Is Gilgamesh's Epic alone in the world?

[The Pixie]

Genesis 1.

Which states the sun was created on the fourth day.

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

​

Are you going to stick with that? I am going to guess you are not.

And yet it just happened. See above. You are without doubt the worst prognosticator in the history of prognostication.

Well, we will see if you stick with the sun was created on the fourth day, as Genesis 1 states.

Yep, four "yoms," i.e, four distinct periods of time.

Four days. As it says in Genesis 1.

Yep, four "yoms," i.e, four distinct periods of time.

Right, four days. As it says in Genesis 1

Yep. So it finally dawned on you that the author of Genesis 1 could not possibly have meant a 24 hour period when he used he word "yom." Finally.

Well, that is what I was going wuith. But you are insiusting I just read what is in Genesis 1 asnd go with that. Let me just check again...

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

Four days.

 

[SteveB]

Well, given you reject modern cosmology, and seem to be advocating for a flat earth I suppose that is fair enough.

Case in point.
I did my studies in physics and math.
I actually took an upper division cosmology course at the state university.
Seems pretty clear that you are so desperate to look like a fool that you're not able or willing to take the time to learn to read, understand or learn.

Well, apparently such is par for the course of atheists around these parts.

So explain it within your preferred cosmology, the cosmology you believe is true.

I already have.
You keep telling me that you don't believe me, so I'm going to take you seriously.
You're simply telling me that you don't want to know the truth.

Bingo!

There we have it at last. Finally you can admit that what the Bible presents is "a dated view of reality". It got this stuff wrong. There was no solid dome, the world is not flat.

It wasn't the bible that got it wrong.
You however keep claiming that.
Further demonstrating that you have no interest whatsoever in actually learning the truth.

So explain it to me so I do understand. Why does the text in Job talk about hail and snow being stored? What is it talking about?

I already have. You continue to tell me that you don't believe me, and you even continue to argue that I believe in a flat earth. Apparently because you are afraid of learning the truth.

You just admitted the Bible presents is "a dated view of reality", so why are you still arguing this?

I don't have a problem with it.
Especially since I was referring to Job, the man. Not the bible in its entirety.
But, as you do so well at tripping over yourself and trying to figure out how to embarrass yourself, while seeking to embarrass me, I'm thinking that you are just going to have to live with the awareness that you're your own worst enemy.
Thankfully, Jesus saves us from our stupidities too.
There is yet hope for you.
As is written,
God saves to the uttermost ALL who come to him through Jesus Christ.

And yet virtually all scientists - and in fact non-scientists too - agree with me that the planet is round, orbits the sun and does not have a solid dome.

They didn't use to.
Aristotle thought it was a collection of crystalline spheres suspended.
I was never that imaginative.
But, I suppose when you over think, and have no basis for your beliefs, you stumble over the obvious and ignore the truth.
Considering that scientists, 70 to 90 years ago were convinced that removing parts of the human brain would solve problems they couldn't control, I'm not particularly concerned that I don't agree with your opinions of science.

It is not me alone here, Steve. You are the one very much on the fringe when you advocate a flat earth.

Then it's a good thing that I actually recognize the truth, because I pay attention to those seemingly insignificant things that actually show me the great care God took in creating a beautiful planet which we humans are able to live, and enjoy all his benefits to us.

I am just going to ignore your usual bullying rants.

Pity you've decided that they are bullying rants instead of warnings about the future that awaits those who reject Jesus.
The same types of warnings that are issued by the British government regarding terrorism, weather conditions, and traffic conditions.

Of course you are:

"I already did. He said he'll explain it more fully when I get home."​

You do it all the time. You have no evidence now, but it will be here tomorrow.

I have repeatedly described the evidence I have. Don't forget.... you're the one who keeps saying that you don't believe me or the truth.

You have no messiah today, but he will be here tomorrow. And of course it will always be tomorrow. Christianity has been living on "Jam tomorrow" ever since Jesus said he would return within the lifetime of his disciples.

Actually, I've had a Messiah for the past 1990 years and he will indeed return to the earth in the future. Exactly as he described.

Except a wedding day has a fixed date in the calendar that gets a day closer every day.

Oh, it has a fixed date. The Father has set the say, and time.

Act 1:7 WEB He said to them, “It isn’t for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set within his own authority.

I'm not having a problem with this. It's pretty clear that you think you have a right to know everything, while ignoring what he's stated.

