7 "Days"

[Assyrian]

I don't see how this helps you. For science actually must assume miracles like the Resurrection don't occur for methodological reasons.

You are turning a methodological process into a philosophical conclusion. Science cannot study miracles and studies natural processes to see if they provide an explanation. Dawkins may agree with your philosophical foray out of the realm of science, TEs don't. Augustine and Aquinas certainly wouldn't. Even atheists like Gould disagreed.

As I said before that is a very 18th century view of science and one neither I nor people like Augustine would accept. But that is different from scientific evidence contradicting our interpretation of scripture. That isn't saying God couldn't have done it, but that he didn't do it that way because the evidence says it didn't happen. When the church rejected Cosmas Indocopleustes' flat earth, it wasn't because they didn't think God could create a flat earth, but because the evidence scientific evidence showed the earth was spherical. When the church rejected the literal geocentric interpretation of Joshua's miracle, it wasn't because science showed God couldn't create a cosmos where the sun travels across the sky and returns to the place it rises every night, but because the scientific evidence showed the cosmos simply wasn't like that.

The scientific evidence also rejects the Resurrection. According to everything we now know, it couldn't have happened that way. The evidence contradicts it. You keep trying to find a distinction but there isn't one there. Just yesterday I talked to a "christian" who praises the Lord often, and found out she didn't believe in an actual resurrection because of science. It just about floored me and the others listening. But she was consistent in her adherence to science.

No she mistook atheist philosophies for science, it didn't help that you agree with this mistaken understanding of actual science. Are you so desperate for even a bad argument against evolution, that you are willing to join hands with atheists and teach stumbling Christians that science disproves the resurrection?

Well not all scriptural interpretations are based in unbelief, but those that are I would say are based in rebellion. Many just don't like what scripture says for various reasons and therefore search for alternative interpretations. That's in a complexly different category that your traditional doctrinal disputes. Rejecting a straightforward reading of Genesis is akin to rejecting clear teachings on homosexuality, inerrancy, the existence of hell and the devil etc. The various alternative interpretations are not coming from the text, but alternatives human ideas. They are based in unbelief. "Science contradicts this, therefore, we have to read it differently."

It is in our nature to distrust God. Everyone one of us, saved or not, has this tendency. I won't condemn people over it, but at the same time wont sugarcoat it. I would even say that some very great and effective christian men and women have struggled with this kind of unbelief—people much more righteous that I. But it still is what it is.

So was the church rebelling when it changed its interpretation of Joshua because the scientific evidence said t was wrong? Were Augustine and Aquinas teaching rebellion when they taught the church that an interpretation that is contradicted by further progress in the search of truth is simply not the right interpetation and should be abandoned.

 

[Assyrian]

The sun moves across the sky. I see it rise from the east then travels across the sky and sets in the west. This is like arguing the sun doesn't give off light but electromagnetic waves. Just because we now know that light is actually the product of the mind from reading electromagnetic waves hitting our retina does not change the interpretation of God saying "Let there be light."

No the sun does not move across the sky, clearly you no understanding of the physics involved. Is there any point in discussing the difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism with someone who cannot tell them apart?

I only know of eggheads would care about which model is more correct: geocentric or heliocentric.

So Christians shouldn't care about science contradicting their interpretation of scripture?

Really? I thought they use the same principle. The determine where the object will be according to Earth sky(position) and aim the satellites in that direction.

You don't just 'aim' satellites, you need to use orbital mechanics which is based on Newton's laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation (telling you the force of earth's gravity acting on the satellite decreases with the square of the distance) to calculate the propulsion needed in different directions at different times to get the satellites into the right orbit. Although for satellites orbiting earth, the force of gravity is acting geocentrically, it was Newton's universal law of gravitation that showed the motion of the planets including earth was due to the sun's gravity pulling them into heliocentric orbit around it. It is the same Newton's universal law of gravitation that allow rockets to be sent to other planets using the suns gravitational field as the rocket leaves earth's gravity behind and then the destination planet's gravitation field as it approaches it and enters into orbit around it.

For all we know it was time that God actually stopped. If it was time that stood still the sun would still stop traveling across the sky.

The sun wasn't travelling across the sky in the first place.

I have yet to see anything that show the old interpretation was wrong. The interpretation of the passage would be the same no matter what model you used. It's the same if you want to say the sun gives off light or electromagnetic waves since to us they are exactly the same.

You don't understand the difference, but Christians in the time of Galileo did, it was they who understood science contradicted their interpretation of scripture and changed their interpretation because of it. were they wrong to find a new interpretation?

 

[mark kennedy]

You are turning a methodological process into a philosophical conclusion. Science cannot study miracles and studies natural processes to see if they provide an explanation. Dawkins may agree with your philosophical foray out of the realm of science, TEs don't. Augustine and Aquinas certainly wouldn't. Even atheists like Gould disagreed.

Not a conclusion, a presupposition. Darwinism isn't predicated on fact, it organizes facts around a single a priori assumption, universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. You can approach an event like God's miracles objectively, even methodologically.

No she mistook atheist philosophies for science, it didn't help that you agree with this mistaken understanding of actual science. Are you so desperate for even a bad argument against evolution, that you are willing to join hands with atheists and teach stumbling Christians that science disproves the resurrection?

Science is a philosophy, both Descartes and Newton wrote books on the 'First Philosophy of Science'.

...Rational Mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated [...] And therefore we offer this work as mathematical principles of philosophy. For all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this—from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of Nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena ...(Principia, Newton)

It's a philosophy known as epistemology, the word science itself literally means knowledge. Obviously, it's knowledge of the natural world. When a miracle occurs I don't think prophets and priests break out on the empirical testing tools. They record it meticulously and preserve it carefully. Science isn't about history as much as what can be demonstrated or clearly observed here and now. What we may know of the past and what we may know of natural phenomenon are two fundamentally different areas of knowledge.

So was the church rebelling when it changed its interpretation of Joshua because the scientific evidence said t was wrong? Were Augustine and Aquinas teaching rebellion when they taught the church that an interpretation that is contradicted by further progress in the search of truth is simply not the right interpetation and should be abandoned.

Your still hung up on Joshua? The passage describes a miracle, how it happened isn't as important as the fact that a miracle occurred. You seem to be assuming that the statement that the sun stopped is in error. Perhaps it's just an assumption on the part of the writer, the light is prolonged so the sun must have been stopped.

