"Biblical Cosmology" is NOT a thing

[@petermarkley]

Since Flatzoid was asking, here’s the link to Heiser’s parable I mention at 8:16 : drmsh.com/bible-teach-science-bibles-context-answers-question/

[@kratangg-arang]

Learned some new details about Heiser, and I really think your ‘Rowbothamism’ challenge to flat eathers should get some traction!

[@petermarkley]

@@kratangg-arang I’m already among top results if you Google “Rowbothamism!” 😂😄🙌

[@kratangg-arang]

@@petermarkley lmao cornering the market already

[@petermarkley]

@@kratangg-arang Not at all! I just want to go down in history as the man who coined the term, that’s all 😇😆

[@kratangg-arang]

@@petermarkley mission accomplished I’d say o7

[@Hirsutechin]

Good job Peter; even if flat earthers don’t accept this, believers should know it. And understand it!

[@frankallen3634]

Im sure the dinosaurs would like to talk to management about dying

[@captainkelley2339]

Dude, you're literally editing scripture with a red marker in order to make your point? And what does evolution have to do with cosmology? Maybe cosmology isn't then correct word, but the scriptures do describe the Earth as a flat disc set on pillars with a crystal dome over it, the sun and moon and stars (because the sun isn't a star in the Bible) within that dome, water on all sides, and heaven above the dome. That description is absolutely drawn from the words in the Bible.

[@petermarkley]

@@captainkelley2339 So do you have any argument or evidence to support your claims other than “nuh uh?” Also, the only thing even remotely resembling me “editing Scripture with a red marker” was me exegeting in defense of Atonement against old earth creationists like Hugh Ross. And you’re complaining about that? So like, what are you, a flat earther who believes in Evolution? Or were you just that desperate for something in my video that you could criticize? 🤨

[@captainkelley2339]

@@petermarkley Not a flat earther. Do know that evolution happens. Looking to learn, not criticize. I'm a former Christian, and I thought this was a video where an atheist corrects other atheists about a bad argument they might be making. The thing is, you say the Bible says things that it doesn't say. We know that the Bible doesn't say these things because we watched you add in words so that it would say what you wanted it to. Justify it however you want, the fact remains that the text says what it says. Nobody gets to change it to suit their purpose. To get a clear picture of, shall we say existence, you kind of have to read the whole book through, not this or that verse out of context. You have to read all of Genesis to get a real idea of it. You have to read all of Deuteronomy, and Isaiah, and Exodus and others. In fact, pretty good idea to sit down, start at the beginning, and read until the end. It's a really good book.

[@petermarkley]

@@captainkelley2339 I have read it all the way through … 12 times. I agree with you that it’s a good book, but as we talk I have less and less confidence that you know why. So I used a visual aid to clarify my exegesis, and simply because my visual aid looked a certain way that you didn’t like, you dismiss the entire argument as somehow dishonest and don’t bother to provide any substitute exegesis of your own? That’s just ignorant heckling. If you don’t believe in a divine origin of the Bible, I imagine that you would find historical criticism to be compelling. That’s fine. On that basis, you and any atheist friends are perfectly welcome to hold your conclusions about “Biblical cosmology.” Alternatively, if you are trying to defend old earth creationism, you or any Christian friends are also welcome to disagree with me about Darwinism being compatible with the Bible. I’m not here to change anyone’s minds except flat earthers, because they’re the only group involved that seems truly founded on dishonesty. However I do find it … RATHER strange that you would try to argue both positions at once: that the Bible is a flat earth book, but that it’s compatible with Darwinism. I think that shows a bafflingly inconsistent approach to the text.

[@captainkelley2339]

@@petermarkleyI never said the Bible was a "flat Earth book". I never said it was "compatible with Darwinism". Darwinism isn't a thing. Now you're editing me to make me say what suits your argument. Evolution is a phenomenon that we observe happen. The theory of evolution, which has come a long, long way since Charles Darwin, explains that observation. That's what a theory is: the explanation for an observation. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Evolution happens. The Bible gets both of these things wrong. There are plenty of ways to correct flat earthers without using the Bible.

[@petermarkley]

@@captainkelley2339 lol I did not “edit you to make you suit my argument.” What game are you even trying to play? In your initial comment you said “The scriptures describe the earth as a flat disc;” and now you say “The Earth is an oblate spheroid. … The Bible gets [this] wrong.” So please tell me exactly what is your issue with me referring (as shorthand, btw) to that position as believing the Bible is “a flat earth book?” That’s pretty much the common parlance for the idea, at least in my discussions with flat earthers. I’m literally just trying to communicate, and you’re like … trying to sabotage it at every turn 🤦‍♂️ And I don’t even understand why “There are plenty of ways to correct flat earthers without using the Bible.” A cursory glance at my other content on KZbin or TikTok will show you that I understand that VERY well. So I’m not sure why you’re bothering to tell me. I don’t need your permission to branch out to non-science topics that I’m equally passionate about (at the request of others, mind you). Clearly you embrace higher criticism, so it’s no surprise this video is a no-op for you. Isn’t that just a glass of spilled milk, huh? 😭 Maybe you and I just go about our days?

[@StringerNews1]

Good job. The origin of the universe is not the shape of the earth, full stop. I have seen the memes that _claim_ "all ancient civilizations thought the earth was flat" and noted the disconnect between the "evidence" and the claim. Indeed, when my 7th grade social studies class assignment had me researching ancient Mayan culture, one of the first things I learned was that modern society doesn't know much about ancient cultures, because there's no written record to tell us these things. So if all these ancient cultures came and went before paper was a thing, how come there are all these drawings? As you noted, they're forgeries. They're not from ancient cultures at all, rather they're from modern people claiming special knowledge of the ancients. I used to know an anthropologist who specialized in studying how "modern" people judge ancient and primitive people with bias. Where I take issue is with the "secular scholars" part. If that's not a sweeping generalization, I don't know what is! And since all of our factual knowledge is secular, I think that such a casual dismissal of it all is indicative of an inherent bias. It would be reasonable to say that in academia, there are _some_ people who promote concepts that lack the evidentiary backing that their institutions require. But not all. There are cheaters in all parts of society; no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The only other "camp" that I see consistently opposing flat earthers is the religious New Atheists. These aren't scholarly people at all! New Atheists follow a similar but equally misguided paint-by-numbers formula of tactics to control the narrative, just like flat earthers. Both sides are obsessed with the illusion of "winning" and "being right" to the exclusion of all else, including fair play and personal integrity. And because both try to outsmart the other in the same way, it's entertaining. But it's still individuals with an opinion, not a whole institution being wrong. As for pi, some including MCToon have said the Bible is wrong. But pi _is_ 3 to one significant figure. No, numbers like 10 and 30 don't have two significant digits, only one. And when we consider that zero and decimals didn't even exist at the time, nor Arabic numerals in that part of the world, there's just no basis to say it's wrong. Another New Atheist falsehood: "the Bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders." No, the Bible was written in the Iron Age, and not by illiterate people, obviously. And since the Bible talks a lot about sheep, but rarely about goats, herding only goats was an alien concept. In all the years NA has been a religion, nobody in it bothered to fact-check it, and it's all-wrong. That's blind faith for you! I can't end this without mentioning just how repellent the "magical Hebrew" trope is. It's straight-up racism. It's one fruit that I don't want to be known by! Leave that to flat earthers. It's weird to look for hidden meanings in the Jewish language, especially when the New Testament was written in Greek. When I was a boy, I got to meet some of the people working on the NIV translation. I was impressed by how much care was taken to get the translation just right. They were highly educated experts with years of experience. So when I see someone with a simple linguistic formula that's only supported by superstition, I have to wonder: what do you believe in? Believing in crude linguistics isn't believing in God and the Trinity. I can see why flerfs do it, their New Age belief says everyone gets to be a god, and have ultimate authority. But why would anyone calling themselves a Christian endorse such jiggery-pokery?

[@petermarkley]

@@StringerNews1 I have to admit you’re a few steps beyond my understanding in some of your musings here. But I enjoyed reading it anyway, and I liked what I understood! I will say, I think my use of the phrase “secular scholars” is more a shortcut of communication than a shortcut of thinking. Obviously I explicitly included some Christian scholars in that classification, and because Michael Heiser was so active online his content provided the deepest case study. But what I was really getting at was any scholars influenced by higher criticism in their thinking, which (as I understand it) began with an explicit “deconversion” story of Friedrich Schleiermacher. So I think I am justified to say that historical criticism **as a concept** is inherently anti-faith. I used the term “secular” here as an antonym for “Christian,” even though I know more properly “secular” just means not pertaining to religion. Again: shortcut in communication rather than in thinking.

[@StringerNews1]

@@petermarkley oh, I didn't mean to talk over your head! Sorry about that. Basically I believe that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on who the ideas come from. We all need help from others. The Good Samaritan is a reminder to me that we never know where that help might come from. In the story, the traveler was ignored by his own kind. His only help came from someone hated by his people. I'm troubled when I hear Christians say that they won't do business with or socialize with people who aren't just like them. My own life has been made so much richer by knowing people of diverse faiths, nationalities and colors. The Samaritan had the servant's heart; I'll take that wherever I can get it.

[@petermarkley]

@@StringerNews1 I agree 100% on that. Many American Christians today have completely lost the plot. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and he ate with tax collectors and sinners. The thing that boiled his blood more than anything was traditional religious people oppressing the weak and vulnerable, those marginalized in society. Where is that tender, empathetic inclusivity in our churches today? Such religion is worthless

[@StringerNews1]

@@petermarkley yes! You said it so well. When I was young, I had a lot of pride and little empathy. I thought I was God's gift to my friends. But looking back, they taught me how to relate as equals. My Southern Baptist family was always about having the upper hand. Some are still like that.

[@davidpersson250]

The dinosaurs died before the sin so death was existing before

[@alz1997]

Hi Peter, I really enjoyed your video. Given your comments about evolution in this video and the implications of death before a historical fall, how do you reconcile that view with the fossil evidence we have of a long history of animals and death on our planet? For context, I am a Christian, but I tend to lean towards some kind of theistic evolution.

[@petermarkley]

@@alz1997 Personally I take a lot of my beliefs on that from Answers in Genesis. (I even stole one of the slides in this video from Ken Ham 😅🤫) Basically we view the fossil record as the result of a very rapid cataclysm (i.e. Noah’s flood) instead of the result of gradual processes over eons.

[@alz1997]

@@petermarkley Gotcha, thanks for responding! I still struggle to make sense of some of the claims of AiG because to me it seems like you almost have to believe that all science that disagrees with them is only doing it out of a desire to disprove the Bible. But I just think it seems much more likely that many of the secular scientists are just trying to draw conclusions based on the evidence they have. Sure, they may have a naturalistic bias, but I don't think that means that all secular scientists are always consciously taking a defensive posture against the Bible. If what I'm saying is true, wouldn't you expect secular science to line up with Creationist science more often assuming that Creationist claims reflect reality? It's not that I want to trust secular science over scripture, but I personally think it just seems more likely that many people out there are just doing their best with what they have and are not trying to further a naturalist agenda to the detriment of God's word. Which if that's the case kind of indicates to me that AiG is theologically motivated in all of their research and therefore have a more intense bias. Anyway, no pressure to continue a back and forth if you don't want to. I just really appreciated the way you laid out your arguments in the video and wanted to engage with that one part of it a little bit.

[@alananimus9145]

WOW you just outright lie. Very nice lying for Jesus.

[@petermarkley]

@@alananimus9145 Care to share with the class what exactly you’re accusing me of lying about?

[@aspinninggreycube1270]

Don't know why I know this, but there's no "th" sound in "Rowbotham", it's usually pronounced "Row-Bottom". There are a bunch of other "botham" surnames such as "shuffle-", "higgin-", "rams-" and "side-". Some are more commonly spelled "bottom" as well though. Also, there's quite a lot of small towns and village around England with "Bottom" in the name from the same derivation. The only exception I know of is a famous English Cricketer from the 80's Ian Botham who pronounces the th in his name.

[@petermarkley]

@@aspinninggreycube1270 Yes so … lol … This is something of a can of worms actually. ORIGINALLY I pronounced it like “row-bottom” as you suggest, and there is actually evidence of this from my video in 2019: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f4PHZH6IfcqHsNUm39s However somewhere somehow at some point, and I cannot recall details, I’m sure I heard someone pronounce it with a dental fricative “TH;” and then I was sure I had been wrong and I felt embarrassed and hurried to correct myself for the future. But now there are people like yourself, basically saying I had it right in the first place and then changed to a wrong pronunciation! 😵😵‍💫 You are not the first who has told me this However I did have one person say there are some people in England who consider the “TH” a valid pronunciation. So on that basis, I have not gone back to the “row-bottom” pronunciation … But heck if I know anything about it! 😅

[@aspinninggreycube1270]

@@petermarkley Well, if nothing else at least the user engagement caused by the controversy should boost you in the algorithm.:0

[@petermarkley]

@@aspinninggreycube1270 🤣👌

[@tobes4042]

“A cosmological model, or simply cosmology, provides a description of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the universe and allows study of fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.” Well it sure sounds like what the bible is describing

[@petermarkley]

@@tobes4042 Whatever source you copied that from just tossed in “study about its origin, evolution, & fate” because that’s what modern Big Bang cosmologists do. I would argue its origin is the purview of cosmogony, not cosmology. But whatever-that’s just pure semantics. I made myself very clear: The Bible gives a historical narrative about origins, but does not describe or endorse any model of the cosmos. The only way you could be confused about that is if you’re trying to be confused on purpose because you just don’t like what I’m saying.

[@adamchristensen2648]

Is there any metaphor or allegory in the parts of the Bible not explicitly presented as such, i.e. the parables, or some of the Psalms, or the Song of Solomon? To clarify, I am assuming the position that Psalms are praises to god, not necessarily historical happenings, and the parables are stories meant to illustrate a deeper meaning not accounts of actual events. And the question is are any of the accounts in the Bible likewise metaphorical and not historical in nature?

[@petermarkley]

@@adamchristensen2648 Some of the examples you give actually ARE explicitly presented as parable. Many of Jesus’ parables begin with the text “And he told a parable to them, and said …” I’m not sure how you could get much more explicit than that. As for the Psalms, obviously much of that text is so poetic it cannot even be coherently parsed as “historical events.” The ones that can, are tied to events for example in the life of David which are actually recorded in narrative form elsewhere, but are recounted poetically in the Psalms. If you can’t tell, it likely doesn’t matter because poetry is poetry and the point of it is not to give historical narrative.

[@adamchristensen2648]

@@petermarkley Yes, as stated that is the position I am taking. What I'm asking is: are there any parts of the Bible that are NOT explicitly presented as metaphor or poetry that are not historical? For example, in the video you describe the difference between two types of literal interpretation. What are the indicators that the Bible is telling something 'as it appears/ed' versus telling something 'as it actually happened?' Your examples are in reference to the movement of the sun in the sky. This is a description as something appears, rather than the Bible stating that the sun is moving around the earth. I agree. But what indicates such a case? For example, the Bible describes how the global flood happened. What in that account is 'how it actually happened' and what is 'how it appeared to happen?' Is the account all one or the other? How do we know or distinguish between the two? My original question was simply: which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal (of either type of literal, though knowing when the text is ontologically literal is more what I'm driving at)?

[@petermarkley]

@@adamchristensen2648 Okay, first you’re closer than some others I’ve talked to but when you refer to ontological as “how it really happened” that sounds to me like you are not quite grasping the concept. Ontological language is not more accurate or more true than phenomenological. It’s not more “how it really happened;” BOTH are “how it really happened” but one describes what it looks like from one angle while the other describes it from another angle. So considering this, your question about the flood narrative makes no sense because, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t two literal ways to interpret the flood narrative. It says it rained and flood waters rose, until: “The waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” Genesis 7:19-20 If you can explain to me how this could be literally true in a phenomenological sense that would actually differ from an ontological sense, then maybe your question would make sense here. But so far I can’t see a way. Furthermore, whenever there WOULD be a difference between phenomenological vs ontological meanings, I cannot think of one verse in the entire Bible where the ontological meaning is intended. I think this shows that ontology as a separate narrative style from phenomenological is just a completely foreign concept to the Bible, and we can completely discard it while exegeting Scripture

[@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS]

You said that the dominant cosmology was a geocentric, spherical earth. However, it must be noted that the Messiah believed in his Father's account of creation that speaks of 1 structure being made on day 2 of creation. This structure was referred to as the firmament that would eventually be called heaven. The sun, moon, and starts were placed inside this barrier that was capable of dividing large quantities of water. This is why no one was confused about cosmology when the firmament called heaven was opened at the baptism of our messiah. They didn't believe in the sun god worshipping model as it had yet to be invented and named after helios. Fortunately, we now have footage of this barrier as well as countless observable proofs that water doesn't curve at the essential .666 feet per mile squared and we aren't moving at 66,600 mph around the sun while spiraling around the galaxy at 490,000 mph. In terms of Biblical cosmology in scripture, Moses saw too far when viewing the promise land from Mount Nebo, Joshua told the sun and moon to stand still, and David tells us the sun is in motion above a world that is immovable. Not only that, there are several occasions where the firmament is referred to as being spread out like a tent and not a ball of pressurized atmosphere in a vacuum.

[@petermarkley]

@@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS So, “nuh uh” then? Also, “helios” may have been the name of an idol in Ancient Greece, but it was also simply their word for “sun.” Pagan cultures frequently make no delineation in their language between their religion vs basic non-religious reality. That does not mean that everyone who uses their word for “sun” is automatically worshipping the idol. You should be glad that spirituality and morality don’t work that way. If you knew how many English words or custom you use every day (or every year) were at some point the distant past, somewhere in the world associated to a foreign idol by *someone*, then your head might explode

[@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS]

@@petermarkley The term solar system is also sun god centered as the prefix sol comes from the Roman sun god Sol Invictus. The suffix ar means belongs to. Essentially, the system belongs to a Roman sun god. That's why every planet is named after a Roman deities as well.

[@calvins_hat]

Very good work Peter

[@2besavedcom-7]

I'm glad you put this all together in one straightforward, well documented video, sir. I hear all the time from those looking into the flat earth model, "Do your own research!" Yet their research is sitting on their posterior watching a handful of FE videos by the usual crew of blind leaders. I find the term "Biblical Cosmology" derogatory and self inflating, as if only they have the correct view of cosmology :/

[@petermarkley]

@@2besavedcom-7 “derogatory and self-inflating” … I wholeheartedly agree

[@oneirois7461]

My g you should do some research into biblical history not only is there a biblical cosmology but multiple and the people who wrote the bible wrote it considering those cosmologies it’s funny to act like there isn’t

[@petermarkley]

@@oneirois7461 So just “nuh uh?” That’s your comment?

[@FutureWorldX]

@@petermarkley also their response is "oh please" and "okay, whatever".

[@buukkreider544]

The GREAT and MIGHTY GOD, The LORD of HOSTS is HIS NAME! Psalm 147:3-5 The LORD is GREAT! 3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. 4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. Proverbs 30:4 The CREATOR 4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? Isaiah 40:12-15, 17-23, 25-29 WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE LORD? 12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 29 He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Jeremiah 32:17-24,27 THE GOD OF ISRAEL Is REAL! 17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: 18 Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the Lord of hosts, is his name, 19 Great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings: 20 Which hast set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel, and among other men; and hast made thee a name, as at this day; 21 And hast brought forth thy people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs, and with wonders, and with a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with great terror; 22 And hast given them this land, which thou didst swear to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey; 23 And they came in, and possessed it; but they obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them: 24 Behold the mounts, they are come unto the city to take it; and the city is given into the hand of the Chaldeans, that fight against it, because of the sword, and of the famine, and of the pestilence: and what thou hast spoken is come to pass; and, behold, thou seest it. 27 Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

[@Mrcheddacheese]

Examples?

[@shanewolff9525]

his research has only one purpose and that is to lie about what the Bible says

[@brunobastos5533]

Rakia is a hard liqueur from the Baltics

[@petermarkley]

@@brunobastos5533 lol That’s kinda random 😆

[@StephenJarvis-pi5zu]

I see Flatzoid is having a go at you on his live stream

[@damonjesus445]

The problem with this ideology, is that it fits too closely with what the World teaches, and the World lies. Not only that, but you can't explain the firmament, or the waters above the firmament, with a globe. We'll all find out in the end, one way or the other. All I know for sure, is that a lot of what we know about cosmology, and the shape of the Earth comes from Satanic sources, and that's enough to question the storyline. The Gospel is 1 Cor 15; 1-4 God bless you all, in Jesus' name. Amen.

[@petermarkley]

@@damonjesus445 lol What about the content of this video “fits closely with what the World teaches?”

[@damonjesus445]

@@petermarkley Of course you didn't answer the statement, because your have no answer. Deflect all you want, globe Earth cosmology is Worldly, and there's no denying it. NASA was created by an avowed Satanist, and the other guy was a Nazi. Most of the World's governments, and institutions, are Satanically controlled, you can't trust anything coming out of that system, but you don't seem to have a problem having full faith in what they tell you is true. For shame.

[@ChevySamk]

2 verses later: yet death reigned from adam to moses 👍

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

So, you think flat earthers are wrong, because it's not in the Bible. And the Bible doesn't reflect ancient near east cosmology. Then is there a cosmological model in the Bible? Are flat earthers wrong because the Bible has another model or because science tells us they're wrong?

[@petermarkley]

@@gergelymagyarosi9285 There is no cosmological model in the Bible. Scripture is silent on that, which means yes God left it as our job to search out using science. Flat earthers are wrong because science tells us.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

@@petermarkley Then can we accept evolution if science tells us it's true?

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

YHWH/YAHUWAH alone is MOST HIGH. YHWH is the source of LIFE, INTELLIGENCE and INFORMATION and nature. LIFE INFORMATION INTELLIGENCE and NATURE are proof of YHWH and HIS handywork in creation YHWH gives us an inner voice, HE speaks to us and we have the free will to listen or disobey YHWH reveals HIMSELF through general revelation, natural revelation, special revelation and the law of conscience ​​​​The Messiah set the standard and taught HIS followers to love our creator YHWH first and then love one another because YHWH loves us

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

Fun Fact: Flat earth is integral to understand the nature of reality and the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

[@yourguard4]

Thats a not even funny non-fact.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@yourguard4 weight = net sum force, earth is flat motionless and is a pressurized dynamic system via a container.

[@losthylian]

Well presented! I recall watching a speech by a Dr. Noel Weeks where he criticized the idea of taking a few disparate accounts from across the ANE, separated by both great distances and large swathes of time, and using minor similarities to construct a uniform "ANE mindset" that must also apply to the whole of Scripture. He described it as a sort of "functional deism", which does seem to be at the heart of higher criticism. Point being, you seem to be in good company!

[@sdwone]

Biblical WHAT!? 🤯

[@pitchlumin]

Just to quickly mention Evolutionism: If academia, with all the experts across several disciplines of science, all know Evolutionism is a fact, why do you declare those experts in all those fields who all agree are wrong on interpretation?

[@petermarkley]

@@pitchlumin Because: 1) interpreting scientific evidence for the unobserved past, particularly the origins of life, is a process that’s inherently fraught with worldview bias, and 2) the Bible gives clear, explicit teaching on the origins of life that most scientists actively spurn, let alone account for

[@pitchlumin]

@@petermarkley 1) a biologist says we see the fruits of Evolutionism today. We see genetics, endogenous retro viruses, etc. Also Evoismists incorrectly say Abiogenesis is not connected to Evolutionism, but yes the origin is complete malarkey as a science. People are free to believe though, just not science. 2) the Bible is clear on God making life. Yes Naturalistic Evolutionism is incompatible with Scripture. But scientists and Academia can tell you about cosmology? And they are right about a globe titled at 66.6°, but they are wrong about Evolution? Like you science deny Evolutionism then? You do not trust trained experts in these diverse fields, when they discuss Evolutionism, but they are right about their legitimate science?

[@StringerNews1]

_Evolutionism?_ You mean the _belief_ in evolution? Like how New Atheists declare Charles Darwin their lord and savior by putting the symbol of a fish ... with legs ... and "DARWIN" in huge block letters? Yes, that's a statement of faith, alright! However, the fact that people believe does nothing to elevate evolution itself to the status of "settled science" or anything close to that. As it (still) stands, there are dozens of competing hypotheses of evolution, and they all lack any of the usual scientific observation or testing, namely because, as the name suggests, evolution takes a very long time. True Believers will often pull a bait and switch: "Evolution has been proved! Here you go, mutation." Of course they're not one and the same. And mutation doesn't create new species. But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And "God did it" isn't testable by science at all. Nobody can take a victory lap with that.

[@Nowpinion]

Worldview bias can influence interpretation, but science relies on evidence and peer review to minimize this. The Bible is a faith-based text, not a scientific one, and it might not be wise to take its accounts as literal facts, especially when they conflict with observable, testable evidence. Science and faith can coexist, but they address different types of questions.

[@petermarkley]

@@Nowpinion They do address different types of questions, and personally I believe the origin of life should be a faith question. We weren’t there, so the best science can do is provide polite forensics from the side lines. You and I both know that is not what Darwinian Evolution is about; this treats the history of our origin as an exclusively scientific question and tries to simply kick faith out of the discussion. Which is fine, if that’s your view then that’s your view. I’m not here trying to change anyone’s mind on that. But I do wish we could all be a little more self aware about the epistemological choices that we are making.

[@davidtodoran4910]

amazing video!

[@flatearthtravolta6585]

Earth is measured flat.

[@billtaylor1656]

I wonder why people just cant take religion as it is. A guide to living a hood life and how to treat one another.

[@petermarkley]

@@billtaylor1656 Because that’s not what my religion is

[@pitchlumin]

The Bible also talks about an eternal afterlife. That greatly influences behavior. If the Bible is as literally true as possible, what this life here and now means is greatly different than if the Bible does not discuss reality.

[@MultiDanak]

​@@petermarkleyI can't put into words why I found that so incredibly, darkly funny. Wow.

[@petermarkley]

@@MultiDanak lol … That’s not what my religion is, because my religion is bigger than that. It’s a belief about transcendent reality. In the Bible it says “If our hope in Christ is for this life only, then we [Christians] are of all men most to be pitied” 1 Corinthians 15:19. Saying Christianity is “a guide to living a good life and how to treat one another” would be like saying a child’s trip to the hospital to have their cancer cured is a way to get a lollipop. It’s defining the thing in terms of a marginal side benefit that the thing provides So obviously I’m not saying Christianity guides you to being a worse person 😛

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

tell me again how earth is moving 1000 mph at the surface?

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

How does evolution work without LIFE, INFORMATION or INTELLIGENCE?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

The Bible does have a cosmology, but it is one that soars beyond our current squabbles about evolution vs creationism or whether the earth is flat or a globe. Signed, the author of "Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology."

[@petermarkley]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Well if you are trying to promote your book here, can you at least say to what degree you accept or reject the approach of historical criticism in understanding the Bible?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@petermarkley it is a floor and not a ceiling to understanding the text, because the text is a product of Divine inspiration.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

To answer in the terms you put it, I reject historical criticism as the "best way to understand the text."

[@OceanusHelios]

It's not there in the new and revised scriptures, but it is there in the old scriptures. You will also see in the old scriptures very much man being made out of mud and eve coming from adam's ribs, but won't always see that in later scriptures. It is almost like modern theists go, "Ah fuck, we better fix that it is making us look like complete morons!" Yes. It is there. You just have to go way back in earlier documents to see the biblical cosmology. You had Bronze Age thinking with Bronze Age knowledge. These folks didn't know much about anything. When you make up a story, and that goes with most stories, you need to define the location and nature of that story. That's why most of Genesis makes absurd references to the way people thought in the Bronze Age. This isn't rocket science folks. The Bronze Age hillbillies were using make shit up science. In fact, it is all made up.

[@petermarkley]

@@OceanusHelios The higher criticism is strong with this one

[@josephbrown6906]

While perhaps somewhat based on supposition, based on my understanding of the Bible, the raqia is what other parts of the Bible describes as the sea of glass or crystal sea. In Mark, at Jesus's baptism, the Heavens are torn and paralleling this at His Crucifixion the temple's veil is torn. Both the Old and New Testament speak of there being multiple heavens and based on the NT, we know there are at least three heavens. From Genesis 1, we know the raqia separates the waters above from the waters below. (Interestingly, the Hebrew word for water, mayim, is part of the Hebrew word for Heavens and sky, shamayim.) From Mark, we know the raqia and temple veil/curtain which divided the Inner Court from the Holy of Holies are paralleling each other. We can therefore deduce that the raqia divides the highest heaven (possibly the Third Heaven) from the lower heavens (including the sky/Earth's atmosphere). We know from Revelation and I believe Exodus 24 as well about a crystal sea/sea of glass which seems to be the floor of the highest heaven. Assuming this is so, the raqia and the crystal sea/sea of glass are one and the same.

[@petermarkley]

@@josephbrown6906 Yes, that is based on a lot of supposition. In Exodus 24, are you saying that Moses and the elders somehow climbed not just to the top of a mountain, but thousands of miles to the top of a celestial “dome?” To me, Exodus 24 is describing the surface of the mountaintop resulting from God’s fiery presence there … on the mountain (see Exodus 19:18-20). Other passages referring to a crystal sea (like Ezekiel or Revelation) are prophetic visions that give no indication of being the same ‘raqia’ mentioned in Genesis 1. The thematic parallel between temple curtain and sky could certainly be there, but if so it’s just thematic parallel. I see no reason to draw physical cosmological meaning from it. Language distinguishing different “heavens,” or the etymology of “shamayim,” etc … None of that contradicts a globe concept of cosmology. You should try to weigh things from both points of view; too often flat earthers see a verse that at first glance feels affirming to them, then simply declare victory without even considering if it could also be read in a way consistent with the globe. (JoshMonday and Flatzoid both did this with Psalm 19:5-6.)

[@josephbrown6906]

@petermarkley You misunderstood me. I did not say nor am I saying that the raqia is a dome. I am not a flatearther. I am offering an alternate Biblical cosmology which goes against Flat Earth. What I am saying is that I believe the raqia is a flat crystalline structure between the highest heaven and the lower heavens. I believe there are at least three heavens. The First Heaven at least includes Earth's atmosphere/the sky, but the raqia is above the Second Heaven (which may include outer space or be above the known universe). We aren't definitely told that the Third Heaven is the highest heaven though this is likely considering that this is where Paradise is and Paradise is likely the Garden from Eden brought into the Heavens after the Fall and now is the New Jerusalem/Jerusalem from above. If there are indeed only three heavens Biblically, this fits the three-chamber structure of the Tabernacle and Temples.

[@petermarkley]

@@josephbrown6906 Okay, well I don’t see much specific support for that in Scripture but now that you clarify your position I also think it might be roughly compatible with what we are told in Scripture. So have at it I guess 🫡😄

[@joshmondaymusicandpodcast]

Here is a link to our debate you decide if Biblical Cosmology is in the Bible: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n57MYZd7qNRrnqssi=j7Hj5RtKxaPwcNGq

[@petermarkley]

@@joshmondaymusicandpodcast I already provided a link in the video description

[@joshmondaymusicandpodcast]

@@petermarkley roger that I didn’t see that

[@shanewolff9525]

@@petermarkley ok so you angle is associating "flat earths" with "robothanisism" ??? Is that what I am seeing?

[@marcomclaurin6713]

I have a cosmology consistent with Scripture and electrical processies in my video 'Sound reason ' I give references to experiments that support my conclusion I hope you'll consider watching

[@petermarkley]

@@marcomclaurin6713 watched and commented 🙂

[@WS-dd8ow]

Genesis 1:6-8, literal or figurative?

[@petermarkley]

@@WS-dd8ow Literal and phenomelogical

[@WS-dd8ow]

@@petermarkley Where is raqia?

[@petermarkley]

@@WS-dd8ow I’m sorry I’m not sure I understand the question. Can you state it another way?

[@WS-dd8ow]

@@petermarkley "6 And said Elohim, let there be raqia between the water, and shall it separate water from water. 7 And made Elohim the raqia, and it separated the water that was below raqia and the water that was above raqia ..." Where is the raqia located?

[@petermarkley]

@@WS-dd8ow It’s the sky. The sky is over our heads. I understand this to include both the atmosphere and outer space, since God said he placed both the stars (v 14, 17) and birds (v 20) in it. The waters above the expanse could either be something unknown, maybe at the edge of the universe, or they could simply be the clouds since clouds are above parts of the atmosphere (where birds fly, see Gen 1: 20).

[@GeoffBosco]

You started off so good, then imposed a modernist approach to history on the entire Bible. Later.

[@petermarkley]

@@GeoffBosco What are you talking about? I’m literally warning against and rejecting multiple modern approaches (higher criticism, and Rowbothamism). Do you have a special or technical meaning in mind when you say “modernist?”

[@ayathados6629]

So, if the bible is mostly phenomological, how can we say that the supernatural events are real things that actually happened and not simply people who were sincerely mistaken/misled by the devil? You would think that God would exclusively speak ontologically through His word in order to make sure it can be believed by everyone instead of doing the telephone game with Humanity, knowing their habit of making stuff up, misremembering and occasionally funky vision which makes them see things that aren't there, no? Are the interactions with God too, naught more than phenoms, which could have been misleading?

[@petermarkley]

@@ayathados6629 I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what phenomenological means-the exact same misunderstanding, btw, that Josh Monday had. Phenomenological doesn’t mean “possibly wrong” vs ontological meaning “absolute truth.” That’s just a completely wrong understanding of the terms. That’s not what I’m claiming at all. They are just two ways of phrasing statements about reality. One is not more true than the other. You either take a ground level view or a birds-eye view, both can be absolutely true and absolutely real. I never imagined this concept would be so difficult for some people to grasp …

[@ayathados6629]

@petermarkley phenomenological necessarily means that it is potentially incorrect due to the fact that our senses are inherently fallible. If you're defining things in terms of sense data, then what if your sense data is fundamentally incorrect due to unforeseen reasons? Ontology is "what actually exists beyond human interpretation", whereas phenomenology deals with human experience of said world beyond the senses. Unless you believe your senses to be infallible (which, I would just tell you to drink 4 glasses of wine to prove that they're not) phenomenological statements can and often are incorrect due to the fallibility of man. Just because you experience something doesn't make it real. Trust me, I understand these concepts, so please actually answer my question instead of avoiding it. Why would God speak phenomenologically when he could do otherwise and make sure that nobody ever misunderstands him? And again, since these experiences of God are necessarily phenomenological and thus fallible, how can we say it actually happened?

[@petermarkley]

@@ayathados6629 You are still showing a blatant misunderstanding of the terminology, which at this point just seems stubborn of you. Think of it like the statement “Mike is 5’9” tall,” vs. the statement “Mike is 1.75 meters tall,” or even “Mike 身高 1.75 米.” These are three different equally valid forms of the statement, all of which have equal potential to be true. You can’t say “Because I found X, Y, and Z statements in Chinese to be false, therefore statements in Chinese are inherently fallible and therefore God would not speak Chinese because God doesn’t use fallible language.” That’s a completely absurd train of logic. That is essentially what you’re saying about phenomenological language. If you got in a vehicle with God, and while driving at 60mph God leaned over and said to you, “See the lovely landscape going by?” you would not freak out and say “But God, the landscape isn’t moving! We are! How could you use fallible language like that????!?!!!!” So … if you truly understand this, then prove you understand it by not making a dumb argument

[@ayathados6629]

@petermarkley this is incredibly disingenuous, making a false analogy that doesn't even make any sense in order to validate your own idea and make it seem as if it lacks the problems I stated, and avoiding my question. Phenomena are explicitly the product of the mind interacting with the external world, and necessarily the senses are fallible, making phenomenological statements therefore fallible in comparison to an ontological perspective. You have not provided a reason for me to believe otherwise, nor any reason for me to believe that the phenoms detailed in the Bible are real events of which actually happened. Phenoms need not be actual occurrences like your little statement there, none of which are actually phenomenological statements in any case anyhow. Do you know what you're talking about? You've also not provided a counter definition of ontological or phenomenological of which makes any of my statements in any way incorrect. Are phenomenological statements necessarily always correct from your point of view?

[@petermarkley]

@@ayathados6629 “You have not provided a reason for me to believe otherwise” … a reason for you to believe that’s what the words mean? LOL Look them up, genius. Also even if somehow I’m the one who is using them wrong, that doesn’t matter because I have clearly explained what I mean, dozens of times over. You are just being stubborn on purpose. You fail at step 1 of having a human conversation. Good job, I’m done here

[@karldegroot1800]

grin , oh really. There is a land south of earth where is Eden , and after she fell the evil region Mystery-Babylon founded herself north of it - east of this earth which she made .

[@viperking6573]

My friend, instead of believing these fables, believe in EVIDENCE.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

It's easy to deny BS claims by globers who put blind faith in pagan stories from ancient times.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

Nothing we see implies ballturd physics Nothing we see implies, globe curve, space time curve gravity or open vacuums or 1000mph moving earth

[@petermarkley]

@@WHAT-bz6hp I guess this video of mine got under your skin, eh?

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley Your video is cringe. You think you're the first triggered troll on youtube to trash the bible

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley Your first reply tells me you're the triggered glober. and your replies continue to show you are triggered

[@petermarkley]

@@WHAT-bz6hp I’m not trashing the Bible, I’m defending it. I love the Bible with all my heart and soul If I was triggered at all (which I’m not really) it would be at flat earthers abusing the Bible for their own selfish reasons

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley Your video shows your lame intentions. Your Bs claims are fun to laugh at

[@arx3516]

The "Imago Dei" is pretty easy to understand, we simply created god in our image because it was the most instictive thing to do. It's just a matter of lack of imagination.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

Biblical heaven/earth model/shape = Dome(FIRMAMENT) ⌒ + Water ꕀꕀꕀꕀꕀ = ⌓ ....Genesis : Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. ​​Flat earth is intelligently designed and supernaturally created.

[@petermarkley]

@@WHAT-bz6hp So, “nuh-uh?” That’s your comment?

