[geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
- From: "PETER CHARLTON" <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:38:24 -0000
Hi Phillip,
It wasnt me who wanted to make the "waters above" ordinary clouds re the water
cycle.
I posted here before how the use of the word heavens can mean the sky, hence
the frequent mention of "birds of the heavens", some Bibles in Genisis 1 dont
even use the word "Heavens" but "expanse", "Firmanent" and even sky.
I look at the meaning of scripture logically as well, thats why Iam here, the
logic of a water canopy around the earth is that it would protect the life on
earth from harmfull UV rays from the sun, I pointed out how the lifespan went
down from around 900 years to 120 after the flood.
Also, a water canopy around the earth would give a positive greenhouse effect,
at the equator, instead of it being scorching hoy, the suns heat would hit the
mantle and be spread away, at the poles, instead of it being freezing cold, the
mantle would trap or spread the heat of the sun around the globe.
I think the scientific evidence for this is the remains of tropical rain forest
under the polar caps and the salamader they found under the ice that thawed and
lived for 30 minutes.
Also the vast herds of animals on grassy plains that where quick frozen with
grass still fresh in thier mouths, the sudden removal of the canopy at the
flood which had previously kept the poles warm, would suddenly not be there,
hence, instant deep freeze.
So the logic of a canopy would be a much more comfortable and roomy world for
Gods creation.
Now please tell me what the possible logic of waters being the other side of
the stars would be?
Re the psalms, just because they where written after the flood, they can still
talk about events previously. Look at psalm 104
5 He has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.
6 With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it.
The waters were standing above the very mountains.
7 At your rebuke they began to flee;
At the sound of your thunder they were sent running in panic-
8 Mountains proceeded to ascend,
Valley plains proceeded to descend-
To the place that you have founded for them.
9 A boundary you set, beyond which they should not pass,
That they should not again cover the earth.
This is talking about the flood, where the waters covered the whole earth even
above the mountains, verse 8 explains where the water went as the shape of the
earths crust was changed, where would all of this water have been previous to
the flood if not held up in the sky as a water canopy?, if not the earth would
have been flooded permantly befrore the flood?,
But the clincher for me is 2nd Peter 3
5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were
heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the
midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that
time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same
word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are
being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
A world out of water buts in the middle of water at the same time, and that by
"those means" the world was destroyed by water, that is the flood, that is the
water canopy coming down on the earth nit just it rained hard for 40 days.
Pete Charlton
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillip Stott
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
Peter,how can you be so sure? Amos says in two different paces that He
poureth the seas upon the land.
If you insist on the waters above being a canopy how do you rationalize away
ye waters that be above the heavens (Psalm 148) ? I gathered last time you
wanted to make them ordinary clouds in the atmosphere by pointing to the
current water cycle. They are not, as far as I can see, they are above the
stars, as Genesis and Psalm 148 indicate, and ye waters that be above the
heavens were still there, and still praising the Lord God with the rest of
creation when Psalm 148 was written - long after the flood .
I feel constrained to point out that the Bible warns us about man's wisdom
and his confidence in it. The plain meaning of the text, as to a child
accepting the plain statements of his father in childlike simplicity, certainly
suggests water coming from below the surface (all the fountains of the great
deep were broken up), the seas flooding the land (Amos x 2), and not a water
canopy collapsing . Such an idea could fit in with the windows of heaven being
opened, but equally it could fit in with the water from the fountains of the
great deep falling back to earth, after all, it is brought in immediately after
the breaking open of the fountains.
In the love of Jesus
Philip Stott
----- Original Message -----
From: PETER CHARLTON
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 1:06 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
The Flood waters came not from the seas, but from the waters that where
above the expanse, that is the water canopy, thats why its not there any more,
thats why human lifespans in the Bible suddenly went down from 900 years to 120
years, thats why one minute there where warm grasslands, and the next
quickfrozen so that the dead animals did not even have the chance to rot.
The scripture I previously quoted from Psalms also conveys the image of the
waters that where standing above the very mountains by the word of God.
Actually Allen, if we where together talking over a beer, you would call
this an exchange of ideas rather than an argument, :-)
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
Oh yea one other thing ..If you are going to argue that the condition of
the earth staining in and out of the waters persisted on day 2, 3, etc.. after
the waters were divided from the land in to seas ..DAY 2 v6"Let there be a
firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters".v7." and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament: .Day 3.v9 "Let the waters under the
heavens be brought together into one place (earth!) and let the dry land
appear." And it came to be so.10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas:.If day 3 describes/ includes
the condition of the earth standing "in and out of the water" ..Then how in the
world does any of that identify where the flood waters came from.....They had
seas before the flood and we have seas today !?
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Me in blue....
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Day one the waters where all on the earth, then God seperated the
waters that should be above the sky from the seas that should be below the sky,
I dont see how it shows the waters above the expanse where only in place on day
1 because it plainly states the waters came to be above the expance on day 2,
exactly..that is the point the earth was no longer sanding in the water and out
of the water that was the conditionof day 1 not day 2 and 3 and 4 ect.....day
two they were separated..below and above .which is a condition that is differnt
then staning in and out ...they were separted from the condition of staninging
in and out..that is the whole point of v 2 's separtaion of the
waters.....???...why would God spend a whole day seperating the waters if it
was just for the one day?Come on really why would God take 6 days instead of 1
day..all he has to do is speak it..? why is not a reason the issue is how he
did it not why....?.....look at the verse on day 2
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was
so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
The waters were not separated untill the 2nd day wich by definition
changes the condition that existed prior to day two, on day on.."Let there be a
firmament in the midst of the waters, .the earth sanding in and out of the
waters"...did you notice there was no firmimnt untill day 2 only a formless
earth....standing in and out of the waters..the key "it was without
form".v2.......day 2 God created the firmiment via whcich the waters were
separated ..the condition of day one did not exist on day two. logicaly nor
scripturaly...
