Is there any biblical reason to draw a distinction between Heaven and the Cosmos?

[Calminian]

Is there any biblical reason to draw a distinction between Heaven and the Cosmos? Oh I already said that. But is there??

I've got this theory going that modern ideas of a spiritual realm or extra-dimensional realm are wrong. At some point in history, theologians spiritualized heaven. But I think it's one and the same with the Cosmos.

My suspected culprits are greek philosophy (platonism), false understandings about angels, and ancient astronomy—namely geocentrism.

Not sure if this is a good place to discuss, but feedback would be appreciated.

[oxmixmudd]

Is there any biblical reason to draw a distinction between Heaven and the Cosmos? Oh I already said that. But is there??

I've got this theory going that modern ideas of a spiritual realm or extra-dimensional realm are wrong. At some point in history, theologians spiritualized heaven. But I think it's one and the same with the Cosmos.

My suspected culprits are greek philosophy (platonism), false understandings about angels, and ancient astronomy—namely geocentrism.

Not sure if this is a good place to discuss, but feedback would be appreciated.

If heaven is just the cosmos, then where did Jesus go when he ascended into Heaven - Pluto?

Is he literally building us a mansion on a planet in Andromeda? Is Hell just the inside of a black hole?

It seems to me that if you don't relegate heaven to some place other than within the bounds of this cosmos, you end up with some kind of material God and all sorts of theological problems.


Jim

[Carrikature]

So, are you saying that God lives on another planet? Perhaps that angels exist but they are only viewable on another spectrum (i.e. not visible light)?


Not entirely sure what you're getting at. (I'd also suggest that this belongs in Theology rather than Natural Science.)

[Calminian]

So, are you saying that God lives on another planet? Perhaps that angels exist but they are only viewable on another spectrum (i.e. not visible light)?


Not entirely sure what you're getting at. (I'd also suggest that this belongs in Theology rather than Natural Science.)

Technically it may, but I'm pretty sure I'll get better feedback here.

But remember, I asked for biblical reasons.

But do address your concern, yes, I realize this idea is shocking, but have you examined some of the pictures from Hubbel? It's an amazing place. Our entire galaxy is but a mere drop in the ocean, if even that. Why would we need some sort of extra-dimensional place for angels, and God, when you consider what we already have?

Is it the material aspect that bothers you? Is it not large enough, is it not beautiful enough?

[Carrikature]

Technically it may, but I'm pretty sure I'll get better feedback here.

But remember, I asked for biblical reasons.

But do address your concern, yes, I realize this idea is shocking, but have you examined some of the pictures from Hubbel? It's an amazing place. Our entire galaxy is but a mere drop in the ocean, if even that. Why would we need some sort of extra-dimensional place for angels, and God, when you consider what we already have?

Is it the material aspect that bothers you? Is it not large enough, is it not beautiful enough?


I don't have time at the moment, but I will get back with you on biblical reasons. As to the pictures of space, I agree they're amazing. The material aspect doesn't bother me, but size and beauty are irrelevant. It has more to do with what Obsidian pointed out, it's logically inconsistent.

How can God be timeless if He only exists in the universe? Where was He before that?

[Calminian]

It seems to me that if you don't relegate heaven to some place other than within the bounds of this cosmos, you end up with some kind of material God and all sorts of theological problems.

Earth is said to be God's footstool, while heaven is his throne. If a material earth can be his footstool, why can't a material heaven be his throne? Have you seen how majestic the cosmos is? Until modern times we could never have fathomed such a thing.

Also, angels seem to do very well interacting on the material earth. The walk on it, eat material food on it, get their feet washed on it, etc. Perhaps we don't yet fully understand the nature of angels, but they may be better equipped to enjoy material things than we are.

And again, what biblical reasons are there for separating the two?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Can I ask what you mean by a biblical reason? I'm finding a dichotomy in the question. I'd also like to know if it would be enough to say a reason that does not go against the Bible.

[Calminian]

I don't have time at the moment, but I will get back with you on biblical reasons. As to the pictures of space, I agree they're amazing. The material aspect doesn't bother me, but size and beauty are irrelevant. It has more to do with what Obsidian pointed out, it's logically inconsistent.

How can God be timeless if He only exists in the universe? Where was He before that?

Well now wait a minute. This thread isn't about God. Certainly he is distinct from his creation, be it spiritual or material. And certainly heaven, whether spiritual or material had a beginning. You're not advocating an eternal heaven are you?

[Calminian]

Can I ask what you mean by a biblical reason? I'm finding a dichotomy in the question. I'd also like to know if it would be enough to say a reason that does not go against the Bible.

I'm looking for both, actually. Direct references which describe heaven as immaterial, as well as good sound reasoning from scriptural passage that may not be so explicit.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm looking for both, actually. Direct references which describe heaven as immaterial, as well as good sound reasoning from scriptural passage that may not be so explicit.

I don't see the role of Scripture as to tell us the nature of the cosmos, though I do believe when it does so it speaks truth of course, so I would say just a reason would work.

One problem I'd say is that while I do believe there is an actual place called Heaven, I see things more with Heaven being a place not defined by God but rather God defines Heaven. Where God's love is made manifest, there you find Heaven and that will fully be in a fully restored cosmos at the end. God is not limited by the universe of course and I do believe that Jesus did indeed go somewhere physically and that is a real physical place somewhere.

[Calminian]

I don't see the role of Scripture as to tell us the nature of the cosmos,...

I agree in a sense. But it does tell us it was created and that the sun moon and stars are in it. What I don't see are any clues of an aspect of heaven that is metaphysically different from the earth.



One problem I'd say is that while I do believe there is an actual place called Heaven, I see things more with Heaven being a place not defined by God but rather God defines Heaven. Where God's love is made manifest, there you find Heaven and that will fully be in a fully restored cosmos at the end. God is not limited by the universe of course and I do believe that Jesus did indeed go somewhere physically and that is a real physical place somewhere.

If Christ went to a place, why not a place in the Cosmos? He went up into the atmosphere until a cloud blocked his view. What happened after that?? Could he have continued through space to another region of the Cosmos? Surely he didn't need a space suit?

[oxmixmudd]

Earth is said to be God's footstool, while heaven is his throne. If a material earth can be his footstool, why can't a material heaven be his throne? Have you seen how majestic the cosmos is? Until modern times we could never have fathomed such a thing.

Also, angels seem to do very well interacting on the material earth. The walk on it, eat material food on it, get their feet washed on it, etc. Perhaps we don't yet fully understand the nature of angels, but they may be better equipped to enjoy material things than we are.

And again, what biblical reasons are there for separating the two?

God is spirit, and those who worhip Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

That God can (and has) take material form. But that is not His normal state.

And I am pretty sure the references you give are metaphors.


Jim

[showmeproof]

If heaven is just the cosmos, then where did Jesus go when he ascended into Heaven - Pluto?

Is he literally building us a mansion on a planet in Andromeda? Is Hell just the inside of a black hole?

It seems to me that if you don't relegate heaven to some place other than within the bounds of this cosmos, you end up with some kind of material God and all sorts of theological problems.


Jim

I always thought it an oddity that Jesus would ascend into heaven. It seems as if they thought heaven was beyond the clouds, or just beyond their sight in the sky...remember the tower of bable story, where they attempted to build a tower to reach the heavens. With what we know of the universe it sure doesn't appear so.

[oxmixmudd]

I always thought it an oddity that Jesus would ascend into heaven. It seems as if they thought heaven was beyond the clouds, or just beyond their sight in the sky...remember the tower of bable story, where they attempted to build a tower to reach the heavens. With what we know of the universe it sure doesn't appear so.

I think that is what they thought at the time. The evidence is ANE cultures viewed the sky as a barrier between the earth and heaven, and the idea of the sky as a 'celestial sphere' or even a set of many spheres persisted until Galileo's discoveries.

However, the fact that is what they thought they observed based on their cultural views should not necessarily lead us to believe that is something scripture itself teaches per se. They simply observed Him ascend into a cloud, and explained what they saw per what they understood, as anyone in anytime would.

We would just describe it differently I would guess - knowing what the sky is physically we might just describe Him as ascending into a cloud and disappearing (guessing that is basically what they saw) - though we'd probably have no better a clue than they did as to what really happened :wink:


Jim

[Sparko]

Well Paul referred to a man being taken into the third heaven. I remember reading that the ANE culture thought of the first heaven as the sky, the second heaven is where the stars and planets are, and the third heaven was where God and the Angels lived. So they didn't think God lived in space.

[Carrikature]

Well after further review, there's way too many references to heaven in the Bible to begin to cite here. I'll summarize as best I can.

In the Old Testament, it seems pretty obvious that nearly every use of the word heaven (at least in the English translation) is meant to describe the sky or stars/planets in space. There's lots of references to "dew from heaven", "flood gates of heaven", "manna from heaven", "He spread out the heavens", etc.

Once you reach the New Testament, Jesus seems to refer a lot to the "kingdom of heaven" and "storing up treasures in heaven". This seems to suggest that there is a heaven that is not purely material. Either that or Jesus is involved in a 401(k) matching program where He creates a new treasure chest on our own personal planet for every good thing we manage to do.



Well now wait a minute. This thread isn't about God. Certainly he is distinct from his creation, be it spiritual or material. And certainly heaven, whether spiritual or material had a beginning. You're not advocating an eternal heaven are you?

Well, it does involve God to some extent. I think having a spiritual heaven that is located within the cosmos would suggest that God dwells within the cosmos, and therefore would be experiencing time. That part doesn't really work for me. I think oximudd's original statement (sorry I called you Obsidian btw, wrong 'O' name) still sums it up pretty well.

[Calminian]

I always thought it an oddity that Jesus would ascend into heaven. It seems as if they thought heaven was beyond the clouds, or just beyond their sight in the sky...remember the tower of bable story, where they attempted to build a tower to reach the heavens. With what we know of the universe it sure doesn't appear so.

In fact, if heaven were really a different dimension, why didn't he just sort of dematerialize like Captain Kirk in the transporter room? Why float up, just to hide behind a cloud and then dematerialize?

And what interesting about the Babel story is God's reaction. He didn't say, "Oh those idiots! Don't they know heaven is an alternate state!?" Instead He said,

Gen. 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

Man really was on his way to the heavens. We're there now!

[Calminian]

...Once you reach the New Testament, Jesus seems to refer a lot to the "kingdom of heaven" and "storing up treasures in heaven". This seems to suggest that there is a heaven that is not purely material....

I'm not following this reasoning. Why is storing up treasure in heaven suggest a spiritual state?

I know what you mean by the language of calling things heavenly, or telling us to think in heavenly terms, but this doesn't negate or change the metaphysics of heaven.

If I say to you, hey, that shirt looks Hawaiian, or hey you're acting very British today, does that mean Hawaii and Britain are not really material places? Today we often use the term "good samaritan" to describe a kind helpful act. Does that mean Samaria is a spiritual place?



Well, it does involve God to some extent. I think having a spiritual heaven that is located within the cosmos would suggest that God dwells within the cosmos, and therefore would be experiencing time..

God does experience time, but this doesn't mean he's bound by it. God dwelt in the Holy of Holies during the Tabernacle years, in a special way. This doesn't mean God was material, nor confined to space and time. Nor would that be the case if he dwelt in a region of the cosmos called Paradise or the Heaven of Heavens. Whether material or spiritual, God created the heavens and is not confined to them. Certainly he transcends his creation, but that does not mean he cannot interact with it and enjoy it.

[Calminian]

Well Paul referred to a man being taken into the third heaven. I remember reading that the ANE culture thought of the first heaven as the sky, the second heaven is where the stars and planets are, and the third heaven was where God and the Angels lived. So they didn't think God lived in space.

The problem is, the ancients actually did not think like this. I have been looking for proof if this idea for several months. I'm convinced absolutely none exists

There is a popular notion out there that the three heavens are the atmosphere, outer space and then a special immaterial place where the angels dwell—the third heaven.

I'm amazed at how popular this theory has become considering the utter absence of proof. The ancients had no clue about a division between the sky and outer space where the stars dwell. And there is nothing in scripture to making this dichotomy.

I do believe there are 3 heavens, but I don't think this is what Paul had in mind. I personally believe Paul had the Tabernacle in mind, which he called a shodow and copy of heaven, and which was comprised of 3 distinct areas.

[MrManNo1]

Deuteronomy 26:15

Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

Matthew 10:32,33

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Unless you want to argue that God the Father lives in our universe, you have to assume there is a place outside of our universe known as heaven.

However, you can't really argue that, because Revelation 21:1-4 insinuates that God doesn't live in our universe yet.


Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

[oxmixmudd]

The problem is, the ancients actually did not think like this. I have been looking for proof if this idea for several months. I'm convinced absolutely none exists

There is a popular notion out there that the three heavens are the atmosphere, outer space and then a special immaterial place where the angels dwell—the third heaven.

I'm amazed at how popular this theory has become considering the utter absence of proof. The ancients had no clue about a division between the sky and outer space where the stars dwell. And there is nothing in scripture to making this dichotomy.

I do believe there are 3 heavens, but I don't think this is what Paul had in mind. I personally believe Paul had the Tabernacle in mind, which he called a shodow and copy of heaven, and which was comprised of 3 distinct areas.

I think the mistake you make is in assuming these descriptions contain any actual information that can tell you where or what heaven (in a physical sense) is. They primarily reflect cultural notions of what or where heaven is.

Even if you come up with some 'explanation' that fits whatever mention you find in scripture of heaven or hell, you will be a fool if you think there is even a .0001% possibility you necessarily have it right. This is right up there with 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin'. No insult intended cal, but there is no 'right or wrong' here. The Bible just isn't that specific. Heaven is a place, as is Hell, but if you try to make the Bible tell us something specific about where that place is, you are just going to make a fool of yourself.

But one thing you are correct about. In the old testament, they did indeed think of heaven as a place above the sky. But that was because they thought the sky was a hard thing, and there was water above it, and that above that firmament was indeed where God dwelt. However, that was simply a cultural misconception - unless you allow for some kind of parallel dimension in which God does dwell that is wholly inaccessible to us in the material sense. And that is quite likely why most theologians deal with heaven as a place outside or beyond this cosmos.


Jim

[Sparko]

The problem is, the ancients actually did not think like this. I have been looking for proof if this idea for several months. I'm convinced absolutely none exists

There is a popular notion out there that the three heavens are the atmosphere, outer space and then a special immaterial place where the angels dwell—the third heaven.

I'm amazed at how popular this theory has become considering the utter absence of proof. The ancients had no clue about a division between the sky and outer space where the stars dwell. And there is nothing in scripture to making this dichotomy.

I do believe there are 3 heavens, but I don't think this is what Paul had in mind. I personally believe Paul had the Tabernacle in mind, which he called a shodow and copy of heaven, and which was comprised of 3 distinct areas.

You need to do some study outside of the bible. Look at how the ancients looked at the universe, especially the Greeks. They thought of the earth as the center of the universe, surrounded by a shell of air, then a shell of stars, and God was on the outside of all that. Kinda like the earth is a giant snow globe.

merely saying you haven't seen any proof of this doesn't mean it is not true.

They alternately referred to these areas as firmaments and celestial spheres.

Reading the OT you can see many such indicators that the ancients thought of the atmosphere as a space between earth and the firmament of heaven where God fixed the stars. It talks about the heavens of the sun and stars as being spread like a curtain or a tent over the earth.

Psalm 19:4 ...
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, ...

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;

But it the bible also says the heavens can't contain God.

1 Kings 8:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=8&verse=27&version=31&context=verse)
"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

They obviously believed in multiple heavens, laid out in shells around the earth. The early jews believed in 7 to 10 heavens (see book of enoch)

And as someone else pointed out, God is spirit. How can he live on some planet in outer space?

Or do you think the Father has a body?


more detailed info at: http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp130.htm

[Calminian]

You need to do some study outside of the bible. Look at how the ancients looked at the universe, especially the Greeks. They thought of the earth as the center of the universe, surrounded by a shell of air, then a shell of stars, and God was on the outside of all that. Kinda like the earth is a giant snow globe.

Sparko, you misunderstood my response. I was not talking about ANE cosmology. I was speaking about the 3 heaven theory—atmosphere, outerspace and paradise. This is a modern view with no ANE support as ANE peoples did not know what an atmosphere is.



They alternately referred to these areas as firmaments and celestial spheres.

Yes I know they did, and I believe this is one reason the idea of a spiritual heaven arose.



Reading the OT you can see many such indicators that the ancients thought of the atmosphere as a space between earth and the firmament of heaven where God fixed the stars. It talks about the heavens of the sun and stars as being spread like a curtain or a tent over the earth.

The ancient authors of the Bible believed the firmament was heaven (Gen. 1:8). Firmament or expanse was simply another word for heaven.



They obviously believed in multiple heavens, laid out in shells around the earth. The early jews believed in 7 to 10 heavens (see book of enoch)

Exactly! Not 3. I never denied this. Again, I was speaking about the idea that of atmosphere, outerspace and paradise as the three heavens.



And as someone else pointed out, God is spirit. How can he live on some planet in outer space?

For that matter how can he live in a spiritual heaven? The same problem occurs. Can a spiritual heaven contain him?



Or do you think the Father has a body?

Of course not. Do you?

[Calminian]

I think the mistake you make is in assuming these descriptions contain any actual information that can tell you where or what heaven (in a physical sense) is. They primarily reflect cultural notions of what or where heaven is.

Gen. one says heaven is the region where the sun moon and stars are. I believe it.



Even if you come up with some 'explanation' that fits whatever mention you find in scripture of heaven or hell, you will be a fool if you think there is even a .0001% possibility you necessarily have it right.

wow, that's pretty low view of scripture.



But one thing you are correct about. In the old testament, they did indeed think of heaven as a place above the sky. But that was because they thought the sky was a hard thing,

Er, didn't I already completely refute you on this a while back? Sorry Jim, the firmament is heaven. That's straight from scripture.

"And God called the firmament Heaven." I know you still don't believe that, though.

[Calminian]

Deuteronomy 26:15


Matthew 10:32,33


Unless you want to argue that God the Father lives in our universe, you have to assume there is a place outside of our universe known as heaven.

Considering the passages you just cited, why? It says he was looking down? If he were in another dimension why would he be looking down? and why did Jesus float up into the sky to meet the Father if he was merely going to a different immaterial dimension?



However, you can't really argue that, because Revelation 21:1-4 insinuates that God doesn't live in our universe yet.

No it doesn't. It merely says that the current heaven will be destroyed and recreated. It says nothing about God being homeless until the new home is built.

[MrManNo1]

Considering the passages you just cited, why? I says he was looking down? If he were in another dimension why would he be looking down? and why did Jesus float up into the sky to meet the Father?

That is complete nonsense. It is much easier to assume that looking down is symbolic than it is to assume that the entirety of God resides within our universe. In addition, why does Jesus say God is "in" heaven? If heaven is a real, physical place, wouldn't it make more sense to say He is "at" heaven? Or was Jesus just plain wrong about where He Himself lived?


No it doesn't. It merely says that the current heaven will be destroyed and recreated. It says nothing about God being homeless until the new home is built.

Please read the entirety of what I posted:


And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

If God has always lived with us (in our universe), then why would they say "Now"? Why do they say he "will" live with them? Why even say this, at all, if God's primary abode is in our universe? It doesn't make any sense if you're correct.

[Calminian]

That is complete nonsense. It is much easier to assume that looking down is symbolic than it is to assume that the entirety of God resides within our universe. In addition, why does Jesus say God is "in" heaven? If heaven is a real, physical place, wouldn't it make more sense to say He is "at" heaven? Or was Jesus just plain wrong about where He Himself lived?

Eek. I have to admit I'm not following this logic.

In the O.T. God was said to dwell in the Holy of Holies in a special way. Why is it so hard to believe he dwell somewhere in the cosmos with his holy angels in a special way. If He could do it in a 10 x 10 x 10 cubit room, why would a galaxy be more difficult.

This is not to say God is physical. It just means God is able to dwell in certain place is special ways when he chooses. Heaven is one of those places.



If God has always lived with us (in our universe), then why would they say "Now"? Why do they say he "will" live with them? Why even say this, at all, if God's primary abode is in our universe? It doesn't make any sense if you're correct.

Yikes Mr. Man, you really need to rethink this. If I say I live here, but exclude the word "now" it's because "now" is implicit in the tense. It's a simple matter of grammar. And you're making a leap of logic. The fact that God is going to live with us in the new heavens & earth in the future, is not proof He does not live in the heavens now.

Come one man, this is basic stuff. The Lord's prayer: ‘Our Father who art in heaven.... (that means now!)

edit: perhaps you thought that read "Our Father who aren't in heaven?

[Sparko]

Sparko, you misunderstood my response. I was not talking about ANE cosmology. I was speaking about the 3 heaven theory—atmosphere, outerspace and paradise. This is a modern view with no ANE support as ANE peoples did not know what an atmosphere is.

they didn't know what AIR was?

they knew that birds and clouds were in the heavens. They knew that the stars and moon and sun were beyond those heavens in a different realm, a firmament. They thought of that as a tent over the world, a kind of shell around the world. They believed that God was not contained by that, and they thought that the heaven where God lived contained land to stand on, places to build temples, etc. So it wasn't just some nebulous floating around in the air.






Yes I know they did, and I believe this is one reason the idea of a spiritual heaven arose.



The ancient authors of the Bible believed the firmament was heaven (Gen. 1:8). Firmament or expanse was simply another word for heaven.
and they knew this was different than the place where birds flew around. so we have two heavens. and God lived beyond the firmament so that makes three.






For that matter how can he live in a spiritual heaven? The same problem occurs. Can a spiritual heaven contain him?

The problem is that you are saying that God lives on some planet out there. Why would God need to live on some planet? Why would the ancients think so? They didn't even know what planets were. They thought they were just wandering lights that God put up there. But they did think the Heaven where God was contained buildings and thrones and other items that needed ground to be put on in some way. So they obviously thought there was some realm beyond the stars where this happened.

[MrManNo1]

Eek. I have to admit I'm not following this logic.

In the O.T. God was said to dwell in the Holy of Holies in a special way. Why is it so hard to believe he dwell somewhere in the cosmos with his holy angels in a special way. If He could do it in a 10 x 10 x 10 cubit room, why would a galaxy be more difficult.

This is not to say God is physical. It just means God is able to dwell in certain place is special ways when he chooses. Heaven is one of those places.

Yeah, yeah, "Eek" and "Yikes". You're real mature. Anyway, onto the actual discussion.

In other words, you have no defense against the argument, so all you can say is, "well, mine works, too"? I'm not saying your interpretation doesn't work. I'm just saying it's a bigger leap of faith to assume that "God is in heaven" isn't literal (as God wouldn't technically be in your definition of heaven, as He is infinite, and our universe is finite) than it is to assume "looks down" isn't literal. Someone would be perfectly justified in taking those statements to mean that heaven is not in our universe (I would argue they are more justified, but that's beside the point). All I have to do is argue that it's possible for someone to take away the belief that heaven isn't material to disprove your OP. You have to prove that it's not possible for someone to take away the belief that heaven isn't material to affirm your OP.


Yikes Mr. Man, you really need to rethink this. If I say I live here, but exclude the word "now" it's because "now" is implicit in the tense. It's a simple matter of grammar. And you're making a leap of logic. The fact that God is going to live with us in the new heavens & earth in the future, is not proof He does not live in the heavens now.

Come one man, this is basic stuff. The Lord's prayer: ‘Our Father who art in heaven.... (that means now!)

edit: perhaps you thought that read "Our Father who aren't in heaven?

Completely and totally wrong. If I came up to you and said "I now live in New York", you would infer that I didn't always live in New York, as I made sure to qualify the statement with "now". If I've always lived in New York, all I would need to say is "I live in New York". Since the "now" is unnecessary for the statement to get my point across, then the only reason it should be used is if it were insinuating that it hasn't always been the case. Unless you want to argue that this use of the word "now" is incorrect, then you're wrong. And you'll have to do a lot of convincing to make me believe that you think that that explanation is wrong.

I do understand that this relies on the word "now" in the original copy as being directly translated to "now" as we understand it. If anyone knows this to not be the case, then I will withdraw my argument.

[Calminian]

they didn't know what AIR was?

Yes but they didn't know where it ended. The didn't understand what the troposphere was.



they knew that birds and clouds were in the heavens. They knew that the stars and moon and sun were beyond those heavens in a different realm, a firmament.

Evidence please! Where is scripture does it say it was a separate realm? And firmament, according to the biblical authors is a word for the heavens.

"And God called the firmament, the heavens."

Heaven or the firmament (which is a bad transliteration from latin) was that area where the birds, clouds, sun moon stars were. There's no line of distinction ever made about regions of heaven in regard to these objects.



They thought of that as a tent over the world, a kind of shell around the world. They believed that God was not contained by that, and they thought that the heaven where God lived contained land to stand on, places to build temples, etc. So it wasn't just some nebulous floating around in the air.

The tent reference is an obvious metaphor, and when you think about it there is a sort of shell around us, so the metaphor has good insight.

Regarding land, Bingo! Modern science now tells us that there is more to heaven than meets the eye. There is land up there in the form of billions of planets. Again, the cosmos is a great candidate for the Biblical heaven.



and they knew this was different than the place where birds flew around. so we have two heavens. and God lived beyond the firmament so that makes three.

