Came to Defeat Modernism FB Page

Found a status linking to:

Papal Encyclicals : Pope St Pius X : PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm

Dialogue:

HGL

"Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have b een given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the s candal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions."

Obedience to this decree in the part saying "and which shall be given in the future" obviously has a "best before" date. Possibly as early as 1943.

DM

There is no expiration date to unchanging Truth.

HGL

"future decrees" does not equal unchanging truth, it equals disciplinary rule.

DM

What is heretical is always heretical, period. St Pius X clearly states that modernism is the synthesis of ALL heresies and therfore logically is not a disciplinary rule but an eternal condemnation that has NO expiration date.

HGL

I agree modernism is ALWAYS heretical. I do not agree Bible commission is ALWAYS orthodox as the holy Pope counted on. Or do you consider the Bible experts of Bergoglio as obliging the Catholics in conscience also?

The Biblical commission was not instituted by Christ or the Twelve Apostles, but by a Pope recently before Pope Saint Pius X [or by himself at the latest]. Therefore it cannot be "de fide", it must be disciplinary.

How I answered Mike P with Scripture on Catholicism

John Gideon Hartnett

• Who are geocentrists in this community?
  
  
• If you are what is your number 1 reason for being so?
  
  
• If a bible verse then give me your 1 only 1 best verse.

Wes

Hi John, I'm a geocentrist mainly because I believe the literal reading of scripture, as enforced by the Catholic Church's authoritative stance on the issue. Funny thing is, back when I was a Protestant investigating the Catholic Church, I ran across Bob's book, Galileo Was Wrong-The Church Was Right, and was immediately intrigued by it. I didn't buy the book until some time later, but now that I have it, I'm confident in saying that I believe in geocentrism not only because scripture teaches it but because the science backs it as well. If you haven't got the book, you're missing out. I think it's very well written in that it appeals to both the beginner and the scholar, and, as expected, it's loaded with footnotes. At any rate, you should check it out.

I missed a lot

of the ensuing debate (and Wes's answer, and will be missing some more which is more astronomy/Bible than Catholicism/Bible) up to:

Mike P [SDA, lawyer]

While you and we are at it, Christopher, though this isn't the intent of this group, since we're getting down into the basics of geo- vs. helio- and you've stated some Catholic Church positions as if they are authoritative of the matter, doesn't the Church also approve of praying to Mary the Holy Mother? If not, please clarify for me what her role is. Isn't the rosary a form of prayer?

For me, she's certainly not part of the Trinity and while she is to be deeply respected and honored for being the earthly motherhood vessel for Christ, nowhere does Scripture identify her as being holy, and she most certainly shouldn't be the subject of worship or even be considered an intercessor in any shape, manner or form. What do you say as to her role in the church?

Finally, how can one even call the Pope our Savior's representative on earth? Nowhere did Christ ever indicate or delegate ANY MORTAL to be His "representative," either pre- or post-crucifixion and -resurrection. Even if the Holy Spirit, the Helper, were to be deemed His representative, He is also part of the Trinity and is Himself holy. There is nothing "human" about the Holy Spirit; He is divine and infallible. Even the brightest and most moral of us humans (if we can truly label any of us as such) is neither divine nor infallible.

What's bothering me is the linkage being made here between the Catholic Church and geocentrism and their AUTHORITY to make that a spiritual doctrine, an exegesis if you will, when Scripture itself in my view doesn't demand that whatsoever, and is silent on the issue of geo- vs. helio-. For me, this linkage is being made eisegetically rather than exegetically.

Normally, discussion of this kind belongs in the Discussion Group, but not when we're dealing here with Astronomy and where geocentrism and the Catholic Church are being authoritatively coupled together to give geocentrism a spiritual overtone.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but this is what I see happening here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (answering John Gideon)

• 1) I for one.
  
  
• 2) Does away with Distant Starlight Problem AND with "Heaven and Hell are in other dimensions" (than the three).
  
  
• 3) Joshua's words to Sun and Moon (and not to Earth).

Hans-Georg Lundahl (answering Mike P)

"Isn't the rosary a form of prayer?"

Yes, but not of adoration, as far as the Hail Mary's are concerned.

The Our Fathers before a string of Hail Mary's and the Glory Be:s after such one are acts of adoration, adressed to "Our Father" or explicitly to the Holy Trinity and not to Mary.

"nowhere does Scripture identify her as being holy"

Henceforward all generations shall call me blessed. Blessed art thou among women.

I shall put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and the woman's seed.

Enmity between Satan and Mary means she never sinned.

"and she most certainly shouldn't be the subject of worship"

Not of adoration, no. But of dulia, even hyperdulia.

How is it that the mother of my Lord comes to me?

"even be considered an intercessor in any shape, manner or form."

Marriage of Cana - who interceded for the bridegroom?

"What do you say as to her role in the church?"

As much Queen of Heavenly Jerusalem while Christ rules there, as Bathseba was Queen of Earthly Jerusalem under the reign of Solomon.

Interceding for the people of God before her Son, precisely as Queen Esther interceded for the people of God before her husband (Persia unlike Judah counted wives rather than mothers as Queens).

"Finally, how can one even call the Pope our Savior's representative on earth? Nowhere did Christ ever indicate or delegate ANY MORTAL to be His "representative," either pre- or post-crucifixion and -resurrection."

He who hears ye, hears me, and hears him who sent me.

Spoken to the Twelve or the Seventy, of whom Peter was one.

[Actually, as I saw when looking it up: to the Seventy]

I am with ye all days until the consummation of all time.

Spoken to the Eleven (Twelve minus Judas the Traitor) of which Peter was one.

