-
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.
J
Let me ask:
Did God say He made clouds to surround the Earth in Genesis 1? Then consider, did it ever rain before Noah's flood? What does the Bible say about how God watered the Earth? Let me show you:
Genesis 2:5 "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth"
Genesis 2:6 "but streams (or mist in some versions) came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground"
Carry on through the Bible. Never is rain mentioned until Noah. No indication of clouds.
Doc, you are assuming there were clouds. If you take your argument re the "Earth is still" then please accept that there were no clouds.
Let's go back to Genesis 1 and see what it says:
Gen 1:2
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
The first thing we see is that God created an Earth covered entirely with water. Same situation we had after Noah's global flood.
Gen 1:6
"God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water"
So God decided to separate the waters on the Earth and put an expanse between, ie put a gap/space/skies between waters below and waters above.
Gen 1:7-8:
"God made the expanse and separated the waterunder the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky[/B].”
Therefore, we have the Earth still covered with water below the skies and water surrounding the Earth ABOVE the skies IT IS NOT CLOUDS. Clouds cannot produce that amount of torrential water to rain 40 days and 40 nights all over the Earth. As shown above there were no clouds bringing rain but the Earth produced water from below the soil - not above the soil. I quoted the verses above to prove this.
Finally Gen 1:9-10
"God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas"
So what we have is God forming the Land causing it to be lifted higher than the seas, maybe through causing the seas to sink lower into the Earth.
Let's step across to Genesis 6:17
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth"
Up until now, there had been no clouds mentioned nor rain, only mist or streams that watered the Earth by rising UP from the Earth
Then go to: Gen 7:4
"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights,
This is the very first time rain has ever been mentioned. If you don't believe me, please go through chapters 1 to 7 and prove me wrong.
This was a new phenomenon. No one on Earth had ever seen rain.
Now go to: Gen 7:10
"And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth" Where from? There were no clouds. We already established that God separated the waters on the Earth and encircled the Earth above the skies with water too. Clearly the rain came from those waters.
Gen 7:11-12
" on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."
See that? The floodgate of the HEAVENS were opened. That doesn't sound like mere rain clouds. Also notice the springs of the Great Deep burst forth too.
This would indicate that when God caused dry land to appear, there was a great amount of waters still below the surface of the dry land.
End result is that the Earth (again) was totally immersed in water. For the waters of the great deep to burst open God must have caused great catastrophic things to happen under the Earth. Earthquakes, volcanoes or whatever. A real shaking took place, resulting in the Ocean beds sinking in ravines and forcing up rocks, soil etc to form higher hills and mountains. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense to me considering the clear descriptions by God from Genesis 1 to Genesis 7.
Then look at Hebrews 12:25-26
"See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN.”
Could these verses be referring to the flood? Clearly it says that God has shaken the Earth before and that He will again.
My question would be, if there was such a great shaking in Noah's day, could the Earth have started spinning at that time? Actually I don't think it matters that much when compared with the far more important teachings in scripture. Again I am trying to show that no-one should be too dogmatic regarding things like Geocentrism or helio..... because the scriptures have plenty of evidence supporting the opposite view of both parties. Sometimes God just requires to take the obvious interpretation based on the brains He has given us by weighing up the TOTAL teaching of the WHOLE Bible.
Did God say He made clouds to surround the Earth in Genesis 1? Then consider, did it ever rain before Noah's flood? What does the Bible say about how God watered the Earth? Let me show you:
Genesis 2:5 "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth"
Genesis 2:6 "but streams (or mist in some versions) came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground"
Carry on through the Bible. Never is rain mentioned until Noah. No indication of clouds.
Doc, you are assuming there were clouds. If you take your argument re the "Earth is still" then please accept that there were no clouds.
Let's go back to Genesis 1 and see what it says:
Gen 1:2
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
The first thing we see is that God created an Earth covered entirely with water. Same situation we had after Noah's global flood.
