The Sun Revolves Around The Earth: Scripture Cannot Lie

[jamiec]

OK, here's the thing. If I'm talking to you,I'll say "the sun came up this morning", because from our perspective that's what happened. I don't say "this morning the earth revolved until the sun was visible above the horizon", even though in technical terms that's what happened.

The Bible isn't a text on celestial mechanics. It's written from our perspective. So yeah, it says "the sun came up". And you can assume that it mean that the sun appeared above the horizon. Good enough, true enough.

Zat mean the earth is the center of the cosmos and everything moves around it? No, because such isn't the case, as anyone who has studied astronomy for any time at all knows. And if you want to send a rocket to Jupiter or some such, you'd better listen to the astronomers with their technical jargon, because simply stating everything from an earth-bound prospective isn't gonna get it done.

Well, to put it plainly, no.

Yeah, it does all of the above. Denying it because the Bible doesn't provide these details is simply silly.

The Bible does not mention Hokkaido, Ouagadougou, Szechwan, Saskatoon, or Crianlarich. Or Mauna Kea. Or Paramatta. Or llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

So presumably they are all fictions.

The Bible is as accurate about the external world as it needs to be. It says nothing about the world outside the Mediterranean countries and the Ancient Near East, because there was no reason for it to do so. Japan, Australia, and Ancient Peru were of no concern to the Biblical peoples - therefore, they are not mentioned. Just as the Kings of Assyria say nothing about the ancient peoples of Britain or (what became) California or Uzbekistan - they had no dealings with them, and had no reason to do so.

 

[prodromos]

Actually, Chet, in the book "Galileo was Wrong", the authors give lots of info that shows the theory of relativity is just a theory, and not proven

Its been doing a great job of solving a lot of issues that Newtonian physics couldn't cope with, but it was never claimed to be fact, so a slow round of applause for those guys stating the obvious . It is still called Einstein's THEORY of general relativity after all.

 

[ChetSinger]

Actually, Chet, in the book "Galileo was Wrong", the authors give lots of info that shows the theory of relativity is just a theory, and not proven, but that isn't the tree I bark at, as I said.

Yes, the special and general theories of relativity are just that, not laws. But we test both of them regularly in our everyday lives, with our own cell phones. And who claims they're enemies of the scriptures? Not me. Regarding relativity at least, I think the authors of "Galileo was Wrong" are promoting a false dilemma.

I love the Word of God and believe the Word of God is far richer than anything so called theories of men who deny the Word outright or else say that men are just plain too dumb to understand what "they" do....

I agree completely.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually, Chet, in the book "Galileo was Wrong", the authors give lots of info that shows the theory of relativity is just a theory, and not proven

It and quantum mechanics are the two most well-proven scientific theories in existence. Literally everything in science is “just a theory,” what matters is how good theories are at predicting the outcome of experiments. You I fear are making the common mistake of confusing a well-tested theory with an untested hypothesis. This stresses, in my opinion, the value of doing science projects at all walks of life. In elementary school, I did three science projects for the science fair, in third, fourth and fifth grade, the first being a primitive invention to detect if an earthquake had occurred, using a plastic dome, a deflated rubber ball, and fingerprint powder graciously donated by a detective from the local PD, which won a second place ribbon, the hypothesis, which was proven through observation being that an earthquake would move the ball, coated in fingerprint powder, into the plastic dome, leaving residue if an earthquake occurred.

The next year, I did an experiment “Is this seat occupied?” based on the hypothesis that unsanitary conditions in the lavatories of my school would produce microbiotic growth in higher quantities in the facilities used by the pupils vs. the control for the experiment, the faculty bathroom. This hypothesis was validated using petri dishes with the help of a microbiologist from the local university, who identified various bacteria and in one sample, a terrifying looking fungus, which were absent from the control specimen.

For my third year, I won Best in Show for “Where no corm has grown before” with the hypothesis that gladiolus corms could be fooled into growing in all directions as if in microgravity by placing them in styrofoam cups sealed with nylon to keep the soil from spilling out, and mounting them on the turntable of a record player set on its side. The control was a styrofoam cup seated upright. A plant light provided 24/7 illumination. The hypothesis was proven, as the control specimen grew normally, whereas the corms on the record player sprouted in multiple directions as they were biologically unable to ascertain their orientation relative to the Earth’s gravity. Nonetheless all four specimens, the control and the three test subjects, were viable in all other respects and produced beautiful flowers as they matured.

All three experiments were based on the premise of experimentally testing a hypothesis using established theories to predict the results, namely, those of geology, plate tectonics, pendulums, and fingerprint identification in the first experiment, germ theory, microbiology, and microscopy in the second experiment, and gravity, centripetal force, electromagnetic radiation, ultraviolet radiation, photosynthesis, floral reproduction and evolutionary botany in the third experiment.