These are not big issues to resolve and what happened with Galileo was over Aristotelian mechanics. What should also be appreciated here is it was between Rome and a devout Catholic over who gets to interpret Scripture.

I don't think Catholics today believe the Heliocentric model is, "false and contrary to Scripture", certainly no Protestants who have a problem based on the clear testimony of Scripture.

This is the book all the fuss was over:

Yesterday we resolved to meet today and discuss as clearly and in as much detail as possible the character and the efficacy of those laws of nature which up to the present have been put forth by the partisans of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic position on the one hand, and by the followers of the Copemican system on the other. ..particularly those of Simplicio, that stout champion and defender of Aristotelian doctrines.​

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

'Simp', the Aristotelian apologist in the narrative never defends his view Scripturally. He defends his views based on Aristotelian argumentation.

It's pretty obvious that the conflict here was philosophical.

 

[Assyrian]

Not a conclusion, a presupposition.

No a presupposition either at least not a presupposition of science. It is simply the limits of what Science can explore. It might be a presupposition of your atheist allies that there is nothing but the naturalistic world and no limit to what is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Darwinism isn't predicated on fact, it organizes facts around a single a priori assumption, universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. You can approach an event like God's miracles objectively, even methodologically.

You are confuse about presupposition there too, universal common descent is a conclusion based on evidence not a presupposition. Darwin said he didn't know if everything was descended from a single common ancestor. Now what has this got to do with the problem of geocentrism and the church changing its interpretation when science showed its old literal interpretation was wrong.

No she mistook atheist philosophies for science, it didn't help that you agree with this mistaken understanding of actual science. Are you so desperate for even a bad argument against evolution, that you are willing to join hands with atheists and teach stumbling Christians that science disproves the resurrection?

Science is a philosophy, both Descartes and Newton wrote books on the 'First Philosophy of Science'.

...Rational Mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated [...] And therefore we offer this work as mathematical principles of philosophy. For all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this—from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of Nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena ...(Principia, Newton)

It's a philosophy known as epistemology, the word science itself literally means knowledge. Obviously, it's knowledge of the natural world. When a miracle occurs I don't think prophets and priests break out on the empirical testing tools. They record it meticulously and preserve it carefully. Science isn't about history as much as what can be demonstrated or clearly observed here and now. What we may know of the past and what we may know of natural phenomenon are two fundamentally different areas of knowledge.

Actually what the church has always done with miracles, look for a natural explanation and only when there is none, say it was a miracle. But what has that got to do with my point? What has that got to do with selling out the resurrection to all the people you tell science has disproved it, all because you hate the way science has shown we evolved?

Your still hung up on Joshua?

That is what I was talking to Smidlee about when you joined in, that and how the church was actually following the teachings of Augustus and Aquinas when they changed their interpretation after science showed their old interpretation was wrong.

The passage describes a miracle, how it happened isn't as important as the fact that a miracle occurred. You seem to be assuming that the statement that the sun stopped is in error. Perhaps it's just an assumption on the part of the writer, the light is prolonged so the sun must have been stopped.

The writer did assume it, so did Joshua in commanding the sun to stop in the first place. That is how it was written in the text, so the obvious literal interpretation is that the sun was moving across the sky and stopped at Joshua's command.

These are not big issues to resolve and what happened with Galileo was over Aristotelian mechanics. What should also be appreciated here is it was between Rome and a devout Catholic over who gets to interpret Scripture.

I don't think Catholics today believe the Heliocentric model is, "false and contrary to Scripture", certainly no Protestants who have a problem based on the clear testimony of Scripture.

You have the Catholic Robert Sungenis who wrote the book Galileo was Wrong, and the odd protestant geocentrist too. But there were plenty of Reformed Geocentrists up until the beginning of the 18th century and the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church was condemning science and teaching geocentrism anmd geocentric interpretations up until the beginning of the 20th century.

This is the book all the fuss was over:

Yesterday we resolved to meet today and discuss as clearly and in as much detail as possible the character and the efficacy of those laws of nature which up to the present have been put forth by the partisans of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic position on the one hand, and by the followers of the Copemican system on the other. ..particularly those of Simplicio, that stout champion and defender of Aristotelian doctrines.​

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

'Simp', the Aristotelian apologist in the narrative never defends his view Scripturally. He defends his views based on Aristotelian argumentation.

It's pretty obvious that the conflict here was philosophical.

Then why was Galileo charged with heresy and teaching things 'explicitly contrary to scripture'?

 

[mark kennedy]

No a presupposition either at least not a presupposition of science. It is simply the limits of what Science can explore. It might be a presupposition of your atheist allies that there is nothing but the naturalistic world and no limit to what is subject to scientific scrutiny.

That's not the presupposition I'm talking about, Darwinism is predicated on universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, going all the way back to the Big Bang. Don't pretend creationism is 'allied' with atheistic materialism, it's the TEs and atheists that are hard to tell apart.

You are confuse about presupposition there too, universal common descent is a conclusion based on evidence not a presupposition. Darwin said he didn't know if everything was descended from a single common ancestor. Now what has this got to do with the problem of geocentrism and the church changing its interpretation when science showed its old literal interpretation was wrong.

No, this presupposition is an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. You cannot logically or reasonably equivocate Creationism with Geocentrism, Creation is essential doctrine solar mechanics are not. What is more your still convinced that the problem is that it's been misinterpreted. Who says it has, I think it happened exactly as described in a literal sense.

Actually what the church has always done with miracles, look for a natural explanation and only when there is none, say it was a miracle. But what has that got to do with my point? What has that got to do with selling out the resurrection to all the people you tell science has disproved it, all because you hate the way science has shown we evolved?

When investigating a modern miracle you might want to exhaust naturalistic explanations, with regards to a Biblical miracle it's an exegetical process.

That is what I was talking to Smidlee about when you joined in, that and how the church was actually following the teachings of Augustus and Aquinas when they changed their interpretation after science showed their old interpretation was wrong.

You do know that both Augustus and Aquinas were creationists right?

The writer did assume it, so did Joshua in commanding the sun to stop in the first place. That is how it was written in the text, so the obvious literal interpretation is that the sun was moving across the sky and stopped at Joshua's command.

So what's the problem?

Then why was Galileo charged with heresy and teaching things 'explicitly contrary to scripture'?

That book you never read, Dialogue Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. I'm certain the character Simp would be the Darwinian if the dialog happened today. Galileo had issues with Aristotelian mechanics and of course, the old school celestial mechanics. Some said it could be revised and Galileo said scape it, it's done. Somehow, this turned into a feud with the Scriptures being little more then a last resort. I see nothing wrong with the interpretation that the sun stopped, I don't think that's what happened, I think the light was prolonged miraculously.

Galileo was never convicted of any of that, he was required to recant that particular book. So why did he have to do that? What is the big deal about the book?

 

[Smidlee]

No the sun does not move across the sky, clearly you no understanding of the physics involved. Is there any point in discussing the difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism with someone who cannot tell them apart?

You do understand relativity right? you can't determine an object is moving without compared it to another object as a reference point. Thus the sun does move across the sky relative to earth. The same with the highway speed limit is relative to the earth.

So Christians shouldn't care about science contradicting their interpretation of scripture?

There is no contradiction. The sun does move across the sky.

You don't just 'aim' satellites, you need to use orbital mechanics which is based on Newton's laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation (telling you the force of earth's gravity acting on the satellite decreases with the square of the distance) to calculate the propulsion needed in different directions at different times to get the satellites into the right orbit. Although for satellites orbiting earth, the force of gravity is acting geocentrically, it was Newton's universal law of gravitation that showed the motion of the planets including earth was due to the sun's gravity pulling them into heliocentric orbit around it. It is the same Newton's universal law of gravitation that allow rockets to be sent to other planets using the suns gravitational field as the rocket leaves earth's gravity behind and then the destination planet's gravitation field as it approaches it and enters into orbit around it.

You knew what I meant. Who haven't watched a Space Shuttle launch?

The sun wasn't travelling across the sky in the first place.

It does every day for those of us who lives on planet Earth. Again your argument is like arguing the sun doesn't give off light.

You don't understand the difference, but Christians in the time of Galileo did, it was they who understood science contradicted their interpretation of scripture and changed their interpretation because of it. were they wrong to find a new interpretation?

Baptist was also unpopular because of their stand against baby baptism at one time. This had more to do with politics than scriptures which is why USA we wanted some separation between church and state.
If I understood correctly the science (something about how starlight enters the atmosphere) of Galileo day supposed geocentric so the church (those few who even cared) accepted heliocentric had nothing to do with science of that day.

The writer did assume it, so did Joshua in commanding the sun to stop in the first place. That is how it was written in the text, so the obvious literal interpretation is that the sun was moving across the sky and stopped at Joshua's command.

It would be the same to Joshua if God stopped time or it was a local miracle. The same with the star the wise man followed. It like arguing science has proven that stars can't lead anyone to a exact location like GPS. Now was it a literal star ? who cares. (eggheads?) The wise men literally saw the star is what matters.

.

You are confuse about presupposition there too, universal common descent is a conclusion based on evidence not a presupposition.

I look at the same evidence and see it against UCD. When up to 30% of genes are ORFans doesn't cause someone to have doubts about UCD then I don't what it would take for them to question it. The evidence is continuously going against UCD so much that evolutionist had to give up the tree idea and settle for a bush.

 

[mark kennedy]

I look at the same evidence and see it against UCD. When up to 30% of genes are ORFans doesn't cause someone to have doubts about UCD then I don't what it would take for them to question it. The evidence is continuously going against UCD so much that evolutionist had to give up the tree idea and settle for a bush.

Interestingly, around 53% of the orphan genes contain sequences derived from transposable elements (TEs) and are mostly located in primate-specific genomic regions. (Origin of Primate Orphan Genes)​

I think the key fact of interest here is 'devoid of TEs' So let's think if terms of where they actually come from and why is special creation out of the question again?

It would be the same to Joshua if God stopped time or it was a local miracle. The same with the star the wise man followed. It like arguing science has proven that stars can't lead anyone to a exact location like GPS. Now was it a literal star ? who cares. (eggheads?) The wise men literally saw the star is what matters.

They are miracles, God stopped the sun, guided the Magi with a star and the Son of God became man. God does a lot of things only God can do, for us it's a miracle but for God it's normal. The creation, incaration, resurrection and new birth are all the same miracle, all a fundamentally brand new creation. Why is it so hard to believe God can prolong the light or use stars for navigation but the incaration is no problem?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

You do understand relativity right? you can't determine an object is moving without compared it to another object as a reference point. Thus the sun does move across the sky relative to earth. The same with the highway speed limit is relative to the earth.

No I struggle with relativity, I do know enough to know enough to realise your understanding is completely garbled. Motion is relative as you understand, but only within an inertial frame of reference, a frame of reference that isn't itself changing velocity, accelerating or decelerating. You are sitting in a car parked on the side of the drinking a cup of coffee. Rapidly approaching you is your friend a passenger in a car travelling at 60 mph, he is also drinking a cup of coffee. In terms of relativity, you are approaching him just as much as he is approaching you. The driver sees your car and slams on his brakes, coming to a halt in 5 seconds. This is a deceleration of about 5 meters per second per second or 5m/s². Does relativity say his braking is the same as you car accelerating at 5m/s²? If you think they are equivalent, answer this: whose coffee spilled? Who needed their seatbelt to stop form hitting the dashboard. Your frame of reference stayed the same your friend's kept changing.

Now as long as cars aren't accelerating or braking we can look at relative speeds on a highway and ignore the rotation of the earth. There are a few reasons for that, (1) the acceleration we experience due to the earth's rotation is quite small in the order of 0.03m/s² (2) it is acting in the same direction as gravity, in fact according to special relativity it is indistinguishable from gravity. (3) this is at right angles to your direction of motion on the highway which is all you are considering when you look at relative motion on a highway. It is an approximation which works because it not in the direction of motion and affects both car equally. It has more of a noticeable effect when gravity not acting at right angles, when one car is going uphill and the other down.

There is no contradiction. The sun does move across the sky.

That is your interpretation, you mean something completely different by 'move' from what they meant, and science did contradict their interpretation. A rotating earth is accelerating, a point on the surface i constantly changing the direction of its velocity by 0.03m/s². For the sun to orbit the earth, the sun would have to constantly accelerate 2.12 m/s² To give the sun that acceleration would require the earth to have a gravitational attraction and a mass 121.6 million times grater than it is. That is the sort of gravity that would leave us as a thin greasy stain on the surface of the earth. It is not the sun moving across the sky, it is the earth rotating.

You knew what I meant. Who haven't watched a Space Shuttle launch?

I thought you might, but you needed to understand how the physics behind heliocentrism is used even in satellites orbiting earth. You haven't addressed any of what I said.

It does every day for those of us who lives on planet Earth. Again your argument is like arguing the sun doesn't give off light.

Then address the the real difference in the physics.

Baptist was also unpopular because of their stand against baby baptism at one time. This had more to do with politics than scriptures which is why USA we wanted some separation between church and state.
If I understood correctly the science (something about how starlight enters the atmosphere) of Galileo day supposed geocentric so the church (those few who even cared) accepted heliocentric had nothing to do with science of that day.

None of that addresses my point.

It would be the same to Joshua if God stopped time or it was a local miracle. The same with the star the wise man followed. It like arguing science has proven that stars can't lead anyone to a exact location like GPS. Now was it a literal star ? who cares. (eggheads?) The wise men literally saw the star is what matters.

You mean we should change our interpetation when science contradicts it?

I look at the same evidence and see it against UCD. When up to 30% of genes are ORFans doesn't cause someone to have doubts about UCD then I don't what it would take for them to question it. The evidence is continuously going against UCD so much that evolutionist had to give up the tree idea and settle for a bush.

Bacteria and archaea form a tangled bush because they like to swap genes, multicellular organism are still a tree. What sot of explanation and analysis have you read on ORFans? Panda's thumb has a few articles on them and the creationist and ID arguments.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/an_argument_is.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/inordinately-fo.html

 

[Assyrian]

That's not the presupposition I'm talking about,

It is the presupposition Calminian was talking about when you joined in.

Darwinism is predicated on universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, going all the way back to the Big Bang. Don't pretend creationism is 'allied' with atheistic materialism, it's the TEs and atheists that are hard to tell apart.

Apart from TEs believing in God, that he created everything that exists, that he sent his son our Lord Jesus Christ to die for our sins and rise from the dead. Very hard to tell us apart from atheists. Instead of saying' don't pretend' and 'no you are', how about addressing my point you undermine people's faith in the resurrection by claiming with hardline atheists that science disproves the resurrection?

No, this presupposition is an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

That is just repeating your claims not addressing my point.

You cannot logically or reasonably equivocate Creationism with Geocentrism, Creation is essential doctrine solar mechanics are not. What is more your still convinced that the problem is that it's been misinterpreted. Who says it has, I think it happened exactly as described in a literal sense.

You are equivocating the essential doctrine of Creation with modern anti science creationism again. Modern creationism, whether Young Earth Creationism or anti evolution Old Earth Creationism are making the same mistake Geocentrists did after science showed the earth went round the sun. They are holding onto an interpretation of scripture after science showed their understanding was wrong. Its the mistake Augustine and Aquinas warned against. Different sciences and different passage of scripture, but it is the same mistake.

When investigating a modern miracle you might want to exhaust naturalistic explanations, with regards to a Biblical miracle it's an exegetical process.

Science can certainly tell you if your interpretation of a biblical passage is wrong. Just look at our old friend Joshua's long day. Science cannot tell you how to interpret the text once you go back to it, that is an exegetical process. However just because your old wrong interpretation was a miracle, it doesn't mean the new exegesis has to involve miracles too. Your new exegesis is not bound by the conclusions of the old mistaken one.

That is what I was talking to Smidlee about when you joined in, that and how the church was actually following the teachings of Augustus and Aquinas when they changed their interpretation after science showed their old interpretation was wrong.

You do know that both Augustus and Aquinas were creationists right?

Sure. They believed God is creator of everything, so do I. How about you address the point that Augustine and Aquinas taught us that we should drop an interpretation that has been contradicted by science, and that this is what the church did when it changed its geocentric interpretation

So what's the problem?

Science showed the literal interpretation was wrong. What Calminan has avoided answering is whether the church back then was wrong to change its interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong.

That book you never read, Dialogue Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. I'm certain the character Simp would be the Darwinian if the dialog happened today. Galileo had issues with Aristotelian mechanics and of course, the old school celestial mechanics. Some said it could be revised and Galileo said scape it, it's done. Somehow, this turned into a feud with the Scriptures being little more then a last resort. I see nothing wrong with the interpretation that the sun stopped, I don't think that's what happened, I think the light was prolonged miraculously.

Galileo was never convicted of any of that, he was required to recant that particular book. So why did he have to do that? What is the big deal about the book?[/quote]
The big deal about the book is that it was heretical and Galileo was a heretic. On a more practical level the book thumbed it nose at the catholic hierarchy who were trying to take a softly softly approach to heliocentrism which was a real problem for them because it contradicted scripture and the interpretation of the church fathers. Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems pushed the problem to a head but the problem was heresy

Internet History Sourcebooks
Sentence of the Tribunal of the Supreme Inquisition against Galileo Galilei, given the 22nd day of June of the year 1633
"It being the case that thou, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, a Florentine, now aged 70, wast denounced in this Holy Office in 1615: "That thou heldest as true the false doctrine taught by many, that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth moved, and had also a diurnal motion...
​

Notice that the indictment in 1633 points back to a previous denouncement of Galileo by the Inquisition for teaching the false doctrine of heliocentrism. This was 14 years before the publication of Galileo's Dialogue. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was already on the index of forbidden books when the Inquisition added Galileo's Dialogue.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated. From the which We are content that thou shouldst be absolved, if, first of all, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, thou dost before Us abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies and any other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, after the manner that We shall require of thee. "And to the end that this thy grave error and transgression remain not entirely unpunished, and that thou mayst be more cautious in the future, and an example to others to abstain from and avoid similar offences,
"We order that by a public edict the book of DIALOGUES OF GALILEO GALILEI be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms, reserving to Ourselves the faculty of moderating, changing, or taking from, all other or part of the above-mentioned pains and penalties.
"And thus We say, pronounce, declare, order, condemn, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which by right We can and ought.
​

 

[mark kennedy]

That is your interpretation, you mean something completely different by 'move' from what they meant, and science did contradict their interpretation. A rotating earth is accelerating, a point on the surface i constantly changing the direction of its velocity by 0.03m/s². For the sun to orbit the earth, the sun would have to constantly accelerate 2.12 m/s² To give the sun that acceleration would require the earth to have a gravitational attraction and a mass 121.6 million times grater than it is. That is the sort of gravity that would leave us as a thin greasy stain on the surface of the earth. It is not the sun moving across the sky, it is the earth rotating.

Nonsense, the perspective of narrative in Genesis 1 is from the surface of the earth. All references have this as their zero point and watching the sun over the course of the day it moves. Your trying to translate this into an indictment for taking anything in the Bible literally with your mantra, 'it's your interpretation'. What is says was the sun was moving and it stopped.

The whole Galileo thing has been laid out for you, it was over Aristotelian mechanics. The Scriptures were little more then an after thought and Rome has gotten the proper interpretation of Scripture wrong before. Ever hear of the Protestant Reformation? I have trouble sometimes deciding whether I think Calvinism predestination is better then Armenian free will. One thing I have never had to struggle with is who gets to interpret Scripture.

That job belongs to the Holy Spirit, who inspired it in the first place. It was confirmed with mighty judgments and this dramatic scene:

And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. (Exodus 24:15-18)​

Try interpreting this. What do you think is going on there or do you extend your manner of interpretation to include events like this one?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

That is your interpretation, you mean something completely different by 'move' from what they meant, and science did contradict their interpretation. A rotating earth is accelerating, a point on the surface i constantly changing the direction of its velocity by 0.03m/s². For the sun to orbit the earth, the sun would have to constantly accelerate 2.12 m/s² To give the sun that acceleration would require the earth to have a gravitational attraction and a mass 121.6 million times grater than it is. That is the sort of gravity that would leave us as a thin greasy stain on the surface of the earth. It is not the sun moving across the sky, it is the earth rotating.

Nonsense, the perspective of narrative in Genesis 1 is from the surface of the earth. All references have this as their zero point and watching the sun over the course of the day it moves. Your trying to translate this into an indictment for taking anything in the Bible literally with your mantra, 'it's your interpretation'. What is says was the sun was moving and it stopped.

Instead of jumping to conclusions because you don't like the phrase 'that is your interpretation' you should try to understand what I was actually saying. I was telling Calminian that his relativistic interpretation was different from the literal interpretation in Galileo's day. Your language of appearance interpretation is different too. It was their literal interpretation that the sun was really moving and stopped at Joshua's command that was contradicted by science. It was their interpretation that had to change. Just because you and Calminian don't have a problem with your interpretations and heliocentrism doesn't mean they didn't have a problem with theirs.

The whole Galileo thing has been laid out for you, it was over Aristotelian mechanics. The Scriptures were little more then an after thought and Rome has gotten the proper interpretation of Scripture wrong before. Ever hear of the Protestant Reformation? I have trouble sometimes deciding whether I think Calvinism predestination is better then Armenian free will. One thing I have never had to struggle with is who gets to interpret Scripture.

Nice how you ignore the evidence from Galileo's trial that heliocentrism contradicting scripture were the reason for his condemnation at the trial and his previous denunciation by the inquisition 15 years before.

That job belongs to the Holy Spirit, who inspired it in the first place. It was confirmed with mighty judgments and this dramatic scene:

And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. (Exodus 24:15-18)​

Try interpreting this. What do you think is going on there or do you extend your manner of interpretation to include events like this one?

Have a nice day
Mark

Sound like shekinah glory to me. What of it? I have no problem with the Holy Spirit being the one who interprets scripture, neither did Augustus or Aquinas. Creationists have a bad habit of forgetting this and mistaking their interpretation for the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Or they delegate the responsibility to man made rules of interpretation. Instead of turning to the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them as they search the scriptures for a better understanding when science shows us their old interpretation was wrong, they did their heels in like the Catholic Cardinals at Galileo's trial or the Missouri Synod Lutherans, and refuse to admit they could every have been wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

No I struggle with relativity, I do know enough to know enough to realise your understanding is completely garbled. Motion is relative as you understand, but only within an inertial frame of reference, a frame of reference that isn't itself changing velocity, accelerating or decelerating. You are sitting in a car parked on the side of the drinking a cup of coffee. Rapidly approaching you is your friend a passenger in a car travelling at 60 mph, he is also drinking a cup of coffee. In terms of relativity, you are approaching him just as much as he is approaching you. The driver sees your car and slams on his brakes, coming to a halt in 5 seconds. This is a deceleration of about 5 meters per second per second or 5m/s². Does relativity say his braking is the same as you car accelerating at 5m/s²? If you think they are equivalent, answer this: whose coffee spilled? Who needed their seatbelt to stop form hitting the dashboard. Your frame of reference stayed the same your friend's kept changing.

That friend is going 60 mph relative to the earth. Thus he hit his brakes which increase friction between his car and the ground. My car is stand still relative to the earth.

That is your interpretation, you mean something completely different by 'move' from what they meant, and science did contradict their interpretation.

only to eggheads. Again it's like claiming the sun doesn't literally give off light. You are just playing with words or just taking the meaning of "literal" to the extreme.

I thought you might, but you needed to understand how the physics behind heliocentrism is used even in satellites orbiting earth. You haven't addressed any of what I said.

Since the Earth is the launching point of a satellites it makes sense to launch a satellites as if the earth stands still toward the point of where the object in space will be according to the time and distance it takes to get there. Heliocentric isn't really needed since Earth is used as the reference point.

You mean we should change our interpetation when science contradicts it?

It was the science of that Galileo's day that pointed to geocentric.

The interpretion is the same. The sun stood still relative to the earth (you don't have to be educated to speak everything relative to earth as it's completely natural.). Now as I wrote I don't know how God did but I seriously doubt He actually stopped the spin of the Earth. Like I wrote God could have stopped time over the whole planet except where Joshua was fighting the battle. Science has done nothing to reveal how and what exactly did that day.
Now as long as cars aren't accelerating or braking we can look at relative speeds on a highway and ignore the rotation of the earth. There are a few reasons for that, (1) the acceleration we experience due to the earth's rotation is quite small in the order of 0.03m/s² (2) it is acting in the same direction as gravity, in fact according to special relativity it is indistinguishable from gravity. (3) this is at right angles to your direction of motion on the highway which is all you are considering when you look at relative motion on a highway. It is an approximation which works because it not in the direction of motion and affects both car equally. It has more of a noticeable effect when gravity not acting at right angles, when one car is going uphill and the other down.

Now do the math when you try to apply Heliocentric model to the miracle of Joshua. How much force would be applied to the surface of the Earth if suddenly it stopped spinning? Then apply it again to get the planet spinning again. Don't you think the people of the Earth including Joshua wouldn't notice a sudden stop? Your science still does not work. You are just as wrong to apply heliocentric to Joshua miracle as much as someone trying to apply geocentric.

Bacteria and archaea form a tangled bush because they like to swap genes, multicellular organism are still a tree. What sot of explanation and analysis have you read on ORFans? Panda's thumb has a few articles on them and the creationist and ID arguments.
The Panda's Thumb: An argument is ORFaned
Inordinately Fond of Viruses: ORFans and Intelligent Design - The Panda's Thumb

No doubt evolutionist has to explain away something that totally went against what they predicted. I've read more recent explanations from evolutionists so your links are a little dated. I'll tried to post them if I remember where I found them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Instead of jumping to conclusions because you don't like the phrase 'that is your interpretation' you should try to understand what I was actually saying. I was telling Calminian that his relativistic interpretation was different from the literal interpretation in Galileo's day. Your language of appearance interpretation is different too. It was their literal interpretation that the sun was really moving and stopped at Joshua's command that was contradicted by science. It was their interpretation that had to change. Just because you and Calminian don't have a problem with your interpretations and heliocentrism doesn't mean they didn't have a problem with theirs.

I don't like the clear testimony of Scripture reduced to private interpretation. The word translated, 'stood still' can also be translated 'Be silent' (1Sa 2:9), 'Tarry' (1Sa 14:9), and rest (Psa 37:7). Nothing is contradicting 'science', whatever you think that word means. The light was prolonged or maybe the sun and moon just stopped. Science can't contradict Scripture, Thomas Aquinas could have told you that:

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. (Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas)​

Nice how you ignore the evidence from Galileo's trial that heliocentrism contradicting scripture were the reason for his condemnation at the trial and his previous denunciation by the inquisition 15 years before.

Nice how you ignore that the whole thing was over Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Not once, is the reason for Geocentric views ever pretended to be Scriptural. Yet it is this very book that gets Galileo indicted, you have yet to tell me way.

Sound like shekinah glory to me. What of it? I have no problem with the Holy Spirit being the one who interprets scripture, neither did Augustus or Aquinas. Creationists have a bad habit of forgetting this and mistaking their interpretation for the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Or they delegate the responsibility to man made rules of interpretation. Instead of turning to the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them as they search the scriptures for a better understanding when science shows us their old interpretation was wrong, they did their heels in like the Catholic Cardinals at Galileo's trial or the Missouri Synod Lutherans, and refuse to admit they could every have been wrong.

Theistic evolutionists have a bad habit of condescending to creationists no matter what the subject matter. Even when Creationists defend creation as essential doctrine while Theistic Evolutionists want to dismiss it as private interpretation. You keep equivocating the interpretation of Rome regarding an obscure passage of Scripture that has no bearing on astronomy or essential doctrine with creation. It's simply absurd.

 

[Assyrian]

That friend is going 60 mph relative to the earth. Thus he hit his brakes which increase friction between his car and the ground. My car is stand still relative to the earth.

You haven't answered my questions. Does relativity say his car braking is the same as your car accelerating away from it? If you think they are equivalent, whose coffee spilled?

The reason you cannot explain it is because your understanding of relativity is wrong.

only to eggheads. Again it's like claiming the sun doesn't literally give off light. You are just playing with words or just taking the meaning of "literal" to the extreme.

Whether you call all the scripture scholars and theologians of the Catholic and Protestant churches 'eggheads' or not, they still interpreted Joshua differently to you, and realised their interpretation was contradicted by heliocentrism.

Since the Earth is the launching point of a satellites it makes sense to launch a satellites as if the earth stands still toward the point of where the object in space will be according to the time and distance it takes to get there. Heliocentric isn't really needed since Earth is used as the reference point.

You still haven't addressed what I said.

It was the science of that Galileo's day that pointed to geocentric.

That is actually wrong, and it isn't answering my question. The science of Galileo's day couldn't tell if the cosmos was heliocentric or geocentric. The heliocentric system gave a much simpler explanation of the retrograde motion of planets like Venus without having to rely on complicated epicycles. But it was as Kepler showed the planets orbit elliptically and Newton's gravitation gave a mechanism that explained the motion of the planets beautifully that scientists abandoned geocentrism for heliocentrism. Now how about answering my question?

Should wechange our interpetation when science contradicts it?

The interpretion is the same. The sun stood still relative to the earth (you don't have to be educated to speak everything relative to earth as it's completely natural.). Now as I wrote I don't know how God did but I seriously doubt He actually stopped the spin of the Earth. Like I wrote God could have stopped time over the whole planet except where Joshua was fighting the battle. Science has done nothing to reveal how and what exactly did that day.

Science cannot tell us what happened, it can tell us what didn't happen. The sun didn't stop moving across the sky, it can tell us that your understanding of 'relativity' is wrong. But when you appeal to ordinary uneducated speech, this is actually another interpretation different from the claim Relativity says the sun moving is the sale as the earth rotating. This is an interpretation that was familiar to the church back then, that the bible was speaking in the common language of ordinary people. The thing is, they recognised that this was different from taking the passage literally, that it was a different interpretation to say the sun was really moving and stopped at Joshua's command.

Now do the math when you try to apply Heliocentric model to the miracle of Joshua. How much force would be applied to the surface of the Earth if suddenly it stopped spinning? Then apply it again to get the planet spinning again. Don't you think the people of the Earth including Joshua wouldn't notice a sudden stop? Your science still does not work. You are just as wrong to apply heliocentric to Joshua miracle as much as someone trying to apply geocentric.

I don't know how God did the miracle either, he certainly wouldn't use a method that would leave everybody on the planet still moving at up to 1070 mph across the landscape when the he stopped the planet underneath their feet. God would have had to to stop the seas too to prevent a 1000 mph mega tsunami, and halt the atmosphere to prevent mach 3 winds ripping everything off the surface of the earth. But I never claimed God stopped the earth, nor does applying heliocentrism to the miracle of Joshua mean God stopped the earth (and everything on it). Heliocentrism doen't tell us how to interpret Joshua's miracle it just tells us the literal geocentric interpretation is wrong, the sun wasn't moving across the sky in the first place so it didn't actually stop.

No doubt evolutionist has to explain away something that totally went against what they predicted. I've read more recent explanations from evolutionists so your links are a little dated. I'll tried to post them if I remember where I found them.

I'd be interested in reading them if you can find them, thanks. But what makes you think they are making up excuses rather coming up with real answers? If ORFans were real evidence against evolution we shouldn't keep learning their histories the more we study them and the more related genomes we have to compare.

 

[ChetSinger]

The sun moves across the sky. I see it rise from the east then travels across the sky and sets in the west.

No the sun does not move across the sky, clearly you no understanding of the physics involved.

Listen up, you two bros, from a guy who actually has a physics degree: you're arguing over nothing of significance.

The truth is that you're both right: it depends only on your reference frame. If your reference frame is the earth, it's perfectly valid to agree with Joshua and Smidlee and say the sun moves (or stopped, during the Long Day). Or, if your reference frame is the sun, it's perfectly valid to agree with Assyrian. Or yet again, if your reference frame is the Milky Way's galactic center, both the sun and the earth are moving.

Your argument is pointless. It could continue for pages, both of you convinced that you're right, because......you both are.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't like the clear testimony of Scripture reduced to private interpretation. The word translated, 'stood still' can also be translated 'Be silent' (1Sa 2:9), 'Tarry' (1Sa 14:9), and rest (Psa 37:7).

Isn't picking and choosing words out of a dictionary 'private interpretation? Worse you are doing it without the regard for context and grammar the translators use. One of the reason translators used 'stood still' is that there are two different words used in the passage to describe what the sun did, 'stood still' damam and 'stopped' amad. While damad which you refer to is not very common and has a range of meanings, amad is much more common and the overwhelming meaning is stood or stand. You also have the description of what happened after the miracle that the sun didn't hasten uwts, to go down for a whole day. Again the main meaning here is hasten or hurry.

The problem of complaining about the clear testimony of scripture, is that the apparently clear testimony of scripture was that the sun was moving and stopped at Joshua's command. That is how everybody read it for 1500 years.

Nothing is contradicting 'science', whatever you think that word means. The light was prolonged or maybe the sun and moon just stopped. Science can't contradict Scripture,

Which is why when science contradicts an interpretation of scripture, that interpretation is a wrong one and you need to a better way to understand the passage. In a way that is what you are trying to do with your bible dictionary pick and mix, it is just that you are trying to find a better interpretation using bad exegesis and not treating the plain meaning of the text with respect.

Thomas Aquinas could have told you that:

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. (Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas)​

Your Aquinas quote isn't Aquinas, it is the Catholic Encyclopedia. The passage continues:

...But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestantism
​

Aquinas knew about Protestants and the 19th century Cardinal John henry Newman?

Nice how you ignore that the whole thing was over Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Not once, is the reason for Geocentric views ever pretended to be Scriptural. Yet it is this very book that gets Galileo indicted, you have yet to tell me way.

The book is a science book of course it presented the arguments between heliocentrism and Ptolemaic geocentrism. But Galileo wasn't tried for heresy because he disagreed with Ptolemy, He wasn't tried for disagreeing with Aristotle. Galileo's mechanics and his laws of motion blew Aristotle's physics out of the water. But that doesn't seem to have been a problem for the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not think mechanics contradicts the bible, it was his heliocentrism they thought contradicted doctrine and was contrary to scripture. Did you even read the quotations I have you from his actual trial?

Theistic evolutionists have a bad habit of condescending to creationists no matter what the subject matter. Even when Creationists defend creation as essential doctrine while Theistic Evolutionists want to dismiss it as private interpretation.

Is it easier to call us condescending than correct the mistakes we point out? You are still mistaking a literal interpretation of Genesis for 'essential doctrine'. Which is really odd since neither Aquinas nor Augustine interpreted the days of creation literally.

You keep equivocating the interpretation of Rome regarding an obscure passage of Scripture that has no bearing on astronomy or essential doctrine with creation. It's simply absurd.

Not the interpretation of Rome, the interpretation of every church father, scripture scholar, and theologian who wrote about the passage in the first 1500 years of church history. Not an obscure passage either, the reason so many people wrote about the passage is that it was one of the most amazing miracles in the OT. You know, the one everybody back then though was Joshua actually stopped the sun moving?

The doctrine of creation is the fact that God is the creator of all things. It is not your personal interpretation of Genesis and how you think God created everything. Genesis and Joshua may be different passages on different subjects, but it is not equivocating to point out how that are both passages whose interpretations have been contradicted by science.

 

[Assyrian]

Listen up, you two bros, from a guy who actually has a physics degree: you're arguing over nothing of significance.

The truth is that you're both right: it depends only on your reference frame. If your reference frame is the earth, it's perfectly valid to agree with Joshua and Smidlee and say the sun moves (or stopped, during the Long Day). Or, if your reference frame is the sun, it's perfectly valid to agree with Assyrian. Or yet again, if your reference frame is the Milky Way's galactic center, both the sun and the earth are moving.

Your argument is pointless. It could continue for pages, both of you convinced that you're right, because......you both are.

Actually Smidlee is trying to argue reference frames or at least relative motion that the sun orbiting the earth is the same as the the earth rotating. The problem is relative motion only works with inertial reference frames. Points on a rotating earth are continually changing velocity as the earth turns, continually accelerating. For the sun to orbit the earth would mean it is the sun that is accelerating not the earth rotating, and it would require a force 365.25 times greater than the gravitational attraction of the sun, pulling the sun towards the earth. I showed that acceleration is not relative using the example of a cup of coffee in a car that is braking.

Then there is the problem that the frame of reference interpretation even if it were correct, would be a different interpretation to the the church's understanding for 1500 years, and doesn't change the fact they had to change their interpretation because heliocentrism showed it was wrong.

 

[ChetSinger]

Actually Smidlee is trying to argue reference frames or at least relative motion that the sun orbiting the earth is the same as the the earth rotating. The problem is relative motion only works with inertial reference frames. Points on a rotating earth are continually changing velocity as the earth turns, continually accelerating. For the sun to orbit the earth would mean it is the sun that is accelerating not the earth rotating, and it would require a force 365.25 times greater than the gravitational attraction of the sun, pulling the sun towards the earth. I showed that acceleration is not relative using the example of a cup of coffee in a car that is braking.

Then there is the problem that the frame of reference interpretation even if it were correct, would be a different interpretation to the the church's understanding for 1500 years, and doesn't change the fact they had to change their interpretation because heliocentrism showed it was wrong.

Still trying to be "more right" than the other guy? I could design a reference frame where the earth under my feet is standing still and the entire cosmos is spinning around it, and it would be totally valid. That's one of the results of Special Relativity: there are no privileged reference frames. In fact, if you believe in the Big Bang there isn't even a center of the cosmos that could be considered a preferred reference frame.

Words like "sunrise" and "sunset" are not unscientific or incorrect by any stretch, given our point of view.

And if the church believed in Greek celestial mechanics, who cares? So did every educated person of that place and time.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Still trying to be "more right" than the other guy? I could design a reference frame where the earth under my feet is standing still and the entire cosmos is spinning around it, and it would be totally valid. That's one of the results of Special Relativity: there are no privileged reference frames. In fact, if you believe in the Big Bang there isn't even a center of the cosmos that could be considered a preferred reference frame.

Chet, your claim to be more right than both of them would hold more water if you addressed Assyrian's coffee cup example. If there is no privileged reference frame, then the coffee shouldn't spill in one car and not the other. If it does, then relativity doesn't get you to where you're trying to go.

 

[mark kennedy]

Isn't picking and choosing words out of a dictionary 'private interpretation? Worse you are doing it without the regard for context and grammar the translators use. One of the reason translators used 'stood still' is that there are two different words used in the passage to describe what the sun did, 'stood still' damam and 'stopped' amad. While damad which you refer to is not very common and has a range of meanings, amad is much more common and the overwhelming meaning is stood or stand. You also have the description of what happened after the miracle that the sun didn't hasten uwts, to go down for a whole day. Again the main meaning here is hasten or hurry.

You are notorious for denying the actual meaning with it right in front of you. Theistic evolutionists think they are superior scholars for some reason I never understood. You scatter a few random transliterated words and that's supposed to be a substantive argument. Next time, try referencing your source material.

The problem of complaining about the clear testimony of scripture, is that the apparently clear testimony of scripture was that the sun was moving and stopped at Joshua's command. That is how everybody read it for 1500 years.

Who are you to say it didn't? What is more, how does a miracle performed by God have any bearing on astronomic mechanics? How people 1500 years ago or 4000 years ago interpreted nature and Scripture is beside the point. It says the sun stopped, so are you saying nothing happened here because it's impossible for God to stop the sun? Are you saying the passage is mistaken? Reading it as written is not a private interpretation, deconstructing the actual meaning is.

Which is why when science contradicts an interpretation of scripture, that interpretation is a wrong one and you need to a better way to understand the passage. In a way that is what you are trying to do with your bible dictionary pick and mix, it is just that you are trying to find a better interpretation using bad exegesis and not treating the plain meaning of the text with respect.

Science contradicts this or science contradicts that, Science as what contradicts what exactly. I really hate it when you guys get pedantic.

Your Aquinas quote isn't Aquinas, it is the Catholic Encyclopedia. The passage continues:

...But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestantism
​

Aquinas knew about Protestants and the 19th century Cardinal John henry Newman?

This is the quote I got from the site that attributed the quote to St. Thomas. Then they reference Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 co.

The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect [ratione] of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Sacred Scripture, has not the habit of faith, but holds the [other articles] of faith by a mode other than faith. If someone holds in his mind a conclusion without knowing how that conclusion is demonstrated, it is manifest that he does not have scientific knowledge [i.e. knowledge of causes], but merely an opinion about it. So likewise, it is manifest that he who adheres to the teachings of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teachings of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will​

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church

The book is a science book of course it presented the arguments between heliocentrism and Ptolemaic geocentrism. But Galileo wasn't tried for heresy because he disagreed with Ptolemy, He wasn't tried for disagreeing with Aristotle. Galileo's mechanics and his laws of motion blew Aristotle's physics out of the water. But that doesn't seem to have been a problem for the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not think mechanics contradicts the bible, it was his heliocentrism they thought contradicted doctrine and was contrary to scripture. Did you even read the quotations I have you from his actual trial?

Simp does argue for the Aristotelian type of mechanics and for heliocentrism. Pope Urban had urged Galileo to lay out the Heliocentric view but without advocating. What this book looks like is an attempt to do exactly that with Simplico filling in as a strawman. I'm aware what the indictment and trial concerned, mostly it was over who gets to interpret Scripture.

Is it easier to call us condescending than correct the mistakes we point out? You are still mistaking a literal interpretation of Genesis for 'essential doctrine'. Which is really odd since neither Aquinas nor Augustine interpreted the days of creation literally.

It is essential doctrine. Now I've conceded that literal 24 hour days are not actually required even though that's exactly what it says. I've tried compromising on several points but it's never enough, you want to scape the Scriptures the way Galileo wanted to scrape Aristotelian mechanics but you not comparing apples to apples.

Creation is essential doctrine and in an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred. Why don't you learn a little something about sound doctrine before you dismiss a literal Creation as an optional belief. This kind of random, private interpretation, does a great disservice to both the sciences and Scripture.

Not the interpretation of Rome, the interpretation of every church father, scripture scholar, and theologian who wrote about the passage in the first 1500 years of church history. Not an obscure passage either, the reason so many people wrote about the passage is that it was one of the most amazing miracles in the OT. You know, the one everybody back then though was Joshua actually stopped the sun moving?

Not every church father had an opinion. The ones who had an opinion regarding astronomical mechanics would have agreed with the astronomers at the time that universally taught the sun revolved around the earth. So what? They were not all doing expositions of Joshua and proclaiming it to be a reliable astronomical source book.

The doctrine of creation is the fact that God is the creator of all things. It is not your personal interpretation of Genesis and how you think God created everything. Genesis and Joshua may be different passages on different subjects, but it is not equivocating to point out how that are both passages whose interpretations have been contradicted by science.

That's from your private definition of science and personal bias against the miraculous aspects of Scripture. The Scriptures interpret themselves just fine, when it says 'evening and morning the first day', I think it means exactly what is says, a single day. The interpretation of Joshua has nothing to do with science, science isn't a telescope into history. There's nothing wrong with taking an historical passage literally, that's what your supposed to do. Science can't contradict a miracle, it can't be used for anything other then a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Is this where your argument spins hopelessly in a downward spiral?