Biblical Astronomy statements- old SDC thread

newtonian · Sep 12, 2004

Biblical Astronomy - New Version of my lost SDC thread. {NOTE: Quote marks are being changed to question marks - I am not sure of the cause for this effect) My computer is threatening to crash, and SDC crashed when this thread was active - so I'm reposting it while I can. Feel free to comment on any of these points, and feel free to concentrate on science in your responses. Anyone can respond on any of the following points or any other Biblical astronomy (or earth science, etc.) statement. This is a tangent from my SDC (it crashed twice) thread concerning the upcoming Andromeda merger (which was also lost). In this post I will merely list the Biblical statements, and number them - for ease of reference. I hope to ultimately list 100 statements, but I will start with a much shorter list. 1. Isaiah 40:22 - the shape of the earth: round, Hebrew hhug, circle (2 dimensions), sphere (3 dimensions). 2. Isaiah 40:22 - the expanding universe, like an expanding fine cloth whose bonds can be loosened. 3. Job 26:10 - the terminator on earth is a circle. 4. Genesis 1:1 - earth and heaven had a beginning 5. Job 26:7- the earth is hung upon nothing, compare gravity. 6. Job 38:31 - stellar bonds can either be loosened or be tied fast, mostly gravitational. 7. Job 38:9 - Early earth had thick clouds and gloom - compare Venus, earth?s carbonate deposits, the geologic carbon cycle, math. 8. Genesis 1:2- early earth was covered with water. (compare Job 26:10) 9. Psalms 104:6 - waters covered all mountains on earth 10. Psalms 104:8 - mountains ascended, ocean trenches descended 11. (1 Corinthians 15:41) . . .star differs from star in glory. Star differs from star in glory, the sun also differs from many stars- compare magnetars, corona temperatures, etc. Variation comparable, according to context, with th

mooware · Sep 12, 2004

Do we have to do the biblical thing again? It's getting old.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

mooware - alas, the responses were lost when SDC crashed, so I was hoping for more responses - such as constructive critique so I can refined my knowledge and consider alternate scenarios or explanations. NO, you do not have to do this- you can simply ignore the thread if you would like.

kmarinas86 · Sep 13, 2004

Resesarch Science to verify interpretations of de-corrupted (restored) verses of the Bible, Koran, and Kabbalah. Research other verses to discover whether or not they are not verified by Science.

kelle · Sep 13, 2004

The Bible is a thousands of years old philosophical book. Using it for modern science is for no use, what they knew about astronomy back then was almost nothing. Even though they seem to have some correct standpoints, as you have listed above, this is mostly because parts of the Bible can be interpreted as you wish yourself, like Nostradamus' prophecies, but of course they also guessed correct some times. Unfortunately I don't have a Bible so I can't check out the statements, but it can be fun to read what they thought thousands of years ago when they tried to explain what they saw around them, and how they sometimes guessed correct.

CalliArcale · Sep 13, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />OK, here's one constructive critique: it's folly to look to the Bible for scientific answers to anything, you're wasting your time....and ours, since this is a science forum, not a religious forum. <hr /></blockquote> Just as a quick reminder, you don't have to waste your time if you don't want to. You have no obligation to read this thread, and if you want threads more to your liking, why not start some of your own? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

5stone10 · Sep 13, 2004

In this post I will merely list the Biblical statements, and number them ... 5. Job 26:7- the earth is hung upon nothing, compare gravity. You say that you will merely list the biblical statement - but right off the bat you do not. You provide a biased commentary of the biblical verse. If I was reading Job 26:7 - the earth is hung upon nothing - without the additional commentary, I would reach an unbiased conclusion that this was not a reference to gravity. It could, however, be construed as a fairly prescient statement since at or around that time seperation of astrology, astronomy and mythology was not that advanced. There were lots of references to planet movement being a result of the existing minor gods of that time.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

crazyeddie -researching ancient documents for what they say about astronomy is not theology. If you wish to add reasonable content to this thread, why not address one of the 25 points I listed - pro or con - scientificallly.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

5stone10 - Thank you for the correction. You are correct that I didn't quote the actual statements - I did that for brevity, so the first post would not be overly long. Also, most humans on planet earth have access to a Bible in their own language - it is the most available book on earth. Therefore I prefer you all consider the various copies of the Bible which you have access to. This will determine if translation variation makes the meaning less obvious than I listed. Job 26:7 does not state the identity of the nothing upon which the earth hangs. Isaac Newton, who was also a Bible researcher (and wrote more on Biblical research than scientific research), discovered what that nothing is. The Biblical statement stands in stark contrast with the prevailing beliefs of the time of Isaiah, which was written about 732 BCE (=BC). For two ancient contrasts, consider Atlas holding up the earth, or turtles holding up the earth. Here is the clear Biblical statement from my favorite translation: "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;"- Job 26:7 I will try to post the original language Hebrew in my next post.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

Well, my computer has a virus which has disabled my cd-rom drive. So I will have to simplify. The Hebrew word translated nothing is "beli-mah." It means: "without anything." Here is an excerpt from our brochure which shows the contrast between the Biblical statement and the ancient scientific and religious beliefs of the time: "For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in these waters. The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, one on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century B.C.E., believed that the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies. Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: "It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon.?4 So, what does the earth "rest upon"" Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth"immobile"at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them"the sun, the moon, and the planets"moved across the sky. Aristotle's explanation seemed logical. If the heavenly bodies were not firmly attached to something, how else could they stay aloft? The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years. According to The New Encyclopædia Britannica, in the 16th and 17th centuries his teachings "ascende

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

crazyeddie -Yes, I have included earth science with astronomy. Space.com also does this. Especially now that so many astronomers are looking for evidence for earth-like planets. That being said, which statements do you feel have nothing to do with astronomy?

mooware · Sep 13, 2004

"If you wish to add reasonable content to this thread, why not address one of the 25 points I listed" What for? To read bantering back and forth? You are not going to "entertain" other ideas. You are set in your creationism, and are looking to convert others.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

mooware- Actually, I will entertain other ideas. I will respond to anyone who posts something to respond to. Also, I am not a creationist - i.e. I do not share their beliefs or agenda. For just one example, I believe the universe is roughly 14 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. Finally, I am not attempting to convert anyone anymore than Isaac Newton was in his Biblical and scientific research. Now, you are the one bantering. Why not post some real content concerning the thread theme that can be discussed scientifically - e.g.: are there stars with no set course? Can the bonds between stars be loosened or can they hold fast? Does our universe and earth actually have a beginning? Are all of earth's wind cycles including a north-south direction (e.g. up, North, down, south)? Was the early earth covered by dark swaddling bands including clouds as Venus is today?

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

5stone10 - Thank you for your input. You posted: "It could, however, be construed as a fairly prescient statement since at or around that time seperation of astrology, astronomy and mythology was not that advanced. There were lots of references to planet movement being a result of the existing minor gods of that time." Good point. Note statements in #15 above. Yes, the Biblical statements stand in stark contrast to the unscientific beliefs of the time about cosmology. This is true even of old Jewish cosmology (Bible writers were all Jewish) such as is found in the pseudepigrapha. Would you like me to post some of this contrasting cosmology? In my next post I will actually quote the contrasting statements showing how the Bible condemns astrology but encourages astronomy.

newtonian · Sep 13, 2004

5stone10 - Further responding to your encourage to post the actual Biblical statements, here are those in point #15: 15. The Bible rejects astrology [Isaiah 47:13-15; 2 Kings 23:5] but encourages astronomy [Isaiah 40:26; Psalms 19:1,2; Romans 1:20; many other verses] AGAINST ASTROLOGY ?13 You have grown weary with the multitude of your counselors. Let them stand up, now, and save you, the worshipers of the heavens, the lookers at the stars, those giving out knowledge at the new moons concerning the things that will come upon you. 14 Look! They have become like stubble. A fire itself will certainly burn them up. They will not deliver their soul from the power of the flame. There will be no glow of charcoals for people to warm themselves, no firelight in front of which to sit down. 15 Thus they will certainly become to you, with whom you have toiled as your charmers from your youth. They will actually wander, each one to his own region. There will be no one to save you.? - Isaiah 47:13-15, NW Footnote on ?lookers at the stars?- ?or, astrologers? Worshipers (of the heavens) literally means dividers and likely refers to the signs of the Zodiac. Of faithful King Josiah applying Biblical direction (from the Torah = Pentateuch = 1st 5 books of the Bible) ?5 And he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had put in that they might make sacrificial smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, and also those making sacrificial smoke to Ba´al, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac and to all the army of the heavens.?- 2 Kings 23:5 FOR ASTRONOMY ?6"Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing

mooware · Sep 13, 2004

"Finally, I am not attempting to convert anyone anymore than Isaac Newton was in his Biblical and scientific research. " Isaac Newton probably didn't have much choice but to be or appear religious. In the 1600's not believing was to be shunned by your peers, or worse.

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

mooware - Actually, you are quite wrong about Isaac Newton. Perhaps you should learn more about his life, or do some research, before responding. I'll give you a hint: were Isaac Newton's beliefs popular at the time? Also, do you have any idea how his beliefs, both scientific and religious, are similar to mine and to Biblical statements, both scientific and religious?

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

crazyeddie - You might try reading my introductory post before responding - that will save you from making such crazy statements. Then again, your chosen name is crazyeddie! You posted concerning the 25 Biblical statements I have thus far listed in this thread: "For the sake of arguement, even if they were what you pretend them to be, they would be describing "science" that was thousands of years old, when most people thought the Earth was flat and the stars were little holes in a dome that allowed light to shine through from heaven. How can this possibly have any relevance to modern astronomy." Well, crazy Eddie, that is just the point. The science of that time taught the earth was flat, while Biblical statements state the earth is round. Likewise, while the science in Biblical times was totally unaccurate concerning stars, the Biblical statements were remarkably accurate. Now, I will give you a little time to actually read the Biblical astronomy statements I have cited before I prove how inaccurate your last post was. Yes, I agree Free Space is good for the Bible and science in general. However, Biblical astronomy of course belongs in the astronomy section. I welcome your critique of the actual statements. BTW - I do not believe in philosophy, and the Bible warns against philosophy.

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

Crazyeddie - To zero in on your statement that ancient science taught the earth was flat, note how the Biblical description of the round earth contrasts with this faulty scientific belief: There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, - Isaiah 40:22 Note also that the Hebrew word translated circle is hhug, which means circle in two dimensions and sphere in 3 dimensions. Also note that this is how earth appears to the one who is dwelling above (above North?) the earth. Note also that the same verse refers to the expansion of our universe with a scientifically correct illustration (similar to the balloon model, but different) Further proving the earth is round is the ancient book written by Moses about 1513 BCE, which states of the terminator between light and darkness on planet earth: He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where light ends in darkness. - Job 26:10 For the terminator to be a circle, earth has to be a sphere. You all - QUESTION: Why is it that both Biblical astronomy and modern astronomy (and cartography) consider North to be up or on top? As the Bible states: 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing; - Job 26:7

CalliArcale · Sep 17, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> The science of that time taught the earth was flat, while Biblical statements state the earth is round.<hr /></blockquote> I'm sorry, but that's just not true. It is a very popular and persistent myth that nobody seriously believed that the Earth was curved until Columbus proved it. But in fact it was quite common knowledge. In Biblical times, many people did think the world was flat. The Egyptians, for instance. But although we cannot say with any certainty what learned men said of the Earth's shape in, say, 3,000 BC, we do know that at least by the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the Earth's shape was known. In fact, the ancient Greeks even went so far as to make a surprisingly accurate measurement of the Earth's diameter, based on observations of shadows cast at the same time in two different locations. So the Bible was not likely contradicting anything not already known, even if it really was saying the world was a sphere (which I'm not entirely convinced of -- after all, a flat circle is also round). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

Calli - Hi! How are you? We in southeast Louisiana escaped Ivan's wrath, though it was touch an go for a while. While I study your post more car efully, let me make it clear to you that I was responding to crazyeddie's statement that the ancients, including ancient science, taught the earth is flat. I remember your old (sadly lost) posts considering ancient beliefs in the orb of the earth. Your post was well researched, as I remember. However, as an example, if you consider the Jewish pseudipegrapha (sp?) you will see some very ridiculous cosmology (scientifically ridiculous, that is) including what appears to be an cubical earth with sides containing various levels of hell fire, if my memory serves me correctly. One might ask why the Bible, also written by Jews, did not contain any of this mythical cosmology? Note also that the Greek teaching of the round earth was after Isaiah (732BCE), and way after Job (1513 BCE) - and that Greek teachings also contained ridiculous cosmology. Also, note that the earth appeared as a circle from any direction - since God can view earth from any direction - Isaiah 40:22 is earth viewed by God. Also note that Job 26:10 indicates earth's terminator is a circle, which is only possible if earth is a sphere. The division between light and darkness on the surface of a flat earth would not be a circle. Compare also the description of earth's wind cylcles in Ecclesiastes 1:6 - The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is returning. Meteorological studies confirm this is true of all earth's wind cycles. Low and high pressure centers circle north, east,south, west (or vice versa), and we now know this is caused by the coriolis effect which is due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. Likewise, the more massiv

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

Calli- Please see my post of 9/13/04 concerning a few of the ancient cosmologies, including Greek. I will research the matter further. Note that while Aristotle agreed with the earlier Biblical statement that earth is round, he had a very inaccurate cosmology concerning how the earth and stars were held in position.

newtonian · Sep 17, 2004

Calli- Well, my wife just broke the water main to our trailer, so I have to turn off the electric so the hot water heater doesn?t burn out. So, I hope you excuse this quick cut and paste from our literature concerning some of the ancient beliefs about the shape of the earth from Bible times to the present: What Is the Shape of the Earth? That question has intrigued humans for thousands of years. The general view in ancient times was that the earth was flat. The Babylonians, for example, believed that the universe was a box or a chamber with the earth as its floor. Vedic priests of India imagined that the earth was flat and that only one side of it was inhabited. A primitive tribe in Asia pictured the earth as a huge tea tray. As early as the sixth century B.C.E., Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that since the moon and the sun are spherical, the earth must also be a sphere. Aristotle (fourth century B.C.E.) later agreed, explaining that the sphericity of the earth is proved by lunar eclipses. The earth's shadow on the moon is curved. However, the notion of a flat earth (with only its upper side inhabited) did not disappear completely. Some could not accept the logical implication of a round earth-the concept of antipodes. Lactantius, Christian apologist of the fourth century C.E., ridiculed the very idea. He reasoned: "Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? . . . that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards?"2 The concept of antipodes posed a dilemma for a few theologians. Certain theories held that if there were antipodeans, they could have no possible connection with known humans either because the sea was too wide to navigate or because an impassable torrid zone surrounded the equator. So where could any antipodeans have come from? Perplexed, some theologians preferred to believe that there could be no

hansolo0 · Sep 17, 2004

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind - Albert Einstein

kmarinas86 · Sep 17, 2004

The word religion should be replace by philosophy. Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind. - EIN SCHHTTIIIEEN (german accent)

Biblical Astronomy statements- old SDC thread

newtonian

Guest

mooware

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kelle

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

5stone10

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

mooware

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

mooware

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

hansolo0

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page