The Fixed Earth

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Ok, so are you acknowledging that "move" in the Bible doesn't always mean "move"? Now please go back through the thread and answer my question about Psalm 62 and my questions about the significance of the verses you quoted.

The word is huwm - translated 'Rang' twice in th Bible, Rang, refering to vibrational movement due to sound waves in the ground, did you know that sound causes vibrations?

 

[Ancilla]

The word is huwm - translated 'Rang' twice in th Bible, Rang, refering to vibrational movement due to sound waves in the ground, did you know that sound causes vibrations?

But Young's Literal Translation uses the word "moved." And I'm still waiting for an answer about Psalm 62 as well as how you put these verses in context.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup-of-Ruin
I think most of us on the opposite of this debate from you accept metaphor, anthropomorphism, hyperbole and other figurative language. The question is how do you determine the difference? You will hold to a literal translation to the point of being near all but flat earth. So, how is it that you can take some passages that are descriptive of the ancient cosmological view and not others?

Well I just explained how you can have 'Earth' (erets) Genesis 1:1, and 'earth' Isaiah 24 (ah-adamah) which translates specificall soil, or ground, so how do we know the difference? Because there is a difference in the words.

You are making the argument for a geocentric earth. Whether it is me asking you what you consider to be a valid source or Ancilla or Greybeard asking you for your source we cannot even debate with common terms because the parameters are not defined.

Well they are defined, it quite simple, there are two universal models, one is heliocentric and one is geocentric, either one can say that the Earth revolves around the sataionary sun, or the the sun revolves around the stationary Earth, one cannot maintain both models, that would be a contradiction, it would be a mistake to argue that the Bible is maintaining both models, it is not, as I have explained, the Biblical record is strictly Geocentric, a Fixed, stationary Earth that was created to be the centre of the Universe and was created before the sun and moon and stars, which puts the Earth as the greater body, with more 'gravitas' so to speak in Latin. Now you can either believe the Biblical record or not, secular scientists do not believe the Bible, but neither have they been able to prove by experiment that the Earth moves, that is unproven.

There are scientific communities that evaluate scientific method through peer review via journals, conferences, etc. Even if you espouse geocentric universe there are some kind of standard within the community like the Association for Biblical Astronomy which at least lays out their views. Do you buy into the Tyco Brahe's ideas or whoever?

Tyco Brahe was right.

http://www.geocentricity.com/

The Geocentric model has been around for thousands of years, it not like a developing some revolutionary new concept.

Right now we have seen little more than You Tube clips of individuals. If you are coming to this on your own then fine. Say so.

When the Bible says that the sun was stopped, and then set in motion again, it means exactly that, the words themselves actually define motion as we understand motion, and stopping of motion as we understand something moving being stopped from moving and then moving again. Even when the Bible says the sun rises and sets, it refers to movement of the sun, should I doubt God, no I don't doubt Him, in fact all valid science experiments conclude the Earth is stationary, cannot detect any movement whatsoever, does not feel like we are moving, does not look like it, my eyes register the movement of the sun, Bible says the sun is moving. I mean I could just place a giant treadmill at the UN and have it run countercloockwise at 1000 mph and also a giant exhaust turbines to simulate 1000 mph headwind and have heliocentrist antiBible bureaucrats test out their own theory, I would be happy to watch and record the results, I will even organize an ambulance to be present.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

But Young's Literal Translation uses the word "moved." And I'm still waiting for an answer about Psalm 62 as well as how you put these verses in context.

Sound vibrations cause objects to move, the ground vibrated, due to the 'uproar' and that is actually the exact translation of the Hebrew word 'uproar', so then you look what made the uproar and it written that there was a great 'shout' from people, which can indeed if loud enough cause the ground under ones feet - earth, soil, to 'ring'( Huwm), move in a vibrational sense. Does this help you understand? Im trying to make it as simple as possible, I don't know if I can talk any plainer.

 

[Graybeard]

Well, I don't know for a fact when we figured out where Mars is inrelation to the earth and the sun........

My point was that in loveschild's schooldays perhaps the tutors were not so up-to-date with science compared to your school days. no malice intended, just some lightheartedness, that's all.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

When I was a kid they said Mars was so hot if you got anywhere near it you'd burn up. We get filled with all kinds of lies.

You were taught correctly, if you got near Mars, indeed you would be burned up.

 

[Graybeard]

You were taught correctly, if you got near Mars, indeed you would be burned up.

Actually she was taught falsely from ignorance as not one but two probes have been landed successfully on Mars and have transmitted images among other data back to us on Earth, these rovers where controlled from Earth and they lasted months sending valuable information back to Earth. Amazing!

 

[jcspartan]

Well I just explained how you can have 'Earth' (erets) Genesis 1:1, and 'earth' Isaiah 24 (ah-adamah) which translates specificall soil, or ground, so how do we know the difference? Because there is a difference in the words.

I apologize for not being clearer. If I remember correctly you have accepted that the Earth is a sphere. Yet, as was already pointed out that was not the cosmological view that the Patriarchs accepted and likely not the view that many if not all the Church fathers held (hard to say since Aristarchus' heliocentric theory was developed in 3rd Century BC) The difference I am refering to is both determining what is figurative language and when to accept some literal passages that depict a flat Earth but not all.


Well they are defined, it quite simple, there are two universal models, one is heliocentric and one is geocentric, either one can say that the Earth revolves around the sataionary sun, or the the sun revolves around the stationary Earth, one cannot maintain both models, that would be a contradiction, it would be a mistake to argue that the Bible is maintaining both models, it is not, as I have explained, the Biblical record is strictly Geocentric, a Fixed, stationary Earth that was created to be the centre of the Universe and was created before the sun and moon and stars, which puts the Earth as the greater body, with more 'gravitas' so to speak in Latin. Now you can either believe the Biblical record or not, secular scientists do not believe the Bible, but neither have they been able to prove by experiment that the Earth moves, that is unproven.

There is more than one geocentric model. Ptolemy and Tyco Brahe both are geocentric but they do not agree on the model. It is not as simple as saying if it is geocentric it is true. Which model is true?

Personally, I don't think the sun is the center of the universe. It is the center of the solar system. The sun is not even close to the center of the galaxy and there are more galaxies than I can count. The galaxy is not static in my opinion. The Milky Way moves. The sun (that I believe we orbit) is in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Therefore, as part of the Milky Way, the sun is in motion through the universe as is the rest of the solar system. Our solar system is the equivelant of a celestial back water.

I don't think the Bible maintains either geocentric and heliocnetric models in any variation as true. I think the Bible while 100% inspired and authoritative is written from the perspective of "the man on the ground" so to speak. I do think at various points in history men have looked to the Bible to be a scientific document and have come up with theories based on that desire. Rarely do we actually see the events from God's perspective. For example the Pentatuch is told as a third person narrative by Moses. It is not told by God from His perspective. He inspired Moses who wrote truth from a perspective. That does not make truth subjective. Just not universally literal.



Tyco Brahe was right.

http://www.geocentricity.com/

The Geocentric model has been around for thousands of years, it not like a developing some revolutionary new concept.



When the Bible says that the sun was stopped, and then set in motion again, it means exactly that, the words themselves actually define motion as we understand motion, and stopping of motion as we understand something moving being stopped from moving and then moving again. Even when the Bible says the sun rises and sets, it refers to movement of the sun, should I doubt God, no I don't doubt Him, in fact all valid science experiments conclude the Earth is stationary, cannot detect any movement whatsoever, does not feel like we are moving, does not look like it, my eyes register the movement of the sun, Bible says the sun is moving. I mean I could just place a giant treadmill at the UN and have it run countercloockwise at 1000 mph and also a giant exhaust turbines to simulate 1000 mph headwind and have heliocentrist antiBible bureaucrats test out their own theory, I would be happy to watch and record the results, I will even organize an ambulance to be present.

I have five kids. At a certain point in their growth most of them sat in the car looking down reading or doing whatever and looked up as I was about to pull out of a parking spot and said something along the lines of "Dad watchout the car next to us is moving." They did not feel the movement of our car. They felt stationary. The movement they percieved and that all their senses told them was that the car next to us was moving. But it wasn't. I was moving and they were as well. Relative to their position, it seemed as if the other vehicle next to us was moving.

There are scientific tests that show the Earth is moving but you discount them because you are starting with a literal translation of the Bible and working from there. I don't think it is a question of salvation but, I do think the inability to see the possibility of nuance impacts potential witness.

 

[Graybeard]

....if you got near Mars, indeed you would be burned up.

How would you know, where in The Bible does it say that this will happen?

 

[jcspartan]

You were taught correctly, if you got near Mars, indeed you would be burned up.

According to NASA JPL/ASU

On a warm summer day at the equator the highest temp on Mars is 65 f or 18 C (not even room temp which is 72 f) at night the temp drops to 100 f below freezing. At the poles it drops to 200 f below freezing.

This was measured by the Mars Global surveyor.

 

[Brackenzee]

Yeah, the only way anything's going to burn up on Mars is if it can combust in carbon dioxide.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Actually she was taught falsely from ignorance as not one but two probes have been landed successfully on Mars and have transmitted images among other data back to us on Earth, these rovers where controlled from Earth and they lasted months sending valuable information back to Earth. Amazing!

No, what you saw was the results of a deceptive theatrical occult sideshow, from the same antichrists that brought you the 1969 moon landing propaganda televitzian motion picture.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

There are scientific tests that show the Earth is moving but you discount them because you are starting with a literal translation of the Bible and working from there. I don't think it is a question of salvation but, I do think the inability to see the possibility of nuance impacts potential witness.

