Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on November 19, 2008, 03:57:47 PM
-
while I normally don't think twice about those stations, I stopped on Nova for awhile. Let's review some of their points.
Monotheism is a very devolped art, Israelites were polytheistic, worshiping Asherah and Baal in addition to Yahweh.
Asherah was Yahweh's wife.
The Israelites were actually rebellious Canaanites.
No mass migration happened out of Egypt, there is no evidence for it, but a few people escaped Egypt, passed through Midian, who worshiped a god very similar to the pronuciation of Yahweh. They then reached the Canaanites and gave them their culture.
The Flood story has 2 stories woven into it. in one paragraph it says 'Noah sent a raven' but later on it says 'Noah sent a dove.' or the number of animals, at one part it says 'two of every kind of animal.' but later '7 of every clean animal, but only 2 of the others.'
Clearly two writers wrote a fictional story, we call them the J source and the E source. E for Elohim, the common name for God in hebrew, he obviously named it after himself. J for Yahweh, which in German is spelled with a J, again, named after the writer. This all happened during King David's reign (who may not have existed). Then (some other letter, I wasn't paying total attention) compiled the story together, during the exile.
I had to laugh at the 'scholars' who didn't back up their statements about J and E.
-
I think PBS is only for Minnesota. (I think) It's Called something else in other places.
-
I think PBS is only for Minnesota. (I think) It's Called something else in other places.
the Public Broadcasting Station is only for MN? It's based out of Iowa!!
-
I think PBS is only for Minnesota. (I think) It's Called something else in other places.
Its PBS here in NV
-
I think PBS is only for Minnesota. (I think) It's Called something else in other places.
Its PBS here in NV
Nvm then. :P
-
I think PBS is only for Minnesota. (I think) It's Called something else in other places.
ur wrong,its CALLED PBS in IL. :P
-
Unfortunately this program seems to be coming to the natural conclusions from the method of Bible interpretation used by most Christian scholars today. The "J" and "E" sources are actually taught in most seminaries in our country, and are just a small part of using textual criticism to determine what parts of the Bible are "really authentic" and can be trusted.
Downgrading the Exodus to a few people leaving Egypt based on lack of historical evidence is just a small part of setting up our own knowledge of historical cultures as a higher authority than scripture itself. This most often shows up when people say that a specific part of the Bible doesn't apply anymore because it was just written for the people back then.
-
It's PBS out here also, though I've heard a couple of other acronyms that seem to fit better than 'Public Broadcasting Station'...
-
Yeah we have PBS here in NY.
-
I had to laugh at the 'scholars' who didn't back up their statements about J and E.
I'd like to help clear this up so it doesn't start any weird phobias of scholarship.
1. Quite a few scholars still think the Exodus happened, even ones that support the multi-source theory. News stations and book publishers need to get viewers, and viewers watch controversial stuff. Nobody is going to watch a documentary titled "UFOs: They Don't Exist" or "The Bible: All the Stories You Learned in Sunday School are True." As such, sit lightly to anything you see in pop culture related to biblical scholarship. It tends to be outside the bounds of convention and proof because that's what excites the imaginations of people without a background in the subject. Just look at how many specials PBS has done on string theory.
As to the multi-source theory, I'll do a little show and tell on how it works (the tell part is going to involve some Hebrew, which is the strongest evidence for the theory but also has to be taken on faith by those who can't read it).
Look first at Genesis 1+2. I'd recommend printing them out from Oremus or Bible Gateway or Crosswalk and getting a highlighter to mark the overlap and distinction between the two passages. There seem actually to be two creation accounts, one from Genesis 1:1-2:4 and one from 2:4-24. Note the different sort of concerns and stylistic differences between the two: in the 1st, God is a spirit which transcends nature, in the second God is imminant and human-like. In the first God creates people "in our image," in the second he makes the adam (man) from the adama (the earth). In the first account, God is very concerned about the holiness of the Sabbath. In the second, he is very concerned about the holiness of Marriage. In the first, God creates humans on the sixth day. In the second, humans are created on the same day as the heavens and the earth. Scholars started to notice patterns like this throughout the Torah, such as noah's flood, where one story is concerned with clean animals and the other is concerned merely with preservation. In the clean animals account, seven pairs of clean animals are brought onboard the ark for the sacrifice afterwards. In the other account, the sacrifice is not mentioned, so there's no need for extra animals.
Several other differences characterize the sources:
1. The presence of archaic language, full of markers like energic “nuns” (an extra letter N on the back of some words, similar to the e in the early modern English "Olde"). If you read a phrase like this in a book:
Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
hat gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
You'd know you were looking at English written between 1230AD and 1490ish AD. The Hebrew is similar.
2. Names of God are different in different sections. Some use the phrase "Lord God" (YHWH Elohim), others use only "God" (Elohim).
3. Some are clearly later. In the same way as the above language was clearly from the 1400's, there is no way you'd read lyrics from Skillet's Better than Drugs and mistake them for a chant written in the 1200's. For example, the fall of Babel is loaded with Aramaic words. There is no way that Moses authored the copy of this text that we have, because Aramaic didn't exist when he was alive.
4. The concerns of different authors are different. Some are very concerned with geneology, some with purity, others with covenants, etc. These, combined with the other factors, gradually allow the text to be devided into different "sources" which are concerned with different things, and write in different ways. While the division isn't perfect, it is good quite a bit of the time. Some scholars have suggested that the Torah comes form hundreds of oral sources compiled by a few writers. This is difficult to prove, but explains some of the problems in reading.
As a final note, there is a huge upshot for Christians from this work: unlike finding Jesus' body buried in a tomb, or believing that the NT was written by a cult in the 300's, this scholarship poses absolutely NO PROBLEMS for orthodox Christian belief. If you can't believe that a group of people can be inspired as easily as one can, than the NT is not inspired, the OT that Jesus and the disciples quote from was not inspired (The LXX) and the canon itself is not inspired. This scholarship simply attempts to treat things like the presence of disjointed accounts which stop and start abruptly, Aramaic words in texts supposedly written 1000+ years before Aramaic, and a bizarre preoccupation with landmarks that would have only been important after the fall of the southern kingdom more seriously.
