Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ IN THE BEGINNING.

[Hill Top]

The Bible is 100% geocentric. This is one thing Dake gets wrong. It is dangerous to use contemporary science theories as keys to Scriptural interpretation.

Please define your meaning to "geocentric".

It means the earth is the center of the universe. Contrary to popular opinion, this has never been scientifically disproven.

How can there be a "center" of infinity?

How can the universe be infinite in any sense if it had a beginning? Where does either science or Scripture clearly teach that the universe is "infinite?"

I was thinking in terms of distance instead of time.

Scripture teaches that the sun and moon move and never teaches the earth does.

From the perspective of the writers, the sun and moon do move.
Don't we still say "sun rise" and "sun set"?

[patrissimo]

The Bible is 100% geocentric. This is one thing Dake gets wrong. It is dangerous to use contemporary science theories as keys to Scriptural interpretation.

Please define your meaning to "geocentric".

It means the earth is the center of the universe. Contrary to popular opinion, this has never been scientifically disproven.

How can there be a "center" of infinity?

How can the universe be infinite in any sense if it had a beginning? Where does either science or Scripture clearly teach that the universe is "infinite?"

I was thinking in terms of distance instead of time.

Scripture teaches that the sun and moon move and never teaches the earth does.

From the perspective of the writers, the sun and moon do move.
Don't we still say "sun rise" and "sun set"?

Time is the measurement of the motion of bodies.

To use the "sunrise/sunset as language of appearance argument you must first assume Copernicanism. There is no need for or proof of such an assumption. Those who promote Copernicanism desire to debunk Scripture. Such cosmological are rooted in paganism and occultism. You should research this.

[Hill Top]

The Bible is 100% geocentric. This is one thing Dake gets wrong. It is dangerous to use contemporary science theories as keys to Scriptural interpretation.

Please define your meaning to "geocentric".

It means the earth is the center of the universe. Contrary to popular opinion, this has never been scientifically disproven.

How can there be a "center" of infinity?

How can the universe be infinite in any sense if it had a beginning? Where does either science or Scripture clearly teach that the universe is "infinite?"

I was thinking in terms of distance instead of time.

Scripture teaches that the sun and moon move and never teaches the earth does.

From the perspective of the writers, the sun and moon do move.
Don't we still say "sun rise" and "sun set"?

Time is the measurement of the motion of bodies.

Too sciencey for me.

To use the "sunrise/sunset as language of appearance argument you must first assume Copernicanism. There is no need for or proof of such an assumption. Those who promote Copernicanism desire to debunk Scripture. Such cosmological are rooted in paganism and occultism. You should research this.

I have, and found that Moses, Jesus ,and James all must have been Copernicumists...
It is written...
Genesis 19:23
The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Exodus 22:3
If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

James 1:11
For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

[patrissimo]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

[Hill Top]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

Exactly.
The word "only" does not appear.
For Jesus at least, whom God used to create all the heavenly orbs, He knew that it was the earth turning and not the sun rising.
Doesn't that mean He was a Copernicusian?

[Ironman]

Heaven is a planet in the northern part of the universe above the heights of the clouds!

Isaiah 14:12 KJV:
"How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
thou cut down to the ground, which dist weaken the nations! For thou art hast
said in thine heart, I WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN, I WILL EXALT MY THRONE above
the stars of God: I WILL sit also upon the mount of the congregation, I WILL ascend ABOVE THE HEIGHTS OF THE CLOUDS; I WILL BE like the most High,"

When he said this, he was ruling the earth and wanted much more and rebelled.

[patrissimo]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

Exactly.
The word "only" does not appear.
For Jesus at least, whom God used to create all the heavenly orbs, He knew that it was the earth turning and not the sun rising.
Doesn't that mean He was a Copernicusian?

No. It is not simply that the word "only" doesn't appear; the word "appearance also doesn't appear. Neither is the concept clearly implied. The reason Galileo got into hot water was because his theory (which he later recanted sincerely) caused him to reinterpret scripture. Joshua ch. 10 became a strong point of contention. In ancient times, the Pythagorean philosopher Aristarchus taught heliocentrism but none of the Church fathers ever did. Modern Biblical criticism began with Spinoza who assumed Copernicus and Kepler were correct. If the Bible wasn't correct when it said the sun has a circuit and that the earth doesn't move, then maybe it wasn't correct on other matters such as "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Dake and his followers argue that God has a body because, according to them, it is plainly stated in Scripture but isn't it plainly taught in scripture that the sun moves and the earth does not?

[Hill Top]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

Exactly.
The word "only" does not appear.
For Jesus at least, whom God used to create all the heavenly orbs, He knew that it was the earth turning and not the sun rising.
Doesn't that mean He was a Copernicusian?

No. It is not simply that the word "only" doesn't appear; the word "appearance also doesn't appear.

As they had no other means of evaluating global movements BUT by appearance, how would you assume they "viewed" it?

Neither is the concept clearly implied.

You will need to show the instrumentation they used to determine the sun revolved around the earth.

The reason Galileo got into hot water was because his theory (which he later recanted sincerely) caused him to reinterpret scripture. Joshua ch. 10 became a strong point of contention.

The Creator of heaven and earth can do as He pleases with the sun.
That being said, He can also do as He pleases with the earth to make it appear that the sun "stands still".

In ancient times, the Pythagorean philosopher Aristarchus taught heliocentrism but none of the Church fathers ever did. Modern Biblical criticism began with Spinoza who assumed Copernicus and Kepler were correct. If the Bible wasn't correct when it said the sun has a circuit and that the earth doesn't move, then maybe it wasn't correct on other matters such as "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Adultery is scripturally condemned in a lot of places.
But where in the bible does it say the "sun has a circuit"?

Dake and his followers argue that God has a body because, according to them, it is plainly stated in Scripture...

Are you starting a new thread?

...but isn't it plainly taught in scripture that the sun moves and the earth does not?

Not that I have seen.

[patrissimo]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

Exactly.
The word "only" does not appear.
For Jesus at least, whom God used to create all the heavenly orbs, He knew that it was the earth turning and not the sun rising.
Doesn't that mean He was a Copernicusian?

No. It is not simply that the word "only" doesn't appear; the word "appearance also doesn't appear.

As they had no other means of evaluating global movements BUT by appearance, how would you assume they "viewed" it?

Neither is the concept clearly implied.

You will need to show the instrumentation they used to determine the sun revolved around the earth.

The stars and galaxies are receding away from the earth at the same rate in every direction of the sky. This could only be if the earth is the motionless center. Some argue that it would look this way from any vantage point in the universe but the problem is that such a hypothesis has not been empirically tested or verified and so it is just an ad hoc speculation to save modern cosmology from admitting the Church was right. It has also been known since at least the mid-70s that quasars form periodic, concentric shells around the earth. These are just a couple of the evidences for geocentrism. Geocentrism has never been disproven and the classic arguments to disprove it don't. This is admitted by at least some modern scientists. There is more to this than you have been led to believe.

The reason Galileo got into hot water was because his theory (which he later recanted sincerely) caused him to reinterpret scripture. Joshua ch. 10 became a strong point of contention.

The Creator of heaven and earth can do as He pleases with the sun.
That being said, He can also do as He pleases with the earth to make it appear that the sun "stands still".

In ancient times, the Pythagorean philosopher Aristarchus taught heliocentrism but none of the Church fathers ever did. Modern Biblical criticism began with Spinoza who assumed Copernicus and Kepler were correct. If the Bible wasn't correct when it said the sun has a circuit and that the earth doesn't move, then maybe it wasn't correct on other matters such as "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Adultery is scripturally condemned in a lot of places.
But where in the bible does it say the "sun has a circuit"?

Psalms 19:4-6. Read Dake's note k.

Dake and his followers argue that God has a body because, according to them, it is plainly stated in Scripture...

Are you starting a new thread?

No. I am trying to make the point that Dake's hermeneutic appears arbitrary at this point.

...but isn't it plainly taught in scripture that the sun moves and the earth does not?

Not that I have seen.

Where does scripture say that the earth moves around the sun or any such thing. Why did no Christian question this until Copernicus? Copernicus' version of things would not be accepted by today's standards.

[Hill Top]

In none of those texts does it say the rising is only appearance. You are reading something into the text that isn't there just as I already wrote that you are assuming.

Exactly.
The word "only" does not appear.
For Jesus at least, whom God used to create all the heavenly orbs, He knew that it was the earth turning and not the sun rising.
Doesn't that mean He was a Copernicusian?

No. It is not simply that the word "only" doesn't appear; the word "appearance also doesn't appear.

As they had no other means of evaluating global movements BUT by appearance, how would you assume they "viewed" it?

Neither is the concept clearly implied.

You will need to show the instrumentation they used to determine the sun revolved around the earth.

The stars and galaxies are receding away from the earth at the same rate in every direction of the sky. This could only be if the earth is the motionless center.

Why?
Isn't our nearest companion galaxy actually headed toward us?

Some argue that it would look this way from any vantage point in the universe but the problem is that such a hypothesis has not been empirically tested or verified and so it is just an ad hoc speculation to save modern cosmology from admitting the Church was right.

As I just mentioned that some galaxies collide with each other, it seems that nothing is the "center" of anything.

It has also been known since at least the mid-70s that quasars form periodic, concentric shells around the earth.

Earth but nothing else?
Not Mars and Venus too?
Proof, please.

These are just a couple of the evidences for geocentrism. Geocentrism has never been disproven and the classic arguments to disprove it don't. This is admitted by at least some modern scientists. There is more to this than you have been led to believe.

It is pointless to ponder the unknowable mysteries of God.

The reason Galileo got into hot water was because his theory (which he later recanted sincerely) caused him to reinterpret scripture. Joshua ch. 10 became a strong point of contention.

The Creator of heaven and earth can do as He pleases with the sun.
That being said, He can also do as He pleases with the earth to make it appear that the sun "stands still".

In ancient times, the Pythagorean philosopher Aristarchus taught heliocentrism but none of the Church fathers ever did. Modern Biblical criticism began with Spinoza who assumed Copernicus and Kepler were correct. If the Bible wasn't correct when it said the sun has a circuit and that the earth doesn't move, then maybe it wasn't correct on other matters such as "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Adultery is scripturally condemned in a lot of places.
But where in the bible does it say the "sun has a circuit"?
And what is a "church father"?

Psalms 19:4-6. Read Dake's note k.

Any object circling another object looks like the other object is circling it from the other object's perspective.

Dake and his followers argue that God has a body because, according to them, it is plainly stated in Scripture...

Are you starting a new thread?

No. I am trying to make the point that Dake's hermeneutic appears arbitrary at this point.

Does your POV have anything to do with the topic of what revolves around what?

...but isn't it plainly taught in scripture that the sun moves and the earth does not?

Not that I have seen.

Where does scripture say that the earth moves around the sun or any such thing.

I have no idea.

Why did no Christian question this until Copernicus? Copernicus' version of things would not be accepted by today's standards.

Was Copernicus a Christian?
So what?
If the rich nations of the world weren't wasting so much money in space, space still wouldn't be of much interest to those of us trying to make ends meet.