6 And God went on to say: "Let an expanse come to be in between the
waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters." 7 Then God
proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that
should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.
And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there
came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.
9 And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be
brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be
so. 10 And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of
the waters he called Seas.
As for your previous e-mail where you say,"
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:
yes they were destryoed by water the means of the distruction. You
are confusing a sequence of events with the method of destrution which was
water not the condiont of the water itself....?. It does not say that the
earth was still standing in and out of the waters prior to the flood after day
2 and even if by some wild imagination you construded that the flood itself was
the earth standing in and out of the waters..then you deffet your own argument
for the flood did not exist for nearly 1600 years before the flood...so if the
flood is what you are caling standing in and out of the waters then the
condition of the flood would have had to existed since day 1 of creation...!?
these verse outline a chonology of events from creation to the
flood, not the source of the flood waters...!?"
I consider the fact the waters above the expanse being mentioned in
verse 5 and then verse 6 saying the world was overflowed with water IS showing
these where the source of the flod else why mention it in this portion of
scripture?
And you said
if it were true that day one condition existed untill the time of
the flood you would also have to accept then that there were no annimals at the
time of the flood either..???
Why would I have to accept no aminals?, .........If you are going
to ignore the condition change from day one to day two then where in 2peter3
allows any room for the changes of the earth with plants & animals...you cannot
hold that postion and be consistiaint with the construct of your own
argument......BECUASE THE CONDITION OF THE EARTH STANDING IN AND OUT OF THE
WATERS IS SPECIFIC TO AND can only be demontrated without assumption to TO DAY
ONE...DAY TWO &THREE, EVERYTHING CHANGED WITH THE WATER AND THE EARTH...... THE
FIRMEMENT WAS CREATED AND SPECIFICALY DIVIDED /CAHNGED THAT CONDITION OF THE
EARTH STANING IN AND OUT OF BECUSE IT WAS FORMLESS.......after God seperated
the original waters that covered the earth in the first verse of Genisis by
creating the water mantle, verse 9 says the waters that where beneath the
expanse where brought together to form seas and dry land appeared, the animals
would live on the dry land, the waters that where still in place above the sky
wouldnt harm them, in fact it would protect them from the UV rays of the Sun
and cause a greenhouse effect ensuring the whole Earth was a uniform
temperature, hence the remains of tropical rainforest under the ice caps.
Exactly!... if all those things took place as you just described,... how is the
earth standing in and out of the waters that were removed/ divided and separted
via the expanse and seas !!!? each day of the creation naritive describes a
sequence of events that change the relation ship in this case water to earth,
You are attempting to force an imparitive on the condition of the earth that is
nowhere found in scripture wihout assuming it is true first and then
'interpreting" very verses that "support that view" to mean the very thing you
assumed, external of any and all nessesary inference ....?
Day ones condiont was changed via day two & 3.....period! Just like
all subsequent days changed the condtions untill the 7th day when all was
completed....The creation naritve is about the changes that took place on those
six days......The Flood is yet another change that took place again ~1600 years
latter..!?
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
staning in the waters and out of the waters in Genisins as well
as 2 peter 3 only applies untill day 2&3 ..what dont you understand..it was on
thoes days that it was separated out..? 2peter 3 is a sequence, it starts at
creation and goes to the flood but incudes all 6 days of creation not that day
one of creation was the same enviroment as the time of the flood..!? Day 2&3
the condition that existed on day one with the earth stanind in and out of the
waters does not exist anymore .!?
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry Allen, Iam not sure what you are saying?
The way I see 2nd Peter 3 is that its likening the last days
before Christs 2nd coming, as to the last days of the pre-flood world at the
time of Noah, nothing to do with creation, but that the waters where still
above the firmanent until used by God to bring destruction upon a world of
ungodly men.
2PET 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last
days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2PET 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for
since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation.
2PET 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water:
2PET 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with
water, perished:
So I cannot see the point you are making about contridicting
the Genisis accouint?, I consider it supports the Genisis accouint of the
waters that where above the firmanent untill the day God used them to bring the
flood.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
Peter,
this verse is restating the creation account in order to the
flood it is not about the flood exclusivly thus you cannot make the argument
without assuming it is saying somthing about the preflood world...1 differntly
then the Genisis account and 2. without contridicting that very genisis account
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2nd Peter 3 says the "Standing in the midst of water was
the source of the flood, "5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes
their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing
compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by
those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged
with water."
A water mantle being in place one minute, then falling to
Earth would account for the very many animals, mammoths and the like, that have
been found frozen solid, but fresh enough to eat when thawed, with green grass
still in thier mouths, something happened instantly to turn warm grasslands
into frozen wastes before flesh even had a chance to decay.
Likewise the remains of tropical rainforests beneath the
ice caps.
The first appearence of a rainbow after the flood when
presumably the light from the sun would have appeared differantly, no longer
passing through a water canopy.
The change in the lifetime of man from around 900 years
old, to around 120 being now exposed to the full radiation spectrum of the
sun, no longer shielded by a water canopy.
Iam unfamiliar with the expanding earth theory so will look
this up and see if said model can explain the above points, better than the
Biblical given account.
Pete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 11/5/2007
4:36 AM
Other related posts:
