The stratified heavens: the gaseous layers of the stratosphere?

[MHz]

MHz, if you start from the premise that the Bible is literally true and correct and the revealed word of god you will bend and twist all claims and research results to fit that premise, or simply deny them. It's called confirmation bias. The premise is false. You are not correct.

The baseline is being able to put a string of words together. My two examples from Daniel are not dependent anything other than the verses already posted. Like it or not the answers to those two examples change a great deal of things as far as 'the message' and the sequence is concerned. Having Jesus appear in the brass pretty much messes up over 90% of the current doctrines floating around today.

The concept of God not sending anybody to the eternal lake because of Adam and Eve's sins is so strange to Christians, based only on some explanation of what the book is saying by somebody who may have missed more than one important passage. You call my version twisted and inaccurate when Isaiah 65 covers that whole topic if read just on its own merits. There are other passages that support that same view. I do not have that wrong. Any view I had before ingesting that chapter would have to be modified. Revelation only says they will face judgment, it does not give us the details of what that judgment will be, that is in another part of the book. Which of your resources cover that possibility?

 

[MHz]

If the people at your favourite sites would actually do some science instead of just talking about it

Do you know the looks and paperwork that goes along with the words 'exploding bolts' brings when at Xxme Xxpot?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Like it or not the answers to those two examples change a great deal of things as far as 'the message' and the sequence is concerned.

Only if they mean what you think they mean. They don't. Analyses and conclusions based on a false premise don't lead to any useful understanding of reality.

 

[MHz]

Only if they mean what you think they mean.

In the case of the two mentions of a covenant being mentioned in the same passage, what would be considered 'proof' that understanding the whole book is quite different depending on the view of that one item.

My point is somebody somewhere should have come up with a better argument than 'you're wrong', the two words in the same passage are unrelated because of this explanation (insert link here). So far the silence is deafening (from all the people I have asked so it isn't just you)

They don't. Analyses and conclusions based on a false premise don't lead to any useful understanding of reality.

The ones who came up with the versions you have adopted were not of perfect understanding, they had an opinion and that was adopted by the masses as being the fact of the matter. The RCC and other Churches were never made famous by their willingness to take questions from the congregation.

Women as having authority would seem to be settled on if they choose to do so or not.

Lu:10:38:
Now it came to pass,
as they went,
that he entered into a certain village:
and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Lu:10:39:
And she had a sister called Mary,
which also sat at Jesus' feet,
and heard his word.
Lu:10:40:
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,
and came to him,
and said,
Lord,
dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?
bid her therefore that she help me.
Lu:10:41:
And Jesus answered and said unto her,
Martha,
Martha,
thou art careful and troubled about many things:
Lu:10:42:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.

After this and the other meetings she would have sat in on would that qualify her as being a 'teacher' even if it was just Martha that Mary talked to in her daily life? Your respected writers about the Church support that or they do not. The RCC certainly doesn't seem to promote a woman being a candidate for the office of Pope. Even Nuns are treated like 2nd class citizens in a male dominated business for $profit$. Pope Teresa would have made some lasting changes to the RCC.

 

[Cliffy]

It has been explained many times with many links to the information that is available about the multiple mistranslations of the original Greek texts. It has also been explained how Constantine manipulated and banned early texts to suit his own political agenda in creating the bible in its present form. A lot of evidence has been presented and yet you still maintain that the bible is a literal word of god. It isn't. There is no point in posting the links again because you won't read them anyway. You believe what you believe because your mind is a steel trap, just like eannasir.

 

[Cliffy]

Oh. You might try reading the Dead Sea scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels to get an idea of what Constantine left out of the bible because it didn't fit his agenda.

 

[MHz]

Oh. You might try reading the Dead Sea scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels to get an idea of what Constantine left out of the bible because it didn't fit his agenda.

I sometimes wonder why the 'doubters, such as yourself' go to such lengths to appear unlearned in the most basic of things concerning the Bible.
You mean the 'translated version' right? There is some irony in there someplace, do I need to point it out? The translators of the KJV had never been choirboys to the RCC. This bears repeating and in truth it is probably the first time this sequence of words has passed your eyes. Since I take that to be the case I will sum this up. The RCC supports that the Scriptures (66 Books) are devine in nature but they also discourage the 'flock' reading any part of them.

Preface to the KJV, in part.

"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with them? Men talk much of [an olive bow wrapped about with wood, whereupon did hang figs, and bread, honey in a pot, and oil], how many sweet and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosopher's stone, that it turned copper into gold; of Cornucopia, that it had all things necessary for food in it, of Panaces the herb, that it was good for diseases, of Catholicon the drug, that it is instead of all purges; of Vulcan's armor, that it was an armor of proof against all thrusts, and all blows, etc. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily god, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture, for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. "

"Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula. We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, "Damnamus veteres? Mineme, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possums laboramus." [S. Jerome. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] That is, "Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God." "
Fee free to provide some links to the bios of anybody mentioned in that document that would support your current view.

It has been explained many times with many links to the information that is available about the multiple mistranslations of the original Greek texts. It has also been explained how Constantine manipulated and banned early texts to suit his own political agenda in creating the bible in its present form. A lot of evidence has been presented and yet you still maintain that the bible is a literal word of god. It isn't. There is no point in posting the links again because you won't read them anyway. You believe what you believe because your mind is a steel trap, just like eannasir.

The preface says he was the least damaging (and informed) to the Scriptures.
"If we will descend to later times, we shall find many the like examples of such kind, or rather unkind acceptance. The first Roman Emperor [C. Caesar. Plutarch] did never do a more pleasing deed to the learned, nor more profitable to posterity, for conserving the record of times in true supputation; than when he corrected the Calendar, and ordered the year according to the course of the Sun; and yet this was imputed to him for novelty, and arrogance, and procured to him great obloguy. So the first Christened Emperor [Constantine] (at the least-wise that openly professed the faith himself, and allowed others to do the like) for strengthening the Empire at his great charges, and providing for the Church, as he did, got for his labour the name Pupillus, as who would say, a wasteful Prince, that had need of a Guardian or overseer [Aurel. Victor]. So the best Christened Emperor [Theodosius], for the love that he bare unto peace, thereby to enrich both himself and his subjects, and because he did not see war but find it, was judged to be no man at arms [Zosimus], (though indeed he excelled in feats of chivalry, and showed so much when he was provoked) and condemned for giving himself to his ease, and to his pleasure. "

How many time in your youth did you hear this speech in Church? Seems likethey were more in line with the truth than you and Dex and Les are. You certainly have come a long ways.

"THE PRAISE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

But now what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John 5:39. Isa 8:20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts 17:11 and 8:28,29. They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them. Matt 22:29. Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures [S. August. confess. lib 8 cap 12], (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto S. Augustine by a supernatural voice. "Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me," saith the same S. Augustine, "is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing of men's minds, and truly so tempered, that everyone may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious mind, as true Religion requireth." [S. August. de utilitcredendi cap. 6] Thus S. Augustine. and S. Jerome: "Ama scripturas, et amabit te sapientia etc." "

You evidence is words in a book, how is that any different in terms of 'proof'? Show me the date that Herod was said to have started the renovations that he started. History is so perfect 5 separate sources should still come up with the same date. There are many that agree on the year Pilate first became Governor of Judea, 26AD. In your support for the Dead Sea scrolls you are also supporting the Book of Enoch as being as important as anything else found there. That includes fallen angels being more than a human messanger. lol

 

[Cliffy]

I suppose you see that as proof but to me it is just a bunch of psycho babble, like most of your cut and paste "scripture" references.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

My point is somebody somewhere should have come up with a better argument than 'you're wrong', .

Many people have, here and elsewhere, including me. We've been over all the arguments many times, you've seen the links, you've (presumably) read the arguments and inspected the evidence, and you simply continue to twist things to mean what you want them to mean, in order to save your premise. There's no point in saying anything more to you except that by all the rules of evidence and logic you're wrong. That's the conclusion, not the argument.

 

[MHz]

I suppose you see that as proof but to me it is just a bunch of psycho babble, like most of your cut and paste "scripture" references.

You have some texts that support your claims, if you had read that preface you would not have made the claims you made. As for your ability to understand the preface and Scripture in general, it would seem to be quite low by your own confession. Truth of the matter is I could post any passage and with some very simple 'lead in words' there would be no 'mystery'. Are the words in other books that ever appeared as babble always babble no matter how many times you. At one time when I proposed that the ones alive for the 1,000 were static and it took a full 1,000 years to make them strong enough to face Satan and all the fallen angels was somewhat different from the norm, so what .... the important part is it correct. Your world is only safe if God remains the 'bad guy' and that is via people who promote the Bible as being actual and factual. As the words in the pre-face say the KJV is promoted as a 'take-home and read it for yourself' rather than the RCC version of 'it's so complicated that nobody can understand it's meaning ........... except us and for you we will do it if you pay us in money.
The Bible isn't a knowledge issue with you, it's a control issue. If it is maybe you also use the instructions that come with any modern device as a last resort, many people do. With religion as a whole being more like an multi billion $ industry . They are still raking it in and they want that trend to continue. To do that they have to make Religion complicated and their products (all of which have a $ amount attached) are the only way to gleen the 'truth as they promote it'. The money part of the industry would vanish overnight if the bible could be summed up in a few words that made the 'long version' mean that if you have drawn breath in this world then you have a place reserved in the new and improved world that is to come.

Many people have, here and elsewhere, including me.

Dex for the last 5 years that I have been asking around there has not been one answer to those two questions that could detail what changes that would make to prophecies. Nor was there an answer to why those two covenants and persons were not the same and no You never answered back then and you have not answered it in this thread. That is hardly a reason for me to abandon anything and just accept that people cannot comprehend the vastness of the changes and so I get the 'deer in the headlight reaction'.

We've been over all the arguments many times, you've seen the links, you've (presumably) read the arguments and inspected the evidence,

Around is more like it, the brass issue got me the same reply that I read about years before meeting you and was accepted as being valid as the issue at the time was validating two back-to-back timeframes in Revelation that added up to 7 full years. That Revelation had overlaps in all it's references to 3 1/2 years was something that didn't mesh with most of the proposed theories. One step lead to another and the 'if/then' for those two questions might take several pages but using the Bible there are no conflicts like overlapping time-lines that should not do that. Nobody is looking for a doctrine that has no holes, some will accept one that has many holes if it promotes they will make it to heaven. You have to accept the one you have because you respect your teachers and you don't talk back if you respect them.

and you simply continue to twist things to mean what you want them to mean,

Things were twisted up long before I came on the scene, perhaps I am untwisting things, not that anybody is actually paying attention. Please feel free to go into all the mental manipulation that goes into making two words that are the same and are in the very same passage as being the same when it comes to identifying who is doing the 'action part'. You say you have covered it and posted many links, that's true, you gave me the version I am already familiar with. What I was looking for was some paper about Daniel that includes this verse being mentioned anywhere.

Da:9:4:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God,
and made my confession,
and said,
O Lord,
the great and dreadful God,
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;

in order to save your premise.

No Dex, it is to explore if there is a valid connection. It is not a conflict with any Scripture to have God be the one that confirms a covenant with many for a period of 7 years. That works out to be from the time John is called until Peter is given the vision to teach Gentiles about God. Obviously the mid point would be the cross. No manipulation of anything to get that far. Where the changes begin to show is when the 70 weeks cannot be used to define any event past 3 1/2 years after the cross. The consequences of events made after the cross would include that destruction of the temple about 40 years later.

There's no point in saying anything more to you except that by all the rules of evidence and logic you're wrong.

In order to keep yourself safe their are other topics have to avoid also. It helps your personal case if the religious types can be shown to be deluded about all subjects, especially the science as taught by the Bible one. We have gone down that and with me even past that into the expanding earth realm. Glad you like the 'How the Earth was Born' series cause I have a few things I would like your view in. We already covered the Rio Grand rift and how it will eventually allow a trench from Mexico-to-the- Arctic to become a shallow sea. Moving past that (but keeping in mind that a rift means a drop in elevation over a long period of time) the segment on deepest place on the planet suddenly becomes a subduction zone. That is an inconsistency in my eyes. My proof, I have cooked a lot of portage in my time and once a skin is formed it does not subduct no matter how much or how little heat is applied. The runnaway theory doesn't work either for the lower part of the Rockies. (crust being subducted and then trying to resurface) It says it is a suction effect, pushing a cork into the portage more than half-way in a downflow does not result in the cork being sucked under, let alone being let go to try and resurface 1,000 miles to the East. With the spreading theory North America and all aother 'raised land mass that is called dry land today' was once at, or slightly below, sea level and the mantle was so hot it was expanding, the first cracks appeared and the firstshift was on upwelling that was the land masses (some 12 miles thick) being on top of up un upflow of magma (2X the density of the granite crust) The main crack was the west coast of North and South America, Where the southern Rockies are there was also an uplift where cracks caused the uplift. Being a scientist you should be thrilled to calculate how much more than the 2x magma is in density compared to when it is also liftin up a land mass the size of the current contients and allow 'relief' hot spots which lower the pressure enough to allow the land to settle.

That's the conclusion, not the argument.