Jam tomorrow.

Yeah, you'll be wishing you would have kept focused on the Tomorrow that Jesus is promising.

It's Jesus in whom is our Hope. His Promise of life, and an eternity of paradise and peace and joy we look forward to.
Not knowing everything isn't a problem, because we will learn everything when we go to be with Jesus.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Which states the sun was created on the fourth day.

Correct.

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

​

Are you going to stick with that? I am going to guess you are not.

STEEEERIKE TWO on your prognostication skills today. I am indeed "sticking" with that.

Well, we will see if you stick with the sun was created on the fourth day, as Genesis 1 states.

Yep, the fourth "yom," i.e the fourth period of time.

Four days. As it says in Genesis 1.

YEP. Play it again, Sam:

Right, four days. As it says in Genesis 1

VERY GOOD!

Well, that is what I was going wuith. But you are insiusting I just read what is in Genesis 1 asnd go with that.

Three typos in one line. Not having a good day, are ya? Flustered?

Let me just check again...

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

Four days.

Yep. Let's see it again:

GENESIS 1:19: "And there was evening and there was morning - the FOURTH DAY."

 

[The Pixie]

I'd say that at every instance you want it to fit your biases and preconceptions about it, it says the earth is flat.

And I am in a position where I can - and have numerous times - support my biases and preconceptions because the Bible does in fact say the earth is flat.

I don't see where the bible actually states it's flat.

Sure, because you have your biases and preconceptions.

The difference is you are unable to support your position. That is because your biases and preconceptions are WRONG.

Eg, if I have my wife hold a cantaloupe up, at 50 feet, I'll see a circular pattern.
If I hold an orange up at arms length, I'll see a circular pattern.

Eg, if I cut the cantaloupe in quarters, and then cut those quarters in half (crosswise), I'll get 8 pieces.
Strangely enough, each piece has three, 90 degree right angles.
Yet, it's a triangle, of 270°.

And this phenomenon only occurs in a spherical coordinate system.

So, two pretty basic things that people would argue shows the world is flat, are simply descriptions of a spheroidal object.

It also says the sun was created some time after the earth, that the earth stands on pillars, that rain happens when God opens holes in the solid dome, that at the End Times a third of the stars will fall off that solid dome and drop to earth.

All these things fit perfectly with a flat earth cosmology, and do not fit a modern cosmology. But because you have your biases and preconceptions you ignore all those verses.

I'm a stage four metastatic melanoma cancer survivor. I live in the middle of evidence and experience all day long, and have for decades.
Wanna try that again?

Explain what your point is here Steve. Are you saying we can be sure the Bible authors believed the world was spherical because you survived cancer?

Do all the people who die of cancer therefore support my position? Or do we just pretend they do not exist.

Yet here you are trying to argue with me about false beliefs you possess, telling me what the bible says, when you are the only one who believes that.
I never had. Other Jesus followers I'm friends with or acquainted with through the past 45 years don't believe the things you're claiming.

Of course modern Christians reject the flat earth. But that does not imply the authors of the Bible did.

Case in point.
I did my studies in physics and math.

And yet you believe positrons bounce off electrons. You might like to think about how that damages your credibility when you claim to have studied physics at college level...

I actually took an upper division cosmology course at the state university.
Seems pretty clear that you are so desperate to look like a fool that you're not able or willing to take the time to learn to read, understand or learn.

So what? Why should I think the authors of the Bible knew modern cosmology, just because YOU did a course in it?

Did you actually think this through, Steve?

It wasn't the bible that got it wrong.
You however keep claiming that.
Further demonstrating that you have no interest whatsoever in actually learning the truth.

And I support my position by quoting the Bible, linking to concordances, linking to scholarly articles.

Meanwhile you the best you have is the dubious claim you did physics at college, like that is somehow evidence the ancient Israelites believed the earth was spherical and orbited the sun!

And yet virtually all scientists - and in fact non-scientists too - agree with me that the planet is round, orbits the sun and does not have a solid dome.

They didn't use to.

Right! The ancient Israelites believed the world was flat and covered with a solid dome - a very common belief at that time.

But, I suppose when you over think, and have no basis for your beliefs, you stumble over the obvious and ignore the truth.
Considering that scientists, 70 to 90 years ago were convinced that removing parts of the human brain would solve problems they couldn't control, I'm not particularly concerned that I don't agree with your opinions of science.

