Bible Vs Scientism

[DavidTree]

That looks like a logical fallacy, David... The excluded middle, and also non sequitur

Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.

"Fixed stars" not fixed

Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.

The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.

This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.

A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.

I fully believe the stars have motion and that motion is a set course, yearly, Ordered by the LORD.
There are many true scientific facts waiting to be discovered after you leave this earth.

The satanists/globalists have their own 'science' to deceive the world with. The always did.

Do research on NASA and it's satanic roots and purpose = Jack Parson, Aleister Crowley and Ron Hubbard

Also research 'Operation Fishbowl'

 

[DavidTree]

That looks like a logical fallacy, David... The excluded middle, and also non sequitur

Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.

"Fixed stars" not fixed

Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.

The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.

This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.

A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.

This is what has been taking place and where we are heading in World History - Revelation 16:13

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Not the chapter but the verse.

 

[Edify]

I read that carbon 14 dating is incorrect because of pressure exerted on an object can change the dating of it.
Now, imagine water covering the highest mountain. In some cases, carbon would pressured into diamonds.
Seems to me that a biblical flood that science doesn't believe happened would throw things way off.

 

[Jocund]

The Bible teaches us that God created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days - and then rested on the seventh. This occurred a little over 6000 years ago. I believe this, because God's written word is my ultimate authority.

Science is a process... an investigation and collection of raw data. Science doesn't actually "say" anything - as the common idiom "science says" indicates. Science is only the collection of the data itself. Then flawed human beings interpret that data in many different ways. Those interpretations are not science itself, but conclusions based on the data which was collected via the scientific process. Those conclusions come complete with personal biases, and much conjecture and speculation.

Scientism is a blind belief in those INTERPRETATIONS/CONCLUSIONS.

For example, we know through science that there are lights in the sky that appear to move over the earth in repeated patterns. It is not science itself, but the interpretations/conclusions/speculations of flawed men which tell us that those lights are giant fireballs in a vast vacuum, that they are moving away from us, and that this movement means that they were at one time all squished together into a hot, dense ball of energy. And Scientism is the faith-based belief IN those interpretations.

So the cult of Scientism (not science itself) claims that our world began as an explosion/expansion of a singularity about 14 billion years ago. The Bible teaches that our world began as a six day creative action taken by God... about 6000 years ago.

Which of those is the truth?

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

 

[Jocund]

I read that carbon 14 dating is incorrect because of pressure exerted on an object can change the dating of it.
Now, imagine water covering the highest mountain. In some cases, carbon would pressured into diamonds.
Seems to me that a biblical flood that science doesn't believe happened would throw things way off.

Carbon dating is a reference to measuring the ratio of C12 (natural carbon) to C14 (unstable carbon) in a material. C14 radioactively decays over time and therefore the rational is that since older materials are not normally absorbing new C14 that less of it will exist in the material over time.

Carbon-14 dating assumes that the abundance of C14 in the air (produced by nuclear transmutations in the upper atmosphere) has remained consistent or constant from the present day back until the target date that is being estimated. The assumption is that the organism or material was in a state of equilibrium with the air through respiration, absorption, etc. And that by dying (and thus stopping the exchange) that no new C14 has been added to the object/thing over time. If you add pressure to an object (or heat+pressure), you can encourage migration, exchange, and dilution of elements such as carbon between materials. For porous material like cloth made from plants, you can also have cross contamination such as by fire and smoke where more C14 can be added to a material (and thus skew the results to make the material appear "younger" or "newer" than it actually is).

Nuclear weapon testing has also interfered with the accuracy of nuclide-dating to the point that there are correction factors added (it is recognised that the abundance of C14 changed due to nuclear technology). It is also known that there is at least one naturally formed "nuclear reactor" has shifted the nuclear properties of materials in its area. It is notably theoretically possible to create something in a controlled environment that by carbon-dating standards would appear very old despite not being so.

Jumping back to that "transmutation in the upper atmosphere" point. If there has been any change or shift in the nature of solar or cosmic energy bombarding the earth over the course of time that is responsible for C14 production, it means that the production rate of C14 would also have logically changed accordingly. Any change in natural atmospheric composition (nitrogen in particular) would also change production rates.

