Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[URAVIP2ME]

Genesis 22:17 does not support your assertion. It simply refers to the vast number of stars that circled the earth,

Yes, such a vast number is a googleplex of stars that can be seen because of where Earth is positioned in the Milky Way.
No telescope needed for Abraham to view because there was No interference from electric lights, etc.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The highlighted was specific as well as many descriptive citations that describe the earth as the center and the sun and moon go around the earth as here . . .
2 Pet 1:19 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”
Geocentric: the day star does the rising.
You cannot explain away this:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 ESV / 24 helpful votes
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

As even now we view the dawning sun and we refer to it as the sun rising, at setting sun we view that as going down. ( viewpoint, Not a science lesson )

Day star is just similar in meaning ' morning star ' or the last star to be seen on the horizon before we see the sun, thus heralding the dawning of a new day.
The day star of 2nd Peter is the glorified Jesus. The Bible is heralding the marking of his millennial dawn, aka new era coming.
Jesus rises, so to speak, to keep us alert or enlightened to the time of this new day (1,000 year day) when Jesus comes in Kingdom glory.
The 'glory time' as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37

 

[rrobs]

If you read it at all literally several places. When Satan showed Jesus all of the Earth from a "tall mountain". Climbing a tree to see the entire Earth is another example. The "visions" excuse does not work because even in visions this implies a Flat Earth. Then of course there is Religious Forums. The original Hebrew word for "circle" means an inscribed circle, as with a compass. That cannot be a sphere. The Bible describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, but never spherical.

Ever heard the phrase, "I can see forever." Enough said.

 

[rrobs]

Great....so you just offered an argument that if the universe was not what it is, then it would be something else. Bid deal........

Interesting takeaway. Wouldn't anything be something else if is it wasn't what it was? Sorry, but I don't get your point.

 

[shunyadragon]

As even now we view the dawning sun and we refer to it as the sun rising, at setting sun we view that as going down. ( viewpoint, Not a science lesson )

Day star is just similar in meaning ' morning star ' or the last star to be seen on the horizon before we see the sun, thus heralding the dawning of a new day.
The day star of 2nd Peter is the glorified Jesus. The Bible is heralding the marking of his millennial dawn, aka new era coming.
Jesus rises, so to speak, to keep us alert or enlightened to the time of this new day (1,000 year day) when Jesus comes in Kingdom glory.
The 'glory time' as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37

The reference as well as others are specific the star as well as the Sun and the moon go down and round the earth. No wiggle room for interpretation, especially when put in context the other literature of the time. It is not just going down it is going down and hastening around to come back up. which places the earth in the center of the cosmos.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, such a vast number is a googleplex of stars that can be seen because of where Earth is positioned in the Milky Way.
No telescope needed for Abraham to view because there was No interference from electric lights, etc.

It remains a fact of the context of the citation you cite. It only refers to the vast number of the stars. It is obvious the did not have telescopes, so what?!?!?!

My citation actually refer to the heavenly bodies circling the earth and hastening back around to return. It is possible that it is used as an analogy, but the analogy is very literal as to how they viewed the cosmos as geocentric.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ever heard the phrase, "I can see forever." Enough said.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible only describes the Earth as flat. And of course the geocentric claims are even clearer. It is an error to read the Bible literally since it is self refuting when one does so.

 

[rrobs]

The reference as well as others are specific the star as well as the Sun and the moon go down and round the earth. No wiggle room for interpretation, especially when put in context the other literature of the time. It is not just going down it is going down and hastening around to come back up. which places the earth in the center of the cosmos.

If you or I had lived 4,000 years ago I have no doubt we would have come to the conclusion that the earth is indeed the center. All we would have had to gather data would be nothing but our eyes, and with just them it is perfectly logic to conclude that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible wasn't written by 21st century scientist. How in the world could anybody possible expect ancient people to know what we know today?

Besides, the Bible is about Jesus Christ who in turn revealed God. Its forte is not 21st century science. So what? To conclude an ancient book is worthless based it's lack of 21st century science is to shortchange one's self. IMO, a knowledge of Jesus and God is way more valuable than science.

 

[ppp]

If you or I had lived 4,000 years ago I have no doubt we would have come to the conclusion that the earth is indeed the center. All we would have had to gather data would be nothing but our eyes, and with just them it is perfectly logic to conclude that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible wasn't written by 21st century scientist. How in the world could anybody possible expect ancient people to know what we know today?