Gen 1:6
"God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water"
So God decided to separate the waters on the Earth and put an expanse between, ie put a gap/space/skies between waters below and waters above.
Gen 1:7-8:
"God made the expanse and separated the waterunder the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky[/B].”
Therefore, we have the Earth still covered with water below the skies and water surrounding the Earth ABOVE the skies IT IS NOT CLOUDS. Clouds cannot produce that amount of torrential water to rain 40 days and 40 nights all over the Earth. As shown above there were no clouds bringing rain but the Earth produced water from below the soil - not above the soil. I quoted the verses above to prove this.
Finally Gen 1:9-10
"God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas"
So what we have is God forming the Land causing it to be lifted higher than the seas, maybe through causing the seas to sink lower into the Earth.
Let's step across to Genesis 6:17
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth"
Up until now, there had been no clouds mentioned nor rain, only mist or streams that watered the Earth by rising UP from the Earth
Then go to: Gen 7:4
"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights,
This is the very first time rain has ever been mentioned. If you don't believe me, please go through chapters 1 to 7 and prove me wrong.
This was a new phenomenon. No one on Earth had ever seen rain.
Now go to: Gen 7:10
"And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth" Where from? There were no clouds. We already established that God separated the waters on the Earth and encircled the Earth above the skies with water too. Clearly the rain came from those waters.
Gen 7:11-12
" on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."
See that? The floodgate of the HEAVENS were opened. That doesn't sound like mere rain clouds. Also notice the springs of the Great Deep burst forth too.
This would indicate that when God caused dry land to appear, there was a great amount of waters still below the surface of the dry land.
End result is that the Earth (again) was totally immersed in water. For the waters of the great deep to burst open God must have caused great catastrophic things to happen under the Earth. Earthquakes, volcanoes or whatever. A real shaking took place, resulting in the Ocean beds sinking in ravines and forcing up rocks, soil etc to form higher hills and mountains. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense to me considering the clear descriptions by God from Genesis 1 to Genesis 7.
Then look at Hebrews 12:25-26
"See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN.”
Could these verses be referring to the flood? Clearly it says that God has shaken the Earth before and that He will again.
My question would be, if there was such a great shaking in Noah's day, could the Earth have started spinning at that time? Actually I don't think it matters that much when compared with the far more important teachings in scripture. Again I am trying to show that no-one should be too dogmatic regarding things like Geocentrism or helio..... because the scriptures have plenty of evidence supporting the opposite view of both parties. Sometimes God just requires to take the obvious interpretation based on the brains He has given us by weighing up the TOTAL teaching of the WHOLE Bible.
J
SHROOM
Are you ADDING to the Word of God?. Be aware of what God says about adding or taking away from His Word.
You added the word "became". The Bible does not say that the Earth BECAME form and void. It says it WAS formless and void. This is eisergesis ie reading something into the text something which has never been there.
You (like all Word of Faith) make great doctrines from that assumption. The bible NEVER says when the rebellion of satan and his angels took place. Again you are making great assumptions as indoctrinated by the Word of Faith crowd".
Regarding the three heavens: I cannot see where the problem is, It is really simple.
1) The first heaven is what we see in the universe with our natural eyes
2) the second heaven is the invisible realm controlled by satan and his demons. Just look at Ephesians 6:12
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places
3) the third heaven is what Paul was caught up to in 2 Corinthians 12:2 and verse 4
"such a man was caught up to the third heaven"
"was caught up into Paradise"
The third Heaven is in the presence of the Lord. The Heaven all born-again believers are destined for
Are you ADDING to the Word of God?. Be aware of what God says about adding or taking away from His Word.
You added the word "became". The Bible does not say that the Earth BECAME form and void. It says it WAS formless and void. This is eisergesis ie reading something into the text something which has never been there.
You (like all Word of Faith) make great doctrines from that assumption. The bible NEVER says when the rebellion of satan and his angels took place. Again you are making great assumptions as indoctrinated by the Word of Faith crowd".
Regarding the three heavens: I cannot see where the problem is, It is really simple.
1) The first heaven is what we see in the universe with our natural eyes
2) the second heaven is the invisible realm controlled by satan and his demons. Just look at Ephesians 6:12
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places
3) the third heaven is what Paul was caught up to in 2 Corinthians 12:2 and verse 4
"such a man was caught up to the third heaven"
"was caught up into Paradise"
The third Heaven is in the presence of the Lord. The Heaven all born-again believers are destined for
The expanse is the firmament. The firmament is the heavens. The heavens seperated the waters below from the waters ABOVE. The waters above are above the firmament. The stars are in the firmament. Gods throne room is in the firmament. Therefore the waters ABOVE the firmament must be ABOVE the stars and Gods throne room.
Rain comes from clouds. Always has always will.
Theres no cloiuds up in space dude. Rain doesnt travel thru space either. Therefore all your assumptions are incorrect.
There is water above the firmament just like God says.
Noahs flood was caused by rain, that came from clouds.
Ok its my turn to say its a metaphor. He's talking about the shaking of civilisation.
Read on and you will see what cannot be shaken:
(Hebrews 12:28) Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
(Hebrews 12:29) For our God is a consuming fire.
Rain comes from clouds. Always has always will.
Theres no cloiuds up in space dude. Rain doesnt travel thru space either. Therefore all your assumptions are incorrect.
There is water above the firmament just like God says.
Noahs flood was caused by rain, that came from clouds.
Ok its my turn to say its a metaphor. He's talking about the shaking of civilisation.
Read on and you will see what cannot be shaken:
(Hebrews 12:28) Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
(Hebrews 12:29) For our God is a consuming fire.
Are you saying the 3 heavens are not at 3 seperate altitudes?
Heres what I think.
1st heaven - From the ground up to the edge of the earths gravitational/atmospheric limit.
2nd heaven - From there to the limit of the suns influence (heliopause)...i.e. the sun and planets.
3rd heaven - From there right up to the waters above the firmament, containing the stars and Gods throne room (which is above the stars)
Heres what I think.
1st heaven - From the ground up to the edge of the earths gravitational/atmospheric limit.
2nd heaven - From there to the limit of the suns influence (heliopause)...i.e. the sun and planets.
3rd heaven - From there right up to the waters above the firmament, containing the stars and Gods throne room (which is above the stars)
J
Doc
The above is ONLY your opinion. Let me ask re Gen 1:8 "God called the expanse heaven" is heaven here a plural or singular word?
Then look at verse 14 "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens" Is the word heavens a plural or singular word?
The answer is vitally important. If the first word (as translated) is singular and the second word (as translated) is plural, it would indicate that the heaven could be the sky above us, but the heavens could be relating to the Galaxy or Universe.
Please do not AGAIN simply say "it does not" . Evidence PLEASE.
The above is ONLY your opinion. Let me ask re Gen 1:8 "God called the expanse heaven" is heaven here a plural or singular word?
Then look at verse 14 "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens" Is the word heavens a plural or singular word?
The answer is vitally important. If the first word (as translated) is singular and the second word (as translated) is plural, it would indicate that the heaven could be the sky above us, but the heavens could be relating to the Galaxy or Universe.
Please do not AGAIN simply say "it does not" . Evidence PLEASE.
J
AGAIN ........YOUR OPINION. That is not enough! The Bible spells it out. I have quoted verses showing the second and third heaven. The first heaven can be seen in Genesis 1.
You are showing double standards. When it suits YOU you call it a metaphor or your opinion ie when you cannot reply to solid scripture, but when others dispute you re scriptures "apparently" saying the Earth is stationary, you spout "verses please"
I don't think it is worth discussing this any further, you just wind everybody up for no good reason. PLEASE focus on the doctrines of our faith rather than you obsession with Geocentrics. It is not doing you any good.
