FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[Michael Snow]

....what is really important is that God created over 6 days a few thousand years ago.

Don't add your words to God's word. Nothing about how long ago. Read the first three verses (in context) of Genesis In The Beginning

 

[coffee4u]

Don't add your words to God's word. Nothing about how long ago. Read the first three verses (in context) of Genesis In The Beginning

As a creationist I have read Genesis many times and I can tell you unequivocally that no section of scripture in either the Old or New Testament mentions millions of years or suggests millions of years, certainly not Genesis 1.
If someone was unsure as to what Genesis 1 meant they only need to turn to Exodus 20.

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Do not add your words to God's word claiming million of years. The only people claiming millions of years are proponents of evolution. A Godless satanic theory to remove God as creator and install nature as its own god, its own driving force for creating and shaping the world.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The only people claiming millions of years are proponents of evolution.

Universal expansion / contraction is Buddhist teaching

 

[Ophiolite]

Do not add your words to God's word claiming million of years. The only people claiming millions of years are proponents of evolution. A Godless satanic theory to remove God as creator and install nature as its own god, its own driving force for creating and shaping the world

And yet, if your God did indeed create the world in six days some 6,000 years ago, the question remains - why did he give it the appearance of it being 4.5 billion years old in a universe seemingly 13.5 billion years old? Certainly an odd choice.

 

[JohnEmmett]

And yet … the question remains

because that was the understanding of the writer


which is antiquated in our time of science

 

[Ophiolite]

because that was the understanding of the writer


which is antiquated in our time of science

True, but @coffee4u chooses to ignore that point.

 

[coffee4u]

And yet, if your God did indeed create the world in six days some 6,000 years ago, the question remains - why did he give it the appearance of it being 4.5 billion years old in a universe seemingly 13.5 billion years old? Certainly an odd choice.

You assume you know what I mean by 'a few thousand' but you don't. 6000 years ago is what James Ussher, a Church of Ireland Archbishop came up with. I don't follow people who make claims to know the date of creation. (October 22, 4004 BC.)
Do many follow his calculations? Yes, probably because they don't even know where this calculation came from, they simply heard it and go along with it, because that's the creation position right? Wrong. There are other positions. I tend to hold more to the 20 thousand position. Yet no matter how many thousands a creationist holds to, it is but a drop in a bucket compared to evolutionary time scales.

You see what you wish to believe. You look at the world as it is now and say "This is how it always was" "Now is the key to the past" Then you use calculations like decay rates and make claims as to the age of various things.
How things work now is not how it worked at creation.

As to why, its so those who refuse him will be deluded.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

Unfair you shout. No, God tells us plainly in his word how he created. Not only did he explain what he created each day but he also made it plain that death came about due to sin. Before sin came to be there was no death. No death -no million of years. As you can hardly have a world reproducing for millions of years without any death.
Also God says that death is his enemy, so he would hardly use his enemy to shape his creation.
No death before sin is the real reason why a creationist is a creationist.

You either trust God or you don't, its that simple.
If God had made it so that he was as obvious as the nose on your face and that science agreed with the scriptures then what faith would that take? Man could believe with his intellect and only a fool would not.
God wants faith, which at times means going against what your eyes or intellect might say. When Jesus called to Peter to get out of the boat and walk to him on the water he wasn't appealing to Peter's intellect but to his faith. The fact that Peter got out of the boat and began to walk showed he did have faith but then his intellect told him that what he was doing was impossible so he began to sink.

 

[JohnEmmett]

God tells us plainly in his word how he created.

why do you assume the bible is god’s word?


rather than just another text

 

[coffee4u]

why do you assume the bible is god’s word?


rather than just another text

Because the scriptures has power, power to change lives, power to touch the heart, soul and spirit. Not just because it tells us it does, but because I know it does. I went from being an agnostic to a Christian by the power of scripture. I went from a 'nominal' evolution believer to a creationist. I had probably only been to a church 5 times my entire life so it wasn't church and it wasn't a preacher, but scripture that reached me.

2 Timothy 3:16-17​

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Because the scriptures has power, power to change lives

As does other scripture, for example Buddhism

 

[coffee4u]

True, but @coffee4u chooses to ignore that point.

Ignore what point?

 

[coffee4u]

As does other scripture, for example Buddhism

Buddhism does not claim to divide between soul and spirit. It does not believe there is an eternal, unchanging soul at all.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Buddhism …

the goal of Buddhism is beyond going to heaven

 

[coffee4u]

the goal of Buddhism is beyond going to heaven

So is Christianity.

 

[JohnEmmett]

So is Christianity.

Christianity leads to heaven

 

[JohnEmmett]

Buddhism … does not believe there is an eternal, unchanging soul at all.

About soul it’s a mystery

People change

 

[coffee4u]

Christianity leads to heaven

The end of Christianity is not heaven, heaven is but a place of waiting for the faithful.
The end of Christianity is the new world. Where God and the faithful will live.

This world is to end by fire.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. ​

​

The world is to be remade for the faithful and death will be destroyed. ​

Revelation 21:1-27 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” ​

​

 

[JohnEmmett]

The end of Christianity is the new world. Where God and the faithful will live.

This world is to end by fire.

That’s fine…

 

[Halbhh]

This may be a tangent, but I still wish to note it.

It is not really accurate to say Galileo "pointed out" that the Earth moved around the sun. That expression makes it sound as if this was obvious or at least provable and he was just demonstrating it. It wasn't. There was evidence for it, and there was evidence against it at the time. At most someone could say Galileo had done the best job arguing for it, but he hadn't proven it. It was only later on that more evidence was gathered which managed to more fully prove what Galileo was unable to. At the time, and with the evidence available, there were very valid reasons to be skeptical of Galileo's ideas... and other scientists were. Galileo was in the minority scientifically at the time, because the scientific information available at the time hadn't proven his claims yet. Indeed, it should be noted that modern scientific information still hasn't proven his claims, because Galileo claimed that the Sun did not move and everything went around it--which is rejected by modern scientists and heliocentrists. Galileo might have been right about the specific claim of Earth going around the Sun, but his larger claim of the Sun being immobile is not considered true even today.

As for the condemnation of Galileo itself, it should be noted that the claim that the Earth moves around the sun was not by itself what he was specifically condemned for. The 1633 decree against him condemns the claim that the Earth is mobile and that the Sun is immobile as one doctrine, as shown here:

The 1633 Decree Strictly Addresses Copernicanism as a Unity: An Immobile Sun at the Center of the Universe and a Mobile Earth

While this page's argument is more strictly aimed at fringe Catholics who try to claim that the church infallibly declared heliocentrism to be a heresy, it nevertheless is of use to us here as it points out that what was condemned was the combined claim that the Sun was immobile and the Earth mobile:

To the extent that it specifically addresses a doctrinal point, the 1633 decree strictly addresses Copernicanism as a unity. Throughout, the decree addresses a singular doctrine/opinion which has two facets, an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth:

“the false doctrine [NB: singular] taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion”

“the false opinion [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun”

“the doctrine [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.”

“the doctrine [NB: singular]—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world”

Again, what the 1633 decree actually addresses is a singular doctrine/opinion which includes two points—notice that they are connected with the conjunction “and”, not “or” —viz., that that the sun is the immovable center of the universe and that the earth moves and is not the center of the universe.

Now, had the science proved that the Sun was in fact immobile and the Earth (and everything else) went around it, then the decree could be considered wrong. But the claim by modern science is instead that the Sun and Earth are both mobile. Therefore, what is regarded as the truth nowadays was not what was condemned against Galileo.

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?)

Context re the trial most everyone has heard that:
"Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the centre of the universe." etc. -- Galileo affair - Wikipedia
this was interesting: "The affair was complex since very early on Pope Urban VIII had been a patron to Galileo and had given him permission to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a hypothesis..."
...(another interesting bit

"Dr. Boscaglia had talked to Madame [Christina] for a while, and though he conceded all the things you have discovered in the sky, he said that the motion of the Earth was incredible and could not be, particularly since Holy Scripture obviously was contrary to such motion.[21]"​

Galileo affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Their attachment to their doctrines is a curiosity to me. In that (mistaken) view of those particular Catholics, why would it matter (to them) for the Sun to be stationary while the Earth is mobile (of course, today, we hardly ever could meet anyone in person that will care to vocally assert in person (face to face) the notion that the Earth or Sun are stationary relative to the galaxy...I hope) -- why that distinction? I sometimes find odd mistaken doctrines of the past fascinating, in how they show a certain culture (or the culture of a sub group, even if it was only a real concern to a very few, just a few dozens, still is interesting).

 

[d taylor]

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