Feed my lambs.

Spoken to Peter at Genesareth.

"Even if the Holy Spirit, the Helper, were to be deemed His representative, He is also part of the Trinity and is Himself holy. There is nothing "human" about the Holy Spirit; He is divine and infallible."

Correct. But the Spirit came down to the Twelve (Eleven plus Matthias), of which Peter was one. He was also the one of them who spoke longest and the one of them whose sermon is recorded.

Since then the Holy Spirit is transmitted by their hands and the hands of their successors.

"Even the brightest and most moral of us humans (if we can truly label any of us as such) is neither divine nor infallible."

Except when the Holy Ghost is speaking through him or her. Prophetically in a charismatic way, as through Elisabeth and Mary.

Or prophetic in respect of someone's office, like through Caiaphas when for the last time a Cohen was certainly prophet when he said "it is better that one man die" (though he meant it in a more cynic way) or through Peter on Pentecost Day for the first time speaking through a Pope. Due to his office.

"What's bothering me is the linkage being made here between the Catholic Church and geocentrism and their AUTHORITY to make that a spiritual doctrine, an exegesis if you will, when Scripture itself in my view doesn't demand that whatsoever, and is silent on the issue of geo- vs. helio-. For me, this linkage is being made eisegetically rather than exegetically."

As a Catholic I of course DO believe the Catholic Church has authority to make exegesis.

But as a scholar (if you like, of sorts) I am more convinced by St Robert Bellarmine take on Joshua than by Galileo's.

Especially since I see another aspect to Joshua. What did the human miracle-maker adress his public and audible words to? Earth? Or Sun and Moon. As already stated.

"where geocentrism and the Catholic Church are being authoritatively coupled together to give geocentrism a spiritual overtone."

I am perfectly aware that I am adressing a mostly Protestant public here and have argued the case on exegetical and scientific merits that I deem accessible even to Protestants.

But these are of course free to interpret this as my being brainwashed by RC authority (even though Geocentrism puts me in conflict with recent apparent Popes and leaves me either the alternative to seek out a Pope who's Geocentric - Pope Michael, whose Vatican in Exile is in Kansas - or, before accepting him as Pope, to have a very strained relation to people I did accept as such or a strained relation to the question of Papal succession, while considering Papacy vacant) and they are also free to ignore my actual words by interpreting them in the light of my supposed motivation as a Catholic. CSL called that Bulverism.

Jere

Error 404. No Bible references to be found.

Example:

"Do not be quick in spirit to be angry. For anger is in the heart of fools."

- Ecclesiastes 7:9 (New Life Version)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you knew your Bible as well as YOU pretend to, you would have identified my quotes from memory. And given the references like book, chapter and verse.

I am a Catholic, I am not totally in that culture.

So, does that mean I gave no Bible quotes? I did, I just did not give book chapter or verse for them. For one of them I was even unsure if it was spoken to the seventy or to the twelve. But it is there in the Gospel.

Btw, was the reference you gave as an example chosen so as to backhandedly rebuke a supposed anger in me? I said every thing I said with some irritation at the bad tone I thought I detected in ex-Catholic Hartnett's original question and very clearly detected in Pincher's tirade. But I also said every thing I said as things I would have said a clear sunny day to a friend whom I considered as honestly enquiring. That should answer any questions as to whether I was quick to be angry here.

Jere

It seems you were bothered by that request. You claimed that I am a pretender. Good. Go with that. Ride that train. Make baseless accusations.

Sigh.

I don't think you knew what the request intended. Anyone sharing verses need to put down the location so that all people reading here can refer back to what one are talking about. It's about being polite and pleasant.

Hans said: "Btw, was the reference you gave as an example chosen so as to backhandedly rebuke a supposed anger in me?"

That wasn't my intention. I have a little booklet called "The Bible Promise book" sitting next to me as part of my study, and I used a passage from there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you did not intend it to hit me, someone else was praying for me to get such rebukes. I am wondering how long God will allow this to continue.

Now, as to your "Anyone sharing verses need to put down the location" - I am not a part of the Protestant culture, I am 46 and not getting reeducated.

In Biblical times, for instance St Paul (or St Barnabas) writing to Hebrews, it was customary to cite from memory as to events, and on one occasion it was cited from Tradition not Scripture, like when the author gave the names of the two Pharaonic magicians.

(2 Timothy 3:8 - I just searched for it in OT, where Jannes and Mambres are not to be found).

So, I will do the searches for you.

Joshua's words:

Joshua 10:12.

Mary holy:

Luke 1:48, Luke 1:42/1:28, Genesis 3:15

Elisabeth's reverence for Mary,

Luke 1:43

Mary interceding at Cana,

John 2:3

Solomon hearing intercession of Bathseba:

3 Kings 2:18 - 20

Persian King hearing Esther

- see her book.

Christ's words to the Seventy:

Luke 10:16

To the Eleven

Matthew 28:18-20

To Peter,

John 21:17.

Now, you spoke of politeness, it was not polite to exact references if you knew where the passages were from, and it was not knowledgeable of you, if you didn't.

You see, Catholics and Protestants have different ideas about how one is polite and pleasant. A normal person, who does not specialise in memorising Bible verses, will more easily recall what is written than "where" in the reference way, more easily when in Jesus' life than in what Gospel and even more so chapter.

To me it is less than perfectly polite and pleasant to be exclusive against those who cannot CITE the Bible the way you do. Or who cannot do so everytime spontaneously. I was not preparing an essay, I was answering in some hurry some baseless accusations against Catholicism and its supposedly being unbiblical.

