The BIBLE thinks the earth is flat surrounded by a crystal dome.It thinks the sun is different than a star. It doesn't mention Galaxies(cause man didn't know any of these facts when they wrote the bible to control the masses).iT SAYS YOU CAN RAPE WOMEN ,own slaves,kill children for no reason.Just ask god when he asked that moron to murder his son to please himself.Who would want to worship that piece of shit for all eternity?? Darwin is GOD and the internet is his sword!!I hate GOD IDIOTS!!
You have become a fool in your wisdom as God said you would. You definitely speak from a secular point of view in regards to the text. The faith of the believer is not the issue of whether the Earth moves, but the authority of the text and God's word comes into doubt for those who might be saved. Brother you are doing the work of Satan!
( continued from previous) If the Bible to talked about the sub-atomic micro world and multi-galaxy macro world known to science today, it would have made no rational sense to people livings two and more thousand years ago, just as if the Bible included the science of people living 2,000 years from us now into the future, it would make no rational sense to us today. To not consider vast historical cultural time frame differences when discussing God and the Bible, is to be shallow and biased.
The Bible consistently is told from a position of the earth looking upward. Because the universe has no center, it is scientifically accurate to say the sun rises from a view on earth, just as it is accurate to say the earth revolves around it's axis and around the sun from a view of our solar system looking in. The Bible is told within the known science of the authors, not from our view today, as one would expect from a God who cared about the authors personally, rather than just about us.
The earth is correctly defined as "fixed" within it's position and sphere of orbit. If it was not, then we would long ago have wandered off away from the sun into space. "Pillars" to ancient writers often referred to "foundations" rather than columns holding up a roof, such as many houses today are built on "pillars" of cinder block. The earth most definitely has foundations according to science, an outer few miles thick mantel having a much thicker foundation of rock beneath the mantel.
Several historians and scientists believe the story of the sun standing still in Joshua, which a similar story also appears in other cultures, is correct. The reason is, the outer few miles thick "shell" of the earth is believed to occasionally "shift" against an inner thicker rocky region below. This would make the story in Joshua correct from a view standing on earth. Because a similar story appears in various cultures, it is considered more likely to be based on reality than a myth.
Can you refute the book 'Galileo was wrong the church was right' which uses scientific methodology to argue the case for a geocentric system? I've not read it, but I read reviews by quite a number of scientists who claim it is a groundbreaking scientific work that should evoke serious debate to challenge the consensus opinion of a heliocentric solar system. What if the Copernican system cannot be proved by mathematics and physics; will you allow that the geocentricism is possible?
@SirPwn4lot Secularists have far fewer children than religious couples. It's a way of life without a future. If the Muslims take over, we could be back to geocentricism.
I agree with you however, the word "universe" is not found in the bible therefore it doesn't exist. Universe means "one word", planet means "wanderer" and space means "Empty room". The Proof is Heaven is located in the clouds where the lord Jesus and the New Jerusalem dwells.
Nonsense alert. Nonsense alert. "Young Earth Unanimously rejected?" Big mistake. Leading geophysicists and astronomers alike are fleeing the "Old Earth," and indeed the "Old Universe" like sailors off a sinking ship
OK, smart guy. Shoot down Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish on some basis other than the fact that they believe in YEC and work for the ICR. In other words, actually criticise their methodology rather than their results and who happens to agree with them.
And there's more where they came from, and where they didn't come from. I do have secular sources as well.
I'm sorry, was there a leading geophysicist or astronomer in that list? I must have missed it.
Methods? What methods? The individuals you listed have all agreed to statements of faith that declare the earth to be young despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Name one secular scientist who believe in a young earth.
It seems I have misplaced my source for the time being, so I'll have to do some digging before I can get you the exact name. In the meantime, you might want to provide me with one example, even one, of how this series so far meshes with your initial statement that scientific concepts - i.e. our interpretation of the evidence we see - are as fallible as our interpretations of Scripture. So far, you seem to be maintaining that if secular says yes and Bible says no, secular automatically wins.
It's not about secular vs. the bible. It's about good ideas vs. bad ones. Science is constantly changing because of new data. ie-our interpretations of both special and general revelation are fallible.
Yes, but you seem to maintain that in the presence of any and every apparent discrepancy (i.e. any conflict between what we perceive in the text and what we perceive in the world) we should interpret what we see in the text by what we see around us without hesitation. You see what I'm trying to say here?
Can you give me one example where there was a conflict and what we thought we saw in scripture turned out to be correct and what we saw in nature turned out to be wrong? I can't think of any. But I can think of many many many examples of the opposite.
Archeology. Have you done any research on the myriad "inaccuracies" found over the years in the book of Luke. Political titles, locations of cities, etc.?
@Omnitrix12 I am sorry you are so gullible. Please attend a conference on geology or astronomy anywhere on earth and talk to these people. They are all over and happen all the time, they are easy to find. I have they are my friends. The age of the earth and the universe is only controversial in the third decimal place. There are raging debates on all sorts of things at scientific conferences, but NO-ONE thinks that the age of the earth or universe is not measured in billions of years.
Umm, no, geocentrism was promoted by the Church because Copernicus' and Galileo's enemies got jealous and so sought religious justification. Galileo got in trouble becuase he insulted the Pope. Also, the RCC did not hold to a strictly Geocentrist position but sort of a combination of the geo and solar systems. Still, this a good example of how Christians misunderstand scripture.
I agree, people believing Catholicism back then that, as you, had an eisegesis of the Bible does not mean the Bible cannot be trusted. It means the people themselves, like you glovergj, cannot be trusted.
Instead of retelling God's message, we need to move to a more perspicacious approach. We need to move away from interpretation of the Bible, and move towards a sensitive discernment.
Nice try to blame the Catholics for this, but Luther and Calvin were not Catholic.
You might not like groups like "The Assiciation of Biblical Astronomy" or the "Fair Education Foundation" because they argue gencentricity from the Bible. But they are simply taking a plain face-value reading of the Scriptures over what the scientific community says.
I submit that you only believe otherwise becasue of science. And yet you accuse me of rejecting the Bible over science? Do you not see your own hipocracy?
The Bible says that the earth does not move unless God is angry and shakes it until the stars fall from heaven like figs from a tree. This doens't make sense in the context of a modern cosmology, but it makes perfect sense in terms of an ancient cosmology. Context, context, context! If you search the scriptures for the answer to the qeustions of whether the earth or sun is at the center, you will only find references to the heavens moving and earth standing still. That's the point.
Proof of what claim, that Calvin and Luther were not Catholic? Or that they condemned Copernicus and taught only a fixed earth? If the latter, it's all in the video. Or use Google if you want more.
The BIBLE thinks the earth is flat surrounded by a crystal dome.It thinks the sun is different than a star. It doesn't mention Galaxies(cause man didn't know any of these facts when they wrote the bible to control the masses).iT SAYS YOU CAN RAPE WOMEN ,own slaves,kill children for no reason.Just ask god when he asked that moron to murder his son to please himself.Who would want to worship that piece of shit for all eternity?? Darwin is GOD and the internet is his sword!!I hate GOD IDIOTS!!
MrAmericanzombie 8 months ago
You have become a fool in your wisdom as God said you would. You definitely speak from a secular point of view in regards to the text. The faith of the believer is not the issue of whether the Earth moves, but the authority of the text and God's word comes into doubt for those who might be saved. Brother you are doing the work of Satan!
darrenbred 8 months ago
Thanks for your videos -- They are great.
KimbaIsHere 1 year ago
Yes...wanna know why? Because GOD said the Earth "DOES NOT MOVE"! What part of "does NOT" can't be undrestood?
And you call yourself a Christian?
debieblue 1 year ago
( continued from previous) If the Bible to talked about the sub-atomic micro world and multi-galaxy macro world known to science today, it would have made no rational sense to people livings two and more thousand years ago, just as if the Bible included the science of people living 2,000 years from us now into the future, it would make no rational sense to us today. To not consider vast historical cultural time frame differences when discussing God and the Bible, is to be shallow and biased.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen And you apparently doesn't even understand the discussion at hand...
fmanh 1 year ago
The Bible consistently is told from a position of the earth looking upward. Because the universe has no center, it is scientifically accurate to say the sun rises from a view on earth, just as it is accurate to say the earth revolves around it's axis and around the sun from a view of our solar system looking in. The Bible is told within the known science of the authors, not from our view today, as one would expect from a God who cared about the authors personally, rather than just about us.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
The earth is correctly defined as "fixed" within it's position and sphere of orbit. If it was not, then we would long ago have wandered off away from the sun into space. "Pillars" to ancient writers often referred to "foundations" rather than columns holding up a roof, such as many houses today are built on "pillars" of cinder block. The earth most definitely has foundations according to science, an outer few miles thick mantel having a much thicker foundation of rock beneath the mantel.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Several historians and scientists believe the story of the sun standing still in Joshua, which a similar story also appears in other cultures, is correct. The reason is, the outer few miles thick "shell" of the earth is believed to occasionally "shift" against an inner thicker rocky region below. This would make the story in Joshua correct from a view standing on earth. Because a similar story appears in various cultures, it is considered more likely to be based on reality than a myth.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Can you refute the book 'Galileo was wrong the church was right' which uses scientific methodology to argue the case for a geocentric system? I've not read it, but I read reviews by quite a number of scientists who claim it is a groundbreaking scientific work that should evoke serious debate to challenge the consensus opinion of a heliocentric solar system. What if the Copernican system cannot be proved by mathematics and physics; will you allow that the geocentricism is possible?
robhaidheuch 1 year ago
In 200 years we'll have videos like this about Christianity in general.
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
@SirPwn4lot Secularists have far fewer children than religious couples. It's a way of life without a future. If the Muslims take over, we could be back to geocentricism.
kauffner 1 year ago
This guy has restored my hope in Christians.
michalchik 1 year ago
I agree with you however, the word "universe" is not found in the bible therefore it doesn't exist. Universe means "one word", planet means "wanderer" and space means "Empty room". The Proof is Heaven is located in the clouds where the lord Jesus and the New Jerusalem dwells.
Jtaylor1 1 year ago
Nonsense alert. Nonsense alert. "Young Earth Unanimously rejected?" Big mistake. Leading geophysicists and astronomers alike are fleeing the "Old Earth," and indeed the "Old Universe" like sailors off a sinking ship
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
You're kidding right? Name one leading scientist who believes the earth is young.
Hint: there are none!
glovergj 2 years ago
OK, smart guy. Shoot down Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish on some basis other than the fact that they believe in YEC and work for the ICR. In other words, actually criticise their methodology rather than their results and who happens to agree with them.
And there's more where they came from, and where they didn't come from. I do have secular sources as well.
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
I'm sorry, was there a leading geophysicist or astronomer in that list? I must have missed it.
Methods? What methods? The individuals you listed have all agreed to statements of faith that declare the earth to be young despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Name one secular scientist who believe in a young earth.
glovergj 2 years ago
It seems I have misplaced my source for the time being, so I'll have to do some digging before I can get you the exact name. In the meantime, you might want to provide me with one example, even one, of how this series so far meshes with your initial statement that scientific concepts - i.e. our interpretation of the evidence we see - are as fallible as our interpretations of Scripture. So far, you seem to be maintaining that if secular says yes and Bible says no, secular automatically wins.
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
It's not about secular vs. the bible. It's about good ideas vs. bad ones. Science is constantly changing because of new data. ie-our interpretations of both special and general revelation are fallible.
glovergj 2 years ago
Yes, but you seem to maintain that in the presence of any and every apparent discrepancy (i.e. any conflict between what we perceive in the text and what we perceive in the world) we should interpret what we see in the text by what we see around us without hesitation. You see what I'm trying to say here?