Again, if you strictly go by the text, there is no heaven "beyond the firmament." Heaven is the firmament. It is that place where the birds fly and clouds dwell. Again, if you take scripture literally, these ancient cosmologies don't fit. The solid dome theories of old are not derived from scripture, but rather have been imposed onto scripture. It sounds like you've been exposed to the likes Lamoureux and Seeley.



The problem is that you are saying that God lives on some planet out there. Why would God need to live on some planet? Why would the ancients think so? They didn't even know what planets were. They thought they were just wandering lights that God put up there. But they did think the Heaven where God was contained buildings and thrones and other items that needed ground to be put on in some way. So they obviously thought there was some realm beyond the stars where this happened.

No I don't think God has a special planet. Galaxy or cluster of galaxies maybe (which would contain billions of planets). Cerubim are creatures often found in heavenly symbols and they are creatures with wings indicating they are not restricted to land. God's paradise I would imagine, is an open area where his angels can move about. Our galaxy is a perfect fit as it has a lot of room. Do you realize just how many angels there are?

This is the point. I think ancient cosmologies have played a key role in the development of a spiritual heaven. While the Bible authors didn't believe these cosmologies, many Bible readers and theologians did. Up until the Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo era, these cosmologies were universally accepted. And since they don't quite fit with literal biblical understandings of heaven, adjustments had to be made.

But now that we have a better understanding of the cosmos up there, it seems a good idea to go back to the text and look at it more literally. How can you look at something like this and tell me it's not heavenly? nebula (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FkAI_ee_eBA/SASomSmg3jI/AAAAAAAAAIg/KJpOMWBJy2I/s400/nebulas+images.jpg) I bet angels are frolicking in those clouds as we speak.

[Sparko]

Yes but they didn't know where it ended. The didn't understand what the troposphere was.



Evidence please! Where is scripture does it say it was a separate realm? And firmament, according to the biblical authors is a word for the heavens.

"And God called the firmament, the heavens."

Heaven or the firmament (which is a bad transliteration from latin) was that area where the birds, clouds, sun moon stars were. There's no line of distinction ever made about regions of heaven in regard to these objects.



The tent reference is an obvious metaphor, and when you think about it there is a sort of shell around us, so the metaphor has good insight.

Regarding land, Bingo! Modern science now tells us that there is more to heaven than meets the eye. There is land up there in the form of billions of planets. Again, the cosmos is a great candidate for the Biblical heaven.



Again, if you strictly go by the text, there is no heaven "beyond the firmament." Heaven is the firmament. It is that place where the birds fly and clouds dwell. Again, if you take scripture literally, these ancient cosmologies don't fit. The solid dome theories of old are not derived from scripture, but rather have been imposed onto scripture. It sounds like you've been exposed to the likes Lamoureux and Seeley.



No I don't think God has a special planet. Galaxy or cluster of galaxies maybe (which would contain billions of planets). Cerubim are creatures often found in heavenly symbols and they are creatures with wings indicating they are not restricted to land. God's paradise I would imagine, is an open area where his angels can move about. Our galaxy is a perfect fit as it has a lot of room. Do you realize just how many angels there are?

This is the point. I think ancient cosmologies have played a key role in the development of a spiritual heaven. While the Bible authors didn't believe these cosmologies, many Bible readers and theologians did. Up until the Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo era, these cosmologies were universally accepted. And since they don't quite fit with literal biblical understandings of heaven, adjustments had to be made.

But now that we have a better understanding of the cosmos up there, it seems a good idea to go back to the text and look at it more literally. How can you look at something like this and tell me it's not heavenly? nebula (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FkAI_ee_eBA/SASomSmg3jI/AAAAAAAAAIg/KJpOMWBJy2I/s400/nebulas+images.jpg) I bet angels are frolicking in those clouds as we speak.


wow. I feel like I am arguing with a geocentrist or something. invincibly ignorant is the thought that comes to mind.

have fun with your delusion.

[MrManNo1]

Cerubim are creatures often found in heavenly symbols and they are creatures with wings indicating they are not restricted to land.

Try using wings in the emptiness of outer space, and see how far that gets you.

[Calminian]

wow. I feel like I am arguing with a geocentrist or something. invincibly ignorant is the thought that comes to mind.

have fun with your delusion.

I thought that response might be a little overwhelming for you. Didn't mean to hurt any feelings. I am having fun, I must admit. Well, thanks for your input. Of course you're the one that embraces solid domism, so it's ironic you're calling me the geocentrist. But hey, to each his own!

[Calminian]

Try using wings in the emptiness of outer space, and see how far that gets you.

Better yet, let em try using them in that future spirit world you believe in. An interesting concept.

According to your theory, God is not currently in heaven because he cannot fit in something finite. Therefore he will build a heaven in the future (finite) that he will live in. Er, okay! Thanks for your input as well.

[oxmixmudd]

Gen. one says heaven is the region where the sun moon and stars are. I believe it.

No - it says he put the stars, sun, and moon in the firmament, which is, essentially, the 'floor' of heaven.




wow, that's pretty low view of scripture.

Actually it is a very high view. It does not bind the truth of scripture to the obvious physical misconceptions of the writers. They wrote down what they observed. Jesus ascending into a cloud. They described it as they understood it. The observation stands - Jesus ascended into cloud and disappear from view. He told them He was going to be with His Father, who is in Heaven. But its technical/scientific content is limited to what the poeple of the day understood. It would be foolish then to try to draw specific conclusions about where heaven actually is from that observation.




Er, didn't I already completely refute you on this a while back? Sorry Jim, the firmament is heaven. That's straight from scripture.

"And God called the firmament Heaven." I know you still don't believe that, though.

Oh we've been over it, but you didn't even come close to refuting me. You can make the scripture say anything if you rip it out of context. Should we all literally "give all we have to the poor"? Does "baptism now save us"- Is one going to hell unless baptized in water? One can even find the text "... there is no God". Do you believe that too?

You can't take the sentence above apart from where just a few sentences prior it defines the firmament as a divider of waters below and waters above, nor can you take it apart from the concept of windows in heaven which allow manna to fall to the Israelites or sluices in heaven that allowed the flood waters to flow. Simplistic one liners only show ignorance Cal. If one approaches scripture that way, one is guaranteed to find oneself in error.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Considering the passages you just cited, why? It says he was looking down? If he were in another dimension why would he be looking down? and why did Jesus float up into the sky to meet the Father if he was merely going to a different immaterial dimension?



No it doesn't. It merely says that the current heaven will be destroyed and recreated. It says nothing about God being homeless until the new home is built.

So Cal, are you going Mormon on us? Are you going to inherit a planet our there and populate it with your kids using all the wives you had while here on Earth?


Jim

[Calminian]

No - it says he put the stars, sun, and moon in the firmament, which is, essentially, the 'floor' of heaven.

And God called the firmament the floor of heaven?? No that's not quite literally what is says. Again, you can believe that, but I take scripture in a straightforward way.



Actually it is a very high view. It does not bind the truth of scripture to the obvious physical misconceptions of the writers.

We can hash this all up again, but a little clarity might be the best route. You believe that the Bible advocates things like geocentrism and solid domism and therefore must not be read in a concordant way. I believe the Bible contradicts the cosmologies of its day, and therefore has been interpreted wrongly in areas to compensate. I think if ancient theologians knew about the structure of the cosmos like we do today, they never would have spiritualized heaven.



They wrote down what they observed. Jesus ascending into a cloud. They described it as they understood it. The observation stands - Jesus ascended into cloud and disappear from view. He told them He was going to be with His Father, who is in Heaven. But its technical/scientific content is limited to what the poeple of the day understood. It would be foolish then to try to draw specific conclusions about where heaven actually is from that observation.

How does floating up in the sky until he was past a cloud contradict modern science? Are you saying Jesus didn't float because it's scientifically impossible?



Oh we've been over it, but you didn't even come close to refuting me. You can make the scripture say anything if you rip it out of context. Should we all literally "give all we have to the poor"? Does "baptism now save us"- Is one going to hell unless baptized in water? One can even find the text "... there is no God". Do you believe that too?

huh?



You can't take the sentence above apart from where just a few sentences prior it defines the firmament as a divider of waters below and waters above, nor can you take it apart from the concept of windows in heaven which allow manna to fall to the Israelites or sluices in heaven that allowed the flood waters to flow. Simplistic one liners only show ignorance Cal.

Soooo, you think you're right because I'm better at one liners?? Guess I better stop.

God defined the separation of the waters as the heavens. I didn't write it, He did. These waters were the primordial waters of our planet (half of them that is). And God used the metaphor windows for clouds, just as he also uses the metaphors jars and doors for clouds. The ancient writers understood that rain came from clouds and understood these metaphors. Do you agree that jars and doors are metaphors for clouds in scripture?

There is nothing in scripture to suggest there is a solid barrier separating heaven and earth. Heaven is the barrier which separates our planet from the waters above the heavens. Where you're getting confused is you think these waters are H2O rain waters. That's not the case. These waters existed before the ocean H2O was even formed. Just look at the text. These primordial waters were the building blocks of the land as well as the sea. If you read the text literally, you'll see this is the case.

[Calminian]

So Cal, are you going Mormon on us? Are you going to inherit a planet our there and populate it with your kids using all the wives you had while here on Earth?

Nah, the new earth will be plenty for me. And I plan to stay single. You saw what happened to the Nephilim.

[MrManNo1]

Better yet, let em try using them in that future spirit world you believe in. An interesting concept.

I never said anything about us living in heaven. I believe that we will live in the new earth. Otherwise, what's the point in remaking earth?


According to your theory, God is not currently in heaven because he cannot fit in something finite. Therefore he will build a heaven in the future (finite) that he will live in. Er, okay! Thanks for your input as well.

Who said heaven is finite? I know I never did.

So, are you going to actually address my arguments, or make your own stuff up, and pretend like that's what I argued. I'd say you're making straw men, but usually straw men is somewhat related to the argument at hand. You're just making stuff up completely unrelated to what I said!

[oxmixmudd]

And God called the firmament the floor of heaven?? No that's not quite literally what is says. Again, you can believe that, but I take scripture in a straightforward way.

Ah yes I forgot, your simplistic reading of scripture and your knack for distorting everything said that is contrary to what you want to be true. Well Cal, we typically call the surface beneath something the floor. So if there are waters above the firmament and it is firm, then it could be correct to refer to the firmament as the 'floor' of heaven, or equally the ceiling or
'tent' over the Earth. Beside which I put in 'floor' in quotes both here and there to indicate the obvious - not that you are particularly good at acknowledging the obvious.




We can hash this all up again,

Oh no - I would sooner sit in a room full of people scraping their fingernails on a chalkboard than endure the endless distortions of my words that is a debate with you. No Calminian, you define the term Intellectual dishonesty, and I have no desire of any kind to do anything more than state my opinion in a thread of yours.



but a little clarity might be the best route. You believe that the Bible advocates things like geocentrism and solid domism and therefore must not be read in a concordant way.

How nice of you to serve up a sample of your distortions and dishonesty. You know what I believe, and the above is not it. But since when have you let a little thing like truth, or honesty, or heaven forbid fairness, politeness or respect for your opponent get in your way?



I believe the Bible contradicts the cosmologies of its day, and therefore has been interpreted wrongly in areas to compensate. I think if ancient theologians knew about the structure of the cosmos like we do today, they never would have spiritualized heaven.

Well, you can believe whatever you want. But the problem is, the text refutes your beliefs quite clearly. The Bible where it refers to the cosmos on the surface simply reflects what the writers understood to be true.




How does floating up in the sky until he was past a cloud contradict modern science? Are you saying Jesus didn't float because it's scientifically impossible?

Nope, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that He ascended up into a cloud, and the writers interpreted that as ascending into the sky which was where they thought heaven was. But that is not necessarily where heaven is at all. That because they associated the placement of heaven with the sky above does not mean that is actually where it is.




huh?

I'll tell you what, think about it a while, it might just come to you.




Soooo, you think you're right because I'm better at one liners?? Guess I better stop.

God defined the separation of the waters as the heavens. I didn't write it, He did. These waters were the primordial waters of our planet (half of them that is).

Oh - exactly half? Since when does 'divided' mean the same thing as 'divided in two equal parts'? It's that simplistic thinking again. Careful.



And God used the metaphor windows for clouds, just as he also uses the metaphors jars and doors for clouds. The ancient writers understood that rain came from clouds and understood these metaphors. Do you agree that jars and doors are metaphors for clouds in scripture?