Matt

As far as the catholic thing. I was not attracted Geo-centricity because of Catholicism, By no means! I personally hold that Roman Catholicism is Heresy and Will gladly have a formal debate with anyone who teaches it. (preferably recorded on my radio show That being said, it is not fair to dismiss geo-centricity on the grounds of association with Catholicism. It is like dismissing YEC on the grounds of 7th day adventism. Or dismissing evangelism for being associated with the baptist church. This is the genetic fallacy. something is not true or false just because the opposition agrees to it.

Jere

I said: "Anyone sharing verses need to put down the location so that all people reading here can refer back to what one are talking about. "

=> I hope you can see I was making a general statement. Others who posted before you were not citing scriptures. It wasn't wholly intended for you.

I said: "It's about being polite and pleasant."

=> Err, I was choosing my words carefully. Well, more abstractly. Maybe the meaning was lost in translation. I was intending to say, to anyone, please make citations so no one can accuse you of making stuff up. Kindly, though. Even Atheists (and by extension F.S.M. worshipers) cite Bible verses.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Also, it may have been lost in a sea of posts, but I and Lea Greenall were asking for verses pertaining to the alleged verses that support Geocentrism. Kindly. Not the verses you made in retort to Mike P's statements, though I would imagine he would appreciate them just the same.

Matt (in answer to a Cameron I missed)

Isaiah 38:7-8Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he hath spoken; 8 behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, as to verses supporting Geocentrism, I thought you knew very well what chapter of Joshua I meant!

As said, 100 esp v 12

Sorry, computer hitch, 10 (not 100 obviously) especially verse 12.

In verse 13, the result given can be explained as "from standpoint of the Earth and its observers", though this would not be strictly true as St Robert observed, if Earth only stopped rotating around its axis, Moon would have been moving on for a sensible angle during the 12 extra hours or especially 24 extra hours if such.

But in verse 12 Heliocentrics are basically asking us to believe Joshua wanted Earth to stop spinning and instead of adressing Earth in the name of God he adressed Sun and Moon. After talking to God, before all of the people who heard him adress Sun and Moon.

FSM worshippers?

Ah, Matt, thank you!

Now, Cameron, if Sun getting back ten degrees had been Earth returning on rotation, why no jerk felt? Of course, God could have made an extra miracle. BUT in this case also we have an indication in the words of a man making a miracle on behalf of God (i e making a miraculous offer to Hezekiah) that it was indeed the Sun that changed direction way far up above us (and astronomers can tell you how far) so we felt no jerk.

Ah, FSM as in Flying Spaghetti Monster! I get it!

They might be a bit more likely to dig out the verses themselves and try to make fun of us by presuming Heliocentrism to be *so obviously* true etc. But I always keep forgetting what chapter of Isaiah the second sun miracle is. Sorry for that.

Mike P

Hans-Georg Lundahl: "I said every thing I said with some irritation at the bad tone I thought I detected in ex-Catholic Hartnett's original question and very clearly detected in Pincher's tirade."

I assume English isn't your first language if you construe what I said as a tirade with an obvious "bad tone." It was a straight inquiry and nothing more or less than that. [sic scripsit!]

There was at least one poster here who clearly intimated that geocentrism has operative force simply because the "authoritative" Catholic Church says it does. I dispute that "authority" and still do.

There are a number of Catholics among our members. They don't resort to this "authority" line of argument for the church. Nobody else should either. Now if my point is a "tirade" to you Hans-Georg Lundahl you need to go back to the drawing board.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It was a straight inquiry and nothing more or less than that."

It included a lot of allegations against the Catholic Faith and by way of ignorance of the Bible. [Vide ut supra!]

And it came in the form of a series of accusations, starting with an accusation of idolatry against the Rosary. If that is NOT an illmannered tirade, I don't know what is.

If anyone said that Geocentrism is authoritative because the Catholic Church says so, I agree, but that is not the kind of point I am making here. If I am however challenged on it, yes I am fully willing to admit with pride that I am also submitting to the judgement of Inquisitors that was in relation to Galileo confirmed by Pope Urban VIII, because I do very much submit to that authority.

If however someone admitted it before, as I do here, when directly asked about it, in that case Mike P, it was off topic on your part to not just draw attention to the fact, but even do it in an accusatory manner - off topic that is UNLESS you hold that any reason given by a Catholic from Bible or from undisputed scientific or commonplace facts must be a mere camouflage for a "Catholic agenda". Whether it was off topic or leading up to an accusation, it was a bad mannered tirade. If you find a better word in English for tirade, do let me know!

(Bad mannered, ill mannered, wonder what is the better word in English ... Swedish has "ohyfsad" ...)

Now, apart from your tirade having been ill mannered and your defense of it hypocritical, and apart from your having tried to paint it out my English is too bad to make my meaning clear (which is also very "ohyfsadt" - whether you translate it as bad mannered or ill mannered - of you), if you really do feel in your conscience a real justification for accusing any Catholic submitting to earlier Popes (and to Pope Michael but not to Bergoglio!) in being Geocentric to wilfully or by way of brainwashing distort Biblical implications and distort sensorial and logical evidence, there are two things I would like to say about that too:

• that is as an attitude extremely ill mannered towards anyone, I am not even taking it against Watchtower society or against eLLen goVLD VVhIte fans and don't relish taking it;
  
  
• PLUS that is how YEC position very probably was expelled from Protestant mainstream back when one yer after Darwin's Origin of the Species the Catholic priest George Leo Haydock published a perfectly YEC and optionally even Geocentric Bible commentary. Precisely as Geocentrism had been driven out of Protestant mainstream before it.

Anticatholicism and Protestantism is the lever in the fall that is called The Great Apostasy.