I was a bit lucky in all three admittedly trivial experiments were successful, however, experimental failures can be even more important when it comes to doing real science as opposed to merely demonstrating scientific concepts in grade school.

 

[The Liturgist]

Its been doing a great job of solving a lot of issues that Newtonian physics couldn't cope with, but it was never claimed to be fact, so a slow round of applause for those guys stating the obvious . It is still called Einstein's THEORY of general relativity after all.

As theories go its pretty close to being factual. Which is actually really annoying; I really wish the speed of light in a vacuum was about a million times faster than it actually is. Oh well, if that were the case then we wouldn’t get to see Sam Neill in the sci fi horror masterpiece Event Horizon and an endless progression of imitators demonstrate wormholes by sticking Mont Blanc reservoir pens through folded magazine covers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As theories go its pretty close to being factual. Which is actually really annoying; I really wish the speed of light in a vacuum was about a million times faster than it actually is. Oh well, if that were the case then we wouldn’t get to see Sam Neill in the sci fi horror masterpiece Event Horizon and an endless progression of imitators demonstrate wormholes by sticking Mont Blanc reservoir pens through folded magazine covers.

It's worth remembering that in science a theory is the strongest thing we have. We can often forget that the word "theory" has a more technical definition in science than in informal language. We often use "theory" as synonymous with "guess" or "I think this may be how it is"; but in science a theory is an explanation for how something works that has been tested over and over again. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a scientific theory precisely because it consistently works to explain what we observe, experiments and tests consistently confirm what the theory predicts. Theories are always changing to conform with new data and observations.

As such, theories deal with facts, not mere speculation. It can actually be quite frustrating when someone says "it's only a theory"; we don't have anything stronger than a theory. The problem here, I think, is that we have informally used the word "law" to describe certain things, like Newton's "laws of motion" or the "laws of thermodynamics"; these are not somehow more scientifically true because the term "law" is used. They are still "only" theories. And "law" here is only an informal thing, unlike "theory" which is formal. For example, we could say "the law of gravitation", but that's just rhetoric. The theory of gravitation, just like Newton's theories of motion, are just that--theories.

And this is deeply unfortunate, because based on threads like this one, it is clear what a lack of basic scientific education, and the ideological opposition to education in general, has created.

It's really no different than the way that ideological opposition to the study of theology and history within the Church has resulted in theological systems that are so far removed from the historical norms of Scripture and the Christian faith that they sometimes look barely recognizable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hmm]

It can actually be quite frustrating when someone says "it's only a theory"; we don't have anything stronger than a theory.

Yes, you can't ever prove a scientific theory, but only disprove it, by finding a counter example for example. Theories are always provisional in this sense but they are the best working models we have at any point in time and the evidence for accepted theories is overwhelming. We can learn a lot about humility from the way science acknowledges it's own limits and realise that we only see Christian truth "through a glass darkly" and so we should be more open to other viewpoints.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yes, you can't ever prove a scientific theory, but only disprove it, by finding a counter example for example. Theories are always provisional in this sense but they are the best working models we have at any point in time and the evidence for accepted theories is overwhelming. We can learn a lot about humility from the way science acknowledges it's own limits and realise that we only see Christian truth "through a glass darkly" and so we should be more open to other viewpoints.

Oh my! You have very much wrongly applied the Scripture Truth of 1 Cor 13:12, not looking at context.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Paul is speaking of the spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit gives to the Church, which are for this time of living in our bodies on this earth.
The gifts are for the Church age, for the Believers in Christ who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and move in the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the Church (members).
That ceases when the "Perfect" is reached, which is when the Believers are perfected in bodies of adoption, which is the "Hope of the Church"
You are welcome☺

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, you can't ever prove a scientific theory, but only disprove it, by finding a counter example for example. Theories are always provisional in this sense but they are the best working models we have at any point in time and the evidence for accepted theories is overwhelming. We can learn a lot about humility from the way science acknowledges it's own limits and realise that we only see Christian truth "through a glass darkly" and so we should be more open to other viewpoints.

Specifically, an approach to Christian theology that takes into account the dark glass, also known as the “dazzling cloud of darkness” to investigate theology proper, is apophatic theology. Very little is revealed about what God is, but Scripture says much more about what He is not, and from that, we can use reason to deduce additional apophatic negatory statements about God. It’s a bit like using archaeological tools to excavate an object.

 

[Hmm]

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Paul is speaking of the spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit gives to the Church, which are for this time of living in our bodies on this earth.

But the only reference I see to spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit is yours so I'll pass on this interpretation if you don't mind.

 

[Hmm]

Specifically, an approach to Christian theology that takes into account the dark glass, also known as the “dazzling cloud of darkness” to investigate theology proper, is apophatic theology. Very little is revealed about what God is, but Scripture says much more about what He is not, and from that, we can use reason to deduce additional apophatic negatory statements about God. It’s a bit like using archaeological tools to excavate an object.

Interesting, thanks. I never knew there was such a thing and something to read up on for sure

 

[Jipsah]

I really wish the speed of light in a vacuum was about a million times faster than it actually is.

Aha, that brings us to a current controversy as to whether the speed of light in vacuum is actually constant. Apparently there are anomalies in application of Einstein's work that are immediately sorted out if lightspeed can change based on other influences. There's one line of thought that the velocity of "old light" may be altered by interference with various and sundry stuff while making its way across the cosmos before it gets here for us to look at it. Way above my pay grade; I was dragged biting, kicking, and screaming through Physics by kind (and brainy) friends without whom I'd have probably ended up an Electrician instead of an Electrical Engineer.

 

[Hmm]

Aha, that brings us to a current controversy as to whether the speed of light in vacuum is actually constant. Apparently there are anomalies in application of Einstein's work that are immediately sorted out if lightspeed can change based on other influences. There's one line of thought that the velocity of "old light" may be altered by interference with various and sundry stuff while making its way across the cosmos before it gets here for us to look at it. Way above my pay grade; I was dragged biting, kicking, and screaming through Physics by kind (and brainy) friends without whom I'd have probably ended up an Electrician instead of an Electrical Engineer.

A little known odd fact about the speed of light is something that Einstein himself acknowledged and that is that we can't measure the speed of light in one direction but but only the average speed in a round trip coming back to us, the measurer. If you shone a beam of light at a mirror in the Moon, for example, there's no way of determining whether the speed of light is the constant c as theory postulates or whether it's infinite on it's outward journey and half the speed of light on it's return, or anything similar. All we can measure is its average speed over the total journey.

This little description explains why:

"It was Einstein that pointed out how light works during his annus mirabilis in 1905, the year in which he transformed our understanding of time, speed, mass and energy forever. His paper titled ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, the third he released that year, challenged the notion that space and time were absolute and universal, like a stage on which we all act out our parts.

Einstein connected the concepts of space and time and showed that how we perceive them depends on how we are moving through them. Two people moving with respect to each other experience time and space differently. There is no universal time, no way of synchronising clocks, in Einstein’s universe.

Without a way to synchronise clocks, it is impossible to measure the speed of light in one direction. To demonstrate why, consider a simple experiment where we setup a test rig to shine a light from one end to the other. Clocks are placed at either end of the rig so that we can check the start time and end time. Knowing the length of the rig and the time it takes the light to travel from one end to the other, we can calculate its speed.

It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But here lies the problem. Although we carefully synchronise the two clocks before the experiment, the very act of moving them to each end of the test rig will undo our good work. While they are moving, the rate at which time passes will be slightly different for each clock. This is an effect known as time dilation, and it is very real and measurable. GPS satellites need to account for this effect every day.

Any variation on this experiment will have the same complication. We just cannot measure the speed of light in one direction because relativity prevents us from maintaining synchronised clocks. The result is that the speed of light c is really the average speed over a round-trip journey, and that we cannot be certain that the speed is the same in both directions."

The One-Way Speed of Light | Spaceaustralia.

 

[The Liturgist]

Aha, that brings us to a current controversy as to whether the speed of light in vacuum is actually constant. Apparently there are anomalies in application of Einstein's work that are immediately sorted out if lightspeed can change based on other influences. There's one line of thought that the velocity of "old light" may be altered by interference with various and sundry stuff while making its way across the cosmos before it gets here for us to look at it. Way above my pay grade; I was dragged biting, kicking, and screaming through Physics by kind (and brainy) friends without whom I'd have probably ended up an Electrician instead of an Electrical Engineer.

Well my grandfather was an electronics engineer specializing in avionics, aeronautical testing and radio antennae, who also taught me computers, leading to me having my high paying job as an embedded OS programmer, which supports my work as a liturgical church planting presbyter (I tried working for a mainline church, but they were just too theologically post-modern in that particular denomination, to the extent the Book of Worship had a service of blessing for divorces) so you, as a fellow man of theology, engineering and science earn my respect.

I myself have heard of the anomalies of light traveling through the vacuum, and we also have the interesting effect of cosmic expansion where distant galaxies are moving away from us at a speed that exceeds that of light. Then there is the quantum foam of virtual particles and virtual black holes, scarcely larger than the Planck size, which wink in and out of existence every few Planck times.

 

[The Liturgist]

A little known odd fact about the speed of light is something that Einstein himself acknowledged and that is that we can't measure the speed of light in one direction but but only the average speed in a round trip coming back to us, the measurer. If you shone a beam of light at a mirror in the Moon, for example, there's no way of determining whether the speed of light is the constant c as theory postulates or whether it's infinite on it's outward journey and half the speed of light on it's return, or anything similar. All we can measure is its average speed over the total journey.

