From the middle ages up until the 1700s people insisted that the Bible qualified that the Earth, not the Sun, was the center of the solar system. It wasn't that associates just thought it have to be that way; they in actual fact quoted scriptures: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved" (Psalm 104:5), or "the sun stood still" (Joshua 10:13;) among others...
My point is, if the bible can be misinterpreted then, isn't it possible that the immature earth theories may be base on passages that are human being misinterpreted now?
Possible?
Answers:
Not only that it is the center of the universe!
It is a fundamentally deep subject, dealing within milt-dimensions, time and space!
But when understood, its possible!
In biblical times, people thought that the soil and heaven be all that in attendance was... and that the globe was essentially a 'terrarium' (you might want to look that up). They thought that the sky be a solid object, call the 'firmament', and that the sun, moon, and stars were affixed to it. So, essentially, glory is 'on the other side of the sky'.
The story of Genesis is comprised of the myths, superstitions, fairy tale and fantastical delusions of an unapprised bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders, lifted from the oral traditions of other cultures, and crafted into a yarn that incorporated some of their own folk tales and pseudo-history. This collection of ignorance provides the font for the Abrahamic death cults of desert monotheism... Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The cosmological aspects of Genesis are faultlessly understandable, if you contemplate it contained by the proper context. At the time the bible stories were concocted, the perception be that the earth be the object and the center of creation. Why? Because they have no reason to reflect otherwise. Today, as we advance science, we stand upon the shoulders of adjectives the scientists that came beforehand. Back then nearby were no shoulders to stand upon... so they did the best they could near what they had... their senses and their imagination.
* They had no concept of 'outer space', and so they conceived that contained by the beginning adjectives that existed were dim waters.
* They had no concept of 'nothingness'. Remember, the concept of 'zero' wasn't invented (discovered?) until thousands of years then. With that in mind, the occupancy 'void', as it is employed in Genesis, can not refer to 'nothingness'... it can one and only be applied in its alternative definition, which is 'empty'. So, the waters be dark, formless and uniform (devoid of content).
* They thought that all of creation consisted of the mud and an unseen 'heaven', and they thought that the sky was a 'thing'... a substantive 'firmament' that be created by god to separate the waters and differentiate earth from glory, when both were created.
# They have no idea that Earth be a planet, orbiting the sun.
# They have no idea that near is no firmament... that the sky is not a 'thing'.
(If you don't believe that they thought the sky was an be reluctant... a solid barrier... consider the Tower of Babel, that they be building to reach glory. Apparently, God ALSO thought that the sky was an be reluctant, since it concerned him so much that he confounded their speech, so as to disrupt their project and keep them from reaching his domain. God must be pretty much of a dumbass, if he doesn't even know the actual configuration of the universe that he created. So much for the 'inerrant' bible.)
* They thought that the sun be a light that god have placed upon the 'firmament' to differentiate night from daylight.
# They had no opinion that the sun is a star... the center of our solar system.
# They had no concept of 'stars' surrounded by the same sense that we comprehend them today.
* They had no theory that night and sunshine were a consequence of the earth's rotation.
* They thought that the moon be a 'lesser' light that god have caused to travel across the firmament to see man to differentiate the seasons, and provide lights at night.
# They have no concept of the moon as a satellite.
* They thought that the stars were tiny lights that god have placed upon the firmament to provide for omens. (Some thought that the stars were 'holes' surrounded by the firmament that allowed the 'light of heaven' to shine through.)
# They have no idea that the stars be suns, just resembling our own sun.
# They thought the eyeball-visible planets (Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) were 'wandering stars'.
# They have no idea that the planets be actually sun-orbiting bodies, a moment ago like top soil.
* They had no hypothesis that the earth, itself, is a planet.
# They have no clue as to the actual nature of the top soil, our solar system, the place of our solar system in the galaxy... or even of the existence of our galaxy. (Up until amazingly recently, we didn't even know that near were other galaxies. Our galaxy, when it be first known that here actually WAS a galaxy, be thought to be the whole universe.) From their perspective, the 'earth' and 'heaven' (i.e., doesn`t matter what existed on the other side of the sky) represented all that in that was. A terrarium.
I do not influence this things to disparage what they thought back next. They were trying to do what science is trying to do today... trying to work out nature and actuality. Today, we have technology and disciplined meta-procedures (scientific method) to assist us extract answers from nature.
Back afterwards, they did not.
Today, we have 'theories' to provide a consistent explanatory framework for what we are competent to observe contained by nature, supplemented and validate by the additional information that we are competent to extract from nature by system of our technology, our disciplined methods and our intellectual tools (mathematics, logic). Most of our theories are incomplete, so we continue to work on them... because we know that they are incomplete.