Just checked Mike P, the guy who invoked Catholic authority actually said: "because I believe the literal reading of scripture, as enforced by the Catholic Church's authoritative stance on the issue."

A question posed by John Gideon Hartnett.

So, he was not trying to impose on you non-Catholics any submission to Catholic authority, he was mentioning it enforced a literal reading of Scripture (as some of you do also) and answering a question.

After that the tirade of Mike P was extremely ill mannered (or bad mannered, if that is the better word in English, which as you say is not my first language, only my third).

Lea Greenall [a female SDA pastor]

How about you stick to the scriptures relating to geocentricism instead of a diatribe on your defense of a flawed roman catholic system. After all, the thread was asking fro scriptural references.

I completely understand that roman catholics say [sic!] that tradition and what the pope states can, and usually does out-trump what the bible says, but the OP did ask for scriptural reference.

[See how she is putting words in our mouths - saying we "say" - that are neither what Wes nor what I said, and completely ignoring what we actually did say!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about Mike P leaving a mention of the supposedly flawed Roman Catholic system by Wes as a mention, without doing a long diatribe against it THEN, Lea Greenall? Is that unreasonable?

As to verse, I give Joshua 10:12 - the actual words of Joshua being adressed to Sun and Moon when performing the miracle that happened next verse.

Already debated with Vy on other thread.

Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Vy

"I did not misrepresent you."

I didn't say you did, I said you tried to.

"The verse does not say Joshua talked about Sun and Moon when speaking to God. It sayd Joshua talked to God and then publically adressed Sun and Moon."

First, I didn't quote Joshua's word exactly.

Second, I said Joshua talked TO God, YOU said he talked WITH God, Bible says he talked TO God.

Joshua didn't talk to God and then move on to publicly address the celestial bodies, his talking TO God was to ask God to answer his words.

"He did not tell Sun and Moon "appear to be still as seen from here, whatever it takes in real cosmology", he told them to stand still."

The "appear to be still as seen from here" was my comment interwoven with Joshua's as an explanation. I didn't cite i.e. quote Joshua like you ignorantly claimed in your blog post.

[Ignorance on my part - or expression on his part leading to that conclusion?]

"Figurative language is at its place very often but NOT when a miracle worker says the words that trigger the miracle."

But Joshua was not the CAUSE of the miracle, he ASKED for the miracle from God.

"Or would you consider Christ used figurative language when adressing impure spirits? Of course not. The impure spirits were there and He told THEM to get out."

Christ is God made flesh, remember?

"First off, God could have given Joshua an intuitive understanding of it all in one split second."

And what purpose would that serve in a war?

When you ask God for something, do you really care how he does it, whether you asked with the right words or whether God understands what you need?

"Second, God could have preapared Joshua for the moment in his previous life, when he was at leasure, so the explaining did not have to take place only then and there."

Again, for what purpose? Joshua was within the earth using correct language to describe what he saw, what purpose would knowing about the earth's rotation and revolution serve in a war?!

"Except that he told them to stop. And they did."

But he did not cause them to stop, God did. "However, Job 38:7 states "morning stars sang". This leaves us with an obvious option of stars being alive, and thus being a kind of angels - or a less obvious but perhaps more correct option - the one of St Thomas Aquinas - of stars each being moved by an angel. If the angel sang and moved a star, one could consider that as "the star sang"."

First, if you take Job 38:7's statement on singing stars as literal, you MUST take "I have butterflies in my stomach" as literal.

Second, this is YOUR exegesis, not mine, not several others - see?

"YOUR story:

Joshua asked God to make Sun and Moon still as to where they appear from Earth.

BIBLE story:

Joshua spoke to God. THEN he spoke up before all and TOLD Sun and Moon to stand still."

As English is obviously not your first language, it'll be useless arguing the meaning of "cite" in relation to my post with you.

Now, should I ask you the same questions for a FIFTH time?

Mike P

ANNOUNCEMENT: These arguments are getting redundant and it's time to move on. Anything else from here on will be deleted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mike P, your attitude is the kind of totalitarian rubbish which keeps discussions impossible over so many contexts in the world.

It is NOW that it gets interesting.

Vy

"The "appear to be still as seen from here" was my comment interwoven with Joshua's as an explanation. I didn't cite i.e. quote Joshua like you ignorantly claimed in your blog post."

My point is that the "explanation" makes the actual words of Joshua a lie.

Your one model would be Joshua just wagering he would get Sun to stand still if God granted it, asking that first, and God granting it after NOT correcting Joshua's terminology, knowing full well what role the passage in the Bible would have in the Galileo process.

First, I don't think that works very well either.

Second, if so, God would have made part of His Word less useful for the purpose of instruction.

Now, I did not misrepresent you, but I did not even try to misrepresent you. I did not even know this was the kind of idea you had in mind. As it was, let's examine it.

As said secondly this implies God making His word less useful for instruction, either because He did not care (all wise!) or because He did not know (omniscient!). But I was a bit cryptic as to why this would not work very well either.

A miracle worker does a miracle on behalf of God.

Joshua clearly worked the miracle, not as in its being done on his power, it was God's (both direct power and power of command over angels), BUT as in him being the one who was acting in the situation with God's authority.

If he had not foreseen that aspect (despite long years of instruction under Moses), either God was free not to hear the prayer so as not to make a miracle which would induce cosmology into error, or He was free to VERY quickly instruct Joshua so that his words would be adressed where they actually should be to work that effect.

Thus, assuming Earth to be rotating (rather than staying same way in relation to its mid axis/that of the universe around it), either God would not have done the miracle due to ignorance of Joshua or God would quickly have instructed Joshua. The fact Joshua took time to speak to God first (text), and that Joshua presumably got an answer encouraging him (probable conclusion) means God had the time to instruct the words that were to be spoken on His behalf so they came out correctly.

You can of course argue it would have been inappropriate of God to do so considering a geostatic prejudice from ignorance back then - but in that case, God might also have wanted to wait with such miracles unto the time when men were better instructed so that the words by which Joshua commanded the miracle should not be occasion for error.

Precisely as women priest advocates argue Christ chosing only men as Apostles would also argue He was adapting Himself to a misogynistic prejudice, which we would be right to disaccount, and one answer is, if so why did He not wait till feministic times for incarnation and for founding His Church?

THAT is the point about Joshua 10:12. About the actual words of Joshua while perforing the miracle. Such words are neither lies, nor mistaken on part of the man, nor figurative.

We must especially think this of Joshua, since Joshua and Jesus are the same Hebrew name.

"First, if you take Job 38:7's statement on singing stars as literal, you MUST take 'I have butterflies in my stomach' as literal."

No, when you say that, you are a man, speaking with the hesitations of a man and the compromises of a man.

You can use a figurative expression because of unfamiliarity with a more literal one. You can use it because you feel it is alright, even if not strictly true.

Job 38:7 is not a statement by the man Job, but by God quizzing him over Creation event - of which God was an eyewitness - and of Creation's marvels - which God knows better than Job (of course, Job was expected to know about Behemoth and Leviathan, but this can be a zoologically rather shallow expression, like a non-ornithologist adressed about "birds" - even from a good bird knower).

So, Job 38:7 is not a man using purely figurative language, it is God speaking.

One can say "the singing is figurative as to the stars, but literal as to the angels" (also mentioned in passage), but it makes better sense the other way.

As to word "cite", I was actually using it in a loose sense. I am a man and not working a miracle on behalf of God as Joshua did. I try to be precise often enough, and I was in embarrassment over exact term. Mis-paraphrase would have been more exact, but my familiarity with English does not give me the impression it exists or is usual and comes easily to mind.

Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Mariah

not to argue or anything, but Vy, why did you curse?

Hans-Georg

I could not find him cursing, did he take it away Mariah?

Vy, once again, you cited Joshua as:

"What "we" do find is Joshua saying to God to make the movement of the sun and moon as seen from WITHIN the earth (as is expected with a rotating earth) to stop"

... when for one thing his exact words to God are not recorded and for another thing his exact words to Sun and Moon are recorded?

Btw, Mariah, I found where he cursed. You were perfectly right.

Rod

If we want to provide experimental evidence of the Earth being stationary, we must redo the Michelson Morley experiment on another planetary body and compare the results. The experiment expected to show movement, but didn't. Mars moves in both models, so the Michelson Morley experiment should show movement on Mars. If it doesn't, the experiment is flawed. If it does, but doesn't on Earth, Earth is stationary. We need a second experiment to compare to.

Hans-Georg

Making experiments and observations on Mars would be hard - I read on Reasons to Believe it was so radioactive it would quickly cause cancer in someone satying there. But, yes, some experiments and observations might quickly refute Heliocentrism if not true and if redone from Mars. I was also thinking of parallax angles and form.

Here is where I previously suggested this:

HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

The 30 or so comments are very little by one other commenter whom I answered, but mostly by myself as ongoing continuations of the thought on the blog post.

First part of the thread is now here:

HGL's F.B. writings : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-biblical-heliocentric-misciting-holy.html

Vy

"1) Joshua speaks with God"

False, Joshua speaks TO God, not WITH God.

"2) Joshua publically addresses Sun and Moon"

And I said he didn't??

Anyways, I'm glad you noticed this part because Joshua never said anything about:

• angelically controlled planets
  
  
• faster_than_light (ftl) rotating universe/heavens,
  
  
• a stationary earth, earth revolving galaxies etc.

For a third time, show me something moving at 5-25% ftl and then, maybe you can then claim geoheliocentrism is plausible.

Also show me:

• any scripture that says the stars/galaxies revolve around the earth
  
  
• any scripture that says the universe rotates around the earth.

Rod

Earth is stationary in relation to what?

Vy

Hans, did you seriously turn my comments into a blog post?

Mariah, which curse?

Rod

"Vy Your first article has a loooooo...t of special pleading, damn!"

Vy

The "damn!"?

Hmm, OK.

Rod

That's the only thing I can find.

Hans-Georg

That is what I found too.

I routinely turn OUR discussions into posts - my own [comments] along with yours.

If you hate it so much you sue me, you are the first. If you are simply annoyed you are not the first.

2) Joshua publically addresses Sun and Moon

"And I said he didn't??"

At least you ignored that part as less relevant.

Supposing he had asked God "let sun and moon stand still from our view point, that is let earth stop rotating around its axis" ... would he not have been most honest if, when speaking up publically, he had told EARTH to stop turning around itself?

Or are you not, when putting unstated words into Joshua's mouth as to the prayer, implying these contradict the stated words which he said openly before all the people?

As to the rest, some of what Joshua did not say might be very clearly implied by the fact it was Sun and Moon that stopped moving and not Earth. OTHER parts might be more like merely human conjecture on my part and I did not attribute these to the Joshua passage.

Angelic movers of celestial bodies/angels being celestial bodies (either is at least somehow consistent with sacred text) is not in Joshua passage but in other parts. Job 38:7 for instance.

Earth being still ("and it shall not be moved") is in one Psalm passage, besides this being implied in its not being involved as to changing behaviour in Joshua text or Hezekias' text - unlike Sun.

