Lesson 6/16: Does the Earth Move?

Today, most Christians understand that the earth rotates on its axis once per day and orbits the sun once per year. But this idea was once totally incompatible with Christian theology. What changed in the last 400 years? Why do some Christians still reject the moving earth on biblical and theological grounds?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• science
• christian
• education
• classical
• school
• college
• gordon
• glover
• firmament
• heliocentric
• heliocentricism
• geocentric
• geocentricism
• astronomy
• celestial
• mechanics
• aristotle
• heaven
• hell
• calvin
• luther
• enlightenment
• galileo
• copernicus
• brahe
• tyco
• newton
• kepler
• young
• earth
• six
• days
• flood
• answers
• genesis

[MrAmericanzombie]

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!!

[darrenbred]

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!

[KimbaIsHere]

Thanks for your videos -- They are great.

[fmanh]

@richardaberdeen And you apparently doesn't even understand the discussion at hand...

[debieblue]

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?

[richardaberdeen]

( 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]

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]

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]

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.

[robhaidheuch]

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?