They are only at best loose metaphors. They did not know the clouds were water vapor - i.e. that the clouds were water. They thought they were containers of some substance which were filled with water by God from the waters of heaven. So the metaphor only extends to the connection of jars as containers and doors as openings. They are not purely abstract as you think they are. They thought the firmament needed doors and windows because it was a firm barrier between the Earth and the waters above. What better proof of that than the fact the sluice gates of heaven were opened wide to allow the waters of heaven to flood the Earth? That firmament and its doors there for a reason Cal, without it we'd all be flooded again - from their perspective.

The other problem you have is in trying to use mathematical equivalence for the words raqia and shamayim. Shamayim is a more general term and encompasses more than raqia. Raqia refers specifically to the firmament which holds the sun moon and stars and separates the waters above from the waters below. The shamayim refers essentially to everything above the Earth and can refer to the air or the dwelling of God above which actually sits in the waters of heaven according to Psalms 104. Shamayim is itself a plural form - heavens, raqia is not.
So the raqia (firmament) can rightly be called heaven, but the heavens are not merely or fully expressed in the raqia. It is not an equivalence relation - it is not reflexive.

Let me explain further. Reversing the order of heavens and firmament causes the statement to no longer be true. Thus:

God called the firmament heaven is true.

but

God called heaven the firmament is not true.

It works like this call.

All Ravens are black birds. So "Any Raven can be called a black bird" is a true statement.

BUT

Not all black birds are Ravens. And so "Any black bird can be called a Raven" is NOT a true statement.





There is nothing in scripture to suggest there is a solid barrier separating heaven and earth. Heaven is the barrier which separates our planet from the waters above the heavens.

Nothing? How quickly you forget what you don't want to see.

Nevertheless - then you have a problem. See, the waters above have to get to the Earth for the flood. How do you suppose they crossed the 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the cosmos to the Earth so as to rain upon it?




Where you're getting confused is you think these waters are H2O rain waters. That's not the case. These waters existed before the ocean H2O was even formed. Just look at the text. These primordial waters were the building blocks of the land as well as the sea. If you read the text literally, you'll see this is the case.

Oh - and so the Earth was flooded with something other than H2O rain waters? Interesting.

Sorry Cal, where in the text is the water below which is the sea from which the dry land emerged any different from the waters above? Seeing as how He divided the waters above from those below, and then gathered the waters below, allowing dry land to emerge. The clear implication is that all these waters are one and the same substance, originating from the waters over which the Spirit of God brooded at the head of things.

You can believe what you want - but you can't get that from the text. That is something you impose upon the text based on what you want it to say so you can map it to your 21st century understanding of the cosmos.



Jim

[Calminian]

Ah yes I forgot, your simplistic reading of scripture and your knack for distorting everything said that is contrary to what you want to be true. Well Cal, we typically call the surface beneath something the floor. So if there are waters above the firmament and it is firm, then it could be correct to refer to the firmament as the 'floor' of heaven, or equally the ceiling or
'tent' over the Earth. Beside which I put in 'floor' in quotes both here and there to indicate the obvious - not that you are particularly good at acknowledging the obvious.




Oh no - I would sooner sit in a room full of people scraping their fingernails on a chalkboard than endure the endless distortions of my words that is a debate with you. No Calminian, you define the term Intellectual dishonesty, and I have no desire of any kind to do anything more than state my opinion in a thread of yours.



How nice of you to serve up a sample of your distortions and dishonesty. You know what I believe, and the above is not it. But since when have you let a little thing like truth, or honesty, or heaven forbid fairness, politeness or respect for your opponent get in your way?



Well, you can believe whatever you want. But the problem is, the text refutes your beliefs quite clearly. The Bible where it refers to the cosmos on the surface simply reflects what the writers understood to be true.




Nope, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that He ascended up into a cloud, and the writers interpreted that as ascending into the sky which was where they thought heaven was. But that is not necessarily where heaven is at all. That because they associated the placement of heaven with the sky above does not mean that is actually where it is.




I'll tell you what, think about it a while, it might just come to you.




Oh - exactly half? Since when does 'divided' mean the same thing as 'divided in two equal parts'? It's that simplistic thinking again. Careful.



They are only at best loose metaphors. They did not know the clouds were water vapor - i.e. that the clouds were water. They thought they were containers of some substance which were filled with water by God from the waters of heaven. So the metaphor only extends to the connection of jars as containers and doors as openings. They are not purely abstract as you think they are. They thought the firmament needed doors and windows because it was a firm barrier between the Earth and the waters above. What better proof of that than the fact the sluice gates of heaven were opened wide to allow the waters of heaven to flood the Earth? That firmament and its doors there for a reason Cal, without it we'd all be flooded again - from their perspective.

The other problem you have is in trying to use mathematical equivalence for the words raqia and shamayim. Shamayim is a more general term and encompasses more than raqia. Raqia refers specifically to the firmament which holds the sun moon and stars and separates the waters above from the waters below. The shamayim refers essentially to everything above the Earth and can refer to the air or the dwelling of God above which actually sits in the waters of heaven according to Psalms 104. Shamayim is itself a plural form - heavens, raqia is not.
So the raqia (firmament) can rightly be called heaven, but the heavens are not merely or fully expressed in the raqia. It is not an equivalence relation - it is not reflexive.

Let me explain further. Reversing the order of heavens and firmament causes the statement to no longer be true. Thus:

God called the firmament heaven is true.

but

God called heaven the firmament is not true.

It works like this call.

All Ravens are black birds. So "Any Raven can be called a black bird" is a true statement.

BUT

Not all black birds are Ravens. And so "Any black bird can be called a Raven" is NOT a true statement.





Nothing? How quickly you forget what you don't want to see.

Nevertheless - then you have a problem. See, the waters above have to get to the Earth for the flood. How do you suppose they crossed the 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the cosmos to the Earth so as to rain upon it?




Oh - and so the Earth was flooded with something other than H2O rain waters? Interesting.

Sorry Cal, where in the text is the water below which is the sea from which the dry land emerged any different from the waters above? Seeing as how He divided the waters above from those below, and then gathered the waters below, allowing dry land to emerge. The clear implication is that all these waters are one and the same substance, originating from the waters over which the Spirit of God brooded at the head of things.

You can believe what you want - but you can't get that from the text. That is something you impose upon the text based on what you want it to say so you can map it to your 21st century understanding of the cosmos.



Jim

I can't answer this whole thing now, but I'm not an advocate of the waters above becoming the floods waters of Gen. 7. I believe the waters from Gen. 1:2,6 are not H2O and are still up beyond the cosmos somewhere. The Psalms talk about these waters as if they are still up there. Dr. Russell Humphreys has a similar theory. You should have checked with me before wasting all that effort. This kind of wipes out half your post (okay okay, not exactly half).

I did think it was interesting you think Jesus only floated up into the sky only because that's where his disciples believed heaven was, and not for any other reason. Sounds like deception to me.

More on this post soon.....

[Calminian]

...so, are you going to actually address my arguments, or make your own stuff up, ...

hmm. let me think about it...

[Sparko]

I thought that response might be a little overwhelming for you. Didn't mean to hurt any feelings. I am having fun, I must admit. Well, thanks for your input. Of course you're the one that embraces solid domism, so it's ironic you're calling me the geocentrist. But hey, to each his own!

Solid Domism? LOL

I was explaining how the ANE culture viewed the cosmos. I can't help it if you just ignore anything anyone tells you.

[oxmixmudd]

I can't answer this whole thing now, but I'm not an advocate of the waters above becoming the floods waters of Gen. 7. I believe the waters from Gen. 1:2,6 are not H2O and are still up beyond the cosmos somewhere. The Psalms talk about these waters as if they are still up there. Dr. Russell Humphreys has a similar theory. You should have checked with me before wasting all that effort. This kind of wipes out half your post (okay okay, not exactly half).

I did think it was interesting you think Jesus only floated up into the sky only because that's where his disciples believed heaven was, and not for any other reason. Sounds like deception to me.

More on this post soon.....

This is an excellent example of why discussing or debating Calminian is like various forms of torture. He alway, always, always distorts the meaning of, or extorts some other meaning out of, whatever is said. There is no honesty in the man.

I never said why I thought Jesus ascended. Not once did I attempt to define why he might have ascended. I simply acknowledged He did ascend and that the people who saw Him ascend thought that heaven was up in the sky. Cal distorts this into some explanation of why Jesus chose to depart by ascending into a cloud. Did I ever say why I thought Jesus chose to leave by that method. Did I even imply I thought there was some explanation as to why Jesus chose to leave by that method? No. I simply said that those watching interpreted the ascension a certain way because they thought heaven was located above the sky.

Now, to Cals claim of deception. It would only be deception Cal if God where trying to tell us where heaven was, and it isn't actually in the sky. Whenever God communicates with us, He must communicate using language or symbolism that means something to us. And in genereal, that means some technical details will be left out or possibly even incorrect from some perspective. If Jesus had just gradually disappeared from view, this would not have communicated a destination - now would it? So, ascending into a cloud communicates a destination - does it not? Especially to His intended audience. Did they see Him go into a door in the sky? Apparently not. He simply disappeared into a cloud. That leaves open all kinds of possibilities for what or where heaven is as mankind learns more and realizes that the sky is not some kind of barrier between the Earth and Heaven. But it communicates what is happening to all who saw it, and all who read the account both then and now.

The mistake you make, over and over again, is in trying to make the Bible teach technical and scientific details about the natural world. It doesn't do that. The Bible is not a science text. And apparently God made little or no effort to correct the physical perceptions of the cosmos held by the writers. It is a record of God's interactions with the Hebrew people through to the revelation of His Son. And it is records those events as those people saw them. And from it we can learn about the nature of God, His desire and plan for us, and we can come to know Him. But we can't write or critique science texts from it. Nor can we divine from it the physical nature or location of Heaven or Hell.


Jim

[Calminian]

Solid Domism? LOL

I was explaining how the ANE culture viewed the cosmos. I can't help it if you just ignore anything anyone tells you.

and he's baaack! Actually you tried to use scripture to prove the viewpoint, namely the hebrew raqia (translated firmament in the KJV). That goes beyond ANE culture and drops at the feet of the biblical authors. Rather than ignore, I pay close attention to every word.

[oxmixmudd]

and he's baaack! Actually you tried to use scripture to prove the viewpoint, namely the hebrew raqia (translated firmament in the KJV). That goes beyond ANE culture and drops at the feet of the biblical authors. Rather than ignore, I pay close attention to every word.

Cal thinks the Biblical authors where not members of an ANE culture.

I wonder why the authors would use all the words and constructs so as to imply to an ANE reader exaclty what the ANE reader thought the cosmos was, without themselves actually also perceiving the cosmos in the same way.


Hmmm....... probably not.

Your problem Cal, is you don't believe God can communicate His truth through primative authors without first correcting all their primitive misconceptions about the world. What is worse, you won't believe God did communicate through them unless you first can prove He did correct all their primitive misconceptions about the world. So you are willing to distort the meaning of the text and try to force it into that paradigm, (or pretend the natural world really is not what it actually is) in an effort to fit the square peg into your round hole.

God can, and did, communicate His truth in scripture. And He did it using flawed, weak, and otherwise imperfect people. Just like He does through you and me.


Jim

[Calminian]

This is an excellent example of why discussing or debating Calminian is like various forms of torture. He alway, always, always distorts the meaning of, or extorts some other meaning out of, whatever is said. There is not real honesty in the man.

And as usual, mudd shoots for a spitting match rather than a good honest exchange.



I never said why I thought Jesus ascended. Not once did I attempt to define why he might have ascended. I simply acknowledged He did ascend and that the people who saw Him ascend thought that heaven was up in the sky. Cal distorts this into some explanation of why Jesus chose to depart by ascending into a cloud. Did I ever say why I thought Jesus chose to leave by that method. Did I even imply I thought there was some explanation as to why Jesus chose to leave by that method? No. I simply said that those watching interpreted the ascension a certain way because they thought heaven was located above the sky.

Oh come on! Do you really think it's such a horrible inference to take what you said as the idea that Jesus only ascended for communication purpose? You yourself confirm this. You say that heaven is not really up, but that Jesus ascended up because that's where the people of his day believed heaven was (you of course disagreeing with them). By going up, Christ affirms their false assumption.



Now, to Cals claim of deception. It would only be deception Cal if God where trying to tell us where heaven was, and it isn't actually in the sky. Whenever God communicates with us, He must communicate using language or symbolism that means something to us. And in genereal, that means some technical details will be left out or possibly even incorrect from some perspective. If Jesus had just gradually disappeared from view, this would not have communicated a destination - now would it?

Of course it would! All Jesus had to say was that he was going to be with the Father in Heaven and then disappear or dematerialize and this would have been sufficient. There were also angels on the scene to clarify.

