Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 197 (199704)
04-16-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
04-15-2005 8:35 PM


Re: I know you think you're saying something
This is a simple issue in terms of epistemological history. All the people before the Greeks seemed to accept relational change. A relational change is a complexity where everything shifts together. For example they never seemed to have imagined time the way we define it. It was part of the decaying complexity. They could not believe the planets had unchanging orbits, because their history told about older planets being pushed back into Tartarus, the nether gloom, by new planets.
I have been studying this issue on my own for several years because I know of no group that actually questions or tests the first principle Peter predicts. It is my experience, that the first mention of this subject is disconcerting to most people. They think you are claiming to be smarter then they, which is the exact opposite of what I am saying. If the first principle is false, no one could causally understand even "under the sun," which is what Solomon said almost 3000 years ago. (Ecclesiastes 8:17)
Yet to examine the first principle is a very liberating thing in a negative way. It does not let you claim superior knowledge, but it does let you glimpse the wisdom and justice of God. It also frees ones mind from the shackles of Aristotle's Assumption. It allows one to look at the evidence from a whole new perspective and to test things from a fundamentally different point of view.
I have mentioned that astronomical evidence supports what the Bible actually says. The Bible seems to mention a close encounter and also the apparent break up of a planet, which the pagans also wrote of.
Here is a somewhat more complex bit of evidence against our first principle.
Claudius Ptolemy wrote that he rejected the claims of earlier astronomers to measure the diameter of the luminaries as they rose with a water clock since such methods are not accurate. [I did not find an English translation of the Almagest on the net. I recommend G. J. Toomer’s translation because it has extensive notes. In that book this is on page 252 - 253]. He gives the size and construction details of the diopra, a pin hole instrument with a sliding piece with which to frame the luminary being measured. He measured the moon in minutes and seconds at its perigee and apogee and his measurements are larger than ours. He explains how he measured the diameter of the sun by comparisons during eclipses with the measurements already made of the moon. His measurement of the moon and all the planets are larger than ours. It is interesting that he states that his predecessors claimed even larger angles.
Claudius Ptolemy ~150 AD wrote:
Furthermore, we find that the angles themselves are considerably smaller than those traditionally accepted.
What does that have to do with matter changing as a relation? Such changes would necessarily affect all of reality including the orbit of the planets. In 1672 Cassini, Richer and Flamsteed measured the parallax to Mars using two different methods. Flamsteed used a micrometer eye piece and the diurnal parallax when Mars was stopped in relation to the background stars at inferior conjunction. Since Mars was in a close group of bright stars he measured the change in relation to them as the earth rotated. At almost the same time, Cassini and Richer used the occulation of a star to measure the parallax. Richer was off the coast of South America and Cassini in Europe. Their measurements were within one second of each other and their solar system seems to have been 7% smaller than ours. The ancient astronomers consistently measured a smaller solar sytem with angles. (Angles are one instrument that is not affected by the first principle). The solar system seemes to have grown over the centuries. This is the sort of thing one would expect if matter can change as a relationship.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-16-2005 01:36 AM
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-16-2005 01:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 04-15-2005 8:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 1:44 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 197 (199707)
04-16-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
04-15-2005 10:59 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
doctorbill wrote: Your language is confusing. You frequently talk about a thing changing as a relationship but do not say in relation to what. The word relationship suggests that two or more things are being or acting in a codependent manner. A 'thing' may change in a relationship or in relation to something else, but I have no idea what you mean by a 'thing' changing AS a relationship. Perhaps you can clarify what you are saying?
Differential change is what you refer to. That is change that can be compared to something that does not change WITH IT. Mathematical analysis can only deal with differential change in which something is independent and something else is dependent. They both may change, such as a clock and some motion, but the mathematical analysis relies on the concept of independent variables, something that changes in an independent way with which to compare things.
Fundamental change has no independent variables. Therefore, it is not amenable to mathematical analysis or even experimental local measurements. Hans Reichenback in his important analysis of Einsteinian space-time ===> The Philosophy of Space and Time called this a universal force. Reichenback said that such change cannot be measured since it would affect all of reality. Both the ruler and the thing being measured would be affected equally. He said we must exclude universal forces by definition. He expected that such changes would be exterior to matter - some sort of force.
I am not saying scientists cannot measure. But if the arche that Peter predicted is really false, they could only measure the differential component of change locally. However, we could look back into the past, and see the effects of relational changes because the light from every primordial atom is shifted, and often the dimmest ones are shifted the most.
Paul uses two together-words in Romans 8:22 to illustrate this phthora - fundamental change. It is 1 AM. Running out of time. I suggest you look up those two Greek together-words because they tell a lot about how this change works.
doctorbill wrote: The Bible is not the absolute truth; and Jesus did not say that it is.
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
John 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 04-15-2005 10:59 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 10:24 AM ptolemy has replied
 Message 56 by Monk, posted 04-16-2005 6:00 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 04-16-2005 8:12 PM ptolemy has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 48 of 197 (199738)
04-16-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
04-16-2005 12:41 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Arachnophilia writes:
misleading. everything else is in the water too.
My statement is not misleading. It is incomplete, of course, but it is leading true.
Yes, EVERYTHING IS IN THE WATER.
In fact, according to the Bronze Age concept of universe:
Everything is located in a bubble, within the primeval waters of chaos.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 12:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 5:56 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 49 of 197 (199747)
04-16-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 4:02 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Thank you for attempting to answer my question.
Now, on to my favorite part:
doctrbill writes:
The Bible is not the absolute truth; and Jesus did not say that it is.
ptolemy writes:
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
This is about "the Law," not about "the Bible." Even so, there is a hint that the Law will someday: "pass away."
John 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
As used in the scripture, the expression: "Word of God," refers to The Covenant; and/or He who fulfills the Covenant ("the Word made flesh"). The Bible never calls itself: "The word of God." In fact, the Bible shows no evidence of self-consciousness!
"Scripture" means: something written. "Scripture" does not mean: 'The Bible.' "The scripture" referred to here is a Psalm. Thus, we cannot take this statement of Jesus as if it applied to the entire collection of sacred literature. The Bible as we know it is considerably different from the Bible as Jesus knew it. If we are talking about the Bible as Jesus knew it, then we would have to debate the value of the so called "Apocrypha;" which were included in the Bible of Jesus' day. If we say that "The word of God" can only refer to the Jewish (Hebrew) scriptures then we must throw out the New Testament. [I did say you may not like the answers, didn't I?]
Neither of these verses convincingly confirms your assertion that Jesus calls the Bible absolute truth.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 4:02 AM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 12:58 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 59 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 9:16 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 197 (199760)
04-16-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by doctrbill
04-16-2005 10:24 AM


As long as we are into definitions,Doc....
Jesus...being the Son of God and having existed eternally through whom all things were created, surely would not be swayed by the Apocrypha.(Greek for hidden things) Jesus even told his followers that all things hidden would be revealed.
The Church has been far from perfect throughout the years, but I would much rather trust inspiration from scripture..(written by the Holy Spirit using inspired people) and the other books included in the Canon than from Apostolic Succession and other human inventions of organized religion. It was the Roman Church that strayed from the roots. Even today, they are far more political than they are inspired.
The early authors of the Bible, human though they were, are far better connected to spiritual impartation than are the so called educated theologians of a human institution that claims a direct link to St.Peter. (OK...enough Catholic bashing for now.)
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-16-2005 10:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 10:24 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 1:51 PM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 197 (199763)
04-16-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 2:25 AM


Re: I know you think you're saying something
Thank you for your reply but I don't have any more idea of what you're trying to say now than I had before.
Let's try again. In twenty-five words or less, "What is the First Principle"?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 2:25 AM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 52 of 197 (199765)
04-16-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
04-16-2005 12:58 PM


Re: ... definitions ....
Phatboy writes:
Jesus ... surely would not be swayed by the Apocrypha.
Would not be swayed? What do you mean by that?
You mean he wouldn't read them?
Wouldn't understand them?
Wouldn't utilize them in his ministry?
And why not? Where do you suppose he got the idea for the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man?
I would much rather trust inspiration from scripture..(written by the Holy Spirit using inspired people) and the other books included in the Canon ...
Are you saying that the canon contains books which are not inspired?
If so, then which books are they?
Are you saying that some of the books in the canon are not scripture?
If so, then what do you think the word scripture means?
Are you saying that only the canon is inspired?
If so, then which canon is it?
The Jewish canon? (the only one which existed in Jesus' day)
The Catholic canon? (which includes all the books of the popular Bible in Jesus day)
Or, the Protestant canon? (what remains after butchering the Bible of Jesus day)
apostolic succession and other human inventions of organized religion.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you calling the 'apocrypha' human inventions of organized religion?
Don't you realize that including the New Testament alongside the Law and the Prophets is all about maintaining an apostolic succession?
What other justification would you give for treating the writings of the apostles as if they were absolute truth?
I suspect that you are of the Roman Catholic persuasion, Doc. When are you guys EVER gonna get it right?
I am of the scientific persuasion Phatboy; and it may not yet appear who has currently got it right. Even so, I expect that no one person has ever got it all right.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 12:58 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 2:45 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 197 (199770)
04-16-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by doctrbill
04-16-2005 1:51 PM


Re: ... definitions ....
Doc writes:
Where do you suppose he(Jesus) got the idea for the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man?
You actually think that Jesus needed to read in order to come up with ideas?
Look. My whole sschpiel on all of this is that there are two ways of looking at the wisdom that we are talking about.
1) It was human derived.
2) It was divinely imparted.
As a scientist, I would suppose that you lean towards definition#1. As such, our conversation is over because anything discussed about religion is mere interpretation of many human sources.
I believe that the inspiration of the Bible was divine. Not every word in the Bible, but a large portion of the parables and teaching contained therein.
But lets put the book aside for a moment.
I believe that Jesus was and is God, and as such, was not some mere human rabbi with a complex who read human wisdom and attempted to explain it. Jesus was the very one who inspired the wisdom (through impartation) of the scriptures that He read.
We can discuss what is and is not canoniacal later...I gotta go to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 1:51 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 5:41 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 197 (199779)
04-16-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
04-16-2005 2:45 PM


Let's talk about this for a moment.
Most of the Books we now consider to be Apocryphal were considered as Scriptural at the time Jesus lived and for hundreds of years afterwards. In fact, there were hundreds of books that were considered as divinely inspired and that was part of the problem.
Remember, at the time we are speaking about, reproducing written documents was an arduous task. Everything was copied by hand, checked, and rechecked. A mistake on one page might mean throwing the whole thing out and starting over. In addition, materials, particularly paper or paper substitutes were a very scarce commodity and scribes, nearly as scarce.
The result was a near triage system of resource allocation. Much material was simply dropped from scripture not because it lacked merit, but that the resources available demanded something had to go.
If we look at the final product, the Bible, we find that many, many of the books we now consider apocryphal were in fact quoted in what we today see as the New Testament. I, II and II Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of John and Acts of Peter, the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Life of Adam and Eve (parts one and two) are all referenced in the NT.
We need to remember that more than just Inspiration determined the content of the Bible, there was also the practical demands of time and resources.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 2:45 PM Phat has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 197 (199781)
04-16-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by doctrbill
04-16-2005 9:44 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
In fact, according to the Bronze Age concept of universe:
Everything is located in a bubble, within the primeval waters of chaos.
yes, and this is what we should be discussing. because this is the way the bible describes the universe.
therefor, if can get outside of our atmosphere and not end up breaking glass or being surrounded by water, the bible is wrong. if the earth is round, the bible is wrong. if the earth is not only the center of the universe, but the majority of the universe, the bible is wrong.
we can't pretend that any astronomy done in the last several thousand years lines up with this view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 9:44 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 6:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 56 of 197 (199782)
04-16-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 4:02 AM


ah ah ahhhhhh ....Don't use the"A "word
You're shooting in all directions.
jar writes:
Let's try again. In twenty-five words or less, "What is the First Principle"?
In 25 words or less, but do it without using the word "arche". Can you? Is it possible?
You should answer that question before you begin. Now go play
This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 04-16-2005 04:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 4:02 AM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 57 of 197 (199788)
04-16-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
04-16-2005 5:56 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
... this is what we should be discussing. because this is the way the bible describes the universe.
Quite right.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 5:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 197 (199802)
04-16-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 4:02 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
I'd like to add my voice to the others to please clearly define this First Principle. I think it would help everyone understand what you're trying to say if you could follow these requests while defining it:
  • Please do not use the word arache.
  • Please do not use the phrase "matter changing as a relationship" or any variation along these lines.
  • Please use clear examples.
You might want to reconsider your views on this First Principle of yours. Despite your claims that this principle is fundamental to western science, no one here who's familiar with science has ever heard of it or has any idea what you're talking about.
I gave you what I thought might be the definition of your First Principle in Message 12, and again in Message 25, and you have yet to comment on it. Could you please comment on it this time? Here it is again:
Broadly speaking, it is the assumption that nature is subject to lawlike behavior and therefore that the domain of science and technology includes those phenomena that can be reduced to orderly predictable rules, regulations, and laws.
If this or something close is your first principle then I think we would probably agree that some principle along these lines is fundamental to scientific study.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 4:02 AM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 11:45 PM Percy has replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 197 (199808)
04-16-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by doctrbill
04-16-2005 10:24 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
doctrbill writes:
The Bible is not the absolute truth; and Jesus did not say that it is.
doctrbill writes: Neither of these verses convincingly confirms your assertion that Jesus calls the Bible absolute truth.
We all have many assumptions, but in this age only one first assumption, one arche. These assumptions powerfully control how we think in many areas. That does not mean there is no truth, but assumptions are critical and can lead to blind alleys. As a Christian, I believe God moved men to write His Word, although their character, language and culture was a part of that communication. I try to interpret what it says with normal grammatical / historical principles, but my fundamental faith that it is what it claims to be - is never set aside.
Those who have some other agenda, can also use grammatical / historical principles to explain away what it says in simplicity. This is true even if they have good intentions, such as those who use science to interpret biblical earth-history, but otherwise accept it hermeneutically. Since you state that it is not God’s word, it is natural for you to look for, and find many reasons why it is not the TRUTH. You become the judge of what claims to be the Word of God and chose what you like or don’t like.
For example, you can discard the simplicity of what the text says about astronomy, because it does not fit your first principle. You can say they believed the sky was water or a glass dome, whatever. The problem is, if God breathed it, why would He put myths in His Word? He says He honors His Word above all His Name. It seems pretty important to Him. Your explanations may appeal to you, but they do not fit the whole text, which claims to be the truth. Please note that 2000 years ago the Bible predicted the first principle of the last days - the very way you think. Isn’t that evidence that it really is God’s Word.
quote:
Jesus, who claimed to be THE TRUTH, said in John 17:17: Thy Word is Truth.
If He calls it a firmament, would He be referring to something invisible but hard, a glass ceiling or invisible cosmic ocean, or would He intend for it to be understood simply. I claim there is simple visible, non mathematical evidence that supports the text, but it does not fit our Western culture which was founded upon the elementary ideas of the Greek philosophers.
For example, Elihu says, in Job 38:18, that God is continually hammering out [raqua'] into a thin cloud [shachaq] something dense, hot and strong [chazaq] continuously like molten metal [yatsaq]. The continuous spreading out of the heavens is mentioned twelve times in the Old Testament.
