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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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)
Who says spirits can't have faces?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.
I do believe that the sea does roar, the fields do rejoice, and trees do sing in their own way, literally.
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?
Because Spiritual beings by definition aren't physical and the face is part of the physical world.Who says spirits can't have faces?
You're right, this conversation cannot continue, since you've judged me as being dishonest.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.
Why can't one have a spiritual face?Because Spiritual beings by definition aren't physical and the face is part of the physical world.
You're right, this conversation cannot continue, since you've judged me as being dishonest.
How do "geosynchronous satellites" stay in place while vortexing around the universe at millions of miles per hour?
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.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.
Thanks for the maths, but as you pointed out, it also works for a stationary earth.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Well said, thanks for sharing those other verses and thanks for your conservative support against all the liberalism that has permeated this thread, 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 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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?