So are you saying they are wrong when they say the earth is round and orbits the sun?

I thought that was your position. Now you seem to be arguing against it! Did you not think this through?

I have repeatedly described the evidence I have.

And it all amounts to believing the Bible is true because the bible is true, and one guy got over cancer that time, and just ignore the millions who died of it.

Don't forget.... you're the one who keeps saying that you don't believe me or the truth.

It is only you I do not believe.

I do believe the truth.

Actually, I've had a Messiah for the past 1990 years and he will indeed return to the earth in the future. Exactly as he described.

Jam tomorrow!

Oh, it has a fixed date. The Father has set the say, and time.

A fixed date that no human knows is the same as a vague, uncertain time in the future.

Again, just Jam tomorrow!

It's Jesus in whom is our Hope. His Promise of life, and an eternity of paradise and peace and joy we look forward to.
Not knowing everything isn't a problem, because we will learn everything when we go to be with Jesus.

Jam tomorrow!

Get back to me when you have something today.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

My position is they saw it as a solid dome. Whether they thought it was metal or someelse that was strong like metal is not clear.

Solid: firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid; having three dimensions. For Biblical see Bible Hub: Solid.
Dome: a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure, typically with a circular base; a thing shaped like a dome.

Raqia is expanse; Biblically the mid-heavens or extremity of heaven, the modern day atmosphere. It held the waters that Jehovah took from the earth that were later used for the deluge of Noah's day.

They did not think scientifically, that is a pretty modern thing.

Not really. Question, investigate, speculate, observe, conclude. A child does that, primitives did that. That's inquisitive, humble. The weakness of science and theology is their arrogance.

But Genesis 1 shows they were interested in things "beyond their grasp", such as the origins of the universe.

Genesis 1 is actually stating things that were beyond their grasp in a simple manner which they could understand. A modern analysis from a "scientific" or theological perspective is likely wanting. A linguistic perspective is more accurate.

They wanted to make sense of the world, and religion was the tool they used.

No. They didn't need to make any more sense of the world than they observed. They thought more concretely or practically than we did. Religion, for the most part, was a tool of depravity. Catamites, phallic symbols, fertility gods and goddesses, human sacrifice. These things didn't tell them anything about the world they lived in other than the world they chose to create for themselves while toiling away. Seasonal respites of debauchery. Jehovah tried to remove them as much as possible from that.

Why were they told to record that the sun was created after the plants? Do you think God did it that way round? I see from your link that you say:

Genesis 1:2: The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth.

If God told them what to write, why did God get the day he created the sun wrong?

Here's what I would paste relevant to this point.

"Genesis 1:1: The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

"The word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point (Genesis 1:1) the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens, including sun, moon, stars and Earth were [already] created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards."

The word raqia is translated as expanse to force the Bible to fit modern cosmology.

If the word meant expanse until the Latin Vulgate, completed in 1555 CE, and after that given with a marginal reading of expanse, which means "an area of something, typically land or sea, presenting a wide continuous surface; the distance to which something expands or can be expanded" then how is it that you contend it to fit modern cosmology?

Its etymology, however, is something stamped or beated out, as would be done with a sheet of copper.

That's the meaning of the root word which is figuratively applied the same as sky, beaten out to dust as with a gold block. Go outside. Put your hands over your head. That's the sky. Is the sky solid or dust?

But birds can fly across a solid structure.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

Across: from one side to the other of (a place, area, etc.).

Are you looking at comparisons of translations of Genesis 1:20? It seems to me that if you were you would more fully appreciate that your position isn't as strong as you seem to think.

A fly can crawl across a wall not in it. A termite can borough through a wall, into it. A wall is solid. The rear or front guard of an armed force in the Bible is said to be solid. What does that mean?

How much do you think people travelled in those days? Most of the population probably never went more than 20 miles from where they were born.

How far do you think they could see?! The horizon is the apparent line.

Horizon: the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet; the limit of a person's mental perception, experience, or interest.

I think too much of modern anthropology is dependent on an estimation of the dark ages as being a marker for history prior to that time.
The advance of Babylon’s attackers from “the extremity of the heavens” means their coming to her from the distant horizon (where earth and sky appear to meet and the sun appears to rise and set). (Isaiah 13:5)

I definitely do not use the KJV! For a discussion like this, I very much recommend Bible Hub.