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

All they would have had to do is explain that Jesus had left for heaven which was a spiritual realm. Your assumption is that the people of his day were stupid, and only you are able to understand such complicated ideas.

Instead, according to you, he creates the illusion that heaven is really up there somewhere and leaves them looking into the sky. And then his angels confirm the delusion by saying he'll return in the same manner.

Nice try with the martyrdom, but you hang yourself with your own words.



The mistake you make, over and over again, is in trying to make the Bible teach technical and scientific details about the natural world. It doesn't do that. The Bible is not a science text. And apparently God made little or no effort to correct the physical perceptions of the cosmos held by the writers.

There's nothing in the ascension that speaks about the structure of the universe. This is a non sequitur. Jesus went up away from the earth, directionally. All this communicates is that heaven is directionally away from the earth. There is no violation of science here whatsoever. All it violates us your theory about heaven.



But we can't write or critique science texts from it. Nor can we divine from it the physical nature or location of Heaven or Hell.

I still have no idea how you've brought the exact location of heaven and hell into a simple ascension into the sky. All it communications is that Jesus was going somewhere directionally away from the earth. You can either deal with it, or ignore it for the sake of your theories about heaven.

[MrManNo1]

And as usual, mudd shoots for a spitting match rather than a good honest exchange.

You'd rather ignore or distort than have a good honest exchange. I think that, given your attitude towards the evidence, a spitting match is the only alternative left to get you to continue to respond.

[Calminian]

Cal thinks the Biblical authors where not members of an ANE culture.

You know it's ironic that this is what you have accused me of doing. Never once in my statement did I imply such a thing.



I wonder why the authors would use all the words and constructs so as to imply to an ANE reader exaclty what the ANE reader thought the cosmos was, without themselves actually also perceiving the cosmos in the same way.

Just the opposite. Much of the what we read in scripture contradicts the cosmologies of its day. This feeds my theory about false ideas of heaven popping up to compensate. The idea of a spiritual heave, IMO, is a direct result of the bible not being in line with ancient ideas about the cosmos.



Your problem Cal, is you don't believe God can communicate His truth through primative authors without first correcting all their primitive misconceptions about the world.

Nah. I just don't believe he has to be deceptive and confirm their false ideas. Nor do I believe he ever did. I've proven this to you time and again. Your problem is, you don't read the text carefully. This is the same problem I see with the writings of Seely and Lamoureux whom you're drawing from.



God can, and did, communicate His truth in scripture. And He did it using flawed, weak, and otherwise imperfect people. Just like He does through you and me.

All your doing now is blaming the human biblical authors for your sloppy reading of the text. :sigh:

[Calminian]

You'd rather ignore or distort than have a good honest exchange. I think that, given your attitude towards the evidence, a spitting match is the only alternative left to get you to continue to respond.

I would love an honest exchange! And in a way I'm getting, I just have to sort of clear away all the saliva to see it. I'm looking for holes in my own theory. I haven't found any yet from this thread, but I'm refining my thoughts which is valuable.

As rough as it gets here, I still find good feedback. You just have to put on the plastics and goggles.

[oxmixmudd]

And as usual, mudd shoots for a spitting match rather than a good honest exchange.

You would not know an honest exchange if it bit you.




Oh come on! Do you really think it's such a horrible inference to take what you said as the idea that Jesus only ascended for communication purpose? You yourself confirm this. You say that heaven is not really up, but that Jesus ascended up because that's where the people of his day believed heaven was (you of course disagreeing with them). By going up, Christ affirms their false assumption.

If nothing you are predictable. Actually, my second response is not a confirmation of what I personally think, but rather simply an explanation of why such an ascension is not a deception if heaven is not itself in the sky. I would personally only expect that the ascension is not functional (in that Christ did not need to actually ascend to get to heaven) but symbolic. It showed the people He was going to heaven - wherever heaven itself happens to be. And reading any more into it than that is ridiculous. It also gives us a clear thing to look for on His return, for He is to return in the same manner in which He left.




Of course it would! All Jesus had to say was that he was going to be with the Father in Heaven and then disappear or dematerialize and this would have been sufficient. There were also angels on the scene to clarify.

But that is not what He did. And personally, I'm not very concerned about why He did it that way. It really isn't very important. And I know I definitely would not spend any significant amount of time trying to divine where heaven might be as a result of the fact He ascended up into a cloud.



And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

All they would have had to do is explain that Jesus had left for heaven which was a spiritual realm. Your assumption is that the people of his day were stupid, and only you are able to understand such complicated ideas.

Don't be absurd. Stupid implies a lack of capacity to learn. But their knowledge of the cosmos was significantly more limited than our own. Or do you suppose after the ascension they went home and debated what the spin down rate of a pulsar might be? And where did I say these idea's were complicated. They are simple. People in that time thought heaven was above the sky. People now know that what is above the sky is empty space. Heaven - in the sense of a relatively local dwelling place for God and the angels - is not there.



Instead, according to you, he creates the illusion that heaven is really up there somewhere and leaves them looking into the sky. And then his angels confirm the delusion by saying he'll return in the same manner.

Nope. Do you supposed the angels should have clarified their understanding of the physical realm as part of confirming they had just observed Christ ascend into heaven? Do you suppose they (or we) could even understand exactly what really happened (in technical terms)? No, Christ did go to heaven, and when He returns, it will look like he is descending from a cloud. That is all there is to it. And my guess is that the technical terms to describe how He got there are STILL beyond our understanding.



Nice try with the martyrdom, but you hang yourself with your own words.

Martyrdom? Yes Cal, you do always try to denigrate those you talk to. Indeed, I only take this tone with you to balance the conversation. Without it you get out of control. There is no one on this website more obnoxious in a discussion than you are. And there are indeed a lot of difficult people to talk to here. But no one holds a candle to you.




There's nothing in the ascension that speaks about the structure of the universe. This is a non sequitur. Jesus went up away from the earth, directionally. All this communicates is that heaven is directionally away from the earth. There is no violation of science here whatsoever. All it violates us your theory about heaven.

Let's see what I said about the ascension. I said the ascension said nothing (gives us no information) about where heaven actually was. Isn't that what I said? You said it meant that heaven was actually in the sky or in space. That the fact He went up was physically significant in terms of where heaven is. I said it was not.

And so what are you saying now - that the ascension doesn't mean anything in terms of where heaven is? Well almost. But I see you are sticking with the idea it is 'up there somewhere', just that the specific direction Christ took wasn't significant. I guess he did a broad, sweeping turn in the cloud to get the right vector after He was out of sight?

BTW, my contention is that you are on this tack because there is no denying the cultural view recorded in scripture is that heaven was 'up', above the sky. You are trying to make this 'real' so you can deal with this, rather than simply accept that these references are rooted in cultural conceptions that find their origin in the fixed domed sky/flat earth cosmology of the babylonians and eqyptians that was also adopted by the early Hebrews - without all the pagan mythological baggage.




I still have no idea how you've brought the exact location of heaven and hell into a simple ascension into the sky.

I didn't Cal. What I said was that the ascension tells us NOTHING about where Heaven is. YOU are saying it implies Heaven is somewhere else physically located in the cosmos itself. You are saying the ascension implies that. I am saying it does not. Do you think just once you could stop twisting my words to mean what they do not? Honesty Calminian. It is a virtue. Try it.



All it communications is that Jesus was going somewhere directionally away from the earth. You can either deal with it, or ignore it for the sake of your theories about heaven.

It doesn't even say that much Calminian. And to think it does is incredibly provincial.


Jim

[Sparko]

and he's baaack! Actually you tried to use scripture to prove the viewpoint, namely the hebrew raqia (translated firmament in the KJV). That goes beyond ANE culture and drops at the feet of the biblical authors. Rather than ignore, I pay close attention to every word.

Jim is right, you are dishonest and you distort everything anyone says.

pay attention to THOSE words, Cal.

[Calminian]

You would not know an honest exchange if it bit you.

and boy, are you biting.... you keep getting progressively meaner as your ideas get challenged. hard to imagine how you'll be after this post.



Actually, my second response is not a confirmation of what I personally think, but rather simply an explanation of why such an ascension is not a deception if heaven is not itself in the sky. I would personally only expect that the ascension is not functional (in that Christ did not need to actually ascend to get to heaven) but symbolic. It showed the people He was going to heaven - wherever heaven itself happens to be. And reading any more into it than that is ridiculous.

Innnnnnteresting . So if Christ says he's going to heaven and then ascends into the sky, and if the angels on the ground ask why the disciples are looking up into heaven, it's ridiculous to assume heaven is up. Ooooookay!



But that is not what He did. And personally, I'm not very concerned about why He did it that way. It really isn't very important. And I know I definitely would not spend any significant amount of time trying to divine where heaven might be as a result of the fact He ascended up into a cloud.

Yes and clouds are, you guessed it, up! And what did the Angels say?

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Hmm. So looks like heaven is up after all. I know I know. I'm so dishonest. How dare I quote the text.



Don't be absurd. Stupid implies a lack of capacity to learn. But their knowledge of the cosmos was significantly more limited than our own. Or do you suppose after the ascension they went home and debated what the spin down rate of a pulsar might be? And where did I say these idea's were complicated. They are simple. People in that time thought heaven was above the sky. People now know that what is above the sky is empty space. Heaven - in the sense of a relatively local dwelling place for God and the angels - is not there.

Problem is, this has nothing to do with an incorporeal heaven. Modern science sheds no light on the concept of an incorporeal heaven. The argument is a non sequitur. You are arguing that one can only understand heaven being a spiritual realm if they understand modern science. But the concept actually predates modern views of cosmology and have nothing to do with science in the first place. There is nothing in science can would help one grasp the concept of incorporeality. They were just as qualified to understand it as you are. Yet Jesus didn't teach it. Why do you think that is?



Nope. Do you supposed the angels should have clarified their understanding of the physical realm as part of confirming they had just observed Christ ascend into heaven? Do you suppose they (or we) could even understand exactly what really happened (in technical terms)?

Hmm, heaven is either up, or spiritual. Yeah, real technical. :uhoh:



No, Christ did go to heaven, and when He returns, it will look like he is descending from a cloud. That is all there is to it. And my guess is that the technical terms to describe how He got there are STILL beyond our understanding.

So even in the modern/future era, you believe he's going to return from the sky, even though no one of that time will believe heaven is up. Hmmm. I think you just destroyed your entire case.



Martyrdom? Yes Cal, you do always try to denigrate those you talk to.

Frankly, I'm the nicest guy on this thread. I wonder if you or Sparko have any idea how mean spirited you are. (especially Sparko—talk about a chip)



Let's see what I said about the ascension. I said the ascension said nothing (gives us no information) about where heaven actually was.

Except that it is somewhere up. Hello?



BTW, my contention is that you are on this tack because there is no denying the cultural view recorded in scripture is that heaven was 'up', above the sky. You are trying to make this 'real' so you can deal with this, rather than simply accept that these references are rooted in cultural conceptions that find their origin in the fixed domed sky/flat earth cosmology of the babylonians and eqyptians that was also adopted by the early Hebrews - without all the pagan mythological baggage.

No, my contention (again) is that the Bible differed in its cosmological ideas from the popular views that existed during its writing, and therefore concepts of an incorporeal heaven were developed by the readers and theologians to compensates. The scientists of their day believed in geocentrism and solid-domism. Yet this didn't fit with other ideas in scripture—namely that the throne would revolve around the footstool. It didn't fit that angels were moving through a solid mass. So the theologians adjusted their thinking to compensate.

But now, we know that wasn't necessary. Thus we can actually read the Bible more literally and do not need to inject an incorporeal heaven to harmonize things.

And once again, Rayqia was named the heavens (plural) and scripture never refers to it as a barrier between heaven and earth. The ancients may have believed it, but the Bible doesn't teach it. Sorry.



I didn't Cal. What I said was that the ascension tells us NOTHING about where Heaven is. YOU are saying it implies Heaven is somewhere else physically located in the cosmos itself. You are saying the ascension implies that. I am saying it does not. Do you think just once you could stop twisting my words to mean what they do not? Honesty Calminian. It is a virtue. Try it.

I've not twisted a single word. You say up doesn't mean up. I say it does.

[oxmixmudd]

and boy, are you biting.... you keep getting progressively meaner as your ideas get challenged. hard to imagine how you'll be after this post.



Innnnnnteresting . So if Christ says he's going to heaven and then ascends into the sky, and if the angels on the ground ask why the disciples are looking up into heaven, it's ridiculous to assume heaven is up. Ooooookay!


Yes - it is ridiculous to assume heaven is 'up'.

