It is irrelevant where the place is or its name. A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the sun will always return to the same position when we know now that it does not.
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.
It is irrelevant where the place is or its name. A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the sun will always return to the same position when we know now that it does not.How do you call that place? Does it have a name?
yes i agree with youIt is irrelevant where the place is or its name. A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the sun will always return to the same position when we know now that it does not.
A few months ago, the restraining order against non-Christians removed. *insert evil grin smiley here with your imagination*umm by the way, how are you posting on here if you are an athiest. I thought this part was only available for christians to post on. lol, just wondering
It DOES matter, since you criticized the verse with a reason that the sun does not come up at a fixed position.It is irrelevant where the place is or its name. A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the sun will always return to the same position when we know now that it does not.
The Earth is spherical and therefore the sun’s location when it rises and sets is relative to the observer and is not absolute. All that matters is that at no point in time will the sun ever return to the position where it once was.It DOES matter, since you criticized the verse with a reason that the sun does not come up at a fixed position.
I am saying that it does not matter because the sun’s path will never return to itself, this prevents it from returning to the same position.If you answer "east", then I will ask you "how many degree east?". If you say it does not matter, then N88E or N82E would not make a difference. Then as long as the sun comes up from N45E to S45E, it IS coming from the EAST. That means it comes up from the SAME position.
You know less than what I think you know.The Earth is spherical and therefore the sun’s location when it rises and sets is relative to the observer and is not absolute. All that matters is that at no point in time will the sun ever return to the position where it once was.
I am saying that it does not matter because the sun’s path will never return to itself, this prevents it from returning to the same position.
Rather than insulting my intellect, why don’t you tell me what you disagree with or fail to understand?You know less than what I think you know.
I am not sure what you are talking about. But I guess it does not matter.
Good attitude, much better than some people with a Master Degree.Rather than insulting my intellect, why don’t you tell me what you disagree with or fail to understand?
I had never stated that the verse was false, I stated that it was inaccurate. If you where to generalize the direction of the sun rise to be merely ‘east’, then the verse would be satisfactory. However for any precision application of this knowledge such as for astronomy, as Richardt was using it for, or even a task of practical use like building an accurate sundial to tell time it would be sorely inadequate and this would soon be noticed after only a few days of operation.My explanation to you said, even that, the sun STILL rises from different positions everyday. However, even this variation would not make the Bible verse false.
The coordinate system that I was using was actually relative to the Earth because Richard is a geocentrist, I apologies for not clearing this up. I was not concerned with the sun’s orbit around the galactic center since I believe that the verse was speaking only from the point of view of an observer and thus the movement of the solar system as a whole is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make was that even after a year, or four years, the sun would never return to the same location on the horizon because the Earth’s orbit around the sun is an irrational number of days.As to your wondering track of the sun, the best I can understand is that you are saying the sun is actually moving in the galaxy, and never comes back to the same place even in cycles. If so, I don't think this is relevant to the issue. One could not see the same picture of a system from different coordinates and time anyway.
The Earth is spherical and therefore the suns location when it rises and sets is relative to the observer and is not absolute. All that matters is that at no point in time will the sun ever return to the position where it once was.
I am saying that it does not matter because the suns path will never return to itself, this prevents it from returning to the same position.
oh okay i didnt know thatA few months ago, the restraining order against non-Christians removed. *insert evil grin smiley here with your imagination*
I had never stated that the verse was false, I stated that it was inaccurate.
Actually, there are scenarios where something might not be considered accurate, but still would not be considered false.It means the same to a scientist.
Yes, I recognize your argument.Actually, there are scenarios where something might not be considered accurate, but still would not be considered false.
Consider when there is no claim to absolute accuracy. If not, you could not really call the statement "false", although you could call it factually "inaccurate" or scientifically "inaccurate" or historically "inaccurate", etc. For example, if there is a poem which is using figurative language. If it happens to get something scientifically wrong in its metaphors or symbolic language, you would not say the poem was "false" or even "not true" even though you could point out that it might be using inaccurate scientific information in its metaphor. You would judge the truth or falsity of the poem on whether the actual claims it *was* making, it's real, underlying point, was true or false.
That is because your default, due to our Modernistic culture, is to assume that the "science claim" or the "history claim" of a given text is very high. You would agree that if the "science claim" or the "history claim" is very low, your acceptance of scientific or historic factual inaccuracy would be much more flexible.Yes, I recognize your argument.
However, it would depends on how serious one treats the inaccuracy. if plus minus 1 is tolerable, then plus minus 10 is inaccurate and is false.
In terms of the Scripture, the tolerance of inaccuracy is very thin to me.
Let's use Song of Solomon as an example. If, during the course of one of lovers' speeches about the other, they compared their beloved to a given animal, but got something about that animal technically wrong, you would not say that the Bible was false or untrue in that instance. You would agree that it was scientifically inaccurate but would also agree that this inaccuracy had no impact whatsoever on the truth and validity of that Scripture.
To what degree is a given text intending to be making historical claims? Scientific claims? What would the original authors have intended and the original readers have expected?
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?