Numerous translations can be compared:

Isaiah 40:22 - Here is Your God!

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

biblehub.com

You can see the Hebrew:

Isaiah 40:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

You can look up Strong's concordance for each word:

Strong's Hebrew: 2329. חוּג (chug) -- vault, horizon

Definition​

vault, horizon​

NASB Translation​

circle (2), vault (1).​

What do you think Strong's is? Anyway, okay - you have there two circles and one vault. In context one walks on a vault (or circuit) in the other two you have a circle (or compass) which has been inscribed upon or set upon the face of and someone being above. That's all you have there with Strong's.

Bible Hub tells me the word is derived from chug, which fits with this being a circle, not a ball. A compass is a device for making circles.

Strong's Hebrew: 4230. מְחוּגָה (mechugah) -- a compass

So, how do you translate chug? How would you form a simple sentence with the word chug if we still spoke ancient Hebrew?

Not sure what your point is.

I said "Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle." So, if the primitives thought the earth was flat and their writings reflected that, i.e., they weren't inspired writings by the creator who knew better, the entire world would look to God, looking down from heaven, not as a circle but as an ellipse. If, on the other hand, they thought the earth was spherical then God, being above them, wherever they are on that spherical world, would always look like a circle. The opposite side of the world to Jerusalem is Mataura, French Polynesia. So, if the primitives knew such a place existed by that specific name, God, looking down on each from heaven, would look like a circle.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

So find the Bible verses that say that. I can find verses that say birds fly across it, that God opened holes in it to let rain fall through.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Not literal.

But what is your reason for thinking it was NOT strictly literal? Other than wanting to impose modern cosmology on it.

I don't know or care much about modern cosmology. I don't trust it any more than I do modern theology. They are only relevant to me as an impediment.

But that does not imply they would do the same.

It kind of does.

God put it in terms that are WRONG.

You're atheist? God didn't do anything from your perspective, right or wrong, correct?

It looks to me like Christians get to cherry pick the bits they want to be literal and the bits they want to be symbolic.

Take that up with the Christians, but everyone gets to cherry pick or they don't get cherries. Unless they purchase them. I'm sorry, were you being symbolic? The Bible critic more often than not uses the most literal interpretation because it justifies their estimation of the Bible as ridiculous.

The right way to do it is an analysis of the text. The wrong way is to decide in advance what you want to be literal, and try to rationalise that. How can you assure me you are doing it the right way?

Well . . . good question. I can't. I can only assure you that you are doing it the right way. So I break it down to it's most basic element. What the Bible says. This is what I do with atheist or theist. The Bible says there's a solid place, with windows, and floodgate. It amounts to a literal or figurative interpretation. Each of these links give insight on how these modern words developed and are used.

 

[SteveB]

And I am in a position where I can - and have numerous times - support my biases and preconceptions because the Bible does in fact say the earth is flat.

Well, since you actually want the bible to say something it's not saying, I'd say that you have a problem with YHVH, and I'm just in your way.

So, have fun with that at your judgment.
If I'm able, I'll attend.

Sure, because you have your biases and preconceptions.

Indeed! Which is exactly why I keep learning to apply what YHVH said in Proverbs 3:5-8, Psalm 111:10, and what Jesus said in John 16:13-15.

Pro 3:5-8 WEB 5 Trust in Yahweh with all your heart, and don’t lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. 7 Don’t be wise in your own eyes. Fear Yahweh, and depart from evil. 8 It will be health to your body, and nourishment to your bones.

Psa 111:10 WEB The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. All those who do his work have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!

Joh 16:13-15 WEB 13 However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take from what is mine and will declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he takes of mine and will declare it to you.

I realize that this is a problem for you to consider, but having an accurate perspective and understanding of what YHVH himself is saying matters to me. Especially when he actually explains why he's giving it to us.

The difference is you are unable to support your position. That is because your biases and preconceptions are WRONG.

Nope. I supported it. You simply use human arguments to justify your ignorance of YHVH's existence, means and methods.

Remember, I actually understand that you don't get it. It actually makes perfect sense to me that it's not possible for you to consider because you don't want to know YHVH and Jesus and the truth.
As long as you believe that you, and your fellow humans know more about reality and disregard the reality of YHVH, you're right and under no circumstances whatsoever can you or they be wrong.

Believe me! I get it.

