Heliocentrism

[46AND2]

Here is the first of a series of videos on testing geocentrism:

Testing Geocentrism - Part 1 - YouTube

I like that series. Kind of complicated, but it's really well done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like that series. Kind of complicated, but it's really well done.

Yes, I love it when he has the motions of the planets using the geocentric model.

 

[chilehed]

...The Bible is pretty clear that the Earth is fixed and immobile,...

You've GOT to be kidding me. Next you'll be saying that the Bible is pretty clear that stars can sprout mouths and sing arias.

*rolleyes*

 

[dysert]

You've GOT to be kidding me. Next you'll be saying that the Bible is pretty clear that stars can sprout mouths and sing arias.

*rolleyes*

Job 38:6-7
To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[CabVet]

You've GOT to be kidding me. Next you'll be saying that the Bible is pretty clear that stars can sprout mouths and sing arias.

*rolleyes*

You don't know much about the Bible, do you?

Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't know much about the Bible, do you?

Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

How many times am I going to have to make this point?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Steadfast ... unmoveable ... abounding -- all in one verse.

Looks like 'unmoveable' can means something else, doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times am I going to have to make this point?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Steadfast ... unmoveable ... abounding -- all in one verse.

Looks like 'unmoveable' can means something else, doesn't it?

Yes, sometimes the meaning partially comes from context. Let's see if there is any other possible meaning from the verse Psalms 93:1 that CabVET posted.

...hmmm....

Nope, none that I can see. Can you see another one? Can you justify your alternative meaning?

 

[chilehed]

You don't know much about the Bible, do you?

Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.

Oh allegory, sort of like the Adam and Eve myth and the Noah's Arc myth. In that case I agree.

 

[chilehed]

Yes, sometimes the meaning partially comes from context. Let's see if there is any other possible meaning from the verse Psalms 93:1 that CabVET posted.

...hmmm....

Nope, none that I can see. Can you see another one? Can you justify your alternative meaning?

Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?

That's a bone-stupid argument.

Oh allegory, sort of like the Adam and Eve myth and the Noah's Arc myth. In that case I agree.

You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?

That's a bone-stupid argument.

We are talking about the Bible, a book of myths here. Some strange people want to take certain parts of it literally. For example the two myths that I listed. Now the Troggs were obviously writing about another way that something could be moved. He obviously meant moved emotionally or to be more precise, sexually. Since the Earth has no emotions I don't know how else it could be moved other than physically.

By the way, this was supposed to be a stupid argument to counter a stupid claim. Yet it has a grain of truth in it.

So unless you have no reply to how else the Earth would be moved other than physically you should agree that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally when it makes what would be otherwise foolish statements.

You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.

Why is that? You do know that the Adam and Eve and Noah stories are myths, don't you?

 

[CabVet]

How many times am I going to have to make this point?

At least as many times as I am going to have to correct you about the Challenger, thalidomide and Pluto.

 

[CabVet]

I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.

But that is not what you asked, is it? Does the Bible say the earth cannot be moved? Yes or no?

 

[CabVet]

Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?

That's a bone-stupid argument.

You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.

Amazing, some things are just allegory, others are literal, who picks? That, sir, is a bone-stupid argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, sometimes the meaning partially comes from context. Let's see if there is any other possible meaning from the verse Psalms 93:1 that CabVET posted.

...hmmm....

Nope, none that I can see. Can you see another one? Can you justify your alternative meaning?

Right offhand, I would say science justifies it; wouldn't you?

 

[CabVet]

Right offhand, I would say science justifies it; wouldn't you?

Science also justifies alternative meanings for everything in Genesis. Consistency is what you lack.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right offhand, I would say science justifies it; wouldn't you?

No, the last time I checked science did not justify geocentrism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science also justifies alternative meanings for everything in Genesis.

I have Boolean standards, so I'll know how far science can go.

Consistency is what you lack.

What you call "consistency," others call "context."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have Boolean standards, so I'll know how far science can go.

Yes, and according to your Boolean standards we live on a flat Earth that is the center of the universe.

What you call "consistency," others call "context."

And they would be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

And they would be wrong.

Let's bottom-line this.

Do you believe the earth moves in space? if so, is it okay with you if I do also?