Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 07:00 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Too bad it got the order of all the events wrong, explicitly stated it happening on a time-line of days rather than billions of years, and strongly implied Pangaea separated within the last 5,000 years.

Your cherry picking is obvious. Your reasoning, ad hoc.
Let me explain something to you that you apparently haven't grasped up until this point. Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text.

A), How do you know this? As I'm quite sure you're aware, most other Christians would disagree with you on that interpretation.

B), Why did nobody seem to know this until the actual age of the Earth and the Universe (hint: they're not the same) were otherwise independently discovered by scientific methods? Why is the "true" interpretation only ever "obvious" in retrospect?

C), That doesn't help with things being in the wrong order.

Forcing a selective post-hoc reinterpretation of the text is not compelling. Sorry.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-11-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Free thought. The first use of the term water is metaphorical for void or matter. Matter is made up mostly of nothing, void, and is all connected, and without form, hence the description water.

Who said anything about a glass dome. You must be thinking of the atmosphere which indeed is necessary for life as we know it here on earth.

Heaven, like earth and water and void and light has many forms in the beginning. It pertains to the universe, the atmosphere and basically all hat isn't physical earth.

Sudden appearance? If one day is roughly equivalent to 1 billion years that is hardly suddenly.

The first gathering is the seperation of matter from the lack there of. The last gathering is a reference to the division of the ocean due to the seperation of Pangaea. The earth changed a lot in its more early history and still changes today. Your usually pretty quick. Playing dumb doesn't suite you too well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 07:00 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(08-11-2015 10:28 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  That describes everything from the formation of matter, to the collection of matter, to the formation of one ocean then land them the formation of separate seas.

Too bad it got the order of all the events wrong, explicitly stated it happening on a time-line of days rather than billions of years, and strongly implied Pangaea separated within the last 5,000 years.

Your cherry picking is obvious. Your reasoning, ad hoc.
Your biased reading comprehension is the source of your unfounded scrutiny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Let me explain something to you that you apparently haven't grasped up until this point. Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text.

A), How do you know this? As I'm quite sure you're aware, most other Christians would disagree with you on that interpretation.

B), Why did nobody seem to know this until the actual age of the Earth and the Universe (hint: they're not the same) were otherwise independently discovered by scientific methods? Why is the "true" interpretation only ever "obvious" in retrospect?

C), That doesn't help with things being in the wrong order.

Forcing a selective post-hoc reinterpretation of the text is not compelling. Sorry.
I am aware that Christians don't generally believe what I say about eons. There are large parts of scripture that to this day aren't understood by most. The fact that people are slowly beginning to grasp things that were at one time outside of their comprehension is a sign of the times. I personally came to these conclusions outside of any doctrine but ancient scriptures. The word and interpretation of man is often the source of deceit regardless of if they can see it or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Let me explain something to you that you apparently haven't grasped up until this point. Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text.

A), How do you know this? As I'm quite sure you're aware, most other Christians would disagree with you on that interpretation.

B), Why did nobody seem to know this until the actual age of the Earth and the Universe (hint: they're not the same) were otherwise independently discovered by scientific methods? Why is the "true" interpretation only ever "obvious" in retrospect?

C), That doesn't help with things being in the wrong order.

Forcing a selective post-hoc reinterpretation of the text is not compelling. Sorry.
What's in the wrong order? Pretty sure what your gonna say but I would rather not assume.

Peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A), How do you know this? As I'm quite sure you're aware, most other Christians would disagree with you on that interpretation.

B), Why did nobody seem to know this until the actual age of the Earth and the Universe (hint: they're not the same) were otherwise independently discovered by scientific methods? Why is the "true" interpretation only ever "obvious" in retrospect?

C), That doesn't help with things being in the wrong order.

Forcing a selective post-hoc reinterpretation of the text is not compelling. Sorry.
I am aware that Christians don't generally believe what I say about eons. There are large parts of scripture that to this day aren't understood by most. The fact that people are slowly beginning to grasp things that were at one time outside of their comprehension is a sign of the times. I personally came to these conclusions outside of any doctrine but ancient scriptures. The word and interpretation of man is often the source of deceit regardless of if they can see it or not.

I understand that you think you are correct.

Surely you must admit that they think they are correct?

From the outside, I can see nothing that makes either of you more correct.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
09-11-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I am aware that Christians don't generally believe what I say about eons. There are large parts of scripture that to this day aren't understood by most. The fact that people are slowly beginning to grasp things that were at one time outside of their comprehension is a sign of the times. I personally came to these conclusions outside of any doctrine but ancient scriptures. The word and interpretation of man is often the source of deceit regardless of if they can see it or not.

I understand that you think you are correct.

Surely you must admit that they think they are correct?

From the outside, I can see nothing that makes either of you more correct.
It is quite obvious that things are much older than traditional creationist would have us think. This is evident through science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  What's in the wrong order? Pretty sure what your gonna say but I would rather not assume.

Pretty much all of it, where it isn't physically illiterate to boot.

The sun, moon, and stars after the Earth itself?
Grasses and fruits before animals (hint: these are Cretacean) - let alone any plants before animals, given that primordial life was neither, and let alone any plants before the sun?
Let alone the contradictions between chapters one and two?

The whole thing is idiotic. Seen strictly as primitive myth-making, it's fine for what it is. As anything more than that it requires a degree of cognitive dissonance and intellectual acrobatics to accept that terrifies the sane observer.

One does, mind, find oneself forced to wonder just what the point of worshipping a book is if you're bound and determined to unilaterally redefine every single word in it to suit your own uniquely special feels anyway. If you merrily and vapidly declare what it's "supposed" to mean, up to and including in direct explicit contradiction to text as written and all real archaeological and linguistic analysis... why bother? Just admit you're making it all up for yourself anyway and move on with your life.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
09-11-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Well. How long was a day before the creation of the sun? How long is there between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I understand that you think you are correct.

Surely you must admit that they think they are correct?

From the outside, I can see nothing that makes either of you more correct.
It is quite obvious that things are much older than traditional creationist would have us think. This is evident through science.

You do not get to bleat that it is simply "obvious" and "evident". Literal creationists are incredibly sure that they are simply stating what is "obvious" and "evident".

You have to make actual appeals to actual evidence. Not feels.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: