Geocentrism

pps, that is so true.
but look how cleverly that is turned on its head, here:

The mistake of the modern academic approach to the Torah is that it places its belief in human reason (i.e., deductive reasoning) above its belief in the truthfulness of the Torah. This mistake is what turns the Torah into just another field of human study, on par with all other fields of inquiry. The end-result is that mistaken generalities (fostered by an egotistic certainty in one’s logical abilities), which contradict the Torah, come to taint one’s outlook on the Torah and one’s ability to experience it as the source of life: the Tree of Life.

Torah and Science: Converting the Wisdom of the Nations - Part 1 < click

like...what?
since when does God not call on the new man to use his reason and logic?
there are things we aren't told, or things we may not fully understand...but we are given faith!
and i hardly see how logic contradicts The Holy Writ!

I'm guessing you're responding the this headstand by the Kabbalists about Torah.

Supercilious silliness. LOL. Total lunacy. How does even one person believe that rot?

Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Hi Ken....here's a sample of what the debate looks like.

.............

"One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

makes you wonder how they count a "day"?

someone told me that they didn't have watches and measured a "day" from sun up to sun down. if the sun never went down, how do they know it was about a whole day?

there are alot of simple experiments to show that the Earth rotates......i'm going to read the rest of the thread....

I prove the earth is not going around the sun, based on Fort's proof, in every mathematics sampler class I teach. You see, stars are never observed to cross each other. But if the earth is going around the sun, they must. If star A is in front of star B, then, as you go from side to side, perpendicular to their common line, star A will first be on the left of star B, and later on the right. That's called parallax. You can try it in a room with a couple objects whenever you like. If you observe carefully as you change position, they must cross each other. Fort collected 80 years of astronomical observations (before TV took over as a pastime) and none were ever recorded.
.

I have a theory as to why we changed from TC to HC. I think subconsciouly, the sun is a symbol for Jesus ("light of the world"), the earth a symbol for the Roman Catholic Pope (home planet as in "the Church is our mother"), the other planets symbols for other churches, like the Eastern rite churches that were around in the 1500's. Just apply the symbols, and note how TC is the Catholic model, and the HC is the Reformation model.

I checked the quotes in Hebrew, and I was quite surprised. The English translation is what establishes the fixed earth, the Hebrew does not back it.

Once again, the word for sun is always shamesh (to my way of thinking, this single word disqualifies most Scriptures from proving anything, as we cannot tell if they are speaking of the sunlight, rather than the ball", the words for rise and set are the same. I have checked each verse, and the ones I don't mention are all those same words.

Ps. 19, "runs it's course" can also mean traverses a path. The sunlight follows a predicatable course. "Sun stand still" can also mean "tarry". The Chinese record a double night that day. Jdg. 8:13 adn 14:18 is probably a wrong translation. The Hebrew for sunrise means "to scrape with a potsherd". I would imagine, it means, "before the last sliver of time is used". Sun is not mentioned in the verse. jdg. 9:33 is interesting, as it uses a word for "if you get up" just after sun rising; that word describes the motion of a person rising, and is not the same word as is used for the sun. Is. 38 uses terms like we would use, subtracted ten degrees. This use proves again that "sun" refers to the light, and not the ball, as does Is. 60:20.

Ahh but shouldn't this be an anomaly if the earth does rotate? If the earth does rotate why does it still take a plane the same amount of time to fly east to west as it does to fly the same route west to east? Shouldn't the time be different if the earth is rotating as the plane is NOT touching the earth?

umm that's no longer true. there are some records of parallax being observed with the advances in technology...