Whether stars turn around us every 23 h 55 or so minutes within an empty space / non-moving Heavens, or whether aether / Heavens move every such period, slowing down perhaps towards Earth, is NOT in Bible as directly, can't recall a passage, but is by now getting a bit more obvious in favour of second alternative.

Like if Sun had been zapping THROUGH space rather than flowing along with space (and moving through it slower, like one turn backwards against its westward turn completed per year), it might have, as you mentioned had a tail like a comet.

So, you consider it was Earth that stopped turning around its axis. How is that consistent with what Joshua said before all the people?

(Apart from St Robert's observation to Galileo, that such a stop would have left Moon moving even relatively to Earth)

Vy

"Earth being still ("and it shall not be moved")"

The word for "moved", mowt, also translates to "removed" and based on Psalm 104:5, I consider it to be "removed", so all those verses you claim to support geoheliocentrism do not.

[It was in fact Psalm 103:5 I had referred to, the verse rather proves Geostasis than that "removed" from a non-stationary context is better translation than "moved" locally.]

"At least you ignored that part as less relevant"

Are you selectively blind or just selectively ignorant? When you tried to misrepresent me in your blog post, didn't you see where I said Joshua talked about the sun and moon??

"Supposing he had asked God"

First, he didn't need to. They were involved in a war and there was no need for God to start explaining the workings of the planets during such a time.

Second, he never said the earth was stationary.

"How is that consistent with what Joshua said before all the people?"

And "I have butterflies in my stomach" means I actually do have butterflies in my stomach?

When I talk about the sun reaching its apex, I refer to its motion I see from WITHIN the earth which is caused by the rotation of the earth. Simply put, everything Joshua said is correct.

"Like if the Sun had been zapping THROUGH space rather than flowing along with space"

That's the explanation you're going with? Seriously? Thanks for letting me know just how much mental gymnastics you have to perform to make geoheliocentrism make sense to you.

"Job 38:7 for instance"

That has just as much to do with controlling planetary/galactic/universal motions as Luke 15:10 has to do with angels being humans, NOTHING.

Seriously, for the FOURTH time, show me a single verse that says angels control planetary/galactic/universal motions.

You falsely accused me of misciting the Bible (when I didn't even cite it) but instead, made accurate comments about it, and now you have attributed (and have been attributing) non-described positions to angels and have consistently failed to provide a biblical basis for such claims, THREE times.

[He does perhaps not notice difference between Biblical basis in general for a theory and Biblical citations for salient details. Plus I'll have a thing to answer on angels and Job 38:7]

Hans-Georg

"When you tried to misrepresent me in your blog post, didn't you see where I said Joshua talked about the sun and moon??"

I did not misrepresent you. I quoted your exact words as per here and I quoted my own exact words as per here.

The verse does not say Joshua talked about Sun and Moon when speaking to God. It sayd Joshua talked to God and then publically adressed Sun and Moon.

He did not tell Sun and Moon "appear to be still as seen from here, whatever it takes in real cosmology", he told them to stand still.

"And "I have butterflies in my stomach" means I actually do have butterflies in my stomach?"

Figurative language is at its place very often but NOT when a miracle worker says the words that trigger the miracle.

Or would you consider Christ used figurative language when adressing impure spirits? Of course not. The impure spirits were there and He told THEM to get out.

"They were involved in a war and there was no need for God to start explaining the workings of the planets during such a time."

Immaterial.

First off, God could have given Joshua an intuitive understanding of it all in one split second.

Second, God could have preapared Joshua for the moment in his previous life, when he was at leasure, so the explaining did not have to take place only then and there.

"When I talk about the sun reaching its apex, I refer to its motion I see from WITHIN the earth which is caused by the rotation of the earth. Simply put, everything Joshua said is correct."

Except that he told them to stop. And they did. And a miracle worker adresses the entity he wants to accomplish something unusual. Like demons getting out of a guy for once and leaving him alone.

"That has just as much to do with controlling planetary/galactic/universal motions as Luke 15:10 has to do with angels being humans, NOTHING."

That is your exegesis. Not St Thomas Aquinas, not mine.

Your supposed parallel never ever suggested to anyone that angels are humans.

Luke 15:10 say very clearly that ANGELS are concerned with us doing penance and glad for it if we do.

However, Job 38:7 states "morning stars sang". This leaves us with an obvious option of stars being alive, and thus being a kind of angels - or a less obvious but perhaps more correct option - the one of St Thomas Aquinas - of stars each being moved by an angel. If the angel sang and moved a star, one could consider that as "the star sang".

"You falsely accused me of misciting the Bible (when I didn't even cite it)"

YOUR story:

Joshua asked God to make Sun and Moon still as to where they appear from Earth.

BIBLE story:

Joshua spoke to God. THEN he spoke up before all and TOLD Sun and Moon to stand still.

[I took citation in a looser sense than only quotes - paraphrases count too and are correct if meaning same thing and misciting if saying something quite other]

Do you get it this fifth time?

Rod, you gave me two challenges.

• 1) proving Geocentrism as per experiments redone from Mars.
  
  Here I answered with a challenge (long, but old) to prove Heliocentrism that way.
  
  
• 2) Earth being still relative to what?
  
  I am not a relativist.
  
  I understand relativity is a phenomenon which sometimes occurs, that does not amount to everything being relative.
  
  When I say Earth is still, I mean absolutely.
  
  It is not moved and is not removed from its place where God placed it.

Rod

I ask because everything we observe is relative to something else. If mars moves in space-time, and experiences all the effects, but earth is stationary beyond space-time, but moves within it . . .

