FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[JohnEmmett]

…

 

[JSRG]

Hi JSRG, I don't think we've met before. Nice to meet you!

Astronomy is a lifelong interest of mine since age 11 or so when I got a telescope, and especially since age 12 when I read a fairly good summary of cosmology at that time, and got really interested, and began to check out astronomy books from the library, and began subscribing to Sky and Telescope, etc.. I learned about the revolutionary theory of Copernicus (at least revolutionary to Italy/Europe) at age 12 then, see, how it replaced the predominate idea there in that time (in Europe at least) of the simple circles model (also heliocentric) (though Copernicus wasn't the first to realize the Earth went around the sun, etc.)

So, Astronomy, long a favorite topic for me.

Odd doctrines -- that's also often an interesting topic in itself, so this post is to ask for more about the one you mention.

It's interesting to imagine that the trouble those Catholic inquisitors (I'm going to take a liberty to call them that) -- that particular group -- who confronted Galileo in court wished to emphasis was the combination of the idea of the sun being fixed and the Earth moving, instead of simply just only that the Earth moved instead of being stationary.

I'm curious to see what else do we have to think that instead of simply that the Earth was mobile the real trouble for them was instead the combination of both a stationary sun and moving Earth . ( that's not what I've heard before. e.g.: see quote below this paragraph) (i.e., if Galileo had pointed out (whoops, you didn't like that phrase 'pointed out' -- ok, substitute in the word 'stated') -- if Galileo had stated that both the Sun and Earth were in motion relative to the cosmos as a whole, would that really have satisfied the inquisitors?)

Technically speaking, I'm not sure it was the combination of a stationary sun and moving Earth; the issue seems to have been the stationary Sun, with the moving Earth being gravy compared to that. Here's an earlier 1616 report in which theologians were consulted for their opinion on the matter, which can be found here:

Galileo Trial || 1616 Documents

Proposition to be assessed: (1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgment in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.

What bears noting is what they decided. They declared that both were "foolish and absurd in philosophy" (17th century speak for "science says otherwise" which obviously is not the case today, but possibly was in the 17th century) but only the declaration that the Sun was the center of the universe and immobile was labeled "formally heretical." They still took a less than positive view of the idea that the Earth was not motionless ("in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith") but did not go so far as to declare it heretical.

Galileo got told to obey those decrees, so Galileo quit the controversy, but fifteen years later (under a different pope, Urban VII) he got back into it. He wrote "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which was supposed to be a neutral work giving arguments for geocentrism and heliocentrism, but due to coming down strongly on the side of heliocentrism and Urban VII thinking--correctly or incorrectly--that Galileo was making fun of him with the character of Simplicio (the geocentrism-advocating character), Galileo got in trouble over it. Then he got put on trial in 1633. Now, the 1616 report considered the two points separately. As noted earlier, however, the 1633 decree (which could be considered the more official of the two) refers repeatedly to the single combined proposition of an immobile Sun being the center of the universe while the rotating-on-its-own-axis Earth is mobile, and that combined proposition is what was condemned.

So while we can't know for sure, as I don't think anyone was advocating our "current model" at the time (that is, mobile Earth and Sun, but Earth and the other planets go around the Sun), it's certainly possible that had Galileo's position instead been something akin to modern times, namely that the Earth revolves around the Sun but the Sun is mobile and not the center of the universe, there would have been much less of a problem with it. Again, the proposition of the Earth moving was not labeled as heretical by itself in either the 1616 report or the 1633 decree. I'm not sure when our current model of mobile Earth and mobile Sun started to be seriously advocated, though.

 

[prodromos]

If it is a curved earth why the use of lenses that cause curvature.

They want to fit as much as they can into the picture, thus wide angle lenses.
If the horizon is in the middle of the field of view, then the lense will not cause curvature, so those are the image frames you need to look for.

 

[prodromos]

If it is a curved earth why the use of lenses that cause curvature.

At 9:52 the horizon is slightly below the centre of the lens yet it still curves down. If it was flat, the lens distortion should be making it curve up. As the camera moves down you see the effect the wide angle lense has to make the curvature more pronounced, but the horizon unmistakebly curves down when the distortion should make it go up. You act as though distortion only goes in one direction when in fact it is radial and distorts in every direction

You use cameras. You should be familiar with the distortion caused by different lenses and the direction of the distortion away from the centre of the lens. Below is what we see happening with a wide angle lens. As anyone can see, the distortion is in the opposite direction below the centre to what occurs above the centre.

