Geocentricity

[ananda]

Does God have a face? 1 Chr 16:11 Don't forget that God is a Spirit (John 4:24, Luke 24:39) and that no one has seen him (John 1:18)

Yes, I believe YHWH has a face (cf Num 6:25, Psa 27:8), and I believe He is a Spirit. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[classicalhero]

Read Luke 24:39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
God cannot be both a Spirit and have a face, since Jesus said that he had flesh and bones, which means he had a face, whereas a spirit doesn't. If God is a Spirit, then clearly he can't have a face. But what David was saying and anthropomorphism to get the listener to understand what he is talking about. As in when we seek the face of a person, it means we are want to have personal fellowship with them and thus this is What David was conveying to his audience.

 

[ananda]

Read Luke 24:39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. God cannot be both a Spirit and have a face, since Jesus said that he had flesh and bones, which means he had a face, whereas a spirit doesn't. If God is a Spirit, then clearly he can't have a face. But what David was saying and anthropomorphism to get the listener to understand what he is talking about. As in when we seek the face of a person, it means we are want to have personal fellowship with them and thus this is What David was conveying to his audience.

Who says spirits can't have faces?

 

[Resha Caner]

I do believe that the sea does roar, the fields do rejoice, and trees do sing in their own way, literally.

Now you're equivocating.

HantsUK and I have basically asked you the same question, and you haven't answered. By your reasoning, people should be ripped out of a jet (or at least thrown against the walls) when they try to fly. But that doesn't happen.

Maybe you didn't think of that before, but I suspect you at least now understand the point being made.

Now I've answered your questions, perhaps you can answer mine: If my personal experience through my senses conflict with my literal interpretation, then I will question my interpretation and move on. However, in this case, 1. a literal interpretation of Scripture states that the earth is not moving and fixed on a foundation, 2. my personal experiences tells me that the earth is not moving at millions of miles per hour, 3. scientists have completed experiments that point to the fact that the earth is not moving, and 4. modern establishment scientists do not deny geocentricity ... My question to you is, considering all those points, what is left to support your reasoning by which you reject geocentricity & the literal interpretation of Scripture?

I've addressed #1 and #2. Regarding #3 and #4, you are misrepresenting the situation. Maybe not intentionally, but that is what is happening. I would challenge you to seek it out firsthand. Find an "established" scientist who you think supports geocentricity, write to him, and ask him about it. I suspect he will correct you.

And you'd be surprised how many of them will respond to you. Maybe not the "big" names like Hawking, but many will. I've done similar things with biology. I may disagree with evolution, but I consider it intellectually dishonest the way many apologists misrepresent what evolutionists say. To avoid doing that myself, I've had several discussions with evolutionary biologists (people with actual degrees) for the sole purpose of better understanding what they're saying.

You should do the same with a few physicists.

But, specificially to #4, I've basically already answered that. Current astronomy/cosmology doesn't support heliocentricity. But neither does it support geocentricity. What current astronomy says is that there is no known method for establishing a center. So, if you want to believe Earth is the center, have at it. Just don't claim physics supports you in that. That's dishonest.

And that's an important step as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can be honest with yourself about what physics currently says ... unless you can be honest about how weak your scriptural case is ... I don't see a point in us continuing this conversation. I'm not interested in tit-for-tat debates where the sole purpose seems to be the pride of winning.

 

[classicalhero]

Who says spirits can't have faces?

Because Spiritual beings by definition aren't physical and the face is part of the physical world.

 

[ananda]

Unless you can be honest with yourself about what physics currently says ... unless you can be honest about how weak your scriptural case is ... I don't see a point in us continuing this conversation. I'm not interested in -for-tat debates where the sole purpose seems to be the pride of winning.

You're right, this conversation cannot continue, since you've judged me as being dishonest.

 

[ananda]

Because Spiritual beings by definition aren't physical and the face is part of the physical world.

Why can't one have a spiritual face?

 

[Resha Caner]

You're right, this conversation cannot continue, since you've judged me as being dishonest.

It's too bad it ended this way. At one point I thought we were making some progress. I realize you don't think what you say is dishonest. But based on the way you present yourself, the impression is made that you're either naive or dishonest.

Whatever opinion you have of me for saying that, I'm hoping it will help in some way. We'll leave it in God's hands, and I pray for God to bring something beneficial from our encounter.

 

[standingtall]

netzarim is trolling here in this forum. He tried to start the same thread in the fundamentalist forum, and the mods saw it for what it was. It was locked and has been deleted.

 

[ananda]

FYI to all, for the record, a mod informed me that my other thread was deleted because of the large number of liberal trolls wielding personal attacks in my thread - not because I was trolling.

 

[HantsUK]

How do "geosynchronous satellites" stay in place while vortexing around the universe at millions of miles per hour?

Simple Newtonian dynamics. The same laws that cause the moon to orbit the earth. Or do you deny that the moon orbits the earth? The same laws that cause you to fall to the ground when you jump out of a 2nd floor window. The same laws that NASA uses to send a vehicle to the moon.

I have already given examples where you can personally experience travelling at 500mph but it feels and looks like you are stationary. You can swing something on the end of a string around your head while standing still on the earth. You could do the same while standing in a train doing 125mph. Or on a plane flying at 500mph.

Objects orbiting other objects (eg moon around the earth, earth around the sun): Here's the maths:

The gravitational force between two bodies of mass m1 and m2, at a distance r apart is given by:

F = G . m1 . m2 / r^2

and where G is the universal gravitational constant, = 6.673E-11 N m^2/kg^2.

For an object of mass m1 to move in a circle of radius r, and going at a speed of v, needs a centripetal force, F, given by:

F = m1 . v^2 / r

If m1 is your satellite and m2 is the earth, when the gravitational force between matches the centripetal force, then the satellite will orbit the earth. If the satellite is going faster, it will spiral away. If slower, it will spiral towards the earth.

To orbit the earth, the satellite must be moving at a speed of:

v = sqrt( G . m2 / r)

(here, m2 is the mass of the earth, r the distance from the satellite to the centre of the earth)

This explains the movement of the moon and the movement of GPS equally well.

Ah, I hear you say, the earth could be stationary, and these laws would still work. True. So far, none of this tells you anything about the earth moving or rotating or being stationary. A satellite could just as well be orbiting a stationary earth.

A geosynchronous satellite is a special case. Its height above the earth is such that it takes 24 hours to make one orbit around the earth. Closer objects will orbit faster (eg GPS in about 12 hours). Objects further away will take longer, eg the moon (about 29 days). If you put a geosynchronous satellite directly above the equator, then it appears to be stationary when viewed from the earth because as it travels around the earth, the earth also rotates at exactly the same angular speed. It is geostationary.

If the earth was stationary, a geosynchronous would still take the same 24 hours to make one circuit. No change. However, it would not appear to be stationary when viewed from the earth. But geostationary satellites exist. They are used for satellite TV transmission, and is why satellite dishes point in a fixed direction instead of having to move to track a moving satellite.

I have answered you question. Now, your turn. If the earth is stationary, please explain how a satellite can just hang 35,786 kilometres above the equator without falling to the earth.

 

[ananda]

Simple Newtonian dynamics. The same laws that cause the moon to orbit the earth. Or do you deny that the moon orbits the earth? The same laws that cause you to fall to the ground when you jump out of a 2nd floor window. The same laws that NASA uses to send a vehicle to the moon.

I have already given examples where you can personally experience travelling at 500mph but it feels and looks like you are stationary. You can swing something on the end of a string around your head while standing still on the earth. You could do the same while standing in a train doing 125mph. Or on a plane flying at 500mph.

Sorry, but your example is based on a constant velocity on a straight-line travel. However, the earth is alleged to be spinning at a thousand miles per hour, and orbiting the sun at tens of thousands of miles per hour, and orbiting the galaxy center & traveling around the universe at millions of miles per hour.

If I ride on a merry-go-round spinning at speeds far less than millions of miles per hour, I can certainly feel the centrifugal force pulling me away from the center of the merry-go-around.

So tell me why I can't feel the immense centrifugal, gravitational, kinematic, and inertial forces of the Earth from all it's vortex-like pathways, millions of miles per hour, around its axis, around the sun, around the galaxy, and through the universe?

Objects orbiting other objects (eg moon around the earth, earth around the sun): Here's the maths: ... Ah, I hear you say, the earth could be stationary, and these laws would still work. True. So far, none of this tells you anything about the earth moving or rotating or being stationary. A satellite could just as well be orbiting a stationary earth.

Thanks for the maths, but as you pointed out, it also works for a stationary earth.

A geosynchronous satellite is a special case. Its height above the earth is such that it takes 24 hours to make one orbit around the earth. Closer objects will orbit faster (eg GPS in about 12 hours). Objects further away will take longer, eg the moon (about 29 days). If you put a geosynchronous satellite directly above the equator, then it appears to be stationary when viewed from the earth because as it travels around the earth, the earth also rotates at exactly the same angular speed. It is geostationary.

If the earth was stationary, a geosynchronous would still take the same 24 hours to make one circuit. No change. However, it would not appear to be stationary when viewed from the earth. But geostationary satellites exist. They are used for satellite TV transmission, and is why satellite dishes point in a fixed direction instead of having to move to track a moving satellite.

I have answered you question. Now, your turn. If the earth is stationary, please explain how a satellite can just hang 35,786 kilometres above the equator without falling to the earth.

I suggest that satellites are actually stationary and positioned at the exact distance above the earth where the gravitational force of the earth is in equilibrium with that of the gravitational attraction of the rest of the cosmos in the firmament.

Your turn: If the earth is not stationary, how does a satellite maintain perfect geosynchronicty traveling at 7,000 mph around the earth? How does it stay in place perfectly while the earth is allegedly vortexing millions of miles per hour around the universe?

 

[Wolftone]

If you (or any other liberal) do not wish to review the facts in this thread (including scientific quotations from establishment scientists, including Albert Einsten!) and only wish to jump in with repetitive & unsubstantiated opinions echoed by others doing the same, please feel free to leave my thread.

For a start, I am far from being a liberal. There are certainly no facts stated in your posts only a repeated reference to a tenuous and very badly interpreted line from God's holy word.

I get quite annoyed at people who misrepresent Christianity through distorted biblical misinterpretation. This draws ridicule from those that wish to hurt Christians and your words are also observed by non-Christians who then draw negative conclusions about God's people.

Promoting God's word can be difficult enough in this disbelieving and increasingly secular world without ridiculous claims that fly squarely in the face of absolutely proven scientific fact.

There is nothing in the Bible that states that the universe rotates around the Earth. This is only a notion in your head.

 

[classicalhero]

This thread is basically one person verses the rest. Thankfully geocentricity is a very obscure position taken.

 

[Papias]

netzarim-

I heard someone mention this thread, and checked it out. I don't plan to be in this discussion much, as it is far from my normal areas of discussion. However, you mentioned that you have three verses that clearly state a stationary earth. You do. You didn't mention the clearest and most obvious description that requires a geocentric model, and that's Genesis 1:1-19.

Genesis 1 starts out with God hovering over the waters. You can't have liquid water out in space (water needs pressure to be liquid). Note that this is before the stars, sun and moon are created. So this can't, in a literal sense, be describing an earth orbiting around a sun, because there is no sun, so the earth would have to be careening out, lost in space. Note that if that were true, God would have had to "catch" or "stop" the earth and made it orbit the sun - these are of course never mentioned. Plus, in v14, God would have had to create the sun next to the fleeing earth, or the sun would have been left behind somewhere. Notice also that it's not until v17 that God makes all the trillions of stars - well after the earth is made. Being that the earth is supposed to be orbiting the sun, orbiting the stars of the galactic center, then again you have the problem of creating something that is supposed to be orbiting something else, whithout making that center object first.

And so on.

You and I see the proper way to interpret these differently, but at least we probably can agree on what they literally say.

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.


The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

P.S. - you can see from my .sig file, below, that you are not the only Christian to hold the position you hold for exactly the same Scriptural reason. Plus, there are plenty more online, such as here: http://www.fixedearth.com/ and here: http://www.geocentricity.com/, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm, etc. Apparently some of these Christians have written books on this too.

 

[Wolftone]

netzarim-

I heard someone mention this thread, and checked it out. I don't plan to be in this discussion much, as it is far from my normal areas of discussion. However, you mentioned that you have three verses that clearly state a stationary earth. You do. You didn't mention the clearest and most obvious description that requires a geocentric model, and that's Genesis 1:1-19.

Genesis 1 starts out with God hovering over the waters. You can't have liquid water out in space (water needs pressure to be liquid). Note that this is before the stars, sun and moon are created. So this can't, in a literal sense, be describing an earth orbiting around a sun, because there is no sun, so the earth would have to be careening out, lost in space. Note that if that were true, God would have had to "catch" or "stop" the earth and made it orbit the sun - these are of course never mentioned. Plus, in v14, God would have had to create the sun next to the fleeing earth, or the sun would have been left behind somewhere. Notice also that it's not until v17 that God makes all the trillions of stars - well after the earth is made. Being that the earth is supposed to be orbiting the sun, orbiting the stars of the galactic center, then again you have the problem of creating something that is supposed to be orbiting something else, whithout making that center object first.

And so on.

You and I see the proper way to interpret these differently, but at least we probably can agree on what they literally say.

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.


The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

P.S. - you can see from my .sig file, below, that you are not the only Christian to hold the position you hold for exactly the same Scriptural reason. Plus, there are plenty more online, such as here: The Earth Is Not Moving and here: Geocentricity, SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GEOCENTRICITY, etc. Apparently some of these Christians have written books on this too.

I have lost the will to live...

 

[ananda]

netzarim-

I heard someone mention this thread, and checked it out. I don't plan to be in this discussion much, as it is far from my normal areas of discussion. However, you mentioned that you have three verses that clearly state a stationary earth. You do. You didn't mention the clearest and most obvious description that requires a geocentric model, and that's Genesis 1:1-19.

Genesis 1 starts out with God hovering over the waters. You can't have liquid water out in space (water needs pressure to be liquid). Note that this is before the stars, sun and moon are created. So this can't, in a literal sense, be describing an earth orbiting around a sun, because there is no sun, so the earth would have to be careening out, lost in space. Note that if that were true, God would have had to "catch" or "stop" the earth and made it orbit the sun - these are of course never mentioned. Plus, in v14, God would have had to create the sun next to the fleeing earth, or the sun would have been left behind somewhere. Notice also that it's not until v17 that God makes all the trillions of stars - well after the earth is made. Being that the earth is supposed to be orbiting the sun, orbiting the stars of the galactic center, then again you have the problem of creating something that is supposed to be orbiting something else, whithout making that center object first.

And so on.

You and I see the proper way to interpret these differently, but at least we probably can agree on what they literally say.

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

P.S. - you can see from my .sig file, below, that you are not the only Christian to hold the position you hold for exactly the same Scriptural reason. Plus, there are plenty more online, such as here: The Earth Is Not Moving and here: Geocentricity, SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GEOCENTRICITY, etc. Apparently some of these Christians have written books on this too.

Well said, thanks for sharing those other verses and thanks for your conservative support against all the liberalism that has permeated this thread, Papias!

 

[lesliedellow]

I have lost the will to live...

I know the feeling.