Hans-Georg

I do not believe "everything we is observe is" JUST "relative to something else", nor do I believe in "space time".

I believe the space of the Universe has an outer limit and that it has an inner centre, the latter being to a close approximation earth but to an even closer one Hell, down in the middle of it.

I also believe we have been placed so that seven or eight billion in their daily lives rather than very few, backed up by very much money, at very few occasions in their lives, can see the Earth we live on as it is - whether moving or still.

That is why I asked Vy which of the views was more likely to be correct and which one more likely to be explained by relativity.

If you recall his answer, I consider it unfair to the truthfulness of God, our Creator.

Rod

Hans-Georg, I was not saying that everything IS relative, but that the only way WE, as humans, observe it is relative. Thus, if we were on an earth that was alone in space, we could not tell if it was moving or not, rotating or not. When other planets are added, we still only see motion relative to another planet, or star. We cannot definitively say which is moving relative to the other. Most astrophysicists admit that both views are equally valid, physically. However, there are phenomena which tend to push me to an earth-centred universe without an earth centred rotation. I am still neither geo or helio centrist. I do believe that many verses in the Bible are intended observationally, not scientifically. As to whether the Bible requires geocentricism, this juror is still out.

Hans-Georg

Ah, then it is not "everything we observe is relative" but "everything we observe, we observe it as relative". Sure. Ultimately relative to us. When we stand still, Earth stands still. Which we note through our inner ears as much as through our eyes.

Now, this can be taken two ways.

• 1) presumably Earth is still
  
  OR
  
  
• 2) since we cannot compare it, we can not tell if it stands still.

My point in that quandary is about if we cannot tell, we should presume it stands still. If we are Atheists (I am not), we may have no particular reason to believe we were placed in best position of objective observation, but we have no particular reason to believe we can find any other one that is the best either.

If we are Christians and not Gnostics, we can trust God placed us so we could observe Universe with sufficient correctness for our needs.

Like Geostationists of the past who concluded existence of God from either cohesion of non-contiguous stars going around us (Abraham according to a tradition recorded in Antiquitates) or from moving of a Heaven that are so much bigger than the single stars and their presumable movers (thus St Thomas Aquinas) were not deluded but luckily right there was a God. Rather they were, as all of us, placed where they did and all of us can draw the right conclusions.

Mike P

Hans-Georg, you walked straight into a false dichotomy. There's another way to "take" things. Does geo best fit into other realities that we observe, such as day and night and the seasons and even the 365-day year measurement? It is submitted that with its orbiting around the sun and its angular momentum, those presumptions best fit the evidence.

In a couple of days I'll be listing my objections to geocentrism in an OP. The responses I'm sure will be quite interesting.

Hans-Georg

[posts:] HGL's F.B. writings : Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/vy-considers-i-accused-him-falsely-of.html

[answers:] "Does geo best fit into other realities that we observe, such as day and night"

If God produces them by turning the Heavens around us, they proclaim his glory. As Holy Writ says.

"and the seasons and even the 365-day year measurement?"

The 365 and one quarter but a little shorter day year and its seasons are perfectly explained in the Geocentric models.

That of St Thomas Aquinas would imply that Sun-angel so to speak "swims backward against the stream" of the Heavens and it takes him a year to get around the Zodiak.

N hemisphere Autumn is when Sun is for instance between Virgo and Earth, N hemisphere spring when Sun is for instance between Pisces and Earth. Both occasions Zodiac and celestial equator are crossing.

N hemisphere Winter is when Sun is between a Zodiacal sign south of Heavenly equator, N hemisphere Summer when Sun is in a sign north of Heavenly equator.

No problems whatsoever for a proper understanding, no. In other words, these factors fit equally well, unless you start out denying God and angels.

And Sun angel of course knows he has to be further away around the Capricorn than around Cancer of Zodiak.

If instead of aether model and aether turned around us you prefer empty space and whatever celestial bodies move to move exactly locally as they move within the empty coordinate system, that is Abraham's view, that would instead imply Sun angel obeying God is going forward, westward each day, but intentionally lagging behind those that hold Fix Stars. There too he would have to be moving North and South along the year always staying between Zodiac and Earth and not along Celestial equator.

A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Vy (after reading previous posts in series, or first one of them)

Your first article has a loooooo...t of special pleading, damn! That's more than a Darwinist can conjure up to save spontaneous generation.

I hope this is clear, you (or any other geoheliocentrist) CANNOT provide a SINGLE reference from the Bible for:

• a) a revolving solar system
• b) a rotating universe
• c) angels guiding weird planetary geoheliocentric motions d) spirits doing mumbo jumbo with light (seriously, spirits?!??)
• e) spiritual protection against the cosmic tornado that would form.

Now, you claim that the ad populum fallacy is not a fallacy. Using your logic, being gay in the US (or UK or you know where) is OK because more than 50% of the population foolishly agree with such. Yes, 7.x billion people see the sun move around the earth, they however, DO NOT all believe in your model (and after watching Sungenis' video of geoheliocentrism, I can't either). After all, the Bible says the devil appears as an angel of light and it'll be very unwise to believe anyone claiming he really is.

Interruption

But God does not allow him to appear so to ALL of the world before the time of Antichrist and even then the elect will see it through. Back to Vy :

Continued

The germ theory faced opposition from the world-wide belief in demons -> all ailments, Chemistry faced opposition due to its alchemic roots.

Interruption again

The belief ALL ailments come from demons is not world wide, nor is it even by itself in opposition to germ theory. If devil is lord of flies, demons can be small lords over bacteria.

Continued

So yes, if 7.x billion people claim to believe in geoheliocentrism (which they do not) and you claim that that makes geoheliocentrism, you are committing an ad populum fallacy. The fact that I don't see a giant fireball zapping around (while moving upwards AND downwards) the earth at 3% the speed of light thereby creating 24hr long YEARS is evidence enough against geoheliocentrism, for me.

Show me something moving at just 5 - 25% faster than light, and then maybe you can claim everything revolves around the earth. But until then, geoheliocentrism remains in the "Weird concepts from the past" folder.

[Thanks for him admitting there is such a folder!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Now, you claim that the ad populum fallacy is not a fallacy. Using your logic, being gay in the US (or UK or you_know_where) is OK because more than 50% of the population foolishly agree with such"

But world wide and through history, most do not share that folly.

"So yes, if 7.x billion people claim to believe in geoheliocentrism (which they do not) "

Never claimed they all believe it now.

Some uninstructed may believe a flat earth, some with geographical instruction but no astronomic one may believe in something like the ptolemaic system. Most with astronomic instruction have swalled heliocentrism/acentrism. Read again if you read anything as if I had claimed all seven billion BELIEVE geoheliocentrism!

What I did claim and do claim is that the OBSERVATION they all make is an earth being still and a universe of at least sun moon and stars rotating daily around it.

So, a few men have during a few hours or days of their lives made from space observations of being in a still space craft and seeing Earth rotate around its axis.

Which of the two observations is most likely to be true as such and which is most likely to be explained through relativity? THAT was my point. You have not atatcked it because you have not adressed it at all.

"you (or any other geoheliocentrist) CANNOT provide a SINGLE reference from the Bible for:

• a) a revolving solar system
• b) a rotating universe
• c) angels guiding weird planetary geoheliocentric motions d) spirits doing mumbo jumbo with light (seriously, spirits?!??)
• e) spiritual protection against the cosmic tornado that would form."

Seriously, angels are spirits. If you read anything like them "doing mumbo jumbo with light" read again. I wrote they guide planets, whether straightforward as guiding Sun and Moon around Earth and in relation to Fix Stars, or obliquely as guiding Venus or Mars around Sun whereever Sun is, or twice obliquely as guiding Deimos and Phobos around Mars which a third angel is guiding around the Sun which a fourth angel is guiding around Earth.

We do find in Scripture that Joshua told the Sun and the Moon to stop. And they did.

"The fact that I don't see a giant fireball zapping around (while moving upwards AND downwards) the earth at 3% the speed of light thereby creating 24hr long YEARS is evidence enough against geoheliocentrism, for me."

I do not get the point about "24 h long years."

The Day is when Sun gets around Earth. It is a few minutes longer than Fix Stars take for same purpose. The year is when Sun does a circle against the Fix Stars. Against the background of their wider circle.

Sun between Virgo and Earth - days get shorter on Northern and longer on Southern hemisphere and day and night are about equal (at one end point of Virgo, they ARE equal).

Sun between Pisces and Earth days get longer on Northern and shorter on Southern hemisphere and day and night are about equal.

"The fact that I don't see a giant fireball zapping around (while moving upwards AND downwards) the earth at 3% the speed of light"

But you do. You have only been taught to reinterpret that view as caused by relativity rather than by the true motions.

So had I, but I have untaught myself from that, thank God and St Bartholomew and with some help from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas.

Vy

"We do find that in Scripture that Joshua told the Sun and Moon to stop"

No, "we" don't.

What "we" do find is Joshua saying to God to make the movement of the sun and moon as seen from WITHIN the earth (as is expected with a rotating earth) to stop.

He NEVER says UNIVERSE (or as the Bible uses, HEAVENS) STOP, so you better start explaining the biblical basis for a rotating universe.

"the OBSERVATION they all make is an earth being still and a universe of at least sun moon and stars rotating around it"

They DO NOT make such an observation. They DO observe the EXPECTED movement of the sun around the earth. Also, I have never seen a star (other than ours) rotate around the earth.

"Which of the two observations is most likely to be true"

The one of the guys OUTSIDE the earth.

The germ theory is not wrong even though it was one guy that came up with it despite the world wide belief in demons -> all ailments.

So yes, the observation made by the men in the spacecraft is correct. The observation of a moving sun also happens to be correct because we are WITHIN the earth. The Bible uses visually correct language.

"Seriously, angels are spirits"

And you chose to use "spirits" rather than "angels" at most places because???

"But you do. You have only been taught to reinterpret that view aa caused by relativity than by true motions"

Do you know what "zapping around" means?

Can you show a single photo the sun as a "fireball" with a tail (most likely due to solar flares and CMEs while moving at 3% the speed of light around an object severlely smaller than it)??

"The Day is when the sun gets around the earth"

Riiiiiiiight, and according to Sungenis' video, the sun magically does this not just while moving at 3% the speed of light, but also while moving upwards and downwards. You seriously expect me to believe the sun performs such unobserved (and quite impossible) motions?

FYI, I said 24hr long years because revolution (what you call "rotate around" for reasons best known to you) takes a year and in your geoheliocentric model, that's 24 hrs.

You claim that in Joshua, angels controlled the sun (or whatever). Show me a single mention of angels in those verses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What 'we' do find is Joshua saying to God to make the movement of the sun and moon as seen from WITHIN the earth (as is expected with a rotating earth) to stop. "

OK, what does the text say he said?

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

Two parts:

• 1) Joshua speaks with God
• 2) Joshua publically adresses Sun and Moon.

Answer this before anything of the rest, please!

I mean before asking me to answer anything of the rest. You tried to riddle me on Bible and you miscited it.

After which

Vy answered no more last day and some others changed the subject.