As to the Exodus itself, hyrogliphs mention a group of sort of hired fighters living in Egypt called the "hea-brah-ous." Whether or not these are the children of Abraham is uncertain.
-Ross
-
...this scholarship poses absolutely NO PROBLEMS for orthodox Christian belief...This scholarship simply attempts to treat things like the presence of disjointed accounts which stop and start abruptly, Aramaic words in texts supposedly written 1000+ years before Aramaic, and a bizarre preoccupation with landmarks that would have only been important after the fall of the southern kingdom more seriously...
I appreciate Ross' defense of the scholarship that he is learning in Seminary, and I think there are some good things that people learn in Seminary. However, I disagree with him that textual criticism poses "no problems for orthodox Christian belief". By "simply attempting to treat things" like he talked about, the common conclusion is that parts of the Bible can be trusted with a simple reading (ie. there was a King David, and he had a son named Solomon), and parts cannot (ie. the flood covered the whole world, Adam was a real person, the world was created in 6 days, etc.).
The problem with all of this is that this perspective puts our human knowledge of ancient cultures and language as judge over what part of scripture can be believed at face value. It also puts the common person (without knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or the cultural traditions of ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and especially Canaan) in a position where they can't really know what to believe when they read the Bible unless a "true scholar" tells them what it means. I think this is not only a very dangerous position for Christians, but is what has naturally led to the extreme conclusions of the shows like were seen on PBS.
-
and parts cannot (ie. the flood covered the whole world, Adam was a real person, the world was created in 6 days, etc.)
That's the assumption for materialists, but not everyone who believes in source theory falls into that category. For example, I don't believe that Moses wrote any part of the bible, except possibly the Cantical of Moses in Exodus, and I still believe there was a Moses, Solomon, David, and that the things they did were just about what the Bible says they did. I will admit that materialism is more rampant among source theorists, but connecting the two is like connecting ID and biblical creationism. Even if they seem connected, you have to take them at their word that they're not, because they needn't be. What I was saying was not that a lot of source theorists are not materialists; I was saying that you don't need to be (I have 30 friends here in a group called PFR, not one of us believes in Mosaic authorship of the Torah but our biblical beliefs are probobly similar to yours). In a nutshell: saying that Moses did not write the Torah does not endanger Christian orthodoxy in any way. The other things you mentioned, obviously, might.
-Ross
-
PBS also here in TN
-
The church's exegetical issues are frequently obscured by a question of need. For most people, even today, the verdict of Church vs. Galileo is unimportant. For the vast majority of people, it poses no obstacle to believe that Moses wrote the Torah, so if it becomes a stumbling block to your faith, don't worry about it. For Serious OT scholars, this stuff is what enables them to chart the dates in your study bibles, line the stories up with archeology, and get a clearer picture of how the story relates to the activity of God's people in the world. I'm not neo-orthodox or tensive enough to believe that the bible and Christian doctrine must be accepted completely blind, with no attempt to support it's claims or show it's truth through other mediums. Some people, perhaps like Underwood, could continue to be Christians if the body of Christ was found moldering away in a tomb in Jerusalem. I can't, because my faith is based on truth, not a "leap of faith," so I continue to find the scholarship valuable (FYI, the first time I heard about this theory was from an Orthodox Rabbi in college, not at Seminary).
-Ross
-
...I still believe there was a Moses, Solomon, David, and that the things they did were just about what the Bible says they did...not one of us believes in Mosaic authorship of the Torah but our biblical beliefs are probobly similar to yours)...
This is exactly the danger that I am talking about. The type of interpretation of the Bible currently taught in most seminaries and Bible schools leads people to think that the Bible is "just about" right, and to come to conclusions that are "probably similar" to what the Bible simply says. The problem is that this is a very unstable foundation for the authority of scripture. And given enough time and secular input, too many of these Christian scholars get sucked into false teachings. The knowledge of man makes them "puffed up" and they become blinded to the wisdom of God which he has revealed plainly in His Word so that people can come to Him with a child-like faith.
I have a life-long friend, who spent most of the last decade pastoring in 3 different churches. God used him in all 3 of them to bring glory to God and minister to the people there. He has been my closest friend besides Jesus and my wife for the last 20 years, and I am convinced ot the profound faith that he once had. He also said to me many a time that his "faith was based on truth". But in the last year, he has abandoned all trace of Biblical authority, orthodox Christian belief, and the Bride of Christ. I can clearly trace this downfall in his life to the teachings that he learned first at a Christian seminary, and then at a secular post-graduate program.
Ross you are in the first steps of a most dangerous journey. It is much like the dangerous currents in the ocean. You can't feel them when you are wading ankle deep in the water, and by the time you feel them it is often too late. That is why they put buoys there to warn people to stay away. I hope that you take my words as I intend them as a warning motivated by my love for you as a Christian brother. Consider me a buoy :)
-
I'm curious. Do seminaries even teach anything from Proverbs? Or do they believe that Solomon wasn't real so there is no need to?
"Solomon has limited proof of existence, because they can't search for archological evidence under the Dome of the Rock." PBS
-
The church's exegetical issues are frequently obscured by a question of need. For most people, even today, the verdict of Church vs. Galileo is unimportant. For the vast majority of people, it poses no obstacle to believe that Moses wrote the Torah, so if it becomes a stumbling block to your faith, don't worry about it. For Serious OT scholars, this stuff is what enables them to chart the dates in your study bibles, line the stories up with archeology, and get a clearer picture of how the story relates to the activity of God's people in the world. I'm not neo-orthodox or tensive enough to believe that the bible and Christian doctrine must be accepted completely blind, with no attempt to support it's claims or show it's truth through other mediums. Some people, perhaps like Underwood, could continue to be Christians if the body of Christ was found moldering away in a tomb in Jerusalem. I can't, because my faith is based on truth, not a "leap of faith," so I continue to find the scholarship valuable (FYI, the first time I heard about this theory was from an Orthodox Rabbi in college, not at Seminary).
-Ross
Be carefull, Ross. You are saying that Mark is just accepting the Bible cause it's the Bible, and not using intellect? Let's not get personal here. He is trying to contribute what he knows and believes in his experiences, trying to help you. What you are doing is how flame wars start. And I agree with you to an extent. We should challenge the Bible, cause it IS true, and can stand up to the scrutiny and investigation of us people. However, don't not believe something in the Bible just cause you can't prove it.
-
The problem is that this is a very unstable foundation for the authority of scripture. And given enough time and secular input, too many of these Christian scholars get sucked into false teachings.
I appreciate your concern. I've certainly had to filter some things since I've been here. However, this was a pre-seminary position, and one which is unlikely to change given what I've studied. Consider that inerrancy is not necessary to have authority. The church has always taught this, except in a small pocket America for the last 120 years or so. The inerrancy movement really started with B.B. Warfield's Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (which I have on my shelf) in the 1880's. Before that, the word of God was considered to be more malliable in the hands of observation, reason, and interpritation. Maybe the last 1800 years of Christians had it all wrong, but given their tremendous input to the faith as a whole, I sort of doubt it.
That said, the document is authoritative. Passages are not for throw-away because of culture or disbeleif, unless firm evidence is mounted against a literal reading (i.e., Israel enters into a battle in which 1,800,000 are killed, or more than the US fatalities in WWII, WWI, and the Civil War on both sides combined). I agree that all scripture is God breathed. I support the teaching of all passages, no matter how challenging. It's just that I have to look at what's in front of me too, science and the physical as well as the bible and faith. Inerancy can easily sublimate in the the Docetic heresy if this stance is not observed.
-Ross
-
Saying that the Bible wasn't considered inerrant until the 1800's is not really a fair assessment. For the first 1500 years after Jesus, most people didn't even have a Bible (due to a lack of the printing press), and even if they had one they couldn't have read it (due to illiteracy). Therefore, the Word of God was simply whatever the local priest told you it said (or a special edict from the Pope that perhaps got declared around your village). But whatever the priest or Pope said was considered inerrant, so in a sense it was really the same thing.
Besides that, it wasn't really a big deal until the 1800's. Up until that point, virtually everyone believed that the things that the Bible said were literally true anyway (6 day creation, world-wide flood, Adam being a real person, etc.) So there was no need to make a big deal about inerrancy of scripture. But in the 1800's was when the theory of evolution began to contradict the idea of a young Earth, and people started to question a lot of what was in the Bible. Therefore, people started to actually write books about what had before just been assumed.
It is similar to America today where everyone seems to be in a rush to add a definition of marriage to their state constitutions. The founding fathers of our country didn't bother with that because they just assumed that everyone knew that it was between a man and a woman. They wouldn't have imagined our current state on that issue. But it would be incorrect to say that the idea that marriage was just between a man and a woman is a new idea that only started popping up in the beginning of the 21st century. I hope you see the similarity here.
-
The first part of what you said I don't think is true, because the priests themselves didn't consider the scripture to be flawless. This tradition goes straight back to the apostles. Consider what it would mean for Paul, writing 1+2 Thessalonians about 25 years before the Gospel of Mark, to say "cling to Christ, not to the law." When that letter was read out in an assembly, it would be the same as saying: "Don't listen to the scriptures (OT). Listen to me and the Gospel I have." Church fathers picked up on this to a lesser degree; doctrines of fall, angelic rebellion, hell, resurrection, etc. all involve heavy interpolation.
As for the rest of your argument, I agree, but I think that the ancient position was closer to reverence than current inerrancy. In the modern evangelical view, the text rules everything, and almost becomes the priestly mediator between the Christian and God (hence the Docitism). There have actually been really comprehensive studies done on how Warfieldian inerrancy (the kind that evangelicals believe in now) is something never before seen in theology. It's true that most people until the time of Darwin took the facets of the bible for granted, but even as early as 250-350AD, Origin would call the notion that all the animals in the world boarded the Ark "absurd" (along with huge sections of Levitical law, oddly enough) and Turtullian would admit that some of the Israelites spectacular victories were beyond belief.
Again, I don't think opinion is enough to say this, but only when something is clearly an exaggeration (the 1.8mil killed) or clearly a perspectival view (Sun standing still). Otherwise, it should be considered at face value if at all possible.
-Ross
-
Again, I don't think opinion is enough to say this, but only when something is clearly an exaduration (the 1.8mil killed) or clearly a perspectival view (Sun standing still). Otherwise, it should be considered at face value if at all possible.
I'm going to assume that you meant exaggeration there and not using some technical word that I'm not familiar with. The problem with this perspective is that it once again is a shaky foundation for believing the Bible. Feeding 5000 men (plus additional women and children) with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish seems like an exaggeration to common sense. Plus how long would it take to simply break a loaf into pieces to feed that many people. So do we throw that out too and say like some Bible scholars that what really happened is that Jesus inspired the people to all share the food that they brought and so everyone had enough to eat.
What about turning water into wine? That goes against basic atomic theory. What about creating the universe out of nothing? That goes against the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. What about Jesus coming back to life after being dead for a few days? That clearly goes against well established medical knowledge. Perhaps his resurrection was simply a metaphor for how he still lived in the hearts and minds of his followers.
You see it is a short trip from where you are already, to being at a place where even the fundamental truths about Christianity become suspect, and subject to the knowledge of man (in this case Ross and whichever experts he happens to agree with on that issue at that time). Do you not see the danger here?
-
You see it is a short trip from where you are already, to being at a place where even the fundamental truths about Christianity become suspect, and subject to the knowledge of man.
Every truth which is not established by the power of the Holy Spirit working faith in us is under the knowledge of man. What you've done is placed all the authority on the interpritation of a written physical document, thereby making all faith subject to the opinion of man. God is not inside the bible. God is not the bible. Reading and knowing the bible does not save you. Reading and knowing the bible does not mean you know God. If the Holy Spirit is not at work, being able to recite the entire text in the original Greek and Hebrew is worthless.
I'm determined to take the bible at it's word: if it claims something as a miracle (look for contextual clues: is nature clearly subverted, is God's presence clearly noted, are people astonished?) then I'll believe it as such. However this was simply two very... small... nations which got together and managed to inflict more casualties than three brutal conflicts in the modern period. It wasn't supposed to be a miracle. It was supposed to be a fact. My thought is that, given that there was probably no official body-count, and that Middle Eastern civilizations had a tendency to excaudate carnage and devastation following a victory, a million Ethiopians killed probably means a heck of a lot, but is not meant to show that Israel and Ethiopia miraculously mobilized 50% of their populations based on archaeology to fight this battle.
-Ross
-
If the Holy Spirit is not at work, being able to recite the entire text in the original Greek and Hebrew is worthless.
I agree that we need the Holy Spirit involved in the process of reading and understanding God's Word.
I'm determined to take the bible at it's word: if it claims something as a miracle...My thought is...
Don't you see that you are putting conditions on the accuracy of the Bible? You'll take it at its word "if" it makes sense to you. And making sense to you currently means that the Bible clearly indicates that it is being miraculous. But what if later on your criteria for what makes sense changes? I think the key to your perspective is the words, "my thought is". The real authority in your paradigm is your own brain. You get to decide what the Bible really means, and what part is really true, and what part doesn't really mean what it seems to say. Granted you have a lot of good education that helps you make those decisions, but at the end of the day, it still all rests on you.
This is a very dangerous position to hold. Your thoughts will change a lot over the course of your lifetime. Your feelings will cause you to naturally want to see things very differently at different times. If you are the arbiter of truth, then truth becomes simply too relative. I know because I have seen it in other people, and I have even been there myself when I was younger. Minds like yours and mine are capable of extreme powers of rationalization. I have found that it is only in limiting myself by taking the Bible at it's word without any conditions that we are able to have a foundation of our faith that will not change.
-
That's a good point. In an ideal world the gap between authority and inerrancy would be farely small, and operate on universally comprehendible logic. My baseline is essentially this: Was Galileo right to say that the literal reading of Joshua was in error? I try to make sure that every facet of scripture that I seek an allegorical explanation for is under the same sort of pressure from science or archaeology and does not evidence any special outpouring of God's creative power (I do believe that God kept the daylight for Joshua, but I disbelieve the incidental implication that the sun revolves around the earth). What keeps me in check is the resurrection: Paul says that if we don't believe this miracle our faith is in vain. I agree. The Resurrection is the most potent miracle Christ performed. If that serves as the starting point, I can't reject any of his other miracles, because then I would be saying that he had not the power, which would ultimately call into question whether or not he had the power to save all humanity. In that respect, you make a good point: a lot of people, even a lot of divinity school and seminary professors, haven't thought through the implication of post prophecy biblical dating (God is powerful enough to be God, but not to know the future) and of materialistic interpretation of miracles (God is powerful enough to rise from the dead and save sinners, but not to stop a woman from bleeding. It's a dangerous path, but because of the Galileo incident, and the witness of the Church fathers and reformation theologians, I simply cannot hold that the bible is without error in its literal reading. It's not a matter of what I think; it's a matter of what is testable as a fact. I still believe that God's miraculous power can overturn natural order, but if the passage at hand indicates the biases or limited perspective of a person living on earth 3,000 years go, then it is right to gloss its literal meaning for something else.
As an aside, what do you think of the book The Case for Christ, or of apologetics in general. Do you think that people should try and confirm with logic and science the things of scripture, or that this is an affront tothe trust we're supposed to have in scripture?
-Ross
-
...because of the Galileo incident, and the witness of the Church fathers and reformation theologians, I simply cannot hold that the bible is without error in its literal reading. It's not a matter of what I think; it's a matter of what is testable as a fact...
Actually, Galileo was wrong. His understanding that the Earth only revolves around the sun, and not the other way around is outdated science. Jump forward a couple hundred years to Einstein and his theory of relativity. There is no set point of orientation in space. If a person was flying in a space ship to Earth and there ship was aligned with our brothers and sisters in Australia, then they would think that the South Pole was on the top of our planet. It is equally correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun as it is to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
The reason why we think that Europe is up and Africa is down is because the people in power drew the maps with them on top. The reason why our maps of the solar system put the sun in the middle is because drawing all the other orbits around the Earth would be way more complicated (with all the epicycles) than the relatively simple picture of the sun with everything going around it in something close to concentric circles. Saying that the Earth revolves around the sun is simply convention due to convenience.
I still believe that God's miraculous power can overturn natural order, but if the passage at hand indicates the biases or limited perspective of a person living on earth 3,000 years go, then it is right to gloss its literal meaning for something else.
Once again you have the conditional "but" statement. And if the Bible really is God's Word, then the passages in it would be coming from the only person in the universe who does NOT have a biased or limited perspective. It is we who have the biases and limits. So once again, should we trust what the Bible says, or what makes sense to us?
As an aside, what do you think of the book The Case for Christ, or of apologetics in general. Do you think that people should try and confirm with logic and science the things of scripture, or that this is an affront tothe trust we're supposed to have in scripture?
I have no problem with apologetics in its true sense. But the question is what is the postulate and what is the theorem. Do we assume the Bible is true and then try to use science and logic to "confirm" it, so that non-believers see that Christianity does have some evidence behind it as well as faith? Or do we assume that science and logic are true and then try to investigate what the Bible says so that we can figure out which parts of it are right and that we should listen to?
-
So... the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? :scratch: "All that you know is at an end." ~silver surfer
-
So... the earth doesn't revolve around the sun?
No, it does revolve around the sun. But the sun revolves around the Earth as well. Both statements are equally valid according to the theory of relativity.
-
Not really... I'm pretty sure that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Obviously, as a teacher and an adult you will probably be able to argue a lot better than I can, but... it seems that the earth only appears to have the sun around it. But in reality the earth IS revolving around the sun. Or "everything I know is at an end."
-
So... the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? :scratch: "All that you know is at an end." ~silver surfer
The sun revolves around Africa. You're not paying attention. ;)
-
Not really...
Really.
The relationship between the Sun and the Earth is simply one of 2 objects that are going around each other in a regular pattern due to the gravitational force between them and the speed that they are traveling. The formula for this force of gravity that holds us together is:
F=G (m1 * m2) / d^2. In that formula, the mass of the Earth could be m1 and the mass of the Sun could be m2. Or the mass of the Earth could be m2 and the mass of the Sun could be m1. It doesn't matter. You get the same answer both ways. Both are equally right.