A) This planet is a sphere. Up is a relative term. Up is determined by time of day, time of year, and relative position of the sun in the Galaxy, to name a few variables. At best, 'up into heaven' basically just means "not on Earth" in terms of a mapping to what the universe actually is (as opposed to the limited cultural conception of the writers of heave as a place above the sky). That is, Christ ascending into heaven, at best, only identitifies heaven not on Earth.

B) Assuming then that this 'not on Earth place' is necessarily still in the physical confines of this universe rejects the possibility of Heaven and Hell are not places in this universe at all. The issue is not 'could heaven be in this universe'. It is why should we assume it is necessarily in this universe. The "spiritual realm' of God and the Angels always appears to be relatively nearby, yet wholly invisible to us. As such, any assumptions about its physical placement enter the realm of the absurd, or the arrogant.




Yes and clouds are, you guessed it, up! And what did the Angels say?

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Hmm. So looks like heaven is up after all. I know I know. I'm so dishonest. How dare I quote the text.

Your dishonesty is in how you twist my words Cal. But that is also part of your twisting. To act as if my accusation of dishonesty applied to your quoting of the Biblical text. Indeed, that basically sums up all your dishonesty. You never represent what I have said in our debate honestly. My words are always twisted by you to say something I never said.

Try some honesty Cal - Or maybe not. As you note, Sparko sees your crap just as clearly as I do. I am probably not giving the readers enough credit. Keep doing it - it tells everyone just who and what you are, and they know to ignore you arguments as a result.




Problem is, this has nothing to do with an incorporeal heaven. Modern science sheds no light on the concept of an incorporeal heaven. The argument is a non sequitur. You are arguing that one can only understand heaven being a spiritual realm if they understand modern science. But the concept actually predates modern views of cosmology and have nothing to do with science in the first place. There is nothing in science can would help one grasp the concept of incorporeality. They were just as qualified to understand it as you are. Yet Jesus didn't teach it. Why do you think that is?

I didn't say what is bolded Cal. You made that up so you could appear to have a counter argument that 'wins' in some odd way. But anyone can make up an opposing argument he can then appear to knock down. It is called a strawman. And when you attribute it to someone else, it either shows you don't understand what they said or you willingly distort it (lie). Why don't you try actually discussing the arguments I actually have made?




Hmm, heaven is either up, or spiritual. Yeah, real technical. :uhoh:

Which way was up when the statement was made Cal? Be sure to take into account the sun's motion around the galaxy and the galaxies motion toward the great attractor. You will also need the precise time of year, time of day, and physical location on the Earth's surface.




So even in the modern/future era, you believe he's going to return from the sky, even though no one of that time will believe heaven is up. Hmmm. I think you just destroyed your entire case.


Where heaven is has NOTHING to do with the need for Christ to return as He left. The text says we will see Him coming in like fashion as He left. It is important we see Him return as it is described He left. And our ability to recognize that return also has nothing to do with where heaven actually is. It has to do with whether His return matches the description of His leaving.




Frankly, I'm the nicest guy on this thread. I wonder if you or Sparko have any idea how mean spirited you are. (especially Sparko—talk about a chip)


Oh brother.




Except that it is somewhere up. Hello?


Oh brother.




No, my contention (again) is that the Bible differed in its cosmological ideas from the popular views that existed during its writing, and therefore concepts of an incorporeal heaven were developed by the readers and theologians to compensates. The scientists of their day believed in geocentrism and solid-domism. Yet this didn't fit with other ideas in scripture—namely that the throne would revolve around the footstool. It didn't fit that angels were moving through a solid mass. So the theologians adjusted their thinking to compensate.

But now, we know that wasn't necessary. Thus we can actually read the Bible more literally and do not need to inject an incorporeal heaven to harmonize things.

Are you really serious? You rank right up there with the goecentrists. Are you next going to try to figure out how many angels might dance on the head of a pin?



And once again, Rayqia was named the heavens (plural) and scripture never refers to it as a barrier between heaven and earth. The ancients may have believed it, but the Bible doesn't teach it. Sorry.

Ah - at least you admit the ancients believed it. And I've never said the Bible 'teaches' it. I have simply said that the writers described creation from the perspective of what they understood the creation to be.

That becomes important when people try to make dogmatic statements about how much time was involved in the creation of the world (or where heaven might be), because it shows that the text of Genesis is NOT scientifically accurate in that sense. One must recognize the language therein is metaphorical/phenomenal and must be interpreted in light of what the REAL state, structure and historical time frame for the universe is. That is, one can't arrive at a correct understanding of the structure and time frame of the history of the universe reading scripture alone. One must rely on extra-Biblical information to inform the reading of the text.


Jim

[MrManNo1]

Which way was up when the statement was made Cal? Be sure to take into account the sun's motion around the galaxy and the galaxies motion toward the great attractor. You will also need the precise time of year, time of day, and physical location on the Earth's surface.

It's a good thing that exactly where Jesus was standing was pointed in the direction to where Cal's heaven was in our universe. Can you imagine if this occurred 12 hours earlier or later, and that part of the earth was facing the opposite direction? Jesus would have had to go down through the earth to get there, and we all know what that would have led the ancients to believe...

[oxmixmudd]

It's a good thing that exactly where Jesus was standing was pointed in the direction to where Cal's heaven was in our universe. Can you imagine if this occurred 12 hours earlier or later, and that part of the earth was facing the opposite direction? Jesus would have had to go down through the earth to get there, and we all know what that would have led the ancients to believe...

It was a good thing there was a cloud there too, otherwise they might have seen him accelerate beyond the speed of light so as to get where He was going.

Which reminds me of another point I keep forgetting to bring up. If Jesus disappeared into the cloud, then there are a few options - none of which bodes well for Cal's hypothesis.

A) He just kept going 'up' while the 'cloud' stayed there to make sure they couldn't see where He really went. (Shades of Galaxy quest goop transport of Tim Allen and in line with your 'lucky we were pointed the right direction' comment)

B) there was a spaceship waiting in the cloud to ferry him to planet heaven :wink:

C) He disappeared before he got to outer space, meaning heaven might well be in a place co-located with the Earth (read that another dimension/spiritual realm not of this physical realm).



Since C is a distinct possibility, and A is a bit on the absurd side, I would think it wise for Cal to give up this quest to derive heaven's location from scripture, and certainly not be dogmatic about heaven being physically located in this cosmos, and especially not dogmatically proclaim the idea of heaven as in an etherial spiritual realm a 'compromise' of scripture or some kind of bad theology.


Jim

[Sparko]

It was a good thing there was a cloud there too, otherwise they might have seen him accelerate beyond the speed of light so as to get where He was going.

Which reminds me of another point I keep forgetting to bring up. If Jesus disappeared into the cloud, then there are a few options - none of which bodes well for Cal's hypothesis.

A) He just kept going 'up' while the 'cloud' stayed there to make sure they couldn't see where He really went. (Shades of Galaxy quest goop transport of Tim Allen and in line with your 'lucky we were pointed the right direction' comment)

B) there was a spaceship waiting in the cloud to ferry him to planet heaven :wink:

C) He disappeared before he got to outer space, meaning heaven might well be in a place co-located with the Earth (read that another dimension/spiritual realm not of this physical realm).



Since C is a distinct possibility, and A is a bit on the absurd side, I would think it wise for Cal to give up this quest to derive heaven's location from scripture, and certainly not be dogmatic about heaven being physically located in this cosmos, and especially not dogmatically proclaim the idea of heaven as in an etherial spiritual realm a 'compromise' of scripture or some kind of bad theology.


Jim

you forgot

D) Heaven IS the cloud.

[Calminian]

Yes - it is ridiculous to assume heaven is 'up'.

A) This planet is a sphere. Up is a relative term. Up is determined by time of day, time of year, and relative position of the sun in the Galaxy, to name a few variables. At best, 'up into heaven' basically just means "not on Earth" in terms of a mapping to what the universe actually is (as opposed to the limited cultural conception of the writers of heave as a place above the sky). That is, Christ ascending into heaven, at best, only identitifies heaven not on Earth.

Many terms are relevant. So what? Yes, up is understood in regard to earth as a point of reference. Thus, no matter where on earth you are and no matter what time it is, heaven/the sky/etc. is up!

Why is that so hard to understand? All descriptions of movement are relevant to a reference point. Even modern astrophysicists use the term "up" when describing things going up in the air. Even you use the term. Yet you'll fault the Angels for using it? I've never gotten this argument. It really is silly.



Your dishonesty is in how you twist my words Cal. But that is also part of your twisting. To act as if my accusation of dishonesty applied to your quoting of the Biblical text. Indeed, that basically sums up all your dishonesty. You never represent what I have said in our debate honestly. My words are always twisted by you to say something I never said.

You know I've read some of your other threads and notice often you accuse people of this. It think you actually believe that anyone with a different opinion than yours is dishonest. Pretty sad.



Try some honesty Cal - Or maybe not. As you note, Sparko sees your crap just as clearly as I do. I am probably not giving the readers enough credit. Keep doing it - it tells everyone just who and what you are, and they know to ignore you arguments as a result.

I'll let the readers judge for themselves. I think most will see you and Sparko are the ones with issues. You both have major chips on your shoulders over this ancient cosmology stuff. I'm simply showing you haven't done your homework, you it's wearing on your egos.



Which way was up when the statement was made Cal? Be sure to take into account the sun's motion around the galaxy and the galaxies motion toward the great attractor. You will also need the precise time of year, time of day, and physical location on the Earth's surface.

"Up" simply means up in relation to the earth. When space ships take off, they go up regardless of where they are on earth and regardless of the time. No matter where they're going, they have to go up (in relation to the land) first. I mean this is really really simple stuff. Dude, is this the best you got? You're are disappointing me and I already had a low opinion of you.



Where heaven is has NOTHING to do with the need for Christ to return as He left. The text says we will see Him coming in like fashion as He left. It is important we see Him return as it is described He left. And our ability to recognize that return also has nothing to do with where heaven actually is. It has to do with whether His return matches the description of His leaving.

All his ascension and return tells us is that it is directional. You have to deal.



Are you really serious? You rank right up there with the goecentrists. Are you next going to try to figure out how many angels might dance on the head of a pin?

And this from a guy that truly believes the Bible teaches geocentrism and a solid sky. :lol:



Ah - at least you admit the ancients believed it. And I've never said the Bible 'teaches' it. I have simply said that the writers described creation from the perspective of what they understood the creation to be.

Hmm, now who's lying? I've always believed the ancients believe in ancient cosmologies. Always! In fact my theory is based on it. Yet the bible authors revealed a cosmology that didn't quite fit with their contemporary ancients. The Bible actually doesn't teach a solid sky as many around them believed. Nor is it theologically compatible with geocentrism which is why I believe concepts of a spiritual heave were developed.

You can sugar coat this anyway you like, but you believe the Bible teaches these things and that we should not take it literally. You do it in every thread. Now you're trying to back peddle. Good luck on me letting that slide.



That becomes important when people try to make dogmatic statements about how much time was involved in the creation of the world (or where heaven might be), because it shows that the text of Genesis is NOT scientifically accurate in that sense.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you contradicted yourself.

[Calminian]

..Can you imagine if this occurred 12 hours earlier or later, and that part of the earth was facing the opposite direction? Jesus would have had to go down through the earth to get there, and we all know what that would have led the ancients to believe...

What a silly point. No matter where an airplane or rocket needs to go on earth or in space, they always start by going up. Now you're saying the fastest way to china is through the earth? :lol:

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, do you guys also believe planes disappear when when they enter clouds? :uhoh:

[MrManNo1]

What a silly point. No matter where an airplane or rocket needs to go on earth or in space, they always start by going up. Now you're saying the fastest way to china is through the earth? :lol:

Uh...yeah, duh. But, to get to where they want to go, they wait until the particular time when the earth is facing where they want the rocket to go... :no:

And, airplanes don't go "up" in relation to earth. They start out going at a slight angle from the earth. Airplanes don't go into outer space, as you insist Jesus did.

[oxmixmudd]

Many terms are relevant. So what? Yes, up is understood in regard to earth as a point of reference. Thus, no matter where on earth you are and no matter what time it is, heaven/the sky/etc. is up!

Why is that so hard to understand? All descriptions of movement are relevant to a reference point. Even modern astrophysicists use the term "up" when describing things going up in the air. Even you use the term. Yet you'll fault the Angels for using it? I've never gotten this argument. It really is silly.

Up is a tem relative to the gravitational field of the Earth. For the 'up' of the scripture describing the ascension to be literally accurate, some specific area above the surface of the Earth must be heaven. If it is a physical place, it must be very far away from the Earth or hidden from view. If that is what you wish to believe, so be it - but it is absurd - and denies the statament:

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.




You know I've read some of your other threads and notice often you accuse people of this.

only the dishonest people ....



It think you actually believe that anyone with a different opinion than yours is dishonest. Pretty sad.

