lundi 24 novembre 2014

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)

"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.


"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.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire