Christians! Do you REALLY believe the Bible?

I address this thread only to our Christian members, as I suspect non-Christians will simply deride me for entertaining such a "non-scientific" perspective without bothering to even consider what the Bible, the very Word of God, has to say about it.

Being amongst the most devout literal followers of the Bible, this would surely bother me:

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS
FOR GEOCENTRICITY

Malcolm Bowden

This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - Appendix 10.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...


There are three main points given in support, please consider them:

(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT. There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating. ...

(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION. There is a major Biblical problem facing Christian heliocentrists. The sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previous created material. Both words are used of Man's creation. To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events. ...

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

These scientific experiments are as follows:

The Michelson-Gale experiment
"Airey's failure"
The Sagnac experiment


But the scientific experiments are redundant to the Christian faith and should not matter, except to re-emphasize what the Bible already teaches us.

The website I cite above makes a very good point for those who would believe the Bible is merely recording the APPEARANCE of the Sun's movement from the Earth's perspective:

[Such critics] are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers"

Is there not validity to this? To say the Bible was simply trying to "dumb down" the facts for people to understand, is argumentatively no different than saying Christ's miracles were simply metaphors or symbolic and never physically happened. So unless we are to use such blasphemous logic as that, we have to accept that what the Bible is telling us is NOT "dumbed down," but is THE very word of God Himself, and it is very clear in what it says.


For those who don't have enough faith to trust the Bible on this point, research the 3 scientific experiments I listed above.


The Church fought the idea of geocentrism for decades, centuries even. Only recently have they "admitted" the validity of heliocentrism. Did they know something in the past that we have forgotten today?

What do you all think?

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I am a Christian with a good background in science, as an engineer, amateur scientist, inventor, and amateur astrophysicist.

I've also read the whole Bible and I have to say, there is yet to be proof of scientific error in the Bible!!

I won't tell all but one good example, regarding the use of specific metals with regards to disinfecting or cleanliness or preserving perishable items. Gold, Silver, and bronze are all 'Oligodynamic'

en.wikipedia.org...

Well that's the scientific part. But if I follow the whole Bible? My answer would be NO.

Because the Bible at many instances disagreed with itself. For example, it gave a TON of advice on how to get rich which works btw... But when we found out about Jesus, he recommended the opposite, avoid getting rich! At one part, having many descendants is a blessing from God... Then with Jesus, he recommended not making a family or getting married...

I have to choose Jesus because he cared for everything and his yoke is easy and burden light

reply to post by ahnggk


I think this will help you.

www.biblestudy.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11

(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT. There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating. ..

who cares? does it need to?

doesnt the sun rise and set?

the bible is accurate when it talks about the "circle of the earth" (in hebrew, circle is used for both circle and sphere)

it also says the world hangs on nothing.

(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION. There is a major Biblical problem facing Christian heliocentrists. The sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previous created material. Both words are used of Man's creation. To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events. ...

the genesis account needs to be seen from the point of view of a person standing on earth. then the sequence is accurate to an amazing degree.

verse 1 says that the earth and the heavens were created, meaning that the earth's basic form along with the stars and other heavenly bodies were already made long before the first creation day started.

the genesis account starts creation off with "let there be light". most literalists and critics think that this implies that light didnt exist before this moment, even though verse 1 clearly shows it did.

instead, looking from the perspective of a witness seeing this while standing on earth, this makes sense. the earths atmosphere was thick with volcanic gasses. the likelyhood of anybody on earth seeing any light in unlikely. when the first forms of life were created, they began processing the air replacing carbon dioxide with oxygen. this process was slow and gradual but from a person (moses, likely being shown this through a vision) he would have seen the sky lighten

as said before this process would be gradual. so gradual, that the luminaries would be able to be seen in verse 4.

do the words "Bara" and "Asah" make this theory invalid? not at all. since likely moses was only writing what he saw, he may have thought that the luminaries were actually created in the 4th day.

and dont even get me started on the day = literal day argument. the hebrew word for day simply means a period of time.

god later refers to the creation period (all 7 days) as 1 creation day.

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

yes, the bible says earth is unmovable, but only in reference to god preserving it, and not destroying it.

Originally posted by Water-tastes-good
reply to post by ahnggk

 

I think this will help you.

www.biblestudy.org...

Thank you! Well, that helps! I got no wife, no kids, no GF, a few friends only my parents I have.

Got no other ways to fill the emptiness than seeking a higher state of Spirituality -- and that's where I got the concept wrong... When I thought I had nothing, and I should be more spiritual to keep myself from committing suicide.... But then I found that it's a lot better even if my life was 'full'.

To be able to remain completely at peace and be able to smile in extreme difficulties and in the face of death is infinitely more satisfying and energizing than smiling because you have all the reasons in this world to... Hakuna Matata!

[edit on 21-5-2009 by ahnggk]

I love the bible, I don't have to necessarily believe in it. It really has alot of cool stuff in there and is definitly one of the greatest books ever.

If the bible is not true, so what?
It really doesn't matter in my opinion.

My question is why do people try so hard to disprove the bible, or make people admit that it isn't true? What satisfaction are you looking for?

If your looking for god, it isnt in a book.

wow, didnt look at the dates of the previous post.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by CosmicYahtzee]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I address this thread only to our Christian members, as I suspect non-Christians will simply deride me for entertaining such a "non-scientific" perspective without bothering to even consider what the Bible, the very Word of God, has to say about it.

www.answersingenesis.org...