Back later, they did not have disciplined methods, and they did not own the technology to extract answers from nature. The single information they had access to be what they could see with their own eyeballs. There be no technological scholarship base or experimental context in which to interpret their observations, so they have to appeal to their imaginations... and the 'supernatural'... surrounded by order to produce sense out of what they saw. Actually, what they really achieved be deluding themselves into thinking that they know the truth. Amazingly, over time, this delusion have become codified, institutionalized, and incorporated... complete with franchises.
Basically, Genesis can be thought of as a 'theory', concocted by associates who were constrained by paucity of technology, methodology and intellectual tools... but they sure weren't constrained by lack of imagination.
Today, we try to interpret Genesis within the context of what we KNOW about the universe... galaxies, stars, planets, moons, gravity, orbit, inclination of the earth's axis, planetary rotation, etc. They problem is that Genesis can't be interpreted in vocabulary of those things, because Genesis was written by men, base on oral traditions, and those men DID NOT KNOW about those things. They could singular write about what they could see and what they could guess something like the reasons that lay aft what they saw. In any event, it provided them with a machinery to quell the innate anxiety that comes with fretting almost how and why they came to be here.
They guessed wrong.
So... the cosmological aspects of Genesis require a literal interpretation... no metaphors... no allegory... no unknown meaning. The push button, though, is in perception that the literal interpretation does not lead to a description of the route things ARE... it leads to a description of the style they THOUGHT things are. It leads to a credulous description of reality, concocted by general public who were doing the best they could beside what they had.
It is unquestionably appalling, though, to realize that hundreds of millions of people, TODAY, including participant in this forum, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that this mythological trash is actually TRUE.
***********
"Myth have been needed precisely because we be not in a position to think through the universe on its own terms, through the verbal communication of natural directive and direct examination of its workings on a textile, rational stratum. Once that process of understanding is completed—and we are economically on our way to achieve that—the use of myth can be discarded. Its continuing retention is already proving to be counter-productive." - Earl Doherty
***********
Unfortunately, throughout Church history there enjoy been those who insist on reading the Bible surrounded by a more literal sense than it was intended. They fall through to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is call "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to result in day and dark, rather than the dust turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological argot.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the skies and the non-motion of the earth is plain as the nose on your face to us today, but was smaller quantity so in previous centuries. Scripture scholar of the past be willing to consider whether dedicated statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not resembling being told by a non-Scripture learner, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken surrounded by a particular sense.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_...
That self said, I will move on to another agreement I own with your cross-examine. The truth of science does not conflict with the truths of confidence. Truth cannot contradict truth. http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp...
In a direct attack on the concept of random kismet evolution, Pope Benedict asked rhetorically: "What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who make all things and give them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any characterization, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as ably as man and his reason."
http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic...
For my part of a set, when I received those taking part within your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity next to regard to Galileo to draw attention to the requirement of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that form it say what it does not intend to influence. In order to delineate the grazing land of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed going on for the results achieved by the inherent sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).
4. Taking into vindication the state of scientific research at the time as ably as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this view should not be adopted as though it be a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation beside regard to the question it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this view would be compatible with the Christian religious conviction, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, modern knowledge have led to the naming of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this assumption has be progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries contained by various field of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that be conducted independently is in itself a significant argument contained by favor of this theory.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp...
Bottom stripe: The answer to your question is yes. When the bible is removed from the Church that it come from, its no longer an inspired book.
A lot of what family claimed was surrounded by the Bible was in actuality stated by Aristotle, and is NOT in the Bible. I wonder how heaps people know that.
The Earth does not teach that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Those quotes are outside of proper context, and they are only just sayings anyway.
The modern young planet creationism movement's age of the earth is largely derived from some a bit tortured interpretations of the Bible by a man named Bishop Ussher. He be a 17th century chuchman. He dated the moment of Creation to 9:00AM October 23, 4004 BC. If they'd had Swiss time contained by 1650 he would probably have given us hundredths of a second as powerfully. Just the precision he claims from sources that don't contain such precision makes his work look fairly silly.
The Bible is the direct Word of God (TM) and must other be interpreted 100% literally,
except:
1. When it gives a commandment or instruction that you don't agree next to
2. When it says something so blatantly ridiculous that even a child would see it as absurdity
3. When it speaks about tolerance and loving your neighbour - this should be disregarded and you should threaten your neighbour with fire and brimstone as habitually as possible.
So as you can see, even though the Bible clearly depicts a sun travelling around the Earth, it really doesn't. Because that would be silly. However there's absolutely positively plainly completely nothing silly whatsoever going on for a 6000-year-old earth and nation made from clay.
Related Questions:
Questions for using solar panel to roast a pool?
it is just a little 3 foot pool but we have adjectives shade and the water is freezing. i bought one panel to put on our roof. will the pump that came with the pool be strong adequate or do i need a new pump. it is a 110/120v pump. I agree with...
I call for a heading for my solar cooker that im gonna present at the competition URGENTLY!?
Astronomy solar eclipse how ti wor?
Straight from Nat. Geographic Mars Polar boater melt hints at solar warm?
My point is, if the bible can be misinterpreted then, isn't it possible that the immature earth theories may be base on passages that are human being misinterpreted now?
Possible?
Answers:
Not only that it is the center of the universe!
It is a fundamentally deep subject, dealing within milt-dimensions, time and space!
But when understood, its possible!
In biblical times, people thought that the soil and heaven be all that in attendance was... and that the globe was essentially a 'terrarium' (you might want to look that up). They thought that the sky be a solid object, call the 'firmament', and that the sun, moon, and stars were affixed to it. So, essentially, glory is 'on the other side of the sky'.
The story of Genesis is comprised of the myths, superstitions, fairy tale and fantastical delusions of an unapprised bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders, lifted from the oral traditions of other cultures, and crafted into a yarn that incorporated some of their own folk tales and pseudo-history. This collection of ignorance provides the font for the Abrahamic death cults of desert monotheism... Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The cosmological aspects of Genesis are faultlessly understandable, if you contemplate it contained by the proper context. At the time the bible stories were concocted, the perception be that the earth be the object and the center of creation. Why? Because they have no reason to reflect otherwise. Today, as we advance science, we stand upon the shoulders of adjectives the scientists that came beforehand. Back then nearby were no shoulders to stand upon... so they did the best they could near what they had... their senses and their imagination.
* They had no concept of 'outer space', and so they conceived that contained by the beginning adjectives that existed were dim waters.
* They had no concept of 'nothingness'. Remember, the concept of 'zero' wasn't invented (discovered?) until thousands of years then. With that in mind, the occupancy 'void', as it is employed in Genesis, can not refer to 'nothingness'... it can one and only be applied in its alternative definition, which is 'empty'. So, the waters be dark, formless and uniform (devoid of content).
* They thought that all of creation consisted of the mud and an unseen 'heaven', and they thought that the sky was a 'thing'... a substantive 'firmament' that be created by god to separate the waters and differentiate earth from glory, when both were created.
# They have no idea that Earth be a planet, orbiting the sun.
# They have no idea that near is no firmament... that the sky is not a 'thing'.
(If you don't believe that they thought the sky was an be reluctant... a solid barrier... consider the Tower of Babel, that they be building to reach glory. Apparently, God ALSO thought that the sky was an be reluctant, since it concerned him so much that he confounded their speech, so as to disrupt their project and keep them from reaching his domain. God must be pretty much of a dumbass, if he doesn't even know the actual configuration of the universe that he created. So much for the 'inerrant' bible.)
* They thought that the sun be a light that god have placed upon the 'firmament' to differentiate night from daylight.
# They had no opinion that the sun is a star... the center of our solar system.
# They had no concept of 'stars' surrounded by the same sense that we comprehend them today.
* They had no theory that night and sunshine were a consequence of the earth's rotation.
* They thought that the moon be a 'lesser' light that god have caused to travel across the firmament to see man to differentiate the seasons, and provide lights at night.
# They have no concept of the moon as a satellite.
* They thought that the stars were tiny lights that god have placed upon the firmament to provide for omens. (Some thought that the stars were 'holes' surrounded by the firmament that allowed the 'light of heaven' to shine through.)
# They have no idea that the stars be suns, just resembling our own sun.
# They thought the eyeball-visible planets (Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) were 'wandering stars'.
# They have no idea that the planets be actually sun-orbiting bodies, a moment ago like top soil.
* They had no hypothesis that the earth, itself, is a planet.
# They have no clue as to the actual nature of the top soil, our solar system, the place of our solar system in the galaxy... or even of the existence of our galaxy. (Up until amazingly recently, we didn't even know that near were other galaxies. Our galaxy, when it be first known that here actually WAS a galaxy, be thought to be the whole universe.) From their perspective, the 'earth' and 'heaven' (i.e., doesn`t matter what existed on the other side of the sky) represented all that in that was. A terrarium.
I do not influence this things to disparage what they thought back next. They were trying to do what science is trying to do today... trying to work out nature and actuality. Today, we have technology and disciplined meta-procedures (scientific method) to assist us extract answers from nature.
Back afterwards, they did not.
Today, we have 'theories' to provide a consistent explanatory framework for what we are competent to observe contained by nature, supplemented and validate by the additional information that we are competent to extract from nature by system of our technology, our disciplined methods and our intellectual tools (mathematics, logic). Most of our theories are incomplete, so we continue to work on them... because we know that they are incomplete.
