Agreed.You misunderstand me. God spoke, and there was light, that is all we need to know about how God created light.
Agreed.You misunderstand me. God spoke, and there was light, that is all we need to know about how God created light.
You don’t agree that the bible doesn’t have geocentric outlook. Than you disagree with the word of God . The bible certainly teaches the geocentric model and it’s what the church taught up until the 19th century. And Genesis 1:1 says what is says heaven and not heavens. There is a clear difference of what came first.And there be good reason why the geocentric viewpoint was replaced by heliocentricity simply because it reeks too much of God the geocentric model puts the earth in a very place with the sun moving around the earth. The heliocentric model does the opposite it diminishes that very special place given unto the earth and shuttles the earth off to the ass end of the galaxy to be classified as just another mere speck of dust in the universe. Seems that heliocentricity and evolution arrived at the same time. A mere coincidence? Or a two pronged planned attack to overthrow our established Christian order and rid our Universities of God as the Divine Creator and to replace it with the new god. The god of the scientific mafia that now dictates what shall be truth. Just not God the bible according to them. Major here are some bible verses and quotes as to why the church viewed the bible as a very geocentric book.I do not agree! Does the Bible teach Geocentricity? NO!
The short answer to this question is “no.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the earth is at the center of the universe.
I think that maybe you are making a little too much out of the word "Heaven/heavens" .
As I have posted already, The word "heaven" is used in at least three different senses in the Old Testament:
1. The sky. The place of clouds and birds. (Job 35:5 "Look to the heavens and see. Behold the clouds ...")
2. Outer space. The place of planets and stars. (Deut 4:19 "... lift your eyes to the heavens, and you see the Sun and Moon and the stars". 3. The place from which God lives and has his throne. (1 Kings 8:30 "Hear in heaven, your dwelling place ...")
I think the most likely reading of Genesis 1:1 is that it is talking about heaven in the sense of "outer space". In the beginning, God created space -- the universe -- and then within this universe he created the Earth. Logical, simple.
While the stars and planets occupy outer space, they are not space itself. It seems very logical to me to say that God first created space, and then a little later he created objects to populate that space.
Tery I find no mention of God spoke and there was light in your post 11 . My apologies if you think I have misunderstood you. So just that what are trying to say.You misunderstand me. God spoke, and there was light, that is all we need to know about how God created light.
What I was saying, is that in the end, no matter what theories there are about how creation was done, all we need is God's Word. God would not have left out that part if it had bearing on our faith or salvation. Human curiosity will always ask how, but God doesn't need us to know.Tery I find no mention of God spoke and there was light in your post 11 . My apologies if you think I have misunderstood you. So just that what are trying to say.
I would agree with that concerning evolution but heliocentrism? Now, that's a bit of a stretch.Seems that heliocentricity and evolution arrived at the same time. A mere coincidence? Or a two pronged planned attack to overthrow our established Christian order and rid our Universities of God as the Divine Creator and to replace it with the new god.
Now YOU said............You don’t agree that the bible doesn’t have geocentric outlook. Than you disagree with the word of God . The bible certainly teaches the geocentric model and it’s what the church taught up until the 19th century. And Genesis 1:1 says what is says heaven and not heavens. There is a clear difference of what came first.And there be good reason why the geocentric viewpoint was replaced by heliocentricity simply because it reeks too much of God the geocentric model puts the earth in a very place with the sun moving around the earth. The heliocentric model does the opposite it diminishes that very special place given unto the earth and shuttles the earth off to the ass end of the galaxy to be classified as just another mere speck of dust in the universe. Seems that heliocentricity and evolution arrived at the same time. A mere coincidence? Or a two pronged planned attack to overthrow our established Christian order and rid our Universities of God as the Divine Creator and to replace it with the new god. The god of the scientific mafia that now dictates what shall be truth. Just not God the bible according to them. Major here are some bible verses and quotes as to why the church viewed the bible as a very geocentric book. View attachment 9567View attachment 9571View attachment 9569View attachment 9570View attachment 9573View attachment 9575View attachment 9572View attachment 9568
Genesis 1:3.......Tery I find no mention of God spoke and there was light in your post 11 . My apologies if you think I have misunderstood you. So just that what are trying to say.
Remember, correlation does not mean causation.Seems that heliocentricity and evolution arrived at the same time.
Ok, but most Biblical references to the natural world are observational meaning it is what one could observe by man’s senses. Sometimes it states the intentions of God behind it, but often not. But we commonly infer God’s actions and intentions from natural phenomena.God doesn't speak of a Big Bang but he does say that He spoke everything into existence.
Well said!Ok, but most Biblical references to the natural world are observational meaning it is what one could observe by man’s senses. Sometimes it states the intentions of God behind it, but often not. But we commonly infer God’s actions and intentions from natural phenomena.
For example, we are told of the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion (e.g. Mark 15:33) and are not told explicitly how God caused it (or even that that darkness was at God’s command). Should we discount this because it does not explicitly say that this was at the command of God?
I do not discount today’s weather report because it failed to state the role God plays in the weather. So why discount the observation and calculation (scientific) based account because it does not specify God’s role?
Agreed. It was in 1859 that Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, the first detailed explanation of natural selection. The book becomes a sensation and sparks a contentious debate in Britain.Remember, correlation does not mean causation.
Really you don’t believe that we be in a very special place . We be in a very special place alright considering we be the only place so far detected that be a liveable planet that contains life as we have here upon earth. The only other place would be wherever God and the angels choose to dwell. You say if those words geocentric are in the bible now is the time to show . Major that be self evident by all the passages of scripture I sent you in post 23 Geocentrism meaning that the earth does not revolve around the sun. And that is what the Bible clearly speaks of when in Joshua ( Sun stand thou still ) And with Psalms of the Sun doing it’s daily circuit and returning to do again. There be many other verses . The reality is that the bible is a very geocentric book. You than go on inform us that what men thought in the earlier church eras and what the bible teaches are two different things. Well on the point of the earth being in a very special place and that it was the sun rotating around the earth and not the earth rotating around. Well the whole of Christendom was firmly agreed upon that for 1800 yrs. Maybe they just took God at his word. And what of the Jewish people themselves you could add another 2000yrs there as well. Or were they so dumb for simply taking God at his word as well ? And finally you think I’m rather argumentative. and have nothing better to do. Not really but I do think and question a lot about all things. As to having nothing better to do. Well with that comment I do leave you in peace to continue your journeyNow YOU said............
"Major here are some bible verses and quotes as to why the church viewed the bible as a very geocentric book."
What the men of the early church THOUGHT and what the Bible teaches is two very different things!!!!
I said in post #18.........
"I do not agree! Does the Bible teach Geocentricity? NO!
The short answer to this question is “no.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the earth is at the center of the universe."
Now if those words are in the Bible and the Bible teaches that, then now is the time to post it my dear!
With all due respect to you, it seems to me that you like to argue just to have something to do!
You posted several Scriptures however The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology/geocentrism.
Silom Maybe because all the scientific experiments to finally prove that earth was moving at the speed required to be rotating around the sun ended in failure. The George Sagnac & Henry Gale experiment the George Airy experiment, the Michelson - Morley experiment. Einstein just simply discarded the eather effect and used his law of relativity to change everything in favour of the heliocentric model. Some say the Eather came back under the guise of black or dark matter simply because you need that unseen substance to hold galaxy’s together. You can look up Malcom Bowden on U Tube for further information if your interested to know more. That’s all I’ll say and that we must evaluate things with scripture in all thingsOk, but most Biblical references to the natural world are observational meaning it is what one could observe by man’s senses. Sometimes it states the intentions of God behind it, but often not. But we commonly infer God’s actions and intentions from natural phenomena.
For example, we are told of the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion (e.g. Mark 15:33) and are not told explicitly how God caused it (or even that that darkness was at God’s command). Should we discount this because it does not explicitly say that this was at the command of God?
I do not discount today’s weather report because it failed to state the role God plays in the weather. So why discount the observation and calculation (scientific) based account because it does not specify God’s role?
The Michelson/Morley experiment was an attempt to measure "eather wind". It consisted of a light speed measurement setup mounted on a table that could be turned in any direction. If eather ,and an associated wind existed the measured speed should change as light was directed "upwind" vs "downwind". Since the appearant speed of light is the same regardless of the motion of the referance apparatus, it failed to detect any difference in the speed of light.Silom Maybe because all the scientific experiments to finally prove that earth was moving at the speed required to be rotating around the sun ended in failure. The George Sagnac & Henry Gale experiment the George Airy experiment, the Michelson - Morley experiment. Einstein just simply discarded the eather effect and used his law of relativity to change everything in favour of the heliocentric model. Some say the Eather came back under the guise of black or dark matter simply because you need that unseen substance to hold galaxy’s together. You can look up Malcom Bowden on U Tube for further information if your interested to know more. That’s all I’ll say and that we must evaluate things with scripture in all things
Well yes your statement is mostly correct. But Eather had been well established as scientific fact and proved by those other experiments and accepted by scientists . It only became a problem when the results of the Eather kept coming back well under speed for the earth to be moving at the required speed to prove that the earth is rotating around the sun. The reality is they either had to accept that the earth wasn’t moving all throw the Eather out to get their desired result. As I said Einstein finished the job with his law of relativity which was never really a true experiment. Look into the telescope experiment that clearly proves that there is Eather. Malcolm Bowden explains clearly along nearly all those experiments. The hearsay about what your teacher told you is incorrect and is well known to cover up the reality of the truth that the earth is not moving.The Michelson/Morley experiment was an attempt to measure "eather wind". It consisted of a light speed measurement setup mounted on a table that could be turned in any direction. If eather ,and an associated wind existed the measured speed should change as light was directed "upwind" vs "downwind". Since the appearant speed of light is the same regardless of the motion of the referance apparatus, it failed to detect any difference in the speed of light.
I remember asking my high school science teacher "what happened to the concept of aether after Michelson/Morely?" Aether was originally proposed to answer the question of what is waving if light is a wave? But scientists (and my texts) seemed to just stop talking about aether after the experiment.
His reply was that since they had no way of detecting aether except that light behaved in wavelike a manner, it was/is natural to wish to know what is doing the waving - still a nifty question. If they can figure out a way of observing the effects of aether, scientists can then re-open the study, but it the meantime anything that cannot be detected, even by indirect means, it cannot be studied and is superfluous to the theory of light.
So the experiment was not really a 'failure' because it confirmed one of the basic properties of light, it just did not iluminate what was doing the waving.
Scientists do not throw away or disregard experimental results. They analyze both the experiment and the result and modify theories when necessary. Dark matter is proposed to explain observed phenomena and still has unanswered quetions and research continues.