Printable View
You may believe what you wish though I do not know where you recieve these bias answers. If a thread exists to refute your answers I will post there with plenty of explanation. But each person is allowed his opinion.
But I will say this, do we not also use the term Four corners of the Earth today?
But this thread is not meant for a debate and I appreciate your comments towards the topic
Can't say I've used the term Four Corners of the Earth lately, but you're proving my point. Not every single word in the bible is meant to be taken literally.
Those that speak thus are small specks judging matters far beyond all human conclusion by the tests that must suffice for scientific investigation apart from GOD. You honestly only think that the world is at least such-and-such age. You don't actually sit on a mountain of your own tests, nor is much of what most men toil and moil in ever going in this lifetime to show forth to what degree it was either correct or erroneous.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Anyway, most Catholic Fathers in history accepted either that the world is a sphere, or that it more than likely was one. Even the ancient symbol held by Christian potentates was always a sphere in the right hand, as a symbol of the world, or part of it entrusted to their government. The day will certainly come when all fuzziness is clarified, and many proud hearts and vain minds will be startled.
The Catholic Hierarchy in Britain are over a remnant of Catholics there, that were nearly wiped out by the strong hand of protestantism. I believe their strange idea on Scripture is a biproduct of a survival mechanism they developed just short of ecclesial extinction. Many beaten down religious groups have shown signs of beginning to question the very essence they went through so much to hold onto. It is a sign of people that had absolutely no religious liberty for generations, not knowing how to express the liberty they are slowly feeling unthaw. I think it is quite sad to see them in such a state.
GOD is certainly capable of making HIS Witnesses reliable, and is HIMSELF incapable of error. What Zippy said about errors being allowed for a time has some merit to it, put into the right context. With or without the Bible, though, the HOLY SPIRIT is suffucient to make a person to know the Truth and to be set free by that only Truth. The Bible is a Divinely inspired Archive, not the LIVING GOD HIMSELF. Since GOD'S SPIRIT never errs, HIS allowing mistakes concerning Scripture at times serves not as a temptation, but as a test, to test one's direct dependance on the AUTHOR of Divine Writ.
I personally believe every Word uttered by the Mouth of GOD. HE has told me things my limits of personal knowledge misjudged as unlikely, but which were vindicated in time, and undeniable the whole time, in the depths of my Spirit. Once, while at work, I heard to pray that the then Pope (John Paul II) would land on his feet like a cat. Knowing in my Spirit that none other than GOD HIMSELF had commanded this Prayer of me, I prayed it, wondering what it could mean. Minutes later, amidst a restless feeling, a sense of something evil about to transpire, I heard to pray the same Prayer again. This time I thought that to pray this would make me a fool in the eyes of Angels, so I laid aside the thought with difficulty.
The next day, I entered a television room in the middle of a news report to the effect that John Paul had, the day before, fallen from a platform outside of a plane, and had landed on his forearm, so that he had to get stitches for the injury I should have prayed one more time against. My eyes filled with tears as I mentioned to my family why.
Get down off your pulpit, Mil.
I know the universe is more than 6000 years old, because if I raise my eyes slightly, I can see stars that are more than 6000 light-years away. I know they are more than 6000 light-years away, because the method for determining this has been explained to me to my satisfaction. I will not explain in detail the method here because it would take a very long time, because I'm tired, and because I would have to recall my high-school trigonometry course. Suffice to say, the universe (and the earth) are definitely much older than 6000 years. To disagree with this convincingly, you would have to allege an enormous Evil Atheist Conspiracy, which does not exist, and by the way, if any members are reading this, next week's password is BLOWFISH.
There is no absolute reason one must conclude that GOD had to have begun everything at the present rate of radiation, and with heavenly bodies just beginning to radiate light that would not bridge across to us for light-years. If there was such a thing as a big bang - a thing both accepted and rejected by both atheists and deists - at what rate can we know precisely that it occurred at? Could things have slowed down. As things expanded further apart, the distance that light needed to travel from one body to another would increase, and, if a slowing down or settling occurred, this in conjunction with greater distances between heavenly bodies would make things take much longer now than before (speaking in terms of a theory, not an opinion).
With that in mind, consider this:
if, say, 6000 years ago, a big bang occurred, in which every single particle now existing throughout the whole of the universe, began compacted as one particle, then the next step, along the way, through a very fast projection of separating matter, would be the various points at which all this was still in close proximity to one another.
When did light begin? Sometime way after the big bang - or was it already present therein? If it came into being only some time later, when, how, and why? If it already was present at the moment of the commencement of the big bang, was it in some particles only? Wherein was it contained, released, etc.?
If, in that first micro-instant that the separating outcasts of that original compressed particle were still all in close proximity to one another, light was a present factor, might it not then be only reasonable to conclude that a communication of illumination between different bodies occurred first from this nearby position of each particle or fragment relative to all the others, and then, without a break in these ever lengthening bridges of light, the time it took for new light to arrive would now be lengthened, until some stars were even lost sight of? What I am saying is that the present arrangement was not always the present arrangement, as to distances between bodies, in the theory of the big bang. Does your knowledge you are satisfied you have take into account the tracing out of light from the alleged big bang's first arearrangement of all matter, throughout its resulting expansion to where things now lie today? There is a lot more to take stock of before being certain that something is not divinely inspired based on personal scientific opinion.
Science has actually proven many of the things that cuppajoe spoke of in his message. If many individuals from various countries of the world have visited the moon and spotted the earth as round, I would believe that over a theory of the world seeming flat by staring into the plane-like appearance of the ocean. Numerous astronomers have proven that the earth circumvents and rotates around the sun, even as far back as the 1600s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil XXIV
Unfortunately, what voices incessantly divide religion from science, though they do not always appear so contradictory, soon enough lead to the elimination, or attempted elimination, of representatives of science, such as the execution of Galileo Galilei - indeed, a small speck factually judging matter, but not beyond the scope of a brilliant mind, which extended beyond his mere body.
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers .
Apologists dealing with this issue often cite Isaiah 40:22 with the explanation that Hebrew, having no specific word for sphere, may here indicate a spherical earth.
How can u describe a sphere if u have no word for it?
The English word "day" can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on it's axis (i.e. "there are 24-hours in a day"). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (i.e. "it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night"). And it can refer to a unspecified period of time (i.e. "back in my Grandfather's day..."). Likewise, the Hebrew word "yom" (which translates into the English "day") can mean more than one thing. It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4.
I also believe this, that we should take most of the Bible literally but there are cases to take the verses as figurativly.
All of the things proven or disproven about the earth were representative theories of no one body of co-religionists. The ideas about an earthly centrality were things that scientists period were considering, and many Catholics were simply listening to the scientists of their day. Many non-Christian Hellenists and Roman neo-pagans had such ideas about astronomy, and many Catholics gave them the benefit of the doubt that in science they knew what they were talking about. Not all Catholics believed the same astronomical schemas. Galileo himself was a Catholic whose belief in the Transubstantiation of the Host in the Holy Eucharist in no way diminished due to his findings. What he said was not the problem in most Catholics' eyes, but the manner in which he ran ahead without sensitivity or regard to a collegiate approach, taking on a manner of debate that put others on a defensive, rather than drawing them in. Soon, as others caught up to him in their own check on his experiments' conclusions, to their own personal satisfaction, Catholics easily accepted his conclusions en masse, and we have never stopped apologizing for our appraoch with him ever since. People love to bloat the whole thing way out of the context of the sum total of all relevant particulars, and use it for a matrix pattern to superimpose over the whole scientific history of the Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
You are right about the things you listed as proven - all the Catholic Church agrees, and the Bible in no way contradicts such things. It was other more difficult things to interpret out of potential scientific evidences which I said man is too small to be so cocky about, while presuming that a Divine Revelation ought to be anything less than grounds for confidence for the recipient. That kind of confidence is not pride, but to speak doubtfully of what one knows by GOD's aid is to belittle GOD and Truth. Even a Prophet though can know nothing beyond what has actually been revealed to him, and in this is a humble dependancy on GOD. On the other hand, apart from such sure Revelation, one is naive to take a mere man's word for anything without due investigation - including in science, which, being systematic thought, is phony if not one'e own (and who doesn't think through their very own thoughts?).
