Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[hansgeorg]

The Church was right to sentence him at that time.

But they were wrong in the reasons for doing so.

I am not sure this is really maximalism on magisterial powers.

It can be a kind of diabolism in canonic powers over laymen who are merely "wrongheaded" even if they cannot be proven actually wrong on doctrine.

[oxmixmudd]

That I dispute. The Bible is inerrant on whatever subject it touches.



I am no Hebraist, but it could be the grammarians are wrong or the Massoretic text (when different from LXX, especially) is wrong, rather than the grammar of the original text as inspired by God.

It is well known that the greek texts reflect the (lack) of education of Peter and conversely the education of Luke, with the associated reduction in grammatical errors. The issue is that God wasn't teaching Grammar. As long as Peter communicated His revelation, the grammar was unimportant and God didn't 'fix' it. This has serious implications in your view in that it points at the fact that God speaks through His servants but does not co-opt them. He uses them as they are. Theologically this is HUGE - God comes to us and accepts us warts and all through Christ, and He uses us in spite of our weaknesses - all the while changing us, making (a process) more like Christ.

But He doesn't make our weaknesses disappear. What that means in this context is that elements of the text unimportant to the message of the text may or may not rise to whatever level of perfection you or I may be inclined to impose upon it.

as

Read again. But I do keep forgetting just how rigidly literal minded someone from you position is - my point was not that Elihu thought it was literally bronze, but something rigid and strong LIKE bronze. I'll try to be more pedandic in my conversation so as not to lose ground over such minutia.

The point being, they though the sky was some sort of very hard rigid material, like crystal or bronze (and later iron). And this comes forward in the text. And, to put the actual point I'm looking for - you here do and must acknowledge that the text is not literally true - the sky doesn't have to be a metal for this text to be true. But the point I'm making is that the sky ISN'T some hard surface at all, yet the Biblical text describes it as such here, and in Genesis. There are other allusions to it in the Psalms and I think other texts. But there is also the issue of the sluices or windows of heaven, which are translated literally as waterfalls in the Septuagint. There is the issue of God's throne situated in the waters of heaven, the entire concept of the waters of heaven held up by the firmament, the storehouses of heaven where the rain and snow are kept, the concepts of God hurling lighting and hailstones while peering over the firmament.

All these things MUST be literally true in your world - or you violate the reason you hold to geocentrism.

You are reasoning about verse 13.

But verse 12, we have Joshua speaking while working a miracle. His actual words were inspired by God, or he would not have known he could work that miracle.

Speaking while working a miracle doesn't imply he's also teaching us scientific concepts. vs 13 tells us what happened as observed. Vs 12 is the command given, and the creation obeyed. There is no obligatory conclusion as to HOW it obeyed, nor can one draw any scientific conclusions from it - except that with both sun and moon's motion in the sky stopped, it is consistent with EITHER view of the cosmos.

Jim

[TheLurch]

So, i don't understand Catholic theology well enough to know, but i suspect that the Pope speaking in this context isn't creating a permanent theological record, as it were. Still, nice to see Pope Francis saying that Catholics should accept the Big Bang. Which pretty much means accepting the rest of modern physics, including relativity and a non-geocentric universe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/po...e-real-n235696

[Yttrium]

So, i don't understand Catholic theology well enough to know, but i suspect that the Pope speaking in this context isn't creating a permanent theological record, as it were. Still, nice to see Pope Francis saying that Catholics should accept the Big Bang. Which pretty much means accepting the rest of modern physics, including relativity and a non-geocentric universe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/po...e-real-n235696

I do like that guy. But he certainly isn't endearing himself to guys like Hansgeorg.

[rogue06]

So, i don't understand Catholic theology well enough to know, but i suspect that the Pope speaking in this context isn't creating a permanent theological record, as it were. Still, nice to see Pope Francis saying that Catholics should accept the Big Bang. Which pretty much means accepting the rest of modern physics, including relativity and a non-geocentric universe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/po...e-real-n235696

[Sea of red]

I can wrap my head around how someone could conclude climate change, common ancestry, quantum mechanics, or other modern developments in science are wrong. See, those people are most certainly cranks, but I can also see where simple misunderstanding of the science can lead people to crack-pot ideas. It doesn't excuse those people from the responsibility of not doing their homework, but at least the mistakes involved are more understandable - especially for those amateurs out there that don't know what they're doing.

