/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>How honest are you in interpreting the Bible?

As much as apostolic magisterium let's me i.e. the most.

> For example in Chronicles 16:30 it says that Earth is stationary and immovable and this quote in particular was used thoughout the ages to confirm a geostationary worldview

This verse can be understood as what it is - part of psalm. If you take it literally you would have to throw away other parts of Scripture, especially Revelations, which says that world shall be moved. And destoroyed. Also, you should retake physics lessons, especially ones about relative point of view.

> Galileo was even punished by the Inquisition for challenging this worldview.

>this meme again

Galileo was a proud dick. Plain and simple. He thought his theory as fact, fact that would not have been proven until stellar parallax was proven. When Church asked it to proove it, he wrote a book that basiclly said "lol pope iz sdupid :DDD". So he was judged and out of four his orginal arguments he choose only one that was wrong (i.e. Earth orbiting sun causes tides). And he was rightly prooven wrong. And for punishment, he lived in papal palce when he wrote better books on mechanics.

>t was only with the advent of more advanced science that nearly the whole of Christendom (save some Americans) stopped interpeting everything in the Bible literally.

Also false. Since ancient times Church said that there is four way to interpret any given passage: literal, allegorical, analogical and moral.

>I see this as dishonest, because if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be perfect in every regard and describe the World of God's making in an accurate fashion.

If it's perfect it can only be interpreted by perfect interpreter, magisterium if you wish. And this perfect interpreter who is full of the same Spirit that wrote Holy Writ never ever said anything about cosmology save that God created all thigs visible and invisible.

> This seeming disconnect between reality and the Bible is what's keeping me from true faith, can anyone help me reconcile this?

One truth cannot contradict other. Reason cannot contradict Faith for they have same origin. If your interpretation is contract to other truths your interpretation is wrong.

>>542092

>1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

You need to know the difference between figurative speech and literal speech. This verse tells the earth to "fear" God–hello, the earth is not a human being. Its not even an animal. If the earth itself really can fear then this is a great mystery to us.

But addressing your point specifically, it doesn't say the earth "IS" stable. It says the "world SHALL be stable, that it be not moved," for "FEAR OF THE LORD." In fact this verse seems to suggest that the earth is normally moving, since it says "shall" (is it not already? if it is already, why even mention it?), and we have the picture of the earth standing still out of fear, like someone who freezes in shock when something frightening happens.

So ACCORDING to this verse, the Bible knew that the earth was moving through space thousands of years before we finally figured it out for ourselves. Nice.

>>542105

>Galileo was a proud dick. Plain and simple

>If you're prideful your research will be thrown out to satisfy the pride of my pope instead

>Nevermind that neither of us benefit form this

Oh really now?

>>542168

Catholics oppose science because it challenges papal authority. That has nothing to do with the Bible, since Catholics don't read it anyways.

>>542197

>Throughout history the Bible and the events described within were interpreted completely literally

nope

see St. Thomas Aquinas

and this dude

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" - st. augustine of hippo

>>542168

>If you're prideful your research will be thrown out to satisfy the pride of my pope instead

Cute. And now lesson of history, via , let's be kind and name it "Sceptical to catholicism" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

>Nevermind that neither of us benefit form this

Oh but we did. Galileo was better mechanic than astronomer and his later works are more profitable to any of us.

>>542172

>Catholics oppose science because it challenges papal authority.

<what is Jesuit order

> That has nothing to do with the Bible, since Catholics don't read it anyways.

<What is Mass

>>542247

>what is Jesuit order

satanists who hunt down actual christians and persecute them, trying to lead them astray while in disguise

>What is Mass

a grievous blasphemy

>>542251

I'm starting to think that the real reprobates are those who blaspheme endlessly against God and His Church.

>>542247

>wikipedia as a source

Please no.

>Oh but we did. Galileo was better mechanic than astronomer and his later works are more profitable to any of us.

You're missing the point, aren't you? By "neither of us benefit form this", I'm not talking about when you started accepting his works, but when the pope was denying them. I shouldn't have to explain this!

>>542247

><what is Jesuit order

Today it's a bunch of communists and atheists who want the RCC to become openly pro-LGBTQLMNOP

>>542262

You're trying to explain subversion to someone who has been subverted, it's not worth it sometimes.

I believe in heliocentrism but not big bang or evolietion

>>542197

They haven't, at least not universally.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Flood covered the whole Earth, neither does it in any universally binding council or papal statement, nor in other relevant source. There is therefore nothing unusual in the fact that there is no geological evidence for a geographically global Flood.

We know, by the universal testimony of the Church Fathers and the several passages of the Bible that could be hardly interpreted otherwise, that the Flood touched all humanity. This requires moving its date very far back in time - possibly to times before Homo sapiens and to those of earlier human species - but is not of itself impossible, especially concerning the fact that in the theological meaning of the term, whether animal is a human depends on whether it has a rational soul, and not on any physical characteristics that could be detected by science.

>>542260

Pope's personal opinions aren't dogmas.

>>542301

>places with constant floods have stories of floods

Gettin' those almonds a cracking.

>>542303

well no, they all have stories of "great, world ending" floods

>542251

And this my dear friends is what "no argument bait", not worthy of (you) looks like

>>542260

>Please no.

I choose wikipedia because it's shits over Catholicism all over the place. And yet they cannot hide facts that are in plain sight. I could give you article by Catholics if you want.

>You're missing the point, aren't you? By "neither of us benefit form this", I'm not talking about when you started accepting his works, but when the pope was denying them. I shouldn't have to explain this!

Pope sided with scientific method and we profit from this far more than blind belief in proofless novelties

>>542262

>Jesuits II=Jesuits I

>Implying

Jesuits were scientist. There is no denying it, it's historical fact.

>>542297

>"So wait, are you telling me that anti catholic memes about role of pope in church are not true?!"

>>542301

For sake of argument (for flood being local or global does not change anything) Psalm 104, which is creation account holds that water covered Earth once.

>>542312

That's my point. They were using something relevant to their everyday lives.

>>542318

not if they were referring to the same flood of the Bible

>>542320

>all people groups with a flood myth are located around floodplains

>"must be the same one mentioned by this specific group!"

This displays your ignorance of geographic location and its influence on the people of the area.

>>542297

>even though I lost I'll pretend I won and leave

Typical

>>542297

They aren't, find me a Catholic source, no matter from what time in history, claiming they are.

>>542301

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia beautifully refutes this text as by necessity referring to a geographically universal Flood.

What are the clams, the structures and the statue supposed to prove?

And the universality of Flood stories is consistent with a humanity-wide Deluge, it doesn't need a global one. That said, I don't think even this universality is a complete proof. It can be explained through diffusion of myths throughout different cultures, existence of constant local floods, perhaps even the global occurrence of outburst floods during the last deglaciation.

>>542326

Also

>some people who discovered things as they really are were even murdered by the Inquisition.

Do you mean Giordano "The Protomormon gnostic" bruno, by "people who discovered things"?

>>542351

>How much did that matter in this situation?

I suppose not at all, considering that the issue was completely unrelated to the doctrine of papal infallibility.

>When he declared that Galileo's ideas were wrong was speaking form the chair officially.

Not as proclaiming a dogma.

>Need I remind you that Galileo had to stand on trial for his ideas? That's use of his power as the "Vicar of Christ" at the time.

Irrelevant to the question of papal infallibility, which infallibility wasn't involved.

>>542354

You must be thinking of a argument with someone else because my first reply is >>542168

I just think Galileo's persecution was a fucking retarded decision and it was basically bound to become the a staple in the anti-christian movements like it is today. If you would put your pride down and accept that, you'd have a lot more to fire at your enemy.

The Pope's infallibility doesn't matter, that's now why I'm here.

>>542360

>Ignore it because it seems like a article headline which is a bit better

>Read post again

>en.wikipedia.org…

PLEASE STOP

>>542369

He was a Jesuit.

>>542374

A priest nonetheless.

>>542374

So's the Pope. What's your point? What, exactly, do you think Jesuits are?

>>542376

I'm going to take a guess and say this.

http://www.understandthetimes.org/jesuit.shtml

>>542383

Hilarious read, thanks!

>>542351

>When he declared that Galileo's ideas were wrong was speaking form the chair officially.

He didn't, you clueless child. First of all, Pope wasn't even there, it was case made by inquisition. And inquisition is judicial arm of church, first and foremost. And now the real shocker:

==Seting matter in court=/=proclaiming

dogma==

>Need I remind you that Galileo had to stand on trial for his ideas?

And he was blow the fuck out by his own pride. Presenting only tides as a proof for heliocentrism (news flash, tides are not caused by earth moving) vs lack of stellar parallax (which was not proven till, what XVIII/XIX century?) was stupid.

>hat's use of his power as the "Vicar of Christ" at the time.

<Any inquisitor is vicar of Christ now

>>542355

>I just think Galileo's persecution was a fucking retarded decision and it was basically bound to become the a staple in the anti-christian movements like it is today. If you would put your pride down and accept that, you'd have a lot more to fire at your enemy.

"Persecution" of Galileo was not persecution at all. Read a book, nigger.

It went like this.

>Ptolemy makes Geocentric model, supported by empirical evidence

>It's received as scientific standard

>XV century cames, Catholic cleric, Copernic, makes heliocentrism a thing "Because math works better in that model plus it's look prettier"

>He does not present it as fact for he was a smart guy and knew that lack of stellar paralx is a thing

>But his works is readed and recived well

>Then, Gallieo cames and takes this idea too next level

>Presents four arguments for it, but he is the most pride for one that is wrong, i.e. tides are caused by earth moveing

>Bwing a pride dick he teaches is as a fact

>But he does not stop there but goes to say that "If Scripture is contrary to my teaching, Scripture is wrong"

>Inquisition say to him "wow dude, that;s heretical, stop that crap. Also, proove your theory"

>Pope, a firend of Gellieo says "m8, I love you and love your work, but that's over the line my dude"

>Gallieo, being a pride dick, wirtes something that can be descibed only as "Pope iz sdupid, iam smart"

>Inquisition get him on trail, test his claim, and useing scientific method blow him away

>As "punishment" he is to recitate prayers every day and live in papal palace and denouce his theory

>He lives happilly, visited by his friends, cardnials, popes and scientisit and wirtes his greaters works there

>Church does not engage in this shit anymore until stellar paralax is proven

>>542361

<Being this dense

>>542403

>All those spelling mistakes

Mate did you stub a toe?

Nevertheless,

[Insert all the text complaining about Galileo being prideful in this quote]

I'm going to point you to >>542168 again. You should be able this isn't reason to claim Galileo was wrong since the bible itself says that we are flawed.

Everyone sins, stop destroying their accomplishments because of this. Only you will suffer for that.

>Pope wasn't even there

You claim he was later on your greentext. Are you trying to tell me that since he wasn't there at the start you can claim that he never was?

>If Scripture is contrary to my teaching, Scripture is wrong

It basically would be.

>Presenting only tides as a proof for heliocentrism (news flash, tides are not caused by earth moving)

>Presents four arguments for it, but he is the most pride for one that is wrong, i.e. tides are caused by earth moveing

Do you realize this part isn't even wrong? Tides ARE influenced and caused by the earth rotation. Just because there are other parts to it(Such as other phenomena also causing tides, like the gravity of the moon) doesn't mean its wrong to say that earth's rotation causes tides.

Also wikipedia still isn't a valid source for information no matter how angry you get about it.

>>542360

>Cosmas's view was never influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era.[2]

>>542448

Good post.

>>542092

OP, modern scientific consensus is that the earth is stable and in the center of an ever-expanding universe. It is scientifically verified that the center of the universe happens to be wherever the universe is being observed from. A model where the earth is the center can be just as scientifically accurate as a model where the sun is the center, or the center of the Milky Way is the center.

>>542511

>the universe doesn't happen to please me

Cry about it. The Bible is right. The Bible always has been right. Just because it isn't wrong (or right in the way you want it to be) doesn't make it any less true.

>>542506

1. What does that have to do with anything? The Earth is presented as a sphere in the Bible.

2. Git gud at science – the Earth and the Sun are moving around each other. Gravity works both ways; just because an object is more massive, doesn't mean it is stationary. Which body is "moving" is relative, determined entirely by where you make the center of your model. If you make the Earth the center of your model (which is only natural, since every human who has ever lived has used the Earth as his or her reference level), then the Sun does move around the Earth.

3. If you fix the Earth in you model, does the Sun go around the Earth? Yes. The Moon? Yes. The Planets? Yes. Them being equidistant doesn't even matter since the Bible acknowledges that planets were on parallaxes ("wandering").

Your decision to make whatever is most massive the center is completely arbitrary and makes less sense than making the point of observation the center. From a third party that doesn't take observers into account, there is no center… rather, everything is the center. If you zoom out of our solar system, then heliocentrism should be equally as preposterous to you as geocentrism, and further still, galeocentrism is preposterous. I say that making the only place in the known universe with life, intelligence, liquid water, and heavy elements the center is far less arbitrary and less of a problem than making whatever happens to be the most massive thing in your scale the center.

>>542197

Yes Noah's flood literally happened. Why do you think it didn't

>>543369

Let's ignore the fact that there's no geological evidence for it happening and suppose for a minute that it did. The whole earth would have been covered in water for a year. All of the world's forests would have been destroyed. Noah only took the animals which have nostrils aboard so all of the insects would have also all died under water. Also how did Noah take the animals that don't live in the middle East aboard his arc and have them survive? Even the animals that Noah would have save in his arc would not have been able to repopulate their respective species, because two individuals are not enough for that(not enough genetic diversity).Noah's flood would have left a dead planet. The idea of a global flood happening in the near past is impossible on it's face.

>>542425

>Mate did you stub a toe?

No. It's called typing foreign language at midnight.

>I'm going to point you to >>542168 again.

Then i am going to point you to >>542247 again

>You should be able this isn't reason to claim Galileo was wrong since the bible itself says that we are flawed.

He was wrong. Everyone with some knowledge will say it. Tides are not argument for heliocentrism.

>Everyone sins, stop destroying their accomplishments because of this. Only you will suffer for that.

Dafuq do you even implying here? I just state a fact - Galileo was a great engineer, slightly worse astronom and someone with giant ego. Just as Newton was heretic and cultist and Edison was thief. Not destroying their achievements here, just stating facts.

>You claim he was later on your greentext. Are you trying to tell me that since he wasn't there at the start you can claim that he never was?

I said that Pope - a) told Galileo as a friend, that he is bad theologian and b) that he was shitposted about by Galileo.

Reading comprehension is not your strong side, is it?

>It basically would be.

You do know that Galileo version of heliocentrism is inaccurate? Forget tides, he said that Sun is absolute center of Universe (it's center of solar system and is not even center, center of it is center of mass of whole sytem and while for most of time it's in the sun it's not synonymus) and that orbits are perfect circles.

And you also know that Church never ever ever tried to use Bible as science book for a) it's not it purpose and b) it can be interpreted in so many ways that it's pointless really.

>Do you realize this part isn't even wrong? Tides ARE influenced and caused by the earth rotation. Just because there are other parts to it(Such as other phenomena also causing tides, like the gravity of the moon) doesn't mean its wrong to say that earth's rotation causes tides.

<Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun and the rotation of Earth.

<Galileo Galilei in his 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, whose working title was Dialogue on the Tides, gave an explanation of the tides. The resulting theory, however, was incorrect as he attributed the tides to the sloshing of water caused by the Earth's movement around the sun. He hoped to provide mechanical proof of the Earth's movement. The value of his tidal theory is disputed. Galileo rejected Kepler's explanation of the tides.

You slept during physics lessons, did you?

>Also wikipedia still isn't a valid source for information no matter how angry you get about it.

You would say it about any source, for you have no counter arguments. But know my grace http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

>>543346

>arbitrarily defines the center by mass

>fixes the sun and cannot imagine the solar system in any other way

>says people are dense for not subscribing to the same arbitrary center as you

According to Einstein's General Relativity, there is no difference between Earth fixed and the universe going around it as opposed to (another part of) the universe remaining fixed and the earth rotating/revolving. Those two are equivalent. Why? Because motion is relative under general relativity. Modern science cannot refute geocentrism.

Also, according to Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem, if the universe is bounded, without holes, and continuous (which according to all reasonable astrophysical models, it is), there is at least one point that remains fixed after transformation. This point would un-arbitrarily be the center of the universe. There is no way of determining that this point is or will be the Earth, but by making a leap of faith, I think it's safe to assume.

>>543429

>You would say it about any source, for you have no counter arguments

Tbh fam I think you should avoid wikipedia anyways because if he can use wikipedia as a source in this argument he wins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

>Religious opposition to heliocentrism arose from Biblical references such as Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[68]

>Dava Sobel argues that prior to Galileo's 1633 trial and judgement for heresy, Pope Urban VIII had become preoccupied with court intrigue and problems of state, and began to fear persecution or threats to his own life. In this context, Sobel argues that the problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo. Having been accused of weakness in defending the church, Urban reacted against Galileo out of anger and fear

>By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism

Yeah look, This guy thinks the Pope did it out of political pressure(I am totally not supporting this statement just putting it out there!)

