Re: Stationary Earth

by Grandpa Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:53 am

Strangelove wrote:

There is no source, its a supernatural light.

BTW..where did the waters ABOVE the firmament go?

That is what caused the flood in Noahs time. The waters above the firmament God caused to come down to Earth for 40 days and 40 nights. That is also why people lived so long before the flood, because this water canopy over the earth blocked much of the harmful radiation that gets in now. The bible doesn't explicitly say this, just a theory. Pretty good one though, imho.

by MUSKOKAMAN Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:29 am

I understand your reluctance to accept my words as gospel in regards to my understanding of cosmological nature Grandpa and that's alright. The problem I have is my inability to convey the message in a concise package that's understandable without rambling off in another direction.

May God help with that?

Here's the thing heliocentric theory isn't a theory it's a fact and it has been corroberated many times over in the last 40 years!

Now we can accept what our brothers whom are specialists in their field say which the general consensus is Heliocentricism or we can deny it.

Doc. brings forth no data from anyone in the field of astrophysics who is alive today and with the computers we have, this tool alone has made it possible to study the stars in ways we never could have imagined 50 years ago and not to mention satellite photography of the planets and the sun and the information gleaned from the numerous space probes sent out in the cosmos to study the nature of the solar system we live in

We have to take in to account the Mass and Density of a cellestial body to calculate their effects on the sun and earth in their respective relations!

For example we know the Sun is approx. 330,000 times the size of the earth made up mostly of hydrogen and helium with a core of iron this means that it's Mass is much much greater than earths this means it creates an effect in space near it of attraction. this is proven science not theory! the 4 inner planets are known as earth type planets because of their primary makeup is similar in Mass/density percentages as earths (made of iron rock and heavier elements) this explains their position in the solar system from the sun due to density vs distance.

The 5 outer planets though much larger are comprised of lighter elements at even farther distances than the earth which means they do not have as much effect on the sun or it closest planets because of their distance from it and in likewise the sun and it's gravitational force it exerts has less pull that far out but the planets densities are still light enough to be kept in a perpetual like orbit around the sun.

To give you an overthesis think of it this way our creation was accomplished by God through what we will call a big bang! As in any explosion the lighter elements will go the farthest and the heavier ones will stay near the epicenter of the explosion. (The sun being the heaviest and so on out into the solar system) These fragments of the explosion coalesce and become planets and debris orbiting the original explosive epicenter and that orbits the sun.

Mass x density= gravity..... this is as basic as it gets. The more density an object has the more force it exerts on it's surroundings.

The larger the mass of iron in the core of a cellestial body the greater the electromagnetic force it creates this also is science.

Now I don't have to tell you about magnets and how they attract or are attracted to objects made of iron but if you think about the size of the sun and the amount of iron determined to be in it's core with relation to the force created whilst spinning you start to understand a basic concept of electromagnetism and how it's creation is also one of the driving forces that keep the planets in check in their designed orbits along side the force of attraction which is created directly due to the mass of any given object.

primitive experiments show this very well in a very shallow cone shaped table with the center hole representing the sun and the descent of the cone from rim to center at the mathematically derived plane to produce the required gravitational effect here on earth that we observe in the heavens. (picture a giant roulette table abot 40 feet across with a hole in the middle of it) They then start their mock planets on their mock orbits on the coneshaped table with each planet being represented with its Mass/density/size equivalent with no strings attached or none of that and watched how they would react.

They did exactly what the planets do in our own solar system including the faster time of orbit for bodies that were closer to the sun vs those farther away............funny eh.........

This proved einstiens theory of General relativity and the mechanics of the heavens I can't remember the name of the experiment as it was years ago but anyone who believes in geocentricism in this day and age is foolish and disregard all evidence brought forth by great minds of the 20th century in particular the last 30 years. These same people would prefer to say that the moon landing was a hoax as well and deny the accomplishments of man as spurious rhetoric and conspiracy theory. The only people holding on to the geocentric today are biblical scholars looking for the recognition of their flawed science to say see I told ya so

Their utter denial of some biblical scholars of everything learned by Nasa and others in their field who hold to the heliocentric argument is of either a conspiracy nature or misinterpreted scripture.