Besides, the Bible is about Jesus Christ who in turn revealed God. Its forte is not 21st century science. So what? To conclude an ancient book is worthless based it's lack of 21st century science is to shortchange one's self. IMO, a knowledge of Jesus and God is way more valuable than science.

Ancient Peoples say, Everything revolves around the Earth and we have mapped the heavens.
Ancient Peoples say, The supernatural/spiritual/heavenly/godly/whatever exists and we know things about it.

Why should we take them seriously in either circumstance?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you or I had lived 4,000 years ago I have no doubt we would have come to the conclusion that the earth is indeed the center. All we would have had to gather data would be nothing but our eyes, and with just them it is perfectly logic to conclude that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible wasn't written by 21st century scientist. How in the world could anybody possible expect ancient people to know what we know today?

I actually agree with you, but there is the rub. Thus the problem of the non-scientific literal interpretation of the Pentateuch in the contemporary world.

Besides, the Bible is about Jesus Christ who in turn revealed God. Its forte is not 21st century science. So what? To conclude an ancient book is worthless based it's lack of 21st century science is to shortchange one's self. IMO, a knowledge of Jesus and God is way more valuable than science.

. . . but it does not justify an anti-science view of the history of our universe , physical existence and the evolution of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you or I had lived 4,000 years ago I have no doubt we would have come to the conclusion that the earth is indeed the center. All we would have had to gather data would be nothing but our eyes, and with just them it is perfectly logic to conclude that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible wasn't written by 21st century scientist. How in the world could anybody possible expect ancient people to know what we know today?

Besides, the Bible is about Jesus Christ who in turn revealed God. Its forte is not 21st century science. So what? To conclude an ancient book is worthless based it's lack of 21st century science is to shortchange one's self. IMO, a knowledge of Jesus and God is way more valuable than science.

Well the Bible is not quite that old, but you do have a point. A man made book would have no clue about the true nature of the world back then. And that is sort of the point.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well the Bible is not quite that old, but you do have a point. A man made book would have no clue about the true nature of the world back then. And that is sort of the point.

Bible" A man made book would have no clue about the true nature of the world back then."

Not all of the Bible is man-made, there is light in it, to lead to the Truthful Religion, I understand, please.
Notwithstanding the above, what is one's method to know "the true nature", please? Right, please?
Also please tell us what did the Atheism* know about the true nature of the world back then, please? Right, please?

Regards
______________
* from (16c.)
-ism 1670s

 

[gnostic]

Yes, such a vast number is a googleplex of stars that can be seen because of where Earth is positioned in the Milky Way.
No telescope needed for Abraham to view because there was No interference from electric lights, etc.

Even without light pollution, people still could only see a very tiny portion of stars in the Milky Way, and no stars from other part of the universe, unless there were supernova occurrence in one of the nearby galaxies.

You could see a couple of galaxies, like Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud from the Southern Hemisphere, and the Andromeda Galaxy and Triangulum Galaxy, with the naked eye, but you won’t see individual stars from these nearby galaxies.

In short, if Abraham did exist in the early 2nd millennium BCE, he would have only seen any where from 2000 to 3000 stars in the night sky from ancient Canaan, per night.

Genesis say what Abraham could see would be limitless numbers of stars, that’s claim is definitely false.

And Abraham wouldn’t have seen more stars than Galileo, because the Italian astronomer had a telescope.

No, URAVIP2ME. No one’s eyesight back then would have seen more than 3000 stars in their location.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bible" A man made book would have no clue about the true nature of the world back then."

Not all of the Bible is man-made, there is light in it, to lead to the Truthful Religion, I understand, please.
Notwithstanding the above, what is one's method to know "the true nature", please? Right, please?
Also please tell us what did the Atheism* know about the true nature of the world back then, please? Right, please?

Regards
______________
* from (16c.)
-ism 1670s

What parts of the Bible do you think are not man made?

And you cannot ask me questions about atheism until you answer my question that I have repeatedly asked of you.

 

[ChristineM]

I appreciate what you mentioned ^ above ^ as it helps keep me on my toes, so to speak.

