Why I Am A Geocentrist

[lemmings]

How do you call that place? Does it have a name?

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.

 

[champuru]

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.

yes i agree with you

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

 

[lemmings]

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

A few months ago, the restraining order against non-Christians removed. *insert evil grin smiley here with your imagination*

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is my understanding that as long as atheists debate the topic at hand (CvE), they may. What would be off limits is challenging Christianity itself.

A mod can answer the question with more authority, but lemmings is correct -- it's been this way for quite a while.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

It DOES matter, since you criticized the verse with a reason that the sun does not come up at a fixed 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.

See the point? When you criticize Bible from the science point of view, watch very carefully on what you said.

If you come to this forum to see if Christians are really scientific, now you know the answer.

 

[lemmings]

It DOES matter, since you criticized the verse with a reason that the sun does not come up at a fixed position.

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.

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.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[lemmings]

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.

Rather than insulting my intellect, why don’t you tell me what you disagree with or fail to understand?

 

[busterdog]

How do you call that place? Does it have a name?

Yes.

Atheistica Tautologica, also known as Neverland.

 

[juvenissun]

Rather than insulting my intellect, why don’t you tell me what you disagree with or fail to understand?

Good attitude, much better than some people with a Master Degree.

You explained one of your point: people at different latitude looked at the rising sun from different angle. However, this does not negate anything of the Bible verse. Wherever a person IS, the sun rises up from the same place to that person all the time.

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.

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.

 

[lemmings]

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[busterdog]

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.

That is about as weak as it gets.

The sun returns to the same place twice a year. But, that is really not relevant.

If you are going to put scripture to that kind of test, that makes it very easy for the Christian literalist to form expectations about where an exchanges is headed.

If someone you loved and respected spoke of "the sun returning to its place", you would know without a doubt what was being discussed and you would consider it accurate.

There are any number of literary methods to be brought to bear on the question of what the Bible thinks of and intends in terms of accuracy. The ultimate point being that there can only be one standard for "precision" if there is to be any real literalism? The "one standard" argument is only used by those who attack, it is never used by the attacker to defend their own methods of criticism.

I just get the feeling this would be pointless under the standards that you apply. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

 

[champuru]

A few months ago, the restraining order against non-Christians removed. *insert evil grin smiley here with your imagination*

oh okay i didnt know that

this is the closest i could find to an evil grin smiley. lolz

 

[juvenissun]

I had never stated that the verse was false, I stated that it was inaccurate.

It means the same to a scientist.

 

[Vance]

It means the same to a scientist.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[Vance]

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.

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.

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.

Oh, better is one which we may have talked about before. Jesus was technically inaccurate when he said the mustard seed was the smallest seed (not to mention claiming it would grow into a "tree"), but we do not then think that Jesus said something false or untrue. We just realize that he was not making scientific claims, but was just drawing a mental picture his audience could relate to. Or when Matthew says Jonah was in a whale's belly, but it was really a great fish. Scientifically inaccurate, but was there really a scientific claim in the statement? From Deuteronomy, hares don't eat their cud is another one.

I think we have be willing to allow each text in this anthology of writings we call the Bible to speak with different styles and voices, and definitely different than we would expect from a text about the past written today. 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?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

I do not agree.

If you do have the description, please let me know. I would like to think about how "inaccurate" it is. The Song of Solomon is one of the books I read the least.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

The problem is: none of the examples I gave in my Science in Bible series is able to illustrate your point (except #8, which was an accidental exception). The authors said something. I don't care how did they think about what they said, they certainly did not understand how wonderful their words could ever be. On this regard, I don't think the idea of "historical claims" or "original readers" has any meaning. They are simply words inspired by God. There is no other possibility.

If you have patience, please stay tuned to the Science in Bible #9. After that, you may tell me again what was in the author's mind.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I don't have a particular example from SoS in mind, I was just using that as an example. But, do this for me. Read it through, or at least a couple of chapters, and imagine if it turns out that some claim about one of his metaphors was not scientifically accurate, just as a thought experiment. If so, would you really think the message of God through Solomon would somehow be undermined?

And, regardless, we have examples such as the mustard seed, the whale/fish contradiction, and the hare chewing its cud, etc. We don't look these and suddenly feel that the truth of the message is somehow lessened.

I guess I would ask you if you agree with the general concept that if a text is not making an historical or scientific claim, that a scientific or historical inaccuracy would not undermine the truth or validity of it's actual message. If you don't agree with that statement, and you feel that ANY scientific or historical inaccuracy or contradiction in ANY text, regardless of genre, author intent, etc, calls the truth and validity of the text into question, we could have some serious problems. Of course, that would be a pretty extreme position, I am not sure I have heard anyone go that far.