To say that the earth is stationary based upon precepts with the naked eye and ones own feeling that the earth is not moving because of ones own perception of a solid earth beneath our feet is to fool oneself.

Spin around 20 times then stop is the earth moving or is your equilibrium still compensating for the spinning motion you just induced? PERCEPTION

Your driving towards a mountain range in the distance 100 miles off it looks to be a 100 feet tall .At 50 miles it looks 300 feet tall at 10 miles it looks 4000 feet tall.....Now did the mountain grow as you got near it ....no of course not well what changed.......PERCEPTION

Your 30,000 feet in the air going 600mph yet the landscape cwals by underneath you yet if you were going 600mph on the ground you would be terrified at the speed the landscape came upon you..PERCEPTION

Now we know the speed of light 186000 mpsecond that's why it's not called the theory of the speed of light cause they have proven it.

Knowing this makes many computations possible when regarding distance time and size of a cellestial body we also use radio waves to corroberate findings using the speed of light so we have two points of referrence to go from when determining distances and size.

Like it says in the bible Two or three witnesses......well light and radio wave are our measurable witnesses they don't lie regardless of what others may say they do not that is why scientists use them they are a constant

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:02 pm

Oh man...

Musky..I cannot WAIT to get home so I can rip those last two posts of yours apart.

What utter nonsense, the whole lot.

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:54 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:It's a wiki article Doc. so what! 2 minutes............huh........

So you plagerized. Read the rules:

LINK:For Everyone

Quote:

Rule:

I've got nothing against cut and pasting other people studies off the internet into a thread for examination.

However, when doing this a link MUST be provided at the end of the post or you must at least give due credit to the author.

Thanks.

Next time you infringe this rule it will be a formal warning.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:what a waste of my time to c/p all that just so you can say ......................duh ......................no..............

I gave you valid reasons why your c/p plagerism was not proof of anything. I didnt say "duh...no". You can either respond to my points (wishful thinking) or not.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:use your head for more than a hatrack man

Ad homs dont help your cause.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote: if you truly believe that something that is 330,000 times larger than us orbits us then you got rocks in your head!

So the sun is larger than Earth? So what? Are you referring to gravity which is a force we have only ever observed ON EARTH?

And how do you know the sun is a heavyer mass than the earth? Is a baloon heavier than a baseball?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:GRAVITATION................oh ya you don't believe in gravity either...........

Oh I beliee in gravity. It's a word that comes from the latin gravitas which means HEAVYNESS. Thats all it means and we've only observed it on earth. Thats what I believe in, things that have been observed, first hand...by everyone who has ever lived on earth. What do you believe in? Theories and musings of a handful of puffed up eggheads in white jackets who attempt to nullify the foundation of the bible...the creation account?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:LOL where were you educated in a mine from cereal box covers...........

I will PM you after I've finished this. This is unacceptable for this forum.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:seriously man geocentricism is the placard of the Catholic church and if
you wish to continue believing in such nonsense then further debate is
pointless

Geocentrism is a placard of the bible. So is Jesus. The RCC held to both at one time, although they have renounced geocentrism now. Just coz the RCC supported a valid biblical doctrine doesnt mean its false.

Debate? I've seen no debate here. All I've seen is me bringign forth science and logic, and you responding with emotion and arrogant waffle.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:let's just move on to ad hominen's then and see who can cuss more...........lol

G'head and bash me all you want but in the right sub-forum. (I'll beat you to a pulp there too)

LINK:Personal Attacks and Bashing

(Read the rules first)

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:57 pm

Grandpa wrote:Gravity doesn't explain motion of heavenly bodies very well. I know it is seemingly the only explanation science has for it but it logically makes no sense.

The theory is that all heavenly bodies having mass exert gravity on each other, right? The theory also is that the sun is so massive that it holds the earth in its perfect elliptical orbit by gravity. When the planets line up in their orbits shouldn't they pull on each other and cause everything to go out of whack? Also if there were just one planet and it had an elliptical orbit wouldn't that in and of itself cause it to spin off into space due to momentum after a few orbits? Shouldn't this be exacerbated by there being many planets?

I suppose gravity explaining motion of heavenly bodies would make more sense to me if the orbits of planets increased due to their mass. But mass doesn't seem to have anything to do with distance from the sun. How can that be? How can a planet with less mass assume a farther orbit? If gravity explains that then how can a planet with more mass assume a farther orbit?

Most of what I have seen is people assuming the earth orbits the sun and then they take everything from there. But what if it doesnt? Why would you assume that man's science is the correct view? Haven't you seen that when people extrapolate based on a theory they are usually wrong? Look to Darwin for this example in action.

Excellent post Gramps....universal gravitation is an absolutely absurd theory.

Personally, I think gravity...which we have only observed on earth...is caused by a force produced by the firmament turning around the centrally located earth. Same force that produces the coreolis effect.

(see Barbor & Bertotti Machian model earlier in the thread)

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:59 pm

Grandpa wrote:
That is what caused the flood in Noahs time. The waters above the firmament God caused to come down to Earth for 40 days and 40 nights. That is also why people lived so long before the flood, because this water canopy over the earth blocked much of the harmful radiation that gets in now. The bible doesn't explicitly say this, just a theory. Pretty good one though, imho.

So the rain came from the waters above the firmament....past all the stars...waaaaay down to the earth and fell there?

Sorry bud. That doesnt sound right. I dont think rain travels thru space very well! Very Happy

It's more likely that the rain came from clouds, just like they do today.

by MUSKOKAMAN Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:26 pm

Strangelove wrote:Oh man...

Musky..I cannot WAIT to get home so I can rip those last two posts of yours apart.

What utter nonsense, the whole lot.

oh so I am nonsensical huh......why waste your obvious talents on misinfo doc.? A bright fellow like yourself shouldn't believe in a lie like geocentricism!

by MUSKOKAMAN Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:34 pm

Grandpa wrote:

That is what caused the flood in Noahs time. The waters above the firmament God caused to come down to Earth for 40 days and 40 nights. That is also why people lived so long before the flood, because this water canopy over the earth blocked much of the harmful radiation that gets in now. The bible doesn't explicitly say this, just a theory. Pretty good one though, imho.

I remember hearing that one about 15 years ago Gramps and I think it has alot of merit after looking into it for a while. Radiation is responsible for shortening our lives this is true just ask any one who has had chemotherapy if they lived for anytime after the treatments the cure is more deadly than the disease

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:37 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I understand your reluctance to accept my words as gospel in regards to
my understanding of cosmological nature Grandpa and that's alright. The
problem I have is my inability to convey the message in a concise
package that's understandable without rambling off in another direction.

May God help with that?

It may help if you stop getting so emotional and answer point by point and sprinkle less insults into your posts. You really do come across so arrogant but yet you dont debate the topic.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Here's the thing heliocentric theory isn't a theory it's a fact and it
has been corroberated many times over in the last 40 years!

Corroborated how...where...when...by whom?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Now we can accept what our brothers whom are specialists in their field
say which the general consensus is Heliocentricism or we can deny it.

Anyone who believes in science falsely so called over Gods Word is no brother of mine. Sorry.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Doc. brings forth no data from anyone in the field of astrophysics who
is alive today and with the computers we have, this tool alone has made
it possible to study the stars in ways we never could have imagined 50
years ago and not to mention satellite photography of the planets and
the sun and the information gleaned from the numerous space probes sent
out in the cosmos to study the nature of the solar system we live in

So many claims but you never show us the data?