-
They are both moving, yes, at the speed of light within the milky way. But the revolution happens because of a pull of the earth on the sun. In fact, IF the sun were to be pulled in by the earth's gravitional pull, then we would all be dead in the sun. It's because the earth DOESN"T pull the sun, and actually pushes it aside, that we are moving in the motion we are.
-
They are both moving, yes, at the speed of light within the milky way. But the revolution happens because of a pull of the earth on the sun. In fact, IF the sun were to be pulled in by the earth's gravitional pull, then we would all be dead in the sun. It's because the earth DOESN"T pull the sun, and actually pushes it aside, that we are moving in the motion we are.
Wow, so much confusion in such a short post. I'll assume that you haven't taken Physics yet and cut you some slack. However, here are several points.
1) The Earth is not moving at the speed of light.
2) The Sun is not moving at the speed of light (other than the light that is coming out of it).
3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if the Sun pulls on the Earth, then the Earth pulls on the Sun.
4) The Earth doesn't push the sun aside.
5) The reason why we don't crash into the Sun is because our tangential motion is at a high enough speed, that the curvature of our orbit is stable. Put more simply, we are moving in a straight line away from the Sun fast enough that it cancels the amount that the Sun is pulling us closer. Similarly, the Sun is moving away from us fast enough that it cancels the amount that the Earth is pulling it closer.
-
3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if the Sun pulls on the Earth, then the Earth pulls on the Sun.
Another example: Prof Underwood's theories push away Ross. Ross's theories push away Prof Underwood. That is why there is harmony on the boards (according to Einstein anyway).
-
Another example: Prof Underwood's theories push away Ross. Ross's theories push away Prof Underwood.
Actually, my hope is that this thread will pull Ross and I closer together. I have had a lot of respect for Ross ever since I joined this forum, and that continues to be the case. It also won't change regardless of whether we end up coming to consensus on this one issue, or whether we end up agreeing to disagree :)
-
1) The Earth is not moving at the speed of light.
2) The Sun is not moving at the speed of light (other than the light that is coming out of it).
3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if the Sun pulls on the Earth, then the Earth pulls on the Sun.
4) The Earth doesn't push the sun aside.
5) The reason why we don't crash into the Sun is because our tangential motion is at a high enough speed, that the curvature of our orbit is stable. Put more simply, we are moving in a straight line away from the Sun fast enough that it cancels the amount that the Sun is pulling us closer. Similarly, the Sun is moving away from us fast enough that it cancels the amount that the Earth is pulling it closer.
It's all angels pushing the earth through the heavens. :)
Mark, a mere five hundred years or so ago, you would have stood at risk of being burned at the stake for daring to suggest that the Earth moves at all, much less revolves around the sun. For the first millenia and a half the geocentric theory was considered orthodox Christianity.
Does it cause you any pause to realize that in the 1400's your claims above would have been met with the same advice you are giving Ross today?
-
equal and OPPOSITE reaction. So wouldn't that mean that if the sun pulls on the earth, then the oppostie reaction would be for the earth to PUSH on the sun? Wouldn't that be opposite. Once again, I know that you are right, I am just trying to understand it more. I didn't know that.
-
Does it cause you any pause to realize that in the 1400's your claims above would have been met with the same advice you are giving Ross today?
I don't think so. In the 1400's they would have told me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I could have said (even knowing what science has taught us 600 years later) that I believed that it did. To avoid being burned alive, I might have avoided mentioning that the Earth also revolves around the Sun. But contrary to Ross' position, I don't think that accurate science will end up proving anything in the Bible wrong.
equal and OPPOSITE reaction. So wouldn't that mean that if the sun pulls on the earth, then the oppostie reaction would be for the earth to PUSH on the sun?
In this case "opposite" is only referring to direction. In other words, the Sun (which we'll call on the left) pulls the Earth to the left. And the Earth (which would therefore be on the right) pulls the Sun to the right). The force of gravity between them is equal, but it is in opposite directions.
-
I don't think so. In the 1400's they would have told me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I could have said (even knowing what science has taught us 600 years later) that I believed that it did. To avoid being burned alive, I might have avoided mentioning that the Earth also revolves around the Sun.
The Papal Condemnation of Galileo makes clear what the heresy is--"[proclaiming] that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world." Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?
But contrary to Ross' position, I don't think that accurate science will end up proving anything in the Bible wrong.
The reason the heliocentric theory was such an issue was precisely because the church did hold that the heliocentric theory (accurate science) would prove the Bible wrong.
In 1615 Cardinal Bellarmine, the Master of Controversial Questions, wrote (emphasis mine)...
But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.
Cite (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html)
In 1616 the Catholic church convened a council of theologians, known as The Qualifiers, to render a verdict on the heliocentric model. They wrote (emphasis mine),
All said that this proposition [Copernicanism--mjb] is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.
Cite (http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport)
It is important to note how the two were harmonized in this case. The reason this isn't an issue for us today is not because the underlying science has changed. We no longer feel the heliocentric model contradicts Scripture because faulty interpretations of Scripture--interpretations universally held for the majority of church history--were replaced.
So let me rephrase my question... Does the fact that there are well known historical examples where the christian church erroneously denounced accurate science on the basis that it proved Scripture false cause you any pause in making the same argument to Ross in the present?
-
Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?
Viewed from the arbitrary spatial perspective of a particular spot on the Earth's surface, the Sun does revolve around the Earth once per day. Of course if I was answering that question in front of a papal inquiry, I would probably shorten my answer to "yes" :)
The reason the heliocentric theory was such an issue was precisely because the church did hold that the heliocentric theory (accurate science) would prove the Bible wrong.
You are right that the church was afraid that accurate science would prove the Bible wrong. However, this fear was misplaced. It was only the incomplete scientific perspective of Copernicus and Galileo which indicated that the Bible was wrong. It was the accurate science of Einstein (who wasn't even a Christian), which ended up confirming that the Bible had been right all along.
Does the fact that there are well known historical examples where the christian church erroneously denounced accurate science on the basis that it proved Scripture false cause you any pause in making the same argument to Ross in the present?
Well since the Galileo example is not an example of "accurate science", I'm not sure which historical example you are referring to. And since I don't know of any "accurate science" that proves Scripture false, I would have to answer your question "not yet" :)
-
Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?