Based on what you believe to be true. Where you going to go if the expanding universe is simply the reaction to heat. When you have more stars being born than there are dieing things are said to be hot and getting hotter (hot = light from stars). Once that trend reverses itself (less being born than are dieing) the universe enters it's cooling stage and it will begin to shrink (insert time delay of unknown proportions). Creating all sorts of new formulas along the way.
Another set of parameters for your science machine. In the segment about the birth of the earth it was proposed at some point the earth was a snowball (which fould happen if the present amount of all water came down from the cold of space in the form of snowflakes. Much the same way a one snowfall will snuff out the largest of forest-fires the whole planet could have been blanketed by a thick layer of snow for a long period of time. Using your formulas would that blanket of ice help or hinder the ability of the crust/mantle/core shed heat into space compared to the rate that it was shedding prior to the layer of ice (1km of crystal clear ice) If it inhibited the release of heat would it build up pressure like a pressure cooker which whould then have one very violent release rather than a long slow zipper effect. You can comment on things like that without being branded by your peers like Cliffy and whoever. (they would, they just wouldn't tell you)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Things were twisted up long before I came on the scene,...

And you're not untwisting anything, you're simply starting from a false premise that leads inevitably to incorrect conclusions and incoherent questions. The covenants, the prophecies, and all the rest of it that you talk about, are human inventions. If you understand the Bible in its proper historical and sociological context, your questions disappear, because it's not about what you think it's about.

 

[MHz]

And you're not untwisting anything, you're simply starting from a false premise that leads inevitably to incorrect conclusions and incoherent questions. The covenants, the prophecies, and all the rest of it that you talk about, are human inventions. If you understand the Bible in its proper historical and sociological context, your questions disappear, because it's not about what you think it's about.

lol, and that is just for starts no doubt. Under your rules I have even more respect for the 'goat-herders' of the past to have the 'foresight' to write about things that that could only happen if Rome became a power that did those very deeds, while they were still unknowing of the events. The incredible part is that it would only be figured out many centuries later. De:4:30 determined there would be something called the 'last days' so they were already determing that Revelation would be written.

Even you have to see using alike words from the same passage is much shorter (simple sequence) and clearer (something that can be figured out on-the-fly) than what the pre-trib type of 7 year doctrine needs to survive (not for the enlightenment of the masses, for the needless fleecing of the pockets of the masses.) Then again maybe you really can't see it

 

[Cliffy]

The bible is only one book of prophesy and revelation written. There are hundreds as well as many of oral tradition. All have as much or as little validity as the bible. Why focus on only one? Wouldn't a cross reference of many be more accurate? To me it is like walking around with blinders on.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Then again maybe you really can't see it

I can see it all just fine, but understanding doesn't imply agreement. I'm convinced it's wrong.

 

[Cliffy]

lol, and that is just for starts no doubt. Under your rules I have even more respect for the 'goat-herders' of the past to have the 'foresight' to write about things that that could only happen if Rome became a power that did those very deeds, while they were still unknowing of the events. The incredible part is that it would only be figured out many centuries later. De:4:30 determined there would be something called the 'last days' so they were already determing that Revelation would be written.

Even you have to see using alike words from the same passage is much shorter (simple sequence) and clearer (something that can be figured out on-the-fly) than what the pre-trib type of 7 year doctrine needs to survive (not for the enlightenment of the masses, for the needless fleecing of the pockets of the masses.) Then again maybe you really can't see it

Do you believe that Nostradamus was a prophet. Did what he write come true hundreds of years later or do people read into his quatrains what they want after the fact? I believe you are doing just that to prove your undying faith in a bunch of historical fairy tales.

The Jews stole most of the old testament from the Babylonians and Sumerians while the Christians stole the NT from a number of old and popular religions of their day. Even the titles given to JC, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Son of God were all titles held by Constantine. BTW, Constantine did not convert to Christianity until his dying breath. He was probably just trying to get the priest at his death bed to shut up so he could die in peace.

 

[eanassir]

I think the stratified heavens mentioned in the Glorious Quran are the stratosphere (or the stratified heavens), but God is the All-Knowing.

The reason for this:
This Stratosphere is stable: with no turbulance of its gases: there is no wind there to mix its gases together.
The wind is restricted to the troposphere or the air which is nearer to the earth surface.
It is almost certain that when this part of the atmosphere is stable and no wind is there to mix its gases, then its constituents will separate by time to form some sublayers inside this stratosphere - the thing that is unknown till today.

The cause of the stability of this Stratosphere is the temperature becomes more as you go up in this stratosphere (this is relative; because its uppermost part is cold but has a higher temperature than its lowermost part.)

This is opposite the troposphere which is turbulant with winds; because the temperatue will be less as you go up in this troposphere.

The gaseous heavens

deleted.