No, you are correct with your first statement. Something rotates on its own axis while it revolves around something else. There's no flip-flopping of terms allowed there, its just the simple definitions of the words.
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.
No, you are correct with your first statement. Something rotates on its own axis while it revolves around something else. There's no flip-flopping of terms allowed there, its just the simple definitions of the words.Actually it rotates on its axis. One revolves around the other.
edit - I suppose there are sources to support both terminologies.
No, you are correct with your first statement. Something rotates on its own axis while it revolves around something else. There's no flip-flopping of terms allowed there, its just the simple definitions of the words.
The center pole.
Perhaps in layman's terms they sometimes overlap in meaning, but in reference to astronomy, they always have their distinct meanings (which is what I thought we were talking about).Which is their axis, right?
Another example is the vinyl record whose rotation speed was measured in rpm's (revolutions per minute).
IOW I think the two terms overlap somewhat in meaning.
If we define Liberal as "new", then creationists believe the earth itself is liberal and evolutionists believe it is conservative.
So which is it? Do we live in a liberal world or a conservative world? If we can prove our world to be very liberal, then the creationists are right, but if we live in a conservative world then the evolutionists are right.
We finally have an acurate litmus test for the age of the earth, not confined by the parameters of "science".
If we define Liberal as "new",
We are kind of at the mercy of Science to explain to us the "firmament above". There is so little information in the Bible about it. We can learn a lot more from Science about the atmosphere around the earth, then what we learn from the Bible. The Bible is just a standard we can use to be sure science is telling us the truth.There are verses in the bible that explain that the sun, moon and stars are fixed in the firmament above.
So my question is, do you interpret it the same way or do you have a liberal theology about this where you understand it in a different way?
It happened in Japan that they did not pay attention to the warnings from their ancestors:In a few years, there won't have been a literal flood.
So you're saying that we should re-interpret our model of the atmosphere in light of the Bible's description of the firmament as a solid dome above a flat earth?We are kind of at the mercy of Science to explain to us the "firmament above". There is so little information in the Bible about it. We can learn a lot more from Science about the atmosphere around the earth, then what we learn from the Bible. The Bible is just a standard we can use to be sure science is telling us the truth.
I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.So you're saying that we should re-interpret our model of the atmosphere in light of the Bible's description of the firmament as a solid dome above a flat earth?
The Bible describes a flat earth and solid firmament. That's not a myth. It's a demonstrable fact.I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.
The thing is that even with an interpretation, Darwinism is not implemented. The laws in place governing the nature of life are extensive and Paul briefly outlines it in 1 Corinthians 15:39Literal is a confusing word. I like to take what Gluadys gave to me a while ago: the first meaning of a word in a dictionary is its literal meaning. If so, the meaning of a word given by dictionary will be non-literal in most cases.
So, if people asked me about literal understanding of the Bible, I would simply say yes first, then if chances are given, go ahead to debate about "various" ways of literal interpretation. This will blow the mind of philadiddle away. How could I be literal and non-literal at the same time?
I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.
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?