 

[Halbhh]

Technically speaking, I'm not sure it was the combination of a stationary sun and moving Earth; the issue seems to have been the stationary Sun, with the moving Earth being gravy compared to that. Here's an earlier 1616 report in which theologians were consulted for their opinion on the matter, which can be found here:

Galileo Trial || 1616 Documents

Proposition to be assessed: (1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgment in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.

What bears noting is what they decided. They declared that both were "foolish and absurd in philosophy" (17th century speak for "science says otherwise" which obviously is not the case today, but possibly was in the 17th century) but only the declaration that the Sun was the center of the universe and immobile was labeled "formally heretical." They still took a less than positive view of the idea that the Earth was not motionless ("in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith") but did not go so far as to declare it heretical.

Galileo got told to obey those decrees, so Galileo quit the controversy, but fifteen years later (under a different pope, Urban VII) he got back into it. He wrote "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which was supposed to be a neutral work giving arguments for geocentrism and heliocentrism, but due to coming down strongly on the side of heliocentrism and Urban VII thinking--correctly or incorrectly--that Galileo was making fun of him with the character of Simplicio (the geocentrism-advocating character), Galileo got in trouble over it. Then he got put on trial in 1633. Now, the 1616 report considered the two points separately. As noted earlier, however, the 1633 decree (which could be considered the more official of the two) refers repeatedly to the single combined proposition of an immobile Sun being the center of the universe while the rotating-on-its-own-axis Earth is mobile, and that combined proposition is what was condemned.

So while we can't know for sure, as I don't think anyone was advocating our "current model" at the time (that is, mobile Earth and Sun, but Earth and the other planets go around the Sun), it's certainly possible that had Galileo's position instead been something akin to modern times, namely that the Earth revolves around the Sun but the Sun is mobile and not the center of the universe, there would have been much less of a problem with it. Again, the proposition of the Earth moving was not labeled as heretical by itself in either the 1616 report or the 1633 decree. I'm not sure when our current model of mobile Earth and mobile Sun started to be seriously advocated, though.

Ah, I think I see something I can help on there (if you have interest), being profoundly familiar with the verses in question from reading fully through all the OT (and thus the Psalms) fully and exhaustively, many times now (the Psalms 4 full times already).

The doctrines they had were of course based on bible passages/verses.

This group was attached to their readings of what were actually metaphors as being instead literal (simplistically literal).

Have a look:

Psalm 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.


1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 33:9
For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”

Source: 11 Bible verses about Earth Being Fixed And Immovable

Etc.

See it? -- all the verse/passages that are relevant are metaphorically saying Earth is not going to fall over/collapse/fall down/etc.

The verses are all saying God made Earth a reliable home for humanity, a good Earth for us to live on that we can be sure will be here tomorrow.

Earth will not next month fall into the sun, nor will it have a magnitude 15 earthquake that would destroy all surface life in an entire continent ( but instead only quakes up to like magnitude 8 or such that will merely level a city or 5, but still leaving many alive in the region...and the nation will live on, even though many die. Humanity can count on Earth as a reliable home....)

But of course in the literalistic mis-reading, instead the meaning is that Earth is literally fixed immobile in place.... (a misreading I think would require the person not even read those psalms through (because full reading shows the metaphorical style over and over in many places...).

So, the reason it mattered to them Galileo was showing the Earth moves around the Sun is about more than a doctrine shown mistaken....

When one in a set of doctrines is challenged or overturned...but it's not only the one specific doctrine that is being shown false.

When Earth is no longer fixed in place immobile, and an old doctrinal interpretation shown mistaken... that would mean those who invented it were wrong in a clear decisive way, from the start.

All those centuries.

That the "Holy Fathers" that made up this doctrine, and many others, are exposed to be only theorists, not sources of truth. They are fallible.

Then, any that tried to make them into 'holy fathers' instead of only theorists were also wrong....

A sea change potentially....

Everyone would then realize any or all doctrines from such 'holy fathers' might be just theories -- and could be wrong....

I.e. -- the entire Church hierarchy justifications also is thrown into question....

Exactly what they couldn't tolerate. The real issue.

When their key "holy fathers" are only human, with feet of clay, clearly wrong....

This invalidates their infallible church hierarchy that some (not all I'd guess) had put their identity in -- these men had invested in their positions in their church hierarchy, and not in Christ. Instead of only brothers and sisters, just mere humble followers under the One Teacher, the hierarchy had allowed them to feel more important than other people.

So, it wasn't the bible that was at stake, it was their own personal pride/self-importance -- their status and power, being above others, feeling superior -- all their pride of place, position...their world they had built up.

When in reality they were only humans, just mortal humans, sinful, etc. Often mistaken, etc.

(The best possible outcome is if any were truly humbled! If someone was humbled and began to put their faith in Christ, instead of themselves, that would be an enormous gain, eternal even. Galileo could potentially (for individuals) become a good disruptor of the false, and a helpful aid to someone who might begin to trust in Christ instead of in men.)

(if of interest, the intermediate step (not the final step) in changing our conception of the center of the Universe from the Sun to next the Galaxy (in contrast, everywhere is the center of the Universe we know now) -- that intermediate step began in the 18th century: 'In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the Solar System but on a much larger scale. ' -- History of the center of the Universe - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

Ah, I think I see something I can help on there (if you have interest), being profoundly familiar with the verses in question from reading fully through all the OT (and thus the Psalms) fully and exhaustively, many times now (the Psalms 4 full times already).

The doctrines they had were of course based on bible passages/verses.

This group was attached to their readings of what were actually metaphors as being instead literal (simplistically literal).

Have a look:

Psalm 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.


1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 33:9
For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”

Source: 11 Bible verses about Earth Being Fixed And Immovable

Etc.

See it? -- all the verse/passages that are relevant are metaphorically saying Earth is not going to fall over/collapse/fall down/etc.

The verses are all saying God made Earth a reliable home for humanity, a good Earth for us to live on that we can be sure will be here tomorrow.

Earth will not next month fall into the sun, nor will it have a magnitude 15 earthquake that would destroy all surface life in an entire continent ( but instead only quakes up to like magnitude 8 or such that will merely level a city or 5, but still leaving many alive in the region...and the nation will live on, even though many die. Humanity can count on Earth as a reliable home....)

But of course in the literalistic mis-reading, instead the meaning is that Earth is literally fixed immobile in place.... (a misreading I think would require the person not even read those psalms through (because full reading shows the metaphorical style over and over in many places...).

So, the reason it mattered to them Galileo was showing the Earth moves around the Sun is about more than a doctrine shown mistaken....

When one in a set of doctrines is challenged or overturned...but it's not only the one specific doctrine that is being shown false.

When Earth is no longer fixed in place immobile, and an old doctrinal interpretation shown mistaken... that would mean those who invented it were wrong in a clear decisive way, from the start.

All those centuries.

That the "Holy Fathers" that made up this doctrine, and many others, are exposed to be only theorists, not sources of truth. They are fallible.

Then, any that tried to make them into 'holy fathers' instead of only theorists were also wrong....

A sea change potentially....

Everyone would then realize any or all doctrines from such 'holy fathers' might be just theories -- and could be wrong....

I.e. -- the entire Church hierarchy justifications also is thrown into question....

Exactly what they couldn't tolerate. The real issue.

When their key "holy fathers" are only human, with feet of clay, clearly wrong....

This invalidates their infallible church hierarchy that some (not all I'd guess) had put their identity in -- these men had invested in their positions in their church hierarchy, and not in Christ. Instead of only brothers and sisters, just mere humble followers under the One Teacher, the hierarchy had allowed them to feel more important than other people.

So, it wasn't the bible that was at stake, it was their own personal pride/self-importance -- their status and power, being above others, feeling superior -- all their pride of place, position...their world they had built up.

When in reality they were only humans, just mortal humans, sinful, etc. Often mistaken, etc.

(The best possible outcome is if any were truly humbled! If someone was humbled and began to put their faith in Christ, instead of themselves, that would be an enormous gain, eternal even. Galileo could potentially (for individuals) become a good disruptor of the false, and a helpful aid to someone who might begin to trust in Christ instead of in men.)

(if of interest, the intermediate step (not the final step) in changing our conception of the center of the Universe from the Sun to next the Galaxy (in contrast, everywhere is the center of the Universe we know now) -- that intermediate step began in the 18th century: 'In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the Solar System but on a much larger scale. ' -- History of the center of the Universe - Wikipedia

Those passages aren't metaphorical, they are literal. It's just ancient near east cosmology, as was drawn on artifacts such as the tablet of shamash, the Babylonian map of the world, and the sarcophagus of wereshnefer.

 

[Job 33:6]

Those passages aren't metaphorical, they are literal. It's just ancient near east cosmology, as was drawn on artifacts such as the tablet of shamash, the Babylonian map of the world, and the sarcophagus of wereshnefer.

View attachment 330560

Or, specifically related to pillars of the earth, another example would be the unfinished kudurru stone:

You can see leviathan there on the bottom, in "the deep". The pillars of the earth are in plain view. Between the tops of the pillars are Sheol, and the location of the rephaim, undead nephilim spirits. Above that is erets, the flat earth. Then above that is the heavens. This is the classic three tiered cosmology of the ancient near east:

You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

 

[JSRG]

Ah, I think I see something I can help on there (if you have interest), being profoundly familiar with the verses in question from reading fully through all the OT (and thus the Psalms) fully and exhaustively, many times now (the Psalms 4 full times already).

The doctrines they had were of course based on bible passages/verses.

This group was attached to their readings of what were actually metaphors as being instead literal (simplistically literal).

Have a look:

Psalm 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.


1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 33:9
For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”

Source: 11 Bible verses about Earth Being Fixed And Immovable

Etc.

See it? -- all the verse/passages that are relevant are metaphorically saying Earth is not going to fall over/collapse/fall down/etc.

The verses are all saying God made Earth a reliable home for humanity, a good Earth for us to live on that we can be sure will be here tomorrow.

Earth will not next month fall into the sun, nor will it have a magnitude 15 earthquake that would destroy all surface life in an entire continent ( but instead only quakes up to like magnitude 8 or such that will merely level a city or 5, but still leaving many alive in the region...and the nation will live on, even though many die. Humanity can count on Earth as a reliable home....)

But of course in the literalistic mis-reading, instead the meaning is that Earth is literally fixed immobile in place.... (a misreading I think would require the person not even read those psalms through (because full reading shows the metaphorical style over and over in many places...).

So, the reason it mattered to them Galileo was showing the Earth moves around the Sun is about more than a doctrine shown mistaken....

When one in a set of doctrines is challenged or overturned...but it's not only the one specific doctrine that is being shown false.

When Earth is no longer fixed in place immobile, and an old doctrinal interpretation shown mistaken... that would mean those who invented it were wrong in a clear decisive way, from the start.

All those centuries.

That the "Holy Fathers" that made up this doctrine, and many others, are exposed to be only theorists, not sources of truth. They are fallible.

Then, any that tried to make them into 'holy fathers' instead of only theorists were also wrong....

A sea change potentially....

Everyone would then realize any or all doctrines from such 'holy fathers' might be just theories -- and could be wrong....

I.e. -- the entire Church hierarchy justifications also is thrown into question....

Exactly what they couldn't tolerate. The real issue.

When their key "holy fathers" are only human, with feet of clay, clearly wrong....

This invalidates their infallible church hierarchy that some (not all I'd guess) had put their identity in -- these men had invested in their positions in their church hierarchy, and not in Christ. Instead of only brothers and sisters, just mere humble followers under the One Teacher, the hierarchy had allowed them to feel more important than other people.

So, it wasn't the bible that was at stake, it was their own personal pride/self-importance -- their status and power, being above others, feeling superior -- all their pride of place, position...their world they had built up.

When in reality they were only humans, just mortal humans, sinful, etc. Often mistaken, etc.

(The best possible outcome is if any were truly humbled! If someone was humbled and began to put their faith in Christ, instead of themselves, that would be an enormous gain, eternal even. Galileo could potentially (for individuals) become a good disruptor of the false, and a helpful aid to someone who might begin to trust in Christ instead of in men.)

(if of interest, the intermediate step (not the final step) in changing our conception of the center of the Universe from the Sun to next the Galaxy (in contrast, everywhere is the center of the Universe we know now) -- that intermediate step began in the 18th century: 'In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the Solar System but on a much larger scale. ' -- History of the center of the Universe - Wikipedia

I'm confused as to how you're getting this interpretation that what was being said was that the Earth being mobile was regarded as a threat to their doctrines. When I pointed out that what was condemned in 1633 against Galileo was the combined proposition of the Earth being mobile while the Sun stands still, you said "I'm curious to see what else do we have to think that instead of simply that the Earth was mobile the real trouble for them was instead the combination of both a stationary sun and moving Earth." So I pointed to the earlier 1616 report (which while ultimately just a report of an "advisory board" so to speak is still useful for our purposes) which had them say that the Sun being immobile and the center of the universe was "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." However, the assessment of the claim of the Earth being mobile and turning on its axis, on the other hand, did not say that; it never said anything at all about it being heretical, never said it was contrary to scripture, and it never said it went against common interpretation or understanding of holy fathers or doctors of theology. This therefore lends considerable support to the assertion that what was seen as the big problem was that of the Sun being immobile, not the Earth being mobile.

So I'm extremely confused how, in response to that, you launch into a massive post about this all resting on an incorrect interpretation of the mobility of the Earth when the very point I was making was that this does not seem to be the case. You seem to have gotten hung up on the phrase "the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology" but that was, in the 1616 report, used only for the proposition of the immobile Sun, and was not used in regards to its assessment of a mobile Earth.

 

[DarkForest]

-​

The earth God created is not only flat but stationary. Earth in The Bible means land/ground and not a water covered space ball with land scattered around it. The creation God created is covered by a raqia (dome) that is separating waters from waters. Genesis plainly states that God placed the sun, moon and stars in the raqia. so these light are not millions of miles away. Plus they move over the earth giving light.

Sciences creation version is simply a big ole lie.

So how do those satellitte phones, internet, and TV work? Who funds this big conspiracy?

 

[prodromos]

So how do those satellitte phones, internet, and TV work?

High altitude balloons tethered with invisible carbon nanotube fires

Who funds this big conspiracy?

Our taxes, of course.

 

[d taylor]

So how do those satellitte phones, internet, and TV work? Who funds this big conspiracy?

-​

Never looked into it, because for me that is a non issue. As my confidence that God can communicate His created creation (what He wants man to know) to mankind perfectly in The Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

So how do those satellitte phones, internet, and TV work? Who funds this big conspiracy?

Rather then trying to use science to inform people that earth is a sphere, why don't you simply inform people that the Bible was written before people had discovered that earth was round, and therefore the Bible is not a science textbook?

 

[Halbhh]

Those passages aren't metaphorical, they are literal.

Of course, metaphors do sometimes refer to a literal object or thing, or sometimes to an experience or thought, or an outcome, etc., etc. -- many possible objects for metaphors, including literal objects, like the movement of water, or of an animal, etc. (E.g. -- "the gazelle 'flew' across the plain" -- but in fact it literally ran across the ground, not flying with wings through the air.)

To know what is metaphorical in the text, we need only listen to any of those Psalms (reading in full with listening -- to just hear it naturally, to get what is meant to be conveyed accurately in full).

And for some verses, it is required (for accurate understanding) to assume or have faith that God exists, as sometimes people can arrive at odd interpretations if they are (un)consciously assuming no miraculous thing can ever happen.

If someone assumes that the miraculous is impossible to happen (that is, assumes that God doesn't exist), then they will likely misinterpret occasionally the meanings in some verses.

Ok....

Let's read the first Psalm in the list above (I'm just picking the first in the list, without knowing which psalm it is...)

I see it's Psalm 33. [update: I realized just now that Psalm 104 is first, and #33 is 2nd in the list, so we can look at both, #33 first here, and then #104 further below]

Let's read...

reading link to Psalm 33: Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 33 - New International Version

(first just read it yourself with listening (not analyzing) -- in order to hear the intended messages fully/better.

Below is my annotation for after reading it through.

Annotations about metaphors:

Psalm 33
1 Sing joyfully to the Lord, you righteous;
it is fitting for the upright to praise him.
2 Praise the Lord with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.
4 For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.
5 The Lord loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars[a]; [metaphor ]
he puts the deep into storehouses. [metaphor ]
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm. [metaphor ]
10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
the people he chose for his inheritance.
13 From heaven the Lord looks down [metaphor -- God doesn't have to be at a physical height hovering above the Earth in order to able to see all that happens around the world at once -- He isn't limited in that way, but can simultaneously see all the Earth and everyone on it.... For that matter, He sees without using mere physical sight like mortals have: "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” 1 Sam 16, ...]

and sees all mankind;

14 from his dwelling place he watches
all who live on earth—
15 he who forms the hearts of all,
who considers everything they do.
16 No king is saved by the size of his army;
no warrior escapes by his great strength.
17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;
despite all its great strength it cannot save.
18 But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him,
on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,
19 to deliver them from death
and keep them alive in famine.
20 We wait in hope for the Lord;
he is our help and our shield. [metaphor. God doesn't literally become a physical metal or wooden shield....]
21 In him our hearts rejoice,
for we trust in his holy name.
22 May your unfailing love be with us, Lord,
even as we put our hope in you.
============

With simple honest humbleness, we can confess the fact the Psalms use metaphors.

Ah, just noticed that actually Psalm 104 was the first in that list. Let's read that one next in full, with listening.

Reading with listening link: Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 104 - New International Version

Annotation for after reading:

Psalm 104
1 Praise the Lord, my soul.
Lord my God, you are very great;
you are clothed with splendor and majesty. [metaphor ]
2 The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent [metaphor ]
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. [metaphor ]
He makes the clouds his chariot [metaphor ]
and rides on the wings of the wind. [metaphor; as before, God isn't limited by physics, so that he needs wind to help Him move through the atmosphere -- rather, He moves through the atmosphere as easily/effortlessly as if He had perfect wings pushed by a perfect wind -- metaphorically (no matter any wind or lack thereof of course...If the wind isn't blowing, God can move through the air anyway -- so, this is a very helpful example in a way: the Psalms are filled with metaphors) ]
4 He makes winds his messengers,[a] [beautiful metaphor]
flames of fire his servants. [metaphor ]
5 He set the earth on its foundations; [metaphor ]
it can never be moved. [metaphor ]
6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; [metaphor: 'garment']
the waters stood above the mountains.

[metaphor: 'stood' , water doesn't 'stand', but this phrase is fascinating.
The Pulpit Commentary: "A watery covering was spread at first over the whole earth, and enveloped it like a garment. The waters stood above the mountains. The highest inequalities of the land were concealed under the watery integument."
That's identical to mainstream science findings (since 2017, hard evidence) that the early Earth was a water world, before dry land emerged, just like Genesis 1.
i.e. -- Earth started 4.4 billion years ago as a flat, barren water world, scientists say - UPI.com
etc.]

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, [metaphor ]
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; [metaphor -- people in any time/place are aware that wind/storms push water past it's normal boundaries of shoreline at times. Of course, the writer knows this perfectly well, and the 'boundary' isn't literal, but metaphorical.]
never again will they cover the earth. [that's the actual meaning of the metaphor]
10 He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the sky nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; [metaphor, higher up in the atmosphere is where rain comes from; all the Earth is the Lord's, and He brings the rain in that all of Nature is operating as He designed it to do, perfectly]
the land is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
14 He makes grass grow for the cattle, [metaphor . God doesn't have to individually force each tuft of grass to grow, nor force butterfly wings to flap, nor force hearts to beat, etc., but rather He made them (or another common view, made all of nature, as a whole, meaning then of course necessarily He made how nature works...i.e., what we call physics, chemistry, etc.] so that biological functions work naturally, perfectly, already.]
and plants for people to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens human hearts,
oil to make their faces shine,
and bread that sustains their hearts.
16 The trees of the Lord are well watered,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 There the birds make their nests;
the stork has its home in the junipers.
18 The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
the crags are a refuge for the hyrax.
19 He made the moon to mark the seasons, [as in Genesis 1, instead of a blank grey dome sky (God could have done such if He had chose...), we have a beautiful cosmos that is wonderful and awesome, and can even help us to think of God]
and the sun knows when to go down. [metaphor, the sun doesn't have to consider whether it's time to go down, etc. ]
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then people go out to their work,
to their labor until evening.
24 How many are your works, Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
27 All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.
31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever;
may the Lord rejoice in his works—
32 he who looks at the earth, and it trembles,
who touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33 I will sing to the Lord all my life;
I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
34 May my meditation be pleasing to him,
as I rejoice in the Lord.
35 But may sinners vanish from the earth
and the wicked be no more. [while 'vanish' is a metaphorical wording, the overall meaning about how the wicked will be absent from the eternal world to come [the 'new heavens and new earth] is prophesied in other places -- we can count on it...all those that refuse to repent and turn to God will be destroyed in the end...]
Praise the Lord, my soul.
Praise the Lord.[b]

 

[Halbhh]

I'm confused as to how you're getting this interpretation that what was being said was that the Earth being mobile was regarded as a threat to their doctrines. When I pointed out that what was condemned in 1633 against Galileo was the combined proposition of the Earth being mobile while the Sun stands still, you said "I'm curious to see what else do we have to think that instead of simply that the Earth was mobile the real trouble for them was instead the combination of both a stationary sun and moving Earth." So I pointed to the earlier 1616 report (which while ultimately just a report of an "advisory board" so to speak is still useful for our purposes) which had them say that the Sun being immobile and the center of the universe was "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." However, the assessment of the claim of the Earth being mobile and turning on its axis, on the other hand, did not say that; it never said anything at all about it being heretical, never said it was contrary to scripture, and it never said it went against common interpretation or understanding of holy fathers or doctors of theology. This therefore lends considerable support to the assertion that what was seen as the big problem was that of the Sun being immobile, not the Earth being mobile.

So I'm extremely confused how, in response to that, you launch into a massive post about this all resting on an incorrect interpretation of the mobility of the Earth when the very point I was making was that this does not seem to be the case. You seem to have gotten hung up on the phrase "the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology" but that was, in the 1616 report, used only for the proposition of the immobile Sun, and was not used in regards to its assessment of a mobile Earth.

I'll try not to get us hung up much on the superficial wording/phrasing aspect (if I can avoid it!), so let me be brief. (I don't mind if you word it differently than me, etc....)

Re as you said, " I pointed out that what was condemned in 1633 against Galileo was the combined proposition of the Earth being mobile while the Sun stands still" --

Viz -- since all people (with normal eyesight) see the sun 'move' through the sky, etc., just the basic human experience. ... therefore:

Therefore, as soon as (or even if) Galileo even said only just 1 sentence alone to the effect that 'the sun is stationary' or 'the sun is the center about which other things move' etc. -- that already is exactly like stating/asserting that the Earth is moving.

I.e. even just a phrase: "The sun is stationary..." is enough. (we already get the clear and unavoidable implication that the Earth must be moving relative to the sun, since there is a relative motion, so that if the sun is still, then the Earth must be the one moving).

That's not really so important here though I think, that wording aspect. There's something far, far more important.
....
===========

The important issue:

Above, I had reviewed the verses in question for their actual meaning very carefully in detail in that post, when you look closely. That's helped bring out a far more key issue -- what was really at stake in that trial I think.

I think the trial wasn't really motivated by consternation at some new understanding in astronomy....

That new understanding that the Earth moved around the sun wasn't the real issue for them, I'm saying.

The movement of the Earth was only a proxy issue....

See my post above for why, and what the much more serious real issue was.

 

[High Fidelity]

There is literally no evidence for a flat Earth.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid, or as close to round as it's going to get.

 

[Astrid]

Every Christian that I've talked to in my whole life (of almost 38 years) knows the Earth is round.

We had a maid from Philippines . The country is like 90 percent catholic.

Talking to her, she wondered how it's
night in NYC and day here.

Turned out she did not know the earth
is round, like an orange. She is far from stupid.

Later reported after a trip home that
her mom and dad did not believe,her
when she she told them.

 

[JohnEmmett]

her mom and dad did not believe her when she told them.

lack of belief…

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Just as satan has captured the creation topic by having most people of the earth. Believe they live on a sphere floating out in space which also includes for many evolution . Satan has also captured the rainbow image God gave mankind. As a promise the earth would not be destroyed with water again, through the lgbtq groups.

 

[Astrid]

lack of belief…

Um, no.
Lack of education.

 

[Astrid]

-
​

Just as satan has captured the creation topic by having most people of the earth. Believe they live on a sphere floating out in space which also includes for many evolution . Satan has also captured the rainbow image God gave mankind. As a promise the earth would not be destroyed with water again, through the lgbtq groups.

Is this sarcasm or ?