First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible · Continuing with J7b Second · Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment
- J7b Second
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl so you agree the bible says solid dome, the words root it hammered out metal.
The bible does not say gas, don't twist the words, it says water, above the dome is water.
Now where is the dome? Where is the water?
Also how tall is god? I read conflicting accounts in your primitive myth, can you clarify.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @J7b Second "so you agree the bible says solid dome, the words root it hammered out metal."
The root would involve "hammering" and a thing like the magnetic field would qualify on that account - as it's hammered on by particles from space. The root does per se not involve metal. No, I did not agree.
Your way of twisting my words is one reason why - if you are a shrink - that profession is detested. And if you aren't, you remind of one.
"The bible does not say gas,"
// gas
mid 17th century: invented by J. B. van Helmont (1577–1644), Belgian chemist, to denote an occult principle which he believed to exist in all matter; suggested by Greek khaos ‘chaos’, with Dutch g representing Greek kh . //
A word not invented will be lacking.
"don't twist the words,"
Turning them around to see what they can possibly mean is not twisting them. The word hydrogen means "water origin".
מים ומימן
water and hydrogen - are related words. In Hebrew as well as in Greek.
"it says water, above the dome is water."
And apart from "dome" H2O qualifies as water, but so does H2.
"Now where is the dome? Where is the water?"
The raqia, if you ask me, is the quasi-fluid in which bodies (including atoms, maybe subatomic particles, even if none are seen) can move freely but is also a quasi-solid in which its movement's define the movements bodies have and for instance affect direction and position of anything "in free fall". If so, go to Foucault's pendulum and see it's direction of swing affected by the raqia.
I am not ruling out the magnetic field, and in that case the H2O and H2 in space are truly above it. Otherwise, didn't you translate sth as "in front of" that I have elsewhere seen as "above"?
"Also how tall is god? I read conflicting accounts in your primitive myth, can you clarify."
He would have been about as tall as other babies in Bethlehem and about as tall as other men, not the tallest, when going to Calvary or exiting from the Empty Tomb. Apart from the Incarnation, the question does not make much sense.
Now, I do hold to Biblical inerrancy. That's why I bother to answer about the raqia. However, if I didn't, the Flood account would not fall apart as history. It would just have been history taken down by people with a faulty cosmology and somewhat wrong explanations on where the water exactly came from. If I did not believe in inerrancy, I might say after looking at Göbekli Tepe (via internet) and seeing no bricks and mortar that the story was tampered with to suit a later style of Babylonian architecture. I am not doing that. I have taken informations from a Hebraist amounting to the possibility (in my view) the words could refer to another material. I have not given up the hope totally of finding bricks with associated organic material in Harran plain that carbon date to during or before GT. But even if there were an error in the account of the architecture (and there isn't), this would not disqualify the history as history.
The Global Flood would still be a good explanation both for the traces and for the stories, and it's being as recent as the Biblical chronology (the best we have, better than Egyptian king lists which you seem to trust) would still be a good way of explanaining why it's remembered so well. And if it is as recent, a miracle like that at Babel would still be a great explanation why languages were soon after the Flood as different as Sumerian from Egyptian. Because, we find them - in the carbon build up I envisage - in the position where the time span from Flood to Abraham would be comparable as that between Old Norse and the divergence of Icelandic from Danish. No matter what the - if so - mistakes on raqia or on bricks and mortar. I don't believe there are any, and I believe there are gigantic mistakes piling up in your dating methodologies, once you get back to the real year 3000 BC. But if by some diabolical miracle you could convince me there were a fault in the account of the raqia and the account of bricks and mortar, this would not add up to convincing me there are no mistakes of the order I envisage in dating 2000 BC like 4000 BC and 3000 BC like 40 000 BP (38 000 BC).
You see poking at supposed weaknesses in my scheme doesn't cover up the ones in yours.
- J7b Second
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not asking you what raqia means, we know what it means, it's a hammered out metal sheet. It definitely does not mean magnetic field lol, are you just inventing concepts to keep you myth belief on track rather than honestly addressing what the myth actually says?
Your book also says water, it uses the word for water, it also refers to oceans NOT clouds, NOT air, NOT gas, again you are twisting words and definitions to keep your conclusion alive.
Why not look at the evidence before you, then arrive at a conclusion. You have this entirely backwards, the confirmation bias and disshonesty is extreme, you're clearly delusional or very afraid of truth
But god, yahweh, how tall is he? A giant? The size of a normal man, or as you say a baby lol (the idea of the creator of the universe having nappies changed and backside wiped is amusing to me) I'm interested in this god character, people in your story met him, but those descriptions are inconsistent with one another, can we dismiss the witness accounts as unreliable, or do you harmonise the descriptions somehow?
Convincing you of mistakes in your methodology- lol, you have no methodology, you take the conclusion, invent numbers which fit that conclusion and declare magic did it as justification for those numbers. Using your methodology you could literally argue the tree ring data for the previous century is incorrect as god slowed the earth so a year was in fact 2 years etc etc. You'll just insert magic into any hypothesis until it works, your pseudoscience is a joke.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @J7b Second "I'm not asking you what raqia means, we know what it means, it's a hammered out metal sheet."
No, you don't know it means that. You know the root meaning of the word is a verb meaning, among similar things, "hammer out" and that it can be considered as "hammered out" - which is fairly close to "hammered on" and therefore to what happens to the magnetic field.