Elihu, who lived in the age of dinosaurs, according to the text, seems to think something dense like molten bronze is continuously being hammered into a thin cloud. The Hubble Deeps were a hundred-hour exposures to detect the dimmest objects. Amazingly this dim vista from long ago fits Elihu’s description. Tiny dense hot objects ejecting as though by hammer blows on molten bronze. They look like tracer bullets curving through the dark sky. Objects that are not so dim, closer in time and space, are more diffuse and galaxies begin to have arms. Sure seems like real objects, that must have been dense in primordial days, are continuously spreading out. This certainly fits the Hebrew text.
Perhaps you are thinking, that is impossible. This man lived after the flood, just a few millennia ago. My standard of truth is the Bible, not science or its arche. What the Bible says about time and astronomy cannot be made to fit our arche, although Christians have tried to make it fit for centuries. A first principle holds the mind like the grip of a vise. To examine and test a first principle is a liberating thing. It allows one to consider the same evidence without the restrictions of Aristotle’s Conjecture.
If people really did see dense objects being beaten out and spreading out in the sky, we would expect that the pagans would also have similar traditions. That does not mean the Bible was a Hebrew version of a myth, but that the pagans explained what their ancestors saw with gods. The Jewish book quotes God as saying He alone continually spreads out the heavens.
quote:
Ovid - Metamorphosis book 1:
Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when straight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:
An arche is not just a minor techicality. It is testable in the real universe. I will make a prediction. If the James Webb space telescope reaches the L2 Lagrangian point and functions as intended, it will detect overwhelming simple visible evidence that colaborates the Hubble Deeps. The ejections - the hammering out - the spreading out of the visible sky will be palin to see. But even then, astronomers will defend their arche and invent something undetectable to explain away what is visibly evident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 10:24 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by doctrbill, posted 04-16-2005 11:22 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 60 of 197 (199815)
04-16-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 9:16 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Ptolemy writes:
... my fundamental faith that it is what it claims to be - is never set aside.
People make claims for the Bible, but The Bible doesn't claim anything for itself.
The Bible doesn't know that the Bible exists.
Since you state that it is not God’s word, it is natural for you to look for, and find many reasons why it is not the TRUTH.
I believe what I said is that the Bible does not claim to be the word of God,
And no one who wrote for the Bible claims the Bible to be the word of God.
I have not set out to prove the Bible wrong. I have set out to detect bullshit; and when I read your posts, my bullshit detector buzzes loudly.
if God breathed it, why would He put myths in His Word?
That's a BIG IF.
But the bit about a solid sky holding back the upper water was not considered myth in those days. It actually passed for science. But the idea that earth is one of the planets was, at that time, considered to be pure fantasy. Note that the Bible never makes that connection for us. I guess God left that little detail to be spelled out by heathens and heretics while God-fearing, Bible believing Christians burned them at the stake.
Your explanations may appeal to you, but they do not fit the whole text which claims to be the truth.
Your explanations clearly appeal to you but do not fit any of the text as far as I can tell. And ... once again ... the Bible makes no claims for itself. Where does the text claim to be truth?
2000 years ago the Bible predicted the first principle of the last days - the very way you think. Isn’t that evidence that it really is God’s Word.
So far, I can't figure out what you are talking about. What is this first principle you are talking about? Try some plain English for a change. What is it that you think I believe?
If He calls it a firmament, would He be referring to something invisible but hard, a glass ceiling or invisible cosmic ocean, or would He intend for it to be understood simply.
A. The invisible dome and primeval sea are simple concepts which seem to fit the evidence.
B. Your projection is complex and unintelligible, like someone describing an Acid trip.
C. If God intended for it to be understood simply, then why do we need the Hubble Telescope to make sense of it?
Elihu, who lived in the age of dinosaurs, according to the text, seems to think something dense like molten bronze is continuously being hammered into ...
My friend, you appear to be lost in space.
db
Edited for spelling
This message has been edited by doctrbill, 04-16-2005 10:27 PM

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 9:16 PM ptolemy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 04-17-2005 5:48 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 04-17-2005 7:29 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024