The Sun Revolves Around The Earth: Scripture Cannot Lie

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
The Sun Revolves around the earth: Scripture cannot Lie
The fact is that in 417 posts not one single Scripture has been brought forth to rfute the hundreds of Scriptures that show the creation is geo-centric from the beginning.

In fact: not even a peep from those who have received the science falsely so called which denies the Word of God as truth from the beginning to refute the first chapter of the Beginnings on the heavens not even stretched out from the earth until day 2 and between the divided in two waters of this created globe.

Think about that: they have followed men who were outright pagan and occult in their beliefs who denied the truth of the Word of God on geocentrism without even a shred of evidence but their own imaginations to invent their fables from, and then they cannot even deal with the fact that the Word tells us that the heavens were not even "out there" separate from the earth, but were "right here" where it all started, and were not even stretched out from the "here" until day 2, and that between the waters which were cut in two on day two for those heavens to be stretched out between!

So no heavens at all were stretched out from this earth until day 2, and they had their beginning right here at this earth on day 2, and are stretched out between the waters of this globe which were divided in two on day 2.

Deal with that? -they cannot; but they sure can deny it as Truth!

Scripture did not lie. It didn't say the sun goes round the earth. In point of fact, it doesn't even say the sun rises or sets, as those words cannot be found in the Greek or the Hebrew.

Those are not Scripture. Scripture does not say anything about stretching ANYTHING out in Genesis. Besides the fact that your claim is about as Scriptural as one eyed talking ponies, we have seen the sun at the center ofthe solar system.

You would tell God Himself that He is wrong if HE told you the sun is the center of the Solar System.

yeshuasavedme · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
Genesis 1 is the toledot of the beginnings -the genesis/origin of the heavens and the earth.
Reading Genesis 1 leaves no room for anything other than the facts as the record of the beginnings/the genesis state them; from the POV of God who was there.

The record states that the heavens did not exist outside the earth, separate from the earth, when they were both brought into being on day 1.
Day 1: the heavens and the earth are not yet named, but the heavens are powers and the earth is a globe of water/mayim.
The Holy Spirit brooded over the face of the waters/the deep, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

God said: "Let there be light", and there was light. That is not from man's POV. Adam was not there. God was there, and it is all His POV.

God divided the light from the darkness and the evening and the morning were one/echad day. He named the darkness and the morning "day and night", and the two, making one revolution around the globe of darkness and light, and back to darkness again from the beginning point was named "echad Day"

So the earth was not named yet, and the firmament was not stretched out from the fixed in place earth on day 1, but the light is brought forth and Day is made and named and the day and the night circle the globe which is fixed, and the earth circles nothing.

There were no heavens stretched out at all when light was brought into being. They were not even named, nor was the earth named.

So that is day 1. A fixed earth; no dry brought forth yet; and no heavens stretched out from the earth.

Now on day 2, God split the waters of the globe in two, and raised half of the waters way up, leaving half below, covering the globe, and stretching the powers of the firmament way out between them, and making stories of "heavens" as they were stretched out.

The light had it's birth out of the darkness right here on this globe of water, and the light was stretched out with the heavens.....
God named the stretched out firmament "heavens". He has "stories" of them. The face of the firmament is the atmosphere where the fowl fly, so He said in Genesis 1; and stretched way out, but below the half of the waters of the globe/earth, are the other "stories" of the heavens.

[The third heaven is where Mount Eden is, and Paradise, God's Garden, where the Tree of Life is, is in that third heaven. Adam was taken from the earth below and had daily communion with the Creator in Paradise/third heaven above, but when Adam became defiled, he was cast back down to earth below and the way was barred by cherubim with flaming swords, lest he enter Paradise in the third heaven and eat of the Tree of Life and live forever, in the forever ruined temple of his flesh and then be forever unfit to be remade in regenerated flesh, for the Glory to indwell Him as he was created for, in the beginning...but I digress]

We have only covered to day 2 of what Genesis 1 factually states.
Earth was not stretched out from the waters and named "earth" until day 3, but the "breadth of the outstretched heavens" belong to the earth, and Mount Eden, with Paradise, are in the third layer/story of the stretched out heavens, and the heavens were stretched out from this very earth when it was yet a globe of water with no "dry" brought forth out of the waters.

God did not form/bring forth the "dry" out of the waters until day 3.

Gen 1:9,10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry/yabbashah [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth/Eretz; and the gathering together of the waters/Mayim called he Seas/Yim: and God saw that it was good.

So we see that the facts state the heavens did not exist as stretched out stories [of powers] until the waters of this very created earth were cut in two, and the powers -the heavens- were stretched out from this globe of water itself, and stretched out in a circle around the globe, but always, half the waters of this created earth are above the stretched out heavens.

Those waters above the heavens were created right here on this globe. The only way they got out there above the heavens was on day 2, when the heavens were stretched out between earth's cut in two waters.

That needs no interpretation, but apparently, it does need eye salve for the blind to see what is actually said.

Also, again, the stretched out firmament was named "two waters", written with the sign for the two front teeth -the /Hebrew letter "shin", and the word for the "Waters/Mayim".
The waters of this globe were divided in two, and the firmament/expanse was stretched out in stories between them. The face of them is the atmosphere, as Genesis 1 states it is where the fowl fly.

Skybringr · Apr 28, 2014

Here's something interesting I'd like to propose, just to bring out the presuppositions science incurs:

Can you prove that the moon is not hollow, despite the fact that actual experiment indicates that it is as hollow as a bell?
What's moving the Earth's tides and so forth, if the moon is hollow?

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
Also, again, the stretched out firmament was named "two waters", written with the sign for the two front teeth -the /Hebrew letter "shin", and the word for the "Waters/Mayim".
The waters of this globe were divided in two, and the firmament/expanse was stretched out in stories between them. The face of them is the atmosphere, as Genesis 1 states it is where the fowl fly.

Now you're just making stuff up. Nice.

Let's read it in its plain text, please. None of your additions and the entire chapter without bold letters.

yeshuasavedme · Apr 28, 2014

sculleywr said:
...
Those are not Scripture. Scripture does not say anything about stretching ANYTHING out in Genesis. Besides the fact that your claim is about as Scriptural as one eyed talking ponies, we have seen the sun at the center ofthe solar system.

.

Stop being so hot under the collar, and before making such claims, check out the words and their meanings -you would learn from them, if you have a heart to learn, that is.

When God said:

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament/ רָקִיעַ in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

He was stating exactly that there was to be an expansion between the divided in two waters, beat out/stretched out. He was calling for the powers to stretch out in layers -to be beat out in stories/layers, expanded to be the great breadth, reaching way out and still remaining the circle of the earth, and between the divided in two waters.
The root word for the expanse/firmament is raqa/ רָקַע: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch..
So yes, Genesis 1 states that He stretched out the heavens between the divided in two waters of this earth, and named the firmament/the expanse "heavens/sha mayim/ two waters".
He also beat out the "dry" which he named earth, out of the waters below, in the same manner.

Isa 42:5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created/made the heavens, and stretched/natah them out; he that spread forth/ raqa` the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

So in Genesis 1, God said let there be [the] expanse between the divided in two waters, and the word means to stretch out, and in Isaiah 42, He uses also the word natah for the stretching out of the heavens and the word raqa` for the stretching out/ beating out making broad the earth.

ChetSinger · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
They are sent out using Geo-centric co-ordinates, but they could have any point of reference...

If Mars orbits the earth, the flight plan to send a probe there will be completely different from the flight plan if both Earth and Mars orbit the sun.

How could our NASA probes possibly get there unless their maths were correct?

yeshuasavedme · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
Stop being so hot under the collar, and before making such claims, check out the words and their meanings -you would learn from them, if you have a heart to learn, that is.

When God said: He was stating exactly that there was to be an expansion between the divided in two waters, beat out/stretched out. He was calling for the powers to stretch out in layers -to be beat out in stories/layers, expanded to be the great breadth, reaching way out and still remaining the circle of the earth, and between the divided in two waters.
The root word for the expanse/firmament is raqa/ רָקַע: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch..
So yes, Genesis 1 states that He stretched out the heavens between the divided in two waters of this earth, and named the firmament/the expanse "heavens/sha mayim/ two waters".
He also beat out the "dry" which he named earth, out of the waters below, in the same manner.