What 'star studies' prove a moving earth?

How have computers shown this reality?

Show us some snaps by 'satellite photography' that prove a moving earth?

Lets see this 'information gleaned from the numerous space probes' that support your position?

Either show us the data or stop making the claim. Its quite simple. Fess up or zip it!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:We have to take in to account the Mass and Density of a cellestial body
to calculate their effects on the sun and earth in their respective
relations!

We dont know the mass of anything. Not even the earth.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:For example we know the Sun is approx. 330,000 times the size of the
earth made up mostly of hydrogen and helium with a core of iron this
means that it's Mass is much much greater than earths

No, we dont know that at all. All you have is a guess.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:this means it creates an effect in space near it of attraction. this is proven science not theory!

You have no proof WHATSOEVER of universal gravitation. None. How can you say its not theory to our face and expect to get away with it?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:the 4 inner planets are known as earth type planets because of their
primary makeup is similar in Mass/density percentages as earths (made of
iron rock and heavier elements) this explains their position in the
solar system from the sun due to density vs distance.

You have no clue of the mass of the planets.....or earth. Very Happy

And even if you did....it wouldnt explain their position in the system. What about jupiter? Thats huge isnt it? So why is it so far out? I guess you'll have to THEORIZE that Jupiter is made of different stuff right?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The 5 outer planets though much larger are comprised of lighter elements
at even farther distances than the earth which means they do not have
as much effect on the sun or it closest planets because of their
distance from it and in likewise the sun and it's gravitational force it
exerts has less pull that far out but the planets densities are still
light enough to be kept in a perpetual like orbit around the sun.

LOLZ!

How about the sun? It's comprised of very light elements ok? So its ok to have it orbiting the earth!

Did you like my theorizing?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:To give you an overthesis think of it this way our creation was accomplished by God through what we will call a big bang!

Oh here we go. Make up a different creation scenario thats based on THE KABALLAH AND ZOHAR written by puffed up 'sages' who will do anything they can to nullify the true and perfect Word of God which gives us a very simple and straight forward account of how everything was created.

Not good enough for you right? So you need to make it more mysterious and clever by adding to Gods Word.

Nope...no 'big bang' in my bible. Do you see it in yours? I see it in the ZOHAR though, I've already posted it in this thread. How does it feel to be marching to the tune of the TALMUDIC PHARISEES.

They made up all this stuff to pave the way towards evilution, to take people away from God. And its worked!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:As in any explosion the lighter elements will go the farthest and the
heavier ones will stay near the epicenter of the explosion. (The sun
being the heaviest and so on out into the solar system) These fragments
of the explosion coalesce and become planets and debris orbiting the
original explosive epicenter and that orbits the sun.

Thats the pharisees account. Heres Gods account:

Day one:

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(Genesis 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

(Genesis 1:4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

(Genesis 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I believe God.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Mass x density= gravity..... this is as basic as it gets. The more
density an object has the more force it exerts on it's surroundings.

We've only ever observed gravity on earth. Its a word that describes how things fall to the ground. Thats as basic as it gets.

If you want to apply this to planets and stars...your theorizing. Take care O Timothy, that this 'science' doesnt cause you to ERR from the faith.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The larger the mass of iron in the core of a cellestial body the greater
the electromagnetic force it creates this also is science.

You have no idea how much iron there is in any celestial body...or even in earth.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Now I don't have to tell you about magnets and how they attract or are
attracted to objects made of iron but if you think about the size of the
sun and the amount of iron determined to be in it's core with relation
to the force created whilst spinning you start to understand a basic
concept of electromagnetism and how it's creation is also one of the
driving forces that keep the planets in check in their designed orbits
along side the force of attraction which is created directly due to the
mass of any given object.

Right! Now your thinking! ELECTROMAGNETISM!

So why do we need 'gravitas' in space if we have this infinately more powerful force running things?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:primitive experiments show this very well in a very shallow cone shaped
table with the center hole representing the sun and the descent of the
cone from rim to center at the mathematically derived plane to produce
the required gravitational effect here on earth that we observe in the
heavens. (picture a giant roulette table abot 40 feet across with a hole
in the middle of it) They then start their mock planets on their mock
orbits on the coneshaped table with each planet being represented with
its Mass/density/size equivalent with no strings attached or none of
that and watched how they would react.

A ball always ends up falling to the centre of the roulette table though!

Funny how that doesnt happen in space with the planets falling into the sun. Must be summink else goin on. Maybe electromagnetism, with no gravity!?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:They did exactly what the planets do in our own solar system including
the faster time of orbit for bodies that were closer to the sun vs those
farther away............funny eh.........

No, whats funny is that the planets never stop in their paths. Because the firmament is carrying them in its rotation and electromagnetism is keeping everything in the path God SET (forth) for the celestial bodies He created by snapping His fingers!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:This proved einstiens theory of General relativity and the mechanics of
the heavens I can't remember the name of the experiment as it was years
ago

It's still a theory by the way. So its not been proven by the experiment that you have conveniently forgotten about.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:but anyone who believes in geocentricism in this day and age is foolish
and disregard all evidence brought forth by great minds of the 20th
century in particular the last 30 years.

I've seen no evidence from you. Only theorizing.

I've got 4 REAL experiments that are still performed today that prove a stationary earth. I've got logic. I've got observation.

Who's foolish?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:These same people would prefer to say that the moon landing was a hoax
as well and deny the accomplishments of man as spurious rhetoric and
conspiracy theory.

LOL! You believe we went to the moon?

Oh boy.

LINK:Moon Landing Hoaxes

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The only people holding on to the geocentric today are biblical scholars looking for the recognition of their flawed science to say see I told ya so

You dont like biblical scholars do you?

You even make a fuss when Christians go to the Greek or Hebrew translations.

The only person presenting flawed science is you pal.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Their utter denial of some biblical scholars of everything learned by
Nasa and others in their field who hold to the heliocentric argument is
of either a conspiracy nature or misinterpreted scripture.

At least we got SOMETHING! Lolz! What have you got? The word of a handful of white coats in NASA (a government agency) a sun worshipper (Copernicus) and a witch (Kepler)!

I got the Word of God and the observations of everyone who has ever lived on earth!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:To say that the earth is stationary based upon precepts with the naked
eye and ones own feeling that the earth is not moving because of ones
own perception of a solid earth beneath our feet is to fool oneself.

But you say...everything we see and feel is an illusion, without any evidence to support the statement. Whos fooling themselves?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Spin around 20 times then stop is the earth moving or is your
equilibrium still compensating for the spinning motion you just induced?
PERCEPTION

??

Stand still on a perfectly calm day.

Is the earth moving?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Your driving towards a mountain range in the distance 100 miles off it
looks to be a 100 feet tall .At 50 miles it looks 300 feet tall at 10
miles it looks 4000 feet tall.....Now did the mountain grow as you got
near it ....no of course not well what changed.......PERCEPTION

So show us a moving earth from a different perspective! You cant.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Your 30,000 feet in the air going 600mph yet the landscape cwals by
underneath you yet if you were going 600mph on the ground you would be
terrified at the speed the landscape came upon you..PERCEPTION

Price of fish?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Now we know the speed of light 186000 mpsecond that's why it's not
called the theory of the speed of light cause they have proven it.

Knowing
this makes many computations possible when regarding distance time and
size of a cellestial body we also use radio waves to corroberate
findings using the speed of light so we have two points of referrence to
go from when determining distances and size.

Show us already!