The short and sweet of it is that C14 dating is "a best guess" based on the assumption that conditions have not changed over time (which there is no real evidence that they haven't). No need to even get to the question of the flood, C14 dating has enough of its own problems. It is a useful comparative tool for similar materials (to differentiate between replicas and originals), but using it to try to "peer back through time" relies on many assumptions about that material's history.

 

[Melach]

Hi Melach, the age of the earth can be calculated through the the genealogies in the Bible. We cannot get an "exact age" from that, but a ball park estimate that the earth is currently somewhere between five and seven thousand years old. There was about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, about 2000 years from Abraham to Jesus, and about 2000 years from Jesus to now. Here's some more info if you are interested...
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

i stand corrected. im on the around 6000 years bandwagon now. God bless you for showing me this

 

[DavidTree]

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

Two deaths took place when Adam & Eve sinned.

A.) Spiritual
B.) Physical

A.) Took place immediately
B.) Took place immediately as a Progression toward the Final Claim of Sin over the flesh = Beginning and End.

 

[DavidTree]

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

Two deaths took place when Adam & Eve sinned.

A.) Spiritual
B.) Physical

A.) Took place immediately
B.) Took place immediately as a Progression toward the Final Claim of Sin over the flesh = Beginning and End.

A.) Grace covered their sin = Blood sacrifice = "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Revelation 13:8
B.) Grace covered by God not permitting the Claim of Death to lay hold at will/immediate upon entry, bringing about an immediate termination of said breathing vessel made in the image of God.

A.) All souls are mine says the Lord = Ezekiel 18:3-9
B.) All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory = Death passed from Adam to all mankind = Romans 5:12

A.) God owns
B.) Satan has rightful claim too.

 

[DavidTree]

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

continued from Post #48

A.) "I have come that you may have LIFE" = "these words I speak they are Spirit and they are Life" - Gospel of John
B.) "the flesh profits nothing" = "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" = Gospel of John


Victory
A.) "Christ....Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”; "Death could not hold HIM" = 1 Peter ch2 & Acts 2:24
B.) Your dead shall live; Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust;
For your dew is like the dew of herbs,And the earth shall cast out the dead. Isaiah 26:19

FINAL Victory
A.) "But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming." - 1 Cor ch15
B.) So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
1 Cor ch15

All this pertains to Creation/Genesis
Spiritualy and Scientifically

 

[MichaelBoll]

We'll see how you defend your position when you weigh in on a serious Bible topic.

I wasn't aware that there existed a more serious Bible topic than whether or not we can actually BELIEVE the Bible. Salvation means nothing if we can't believe scripture in the first place, right? So let me challenge you, Dino...

Exodus 20:8-11... Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

Is God to be trusted when He says He made the heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days... or not? Is the Bible to be trusted when it quotes God as saying these words... or not?

I say yes. What say you?

 

[MichaelBoll]

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

Psalm 19:4-6... In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other...

David says the sun runs a circuit across the heaven over the earth. Do you believe him, Magenta?

 

[Blik]

Both of these are true when not taken to their extremes and reasoned properly.
Scientism as a cult exist. Religion as a cult also exists.
But science and religion are not at war i Think Because science is us asking How And the Bible is not an engineering book but a relationship book with our Creator.

If God felt it was important to our spiritual maturity to know the age in years that the earth is, then it would be plainly stated in scripture.

In the kingdom of heaven, time is different from our time in the kingdom of the world. God is eternal, something we cannot understand because we have no experience of this kind of time.

 

[Magenta]

Psalm 19:4-6... In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other...

David says the sun runs a circuit across the heaven over the earth. Do you believe him, Magenta?

Yes. But that circuit does not prove the earth is flat

Do you believe the sun resides in a tent?

 

[MichaelBoll]

If God felt it was important to our spiritual maturity to know the age in years that the earth is, then it would be plainly stated in scripture.

In what way would it be plainly stated? Give an example.

 

[MichaelBoll]

Yes. But that circuit does not prove the earth is flat

Do you believe the sun resides in a tent?

This isn't a flat earth thread, Magenta. It's a "Bible Vs Scientism" thread. And according to Scientism, the earth moves in relation to the sun. In the Bible, it is the sun that moves in relation to the earth. Which one of those is the truth?

And the Bible doesn't say the sun literally resides in a tent. It does say in more than one place that the manner in which God spread out the heaven over the earth is reminiscent of Him spreading a tent out over the earth. Do you believe that Biblical teaching?

