Psalm 104

[RichardT]

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.


How does this state that the earth is not moving on its axis ? To me , this scripture blatently states that the earth is SET on its path , and it can never be moved from this "axis" or path...

Also , I want this thread to be nominated for verses in the bible which you think are contradictory to scientific facts , like the interpretation that scripture claims that the earth is flat, or that scripture claims that the earth is not moving on a set axis for example...

I want to try to explain these verses from a litteral point of view which brings Glory to God and does not contradict scientific facts..

 

[FreezBee]

Hi RichardT and congrats with your 16th birthday

I want to try to explain these verses from a litteral point of view which brings Glory to God and does not contradict scientific facts..

I wish you very good luck with this project


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

God accommodated ancient cosmology. Just because the earth isn't the immobile center of the universe doesn't mean it isn't important to God. God takes pride in the earth whether it moves or not.

It's the same kind of logic you need to defuse passages like the one in Job where God rather gleefully describes His storehouses of snow and hailstones.

 

[billwald]

Einstein demonstrated that there are no favored locations in the universe. Whatshisname, the Polish Guy - contemporary of Gallilio - didn't get excommunicated because he stated the earth was the center of the universe but the calculations were easier if one assumed that the sun was the center of the solar system. So, is the system with the easiest calculations the most "true?" <G>

 

[gluadys]

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.


How does this state that the earth is not moving on its axis ? To me , this scripture blatently states that the earth is SET on its path , and it can never be moved from this "axis" or path...

Since when are foundations an axis?

Prior to the acceptance of heliocentrism, no Christian would have interpretetd the verse as you do. Your interpretation turns a literal description of an earth set on foundations (as ancient cosmology describes) into a figurative description. And you turn to this non-literal interpretation of "foundations" solely to accommodate scripture to modern science.

You have been doing this unconsciously since you were in nursery school, since that is what the vast majority of Christians do today. Only those who know ancient cosmologies are aware that it was once considered a literal scientific statement to say the earth rested (rested, not turned, not moved) on foundations (not an axis). Scripture never speaks of earth having a path through the heavens. That is a scriptural statement about the sun.

 

[RVincent]

May I ask which translation you are using?

Here are two:

KJVA Psa 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

LITV Psa 104:5 He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.​

The verbs here are "removed" and "shaken", not "move". Obviously the earth moves.

Psa 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.​

for ever: olam 'ad = forever and always.

The earth will always be here.

God created it to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18).

God made an eternal covenant with a geographical location here on earth (Ezek 16).

Christ returns to earth (Zech. 14. Acts 1. etc).

It demonstrates that the proper translation of Revelation 21:1 is "renewed" or "refreshed", as opposed "new".

 

[gluadys]

May I ask which translation you are using?

Here are two:

KJVA Psa 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

LITV Psa 104:5 He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.​

The verbs here are "removed" and "shaken", not "move".

Obviously the meaning is that the earth should not be removed from its foundations or shaken from its foundations.

It is the foundations which show the intended meaning of the verb whether it is translated as moved, removed, shaken or totter or fall. Foundations are not made to move, but to stand firm. And what rests on foundations is as motionless as the foundations are.

Obviously the earth moves.

Only for the last four hundred years. To people of earlier times it was the reverse that was obvious. The idea that the earth moves struck them as ridiculous. Even blasphemous, as Galileo learned.

It demonstrates that the proper translation of Revelation 21:1 is "renewed" or "refreshed", as opposed "new".

On that one I agree with you.

 

[RVincent]

I'm surpirsed you agree with me on the last one. Most people don't.

 

[gluadys]

I'm surpirsed you agree with me on the last one. Most people don't.

I know. But I was exposed to this idea quite awhile ago and made a study of scripture on the question and came to the same conclusion you did.

 

[RichardT]

thing is , people didn't know the earth moved back then ... So how could they possibly have interpreted it my way ?

 

[gluadys]

thing is , people didn't know the earth moved back then ... So how could they possibly have interpreted it my way ?

Exactly. They wrote according to what they knew then, and considered it a literally accurate description of the cosmos.

We have a more accurate understanding of how the solar system is arranged. So we no longer consider this to be a literally accurate description.

That doesn't take anything away from the essential teaching of the Psalm, which is to glorify God as creator. God was glorified by the ancients for creating the universe as they understood it. And God is glorified in our generation for creating the universe as we understand it.

Using some ancient poetry that is not up-to-date on advances in science doesn't make the poetry false. Just no longer literal in some parts that used to be thought literal.