But believing the Earth is stationary, that the Sun revolves around it, that it weighs more than the whole universe, and that simple physical laws that humanity has known for years are academic conspiracies is just ... insane. There really is no other way to put it. We have so many reasons for knowing that such ideas can't work that there really are no excuses left for these people - other than insanity. In which case they do not need any of you folks to educate them, but instead should be told to see a doctor right away.

If you only take one bit of advise from let it be this: don't engage them. I had to learn the hard way myself. It just enables their overblown ego into thinking that it's on to something, and they'll love you taking them seriously.

[hansgeorg]

But believing the Earth is stationary, that the Sun revolves around it, that it weighs more than the whole universe, and that simple physical laws that humanity has known for years are academic conspiracies is just ... insane.

That is a very biassed way of putting it.

Now, the title of this thread, "Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?" puts one of the items as a question, and the question was not posed by me.

As for "that simple physical laws that humanity has known for years are academic conspiracies" I don't know who would be suggesting that.

The other items on the list have been very wodely held by most of mankind, so, you are basically saying most of mankind is insane, historically, or that agreeing with most of mankind has become insane.

That is to say the least a very agressive tone.

There really is no other way to put it. We have so many reasons for knowing that such ideas can't work that there really are no excuses left for these people - other than insanity. In which case they do not need any of you folks to educate them, but instead should be told to see a doctor right away.

Excuses would be relevant only if there were a moral fault.

And "seeing a doctor" is an euphemism for psychiatric harrassment, which also is ... not a very peaceful thing to suggest.

[hansgeorg]

So, i don't understand Catholic theology well enough to know, but i suspect that the Pope speaking in this context isn't creating a permanent theological record, as it were. Still, nice to see Pope Francis saying that Catholics should accept the Big Bang. Which pretty much means accepting the rest of modern physics, including relativity and a non-geocentric universe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/po...e-real-n235696

That was yet another indication that this man is not Pope of the Catholic Church.

[hansgeorg]

But he certainly isn't endearing himself to guys like Hansgeorg.

If you hadn't used the word "certainly" it would have been the understatement of the year.

I actually wrote about November 22 1951 as one indication Pacelli might have been not a Pope.

Humani Generis can be kind of excused (yes, it is in places faulty) as "teach the controversy". But next year (Humani Generis was 1950) its author already makes the controversy come to naught among Catholics taking him for Pope, by taking one side, and the wrong one, in part of that controversy.

Pope Michael's episcopal consecration descends from Brazilian Apostolic Church which had separated from Pius XII already in 1950. And, though he is not on the same line as I, I suspect Michel Colin (who received a revelation on the matter) may have been the real Pope between 1950 and his death in 1974. Under the name Clement XV.

[hansgeorg]

It is well known that the greek texts reflect the (lack) of education of Peter and conversely the education of Luke, with the associated reduction in grammatical errors. The issue is that God wasn't teaching Grammar. As long as Peter communicated His revelation, the grammar was unimportant and God didn't 'fix' it.

Since grammar is not a propositional content, it can very safely be considered as package not message.

Also, grammar changes, and when you say "faulty grammar" you are speaking from a grammar which is "faulty" from the vantage of a certain standard.

If we took English, American English is faulty as per Dictionary of Dr Johnson, while British English is faulty as per dictionary of Webster. But equally obviously, British English is correct according to Dictionary of Dr. Johnson, while American English is correct according to dictionary of Webster.

This has serious implications in your view in that it points at the fact that God speaks through His servants but does not co-opt them. He uses them as they are. Theologically this is HUGE - God comes to us and accepts us warts and all through Christ, and He uses us in spite of our weaknesses - all the while changing us, making (a process) more like Christ.

But He doesn't make our weaknesses disappear.

Faulty grammar is not a weakness, unless you mean "really faulty" so as to make the text garbled and ill readable. Which I don't think you mean. "Faulty" grammar is a reflexion on one's education : a social marker. Like "I knows how to speaks in Readin" or the diphthings* of Martha's Vinyeard. Take a look at social linguistics before you describe "faulty grammar" as a weakness.

What that means in this context is that elements of the text unimportant to the message of the text may or may not rise to whatever level of perfection you or I may be inclined to impose upon it.

Actually, grammatical oddities (comparable to the Irish bull, comparable to writing "10 pounds/nite") are not elements of the propositional content. They are elements of the linguistic package. Very clearly so.

Read again. But I do keep forgetting just how rigidly literal minded someone from you position is - my point was not that Elihu thought it was literally bronze, but something rigid and strong LIKE bronze. I'll try to be more pedandic in my conversation so as not to lose ground over such minutia.

The point being, they though the sky was some sort of very hard rigid material, like crystal or bronze (and later iron). And this comes forward in the text.

First of all, Elihu does not necessarily speak for author and therefore not necessarily for God.

Second, as said, the actual words can be defended if the word is taken as "strong" rather than as "rigid". Aether is not impenetrable, but it is taking the universe along westward in a very unified way suggestive of great strength. From Fix stars down to Oceanic currents.

Third, you are trying to read the text as a piece of anthropological evidence.

And, to put the actual point I'm looking for - you here do and must acknowledge that the text is not literally true - the sky doesn't have to be a metal for this text to be true.

The text does not say "of bronze" but "as of bronze". Meaning the actual words do not state it is of metal either.

But the point I'm making is that the sky ISN'T some hard surface at all, yet the Biblical text describes it as such here, and in Genesis.

Both this passage and Raqia (Genesis 1) have presumably been taken by Geocentrics in this era as referring to the aether.

Hard as in impenetrable - no. Strong as in moving very heavy loads along without "breaking" when moving - yes.

There are other allusions to it in the Psalms and I think other texts.

Presumably aether too.

But there is also the issue of the sluices or windows of heaven, which are translated literally as waterfalls in the Septuagint.

I take it as a limit, produced by magnetic field, between oxygen in atmosphere and "waters" (hydrogen!) above the firmament.

I take the opening of this as meaning that oxygen and hydrogen mixed and were lit on fire during the Flood.

If this involved a much weaker magnetic field, that would also explain the rapid rise of C14 in atmosphere after Flood. According to my calculations, the year of the Flood, new C14 was produced 20 times as fast as now.

There is the issue of God's throne situated in the waters of heaven,

God's throne is probably one Christ is sitting on, and waters may be either H2 or H2O, but beyond the fix stars.

the entire concept of the waters of heaven held up by the firmament,

1) We can by spectrography (yes, I do believe in that means of astrophysics!) know there are molecules of H2 and H2O above the atmosphere in all directions.
2) All this is suspended in the aether.

the storehouses of heaven where the rain and snow are kept,

You are aware that clouds work like storehouses? Drops and flakes are produced in rather large quantities, until the total weight becomes so great it starts falling down.

the concepts of God hurling lighting and hailstones while peering over the firmament.

God very certainly determines where lightning and hailstones go, but "while peering over the firmament" is a somewhat obscure reference to me.

Of course, you may have read much more Biblical passages, but I also think you tend to read somewhat superficially, as when not differentiating "of bronze" from "as of bronze".

All these things MUST be literally true in your world - or you violate the reason you hold to geocentrism.

You mean the Biblical inerrancy part of the reason.

There is also the generally epistemological one.

Speaking while working a miracle doesn't imply he's also teaching us scientific concepts.

Nor is it compatible with ordering the entities which are not engaged in the change.

vs 13 tells us what happened as observed.

That is one thing, as said.

Vs 12 is the command given, and the creation obeyed. There is no obligatory conclusion as to HOW it obeyed, nor can one draw any scientific conclusions from it - except that with both sun and moon's motion in the sky stopped, it is consistent with EITHER view of the cosmos.

No, it is a command given specifically to Sun and to Moon. And if the command had been to Earth, we could have considered that Earth obeyed by stopping daily rotation. Precisely as Christ's exorcisms are directed against the demons which really and truly have to get out of the really and truly possessed. We cannot suppose "he cured mental diseases" without any demons being involved.

* Diphthongs! Someone is praying for me to show real faulty grammar, as in misspellings. And it often involves "i" instead of "o", as if the person considered "Lvov" correct and "Lviv" incorrect - a Russian despising an Ukrainean.

[rogue06]

If you hadn't used the word "certainly" it would have been the understatement of the year.



I actually wrote about November 22 1951 as one indication Pacelli might have been not a Pope.

Humani Generis can be kind of excused (yes, it is in places faulty) as "teach the controversy". But next year (Humani Generis was 1950) its author already makes the controversy come to naught among Catholics taking him for Pope, by taking one side, and the wrong one, in part of that controversy.

Pope Michael's episcopal consecration descends from Brazilian Apostolic Church which had separated from Pius XII already in 1950. And, though he is not on the same line as I, I suspect Michel Colin (who received a revelation on the matter) may have been the real Pope between 1950 and his death in 1974. Under the name Clement XV.

"Pope Michael" smiley snicker.gif

Some fruit cake who elected himself pope (with the help of mommy and daddy and three other nut jobs) after he got kicked out of seminary. You do realize that even your "Pope Michael" recognizes the legitimacy of Pius XII don't you?

[TheLurch]

That was yet another indication that this man is not Pope of the Catholic Church.

Wow, how convenient. On one hand, you argue that no Pope has said anything against your opinions. On the other, when a Pope has, you simply define him as a non-Pope.

There's no way you can lose!

[TheLurch]

"Pope Michael" [ATTACH=CONFIG]20104[/ATTACH]

Some fruit cake who elected himself pope (with the help of mommy and daddy and three other nut jobs) after he got kicked out of seminary. You do realize that even your "Pope Michael" recognizes the legitimacy of Pius XII don't you?

That sounds like some fun weekend reading. Have a link to the full story?

I had a friend who was an ex-Catholic and wanted to be excommunicated, and decided declaring himself Pope would probably get the job done, but he never got anyone else to go along with it.

[hansgeorg]

"Pope Michael" [ATTACH=CONFIG]20104[/ATTACH]

Some fruit cake who elected himself pope (with the help of mommy and daddy and three other nut jobs) after he got kicked out of seminary. You do realize that even your "Pope Michael" recognizes the legitimacy of Pius XII don't you?

1) I know he recognises Pius XII, but he also recognises there are problems with him;
2) Acc. to himself, he left seminary after suspecting some secret bad doings on part of the SSPX seminary leader (not Bishop Williamson, back then and there).
3) I do not think Popes are infallible about who has been Pope before them, at least not unless saying so in a statement intending infallibility. I heard (this might be an urban legend in the seminary world) that for some time it was not decided whether Rome or Avignon papacy was the true one during the 39 year Western Schism.
4) I don't think he voted for himself, and if more people had shown up for the conclave, someone else might have been elected.

[hansgeorg]

That sounds like some fun weekend reading. Have a link to the full story?

https://popemichaelfilm.com/

Wow, how convenient. On one hand, you argue that no Pope has said anything against your opinions. On the other, when a Pope has, you simply define him as a non-Pope.

I have argued that no Pope generally accepted as such even among sedevacantists (no Pope before Vatican II, and in fact not even Pius XII) has in any direct way called Heliocentrism or modern cosmology "true". One could argue Pius XII did so implicitly in 1951, but that speech was more concerned with dating and even used radioactive methods to prove Earth "at least five billion years old". Since Earth has since then been reduced to 4.5 billion years, one can say he got a fickle support where he looked for one.

Pius VII, Leo XIII and Benedict XV refrained from directly declaring Heliocentrism true. "John Paul II" is NOMB when it comes to Papal fidelity.