Also Galileo was protestant.

Welcome to biaspedia.

>>543453

Article is not equal to article though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

>Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth

>Copernican and Tychonic systems were observationally equivalent and the available evidence could be explained equally well by either

>he debate was unfriendly, and Galileo's blunt and sometimes sarcastic style, though not extraordinary in academic debates of the time, made him enemies.

>My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

>Urban personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, to include Urban's own arguments, and for Galileo not to advocate heliocentrism.

Biaspedia is real and it's shit but even it does not hide all the truth

>>543430

Look, I'm not arbitrarily declaring the Sun the center of the Solar system because it has the most mass. Rather the fact that it has the most mass makes it so that the planets orbit it, not the other way away. I get what you're saying about relativity to this, but the Sun does NOT move RELATIVE to the planets. The planets(and other objects like asteroids and the like) move around the Sun in a roughly circular orbit. The most outer orbit can be taken to be the outer bound of the Solar system. Now geometrically the center of a circle is the point that is the same distance from all the points making up the circle and that point is the Sun. No mather how you spin it the SUN is the center of SOLAR system.

>>542092

Don't listen to the narrative that the modern material world is trying to push, that "Biblical literalism" (which in the loaded sense that they mean it wasn't a thing until Evangelicals) or the Church held back science and affected the various theories of the universe.

The changing theories of the universe were coming out in the late sixteenth century and throughout the seventeenth century. At that time, Europe was more confessionally aware than it had ever been due to the Reformation, with Catholic and Protestant countries alike more on guard for heresy than ever. By the logic of the popular narrative, it should have been more impossible than ever for these supposedly heretical universes to arise in this time period. Most serious historians attribute the drastic cultural shifts in this time period (these universes being indicative of that shift) to the socio-political seventeenth century crisis.

The reality is that even before this time, scholars could publish almost anything they wanted, as long as they published in Latin. It was the language of the learned elite, and did not cause nearly the problems that were caused by demagogues preaching in the vernacular. The religious wars of the Protestant Reformation (including the Hussite Wars) and the crisis of the subsequent century are proof that this is true.

The universes came about when they did in part because of the seventeenth century crisis, but there was also a near constant progression of these ideas. Some of the models that came out by people that are supposedly the prophets of scientific materialism keep a geocentric model or use occult/philosophical ideas in their models. Early on, it was all about math. Certain universe models were favored over others because of their mathematical perfection. As people got better at observing the universe through methods and technology, they had to adapt the mathematical models to the observations.

Things grew and changed over time, and scientists got more resistance from other scientists (which is no different today) than they got from the Church.

>>543510

>doesn't understand general relativity at all

>>543430

>>543510

Mathematically you can make earth the center of the solar system and watch everything orbit around us

>>543537

care to enlighten me on what I'm missing here? How is the sun moving relative to the Earth?

>>543556

that's pants on head retarded though and not all what an average person would understand as the center. If the solar system is a large circle outlined by the most outer orbits, then the center of the circle is the Sun.

Galileo was told to stop presenting his hypothesis as true, and only as perosnal hypothesis. He didn't comply and was put in house arrest which I think wan't quite upheld.

He was told that should he ever get true proof of his theories, there would be no problem. But he had not true proof, and his arguments were wrong. Later someone obtained true proof of this and that, and the usual position changed.

You know nothing about the Bible, nor about how it has been undertstood and studied through the centuries, so you should refrain from commenting about it.

>>543750

Circles are just our personal perceptions. Movement is always relative to something.

>>543750

And by the way, you only "see circles" (which aren't even circles) because you consider the Sun to be a still point of reference. Take anything else as point of reference and there are no circles. You can take Earth, any other country, the center of the galaxy, or any point in space.

>>543793

No matter what your frame of reference is, the Moon observably rotates around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun and the Sun around the center of the Milky Way. Things like apparent retrograde motion are explainable only by the heliocentric model.

>>543796

"Rotation" is just a way to desrcibe some perception when you decide a priori that the Sun will be still. You just describe that the distance between some objects seems to remain more or less the same. But that's it, declaring something to be still or moving is arbitrary

>>543801

Again, the moment you say "around the object" means you consider the object to be stationary. Any perception of any orbit, or circle, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Observing what you consider a circle, or a triangle, or a square doesn't make anything to be a point of reference.

When you say "the Sun rotates around the center of the Milky Way…" I can just say that the Sun is stationary and the galaxy moves around it in some way.

Motion is always relative. You can talk all day about circles, and your personal pivots. But if someone comes and says "Earth is my pivot and I consider it stationary", there is absolultely nothing you can do about it, or any way in which you can deny it. I don't care that you consider a path to be "strange". I don't care about what "forces" (whatever they are) cause movement. Every movement is relative. Even when you imagine movement, in your head you create a stationary camera from which you see things, probably fixed to some element.

Wait, so you two are actually arguing over whether or not the sun orbits the earth or vice versa?

>>543815

They argue like this

>General relativity proved that point of reference is relative and thus it is true to say that Earth is relatively stationary

<But they rotate the center of mass

>Only if you set your point of refrence at said center. From point of refence that is Earth we are stationary

<But the center of mass…

>General relativity m8, lear about it

<but muh center

>>543816

Sounds more like a semantic wordgame more than a argument.

>earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun

>from my point of view it doesn't

>>543817

There is a simple observable fact: you can take any pivot you want as the point of reference for movement and consider it to be stationary. That is clear as water.

>>543805

>>543816

>>543823

It's trivially true that you can describe anything to be stationary in a certain reference frame but utterly meaningless. Everything could equally be described as moving relative to Mars, Haley's Comet, myself or a housefly buzzing around my pantry. It doesn't change how things move relative to each other, you've just changed the origin of your co-ordinate system. You can describe everything as moving relative to a stationary Earth, but you haven't changed what they pivot around. If I watch someone running around a track, depending on where I'm standing I could describe him as running away from me, toward me, or even clockwise or counter-clockwise, but I haven't changed the fact that he's running circles around the grass in the middle and not me.

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=kqB4ZSmemnkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=sheol+architecture&source=bl&ots=3xCOnP_GqW&sig=HKIODMf1WBz1WIzjL_GYQqHqw-4&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaw9v_wYnXAhUGfZAKHfz2AjEQ6AEINjAH#v=onepage&q=sheol%20architecture&f=false

TRUE literalism is flat-eartheism and ancient cosmology.

Take the plunge and look into flat,hollow,and square-shaped earth theories

>>543832

Again, "around" or "pivot" just means that the object keeps at teh same distance.

>>543425

>The idea of a global flood happening in the near past is impossible on it's face.

Good thing Genesis 7 doesn't require that.

>>543510

>but the Sun does NOT move RELATIVE to the planets.

Yes, yes it does. Just not as much, because it's more massive.

>in a roughly circular orbit.

In a roughly elliptical orbit actually. Some of the highly eccentric elliptical orbits could not in any way be compared to a circle.

can you dig down to hell?

Baptists teach hell is literally inside the earth

>>544120

they also teach that fossils and any other evidence proving the earth isn't only 6,000 years old is satan's tricks

which feels like a DBZ level powerup, I hear old beelzebub can do minor miracles like healing to mislead people, but didn't know he could do stuff with matter

>>544122

>tfw satan actually has a pshicall,not spiritual body,but he's just invisible

>>544120

Well, the deepest we've dug is 12 km. The earth's crust is ~50km. So, who knows? Maybe Hell is still down there somewhere.

>>544508

I don't imagine it would be very pleasant an experience. Hypothetically, of course. Dante wrote about it, but he had a guide.

Then again, if the living aren't supposed to go there, we may hit some bizarre impenetrable wall.

>>544518

>>544514

I want to swim in the waters above TBQH

>>542105

galileo was a ghei joo who stoll strong polska ideas from copernic >:DDDDD

>>543833

Revelation is in the genre of apocalyptic literature, which has always been regarded as largely symbolic and coded. Genesis has always been taken as being in the genre of history (until very recently, when some people have tried to claim parts of it are poetic).

>>544768

If I'm not mistaken this is from a YEC book, yes?

>>542092

>stationary and immovable

Did you pay to your lessons about frames of reference in year 9 physics?

Oh, anon, sweetie…