Geocentrism on C&E

[flaja]

Matthew Maury, an American naval officer who sided with the South during the Civil War and then became the founder of the Confederate Navy read Psalm 8:8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas, and started looking for these paths through the seas. As a result he sent out expeditions designed to find and map these paths. In the process he founded the science of oceanography, for which he wrote the first textbook.

I'm uncertain what this has to do with biblical cosmology/cosmogony.

Who said it did? It does however pertain to science.

Where? Job 38:6 mentions cornerstones and foundations, not sea springs.

Typo. Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? The Hebrews would have been familiar with land-based springs, but what made them see the seas in the same way?

For what it's worth, Job 38 also mentions the fact that the earth was formed like clay stamped under a seal. But you take that metaphorically, right?

Are you saying it is not a methaphor?

I love Ecclesiastes 1. It lends excellent biblical support for uniformitarianism.

How so?

(For what it's worth, the Bible also says that rainwaters are stored in the "storehouses" beyond the firmament, released upon the earth only once the "windows of the heavens" are opened.)

Metaphor.

The Bible implies numerous times that disease is a result of demonic infestation, rather than bacterial or viral in nature.

Are you saying it cannot be both? And I’d like to see some examples.

Furthermore, not every disease is contagious. A disease like AIDS is, but one like arthritis or bipolar disorder is not.

But that's just it. The Bible isn't entirely accurate on scientific matters (for example, 1 Cor

15:40-41 states the sun is not a star).

The Greek word that is translated as sun in I Corinthians 15:41 is helios which means the sun and light. The Greek word translated as star is aster. Paul was simply using the terminology of his time.

Furthermore, the sun is a star only by virtue of how we today define the term star.
20]

 

[Mallon]

Typo. Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? The Hebrews would have been familiar with land-based springs, but what made them see the seas in the same way?

To be honest, I don't see any mention of "sea springs" in Job 38:8 no matter which translation I read. Instead, the verse seems to echo other passages referencing the invisible barrier God placed at the edge of the oceans when He created the earth (Job 38:8, Ps. 33:7, Ps. 93:4, Prov. 8:29, and Jer. 5:22).

Are you saying it is not a methaphor?

I'm saying that, given the scientific knowledge of the day, the idea that the earth was flat like clay stamped under a seal probably was understood literally. It's implied in the Bible, and it's implied in other Mesopotamian books of the same era.

How so?

It describes the monotonous cyclicity of the earth's processes. Not changing chemical or physical constants.

Metaphor.

Don't you see what you're doing here? You're being very choosy about what you believe as metaphor. You cite one verse in Job 38 as being evidence for "sea springs", and treat the next (about the earth being flat) as metaphor! Similarly, you cite verses that on the surface seem to be in tune with modern scientific understanding, yet completely ignore those that don't. You're quote-mining in support of your preconvictions.

Are you saying it cannot be both? And I’d like to see some examples.

I am saying that the Bible does not imply that disease is due to both germs and demons. It only ever mentions demons. Matthew and Luke are full of such examples (e.g., Matt 10:1, 12:22, etc.).
If you think the Bible teaches germ theory, I would love to see where.

The Greek word that is translated as sun in I Corinthians 15:41 is helios which means the sun and light. The Greek word translated as star is aster. Paul was simply using the terminology of his time.

1 Cor 15:40-41 does not simply refer to the sun and stars with different names. Paul implies they have completely different properties (or "splendors"). This is tune with other biblical references to the stars.Isaiah 14:12-13, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, and Revelation 12:4 all describe the stars as pinpricks of light in the sky (capable of falling to earth). Again, you might argue that the Bible was written from a phenomenological POV, in which case I would counter: How, then, can it be trusted as accurate science? It can't. Does that matter? No. Because is capable of getting His point across no matter which culture He is speaking through.

Furthermore, the sun is a star only by virtue of how we today define the term star.

The sun is a star because it exhibits the same properties as most other stars in our universe. The ancient Hebrews did not know as much. Let's stop pretending that they did by projecting our current knowledge onto them.

 

[random_guy]

I thought the geocentric model only addressed the rules of orbiting. The origin of this concept does not involve the discovery and the principle of gravity force.

I certainly haven't tried the calculation of orbiting by using the earth as the center. However, I "think" it might work as well as using the heliocentric model. Yes, there will be a lot of more complicate calculations and corrections. But in this computer age, who cares about that? Let the computers do it. If someone suggested it won't work, then I would like to see a reference of it. In fact, I will be glad to see someone who can showthat the geocentric orbiting system does not work.

I take it you never had a course on computational complexity. It is very difficult and requires a lot of time to simulate a system of equations, and the time and computational requirements do not scale linearly if the problem is non-linear. For the geocentric model, it will be highly non-linear in order to get all the orbits to work correctly. Heck, even as of today, the 3 body problem still has no closed formula, and long term simulation will be inaccurate in predicting the orbits of 3 objects. Once you start considering the massive length between solar systems, the error accumulated by the geocentric model is so vast, it becomes useless.

It's like using a random sort instead of a quicksort, and think it works just fine.

 

[flaja]

To be honest,

Honest, or merely obstinate?

I'm saying that, given the scientific knowledge of the day, the idea that the earth was flat like clay stamped under a seal probably was understood literally. It's implied in the Bible, and it's implied in other Mesopotamian books of the same era.

Your proof for this is what? Have you studied anything of Hebraic history? Have you studied anything of the Jewish faith? What about Hebrew literature? What qualifies you to make such a blanket statement? How many other ancient cultures have you studied to be able to correctly compare them with how you say the Hebrews would behave?

It describes the monotonous cyclicity of the earth's processes. Not changing chemical or physical constants.

Then you must equally accept the Bible’s account of Noah’s Flood and the plagues on Egypt as indications of catastrophism- which in light of recent geological history, is the more accurate description of geological processes.

Don't you see what you're doing here? You're being very choosy about what you believe as metaphor.

Then assume that the entire Bible is metaphor and that the Bible’s writers were all science-illiterates. Now explain how and the why the Bible can be an accurate record of anything regarding science, which it undoubtedly is in at least some instances.

Explain, for example:

Amos 5:8 005:008 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:.

The seven stars is generally assumed to be the Pleiades, a constellation that has 7 stars. But, only 6 of these stars are visible to the naked eye (Hindus take the 6 visible stars as being the mothers of their war god, who is represented as having 6 faces). So how did Amos know about the 7 actual stars in Pleiades, when he could have only seen 6 of them?

BTW: Before you try to claim that Amos wasn’t talking about the Pleiades you should note that he listed the 7 stars with Orion. The Book of Job lists Orion with the Pleiades, which it identifies by name, in 2 separate verses: 9:9 and 38:31.

I am saying that the Bible does not imply that disease is due to both germs and demons.

Then tell me where the Bible says diseases do come from.

If you think the Bible teaches germ theory, I would love to see where.

The cleanliness and quarantine laws regarding blood, dead bodies and leprosy.

Paul implies they have completely different properties (or "splendors").

Are all stars identical? Or do they have different physical and chemical characteristics? Do they all shine with the same intensity, or do some stars emit more energy than others?

You are being obtuse and it makes you look foolish.

 

[chaoschristian]

You are being obtuse and it makes you look foolish.

Hmmmm . . .

 

[Mallon]

You are being obtuse and it makes you look foolish.

Clearly further discussion with you will prove fruitless, then.

To those lurkers interested in learning why the Bible does not contain 21st century science and -- more importantly -- why it makes no difference to your salvation, please read and watch the following:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/

 

[shernren]

Explain, for example:

Amos 5:8 005:008 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:.

The seven stars is generally assumed to be the Pleiades, a constellation that has 7 stars. But, only 6 of these stars are visible to the naked eye (Hindus take the 6 visible stars as being the mothers of their war god, who is represented as having 6 faces). So how did Amos know about the 7 actual stars in Pleiades, when he could have only seen 6 of them?

BTW: Before you try to claim that Amos wasn’t talking about the Pleiades you should note that he listed the 7 stars with Orion. The Book of Job lists Orion with the Pleiades, which it identifies by name, in 2 separate verses: 9:9 and 38:31.

The same reason that the Greeks named the Pleiades the Seven Sisters:

The Pleiades, also known as Messier 45 (M45), are among those objects which are known since the earliest times. At least 6 member stars are visible to the naked eye, while under moderate conditions this number increases to 9, and under clear dark skies jumps up to more than a dozen (Vehrenberg, in his Atlas of Deep Sky Splendors, mentions that in 1579, well before the invention of the telescope, astronomer Moestlin has correctly drawn 11 Pleiades stars, while Kepler quotes observations of up to 14).​

http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m045.html (emphasis added)

Dude, one word, just one word:

Google.