To me it takes great ' energy ' in order to have greatness in 'might ' (strength) and strong in 'power'.
So, God provided and supplied the needed ' might ' and ' power ' to create the things mentioned.
I generally use the King James version (Not the newest KJV) just as to establish common ground.
I see in the Hebrew Bible at Isaiah 40:26 it says : abundance of His ' power ' and vigor of His ' strength '. ( both are energy )
So, when God sends forth His spirit things are created - Psalms 104:30 - Hebrew uses the word His ' breath ' which harmonizes with Psalms 33:6.
Thus, God's 'spirit and breath' go hand in hand with God's great power and mighty strength.
It took abundant dynamic energy to create the visible material realm, or in other words, abundant dynamic great power and mighty strength.
True the word energy is Not used, but certainly to me energy is a synonym word we can use to convey such power and might.
To me this harmonizes with Isaiah 45:18.
Would you say that matter and energy is the source of the same thing ______________

Power is energy expended over time. A thought i have had on the subject is. If your god is infinite power (energy over time) whence came the matter such as you and i.

Energy

See the first law of thermodynamics

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy

And Einsteins mass energy equivalence e=mc2

 

[paarsurrey]

What parts of the Bible do you think are not man made?

And you cannot ask me questions about atheism until you answer my question that I have repeatedly asked of you.

Please mention again. Right, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

If you or I had lived 4,000 years ago I have no doubt we would have come to the conclusion that the earth is indeed the center. All we would have had to gather data would be nothing but our eyes, and with just them it is perfectly logic to conclude that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible wasn't written by 21st century scientist. How in the world could anybody possible expect ancient people to know what we know today?

The problem with your "4000 years ago" assumption is that there are no evidence that there were ever anything written about the bible during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2nd millennium BCE).

From the Hittite, Levant, Mesopotamia and Elam, the most common types of writing systems during the 2nd millennium BCE were cuneiform, adapted from the 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian cuneiform.

The Phoenician alphabets didn't develop until very late 2nd millennium BCE, and ancient Hebrew (or Paleo-Hebrew) alphabets evolved from Proto-Canaanite alphabets.

And you don't find any biblical texts, until around the late 7th or early 6th century BCE (before the capture and sacking of Jerusalem and exile at Babylon in 587/586 BCE). The oldest known biblical text was found at Ketef Hinnom, with discovery of biblical passage (the Priestly Blessings from Numbers 6) inscribed on silver amulet.

The point is no other literary evidence before the 7th century BCE, and certainly nothing in 2nd millennium BCE. Not written on parchments or papyri, not on stone or clay tablets or any other medium.

The other point is that the biblical stories may have set in earlier time, doesn’t mean the stories were written at that time.

 

[rrobs]

I actually agree with you, but there is the rub. Thus the problem of the non-scientific literal interpretation of the Pentateuch in the contemporary world.

Easy, just read them from the point of view of someone without atom smashers and the Hubble telescope.

. . . but it does not justify an anti-science view of the history of our universe , physical existence and the evolution of life.

There are plenty of books out there that show the scriptures do not contradict science. Or you could just read the scriptures themselves to see for yourself. Of course, like all science, you'd have to approach it without preconceived biases.

BTW, in no way is science infallible. To think so is to make it a god and I don't think that is palatable to even the most ardent Bible hater.

 

[rrobs]

Ancient Peoples say, Everything revolves around the Earth and we have mapped the heavens.
Ancient Peoples say, The supernatural/spiritual/heavenly/godly/whatever exists and we know things about it.

Why should we take them seriously in either circumstance?

The Egyptians invented math. They also said, "The supernatural/spiritual/heavenly/godly/whatever exists and we know things about it."

So, why take mathematics serious? Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

 

[rrobs]

The problem with your "4000 years ago" assumption is that there are no evidence that there were ever anything written about the bible during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2nd millennium BCE).

From the Hittite, Levant, Mesopotamia and Elam, the most common types of writing systems during the 2nd millennium BCE were cuneiform, adapted from the 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian cuneiform.

The Phoenician alphabets didn't develop until very late 2nd millennium BCE, and ancient Hebrew (or Paleo-Hebrew) alphabets evolved from Proto-Canaanite alphabets.

And you don't find any biblical texts, until around the late 7th or early 6th century BCE (before the capture and sacking of Jerusalem and exile at Babylon in 587/586 BCE). The oldest known biblical text was found at Ketef Hinnom, with discovery of biblical passage (the Priestly Blessings from Numbers 6) inscribed on silver amulet.

The point is no other literary evidence before the 7th century BCE, and certainly nothing in 2nd millennium BCE. Not written on parchments or papyri, not on stone or clay tablets or any other medium.

The other point is that the biblical stories may have set in earlier time, doesn’t mean the stories were written at that time.

I was just keeping things simple. The point is whenever the Bible was written they did not have atom smashers or a Hubble telescope.