This little description explains why:

"It was Einstein that pointed out how light works during his annus mirabilis in 1905, the year in which he transformed our understanding of time, speed, mass and energy forever. His paper titled ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, the third he released that year, challenged the notion that space and time were absolute and universal, like a stage on which we all act out our parts.

Einstein connected the concepts of space and time and showed that how we perceive them depends on how we are moving through them. Two people moving with respect to each other experience time and space differently. There is no universal time, no way of synchronising clocks, in Einstein’s universe.

Without a way to synchronise clocks, it is impossible to measure the speed of light in one direction. To demonstrate why, consider a simple experiment where we setup a test rig to shine a light from one end to the other. Clocks are placed at either end of the rig so that we can check the start time and end time. Knowing the length of the rig and the time it takes the light to travel from one end to the other, we can calculate its speed.

It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But here lies the problem. Although we carefully synchronise the two clocks before the experiment, the very act of moving them to each end of the test rig will undo our good work. While they are moving, the rate at which time passes will be slightly different for each clock. This is an effect known as time dilation, and it is very real and measurable. GPS satellites need to account for this effect every day.

Any variation on this experiment will have the same complication. We just cannot measure the speed of light in one direction because relativity prevents us from maintaining synchronised clocks. The result is that the speed of light c is really the average speed over a round-trip journey, and that we cannot be certain that the speed is the same in both directions."

The One-Way Speed of Light | Spaceaustralia.

Interestingly time dilation is so extreme for photons that basically time does not pass for them at all, so when we encounter the low energy photons in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that represent the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, even though these photons have been traveling since the dawn of Creation in the Big Bang and the events that followed, no time has passed for them.

Likewise, exceeding the speed of light even using wormholes or Alcubierre-based warp bubbles, which are probably impossible due to the need for exotic matter, negative energy (which should not exist), or at least, as one paper recently suggested, an astronomical amount of energy, would result in time travel due to the skewed frame of reverence as one crossed outside of one’s ordinary lightcone.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

But the only reference I see to spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit is yours so I'll pass on this interpretation if you don't mind.

Please read the Bible passage instead of blindly claiming it does Not speak of EXACTLY what it speaks of. Paul's discourse on the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church age begins in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and goes through 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

 

[Hmm]

Please read the Bible passage instead of blindly claiming it does Not speak of EXACTLY what it speaks of. Paul's discourse on the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church age begins in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and goes through 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

As I said, I don't accept your interpretation. And if that makes me blind at least I'm not following the even more blind.

The quote is Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

This is from the KJV which was published in 1611 when "glass" meant a mirror. At the time the KJV was being produced, a mirror was more or less what we know now, but in NT times, a mirror was usually brass or other metal.

So the image in such a mirror would not be very clear Also, in Shakespearean times, 'dark' would often be used to mean 'obscure', 'unclear', 'unknown' etc and it's still often used this way today.

So what Paul was saying was that we do not and cannot fully know God and His purposes now, but all will be revealed when Jesus returns.

The idiom "to see through a glass darkly" has passed into more general use. It refers to things, perhaps motives or purposes, that we are aware of and have some knowledge of where we know that we don't have the whole story. We're not sure what is going on, there is much more to know and understand.

But carry on thinking it's about charismatic gifts if you prefer to, only don't insist that I have to as well.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

As I said, I don't accept your interpretation. And if that makes me blind at least I'm not following the even more blind.

The quote is Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

This is from the KJV which was published in 1611 when "glass" meant a mirror. At the time the KJV was being produced, a mirror was more or less what we know now, but in NT times, a mirror was usually brass or other metal.

So the image in such a mirror would not be very clear Also, in Shakespearean times, 'dark' would often be used to mean 'obscure', 'unclear', 'unknown' etc and it's still often used this way today.

So what Paul was saying was that we do not and cannot fully know God and His purposes now, but all will be revealed when Jesus returns.

The idiom "to see through a glass darkly" has passed into more general use. It refers to things, perhaps motives or purposes, that we are aware of and have some knowledge of where we know that we don't have the whole story. We're not sure what is going on, there is much more to know and understand.

But carry on thinking it's about charismatic gifts if you prefer to, only don't insist that I have to as well.

Paul was speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church, esp, in tongues, interpretation, and prophecy in the Church, which is for the entire church age. When we come to the perfect/perfected state in the adoption bodies, in heaven, these gifts cease.

 

[Hmm]

Paul was speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church, esp, in tongues, interpretation, and prophecy in the Church, which is for the entire church age. When we come to the perfect/perfected state in the adoption bodies, in heaven, these gifts cease.

Whatever you say.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Whatever you say.

Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said it.