which separates the 2nd and 3rd heaven? The water simply passed from the "waters above the firmament" through the "windows of heaven" INTO the firmament [Heaven].

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Posting a lot of BS

You know, your other doctrines about Christianity are false too. So no surprised you fall for the flat earth conspiracy as well. You're so thick faced about them. I wonder if you actually believe in God. Because no one who believes in God would keep deceiving themselves and others about His works so boldly and not know the consequences of that. I'll see you too when we account ourselves to God.

The only thing good about all this is you expose yourselves as false teachers.


🚀

 

[MerSee]

You know, your other doctrines about Christianity are false too. So no surprised you fall for the flat earth conspiracy as well. You're so thick faced about them. I wonder if you actually believe in God. Because no one who believes in God would keep deceiving themselves and others about His works so boldly and not know the consequences of that. I'll see you too when we account ourselves to God.

The only thing good about all this is you expose yourselves as false teachers.


🚀

 

[Dino246]

View attachment 262557

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, perspective is a consideration.

 

[Sculpt]

I have stated numerous times that the water fell from above the firmament, NOT the third heaven, which is above the firmament.

Why cannot the "waters above the firmament" refer to the that which separates the 2nd and 3rd heaven? The water simply passed from the "waters above the firmament" through the "windows of heaven" INTO the firmament [Heaven].

Ah, I got ya now. You're saying the window is the 2nd heaven. OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying that.

All-in-all, we just disagree. I think the best reading is, since the water above the firmament was separated from below the firmament for a reason, I would be weary suggesting it was used to flood the earth when the Flood story could have mentioned it, but it does not, and it appears unnecessary to flood the earth. We can agree to disagree.

Since I read your posts on your proposal, researched it, commented and discussed with you, would be willing to prayerfully review some brief material and give me your decided opinion?

 

[Sculpt]

God placed the rainbow in the sky after the flood. Since the rainbow is the result of sunlight reflecting off the rain, it stands to reason that rain had to begin with the flood.

Scripture reads God declared the rainbow as a visual sign of the covenant to not flood the earth again. That doesn't necessarily mean it was the first time a rainbow ever existed.

In fact, a rainbow/prism is a natural occurrence in God's creation. People could see a rainbow when the watered their plants from a multi-holed water picture. It seems unlikely God changed the physics of the earth after he had already created a system and declared it good.

Biblical scholars note the hebrew text can be read as "I have given" (the bow) or "I do give" (the bow). If you want to read it as the first time a rainbow was ever created, obviously you can. Most commentaries I see read it as God declaring the rainbow as a reminder of the covenant, note the two ways it can be read and that it likely existed before.

I think christians should be careful with that reading as historically, it seems natural temptation for humans to want to create these fun origin stories for lakes, fire, oceans, Apollo's chariot being the sun, but these are pagan. As the Flood and the rainbow story is in Genesis, mere pages after the creation story, it's not hard to see there might be a historic rhythm to associate it with creation origin. I also see it more of a temptation to read it that way as a "fun way" to teach children.

Some commentaries:

Benson Commentary
Genesis 9:13. I set my bow in the clouds — The rainbow, it is likely, was seen in the clouds before, but was never a seal of the covenant till now.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. - I do set. Literally, I have given, or placed, an indication that the atmospheric phenomenon referred to had already frequently appeared (Syriac, Arabic, Aben Ezra, Chrysostom, Calvin, Willet, Murphy, Wordsworth, Kalisch, Lange).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
13. I do set my bow in the cloud] Better, as marg., I have set. The Hebrew would literally be rendered “I do give,” or “have given.” The language is capable of two interpretations. Of course, it must have been visible from the first, being dependent upon the refraction of the light from the particles of water. The words “my bow” imply either that the bow was a familiar object, or that it was God’s gift. The giving of a “token” is not necessarily equivalent to the creation of a feature in nature.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
It is a question whether there was a rainbow before the flood, and it is not easily answered; both Jews and Christians are divided about it; Saadiah thought there was one; but Aben Ezra disapproves of his opinion, and thinks it was first now made. The greater part of Christian interpreters are of the mind of Saadiah, that it was from the beginning, the natural causes of it, the sun and cloud, being before the flood; and that it was now after it only appointed to be a sign and token of the covenant

 

[Romans34]

Ah, I got ya now. You're saying the window is the 2nd heaven. OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying that.

All-in-all, we just disagree. I think the best reading is, since the water above the firmament was separated from below the firmament for a reason, I would be weary suggesting it was used to flood the earth when the Flood story could have mentioned it, but it does not, and it appears unnecessary to flood the earth. We can agree to disagree.

Since I read your posts on your proposal, researched it, commented and discussed with you, would be willing to prayerfully review some brief material and give me your decided opinion?

No. I'm not saying the window is the second heaven. The second heaven is part of the firmament through which the water fell. That is, it fell past sun, moon, and stars through the atmosphere to the earth. If your material is truly brief, I'd be glad to look it when I have time. I'd appreciate it if you'll not waste my time.