 

[theFijian]

But that's just it. The Bible isn't entirely accurate on scientific matters (for example, 1 Cor 15:40-41 states the sun is not a star). And nor does it claim to be. Why attribute something to the Bible that it does not attribute to itself?
When God inspired the writers of the Bible, He uttered spiritual truths in spritual words (1 Cor 2:13). To argue that He was trying to convey secrets of science is silly.

It's a funny kind of mentality isn't it that demands that the Bible must also be scientifically true for it to be valid. It seemes to me to be very much a post-enlightement modernist mindset which demands that the Bible must also be a science manual and not just a record of redemptive history.

 

[Assyrian]

The same reason that the Greeks named the Pleiades the Seven Sisters:

The Pleiades, also known as Messier 45 (M45), are among those objects which are known since the earliest times. At least 6 member stars are visible to the naked eye, while under moderate conditions this number increases to 9, and under clear dark skies jumps up to more than a dozen (Vehrenberg, in his Atlas of Deep Sky Splendors, mentions that in 1579, well before the invention of the telescope, astronomer Moestlin has correctly drawn 11 Pleiades stars, while Kepler quotes observations of up to 14).​

http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m045.html (emphasis added)

Dude, one word, just one word:

Google.

The next paragraph is even better.

Modern observing methods have revealed that at least about 500 mostly faint stars belong to the Pleiades star cluster, spread over a 2 degree (four times the diameter of the Moon) field. Their density is pretty low, compared to other open clusters. This is one reason why the life expectation of the Pleiades cluster is also pretty low (see below).
​

You can find the same little details in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster) though the SEDS site is even better.

 

[Mallon]

It's a funny kind of mentality isn't it that demands that the Bible must also be scientifically true for it to be valid.

I would argue that it's a sad -- even dangerous -- mentality to say the Bible rises or falls based on how scientifically accurate it is. Atheists feel the same way about the Bible and reject it for the same reason. In this way, they share more in common with YECs than they think!
The Quran contains some surprising tidbits relating to the development of the embryo and astronomy that, on the surface, match up more closely to modern science than does the Bible. So if the legitimacy of a religious text hinges on its scientific accuracy, what do we take this to mean? Did God or some other deity inspire the Quran, too? Can the Bible still be trusted? My undergraduate chemistry textbook contains much more accurate science than the Bible. Does its scientific accuracy indicate theistic inspiration, too?
The fact of the matter is that the Bible rises or falls based on its message of peace, forgiveness, and salvation. No other book preaches the same message, and, I would argue, no other book has inspired so much good in the world. It must be true -- its message works regardless of time or culture.

 

[shernren]

My undergraduate chemistry textbook contains much more accurate science than the Bible. Does its scientific accuracy indicate theistic inspiration, too?

Well, any book that tells me:

"The trick, in brief, is to feed yourselves difficult material only in small doses!"
​

has got to have a whiff of the divine about it, even if it is a textbook on the abstract algebra of geometric constructibility.

 

[flaja]

The Pleiades, also known as Messier 45 (M45), are among those objects which are known since the earliest times. At least 6 member stars are visible to the naked eye, while under moderate conditions this number increases to 9, and under clear dark skies jumps up to more than a dozen (Vehrenberg, in his Atlas of Deep Sky Splendors, mentions that in 1579, well before the invention of the telescope, astronomer Moestlin has correctly drawn 11 Pleiades stars, while Kepler quotes observations of up to 14).http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m045.html (emphasis added)

http://www.pleiade.org/pleiades_02.html

"Only six stars are distinctly visible to the naked eye."

The Pleiades makes a very early entrance into the world’s records. The Chinese knew of it around 2350 BC. Hesiod made a reference around 1000 BC. But, the 7th visible star became extinct late in the 2nd millennium BC, so if you take Hesiod as the first European to make a record of the Pleiades, then it is likely that only 6 of the 7 stars was visible in his day. What are the chances that the memory of this 7th star could have been retained the hundreds of years that separated its loss from Hesiod, let alone the thousand-plus years until the time of Amos?

 

[shernren]

http://www.pleiade.org/pleiades_02.html

"Only six stars are distinctly visible to the naked eye."

The Pleiades makes a very early entrance into the world’s records. The Chinese knew of it around 2350 BC. Hesiod made a reference around 1000 BC. But, the 7th visible star became extinct late in the 2nd millennium BC, so if you take Hesiod as the first European to make a record of the Pleiades, then it is likely that only 6 of the 7 stars was visible in his day. What are the chances that the memory of this 7th star could have been retained the hundreds of years that separated its loss from Hesiod, let alone the thousand-plus years until the time of Amos?

Dude, one word, just one word:

Google.

Um, ... no.

"The Pleiades whose stars are these: - 'Lovely Teygata, and dark-faced Elektra, and Alkyone, and bright Asterope, and Kelaino, and Maia, and Merope, whom glorious Atlas begot ... In the mountains of Kyllene she [Maia] bare Hermes, the herald of the gods." - Hesiod, Astronomy Frag 1 (from Scholiast on Pindar's Nemean Odea 2.16)
​

http://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/NymphaiPleiades.html

Unless I counted wrong, there are seven Pleiades in the above quote. No?

The seven Pleiades stars are precisely the seven visible today.

 

[flaja]

Um, ... no.

"The Pleiades whose stars are these: - 'Lovely Teygata, and dark-faced Elektra, and Alkyone, and bright Asterope, and Kelaino, and Maia, and Merope, whom glorious Atlas begot ... In the mountains of Kyllene she [Maia] bare Hermes, the herald of the gods." - Hesiod, Astronomy Frag 1 (from Scholiast on Pindar's Nemean Odea 2.16)​

http://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/NymphaiPleiades.html

Unless I counted wrong, there are seven Pleiades in the above quote. No?

The seven Pleiades stars are precisely the seven visible today.

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/merope.html

“MEROPE (23 Tauri). There is little in the sky more attractive than the marvelous cluster of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades of Taurus, a bright compact, fairly young ‘open cluster’ that is filled with bright stars of blue class B. Most eyes see 6 stars, some 8 (or even more).”

Emphasis mine.

 

[Mallon]

“MEROPE (23 Tauri). There is little in the sky more attractive than the marvelous cluster of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades of Taurus, a bright compact, fairly young ‘open cluster’ that is filled with bright stars of blue class B. Most eyes see 6 stars, some 8 (or even more).”

Emphasis mine.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[chaoschristian]

It must be six, because that's the number of stars on the hood ornament of my Subaru.

 

[shernren]

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/merope.html

“MEROPE (23 Tauri). There is little in the sky more attractive than the marvelous cluster of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades of Taurus, a bright compact, fairly young ‘open cluster’ that is filled with bright stars of blue class B. Most eyes see 6 stars, some 8 (or even more).”

Emphasis mine.

“MEROPE (23 Tauri). There is little in the sky more attractive than the marvelous cluster of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades of Taurus, a bright compact, fairly young ‘open cluster’ that is filled with bright stars of blue class B. Most eyes see 6 stars, some 8 (or even more).”

- emphasis mine.

Does anyone else here think we have a classic case of confirmation bias?

 

[flaja]

“MEROPE (23 Tauri). There is little in the sky more attractive than the marvelous cluster of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades of Taurus, a bright compact, fairly young ‘open cluster’ that is filled with bright stars of blue class B. Most eyes see 6 stars, some 8 (or even more).”

- emphasis mine.

Does anyone else here think we have a classic case of confirmation bias?

If most people can only see 6 stars, how does the minority that can see the 7th without a telescope, convince the majority to believe in the 7th star?

 

[Mallon]

If most people can only see 6 stars, how does the minority that can see the 7th without a telescope, convince the majority to believe in the 7th star?

If, as you quoted above, some people can see 8 or more stars comprising Pleiades (more than a dozen under special circumstances), then what would make you think God was inspiring a scientifically accurate tally of 7 in the Amos passage you cited? In fact, I think this is even greater evidence that the Bible does not contain accurate science (but accurate theology).

 

[theFijian]

I do not see why is it "dangerous" as long as RichardT feels the understanding is adequate and comfortable to him.

Having only just discovered this thread, I am astounded by the hypocrisy which simply drips from the quote above.