[quote]When we compare them, we find that the Bible speaks of water above and below the firmament, contrary to what you said.[/quote]There was water above and below the firmament.
The firmament was called Heaven. the firmament was within the water. The water was on Earth.
Sure, it is. There’s some new information in there for you to mull over.
Wow. Now you’re just being dense. :loco:
You’re the only one endorsing a void. Where is this void referred to in scripture?
Sure, it’s evidence. I can think of a few direct or indirect references to his vision. I reckon it’s a pretty decent best guess. So are you prepared to get this answer right?
“And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
[/quote]
We have to read between the lines. The ‘thorn’ is just one thing in particular. He begs God to rid him of it, but God tells him weaknesses and problems are OK. So Paul says he therefore will take pleasure in weaknesses - such as infirmities. He had many infirmities, so there is no reason to believe one was raised above the others in his mind to be the thorn. Therefore I ruled out poor eyesight. Sin is also not just one thing - he probably sinned many times, and in different ways. I therefore rule out sin in general. He speaks of ‘needs’. What need could possibly also be a thorn in the flesh? The desire for food? Water? Sleep? Sex? The only one anyone could possibly think of as a messenger of Satan is the need for sex; Paul doesn’t preach against heterosexual sex, but he does preach against homosexual sex; therefore his thorn is homosexual desire.[/quote]
Speculation. Nothing that can be considered an answer to a multiple choice question, since this kind of questioning isn’t suited to subjective interpretation; an essay question would be better. The best answer therefore is “The bible doesn’t say”, which indeed it doesn’t.
Could even be that he stepped on an actual thorn that stuck into him so far that he couldn’t remove it. But I don’t know and you don’t either.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]My point is that it only jives with a few verses in the Bible’s description; it’s contradicted by others. The same goes for other Mesopotamian texts. The concept of a neatly ordered and detailed cosmology which is consistently represented in cosmological texts, is a modern imposition on the text. The Akkadians, Sumerians, and Egyptians in particular were perfectly happy with messy, contradictory, inconsistent, and unsystematized cosmologies. They just didn’t think like us; show them one of those images and they’ve have said ‘Huh?’.
[/quote]
How can you say that when you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying?
Excellent, we progress.
No. The firmament was called ‘heaven’ (or ‘sky’), but it was not ‘within the water’. The firmament is said to be creating a separation between the water above the firmament, and the water below the firmament. The crust of the earth isn’t called ‘heaven’, and the land is described as being beneath the firmament, which makes no sense if the firmament is already the land.
No there isn’t. You’re just restating your case and failing to address criticisms of it.
I’m not being dense; please read the forum guidelines on personal attacks, which you have just breached. I pointed out that you had quoted this text, and referred to the void (which you dismissed). You claimed you had not quoted or referred to it. I have proved that you did.
I have never said that the void is referred to in Scripture. I have simply pointed out that the author who used the term ‘void’ did not use it to refer to the firmament but to the space between the two waters, the space created by separating them using the firmament.
You’re not addressing the point. The point is that this is not evidence; you’re simply guessing without any evidence. Paul’s eyes are never referred to as anything to do with the ‘messenger of satan’, and there’s nothing which tells us Paul’s eyes ever suffered from any infirmity subsequent to his blindness. First you said they were referred to ‘over and over’, now you say you can think of ‘a few direct or indirect references’. The answer is that the Bible doesn’t say what the ‘messenger of satan’ was.
It’s made even more complex by the fact that the Akkadians and Sumerians revised their own texts. Early texts have one creation account, later texts have a different version; still later texts have another version again. The same goes for the flood narrative. This makes it difficult to determine exactly what they thought about cosmology.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]No. The firmament was called ‘heaven’ (or ‘sky’), but it was not ‘within the water’. [/quote]It separated the water above from the water below yet was not in the water? [quote]The firmament is said to be creating a separation between the water above the firmament, and the water below the firmament.[/quote]Which means the firmament needs to be in the water. And the water was on Earth. [quote]The crust of the earth isn’t called ‘heaven’,[/quote]Sure, it is. [quote] and the land is described as being beneath the firmament, which makes no sense if the firmament is already the land.[/quote]Different firmament.
[quote]I’m not being dense; please read the forum guidelines on personal attacks, which you have just breached.[/quote]Sure, you are.[quote] I pointed out that you had quoted this text, and referred to the void (which you dismissed). You claimed you had not quoted or referred to it. I have proved that you did.[/quote]And now you’re making things up. Please go back and have another read of what I have said. At no point have I endorsed a “void”.
[quote]I have never said that the void is referred to in Scripture. I have simply pointed out that the author who used the term ‘void’ did not use it to refer to the firmament but to the space between the two waters, the space created by separating them using the firmament.[/quote]Then I guess we can safely ignore it.
[quote]You’re not addressing the point. The point is that this is not evidence; you’re simply guessing without any evidence.[/quote]Not really. I’ve asked a rational question and I can give a reasonable answer. You seem to favour a different answer. No biggie. It just means you don’t get that question right.[quote] Paul’s eyes are never referred to as anything to do with the ‘messenger of satan’, [/quote]Yeah…[quote]and there’s nothing which tells us Paul’s eyes ever suffered from any infirmity subsequent to his blindness.[/quote]Sure, there is.[quote] First you said they were referred to ‘over and over’, now you say you can think of ‘a few direct or indirect references’.[/quote]Is that against the rules too? [quote]The answer is that the Bible doesn’t say what the ‘messenger of satan’ was.[/quote]No, it’s not.
That’s not even the question! How do you hope to get the answer right if you can’t get the question right?
By the way… I see why we are arguing about the void so much. When I ask you to show me where it says “void” I am asking for scripture. Not the text I quoted. That would be silly …
No it doesn’t. If I place something between two other things, so that the two things are separated, the thing separating them doesn’t have to be ‘in’ either of them.
You’re forgetting the water which is above the firmament.
Show me.
You’ve said this before but you haven’t provided any evidence for it. Please do so.
I am not making things up. I quoted you directly. I never said you were endorsing a void.
You can’t ignore the fact that there’s a space between the firmament and the earth.
You asked a rational question and gave an irrational answer. You’ve failed to provide any evidence for your answer, and what you offered as evidence turned out to be no evidence at all; you even had to back down and modify your original description of your ‘evidence’. This means your answer has no evidential support, and can be dismissed in favour of a rational answer which does have evidential support.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]Correct.[/quote]Well, that’s just plain nutty.
[quote]No it doesn’t. If I place something between two other things, so that the two things are separated, the thing separating them doesn’t have to be ‘in’ either of them.[/quote]There was only one thing. It was called ‘the deep’.
Same water. It was made above the firmament after it was separated by the firmament.
[quote]Show me.[/quote]The Earth was created covered in water. That water was divided into waters above and waters below. What did the dividing was the firmament. This firmament can then be thought of as a crust to the Earth.
Sure, I have.
And yet, I’m not.
[quote]You can’t ignore the fact that there’s a space between the firmament and the earth.[/quote]Sure, I can.
[quote]You asked a rational question and gave an irrational answer. You’ve failed to provide any evidence for your answer, and what you offered as evidence turned out to be no evidence at all; you even had to back down and modify your original description of your ‘evidence’. This means your answer has no evidential support, and can be dismissed in favour of a rational answer which does have evidential support.[/quote]The answer is rational and I have not backed down at all over any evidence.
When Paul had issues, what were the Galatians prepared to do for him?
The Bible doesn’t say what the thorn in the side of Paul was. Elvis sang that a hard headed woman was a thorn in the side of man, but he didn’t say which man. He did mention a few men from the Bible, though. Adam and Samson had some trouble with their women, but Paul isn’t mentioned in the song.
But Stripe, you have already told us the answer is his poor eyesight, so I think you have to give us a new question.