Isa 42:5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created/made the heavens, and stretched/natah them out; he that spread forth/ raqa` the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

So in Genesis 1, God said let there be [the] expanse between the divided in two waters, and the word means to stretch out, and in Isaiah 42, He uses also the word natah for the stretching out of the heavens and the word raqa` for the stretching out/ beating out making broad the earth.

Amo 9:6 It is he that buildeth his stories H4609 in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name.

The Vision of Paradise

2 Cor 12:
It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord:
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years agowhether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knowssuch a one was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know such a manwhether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows 4how he was caught up into Paradise

Skybringr · Apr 28, 2014

ChetSinger said:
If Mars orbits the earth, the flight plan to send a probe there will be completely different from the flight plan if both Earth and Mars orbit the sun.

How could our NASA probes possibly get there unless their maths were correct?

Not really.

Let me put in perspective, as a prime example, of what is happening when one orbits the Earth.

You're actually falling in space- perpetually. You miss the Earth, and simply fall around it.
That is to say, the sensation of an astronaut in space is like skydiving, except there is no wind resistance.

We use the same math which dictates orbiting Earth in getting to Mars, but in that, there's really no integral notion that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, it sort of compliments the notion if one forgets the non-geocentric model.

yeshuasavedme · Apr 28, 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfZ6kTHvE0

~Anastasia~ · Apr 28, 2014

Skybringr said:
Not really.

Let me put in perspective, as a prime example, of what is happening when one orbits the Earth.

You're actually falling in space- perpetually. You miss the Earth, and simply fall around it.
That is to say, the sensation of an astronaut in space is like skydiving, except there is no wind resistance.

We use the same math which dictates orbiting Earth in getting to Mars, but in that, there's really no integral notion that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, it sort of compliments the notion if one forgets the non-geocentric model.

Maybe I'm imagining it wrongly then, but from a very simplistic point of view, unless the planets had the same year-length (and they don't, as I understand it) - then wouldn't their distance from earth vary wildly, based on their relative position around the sun, if one assumes a heliocentric model? I just don't see how it could be possible to use that model to predict the location of other planets, and still manage to get the calculations right if the geocentric model were true. Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears as basic as trying to say 2+2=27 - and being right.

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfZ6kTHvE0

That doesn't explain anything unless you reject the very theory of gravity which is keeping your butt on that chair.

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

Kylissa said:
Maybe I'm imagining it wrongly then, but from a very simplistic point of view, unless the planets had the same year-length (and they don't, as I understand it) - then wouldn't their distance from earth vary wildly, based on their relative position around the sun, if one assumes a heliocentric model? I just don't see how it could be possible to use that model to predict the location of other planets, and still manage to get the calculations right if the geocentric model were true. Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears as basic as trying to say 2+2=27 - and being right.

The heliocentric model explains the wandering motion of the other planets very well. His explanation of orbiting is very accurate, however.

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

Skybringr said:
Not really.

Let me put in perspective, as a prime example, of what is happening when one orbits the Earth.

You're actually falling in space- perpetually. You miss the Earth, and simply fall around it.
That is to say, the sensation of an astronaut in space is like skydiving, except there is no wind resistance.

We use the same math which dictates orbiting Earth in getting to Mars, but in that, there's really no integral notion that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, it sort of compliments the notion if one forgets the non-geocentric model.

That's the problem, however. If you assume the earth is the center, you ignore something very important: momentum. You see, since we are on the earth, we are moving at the same speed as the earth. If the earth is NOT moving, then we do not need to calculate for our current momentum. However, if you would really like to get into a discussion of the trips we take to Mars on a regular basis, here:

Basics of Space Flight: Orbital Mechanics

sculleywr · Apr 28, 2014

yeshuasavedme said:
Stop being so hot under the collar, and before making such claims, check out the words and their meanings -you would learn from them, if you have a heart to learn, that is.

I have a heart to learn, but I don't need someone making a theological text into a science text for me to understand science.

When God said: He was stating exactly that there was to be an expansion between the divided in two waters, beat out/stretched out. He was calling for the powers to stretch out in layers -to be beat out in stories/layers, expanded to be the great breadth, reaching way out and still remaining the circle of the earth, and between the divided in two waters.
The root word for the expanse/firmament is raqa/ רָקַע: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch..
So yes, Genesis 1 states that He stretched out the heavens between the divided in two waters of this earth, and named the firmament/the expanse "heavens/sha mayim/ two waters".
He also beat out the "dry" which he named earth, out of the waters below, in the same manner.

