In Genesis it says:
>The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep
This implies the earth was created before the sun, but we know this is the other way around
>God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome
>God called the dome Sky
This implies above the Sky there is a second set of waters
We've sent probes up there, but haven't found such a thing
So is the Bible accurate. No. The Bible is a collection of hundreds of stories from several religions, local history and oral tradition etc, written by dozens of different people. SOME events described in it ARE historical. It doesn't validate the rest. Descriptions of actual historical events are captured incorrectly, and with little detail, which gives insight into other events captured. Any rebuttals, Christians?
Religious scripture that was rewritten and retranslated over the past 4000 years is indeed not completely consistent in the terminology of today's contemporary science and archaeological timelines. What exactly is your point?
>What exactly is your point?
I think you summed it up pretty well when you said:
>Religious scripture that was rewritten and retranslated over the past 4000 years is indeed not completely consistent in the terminology of today's contemporary science and archaeological timelines.
Depends on the translation. The one that makes the most sense to me is
> The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.
which says to me the earth was not created yet. Since at the time the earth was "the known universe" at the time, it'd be similar setting the stage as "at a time when the universe as we know was not yet made". Basically a point of reference.
> Then God said "Let there be light"; and there was light.
Actual creation seems to occur at this point starting with light. Seems to be the big bang when language was vague.
That's a clever explanation of the first line, but it doesn't explain the lack of a film of water above our atmosphere.
>but it doesn't explain the lack of a film of water above our atmosphere.
That's a tall claim. How you know there is not water above the dome?
NASA has been up there are didn't find any.
Who do you trust more, pre-enlightenment Jews, or NASA (run by ex-nazis).
>NASA (run by ex-nazis).
Actually run by masons which are the antithesis of National Socialism.
One German engineer under the spotlight doesn't make the jew controlled space agency, National Socialist.
hundreds of nazis were in NASA after WWII. They brought us to the moon
>They brought us to the moon
That is a good one.
>I'm going to dispute a readily accepted claim without any evidence
>readily accepted claim
Claimed by who? Also, accepted by who?
The moon landing hoax is widely documented and the existence of space is intensely disputed.
We have two boards of your own choosing for religious discussion as well as a whole bait thread of religious seething from all sides on this very board. If you are serious about the discussion OP, I will move this thread to your choice of /vx/ or /ub/. If not, I will remove this redundant thread where no one will give serious answers on the topic as the other thread is evidence for.
>If you are serious about the discussion OP, I will move this thread to your choice of /vx/ or /ub/
I am serious about the discussion. Please move it to /ub/
Thanks for instan b& andd delete liike jannies of thee old land would
By the by, the text is translated in Greek as οὐρονόν meaning heaven or sky based on their lore around Uranus, not dome.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
τρούλος is dome, which is needed to argue for a pure flat earth interpretation, otherwise the ancient translations would have said it as such. As for a collection of stories, I wonder how any history can be trusted as soon as we gain a source from another person that has his own religious and political views. Patterns existing between all resources definitely don't point to truth I suppose. Just don't trust anything with multiple sources because you might have accidentally taken a Buddhist's understanding of an event and then everything is false.
Please list specific examples of historical inaccuracies and we can work through Biblical claims about the event and see how inaccurate it is compared to what we assume to be true through the multiple sources from multiple people with multiple beliefs that have commented on it.
>>6073>widely documented>the existence of space is intensely disputed
What bullshit. Those are both fringe claims. Even if you want to say they have merit, they're not "heavily documented" or "intensely disputed".
If the existence of Space is disputed, what are stars, what's the moon, why do telescopes work the way they do?
They're only disputed by retards who post Facebook memes in the flat earth thread.
Flat Eartherism is a psyop to make sites that welcome talk of conspiracy theories with better evidence (and more evidence) supporting them than any evidence against them seem unattractive to newcomers who don't know to ignore flat earth posts, hide flat earth threads, and never reply to flat earthers.
Yeah, yeah, most of us already know that. It doesn't make them go away.
How accurate is this, bible bros?