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
Can you give me one example where there was a conflict and what we thought we saw in scripture turned out to be correct and what we saw in nature turned out to be wrong? I can't think of any. But I can think of many many many examples of the opposite.
glovergj 2 years ago
Archeology. Have you done any research on the myriad "inaccuracies" found over the years in the book of Luke. Political titles, locations of cities, etc.?
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
@Omnitrix12 I am sorry you are so gullible. Please attend a conference on geology or astronomy anywhere on earth and talk to these people. They are all over and happen all the time, they are easy to find. I have they are my friends. The age of the earth and the universe is only controversial in the third decimal place. There are raging debates on all sorts of things at scientific conferences, but NO-ONE thinks that the age of the earth or universe is not measured in billions of years.
michalchik 1 year ago
Umm, no, geocentrism was promoted by the Church because Copernicus' and Galileo's enemies got jealous and so sought religious justification. Galileo got in trouble becuase he insulted the Pope. Also, the RCC did not hold to a strictly Geocentrist position but sort of a combination of the geo and solar systems. Still, this a good example of how Christians misunderstand scripture.
Randomicity912 2 years ago
what on earth are you saying you can't work for NASA if you believe in geocentricism?
NASA uses the geocentric model for many of its missions.
the fact of the matter is, the heliocentric model has not been proven. its all speculation based on relativity.
Luther and Calvin were heretics that are burning in hell right now. they believed in baptismal regeneration.
LOLFunny687 2 years ago
"There are at least 67 passages of scripture that clearly and plainly describe the earth as fixed or motionless.
and the entire heavens as revolving around it." Do you care to point us to a link where we can view this list?
Or did you just read it somewhere? Perhaps in your agenda package?
PhuqueU 2 years ago
I agree, people believing Catholicism back then that, as you, had an eisegesis of the Bible does not mean the Bible cannot be trusted. It means the people themselves, like you glovergj, cannot be trusted.
Instead of retelling God's message, we need to move to a more perspicacious approach. We need to move away from interpretation of the Bible, and move towards a sensitive discernment.
dmarvin811 2 years ago
Nice try to blame the Catholics for this, but Luther and Calvin were not Catholic.
You might not like groups like "The Assiciation of Biblical Astronomy" or the "Fair Education Foundation" because they argue gencentricity from the Bible. But they are simply taking a plain face-value reading of the Scriptures over what the scientific community says.
glovergj 2 years ago
I submit that you only believe otherwise becasue of science. And yet you accuse me of rejecting the Bible over science? Do you not see your own hipocracy?
glovergj 2 years ago
fixedearth (dot) com
Here you find all the geocentric resources you need.
glovergj 2 years ago
Again these fixdearth people are irrelevant. What does the Bible say, not what is interpreted by people that misunderstand, is what matters here.
Appeals to authority does nothing for us.
"but Luther and Calvin were not Catholic."
Again not that it matters at all what people believe but please provide proof of this claim or is this yet another bare assertion?
dmarvin811 2 years ago
The Bible says that the earth does not move unless God is angry and shakes it until the stars fall from heaven like figs from a tree. This doens't make sense in the context of a modern cosmology, but it makes perfect sense in terms of an ancient cosmology. Context, context, context! If you search the scriptures for the answer to the qeustions of whether the earth or sun is at the center, you will only find references to the heavens moving and earth standing still. That's the point.
glovergj 2 years ago
Proof of what claim, that Calvin and Luther were not Catholic? Or that they condemned Copernicus and taught only a fixed earth? If the latter, it's all in the video. Or use Google if you want more.
glovergj 2 years ago
Comment removed
PhuqueU 2 years ago
Comment removed
PhuqueU 2 years ago
Comment removed
PhuqueU 2 years ago