 

[Magenta]

And the Bible doesn't say the sun literally resides in a tent

In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

So God has not pitched a tent for the sun?

 

[Magenta]

This isn't a flat earth thread, Magenta. ?

Are you not a flat earth proponent?

 

[Magenta]

In the Bible, it is the sun that moves in relation to the earth.

Do you mean any of these verses?

Genesis 15:12 “…and when the sun was going down…”

Genesis 15:17 “…when the sun went down…”

Genesis 19:23 “The sun was risen upon the earth.”

Genesis 28:11 “…because the sun was set….”

Genesis 32:31 “…the sun rose….”

Exodus 17:12 “…until the going down of the sun….”

Exodus 22:3 “…if the sun be risen upon him….”

Exodus 22:26 “…the sun goeth down….”

Leviticus 22:7 “…And when the sun is down….”

Numbers 2:3 “…toward the rising of the sun….”

Deuteronomy 11:30 “…the way where the sun goeth down….”

Deuteronomy 16:6 “…at the going down of the sun….”

Deuteronomy 23:11 “…when the sun is down….”

Deuteronomy 24:13 “…when the sun goeth down….”

Deuteronomy 24:15 “…neither shall the sun go down….”

Joshua 1:4 “…the going down of the sun….”

Joshua 8:29 “…as soon as the sun was down….”

Joshua 10:12 “…Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon….”

Joshua 10:13 “…and the sun stood still….”

Joshua 10:27 “…the time of the going down of the sun….”

Joshua 12:1 “…toward the rising of the sun….”

Judges 5:31…. “…as the sun when he goeth down….”

Judges 8:13 “…before the sun was up….”

Judges 9:33 “…as soon as the sun is up….”

Judges 14:18 “…before the sun went down….”

Judges 19:14 “…and the sun went down….”

II Samuel 2:24…. “…the sun went down….”

II Samuel 3:35 “…till the sun be down….”

II Samuel 23:4 “…when the sun riseth….”

I Kings 22:36 “…the going down of the sun….”

I Chronicles 16:30 “…the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved….”

II Chronicles 18:34 “…time of the sun going down….”

Job 9:7 “…commandeth the sun and it riseth not….”

Job 26:7 “…He hangeth the earth upon nothing….”

Job 19:5 … “…cometh out to run….”

Job 19:6 “…goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other….”

Job 50:1 “…from the rising of the sun….”

Job 93:1 “…the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved….”

Job 104:19 “…the sun knoweth his going down….”

Job 104:22 “…the sun ariseth….”

Job 113:3 “…from the rising of the sun….”

Ecclesiastes 1:5 “…The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteth to the place where he arose….”

Isaiah 13:10 “…sun shall be darkened in his going….”

Jeremiah 15:9 “…her sun is gone down while it was yet day….”

Daniel 6:14 “…going down of the sun….”

Amos 8:9 “…cause the sun to go down at noon….”

Jonah 4:8 “…when the sun did arise….”

Micah 3:6 “…and the sun shall go down….”

Nahum 3:17 “…when the sun ariseth….”

Habakkuk 3:11 “…the sun and moon stood still in their habitation….”

Malachi 1:11 “…from the rising of the sun….”

Matthew 5:45 “…for He maketh His sun to rise….”

Matthew 13:6 “…and when the sun was up….”

Mark 1:32 “…when the sun did set….”

Mark 4:6 “…when the sun was up….”

Mark 16:2 “…at the rising of the sun….”

Luke 4:40 “…when the sun was setting….”

Ephesians 4:26 “…let not the sun go down upon your wrath….”

James 1:11 “…for the sun is no sooner risen….”

 

[Blik]

In what way would it be plainly stated? Give an example.

I have no idea what method God would have used if he had told us how many earth years old the earth is.

 

[Dino246]

I wasn't aware that there existed a more serious Bible topic than whether or not we can actually BELIEVE the Bible. Salvation means nothing if we can't believe scripture in the first place, right?

My comment refers to the flat earth belief.

So let me challenge you, Dino...

Exodus 20:8-11... Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

Is God to be trusted when He says He made the heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days... or not? Is the Bible to be trusted when it quotes God as saying these words... or not?

I say yes. What say you?

I too say yes.