Viewed from the arbitrary spatial perspective of a particular spot on the Earth's surface, the Sun does revolve around the Earth once per day. Of course if I was answering that question in front of a papal inquiry, I would probably shorten my answer to "yes" :)
Nice try with that. (Seriously, it's a nice try.) I agree that one can invoke general relativity and answer as you have. It only creates more problems for you later, however. To whit...
The same theory of general relativity that you are invoking above states that there are no privileged reference frames. In fact GR won't work if there are privileged reference frames. How do you think that bit of news is going to go over in your meetings with the inquisitors? In particular this means that it is equally true that the Earth revolves around the sun once per year and rotates about it's axis once per day--in fact the math works out a whole lot easier that way. Unfortunately, the church holds that it contrary to Scripture to believe that the Earth moves as described.
In the end it wouldn't matter how much you increase the accuracy of your scientific explanation. You will still run into the same issue, which is that for the first sixteen centuries of the church accurate science would have been viewed as contradicting Scripture. This occurs precisely because up until that time the orthodox interpretation of Scriptures were built assuming a Ptolemaic worldview, and the Ptolemaic theory was inaccurate science.
Are our current interpretations of Scripture such that we don't need to worry about this same issue? I'm not so sure of that, and to make matter worse I don't know how I can find out one way or another.
-
In the end it wouldn't matter how much you increase the accuracy of your scientific explanation. You will still run into the same issue, which is that for the first sixteen centuries of the church accurate science would have been viewed as contradicting Scripture. This occurs precisely because up until that time the orthodox interpretation of Scriptures were built assuming a Ptolemaic worldview, and the Ptolemaic theory was inaccurate science.
Sorry for taking forever to respond to this thread, but I forgot about it.
I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview. However, that is ok. Ptolemy wasn't wrong. The sun does revolve around the Earth. He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.
This is true about many things in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all truth. For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there. However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.
-
Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?
Viewed from the arbitrary spatial perspective of a particular spot on the Earth's surface, the Sun does revolve around the Earth once per day. Of course if I was answering that question in front of a papal inquiry, I would probably shorten my answer to "yes" :)
I actually came to that same conclusion not to long ago.
In the end it wouldn't matter how much you increase the accuracy of your scientific explanation. You will still run into the same issue, which is that for the first sixteen centuries of the church accurate science would have been viewed as contradicting Scripture. This occurs precisely because up until that time the orthodox interpretation of Scriptures were built assuming a Ptolemaic worldview, and the Ptolemaic theory was inaccurate science.
Sorry for taking forever to respond to this thread, but I forgot about it.
I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview. However, that is ok. Ptolemy wasn't wrong. The sun does revolve around the Earth. He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.
This is true about many things in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all truth. For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there. However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.
So if they [these truths] philologically were proved wrong, what would you say then (as you discourage people from reading into the Greek)?
-
I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview. However, that is ok. Ptolemy wasn't wrong.
Ptolemy was wrong. I can give you any number of quite specific examples that show Ptolemy was wrong. The simplest is looking at the rate meteors hit the Earth. If you actually do the observation, you will notice that the number of meteors striking the Earth increase as we get toward morning. That is because the Earth revolves around the sun and is moving into the meteors once we pass midnight. Ptolemy, using his theory argued that the rate would be constant.
The fact that we can invoke Einstein's theory of General Relativity and provide a framework for discussing non-inertial reference frames to come up with a rotating universe with the Earth at the center, does not miraculously mean that Ptolemy was correct.
The sun does revolve around the Earth. He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.
True. It was the fact that his theory made predictions that stand in contradiction to what is observed that makes the information that Ptolemy believed wrong. It's also beside the point, because the early church held--based on Scripture--that the Earth did not move. So after all your arguments, your theory would have been labeled as heresy--the same as the Copernican theory.
Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here. This is similar to the types of arguments I am most familiar with the all-roads-lead-to-the-top-of-the-mountain unitarian new agers. "Well, see both the Koran and the Bible mention Jesus, so they're equivalent. In fact I find that Jesus shares a number of characteristics with the Buddha..." Cruddy metaphysics is cruddy metaphysics whether applied to theology or natural philosophy.
-
I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview. However, that is ok. Ptolemy wasn't wrong.
Ptolemy was wrong. I can give you any number of quite specific examples that show Ptolemy was wrong. The simplest is looking at the rate meteors hit the Earth. If you actually do the observation, you will notice that the number of meteors striking the Earth increase as we get toward morning. That is because the Earth revolves around the sun and is moving into the meteors once we pass midnight. Ptolemy, using his theory argued that the rate would be constant.
The fact that we can invoke Einstein's theory of General Relativity and provide a framework for discussing non-inertial reference frames to come up with a rotating universe with the Earth at the center, does not miraculously mean that Ptolemy was correct.
The sun does revolve around the Earth. He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.
True. It was the fact that his theory made predictions that stand in contradiction to what is observed that makes the information that Ptolemy believed wrong. It's also beside the point, because the early church held--based on Scripture--that the Earth did not move. So after all your arguments, your theory would have been labeled as heresy--the same as the Copernican theory.
Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here. This is similar to the types of arguments I am most familiar with the all-roads-lead-to-the-top-of-the-mountain unitarian new agers. "Well, see both the Koran and the Bible mention Jesus, so they're equivalent. In fact I find that Jesus shares a number of characteristics with the Buddha..." Cruddy metaphysics is cruddy metaphysics whether applied to theology or natural philosophy.
Well, my argument would be, why do we measure movement relative to the sun rather than relative to the earth (where we dwell)? I mean, do we not want the aliens to look at us with scorn for being egocentric or something?
As for the Buddha thing, I actually believe Buddha was a John the Baptist of sorts to the east as Socrates was to the west and how (arguably) Kierkegaard and Nieztsche were to modernity. I'm not going to go so far on this to adopt some kind of Hegelian mysticism, however, (in an ironically Hegelian fashion), truth comes from the clashing of thesis to anti-thesis, producing synthesis. Everyone has perspectives and they all are relative. It is in the clashing of these perspectives that we find ultimate truth.
Copernicus and Galileo had perspectives on how the world worked. The Manachees and the Catholic had perspectives on how Christianity worked. The Platonists and the Aristotlians had perspectives on whether thoughts or actions were of more value. The Calvinists and Arminians, the holyness and the grace, the Catholics and the protestants; need I continue?