No - but you know that - and that would be ... being dishonest. Imagine that!

I've no problem with a different opinion. What I have a problem with is when words are distorted to essentially put lies in the mouth of an opponent.




I'll let the readers judge for themselves. I think most will see you and Sparko are the ones with issues. You both have major chips on your shoulders over this ancient cosmology stuff. I'm simply showing you haven't done your homework, you it's wearing on your egos.

If you wish to believe a fantasy, there is nothing I can do that will stop you.




"Up" simply means up in relation to the earth. When space ships take off, they go up regardless of where they are on earth and regardless of the time. No matter where they're going, they have to go up (in relation to the land) first. I mean this is really really simple stuff. Dude, is this the best you got? You're are disappointing me and I already had a low opinion of you.



All his ascension and return tells us is that it is directional. You have to deal.

The ascension tells us only where heaven is not (on this Earth). It gives us no information that tells us where heaven is. To assume that means the only option is a physical location in this universe is ignorant.




And this from a guy that truly believes the Bible teaches geocentrism and a solid sky. :lol:

There is nothing I can do to stop you from lying about what I believe. There is nothing I can do to keep you from distorting what I say. And unless a moderator steps in and threatens you with action if you don't stop, then I guess I'll just have to put up with it. But that doesn't say a great deal for you in terms of your moral character or commitment to the truth. And I should not have to say who you'll have to answer to for that, now should I?




Hmm, now who's lying? I've always believed the ancients believe in ancient cosmologies. Always! In fact my theory is based on it. Yet the bible authors revealed a cosmology that didn't quite fit with their contemporary ancients.

The ancients I refer to are both those who authored the scripture and their contemproraries. So are you saying you believe the Biblical authors held to the ancient cosmology of a fixed sky waters above etc. etc.?

As for the Biblical text, it is 100% consistent with the cosmologies of the time. Show me a verse in the OT that is not consistent with the ancient cosmology previously reference (fixed sky, flat earth, waters above etc). This means find a verse that simply does not fit the ancient cosmological concepts of the time and cultures in which that OT text was written. To help you figure out what this means:

"The earth is a circle"

Is consistent with ancient cosmologies.

"The Earth spins on its axis"

Is NOT consistent with the ancient cosmology we reference here.

Good Luck. I will take a refusal to provide such a verse you tacitly agreeing with the statement "the Bible text is 100% consistent with ancient cosmologies" and will from this day forward reference your lack of response to this post as you agreeing with me on that point.




The Bible actually doesn't teach a solid sky as many around them believed. Nor is it theologically compatible with geocentrism which is why I believe concepts of a spiritual heave were developed.

The Bible does not teach cosmology. But it is written by people who understood the world to be a certain way, and their descriptions of nature reflect what they understood.



You can sugar coat this anyway you like, but you believe the Bible teaches these things and that we should not take it literally. You do it in every thread. Now you're trying to back peddle. Good luck on me letting that slide.

As usual, you try to make me say something different from what I have said. I don't know, perhaps you just aren't smart enough to figure out what I've actually said? :shrug:




I knew it would only be a matter of time before you contradicted yourself.


That you view what I said as a contradiction is an indication the comment above may well be the truth.


Jim

[Calminian]

Uh...yeah, duh. But, to get to where they want to go, they wait until the particular time when the earth is facing where they want the rocket to go... :no:

And, airplanes don't go "up" in relation to earth. They start out going at a slight angle from the earth. Airplanes don't go into outer space, as you insist Jesus did.

Wow. So I posit the question, is there any evidence heaven and the cosmos are not the same. Something about this subject has you guys is a hissy. The only thing I can think of is it causes problems for your anti-concordism view. Otherwise I'm at a loss.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow. So I posit the question, is there any evidence heaven and the cosmos are not the same. Something about this subject has you guys is a hissy. The only thing I can think of is it causes problems for your anti-concordism view. Otherwise I'm at a loss.

An overly literal mindset and a lack of imagination are strongly correlated.



Jim

[MrManNo1]

Wow. So I posit the question, is there any evidence heaven and the cosmos are not the same. Something about this subject has you guys is a hissy. The only thing I can think of is it causes problems for your anti-concordism view. Otherwise I'm at a loss.

Maybe it's not that the subject has us in a "hissy." Perhaps it's your attitude towards our posts that has caused us to not take you seriously.

[Calminian]

Up is a tem relative to the gravitational field of the Earth. For the 'up' of the scripture describing the ascension to be literally accurate, some specific area above the surface of the Earth must be heaven. If it is a physical place, it must be very far away from the Earth or hidden from view. If that is what you wish to believe, so be it - but it is absurd - and denies the statament:

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Yes, God is Spirit, but you (and historic readers) have taken it an extra step and said God is Spirit therefore heaven must be Spirit. But is there biblical justification for this? This is the question I've asked. So far, no biblical evidence has been presented.

As to the logical argument that Heaven (God's throne) must be spirit because God is spirit, scripture contradicts this by saying earth (His footstool) is physical. If God cannot have a material throne, how is it possible he has a material footstool?

Not only this, Angels also do just fine in the physical realm. They eat, drink, and even get their feet washed. Not need for a spiritual realm for them either.

Not only this, God dwelt in a physical man-made component of the Tabernacle called the Holy of Holies which He said was a shadow of Heaven. He filled the sanctuary in a special way and that was only a 10 x 10 x 10 cubit cube.

Plus you're ignoring the scriptural fact that even your version of heaven cannot contain God. Spirit or not, you have the same problem.

1Kings 8:27 ....The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you....



I've no problem with a different opinion. What I have a problem with is when words are distorted to essentially put lies in the mouth of an opponent.

Until you allow for the possibility that you really do make some very tenuous arguments, you'll be stuck with the idea your opponents are dishonest. But you do make some really weak, unthought out arguments (I know I know, I'm lying). :ahem:



The ascension tells us only where heaven is not (on this Earth). It gives us no information that tells us where heaven is. To assume that means the only option is a physical location in this universe is ignorant.

Ah, but I asked if there was any biblical evidence it wasn't in the physical universe. Are you admitting you have no evidence against this idea?



The ancients I refer to are both those who authored the scripture and their contemproraries. So are you saying you believe the Biblical authors held to the ancient cosmology of a fixed sky waters above etc. etc.?

No, but I believe their contemporaries did. Scripture was written in the midst of false cosmologies. Yet it doesn't quite fit. There are little things that just don't add up and in fact fit better with modern understandings of the cosmos.

While these false cosmologies were still the dominant view, many Bible readers made adjustments such as developing the idea of a incorporeal heaven to compensate for the problem of God in heaven up there rotating around man. We find these views of an incorporeal heaven very early in church history. But now I'm asking the question: were these ideas really necessary give modern understandings of the cosmos?



As for the Biblical text, it is 100% consistent with the cosmologies of the time. Show me a verse in the OT that is not consistent with the ancient cosmology previously reference (fixed sky, flat earth, waters above etc). This means find a verse that simply does not fit the ancient cosmological concepts of the time and cultures in which that OT text was written. To help you figure out what this means:

Easy. "And God called the expanse heaven." Gen. 1:8. This one verse crumbles solid sky cosmology. Instead of saying the expanse separates heaven and earth as you say it does, it says the expanse is heaven (it's plural in fact, the heavens). Rayqia is actually the plural heavens. That is a problem for y'all.



"The earth is a circle"

Erets simply means land. It is neither a sphere nor flat. Land has all kinds of mountains and curves.

This is where you haven't done your research, yet. The world is 3 fold in scripture, but not as Seely believes. The three components are Earth (land), Sea and Heaven. They are always distinct. Erets is not equivalent to planet earth which consists of the land and see, etc. The ancients never thought of these as a unit. They were always distinct.

You probably want scriptural proof, huh? Will this do?

(Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).



"The Earth spins on its axis"

Again, it's the same nomenclature issue. You're breaking your own rules by assuming the ancients had a modern understanding of earth. You're misunderstanding erets again. Planet earth spins on its axis, but the ancients never spoke in terms of a planet. Earth was simply land, which was distinct from sea and heaven. Remember this verse?

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,...

We often think of earth and sea as distinct also, in this modern day. It's a normal correct way of looking at things.



Good Luck. I will take a refusal to provide such a verse you tacitly agreeing with the statement "the Bible text is 100% consistent with ancient cosmologies" and will from this day forward reference your lack of response to this post as you agreeing with me on that point.

I know my above replies broke your heart. Darn, you thought you had me. :doh:

[Calminian]

Maybe it's not that the subject has us in a "hissy." Perhaps it's your attitude towards our posts that has caused us to not take you seriously.

But I'm like being twice as nice to you as you are me. I only return about 1 of every 2 of your jabs. True, my punches are heavy, but all you have to do is stop swinging. :fight:

[MrManNo1]

But I'm like being twice as nice to you as you are me. I only return about 1 of every 2 of your jabs. True, my punches are heavy, but all you have to do is stop swinging. :fight:

Saying you are nice does not make it so, but that's not what I'm talking about anyway.

I'm talking about your refusal to listen to any criticism that anyone else is giving you. You just try to paint the other person as saying something entirely different, and then argue against it. As I said earlier, it's barely even a strawman, because at least strawman arguments somewhat resemble what the person originally said.

[Calminian]

Saying you are nice does not make it so, but that's not what I'm talking about anyway.

I'm talking about your refusal to listen to any criticism that anyone else is giving you. You just try to paint the other person as saying something entirely different, and then argue against it. As I said earlier, it's barely even a strawman, because at least strawman arguments somewhat resemble what the person originally said.

Can you give an example of where I did this?

[MrManNo1]

Can you give an example of where I did this?

Yes, I can. You did it the last time I pointed it out to you in the thread. Unfortunately, your only response to me calling you out on it was:


hmm. let me think about it...

That kind of leads me to believe that you don't really care about what we're saying to you.

[Calminian]

Yes, I can. You did it the last time I pointed it out to you in the thread. Unfortunately, your only response to me calling you out on it was:



That kind of leads me to believe that you don't really care about what we're saying to you.

I wish I knew what you were talking about. Can you just quickly refresh my memory. I will apologize if it's warranted. But honestly, I think I was just kinda kidding around. I do that sometimes when I get jabbed.

[MrManNo1]

I wish I knew what you were talking about. Can you just quickly refresh my memory. I will apologize if it's warranted. But honestly, I think I was just kinda kidding around. I do that sometimes when I get jabbed.

The thread isn't that long. You could just go back and look for the quote I gave you, but since you refuse to, I'll give you post numbers.

First read #34. Then read my response at #39. Then, what I just quoted was #42. You first argued things I never said, and when I called you on it and asked you to actually debate what I was arguing, you simply ignored the content of my posts. That is when I started taking jabs at you (if pointing out silly things in your argument can be called taking jabs at you), because it led me to believe that you just don't want to listen to us.

[Calminian]

The thread isn't that long. You could just go back and look for the quote I gave you, but since you refuse to, I'll give you post numbers.

First read #34. Then read my response at #39. Then, what I just quoted was #42. You first argued things I never said, and when I called you on it and asked you to actually debate what I was arguing, you simply ignored the content of my posts. That is when I started taking jabs at you (if pointing out silly things in your argument can be called taking jabs at you), because it led me to believe that you just don't want to listen to us.

I'm not quite seeing your point. I'm not messing with you I just honestly don't see where I falsely accused you.

Sometimes I will inform people of the logical direction of their arguments, which may contradict their actual view. But showing someone the logical outcome of their reasoning, isn't accusing them of saying what they didn't say. It's showing their views are illogical. If that's a foul, then I've been getting fouled the entire thread.

[MrManNo1]

I'm not quite seeing your point. I'm not messing with you I just honestly don't see where I falsely accused you.

Sometimes I will inform people of the logical direction of their arguments, which may contradict their actual view. But showing someone the logical outcome of their reasoning, isn't accusing them of saying what they didn't say. It's showing their views are illogical. If that's a foul, then I've been getting fouled the entire thread.

Yeah, except, as I said then, I never claimed either of the things you attributed to me in post #34:

1. We will live in a future spirit world (and, by extension, we will somehow miraculously have wings).

2. Heaven is a finite place.

Aside from this, you completely ignored my post #29 where I pointed out that we only have to give reasonable doubt that you're wrong. We don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument right.

[Calminian]

"The earth is a circle"

BTW, I actually split with many creationists on this passage. I believe the NASB has the correct rendering of this.

Is. 40:22 It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

This is not speaking of the apparent circle that one might see when sailing in the middle of the ocean, or in the midst of a flat desert. It is rather the dome of the sky which has a spherical appearance.

God is said to sit above this (not on it, BTW) looking down. God sitting, of course, is a metaphor for his authority—sitting on His throne in the highest heavens which is above this vault we see.

Some creationists believe this is a reference to a spherical earth, but I don't think it quite fits. And as I've already said, erets is a reference to land, not a globe. Earth in scripture never refers to a globe, nor of a flat land sea unit.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Calminian]

Yeah, except, as I said then, I never claimed either of the things you attributed to me in post #34:

1. We will live in a future spirit world (and, by extension, we will somehow miraculously have wings).

2. Heaven is a finite place.

Aside from this, you completely ignored my post #29 where I pointed out that we only have to give reasonable doubt that you're wrong. We don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument right.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. And none of us actually don't have to prove anything. I was just looking for arguments against my view as I'm still working out the bugs. I do believe I'm onto something, and will likely not change, but any arguments you can offer I will listen to.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, God is Spirit, but you (and historic readers) have taken it an extra step and said God is Spirit therefore heaven must be Spirit. But is there biblical justification for this? This is the question I've asked. So far, no biblical evidence has been presented.

Do you know how to properly represent any concept? Did I say heaven MUST be Spirit? This is where you constantly distort or misrepresent my words. And I am becoming quite convinced it is simply the fact you don't have a clue how to think logically or abstractly.

The issue I am arguing against is the idea the scripture indicates the cosmos outside the Earth IS heaven. I am not saying what heaven IS Mr. Twisty, I am saying you can't make ANY dogmatic statement about what or where heaven IS from what the scripture says. To make such a statement is to make very small minded assumptions about what the text is saying. Do you even have the capability of comprehending what the difference between those two statements is????



As to the logical argument that Heaven (God's throne) must be spirit because God is spirit, scripture contradicts this by saying earth (His footstool) is physical. If God cannot have a material throne, how is it possible he has a material footstool?

Again - you demonstrate the smallness of your thinking. Of course God can interact with the material - if he so chooses. I am saying you can't pin Him down ONLY to the material, and you can't say where heaven is - if it even is or has a place as we understand the concept. You diminish God by limiting heaven to being in located somewhere in the physical cosmos, as if He were merely some physical being that needs corporal existence or some kind of boundery on who or what He is.



Not only this, Angels also do just fine in the physical realm. They eat, drink, and even get their feet washed. Not need for a spiritual realm for them either.

Not only this, God dwelt in a physical man-made component of the Tabernacle called the Holy of Holies which He said was a shadow of Heaven. He filled the sanctuary in a special way and that was only a 10 x 10 x 10 cubit cube.

Plus you're ignoring the scriptural fact that even your version of heaven cannot contain God. Spirit or not, you have the same problem.

1Kings 8:27 ....The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you....

Cal, you don't have a clue. Precisely. God can't be limited to any place or scope. And the Bible can't be used as a magic compass to locate the place called Heaven.




Until you allow for the possibility that you really do make some very tenuous arguments, you'll be stuck with the idea your opponents are dishonest. But you do make some really weak, unthought out arguments (I know I know, I'm lying). :ahem:



Ah, but I asked if there was any biblical evidence it wasn't in the physical universe. Are you admitting you have no evidence against this idea?

Is there any Biblical evidence hell is not below the surface of the Earth? It says Jesus Descended into Hell. Should we expect some deep drilling project to accidentally let Satan out?




No, but I believe their contemporaries did. Scripture was written in the midst of false cosmologies. Yet it doesn't quite fit.

Where doesn't it fit?



There are little things that just don't add up and in fact fit better with modern understandings of the cosmos.

I don't think so. There are certain vague statements that map equally well to both cosmologies, but quite a few that also do not.



While these false cosmologies were still the dominant view, many Bible readers made adjustments such as developing the idea of a incorporeal heaven to compensate for the problem of God in heaven up there rotating around man. We find these views of an incorporeal heaven very early in church history. But now I'm asking the question: were these ideas really necessary give modern understandings of the cosmos?



Easy. "And God called the expanse heaven." Gen. 1:8. This one verse crumbles solid sky cosmology. Instead of saying the expanse separates heaven and earth as you say it does, it says the expanse is heaven (it's plural in fact, the heavens). Rayqia is actually the plural heavens. That is a problem for y'all.

It is not a problem. God calling the expanse heaven does not conflict with the ancient cosmology even a tiny little bit. I am not sure why you think it does.

What is a problem for you is that you don't know the difference between a relation and an equivalence relation. What you should know is that scripture interprets scripture, and you can't take one verse out of context or read it in a way that conflicts with the rest of scripture. And the raqia is described as a specific part of heaven, not all of heaven. It is the described as the visible part of heaven. It is essentially the floor of heaven. It is the part which separates the waters from the waters and which holds the sun moon and stars.



Erets simply means land. It is neither a sphere nor flat. Land has all kinds of mountains and curves.

This is where you haven't done your research, yet. The world is 3 fold in scripture, but not as Seely believes. The three components are Earth (land), Sea and Heaven. They are always distinct. Erets is not equivalent to planet earth which consists of the land and see, etc. The ancients never thought of these as a unit. They were always distinct.

You probably want scriptural proof, huh? Will this do?

(Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).

You have wondered off into la la land here. You clearly can not even comprehend my simple example. I am not quoting scripture. Did you see chapter and verse? I am simply trying to explain to someone incapable of or entirely determined not to understand the difference between "consistent with an ancient cosmology" and "inconsistent with an ancient cosmology".

Since you are incapable by intellect or choice of understanding the issue, I will state it very, very simply.

Every statement in the OT that describes the structure of the cosmos would be 100% accurate if the 'land' was a generally flat structure with land in the middle surround by a large sea, and the heavens was a rigid dome stretched out like a vault over it with waters above and in which were stars, sun and moon. Nothing in the text contradicts that view of the cosmos.




Again, it's the same nomenclature issue. You're breaking your own rules by assuming the ancients had a modern understanding of earth. You're misunderstanding erets again. Planet earth spins on its axis, but the ancients never spoke in terms of a planet. Earth was simply land, which was distinct from sea and heaven. Remember this verse?

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,...

We often think of earth and sea as distinct also, in this modern day. It's a normal correct way of looking at things.



I know my above replies broke your heart. Darn, you thought you had me. :doh:

I do have you. Your first try is an air ball, a strike out, not even a nip of the ball. Nothing you have quoted or shown here is in direct conflict with the ancient cosmology herein described. Not even a little bit.

The point is that you will find nothing in scripture that contradicts the ancient cosmology. My statement about rotation was simply an example of a statement that DIRECTLY contradicts the ancient cosmology. It is your job to find a statement in scripture that contradicts the ancient cosmology. A statement that as it is worded implies it is impossible for the cosmology I described above to be true.

2 more strikes and you are out!



Jim

[Calminian]

Do you know how to properly represent any concept? Did I say heaven MUST be Spirit? This is where you constantly distort or misrepresent my words. And I am becoming quite convinced it is simply the fact you don't have a clue how to think logically or abstractly.

mmm. the bitter words of a defeated foe. And I don't feel bad. What's wrong with me? :ahem:



The issue I am arguing against is the idea the scripture indicates the cosmos outside the Earth IS heaven. I am not saying what heaven IS Mr. Twisty, I am saying you can't make ANY dogmatic statement about what or where heaven IS from what the scripture says. To make such a statement is to make very small minded assumptions about what the text is saying. Do you even have the capability of comprehending what the difference between those two statements is????

This from a guy that dogmatically believes scriptures teaches heaven holds up an ocean which drips water into clouds. :lol: Oh man, you know I'm never going to let you live that down.



Again - you demonstrate the smallness of your thinking. Of course God can interact with the material - if he so chooses. I am saying you can't pin Him down ONLY to the material, and you can't say where heaven is - if it even is or has a place as we understand the concept. You diminish God by limiting heaven to being in located somewhere in the physical cosmos, as if He were merely some physical being that needs corporal existence or some kind of boundery on who or what He is.

And then in his next statement he dogmatically says heaven can't be in the cosmos. I know I know, I'm misrepresenting your words. :wink:



Cal, you don't have a clue. Precisely. God can't be limited to any place or scope. And the Bible can't be used as a magic compass to locate the place called Heaven.

I love it. More dogmatism. Do it man, get out on that branch.



Is there any Biblical evidence hell is not below the surface of the Earth? It says Jesus Descended into Hell. Should we expect some deep drilling project to accidentally let Satan out?

Now come on, aren't having enough trouble with heaven?



It is not a problem. God calling the expanse heaven does not conflict with the ancient cosmology even a tiny little bit. I am not sure why you think it does.

He actually called the expanse, the heavens (plural). That darn word.



What is a problem for you is that you don't know the difference between a relation and an equivalence relation. What you should know is that scripture interprets scripture, and you can't take one verse out of context or read it in a way that conflicts with the rest of scripture. And the raqia is described as a specific part of heaven, not all of heaven. It is the described as the visible part of heaven. It is essentially the floor of heaven. It is the part which separates the waters from the waters and which holds the sun moon and stars.

I'm waiting for the verses here. Here's mine: Gen. 1:8 And God calleth to the expanse ‘Heavens; (YLT). Better regroup. You're walking right into this.



Every statement in the OT that describes the structure of the cosmos would be 100% accurate if the 'land' was a generally flat structure with land in the middle surround by a large sea, and the heavens was a rigid dome stretched out like a vault over it with waters above and in which were stars, sun and moon. Nothing in the text contradicts that view of the cosmos.

The problem is, erets is never described in scripture as a land/sea unit. It simply means land.

And God calleth to the dry land ‘Earth,’

Again, you have to veer from a literal reading to make your case.

This is how the ancient writers understood it. So to say that scripture supports or is even compatible with the idea of a flat disc of land surrounded by sea is simply showing you haven't studied the term. Earth, in the bible writer's mind, was neither flat nor a sphere. It had hills, mountains, and coastlines in all kinds of different shapes.

The bible actually makes no claims at all about the land and sea as a unit.



The point is that you will find nothing in scripture that contradicts the ancient cosmology.

Wow, Jim, you're really back-peddling. Maybe you're making progress. You've gone from believing will full conviction that the bible writers believed in a solid sky which dripped into the clouds, to, maybe it's, well, kinda, compatible sorta kinda, maybe. :lol:

This isn't going well for you.

[Sparko]

Well I guess Calminian is right after all. The hubble telescope found the eye of God looking at us.

68063

whodathunkit?

:outtie:

[oxmixmudd]

mmm. the bitter words of a defeated foe. And I don't feel bad. What's wrong with me? :ahem:



This from a guy that dogmatically believes scriptures teaches heaven holds up an ocean which drips water into clouds. :lol: Oh man, you know I'm never going to let you live that down.



And then in his next statement he dogmatically says heaven can't be in the cosmos. I know I know, I'm misrepresenting your words. :wink:



I love it. More dogmatism. Do it man, get out on that branch.



Now come on, aren't having enough trouble with heaven?



He actually called the expanse, the heavens (plural). That darn word.



I'm waiting for the verses here. Here's mine: Gen. 1:8 And God calleth to the expanse ‘Heavens; (YLT). Better regroup. You're walking right into this.



The problem is, erets is never described in scripture as a land/sea unit. It simply means land.

And God calleth to the dry land ‘Earth,’

Again, you have to veer from a literal reading to make your case.

This is how the ancient writers understood it. So to say that scripture supports or is even compatible with the idea of a flat disc of land surrounded by sea is simply showing you haven't studied the term. Earth, in the bible writer's mind, was neither flat nor a sphere. It had hills, mountains, and coastlines in all kinds of different shapes.

The bible actually makes no claims at all about the land and sea as a unit.



Wow, Jim, you're really back-peddling. Maybe you're making progress. You've gone from believing will full conviction that the bible writers believed in a solid sky which dripped into the clouds, to, maybe it's, well, kinda, compatible sorta kinda, maybe. :lol:

This isn't going well for you.

Your ability to flatly lie about what I've said will never cease to amaze me. You clearly are interested only in playing word games and have no interest in the truth or honest discussion. Enjoy eternity on some planet in Andromeda. Consider this conversation terminated.

[Calminian]

Well I guess Calminian is right after all. The hubble telescope found the eye of God looking at us.

68063

whodathunkit?

:outtie:

On a serious note, I think it's very unlikely that these types of cosmological structures have not been enjoyed until now. They are breathtaking. I believe angels have been enjoying these worlds from the beginning. I think we are looking at God's throne. And I think if God opened our eyes, we'd see all these structures interlaced with angels. (just as Elisha's servant saw the army of angels on the hillside)

I know you meant it as a jab, and I realize my view goes against the mainstream, but the cosmos is just too vast and too magnificent to be there only for human enjoyment.

Angels would be the perfect life form to dwell in the cosmos. :b_angel: Both elect and fallen, BTW. :b_evil: Serious note ended.