As for the firmament separating the waters below the earth from the waters above the earth - i.e., that the firmament is something firm up in the sky - I also think that is not what the writers of the Bible meant. Why would they think there is water up above some hard flat thing in the sky? People have said it is because of the rain, that they thought rain came from this water that is being held up above the earth by a thin, solid plate, but this doesn’t make sense. There is no reason for them to think this. It must have been obvious even to cavemen that rain comes from clouds, and clouds don’t look as if they are part of some inestimably high solid plate. They look like they are floating - maybe floating between the earth and the thin solid plate, OK, but certainly not part of this thin solid plate. People even in ancient times must have had the experience of climbing mountains and seeing clouds from above. Therefore I’m beginning to agree with Stripe that whatever the firmament was, it wasn’t a hammered-out thin plate high above us holding back the waters.
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Which of these posters is not going to hell?
a. Evil zender
b. Unrepentant liberal atheist Chris
c. Random Scotsman
d. Saintly Dr. McCoy[/quote]
e. all of the above
In this thread, does posing a question mean that you determine which answer is correct?
a. Yes, it does according to Stripe
b. No, it doesn’t according to Fortigurn
c. Both a and b
d. a or b, but not both, and not c or e
That is not evidence; how many times are they actually referred to anyway? How many is ‘over and over’? The fact is that Paul’s eyes are never referred to as anything to do with the ‘messenger of satan’.
This is a non sequitur. Clearly in Paul’s mind there was; he refers to it in the context of his ‘infirmities’.[/quote]
The thorn in his side has to also be something he thought was a messenger of satan. His eyes are never referred to as the messenger of Satan; no infirmities are referred to as messengers of Satan. Even Job thought all his problems were sent from God.
[quote]
Why?[/quote]Actually, in some religions and sects, desires for food/water/sleep is considered a ‘thorn’. But Paul doesn’t refer to any of these as problems, except sex.
[quote]
This doesn’t make sense either; Paul also preached against illicit heterosexual activity.[/quote]Then possibly the thorn is his illicit sexual desire. But he was not married, so what kind of illicit sexual desire could he have had? He thinks sex with someone you are not married to is wrong, and such desire is illicit. But for an unmarried person, sexual desire is normal. He does not preach that sexual desire for the opposite sex is illicit, even though acting on it may in certain cases be. So according to his own preachings, sexual desire for a woman would have been OK; only sexual activity, or sexual desire for a man, would have been verboten. Anyone can prevent themselves from having sex; but you can’t prevent yourself from having sexual thoughts. Therefore, by the process of elimination, homosexual desire is the only thing left that could have been Paul’s thorn in his side.
[quote]
I thought you were going to tell him he was correct; he’s applying your revisionist hermeneutic.[/quote]
Me, too.
Q9 - How many times was the Earth covered in water?
A: Twice.
B: Once.
C: Never.
D: The bible doesn’t say.
Q10 - Which gospel did Paul preach?
A: His own.
B: There is only one gospel.
C: Rugby.
D: The bible doesn’t say.[/quote]
Q9–In the beginning and in the great flood. But I just know you’re gonna say “WRONG!”
Q10 There’s only one gospel, but we sometimes say, “The gospel according to John,” or some other writer. But it is all the same gospel.
[quote=“bababa”]Then possibly the thorn is his illicit sexual desire. But he was not married, so what kind of illicit sexual desire could he have had? He thinks sex with someone you are not married to is wrong, and such desire is illicit. But for an unmarried person, sexual desire is normal. He does not preach that sexual desire for the opposite sex is illicit, even though acting on it may in certain cases be. So according to his own preachings, sexual desire for a woman would have been OK; only sexual activity, or sexual desire for a man, would have been verboten. Anyone can prevent themselves from having sex; but you can’t prevent yourself from having sexual thoughts. Therefore, by the process of elimination, homosexual desire is the only thing left that could have been Paul’s thorn in his side.
[/quote]
I would disagree with the bolded part there. I think Paul would have thought that simply the thought of having sex with a woman was as good as (or as bad as) having sex with her. If you’ve tought it, you’ve done it already in the heart and are as guilty as if you’ve done it in the flesh.