Not just one is completely right, it is a synthesis.
There are things that can be synthesised even from Scientology; even in folly is truth to be learned.
-
This is true about many things in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all truth. For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there. However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.
So if they [these truths] philologically were proved wrong, what would you say then (as you discourage people from reading into the Greek)?
I don't think that any of the truths in the Bible have ever been proven wrong, or ever will be. So until that happens, this question is moot to me.
Ptolemy was wrong.
He may have been wrong about predicting the number of meteors hitting the Earth, but he wasn't wrong that the sun revolves around the Earth. And since the Bible doesn't say anything about meteors hitting the Earth, that part of Ptolemy's thinking is irrelevant to this discussion. I am just saying that the perspective of the universe that is described in the Bible is scientifically accurate.
Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here.
This brings up a good point. I support the theory of relativity with regards to spatial location because there is no absolute reference point in space that can be defined. I do not support relativity with regards to religion or morality because there is an absolute reference point that is God. God says that some things are right and others are wrong. He says that some ways are effective at building a right relationship with Him and that all other ways are not effective.
Relativity in space is very different from relativity in religion.
-
This is true about many things in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all truth. For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there. However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.
So if they [these truths] philologically were proved wrong, what would you say then (as you discourage people from reading into the Greek)?
I don't think that any of the truths in the Bible have ever been proven wrong, or ever will be. So until that happens, this question is moot to me.
There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.
Ptolemy was wrong.
He may have been wrong about predicting the number of meteors hitting the Earth, but he wasn't wrong that the sun revolves around the Earth. And since the Bible doesn't say anything about meteors hitting the Earth, that part of Ptolemy's thinking is irrelevant to this discussion. I am just saying that the perspective of the universe that is described in the Bible is scientifically accurate.
Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here.
This brings up a good point. I support the theory of relativity with regards to spatial location because there is no absolute reference point in space that can be defined. I do not support relativity with regards to religion or morality because there is an absolute reference point that is God. God says that some things are right and others are wrong. He says that some ways are effective at building a right relationship with Him and that all other ways are not effective.
Relativity in space is very different from relativity in religion.
[/quote]
However, both morality and religion are subjective to perspective.
-
There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.
I disagree with your calling this a "mistranslation". The people who translated Elohim in this case as angels, probably had a good reason for it. "Typically" meaning God is different than "always" meaning God. And besides that I believe that God protects the accuracy of his Word. Therefore, if the Bible says we are created a little lower than the angels, then we are created a little lower than the angels. We are also lower than God of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't be lower than the angels as well (at least in some respects). If nothing else, they can fly and hold onto flaming swords. I certainly can't do that :)
However, both morality and religion are subjective to perspective.
I disagree. We may each have our own perspective about morality and religion. But there is a perspective that right, and it is God's. We should try to align our perspective with his as much as possible.
-
There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.
I disagree with your calling this a "mistranslation". The people who translated Elohim in this case as angels, probably had a good reason for it. "Typically" meaning God is different than "always" meaning God. And besides that I believe that God protects the accuracy of his Word. Therefore, if the Bible says we are created a little lower than the angels, then we are created a little lower than the angels. We are also lower than God of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't be lower than the angels as well (at least in some respects). If nothing else, they can fly and hold onto flaming swords. I certainly can't do that :)
So you're going to call into question the validity of the original Hebrew to defend the English? That's pretty elitist. God must love the English and hate the Ethiopian orthodox, Catholic, and every Bible in any other language besides English because they have different books and/or translations.
However, both morality and religion are subjective to perspective.
I disagree. We may each have our own perspective about morality and religion. But there is a perspective that right, and it is God's. We should try to align our perspective with his as much as possible.
But God's is not a perspective, it is the truth. All perspectives are based off that truth in varying degrees.
-
So you're going to call into question the validity of the original Hebrew to defend the English? That's pretty elitist. God must love the English and hate the Ethiopian orthodox, Catholic, and every Bible in any other language besides English because they have different books and/or translations.
On the contrary, I believe that God has protected the accuracy of His Word as it has been translated into their languages as well.
But God's is not a perspective, it is the truth. All perspectives are based off that truth in varying degrees.
Then morality and religion are are not subject to perspectives. There is a true religion and a true morality. Your person view of those things may be subject to your biases and perspectives, but that doesn't mean that morality as a whole is subject to them.
-
There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.
Could you please quote that passage? Because the Bible says that the angels are envious of us. I believe we are actually above the angels. A reference would be great.
-
Ptolemy was wrong.
He may have been wrong about predicting the number of meteors hitting the Earth, but he wasn't wrong that the sun revolves around the Earth.
The one is a mathematical consequence of the other. If Ptolemy's theory of celestial mechanics were correct, the rate of meteor fall would be constant. The fact that it is not constant disproves Ptolemy's theory, in a scientific sense.
And since the Bible doesn't say anything about meteors hitting the Earth, that part of Ptolemy's thinking is irrelevant to this discussion.
So, just to be clear, your argument is that the Bible does say that the Earth is the fixed center of the universe with the Sun revolving around it. And in at least some of those places Scripture is making a specific statement of scientific fact. Can you point out those passages that you feel argue the strongest for your geo-stationary theory?
-
Ptolemy was wrong.
He may have been wrong about predicting the number of meteors hitting the Earth, but he wasn't wrong that the sun revolves around the Earth.
The one is a mathematical consequence of the other. If Ptolemy's theory of celestial mechanics were correct, the rate of meteor fall would be constant. The fact that it is not constant disproves Ptolemy's theory, in a scientific sense.
And since the Bible doesn't say anything about meteors hitting the Earth, that part of Ptolemy's thinking is irrelevant to this discussion.
So, just to be clear, your argument is that the Bible does say that the Earth is the fixed center of the universe with the Sun revolving around it. And in at least some of those places Scripture is making a specific statement of scientific fact. Can you point out those passages that you feel argue the strongest for your geo-stationary theory?
By the way, never get sworn into office outside.
So you're going to call into question the validity of the original Hebrew to defend the English? That's pretty elitist. God must love the English and hate the Ethiopian orthodox, Catholic, and every Bible in any other language besides English because they have different books and/or translations.