Lets see all these studies of how speed of light or radio waves have proved the distances, time and size of celestial bodies. When are you gonna show us?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Like it says in the bible Two or three witnesses......well light and
radio wave are our measurable witnesses they don't lie regardless of
what others may say they do not that is why scientists use them they are
a constant

Yeah I'm sure thats what the bible means when it refers to two or three witnesses.

?????

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:38 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:oh so I am nonsensical huh......why waste your obvious talents on misinfo doc.? A bright fellow like yourself shouldn't believe in a lie like geocentricism!

S'ok Musky. Your going thu something called denial. This happened when we were talking about the Mother of Harlots too.

Question.

Do you believe in Darwins theory of the origin of species?

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:43 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I remember hearing that one about 15 years ago Gramps and I think it has alot of merit after looking into it for a while. Radiation is responsible for shortening our lives this is true just ask any one who has had chemotherapy if they lived for anytime after the treatments the cure is more deadly than the disease

So...the water protected us from radiation yeah?

Radiation from what exactly?

by Grandpa Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:58 pm

Strangelove wrote:

So the rain came from the waters above the firmament....past all the stars...waaaaay down to the earth and fell there?

Sorry bud. That doesnt sound right. I dont think rain travels thru space very well!

It's more likely that the rain came from clouds, just like they do today.

No not that firmament. The other one. The one above the Earth but not above the stars. The one described in Genesis 1:20.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The waters that were around the Earth, which were divided by this firmament, were somewhere where clouds would be, or higher. Not sure if there were even clouds before the flood, or if it rained before the flood. I think I remember something about a mist coming up from the ground to water all the plants before the flood. Anyway, this water canopy coming down on the earth is what caused the worldwide flood.

I think what you are referring to is the 3rd heaven that is talked about in 2Corinthians 12. The first heaven would be the earths atmosphere. The 2nd would be the heavens where all the stars are. The 3rd would be the heaven of the heavens or the place above all the stars.

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:23 pm

Grandpa wrote:No not that firmament. The other one. The one above the Earth but not above the stars. The one described in Genesis 1:20.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The waters that were around the Earth, which were divided by this firmament, were somewhere where clouds would be, or higher. Not sure if there were even clouds before the flood, or if it rained before the flood. I think I remember something about a mist coming up from the ground to water all the plants before the flood. Anyway, this water canopy coming down on the earth is what caused the worldwide flood.

I think what you are referring to is the 3rd heaven that is talked about in 2Corinthians 12. The first heaven would be the earths atmosphere. The 2nd would be the heavens where all the stars are. The 3rd would be the heaven of the heavens or the place above all the stars.

Sorry Gramps, that doesnt work.

When God FIRST created the firmament, it was in Gen 1:6-7

(Genesis 1:6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

(Genesis 1:7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

He created the firmament IN THE MIDST of the waters. You cant tell me that this is just referring to the 1st heaven can you?

THE firmament, the entirety of the firmament.....divided the waters below from the waters above. Later Genesis talks about putting the stars in the firmament of heaven.

The firmament IS Heaven and the Heaven IS the firmament. Look:

(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven.

The sun and moon and stars are IN THE FIRMAMENT which is Heaven:

(Genesis 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

(Genesis 1:15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(Genesis
1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Even God's temporary throne room...in the 3rd Heaven, is STILL in the firmament..but above and beyond the last star.

(2
Corinthians 12:2) I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And beyond that..as stated in scripture, is the Waters ABOVE the firmament. The firmament DIVIDES the waters from the waters. Thats it. God laid it all out nice and neatly for us.

Is Genesis 1:6 only talking about the creation of a certain section of the firmament?

....or all of the firmament of heaven? Question

by Grandpa Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:49 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Sorry Gramps, that doesnt work.

When God FIRST created the firmament, it was in Gen 1:6-7

(Genesis 1:6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

(Genesis 1:7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

He created the firmament IN THE MIDST of the waters. You cant tell me that this is just referring to the 1st heaven can you?

