Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think there is a single person on the face of the earth (with the possible exception of Heavenese) that believes the sun moves and the earth doesn't. Using the term "sunrise" doesn't imply that the user thinks the sun is actually rising.
yes, i agree. that is why the logic is flawed. it is going by printed words and charts in books. which when taken in isolation out of context do not accurately convey an understanding, and lead to flawed conclusions.
yes absolutely.
just like it is flawed logic to go by printed words and charts from ancient times. which when taken in isolation out of context do not accurately convey an understanding, and lead to flawed conclusions.
people today, probably including yourself, use the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset."
the words sunrise and sunset are widely published in books and newspapers and encyclopedias.
therefore people today, yourself included believe that the sun moves and the earth does not. this is widely documented.
see how that logic is flawed?
The ancient world, including the ancient Hebrews actually believed that there was a solid dome covering the earth because to the eye the sky appeared to be an inverted bowl over the earth. The sky was blue because of the water above the firmament. They had no reason to not believe what their eyes saw. Genesis one places the sun, moon, and stars IN the firmament (in the solid dome which covers the earth. Unlike modern science, the ancient peoples did NOT know that the sun was many millions of miles away. They thought the sun was a light that God had placed in the solid dome (firmament).
The ancient world, including the ancient Hebrews actually believed that there was a solid dome covering the earth because to the eye the sky appeared to be an inverted bowl over the earth. The sky was blue because of the water above the firmament. They had no reason to not believe what their eyes saw. Genesis one places the sun, moon, and stars IN the firmament (in the solid dome which covers the earth. Unlike modern science, the ancient peoples did NOT know that the sun was many millions of miles away. They thought the sun was a light that God had placed in the solid dome (firmament).
If God told the people the sun was millions of miles away, how would they comprehend it? If God told the people the planets they see in the sky weren't the same in nature as the fixed stars around them, how would they understand it?
The people spoke as they understood what they were seeing. So they weren't wrong, but were describing things that did in fact exist. There are no scriptures speaking about the world resting on a turtle, or a giant holding it up. Yet as for pillars, that is not a problem because a pillar is what they used to describe how the world was fixed, and the things around the world were fixed. Today we can call this gravity if we want. A force that upholds the universe (among other scientific forces).
All that said, you accuse the ancient Israelites being "wrong" due to their observation. You can accept why that is, but you don't see how science is ultimately wrong because of that very limitation? The major difference between the ancients world view and scientists acceptance of the world through methodological approach, is scientists rely 100% on limited observation. The ancients credited God, the One who truly knows the origin of everything. He is the origin.
Would you say my teachers failed me? Backing up to something you mentioned earlier concerning medicine, I won't stop using those things because of science. I acknowledge the limitations of science, not that I despise it. Viewing science in terms of medicine, there is also a devious side as well. Its possible a lot of cancer cases that come up in this day and age could be the result of the chemically engineered food we consume in the US. Perhaps for some of the things science has produced, it would be considered wisdom to stay away from.
All that said, when King Jesus comes back to the earth, in that day people will be living well pass 500 years old. Jesus will rule over the earth and the people will follow His laws. In that day, Jesus won't be operating according to science, but He will be operating according to omniscience! You will have to go back to school and get a degree from Zion University to become an omniscience teacher.
You're just making excuses for thinking that belongs back in the 1800s or earlier...in regard to science...and religious thinking that belongs back in the 1500s.
What you ought to start thinking about is that silly fables, but principles. And it's odd to me how rarely christians on this forum talk about principles, but instead spend their time trying to prove things that can never be proven.
If God told the people the sun was millions of miles away, how would they comprehend it? If God told the people the planets they see in the sky weren't the same in nature as the fixed stars around them, how would they understand it?
The people spoke as they understood what they were seeing. So they weren't wrong, but were describing things that did in fact exist. There are no scriptures speaking about the world resting on a turtle, or a giant holding it up. Yet as for pillars, that is not a problem because a pillar is what they used to describe how the world was fixed, and the things around the world were fixed. Today we can call this gravity if we want. A force that upholds the universe (among other scientific forces).
All that said, you accuse the ancient Israelites being "wrong" due to their observation. You can accept why that is, but you don't see how science is ultimately wrong because of that very limitation? The major difference between the ancients world view and scientists acceptance of the world through methodological approach, is scientists rely 100% on limited observation. The ancients credited God, the One who truly knows the origin of everything. He is the origin.
Good grief, they were wrong. They had a wrong understanding of the cosmos and that wrong belief is contained in the Bible. The Bible puts forth a wrong understanding of the cosmos. What do you not understand about this?
Good grief, they were wrong. They had a wrong understanding of the cosmos and that wrong belief is contained in the Bible. The Bible puts forth a wrong understanding of the cosmos. What do you not understand about this?
It's difficult to put an exact year that the bible was written, but as I understand it the earliest parts of the bible were written about 3,500 years ago. So let's see, our other poster is aligning himself with what people wrote into and read into the bible for people who, for the most part, didn't even have a first grade education. Seems about right.
It's difficult to put an exact year that the bible was written, but as I understand it the earliest parts of the bible were written about 3,500 years ago. So let's see, our other poster is aligning himself with what people wrote into and read into the bible for people who, for the most part, didn't even have a first grade education. Seems about right.
The people who wrote Scripture, I believe were generally "smarter" than most people today. Many of them could speak multiple languages, and they knew how to survive the harsh environments. Many of us would fold like a cheap suit if we lived in the conditions they did. Though ultimately these who were ignorant about what we know today, and those who trust what they passed along (the scriptures), I believe will be given ultimate knowledge that scientists search so desperately for. They will know why we exist and who we are.
Good grief, they were wrong. They had a wrong understanding of the cosmos and that wrong belief is contained in the Bible. The Bible puts forth a wrong understanding of the cosmos. What do you not understand about this?
your understanding is limited because you do not speak or hear or understand the language of what is being conveyed, and the context in which it is given. (just like use of the words sunset and sunrise do not accurately convey understanding and context of how the words are used.)
Here is an example for instance of what firmament (rakia) refers to, as seen from a perspective which you probably have not considered. "On the Second day of Creation, separation of the higher waters from the lower waters was introduced. In the Torah, this is called the firmament (rakia)" and it discusses further what that is describing.
your understanding is limited because you do not speak or hear or understand the language of what is being conveyed, and the context in which it is given. (just like use of the words sunset and sunrise do not accurately convey understanding and context of how the words are used.)
Here is an example for instance of what firmament (rakia) refers to, as seen from a perspective which you probably have not considered. "On the Second day of Creation, separation of the higher waters from the lower waters was introduced. In the Torah, this is called the firmament (rakia)" and it discusses further what that is describing.
My understanding is based on what academic biblical scholarship says about it. It is a fact that the ancient peoples had the same general belief of a flat earth covered by a solid dome. While there is some variance, this is the general belief among all ancient peoples, including the ancient Hebrews.
The firmament to the Hebrews was a solid dome which kept the cosmic waters above the firmament from the waters that are below the firmament.
Again, the ancient peoples had no reason not to believe what their eyes told them. To use your own example, since to the eye the sun seems to rise and set, the ancient peoples believed that it did. We today know better but the ancient peoples did not. They believed what their eyes told them and that includes their belief that the sky is a solid dome over the earth.
And there was no second day of creation. Or first, third, forth, fifth or sixth. Both Genesis creation stories are just that - stories.
The ancient world, including the ancient Hebrews actually believed that there was a solid dome covering the earth because to the eye the sky appeared to be an inverted bowl over the earth. The sky was blue because of the water above the firmament. They had no reason to not believe what their eyes saw. Genesis one places the sun, moon, and stars IN the firmament (in the solid dome which covers the earth. Unlike modern science, the ancient peoples did NOT know that the sun was many millions of miles away. They thought the sun was a light that God had placed in the solid dome (firmament).
you have beliefs, about what "the ancient world believed" and "what the ancient Hebrews believed." However here is another example. It has more depth and nuance, and provides greater understanding than a superficial (lacking depth) reading of words without considering the context. just as sunrise and sunset are misleading when the context is not understood.
it is simplistic and reductive and superficial (lacks depth) to view everything as right or wrong, when the nature of a holy book is that meaning is layer upon layer upon layer of meaning. to be wed to a literalist view of words on the page, is to judge those who use the words sunrise and sunset as being "wrong" because the sun does not move.
"Job (26:7) writes that God “suspends the earth upon nothingness.” Thus, the Torah clearly asserts that the world is not being “held up” by pillars – nor is it floating on water or in any of the other bizarre configurations ancient man envisioned. The world is suspended in space.
"Regarding the Talmudic passage (Hagigah 12b) which implies otherwise – that the land stands on pillars, which stand on water, which rests on mountains, etc. it is clear though that Gemara (a section of Talmud) is Aggadic and intended metaphorically. See the Talmud’s conclusion that the world rests on a single pillar whose name is “tzaddik” – righteous one – meaning that the righteous are the foundation of the world. The Talmud is thus clearly presenting a Kabbalistic discussion of the world’s purpose rather than its astronomic positioning."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Backing up to something you mentioned earlier concerning medicine, I won't stop using those things because of science. I acknowledge the limitations of science, not that I despise it. Viewing science in terms of medicine, there is also a devious side as well. Its possible a lot of cancer cases that come up in this day and age could be the result of the chemically engineered food we consume in the US. Perhaps for some of the things science has produced, it would be considered wisdom to stay away from.