On the contrary, I believe that God has protected the accuracy of His Word as it has been translated into their languages as well.
Belief is irrelevant and naive (with all due respect).
But God's is not a perspective, it is the truth. All perspectives are based off that truth in varying degrees.
Then morality and religion are are not subject to perspectives. There is a true religion and a true morality. Your person view of those things may be subject to your biases and perspectives, but that doesn't mean that morality as a whole is subject to them.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Please prove your logos, as I said, belief is irrelevant.
-
The one is a mathematical consequence of the other. If Ptolemy's theory of celestial mechanics were correct, the rate of meteor fall would be constant. The fact that it is not constant disproves Ptolemy's theory, in a scientific sense.
I would have to look into this more to be able to speak with authority on the subject. However, my gut says that this is wrong. It doesn't even make sense that the Earth is hit by more meteors in the morning. Morning here in America is evening on the other side of the world.
So, just to be clear, your argument is that the Bible does say that the Earth is the fixed center of the universe with the Sun revolving around it. And in at least some of those places Scripture is making a specific statement of scientific fact. Can you point out those passages that you feel argue the strongest for your geo-stationary theory?
I am not necessarily arguing that the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I am saying that people interpreted it that way for hundreds of years, and that scientifically there is support for that perspective. I also believe that the Earth revolves around the sun, and I think there is scientific support for that perspective. It is also worth noting that none of this is "my" theory. I am merely going based on Einstein's theory of relativity.
-
But God's is not a perspective, it is the truth. All perspectives are based off that truth in varying degrees.
Then morality and religion are are not subject to perspectives. There is a true religion and a true morality. Your person view of those things may be subject to your biases and perspectives, but that doesn't mean that morality as a whole is subject to them.
Please prove your logos, as I said, belief is irrelevant.
I don't have to prove any logos, I quoted you. You said that God's "perspective" was the truth. I agreed with you. Nothing to prove.
-
But God's is not a perspective, it is the truth. All perspectives are based off that truth in varying degrees.
Then morality and religion are are not subject to perspectives. There is a true religion and a true morality. Your person view of those things may be subject to your biases and perspectives, but that doesn't mean that morality as a whole is subject to them.
Please prove your logos, as I said, belief is irrelevant.
I don't have to prove any logos, I quoted you. You said that God's "perspective" was the truth. I agreed with you. Nothing to prove.
Oh, hurriedly read that. I would disagree with you on the concept of there being a true religion, religion is dogmatised philosophy. I would just say there is an ultimate truth that is non-empirical which ultimately affects our perspectives on things.
I was more asking for any kind of defense of the Bible being, not only infallible, but incorruptible.
-
I was more asking for any kind of defense of the Bible being, not only infallible, but incorruptible.
I've told you this before. My belief that the Bible has not been corrupted is based on the character of the Author.
God gave the Bible to people so that they could get to know him. God is powerful enough and smart enough to figure out a way to keep the Bible accurate despite the natural tendency of copying and translating to mess things up. And He loves us enough and wants us to be able to know Him enough to do what was necessary.
-
I was more asking for any kind of defense of the Bible being, not only infallible, but incorruptible.
I've told you this before. My belief that the Bible has not been corrupted is based on the character of the Author.
God gave the Bible to people so that they could get to know him. God is powerful enough and smart enough to figure out a way to keep the Bible accurate despite the natural tendency of copying and translating to mess things up. And He loves us enough and wants us to be able to know Him enough to do what was necessary.
Then why did it take God 1800 years after the writing of the Bible for us to figure this out?
-
The one is a mathematical consequence of the other. If Ptolemy's theory of celestial mechanics were correct, the rate of meteor fall would be constant. The fact that it is not constant disproves Ptolemy's theory, in a scientific sense.
I would have to look into this more to be able to speak with authority on the subject. However, my gut says that this is wrong. It doesn't even make sense that the Earth is hit by more meteors in the morning. Morning here in America is evening on the other side of the world.
It's pretty easy to see if you draw the diagram. The only real trick is noting that the direction of Earth's rotation is parallel to the Earth's orbit about the Sun. You'll see that as you move from midnight to dawn your forward velocity is greater than average slamming you into more space "gunk". Just like running forward in a rain storm makes your front wetter than your back.
Ptolemaic theory also has difficulties explaining the phases of planets and the stellar parallax, both of which are observed phenomena that fall out quite neatly as direct consequences of the heliocentric model.
I am not necessarily arguing that the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I am saying that people interpreted it that way for hundreds of years, and that scientifically there is support for that perspective.
Since people, including the human authors of Scripture, believed that the Earth was flat and interpreted Scripture to say the same, do you also hold to that theory as well?
-
Then why did it take God 1800 years after the writing of the Bible for us to figure this out?
It didn't. People have believed that the Bible was true and accurate from the time it was put together. It's just you that hasn't figured it out yet :)
It's pretty easy to see if you draw the diagram. The only real trick is noting that the direction of Earth's rotation is parallel to the Earth's orbit about the Sun. You'll see that as you move from midnight to dawn your forward velocity is greater than average slamming you into more space "gunk". Just like running forward in a rain storm makes your front wetter than your back.
Ok, I think I see what you are saying, and this has nothing to do with geocentrism or heliocentrism. If you draw the solar system with the sun at the middle, then the Earth goes around the sun in a circle-like elipse, and the moon goes around the sun in epicycles around the Earth. If you draw it with the Earth at the middle, then the sun goes around the Earth in a circle-like elipse, and Mercury goes around the Earth in epicycles around the sun. Similarly, the space "gunk" would also be appearing to move differently based on your reference point, but either way would cause the same phenomenon of more "gunk" colliding with the side of the planet that was rotating into it (or which the "gunk" was rotating into).
Since people, including the human authors of Scripture, believed that the Earth was flat and interpreted Scripture to say the same, do you also hold to that theory as well?
I'm not actually sure where the "flat" Earth perspective comes from. And I don't know that this has ever been a big deal to the church like geocentrism was. I would say that I don't think that a "flat" model of the Earth would be correct in any sense other than using a 2-D map to present it in a way that can be easily understood.