The entire reason why your beliefs fail is because you simply reject YHVH's reality.

It also says the sun was created some time after the earth,

Yep.

that the earth stands on pillars,

No. Actually Job is the only user of that term. As previously established, I'm not particularly concerned with Job's description and views of the cosmos.
Especially when starting in Job 38 YHVH shows up and demands that Job answer as man, and starts asking him pointed questions.

Job 38:1-8 WEB 1 Then Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind, 2 “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man, for I will question you, then you answer me! 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line on it? 6 What were its foundations fastened on? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke out of the womb,

It's curious how Job responds to the inquiry.

Job 40:1-5 WEB 1 Moreover Yahweh answered Job, 2 “Shall he who argues contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” 3 Then Job answered Yahweh, 4 “Behold, I am of small account. What will I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. 5 I have spoken once, and I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.”

A second round starts with

Job 40:6-7 WEB 6 Then Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind: 7 “Now brace yourself like a man. I will question you, and you will answer me.

And Job responds

Job 42:1-8 WEB 1 Then Job answered Yahweh: 2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be restrained. 3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’ therefore I have uttered that which I didn’t understand, things too wonderful for me, which I didn’t know. 4 You said, ‘Listen, now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you will answer me.’ 5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. 6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” 7 It was so, that after Yahweh had spoken these words to Job,

We then see that YHVH calls out Job's friends to answer for their erroneous views and beliefs.

Yahweh said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you, and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has. 8 Now therefore, take to yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept him, that I not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has.”

The irony of this is that YHVH gave clear description that Job didn't have a clue about reality.

So, it's pretty easy to dismiss your justification for such ideas as having a limited perspective from a guy whose views were subsequently corrected by God himself.

that rain happens when God opens holes in the solid dome, that at the End Times a third of the stars will fall off that solid dome and drop to earth.

Sounds Aristotelian to me.
Especially when I checked 3 different translations and I found nothing.

But, by all means please provide the bible references that say these things.
Make it good though. I'd hate to be able to discredit the views too easily.

All these things fit perfectly with a flat earth cosmology, and do not fit a modern cosmology. But because you have your biases and preconceptions you ignore all those verses.

To a guy who is convinced that he alone is right.... I'm not bothered with this.

Explain what your point is here Steve. Are you saying we can be sure the Bible authors believed the world was spherical because you survived cancer?

It's pretty simply stated. If you're not actually able to understand, you'll have to explain what parts you don't get.

Do all the people who die of cancer therefore support my position? Or do we just pretend they do not exist.

I'm not the one who needs to hide behind them.

Of course modern Christians reject the flat earth. But that does not imply the authors of the Bible did.

Yet you have yet to show where they actually did believe in a flat earth.
Your ideas regarding Job's views are already blown out of the water, and were done by YHVH himself at the end of Job's suffering.

 

[SteveB]

And yet you believe positrons bounce off electrons.

Sounds like you're getting desperate Pixie.

You might like to think about how that damages your credibility when you claim to have studied physics at college level...

I think the damage, as you call it, to my credibility, is your inability to read subsequent statements made later in that conversation. I think you felt justified and finally felt like you had a sandhill to die on that you stopped reading the rest of the discussion.
That just makes you look bad. I'm not bothered with it anymore.

But, you keep going. It's obviously bolstering your own deliberate ignorance.

So what? Why should I think the authors of the Bible knew modern cosmology, just because YOU did a course in it?

I think you're looking for a justification that you can die on. That way, when you stand before God, you think you'll have a valid reason for why you should be allowed to spend your eternity in the lake of fire.

Did you actually think this through, Steve?

Why?
Had you?
Because if you hadn't actually thought the entire bible through, why should I capitulate to your demands and temper tantrums?

Here's a novel thought for you thought.
I've been learning for the past 45 years.
Where, what, how, why, and when have you been learning about Jesus and the bible?

And I support my position by quoting the Bible, linking to concordances, linking to scholarly articles.

Really?
Sure could have fooled me.
But, ok. Show me where pillars, domes, raining holes, etc. are stated in the bible. Make sure you properly reference your quotes. I want to be able to corroborate them.

Meanwhile you the best you have is the dubious claim you did physics at college, like that is somehow evidence the ancient Israelites believed the earth was spherical and orbited the sun!