Isa 42:5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created/made the heavens, and stretched/natah them out; he that spread forth/ raqa` the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

So in Genesis 1, God said let there be [the] expanse between the divided in two waters, and the word means to stretch out, and in Isaiah 42, He uses also the word natah for the stretching out of the heavens and the word raqa` for the stretching out/ beating out making broad the earth.

You are reading quite a bit of extrascriptural explanation into it that is not evidenced in the text, the definitions of the words, or the Jewish traditions. For a second thing, the firmament was broken in the flood, which caused massive amounts of rain, and an extinction level event wherein all but a single family and the animals on the ark were destroyed.

The firmament is no longer with us

~Anastasia~ · Apr 29, 2014

sculleywr said:
The heliocentric model explains the wandering motion of the other planets very well. His explanation of orbiting is very accurate, however.

OK. I'll defer on that one then. My background is in the biological sciences. My geology is weak, my physics and astronomy even weaker.

I was just imagining him to say that Mars orbiting earth was a sufficient mathematical model to predict Mars' location. And if Mars and Earth both orbit the sun, with different year-lengths ... wouldn't Mars be MUCH further from Earth at certain times? Unless the velocity ... no ... never mind. If they have differing year-lengths, then they are going to be at different points of orbit relative to one another around the sun at different points in time, no? So wouldn't their relative distance from one another (Earth and Mars) change by some measure of the distance of the orbital path?

I'm trying to imagine it. Maybe I just don't get it. Wouldn't be the first time. I just don't have a dog in this fight, as they say ... and not enough time to devote where I want to as it is.

Thanks for the correction then.

sculleywr · Apr 29, 2014

Kylissa said:
OK. I'll defer on that one then. My background is in the biological sciences. My geology is weak, my physics and astronomy even weaker.

I was just imagining him to say that Mars orbiting earth was a sufficient mathematical model to predict Mars' location. And if Mars and Earth both orbit the sun, with different year-lengths ... wouldn't Mars be MUCH further from Earth at certain times? Unless the velocity ... no ... never mind. If they have differing year-lengths, then they are going to be at different points of orbit relative to one another around the sun at different points in time, no? So wouldn't their relative distance from one another (Earth and Mars) change by some measure of the distance of the orbital path?

I'm trying to imagine it. Maybe I just don't get it. Wouldn't be the first time. I just don't have a dog in this fight, as they say ... and not enough time to devote where I want to as it is.

Thanks for the correction then.

You're actually on the exact right path.

Mars has a year-length of 686.98 days, so it travels once around the sun in the time we travel twice. So yes, the relative distance is variable. We use a Hohmann Transfer Orbit to travel to Mars, generally in order that we can land on Mars. That orbit can also be used to enter the orbit of Mars, should we ever land on the planet.

Gnarwhal · Apr 29, 2014

Kylissa you're still light years ahead of YSM with your knowledge and education of the cosmos. That's for sure!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

sculleywr · Apr 29, 2014

Cogent said:
Kylissa you're still light years ahead of YSM with your knowledge and education of the cosmos. That's for sure!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

My nephew is. So...

Gnarwhal · Apr 29, 2014

sculleywr said:
My nephew is. So...

Compliment: foiled.

Or in your case, burn: Accomplished.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

ChetSinger · Apr 29, 2014

Skybringr said:
Not really.

Let me put in perspective, as a prime example, of what is happening when one orbits the Earth.

You're actually falling in space- perpetually. You miss the Earth, and simply fall around it.
That is to say, the sensation of an astronaut in space is like skydiving, except there is no wind resistance.

We use the same math which dictates orbiting Earth in getting to Mars, but in that, there's really no integral notion that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, it sort of compliments the notion if one forgets the non-geocentric model.

No, I believe the flight path would be different. To accurately predict where Mars is in a geocentric model, you'll need to add multiple spheres like Ptolemy did. And even then you'll still have discrepancies. Otoh, the Copernican system with relativistic corrections will get you there.

The Sun Revolves Around The Earth: Scripture Cannot Lie

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

† Handmaid of God †

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

† Handmaid of God †

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency