KellyJay's 'How God Did It' thread.

Originally posted by JS357
Of course. A Biblical justification of an article of Christian dogma will be claimed by those who promulgate or defend the dogma, and will be denied by those who reject the dogma. The primary basis for the adoption by the Church of the Aristotelian model was the special relationship of God and man.

"In 1992, 350 years later, Pope John Paul II officially dec ...[text shortened]... he earth."

From: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html

no it did not have support, in fact there is not one creditable Biblical citation which lent
itself to the claim. Citing these tenuous references does not negate the fact that the
Bible makes no claim anywhere that the earth is the centre of the cosmos, its a non
biblical assertion. Let me just repeat this, the verse states that Joshua, bid the sun to
stand still and its is supposed to equate with, the earth is the centre of the cosmos,
otherwise, it doesn't makes sense? Mmm so lets get this straight, you are citing a
supernatural event , beyond rationalisation, and then attempting to rationalise it to
support a tenuous premise that Joshua really meant that the sun should stand still, not
in its perceived path across the heavens, but in its orbit around the earth, hardly
convincing is it, considering that the earth is nowhere mentioned in any of the verses?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it did not have support, in fact there is not one creditable Biblical citation which lent
itself to the claim. Citing these tenuous references does not negate the fact that the
Bible makes no claim anywhere that the earth is the centre of the cosmos, its a non
biblical assertion. Let me just repeat this, the verse states that Joshua, bid t ...[text shortened]... ardly
convincing is it, considering that the earth is nowhere mentioned in any of the verses?

The earth being the center of the universe is not entailed by Joshua 10:13. As I said, that part of the Church's dogma on cosmology was based largely on the special relationship of God to man. I am only dealing with what Joshua 10:13 reveals about the astronomy of the day. What is revealed is the incorrect belief that the sun normally moved around the earth, and stood still for a time, at Joshua's request. A 16th-century alternative to this was that the sun is not moving around the earth, even though Earth's rotation makes it appear to be. The idea that the earth was rotating, is exactly what Martin Luther attacked in the "tenuous reference" I provided.

Originally posted by JS357
The earth being the center of the universe is not entailed by Joshua 10:13. As I said, that part of the Church's dogma on cosmology was based largely on the special relationship of God to man. I am only dealing with what Joshua 10:13 reveals about the astronomy of the day. What is revealed is the incorrect belief that the sun normally moved around the earth, a ...[text shortened]... was rotating, is exactly what Martin Luther attacked in the "tenuous reference" I provided.

I'm sorry could you actually quote the version of Joshua 10:13 your looking at to
make your point. I'd also point out that the "church" docrtrine, I'm not sure what
you mean by that either! There are a lot of man made movements that are filled
with people who claim their movement is of God, that does not make it so.
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what is the basic design? basic design of what? and how much of a variation from the basic design is it allowed?

The basic design is found in the Biblical term kinds, with respect to how much, I
don't know. This does rule out out all the varity people are claiming sprang up from
a single cell life form over time.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
The earth being the center of the universe is not entailed by Joshua 10:13. As I said, that part of the Church's dogma on cosmology was based largely on the special relationship of God to man. I am only dealing with what Joshua 10:13 reveals about the astronomy of the day. What is revealed is the incorrect belief that the sun normally moved around the earth, a was rotating, is exactly what Martin Luther attacked in the "tenuous reference" I provided.

sure ok, apparently there is not a little cosmology in scripture. I am watching a
video posted by Jaywill at the moment, in which the lecturer states of Biblical
cosmology, that, its asserted in scripture that,

1. universe had an ex nihilo beginning
2. continually expanding
3. continual cooling

which verses are cited for the latter two i do not know, but its interesting, for rather
than science negating what is in scripture, it seems that science has had to progress
so that these statements can be verified. I mean, its was only in the 1950s that it
was eventually accepted that yes indeed, the universe did have a beginning.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry could you actually quote the version of Joshua 10:13 your looking at to
make your point. I'd also point out that the "church" docrtrine, I'm not sure what
you mean by that either! There are a lot of man made movements that are filled
with people who claim their movement is of God, that does not make it so.
Kelly

I have provided the reference. For you I will again, http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

I suggest that you look into the subject of the Church doctrine and the Galileo trials. One site that you might find somewhat friendly, is:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

And read down to where it says "...Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture...". That's more or less what I mean by church doctrine of the time. The Church took the thinking of Augustine and Aquinas, and other Church leaders who had shown respect for the Aristotelian cosmology, and made it into Church doctrine.

I think the only part of the Copernican cosmology that was in direct conflict with Joshua 10:13 was this: If the Copernican cosmology was correct, the sun would not have "stood still" because it was already standing still -- the earth was rotating on its axis so, it would have been the earth that stood still, by not rotating for a while on that long day, so the unmoving sun would have looked like it was stuck at noon above the unmoving earth, or whatever time it was when the earth stopped moving.

In the above reference, it states:

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: “The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.”[18]"

There is a difference between the violations inherent in these two parts of the condemnation. "Formal heresy" had to do with being expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. So they saw Holy Scripture being challenged by the sun's immobility.

Martin Luther also rejected the idea that the earth rotated on its axis. I have provided a reference that supports this.

I believe you are right, there are a lot of man made movements that falsely claim to be of God.

Originally posted by JS357
I have provided the reference. For you I will again, http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

I suggest that you look into the subject of the Church doctrine and the Galileo trials. One site that you might find somewhat friendly, is:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

And read down to where it says "...Catholic theology recognizes the traditi ...[text shortened]... ou are right, there are a lot of man made movements that falsely claim to be of God.

i am not a catholic, nor do i recognise the validity of the catholic churches ordinances
and traditions. Clearly they have no support for their claims either Biblically, nor
scientifically. We have our own mind and at best, we must make evaluations for
ourselves, for what else is there? What do you think of my radical idea that its science
that has needed to progress to validate Biblical assertions rather than science
invalidating scripture? Is it not revolutionary?

Originally posted by JS357
I have provided the reference. For you I will again, http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

I suggest that you look into the subject of the Church doctrine and the Galileo trials. One site that you might find somewhat friendly, is:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

And read down to where it says "...Catholic theology recognizes the traditi ...[text shortened]... ou are right, there are a lot of man made movements that falsely claim to be of God.

I don't belong to any organization that put Galileo on trial so I don't really care
what they did or didn't do, it does not matter to me beyond historic knowledge.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't belong to any organization that put Galileo on trial so I don't really care
what they did or didn't do, it does not matter to me beyond historic knowledge.
Kelly

Well, I'm disorganized on this issue, too.🙂 But I see similarities between the historical reactions to "it revolves" and the current reactions to "it evolves." Don't you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am not a catholic, nor do i recognise the validity of the catholic churches ordinances
and traditions. Clearly they have no support for their claims either Biblically, nor
scientifically. We have our own mind and at best, we must make evaluations for
ourselves, for what else is there? What do you think of my radical idea that its science
...[text shortened]... date Biblical assertions rather than science
invalidating scripture? Is it not revolutionary?

Methinks you and I are done with Joshua.

I have heard that radical idea before, both here at RHP and in my many years at alt.atheism. Did I fail to respond that of course some of the questions about the world had fairly decent answers early on?

Philosophically, how can the universe have no beginning and be infinitely old? We would never reach any specified moment in time, starting at negative infinity! The Greeks probably figured this out, being into such things, and the Hebrews and Egyptians, not to mention the Chinese and Indians but I can understand Cubs fans thinking time is infinite. 🙂

Of course, wheat seeds beget wheat. Goats beget goats. Write it up!

Originally posted by JS357
Well, I'm disorganized on this issue, too.🙂 But I see similarities between the historical reactions to "it revolves" and the current reactions to "it evolves." Don't you?

LOL, yes I do, but the ones screaming about truth and keeping other thoughts out
of the public are not the religious this time around.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
Methinks you and I are done with Joshua.

I have heard that radical idea before, both here at RHP and in my many years at alt.atheism. Did I fail to respond that of course some of the questions about the world had fairly decent answers early on?

Philosophically, how can the universe have no beginning and be infinitely old? We would never reach any specifi ...[text shortened]... king time is infinite. 🙂

Of course, wheat seeds beget wheat. Goats beget goats. Write it up!

ROFL, that was a good one! I got a good feeling about this century!
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
Methinks you and I are done with Joshua.

I have heard that radical idea before, both here at RHP and in my many years at alt.atheism. Did I fail to respond that of course some of the questions about the world had fairly decent answers early on?

Philosophically, how can the universe have no beginning and be infinitely old? We would never reach any specifi ...[text shortened]... king time is infinite. 🙂

Of course, wheat seeds beget wheat. Goats beget goats. Write it up!

Did God do it or not? Did Jesus the Christ die and returned to life
after three days and three nights or not? Will you put your faith
and trust in the Lord Jesus (Yahshua) or not? Are you ready to
make a decision?

Originally posted by JS357
Methinks you and I are done with Joshua.

I have heard that radical idea before, both here at RHP and in my many years at alt.atheism. Did I fail to respond that of course some of the questions about the world had fairly decent answers early on?

Philosophically, how can the universe have no beginning and be infinitely old? We would never reach any specifi ...[text shortened]... king time is infinite. 🙂

Of course, wheat seeds beget wheat. Goats beget goats. Write it up!

who states that the universe is infinitely old, not the Bible, it clearly states that it had a
beginning? You have heard this idea before, and i thought it was borne of my own
originality, is there nothing new under the sun?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did God do it or not? Did Jesus the Christ die and returned to life
after three days and three nights or not? Will you put your faith
and trust in the Lord Jesus (Yahshua) or not? Are you ready to
make a decision?

It is really none of your business. It is a continuing concern of many, to get the people who think it is any of their business, to accept that it is NOT.

Do you really want to get into the question of how many nights it was between Jesus dieing on Friday, and the Sunday of His Resurrection? I hope nobody picks up on this little nit, Kelly. Of course, I will make nothing of it.😀