- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause if the Earth is stationary and not spinning as you claim then for the
Why would the stars have to orbit the earth every 24 hours? As I understand it, the sun and the moon orbit the earth in the geocentric model.
stars to move across the sky as we observe them doing and as was shown in
your video they would have to be going around us.
Something has to be spinning for the stars to spin around in the sky.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBy actually looking at the sky...
I don't understand why you guys think the stars have to go around the earth every 24 hours. It is the sun and the moon that go around the earth to keep time, not the stars. The Holy Bible does not say anything about the stars are involved in keeping time for the days and seasons. Where do you get such an idea?
Did you not watch your own video which showed the stars spinning around????
Originally posted by googlefudgeI haven't made any videos of my own. It must have been somebody else's video. 😏
By actually looking at the sky...
Did you not watch your own video which showed the stars spinning around????
P.S. Do you get dizzy looking at the spinning stars up in the sky? Maybe it is just an optical illusion you are seeing. Or maybe you were smoking weed.
Originally posted by JS357I just got the book in the mail today. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth by Henry M. Morris. I now believe somebody else was joking.
I posted a way to get the book in which Morris made the claim that the craters are the result of a battle between angels and demons. RJ wondered if Morris was joking. He said he is getting the book. I wonder what he will say about it. Was Morris joking?
In his preface he says the following:
There are more natural phenomena indicating the earth is verry young than those indicating it is old, and all the latter can easily be reinterpreted in terms of a young earth.
(page vii)
Here are other quotes from his book:
There was never such an opportunity for production of fossils as in the great Flood. neither was there ever, before or since, such as opportunity for the formation of vast beds of sediment and for their rapid conversion into sedimentary rock, as in the great Flood.
(page 24)
The pre-Adaic cataclysm theory is illogical and unscientfic as well.
(page 26
However, many religious people today have felt they should somehow accommodate evolution in their system of thought... Accordingly, many Christians have been inclined to go along with some form of theistic evolution and others have thought they could, like ostriches, ignore the whole problem. They find it more convenient to ASSUME that Scripture can somehow be reinterpreted to harmonize with evolutionary philosophy.
(page 71)
The Bible-believing Christian must realize that, if he accepts the geologic-ages system, he is implicitly accepting the whole evolutionary package which is synonymous with it.
(page 77)
Thus neither the day-age theory nor the pre-Adamic cataclysm theory is capable of harmonizing the Genesis record with the scientific implications of the geologic-age concept. Not only are these two ideas unscientific, however--they are also un-Scriptural.
(page 87)
We are forced to the conclusion, as Bible-believing Christians, that the earth is really quite young after all, regardless of the contrary views of evolutionary geologists.
(page 89)
There is no mention of craters on the moon being a result of a battle between angels and demons. 😏
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI'll have to take your for for it. I don't think you are a dishonest person but somebody is wrong.
I just got the book in the mail today. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth by Henry M. Morris. I now believe somebody else was joking.
In his preface he says the following:
[quote] There are more natural phenomena indicating the earth is verry young than those indicating it is old, and all the latter can easily be reinterpreted in terms of a young eart ...[text shortened]... s no mention of craters on the moon being a result of a battle between angels and demons. 😏[/b]
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357Well, I got the book right in front of me. I read it hurriedly, but I did not see anything like that and it is only 95 pages and 115 pages if you count the appendices, indexes of subjects and scripture, and recommended books for further reading.
I'll have to take your for for it. I don't think you are a dishonest person but somebody is wrong.
I will double check if you could narrow it down to the page or even the chapter that it is in. But I think someone else is trying to play the joke, not Henry Morris.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes I can give you that, page 61-62. The wikipedia article on Morris says
Well, I got the book right in front of me. I read it hurriedly, but I did not see anything like that and it is only 95 pages and 115 pages if you count the appendices, indexes of subjects and scripture, and recommended books for further reading.
I will double check if you could narrow it down to the page or even the chapter that it is in. But I think someone else is trying to play the joke, not Henry Morris.
"Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.[19]"
...
Footnote "19. Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1972 and 1978), pp. 61-62.
Note the first publication year was 1972. but there was another run in 1978. What is the publication year of your copy?
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357The following is on the page just before the TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yes I can give you that, page 61-62. The wikipedia article on Morris says
"Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.[19]"
...
Footnote "19. Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: ...[text shortened]... on year was 1972. but there was another run in 1978. What is the publication year of your copy?
[b]THE REMARKABLE BIRTH OF PLANET EARTH[/B]
First English edition copyright 1972 by The institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California, and published by creation Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California.
This English edition published in 1978 by Bethany fellowship, Inc., by special arrangement with Creation life Publishers.
ISBN No. 0-87123-485-8
Pages 61-62 of my edition begins with discussing the term "firmament" and when the stars were created in reference to Genesis 1:16 and Job 38:4-7 and the figurative language "morning stars singing" as actually referring to the "sons of God' or the angels during creation.
Then he says the stars were obviously created quickly on the fourth day with maturity and thus the appearance of age just as Adam and Eve and the rest of creation. The only mention of the moon is with his quotation of Genesis 1:14-15. There is no mention at all on those two pages of any kind of war between the angels and demons or how the crators on the moon were formed.
Obviously, someone has added some bogus information in the Wikipedia article and nobody has yet challenged it. I will take a look at that article to see for myself.
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357I saw the wikipedia article and challenged the accuracy of that entry and reference.
Yes I can give you that, page 61-62. The wikipedia article on Morris says
"Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.[19]"
...
Footnote "19. Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: ...[text shortened]... on year was 1972. but there was another run in 1978. What is the publication year of your copy?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsApparently so.
The following is on the page just before the TABLE OF CONTENTS
[quote] [b]THE REMARKABLE BIRTH OF PLANET EARTH[/B]
First English edition copyright 1972 by The institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California, and published by creation Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California.
This English edition published in 1978 by Bethany fellowship, In ...[text shortened]... article and nobody has yet challenged it. I will take a look at that article to see for myself.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357More to that: there are lots of google hits that say the same thing about the book making mention of craters and the battle.
Apparently so.
Apparently the person who reviewed the book at
http://www.amazon.com/The-Remarkable-Birth-Planet-Earth/dp/0871234858
didn't really read the book.
07 Feb 15
The remark is in the 1972 edition. " The possibility is at least open that the fractures and scars on the moon and Mars, the shattered remnants of an erstwhile planet that became the asteroids, the peculiar rings of Saturn...Perhaps they reflect some kind of heavenly catastrophy either with Satan's primeval rebellion or his continuing battle against Michael and his angels."
07 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by catstormWell, apparently that speculative possibility was closed by the publication of the 1978 edition. The person that put it in to the Wikipedia article on Morris stated it as if Morris actually believed it as fact. Very misleading.
The remark is in the 1972 edition. " The possibility is at least open that the fractures and scars on the moon and Mars, the shattered remnants of an erstwhile planet that became the asteroids, the peculiar rings of Saturn...Perhaps they reflect some kind of heavenly catastrophy either with Satan's primeval rebellion or his continuing battle against Michael and his angels."