EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
Steve, Whether the story is about a person taken up to heaven in the spirit in a vision or in a physical body, the point is that they are taken UP. (While Paul tells us that he believed in beings that exist "under the earth.") That's three-tiers.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/ascent-of-mount-carmel.html#7693806576108267914
NASA SAID:
On March 27, 2004, NASA 008 carried the X-43A, mounted on a modified Pegasus booster rocket, up to the drop altitude of 40,000 feet. The rocket boosted the X-43A up to its test altitude of about 95,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, where the X-43A separated from the booster and flew freely at its test speed of Mach 6.8.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-005-DFRC.html
What's up with this debate? Its been up for a while. I'm surprised neither of you have given up.
ReplyDeleteAre you telling me that NASA is a clandestine creation ministry?
ReplyDeleteYes, Fred. NASA is a just a front organization for The Master's College.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that is correct Steve saying that about Master's College! grrrrr
ReplyDeleteSome of us California Indians have been in outer space looking down on the Master's College teachings knowing they were getting things all wrong!
One has to be in the know to know that though, you know?
Steve, Plenty of Bible verses assume the existence of a divine heavenly abode lying above the earth and relatively nearby, not light-years away. I cite a list of relevant verses in my article, "The Cosmology of the Bible," as well as point out ancient Near Eastern parallels to such a view. With angels, people, objects moving upward to such an abode or downward back to the earth. And with beings "under the earth" as well if you read Paul's letters and Revelation. That's a three-tier cosmos. Other verses assume that God holds the earth stationary, that God moves what's above the earth (and sometimes shakes the earth, exerting his power to hold it steady and also to shake the earth), and still other verses assume the flatness of such a cosmos. That was THE assumption in the ANE, and most of the OT was composed during that time period, i.e., pre-600 BCE.
ReplyDeleteEdward, I'm not up on your argument.
ReplyDeleteIs it your argument that modern believers MUST have precisely the same beliefs as ancient believers?
Or, is it your goal to show that the Biblical authors did not have sufficiently precise cosmological knowledge, and therefore the Bible isn't credible?
Or, is it some other point?
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, Plenty of Bible verses assume the existence of a divine heavenly abode lying above the earth and relatively nearby, not light-years away."
Irrelevant. The question is isn't whether you can cite "plenty of verses," but whether your interpretation is correct.
"I cite a list of relevant verses in my article, 'The Cosmology of the Bible,' as well as point out ancient Near Eastern parallels to such a view. "
Once again, you can't very well treat your article as a given when I already wrote a lengthy critique of your article, and ran through your major prooftexts.
"With angels, people, objects moving upward to such an abode or downward back to the earth. And with beings "under the earth" as well if you read Paul's letters and Revelation. That's a three-tier cosmos."
You keep swinging, and you keep missing the ball. That's picture language.
"Other verses assume that God holds the earth stationary..."
"Stationary" is misleading since verses describing the "immobility" of the earth have reference to the absence of earthquakes, and not the "immobility" of the earth in relation to other celestial bodies.
You've been correct on that point numerous times. All you do is to repeat the same discredited claims like a tape-recorder on playback.
"...and still other verses assume the flatness of such a cosmos."
So you say–which I've countered. Try again.
"That was THE assumption in the ANE, and most of the OT was composed during that time period, i.e., pre-600 BCE."
That simply shifts the question and begs the question in reference to ANE parallels. You're assuming that these documents were meant to describe the literal configuration of the world. You're also assuming that ANE writers were too ignorant and dimwitted to ask obvious logistical questions. I've cited evidence to the contrary–which you ignore.
Try not to be such a dunce.