Back later, they did not have disciplined methods, and they did not own the technology to extract answers from nature. The single information they had access to be what they could see with their own eyeballs. There be no technological scholarship base or experimental context in which to interpret their observations, so they have to appeal to their imaginations... and the 'supernatural'... surrounded by order to produce sense out of what they saw. Actually, what they really achieved be deluding themselves into thinking that they know the truth. Amazingly, over time, this delusion have become codified, institutionalized, and incorporated... complete with franchises.
Basically, Genesis can be thought of as a 'theory', concocted by associates who were constrained by paucity of technology, methodology and intellectual tools... but they sure weren't constrained by lack of imagination.
Today, we try to interpret Genesis within the context of what we KNOW about the universe... galaxies, stars, planets, moons, gravity, orbit, inclination of the earth's axis, planetary rotation, etc. They problem is that Genesis can't be interpreted in vocabulary of those things, because Genesis was written by men, base on oral traditions, and those men DID NOT KNOW about those things. They could singular write about what they could see and what they could guess something like the reasons that lay aft what they saw. In any event, it provided them with a machinery to quell the innate anxiety that comes with fretting almost how and why they came to be here.
They guessed wrong.
So... the cosmological aspects of Genesis require a literal interpretation... no metaphors... no allegory... no unknown meaning. The push button, though, is in perception that the literal interpretation does not lead to a description of the route things ARE... it leads to a description of the style they THOUGHT things are. It leads to a credulous description of reality, concocted by general public who were doing the best they could beside what they had.
It is unquestionably appalling, though, to realize that hundreds of millions of people, TODAY, including participant in this forum, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that this mythological trash is actually TRUE.
***********
"Myth have been needed precisely because we be not in a position to think through the universe on its own terms, through the verbal communication of natural directive and direct examination of its workings on a textile, rational stratum. Once that process of understanding is completed—and we are economically on our way to achieve that—the use of myth can be discarded. Its continuing retention is already proving to be counter-productive." - Earl Doherty
***********
Unfortunately, throughout Church history there enjoy been those who insist on reading the Bible surrounded by a more literal sense than it was intended. They fall through to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is call "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to result in day and dark, rather than the dust turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological argot.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the skies and the non-motion of the earth is plain as the nose on your face to us today, but was smaller quantity so in previous centuries. Scripture scholar of the past be willing to consider whether dedicated statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not resembling being told by a non-Scripture learner, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken surrounded by a particular sense.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_...
That self said, I will move on to another agreement I own with your cross-examine. The truth of science does not conflict with the truths of confidence. Truth cannot contradict truth. http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp...
In a direct attack on the concept of random kismet evolution, Pope Benedict asked rhetorically: "What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who make all things and give them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any characterization, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as ably as man and his reason."
http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic...
For my part of a set, when I received those taking part within your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity next to regard to Galileo to draw attention to the requirement of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that form it say what it does not intend to influence. In order to delineate the grazing land of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed going on for the results achieved by the inherent sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).
4. Taking into vindication the state of scientific research at the time as ably as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this view should not be adopted as though it be a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation beside regard to the question it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this view would be compatible with the Christian religious conviction, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, modern knowledge have led to the naming of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this assumption has be progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries contained by various field of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that be conducted independently is in itself a significant argument contained by favor of this theory.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp...
Bottom stripe: The answer to your question is yes. When the bible is removed from the Church that it come from, its no longer an inspired book.
A lot of what family claimed was surrounded by the Bible was in actuality stated by Aristotle, and is NOT in the Bible. I wonder how heaps people know that.
The Earth does not teach that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Those quotes are outside of proper context, and they are only just sayings anyway.
The modern young planet creationism movement's age of the earth is largely derived from some a bit tortured interpretations of the Bible by a man named Bishop Ussher. He be a 17th century chuchman. He dated the moment of Creation to 9:00AM October 23, 4004 BC. If they'd had Swiss time contained by 1650 he would probably have given us hundredths of a second as powerfully. Just the precision he claims from sources that don't contain such precision makes his work look fairly silly.
The Bible is the direct Word of God (TM) and must other be interpreted 100% literally,
except:
1. When it gives a commandment or instruction that you don't agree next to
2. When it says something so blatantly ridiculous that even a child would see it as absurdity
3. When it speaks about tolerance and loving your neighbour - this should be disregarded and you should threaten your neighbour with fire and brimstone as habitually as possible.
So as you can see, even though the Bible clearly depicts a sun travelling around the Earth, it really doesn't. Because that would be silly. However there's absolutely positively plainly completely nothing silly whatsoever going on for a 6000-year-old earth and nation made from clay.
Related Questions:
Questions for using solar panel to roast a pool?
it is just a little 3 foot pool but we have adjectives shade and the water is freezing. i bought one panel to put on our roof. will the pump that came with the pool be strong adequate or do i need a new pump. it is a 110/120v pump. I agree with...