Considering you have nothing but your own beliefs.... I'm not bothered with this one. You keep going though. This surpassed interesting years ago. Especially since Jesus actually rose from the dead 1990+/- years ago.

Right! The ancient Israelites believed the world was flat and covered with a solid dome - a very common belief at that time.

You'll have to show me where they believed that.
Keep in mind that Job's cosmology was disproved by YHVH starting in Job 38.
Furthermore, Job wasn't an Israeli. He was from Uz, east of Midian.

So are you saying they are wrong when they say the earth is round and orbits the sun?

Well, if you don't actually know how to read, and think carefully, I'm not sure that my explaining the same thing over and over and over and over......again are going to help.
Let me know though. I can start copying and pasting my comments repeatedly, until you get it.

I thought that was your position. Now you seem to be arguing against it! Did you not think this through?

I'm thinking that the problem here is that my way of thinking doesn't agree with your beliefs. So you're going to continue to make sure that you embarrass yourself as frequently as possible.

And it all amounts to believing the Bible is true because the bible is true, and one guy got over cancer that time, and just ignore the millions who died of it.

Sounds like your life sucks.
It's so much better with Jesus than you could possibly fathom.

It is only you I do not believe.

If that were true, you would never have engaged in discussion with me.
So you'll have to excuse me while I go enjoy a good laugh.

I do believe the truth.

If that was true, you'd have already engaged Jesus.
So, again, you'll have to excuse me while I grab another bottle of water.

Jam tomorrow!

It's your eternity.
I'm enjoying preparing for mine..

if you ever change your mind and decide to engage YHVH and Jesus, just call on his name.
as it's written,

Rom 10:13 WEB For, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

A fixed date that no human knows is the same as a vague, uncertain time in the future.

Why is the fixed date necessary for anyone except the invitees?
And as YHVH has explicitly stated that he will make sure that we attend, our knowledge of the date is immaterial.

We simply need to be ready. And Jesus took care of that.


Luk 21:34-36 WEB 34 “So be careful, or your hearts will be loaded down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day will come on you suddenly. 35 For it will come like a snare on all those who dwell on the surface of all the earth. 36 Therefore be watchful all the time, praying that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

You really need to read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning and awareness.
Then you can get prepared too.

Again, just Jam tomorrow!

Only if you actually want to spend your eternity in the lake of fire.
personally, I'm preparing for mine to be with Jesus.

and I'm doing so in a manner described in the bible.

Jam tomorrow!

Get back to me when you have something today.

It's already been given to you.

Joh 14:22-24 WEB 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, what has happened that you are about to reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who doesn’t love me doesn’t keep my words. The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.

Do what Jesus said and he promises to come and make his home with you. Personally I can't think of a better way to actually know the truth than for Jesus and God to live with you.

 

[The Pixie]

Solid: firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid; having three dimensions. For Biblical see Bible Hub: Solid.
Dome: a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure, typically with a circular base; a thing shaped like a dome.

Raqia is expanse; Biblically the mid-heavens or extremity of heaven, the modern day atmosphere. It held the waters that Jehovah took from the earth that were later used for the deluge of Noah's day.

Modern Bibles translate raqia as expanse because we all know there is no solid dome. But that is hardly an argument that that is what the author believed.

Not really. Question, investigate, speculate, observe, conclude. A child does that, primitives did that. That's inquisitive, humble. The weakness of science and theology is their arrogance.

You refute yourself. It was you who originally said "The ancients didn't think scientifically" in post #50. I was agreeing with you.

Genesis 1 is actually stating things that were beyond their grasp in a simple manner which they could understand. A modern analysis from a "scientific" or theological perspective is likely wanting. A linguistic perspective is more accurate.

The author clearly believed the earth was flat and covered in a solid dome. If you are telling me that is because God could not explain it to him, then I will point out that modern science has beat God on that one, because modern science has managed to explain that to pretty much everyone.

No. They didn't need to make any more sense of the world than they observed. They thought more concretely or practically than we did. Religion, for the most part, was a tool of depravity. Catamites, phallic symbols, fertility gods and goddesses, human sacrifice. These things didn't tell them anything about the world they lived in other than the world they chose to create for themselves while toiling away. Seasonal respites of debauchery. Jehovah tried to remove them as much as possible from that.

Religion was a tool of perceived necessity. Phallic symbols, fertility gods and goddesses, human sacrifice were generally done to (supposedly) ensure crops grew, etc. The debauchery was a side thing and probably not that common.

And Genesis 1 shows that in fact they did try to make sense of the world. To us, it looks like they failed, because they got so badly wrong, but it was how it appeared to them.

Here's what I would paste relevant to this point.

"Genesis 1:1: The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

"The word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point (Genesis 1:1) the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens, including sun, moon, stars and Earth were [already] created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards."

I think it more likely Genesis 1:1 is, if you like, an abstract - a summary of what will next be described. It is not the first step.

If the word meant expanse until the Latin Vulgate, completed in 1555 CE, and after that given with a marginal reading of expanse, which means "an area of something, typically land or sea, presenting a wide continuous surface; the distance to which something expands or can be expanded" then how is it that you contend it to fit modern cosmology?

What is your evidence for that? In the Bible the word is used only to refer to the firmament as far as I know, and I am not aware of any other sources where it might be found.

Again, the etymology is something beaten or stamped out like a sheet of metal.

That's the meaning of the root word which is figuratively applied the same as sky, beaten out to dust as with a gold block. Go outside. Put your hands over your head. That's the sky. Is the sky solid or dust?

Where are you getting that from?

The raqia is far to high to actually reach up and touch (as indeed is the sky).

Across: from one side to the other of (a place, area, etc.).

Are you looking at comparisons of translations of Genesis 1:20? It seems to me that if you were you would more fully appreciate that your position isn't as strong as you seem to think.

A fly can crawl across a wall not in it. A termite can borough through a wall, into it. A wall is solid. The rear or front guard of an armed force in the Bible is said to be solid. What does that mean?

And a bird can fly across the face of a solid dome. As the text says.

Have you looked at the Hebrew? It seems to me that if you did you would more fully appreciate that your position isn't as strong as you seem to think.

Genesis 1:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

How far do you think they could see?! The horizon is the apparent line.

Horizon: the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet; the limit of a person's mental perception, experience, or interest.

I think too much of modern anthropology is dependent on an estimation of the dark ages as being a marker for history prior to that time.
The advance of Babylon’s attackers from “the extremity of the heavens” means their coming to her from the distant horizon (where earth and sky appear to meet and the sun appears to rise and set). (Isaiah 13:5)

I am not sure what your point is. That Isaiah verse seems very much to support my position. The extremity of heaven would be where the solid dome meets the earth - as you say the distant horizon.

What do you think Strong's is? Anyway, okay - you have there two circles and one vault. In context one walks on a vault (or circuit) in the other two you have a circle (or compass) which has been inscribed upon or set upon the face of and someone being above. That's all you have there with Strong's.

Which looks rather better than you with... nothing.

So, how do you translate chug? How would you form a simple sentence with the word chug if we still spoke ancient Hebrew?

I would probably translate it as dome. How about you?

I said "Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle." So, if the primitives thought the earth was flat and their writings reflected that, i.e., they weren't inspired writings by the creator who knew better, the entire world would look to God, looking down from heaven, not as a circle but as an ellipse. If, on the other hand, they thought the earth was spherical then God, being above them, wherever they are on that spherical world, would always look like a circle. The opposite side of the world to Jerusalem is Mataura, French Polynesia. So, if the primitives knew such a place existed by that specific name, God, looking down on each from heaven, would look like a circle.

Surely the only place for God's throne would be right above the top of the dome. From that vantage, the flat earth would be a circle, just as the verse describes.

 

[The Pixie]

I don't know or care much about modern cosmology. I don't trust it any more than I do modern theology. They are only relevant to me as an impediment.

Okay...

It kind of does.

How?

You're atheist? God didn't do anything from your perspective, right or wrong, correct?

Correct. From my perspective, the author got it wrong.

Take that up with the Christians, but everyone gets to cherry pick or they don't get cherries. Unless they purchase them. I'm sorry, were you being symbolic? The Bible critic more often than not uses the most literal interpretation because it justifies their estimation of the Bible as ridiculous.

And the theist more often than not uses the "it's symbolic" card when they want to pretend the text says something they do not like.

Well . . . good question. I can't. I can only assure you that you are doing it the right way. So I break it down to it's most basic element. What the Bible says. This is what I do with atheist or theist. The Bible says there's a solid place, with windows, and floodgate. It amounts to a literal or figurative interpretation. Each of these links give insight on how these modern words developed and are used.

You seem to be now agreeing with me.