THE firmament, the entirety of the firmament.....divided the waters below from the waters above. Later Genesis talks about putting the stars in the firmament of heaven.

The firmament IS Heaven and the Heaven IS the firmament. Look:

(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven.

The sun and moon and stars are IN THE FIRMAMENT which is Heaven:

(Genesis 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

(Genesis 1:15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(Genesis
1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Even God's temporary throne room...in the 3rd Heaven, is STILL in the firmament..but above and beyond the last star.

(2
Corinthians 12:2) I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And beyond that..as stated in scripture, is the Waters ABOVE the firmament. The firmament DIVIDES the waters from the waters. Thats it. God laid it all out nice and neatly for us.

Is Genesis 1:6 only talking about the creation of a certain section of the firmament?

....or all of the firmament of heaven?

It still works. The problem is the use of the word heaven. It is used for atmosphere, space and Heaven, instead of differentiating.

Genesis 1:8,9 ⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

⁹And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is talking about the atmosphere. Otherwise you would have the waters gathering up with the stars, under the 3rd heaven.

Gotta go, I'm late.....

by **strangelove** Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:21 am

Grandpa wrote:It still works. The problem is the use of the word heaven. It is used for atmosphere, space and Heaven, instead of differentiating.

Genesis 1:8,9 ⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

⁹And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is talking about the atmosphere. Otherwise you would have the waters gathering up with the stars, under the 3rd heaven.

Gotta go, I'm late.....

I dont get what your trying to say Gramps. The waters UNDER the firmament is the SEAS on Earth.

The stars are IN the firmament.

Why would the stars be gathered up with the waters?

They are in a completely different place.

You have the waters below....then the entire firmament starting from 1 millimetre off the ground and going way up past the last of the stars, past Gods throne room and right up to the edge of the universe where we have the waters above.

It's so beautiful Gramps.....we're living in a giant BUBBLE!

(I believe the waters above are crystal in nature as I dont think fluid water can exist in space)

So basically we have this spherical universe encased in crystal with the firmament being 'stirred' around carrying with it all the celestial bodies and the stars. All focused on the sun, which itself is orbiting Earth which is stationary at the centre.

What a perfect and simple system God has created for us to live in.

by MUSKOKAMAN Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:55 pm

Strangelove wrote:

So...the water protected us from radiation yeah?

Radiation from what exactly?

Well well it's not hard to see you were well versed in the art of the question as a child Doc.

Radiation from the sun!

by **strangelove** Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:59 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:

Well well it's not hard to see you were well versed in the art of the question as a child Doc.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:
Radiation from the sun!

How can the water ABOVE THE FIRMAMENT protect us from the suns radiation which is IN THE FIRMAMENT?

It's a question of LAYERS. Enlighten us by all means.

by MUSKOKAMAN Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:29 pm

Simple Doc. it acts as a filter.

Just as creatures from the depths of the ocean are photosensitive because of their habitation in an enviroment void of light. So are we to harmfull radiation from the sun. I personally can testify to this as I have been stricken with lupus grythamatosis for over 15 years and if I shave off my beard the exposed skin starts to inflame and bubble from the radiation of the sun. I cannot spen much time outside from march until august because of the suns closer proximity to the earth in these periods and therefore more acute and higher levels of radiation are present.

by **strangelove** Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:33 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Simple Doc. it acts as a filter.

How can the water act as a filter if its ABOVE THE FIRMAMENT and the sun is right next to the Earth IN THE FIRMAMENT?? The waters above are not between the sun and the Earth!

LAYERS!

Water ABOVE --------------------------------------

Sun----------

Radiation>>>

>>

>

Earth------------

by MUSKOKAMAN Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:50 pm

Here we go again!

What is the firmament Doc.?

by **strangelove** Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:59 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Here we go again!

What is the firmament Doc.?

The HEAVENS! Its the area that comprises from 1 millemetre off the ground all the way up past the last stars and Gods throne room to the edge of the universe where the waters ABOVE the firmament are located. Thats the BIBLICAL definition.

LAYERS of the celestial SPHERE with Earth startionary at the centre.

Waters ABOVE the firmament--------------------
Edge of firmament----------------------

Gods throne room IN firmament

Stars IN firmament-----------

Sun and planets IN firmament------------------

Edge of firmament---------------------
Earth with waters BELOW the firmament (seas)--------------

by MUSKOKAMAN Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:37 pm

Oh I see!

well what's the firmament dividing waters from waters then?

by **strangelove** Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:04 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Oh I see!

well what's the firmament dividing waters from waters then?

Huh? Whats the question exactly?

(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Heaven H8064
שׁמה שׁמים
shâmayim 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).

Does that answer it?

by Grandpa Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:10 am

This is what I was trying to explain.

Heaven----------->

Space------------>

Waters------------->

firmament------------>

Earth---------------->

I read Genesis a few more times and I don't think it supports what I was trying to explain. Maybe if I can get to the Hebrew it will explain the difference between firmament, Heaven, heaven and firmament of heaven. Otherwise my KJV doesn't differentiate between those 4 terms. And I suppose I must figure that there is not a difference.

by **strangelove** Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:42 pm

Grandpa wrote:This is what I was trying to explain.

Heaven----------->

Space------------>

Waters------------->

firmament------------>

Earth---------------->

I read Genesis a few more times and I don't think it supports what I was trying to explain. Maybe if I can get to the Hebrew it will explain the difference between firmament, Heaven, heaven and firmament of heaven. Otherwise my KJV doesn't differentiate between those 4 terms. And I suppose I must figure that there is not a difference.

There isn't a difference Gramps. God called the firmament heaven. So the heaven is the firmament and the firmament is heaven. It stretches from the earth to the waters above the firmament, which is the crystal boundary of the magnificent bubble we live in. bounce

by **strangelove** Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:46 pm

By the way, we have a seperate thread on this..

LINK:Waters 'Above' the Firmament

And I'll repaste a commentary I found which at least confirms that I'm not just a lone nutter. What a Face

I never had a look at the commentaries on this before. I fully expected to see illogical workarounds (like what has to be done regarding a stationary Earth)...and we do see that in Gill's notes....but lookie here:

Gill's Notes:

And divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; the lower part of it, the atmosphere above, which are the clouds full of water, from whence rain descends upon the earth; and which divided between them and those that were left on the earth, and so under it, not yet gathered into one place; as it now does between the clouds of heaven and the waters of the sea. Though Mr. Gregory (a) is of opinion, that an abyss of waters above the most supreme orb is here meant; or a great deep between the heavens and the heaven of heavens, where, as in storehouses, the depth is laid up; and God has his treasures of snow, hail, and rain, and from whence he brought out the waters which drowned the world at the universal deluge. Others suppose the waters above to be the crystalline heaven, which for its clearness resembles water; and which Milton (b) calls the "crystalline ocean",

Isn't that cool? "crystalline ocean"?

Thats exactly as I see it and the only logical way to read the text seeing as it says the water is ABOVE the firmament. It's like a crystal layer surrounding the spherical celestial universe.

by **strangelove** Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:58 pm

“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape”

Edwin Hubble - (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51,58-59.)

by **strangelove** Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:17 pm

“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy,’ to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”

- Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics Member, BSc, PhD.

(T. Clifton, et al, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (Sep 2008).

by **strangelove** Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:08 pm

“…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”

- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).

His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same:

“This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”

- George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).

“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”

- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time

“In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”

- Y. Tomozawa, “The CMB Dipole and Existence of a Center for Expansion of the Universe,” Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, p. 2 (2 Feb 2008).

“Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe.

Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”

- George Ellis, “Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology,” arXiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).

by **strangelove** Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:10 pm

“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.”

- Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.

by Sponsored content