Bible Vs Scientism

[MichaelBoll]

No, it isn't. The link is not the physicality, but the impossibility.

What? You basically claimed that since Jesus a teaching tool that is implausible - but NOT physically impossible - it logically follows that Jesus would also use a teaching tool that IS physically impossible.

The latter most certainly DOESN'T logically follow the former.

You are welcome to accept metaphors as "clear and undeniable Biblical evidence" but I do not.

What was the high mountain a metaphor for?

 

[MichaelBoll]

Velcroed? It's called gravity.

And this gravity holds the entire atmosphere securely to the face of the ball? Is that the idea? Each molecule of gas remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the earth at all times? Please explain.

 

[MichaelBoll]

...additionally ...there is no evidence of progression of fossil as would be in evolution. e.g... two legs then later 3 legs then later 4 legs and later?....or...wings then later legs, etc.

Yep. No scientific evidence whatsoever of big bang, deep time, or common descent evolution.

 

[Dino246]

What? You basically claimed that since Jesus a teaching tool that is implausible - but NOT physically impossible - it logically follows that Jesus would also use a teaching tool that IS physically impossible.

The latter most certainly DOESN'T logically follow the former.

You can't see the logic because you're focused on the wrong thing.

What was the high mountain a metaphor for?

The mountain, in this case, need not be a metaphor; it probably isn't. However, the text doesn't say that the devil and Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the earth from the mountain; it says "Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;" (emphasis added). You're injecting meaning to the text that isn't there.

 

[Dino246]

And this gravity holds the entire atmosphere securely to the face of the ball? Is that the idea? Each molecule of gas remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the earth at all times? Please explain.

Nothing like a little misrepresentation to muddy the waters.

Gravity does indeed hold the atmosphere to the Earth. However, nobody has claimed or implied that every gas molecule remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the Earth at all times. That's a strawman fallacy.

 

[Dino246]

New Jerusalem is going to be a cube - 1500 miles width, 1500 miles length, 1500 miles height.

I wonder... statute miles or nautical miles?

 

[tourist]

I wonder... statute miles or nautical miles?

It would be statute as the dimensions were giving in furlongs which can be converted into statute miles. Interesting question though. A nautical mile equals 1.15 statute miles so the cube would be somewhat bigger - 1725 miles width, 1725 miles length, 1725 miles height. It is going to be bigger than the cube the Borg travels in.

 

[oyster67]

Oyster, do you also believe that heaven is a hard, physical barrier that separates the waters below heaven from the waters above heaven (Ps 148:4), and in which the sun, moon, and stars run appointed circuits over the earth?

Don't know about the place of the third Heaven, but it sounds like the birds fly in the first heaven and the stars shine in the second heaven. I suppose we could call the edge of the atmosphere a "barrier".

I don't think that the rotation and revolution of the Earth is unbiblical, though. Everyone talks of the Sun rising and setting, even today. It is acceptable to observe and speak of things from a relativistic perspective.

 

[oyster67]

Nothing like a little misrepresentation to muddy the waters.

Gravity does indeed hold the atmosphere to the Earth. However, nobody has claimed or implied that every gas molecule remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the Earth at all times. That's a strawman fallacy.

Yes, the wind does tend to blow the leaves about.

 

[tourist]

If it is to be a literal cube, would everyone on all six faces of the cube be able see the tree of life from their location?

The tree of life is on the river of life proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation states that on the middle of the street on either side of the river is the tree of life that will bore 12 fruits with each tree yielding its fruit every month. Apparently, there is either more than 1 tree of life or it is referring to branches of the tree with each branch yielding its fruit every month.

The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

As the city is on the ground that would leave 5 sides for viewing with the 6th side facing the ground.

Not sure of a specific bible reference that states that the throne of God is inside the city or outside the city or in a location other than the city itself.

The cube is literal otherwise the dimensions stated would have no meaning that could be inferred. From the text is appears that the street might possibly be on an island as the river of life is on either side along with the tree of life.

 

[tourist]

The Bible says that God made the earth on day 3, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. Scientism says billions of suns/stars existed for billions of years before the earth came into existence.

Please explain to me how it is "logically possible" for both accounts to be true.

Something to do with the space / time continuum. Or maybe I watched too much Star Trek in my youth.

 

[oyster67]

It is going to be bigger than the cube the Borg travels in.

Maybe the unrighteous will be forever banished to the Borg cube instead of the Jesus cube?

(Borg)

 

[oyster67]

The Bible says that God made the earth on day 3, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. Scientism says billions of suns/stars existed for billions of years before the earth came into existence.

Please explain to me how it is "logically possible" for both accounts to be true.

Good point. Somebuddy flubbered up their science.

There is no problem with distant stars being observable when one understands that God placed all the photons in a place where Adam and I could see them. This is a logical extension of the mature-creation concept. It didn't take billions of years for starlight to get here because God put it here at the beginning.

These old-earth astronomers are definitely not as bright as the stars they are looking at...

Blinded by the light?

 

[oyster67]

good measure of what is logically necessary or logically possible.

In this lies the confusion. God is not constricted or restricted by logic or law of any sort. He probably did it just the way He said He did it.

Faith anyone?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Magenta]

And this gravity holds the entire atmosphere securely to the face of the ball? Is that the idea? Each
molecule of gas remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the earth at all times? Please explain.

Not sure why you think I must answer for your logical fallacies and lack of reasoning

 

[tourist]

Maybe the unrighteous will be forever banished to the Borg cube instead of the Jesus cube?

(Borg)

Yeah, they will go to the other place where the Borg cube is and be assimilated.

 

[MichaelBoll]

What? You basically claimed that since Jesus used a teaching tool that is implausible - but NOT physically impossible - it logically follows that Jesus would also use a teaching tool that IS physically impossible.

The latter most certainly DOESN'T logically follow the former.

You can't see the logic because you're focused on the wrong thing.

Hmm... Could you explain to me how using an example that is NOT physically impossible is basically the same thing as using an example that IS physically impossible?

The mountain, in this case, need not be a metaphor; it probably isn't.

In that case, I don't understand the meaning of these words you said to me...

You are welcome to accept metaphors as "clear and undeniable Biblical evidence" but I do not.

What was the meaning of that statement if I'm not, in fact, accepting metaphors as clear and undeniable Biblical evidence?

However, the text doesn't say that the devil and Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the earth from the mountain; it says "Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;" (emphasis added). You're injecting meaning to the text that isn't there.

Well, I assume the point of mentioning any mountain, let alone a "very high" one, was to convey that the devil was able to show Jesus the kingdoms from that vantage point. It stands to reason that if the devil was showing these kingdoms to Jesus in a vision, dream, or out-of-body experience, there'd be no need to mention any mountain at all, or point out how very high it was.

Please explain how exactly I'm injecting something into the text that isn't there.

 

[MichaelBoll]

Nothing like a little misrepresentation to muddy the waters.

Gravity does indeed hold the atmosphere to the Earth. However, nobody has claimed or implied that every gas molecule remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the Earth at all times. That's a strawman fallacy.

I'm all ears. Gravity holding the atmosphere to the earth is the assertion that Magenta made, right? I simply gave my understanding of what such a mechanism would entail, and politely asked for an explanation.

You have since taken Magenta's assertion to the next level with your addition of the word "indeed", right? And you've even called my honest understanding of what her claim would entail a "strawman fallacy", right? In my eyes, that makes you more of an expert on the subject than she, and so maybe you'd be so kind as to "unmuddy" the waters for everyone by simply addressing my polite request for her to please explain it to me. I simply have some questions... that's all.

For one example, we have a lot of "dust devils" in AZ. You can see (by means of the dust) the air (atmosphere) easily breaking free from the earth beneath it. Why then would that same air be "stuck" to an earth that is spinning up to 1012 mph at the equator - to the point that it also travels 1012 mph, and way faster the higher you go up?

As another example, jet streams up high in the sky are no secret. You can travel in one that's moving westward, and then raise your altitude a bit and be right smack dab in the middle of another one that is moving eastward - directly adjacent to the one moving westward!

Those kinds of things simply don't sound to me like an atmosphere that is "stuck" to the earth to the point that one can fire a model rocket straight up, and watch it land very close to its launch point, "because the atmosphere moved right along with the earth while the rocket was in the air".

So please explain how this gravity/atmosphere mechanism actually works, if you don't mind. If none of the individual air molecules are literally stuck to the earth (or each other) by gravity at any given time, then why would the atmosphere as a whole move right along with the earth?

 

[Dino246]

Hmm... Could you explain to me how using an example that is NOT physically impossible is basically the same thing as using an example that IS physically impossible?

You're still focusing on the wrong thing.

 

[Dino246]

I'm all ears. Gravity holding the atmosphere to the earth is the assertion that Magenta made, right? I simply gave my understanding of what such a mechanism would entail, and politely asked for an explanation.

You asked for an explanation for the issue as you misunderstood it.

You have since taken Magenta's assertion to the next level with your addition of the word "indeed", right?

"The next level"? Wow... okay. Does that offend you?

And you've even called my honest understanding of what her claim would entail a "strawman fallacy", right?

Yes, because it is.

For one example, we have a lot of "dust devils" in AZ. You can see (by means of the dust) the air (atmosphere) easily breaking free from the earth beneath it. Why then would that same air be "stuck" to an earth that is spinning up to 1012 mph at the equator - to the point that it also travels 1012 mph, and way faster the higher you go up?

Where did the concept of "stuck" originate? With Magenta, or with you? Trace that, and then we'll continue.