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley So you don't understand the model described in the first page of Genesis? Are you the dumbest troll under the bridge?

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley tell me more about the balltd theory of NUH UH. Since that's your only comment.

[@petermarkley]

@@WHAT-bz6hp lol I literally made a 16 minute video Also please don’t use any derogatory term ending in “t a r d.” I will report future comments containing that

[@2besavedcom-7]

@@WHAT-bz6hp - I'd like to see just one workable FE map. I mean, there's so many other simple observations one can do in your own back yard to see the earth is a globe, but to not even have a means to map your travel is just ridiculous!

[@josephpchajek2685]

Brush your hair

[@petermarkley]

@@josephpchajek2685 No you 😝

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

Earth is spiraling through safe space but you can't feel it. Classic gimp logic

[@captainkelley2339]

@@WHAT-bz6hp You ever travel by plane? 500+ mph and it feels like sitting still unless there's turbulence. The human body doesn't feel constant speed, it feels acceleration and deceleration. The Earth spins so slow that it takes 24 hours to rotate one time. Stand in the middle of your room and spin around once taking 24 hours to do it. Oh how blindingly fast! And did you ask how evolution works without life? If you had even the tiniest wisp of a hint of a notion of how evolution works you would know that question makes absolutely no sense. You have to be a troll. Nobody capable of spelling multisyllabic words could possibly be that ignorant.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

When it comes directly to the concept of ALMIGHTY CREATOR, atheists have no good arguments or refutations to all the logical arguments for his existence The most common being that everything in the universe: space, time, matter, energy and the very laws of the universe all came from pure absolute nothingness (a nothingness they also struggle to define at times). That alone is an irrational position to hold but what makes it more irrational are all the atheists who attempt to argue from this position but fail to realize how it can be used by theism too.

[@Chomper750]

Genesis 3 is not historical narrative. That is a false premise that leads to an incorrect conclusion.

[@Chomper750]

@@user-kp5gx6pp2v But it isn’t. It is a part of the retelling of the story of Israel. Man is in the wilderness, taken by God to the garden (Promised Land), given commandments, man disobeys, is exiled and faces hardship in exile.

[@petermarkley]

@@Chomper750 That’s a creative interpretation, but you have no basis from a plain honest analysis of the text to reject it being a literal narrative. The passage is presented in exactly the same way as all the other historical narratives in the Torah, even beginning with the phrase “these are the generations of …” in Genesis 2:4

[@Chomper750]

@@petermarkley “Plain honest analysis” is usually the wrong one because it completely ignores cultural context. You ignore that the original author and audience had zero concept that they lived on a planet. When they spoke of earth it was simply the land around them. Just like the Sumerian Kings List, the use of ages in the Bible was a way of communicating deep in time, how they communicated their story was set long ago, not literal ages. Actual textual evidence indicates there were multiple stories woven together. How many of each kind did Noah take on the ark? You’ll get different answers at different points in the text. Two of every kind: Genesis 6 19 And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Two pairs? Genesis 7 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. But wait.. maybe it isn’t two of every kind or two pairs .. also Genesis 7 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

[@petermarkley]

@@Chomper750 So you’re a proponent of the historical-critical method. That’s fine. 🙂 My video was mainly to make my position clear, the only opposing view I am actually here to correct is flat earthers

[@viperking6573]

Why did God give some innocent kid cancer?

[@petermarkley]

@@viperking6573 He didn’t. Death and sickness became part of the word after Adam & Eve sinned in Genesis 3; it was never God’s design or his doing Of course, the natural next question that skeptics always ask is “Well okay but he could’ve prevented Adam & Eve from sinning. Why didn’t he?” To answer that second question I say: because he wanted to reveal his holiness and love through Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross to redeem us; the only world where that’s possible is a world corrupted by evil and suffering, a word in which we need to be redeemed and rescued. If however your question is about some specific child’s cancer, then we pretty much cannot possibly know God’s reasons for *not preventing* that. All we have is his character of goodness and empathy revealed in Christ, so we know his purposes must be good. It’s very understandable that such an answer is not good enough for some people. If you reject it that’s your prerogative

[@viperking6573]

@@petermarkley Thank you for explaining!

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

The entire globe model is a MEME.

[@shanewolff9525]

If you remove God from creation, there is no God, and the rest of the Bible is irrelevant. your bible says this: God placed the earth and it hangs on nothing; The earth has a foundation; The earth never ever moves; The earth sits on pillars; The earth has four corners; The earth has a cornerstone; The earth has ends; The earth is a circle (and a circle is not a sphere); The firmament is a hardened substance; The firmament is above the earth; The sun and stars are in the firmament; The earth’s atmosphere is contained within the firmament; God’s throne sits on the firmament; God created the earth, but the earth is not a planet; and The sun rises and hurries back to its place, not the earth.

[@petermarkley]

@@shanewolff9525 A few of those are not even remotely from the Bible. The rest are ripped violently out of context, and on top of that are phenomenological … almost like a certain video above your comment carefully explained 🤔

[@shanewolff9525]

@@petermarkley you a funny character an not to be taken seriously.

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

You are clearly triggered by the bible and flat earth , you failed theology science and history.

[@petermarkley]

@@WHAT-bz6hp lol You’ve spammed about a dozen comments filled with ad hominems and zero substance, and *I’M* the one “triggered?” 😂

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

@@petermarkley Just posting facts . You devote time to trolling flat earthers. You mock flat earthers and deny the bible. All you did was appeal to BS claims. Not a single thing you claim debunks biblical cosmology. YOU FAILED theology science and history.