Mil:
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
Rufioag:
Could you please show me this mountain that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the earth from? No? Well then we must accept that parts of the bible are metaphorical.
Never is the idea put forward that being atop a mountain made the kingdoms of the earth visible - for, even if the earth were a flat plain all around the mountain, the trees might block out much that could otherwise be seen, or clouds, etc. Certain mountains had names signifying visions or religious significance. Kings were often anointed atop high places. Visions were often seen in places removed from the city. I always had the sense that a supernatural being was showing JESUS all the kingdoms of the earth not by means of the mountain, but simply on the mountain, supernaturally.
Asd for saying that the speed of light is a constant:
1)what I mentioned wasn't in the mere context of the conditions of a vacuum in the most general occurrance;
2)there have been theories about time variations through space;
3)what do you know about the unique arrangement of matter in the big bang and of the internal interaction of that arrangement's constituents before the rearrangement of all things, in which context present vacuums now derive their peculiar properties? [Factors bearing on light, etc., that do not derive their properties from vacuuity, but only manifest them therein, may have been effected by some other unfolding effect of the big bang, and, as a seed goes through a particular process to become a much different plant, a certain potential for the present properties of all things may have been released through some monent/instant of all material principles effecting one another in such an original compressed state. Like I said, this is not an opinion, but something of a thought.]
Thank you for responding so quickly and so thoughtfully, Mil. You have a lot of interesting things to say worth reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil XXIV
The above passage, however, I would love for you to explain more. I have known very little science to necessary speak out of their bounds of what empirical evidence either proves (germ warfare, for example), or potentially proves (theories, such as the Big Bang, for example). How this research belittles any Supreme Being and 'truth,' if indeed some objective truth exists, I have difficult perceiving. With as much evidence capable of humankind, the vast studies of science have expanded into something attainable, and, indeed, as you said, something "revealed" to us for a reason. We cannot know what we do not know, yet if you claim that this seems contingent on a dependency on God, I continue having difficultly how what seems "revealed" to us somehow, additionally, "belittles" any Supreme Being or truth.
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but would love your feedback on further thoughts. Thanks in advance. :)
Thank you for your kind reply, Mono.
I am currently half eating, half typing, so I must come back to this thread to answer you at a moment that will serve offering a worthy reply.
Mil:
Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. (King James Version)
Or, if you prefer:
Matthew 4:8 - Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. (Douay-Rheims Translation)
I am not saying that this particular piece of the bible is false, per se, I am saying that it is a metaphor, and therefore not literally true. (I personally suspect that the author of this particular passage believed that you could see the entire earth from a high enough mountain, but it is pure speculation, and not relevant). If this particular passage is not the literal truth, then we must accept that not every word in the book is meant to be taken literally.
As to the speed of light:
1) I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to get at here.
2) Wrong. Those are not theories, those are hypotheses. I imagine that you have been around the evolution 'debate' long enough to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. As it stands, the entire scientific community (the ones who need to know something about it) treats c as a constant.
3) I know absolutely nothing about that, but the stars formed a very long time after the big bang, so it's completely irrelevant in any case. (I can back up that statement, but it would take a great many words, and I'm starting to bore myself)
"Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible"
Galileo must be having having a ball.
It's not news though. John Paul II touched on the subject in 1992
Don't know what happened there. But take away one 'having' and add the following...
I personally don't believe in Bible. But what other people do with it is up to them. The only time it bothers me is when they use it to justify homicide or their prejudices.
S.