// The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon (the go-to single volume dictionary of ancient Hebrew) defines "raqia" as the following: "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out);....2.) the vault of the heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it..." (pg 956) //
How the Hebrews came to regard it is beside the point, except as they include hagioographers. Note, the word "solid" in brackets.
// The Hebrew noun raqia is derived from the verb raqa, which means “to spread abroad, stamp, or stretch.” This word is used in the Old Testament in several places for the stamping out of metal into a sheet. //
So, etymology meaning would mean sth stretched, stamped, spread.
All the views of raqia as a solid are at least better suited to my view of raqia as a quasi-solid (not directly contradicted in the text) than to views of raqia as a complete non-solid.
"It definitely does not mean magnetic field lol, are you just inventing concepts to keep you myth belief on track rather than honestly addressing what the myth actually says?"
You are confusing my belief in inerrancy, which requires I account for raqia as something real, with my primary confidence in the story as history, which logically could come before that and where the surviving observers (Noah, his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, their four wives) might just in theory have misanalysed in wrong concepts how the Flood was happening.
"Your book also says water, it uses the word for water, it also refers to oceans NOT clouds,"
Do you consider there is water in the clouds?
Do you feel any need to document that "waters" in the context necessarily means "oceans"?
"NOT air,"
Hydrogen is not air.
"NOT gas,"
Do you consider that gaseous H2O is water?
"again you are twisting words and definitions to keep your conclusion alive."
Twisting is a word presuming YOU know the meaning and therefore know MY meaning is the wrong one. You have so far not shown that you know the meaning, you have only claimed it.
Again, it presumes an intention of twisting. In other words, that it would be some kind of dishonesty to use modern knowledge in modern terms and see what Moses could have used for them, rather than stick to your anthropological approach.
Again, you speak as if "the Flood happened" is "a conclusion", but it is not just a conclusion of inerrancy of the text but of at least two other factors, namely the text as history and not fiction (which doesn't need any inerrancy, which could be worded in ultra clear flat earth terms contradicting what we know of the earth, because the observers who wrote it down were flat-earth cosmologists and wrong, it would still be history) and also the traces of the Flood.
"Why not look at the evidence before you, then arrive at a conclusion."
The kind of conclusion you want me to make is that Flood story is false in physics and therefore in history. It doesn't work that way. The kind of evidence you present is an anthropological over confidence in knowing exactly what the terms of an ancient author meant, especially if it proves him wrong in physics. Doesn't work that way either. Homer was an anthropologist believing Greeks and Trojans had iron weapons. Medievals were anthropologists believing Greeks and Trojans wore plate armour of the type used at Crécy. Why would modern anthropologists be so much more inerrant about something lying even further back then the Trojan war?
"You have this entirely backwards, the confirmation bias and disshonesty is extreme, you're clearly delusional or very afraid of truth"
I have an ugly feeling someone hired a shrink to debate me.
David Dufresne spoke about how it was inadmissible to face off the Yellow Wests with police from the BAC, who normally face drug dealers and organised crime violence. They imagined they were facing something they weren't facing. Hence some Yellow Wests got their eyes gouged out by rubber balls. They weren't treated as protesters, they were treated as organised crime.
Hiring a shrink to debate me is about as much overkill and barbarism.
"But god, yahweh, how tall is he? A giant?"
God in His godhead has no size. He is not in space and time, that doesn't mean He's excluded from them either, it means space and time are in Him.
"The size of a normal man, or as you say a baby lol (the idea of the creator of the universe having nappies changed and backside wiped is amusing to me)"
This may be one of the reasons why God chose Incarnation.
"I'm interested in this god character, people in your story met him, but those descriptions are inconsistent with one another, can we dismiss the witness accounts as unreliable, or do you harmonise the descriptions somehow?"
God took appropriate different appearances according to what He was trying to convey.
[I meant intending to convey, "trying" would imply a risk of not succeeding.]
"Convincing you of mistakes in your methodology- lol, you have no methodology,"
Yes, I most certainly do, but if you are a shrink, that's about as much a waste of my breath as a Yellow West telling the BAC they are standing up for citizen rights.
"you take the conclusion, invent numbers which fit that conclusion and declare magic did it as justification for those numbers."
The problem is, ANY calibration of C-14 takes the "conclusion" (namely how old it is) and makes the "numbers fit it" rather than apply the numbers from the C-14 test strictly as they stand. You are accusing basically all scientists involved in calibrating of doing the same thing, unless your one exonerating circomstance for them is that they strictly "leave magic out". In other words, share your
"Using your methodology you could literally argue the tree ring data for the previous century is incorrect"
It most certainly wouldn't. You are not even twisting my words. You are PUTTING words into my keyboard with no relation to what I actually wrote.
"as god slowed the earth so a year was in fact 2 years etc etc. You'll just insert magic into any hypothesis until it works, your pseudoscience is a joke."
Any scientist will insert anything into his hypothesis until it works. Or until he gives it up.
Now, I do not adress these words to you.
I adress them to the readers of our debate, but you, I am blocking. You already got the previous two instalments of our debate, you will find this one too.
I consider you a criminal, and I am turning stones for finding a way to get you stopped from harassing me.
J7b Second is now blocked.
Until next avatar ...