You are showing double standards. When it suits YOU you call it a metaphor or your opinion ie when you cannot reply to solid scripture, but when others dispute you re scriptures "apparently" saying the Earth is stationary, you spout "verses please"
I don't think it is worth discussing this any further, you just wind everybody up for no good reason. PLEASE focus on the doctrines of our faith rather than you obsession with Geocentrics. It is not doing you any good.
The answer is...its exactly the same:
שׁמה שׁמים
hâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).
שׁמה שׁמים
hâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).
H
Actually God EXPIRED the words to men, not inspired (Expired is a better translation) just like he EXPIRED Genesis and the other first 4 books of the Bible while Moses was on the Mountain face to face with God for 40 days.
Paul also was writting EXPIRED words from the Holy Spirit in HIM.
Of course all men sin but God has chosen to speak HIS WORD through HIM.
The problem comes about when people deny Gods Word or mix it with human philosophy because they think they know something when in fact every man who ever lived is an ignorant dolt compared to God.
Now every man is also God's Masterpiece (same Greek word for POEM) as it says in Eph 2:10 so do not get me wrong, but when man becomes superior to God's expired Word that is going to be a problem.
Gen 1-11 is the best example of that. Unknowing men who have a cleverly devised tale of how the earth and life came to be WITHOUT our CREATOR propogandize us with evolution and millions of years and do so as fact. So those who listen to these DOLTS are quick to dismiss GEN 1-11 as fable, story, and not history. But the FACT remains it is HISTORY and God's Word which will NEVER pass away.
This totally frustrates those religious natirualists because they think by education, everyone will accept their FABLES they present as FACT. If you are a CHRISTIAN you must be a SUPERNATURALIST who understands God is beyond nature and many, many events in history CANNOT be explained by observable science. But then again evolutionists can not explain many events by observable science either.
Who observed the first life from non-life arising on earth? Who observed a fish changing to an amphibian or a reptile to a mammal? The correct answer is NO ONE and this is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF not science and it is anti-Christian, anti-Creator, anti-God at that.
So why in the world do so many Christians want to compromise God's EXPIRED word? Especially since there are excellent Biblical Creation explanations for ALL the objections by the naturalists. Science denies the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, his miracles for sure because science today is incorrectly being defined as NATURAL processes, no creator, no GOD. So what are you going to think and believe? It is your choice?
Paul also was writting EXPIRED words from the Holy Spirit in HIM.
Of course all men sin but God has chosen to speak HIS WORD through HIM.
The problem comes about when people deny Gods Word or mix it with human philosophy because they think they know something when in fact every man who ever lived is an ignorant dolt compared to God.
Now every man is also God's Masterpiece (same Greek word for POEM) as it says in Eph 2:10 so do not get me wrong, but when man becomes superior to God's expired Word that is going to be a problem.
Gen 1-11 is the best example of that. Unknowing men who have a cleverly devised tale of how the earth and life came to be WITHOUT our CREATOR propogandize us with evolution and millions of years and do so as fact. So those who listen to these DOLTS are quick to dismiss GEN 1-11 as fable, story, and not history. But the FACT remains it is HISTORY and God's Word which will NEVER pass away.
This totally frustrates those religious natirualists because they think by education, everyone will accept their FABLES they present as FACT. If you are a CHRISTIAN you must be a SUPERNATURALIST who understands God is beyond nature and many, many events in history CANNOT be explained by observable science. But then again evolutionists can not explain many events by observable science either.
Who observed the first life from non-life arising on earth? Who observed a fish changing to an amphibian or a reptile to a mammal? The correct answer is NO ONE and this is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF not science and it is anti-Christian, anti-Creator, anti-God at that.
So why in the world do so many Christians want to compromise God's EXPIRED word? Especially since there are excellent Biblical Creation explanations for ALL the objections by the naturalists. Science denies the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, his miracles for sure because science today is incorrectly being defined as NATURAL processes, no creator, no GOD. So what are you going to think and believe? It is your choice?
J
This conversation has carried onto a new thread. Please move to this new thread to see how it has transpired and continue the chats there
Universal Laws Of Heavenly Bodies
Universal Laws Of Heavenly Bodies