The modern experiments such as the Michelson and Morely Experiment were unable to detect any movement of the earth, this confirms the longheld geocentric model, the Bible also confirms as primary witness, being the very word of God Himself.

 

[jcspartan]

The modern experiments such as the Michelson and Morely Experiment were unable to detect any movement of the earth, this confirms the longheld geocentric model, the Bible also confirms as primary witness, being the very word of God Himself.

That is a good experiment.

If we were trying to establish that the Earth is stationary relative to space then we would be on to something. But we are discussing the Earth relative to other bodies in space. Michelson and Morely were trying to establish that the Earth is moving by measuring the difference in the amount of time it took two separate beams of light to travel to two equidistant perpendicular mirrors originating from the same light source at the same time. In theory, the motion of the Earth should have been detectable in the difference in time it took one beam of light to reach one of the mirrors that should have been moving from the beam of light.

But, with the source of light traveling with the Earth there is no relative difference between the light, the light source and the Earth. If Michelson and Morely wanted to measure the relative motion of the Earth they would have had to move the light source off the Earth. But since they didn't know luminferous ether did not exist they tried to account for its disruption on the experiment rather than looking for other reasons.

It ended up being Albert Einstein that explained the problem Michelson and Morely had as part of his general theory of relativity.

If you don't accept relativity then you are still on a static Earth and I am still moving forward in orbit and will meet you on the return trip.

 

[jcspartan]

Cup-of-Ruin,
I am not mocking when I ask this. Do you think the Earth is flat? It seems to me, given your view on scripture that that is the logical conclusion you should come to.

If science as I understand it is not valid as proof and scripture literally taken is the point of departure for all inquiry then I think you are left with a flat Earth and a geographic heaven and hell.

For me string theory goes a long way toward establishing planes of existance that heaven and hell could exist on. But this is not a string theory thread.

 

[Brackenzee]

Another thing:

You suggest that the moon and sun orbit around the earth. But an orbit is issentially perpetual circular falling. Think of it this way: have you ever rolled something--a ball or a coin--around a concave surface? The downward momentum is what keeps it moving. If you could move the depression, then you could keep the object in motion.

The moon orbits the Earth because it's falling towards the Earth, and the Earth, because it's orbiting the sun, is constantly getting out of the way. If the Earth were stationary as you suggest, then the moon would have slammed into Earth eons ago. If--far more implausibly--the sun were orbiting around the Earth, and if the Earth were stationary, then it would have fallen so close to the Earth that we would have all burnt up.

Seriously, Cup, there is no way that a geocentric model of the universe is plausible. It violates the fundamental laws of physics.

 

[Graybeard]

No, what you saw was the results of a deceptive theatrical occult sideshow, from the same antichrists that brought you the 1969 moon landing propaganda televitzian motion picture.

...thought you would have something like that to say.
bless you

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup-of-Ruin,
I am not mocking when I ask this. Do you think the Earth is flat? It seems to me, given your view on scripture that that is the logical conclusion you should come to.

If science as I understand it is not valid as proof and scripture literally taken is the point of departure for all inquiry then I think you are left with a flat Earth and a geographic heaven and hell.

For me string theory goes a long way toward establishing planes of existance that heaven and hell could exist on. But this is not a string theory thread.

I have answered this several times, maybe this time I will just answer with another question - 'Do you think that God knows what shape His earth is?'

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

That is a good experiment.

If we were trying to establish that the Earth is stationary relative to space then we would be on to something. But we are discussing the Earth relative to other bodies in space. Michelson and Morely were trying to establish that the Earth is moving by measuring the difference in the amount of time it took two separate beams of light to travel to two equidistant perpendicular mirrors originating from the same light source at the same time. In theory, the motion of the Earth should have been detectable in the difference in time it took one beam of light to reach one of the mirrors that should have been moving from the beam of light.

But, with the source of light traveling with the Earth there is no relative difference between the light, the light source and the Earth. If Michelson and Morely wanted to measure the relative motion of the Earth they would have had to move the light source off the Earth. But since they didn't know luminferous ether did not exist they tried to account for its disruption on the experiment rather than looking for other reasons.

It ended up being Albert Einstein that explained the problem Michelson and Morely had as part of his general theory of relativity.

If you don't accept relativity then you are still on a static Earth and I am still moving forward in orbit and will meet you on the return trip.

Ahaaa, a spark of reason, OK, so you agree that the MM experiment fails to prove a moving earth, well you have to, because it does fail, and so the need for, drum-roll please ---- Relativity!!!!!

 

[jcspartan]

I have answered this several times, maybe this time I will just answer with another question - 'Do you think that God knows what shape His earth is?'

Of course God knows what shape the Earth is.