Sarassin:


Ok, so lets explore this a bit further. If we accept that God created everything, i.e the universe and all the celestial bodies are subject to Him, and also your reasonable assertion that the entire universe must have come to a standstill in order to accomodate Joshua's dilemma. What then would you consider the consequences of stopping the universe?

I say bringing the earth to an instant stationary position from a speed of 1800 km/hr would first throw the earth out of its orbit, and send the earth spinning aimlessly into the great empyrean, it would bring about intense atmospheric action and the lack of gravitational pull would make for the seas to rise up virtually instantaneously. Extend a similar action to the sun, knocked off what we now know to be its cosmic yearly orbit, possibly drawing the earth closer to its sphere or the opposite, consider the effects of intense electromagnetic flares and then multiply these actions across the universe. I would say the consequence is utter chaos.

Is it the case that Christians would sooner rearrange the universe than accept that a bible writer possibly imbibed of the wine of the grape took a bit of a liberty in writing history?

Do you still think God pressed the pause button on the universe?

Yes. I would have loved to give some substantiation however that wont be necessary since you have a different belief on things spiritual. However, do you really believe all those stated in your analysis are self-made, self-directed and self-operational? I dont know your stance on Big bang but it can be empirically proven that no explosion leaves perfect, systematic order afterwards.

Sarassin:


Ok, so lets explore this a bit further. If we accept that God created everything, i.e the universe and all the celestial bodies are subject to Him, and also your reasonable assertion that the entire universe must have come to a standstill in order to accomodate Joshua's dilemma. What then would you consider the consequences of stopping the universe?

I say bringing the earth to an instant stationary position from a speed of 1800 km/hr would first throw the earth out of its orbit, and send the earth spinning aimlessly into the great empyrean, it would bring about intense atmospheric action and the lack of gravitational pull would make for the seas to rise up virtually instantaneously. Extend a similar action to the sun, knocked off what we now know to be its cosmic yearly orbit, possibly drawing the earth closer to its sphere or the opposite, consider the effects of intense electromagnetic flares and then multiply these actions across the universe. I would say the consequence is utter chaos.

Is it the case that Christians would sooner rearrange the universe than accept that a bible writer possibly imbibed of the wine of the grape took a bit of a liberty in writing history?

Do you still think God pressed the pause button on the universe?

sir, to this I doff my little hat.
bravo!

Scholar8200:
Yes. I would have loved to give some substantiation however that wont be necessary since you have a different belief on things spiritual. However, do you really believe all those stated in your analysis are self-made, self-directed and self-operational? I dont know your stance on Big bang but it can be empirically proven that no explosion leaves perfect, systematic order afterwards.

I would hazard a guess that many respondents on this thread may have a different belief on things spiritual but fair enough if you chooese not to answer.

Regardless of whether celestial bodies came about through the big bang, or God hung them up what is clear is that they all obey clearly defined cosmic laws of gravitation and Keplerian movement (with slight aberrations)

So, given what we know about interplanetary dependency, perpetual movement of an ever expanding universe and what we now know, that nothing in the universe remains stationary my question still stands, do you still believe God hit the pause button on his universal cosmic remote control?

Scholar8200:
Biblical events, among other things, comprise records of historicaal dealings of God with man.

The bible reports Joshua asking the sun to stand still. The bible then reports the sun standing still. It's not just the utterances of Joshua that show a motionless sun.

Perhaps the person reporting the story also didn't have any idea of a solar system. If neither Joshua nor the reporter have any idea of the solar system, we can't impute any knowledge of a solar system to the bible based on that story.

Moving on to the claim in your OP, given that it is also an utterance by David who cannot be expected to have as much as a remotely correct knowledge of astronomy, it is obviously as incorrect as the utterance by Joshua.

To my mind, the reference to a "circuit" is a reference to the Sun circuiting the earth. More importantly, there is no where you can call the "ends of the heavens", if the "heavens" refers to the rest of the universe other than the earth. You probably say otherwise, so I invite you to explain why you've decided that of all places, the Milky Way galaxy - which is roughly in the middle of nowhere - is the "ends of the heavens" that David (not the bible) speaks of.

Sarassin:


I would hazard a guess that many respondents on this thread may have a different belief on things spiritual but fair enough if you chooese not to answer.

Regardless of whether celestial bodies came about through the big bang, or God hung them up what is clear is that they all obey clearly defined cosmic laws of gravitation and Keplerian movement (with slight aberrations)

So, given what we know about interplanetary dependency, perpetual movement of an ever expanding universe and what we now know, that nothing in the universe remains stationary my question still stands, do you still believe God hit the pause button on his universal cosmic remote control?

Yes. I would have loved to give some substantiation however that wont be necessary. However, do you really believe all those stated in your analysis are self-made, self-directed and self-operational?

finofaya:

Moving on to the claim in your OP, given that it is also an utterance by David who cannot be expected to have as much as a remotely correct knowledge of astronomy, it is obviously as incorrect as the utterance by Joshua.

The website quoted (and others available on the net) can be consulted as regards the highlighted.

To my mind, the reference to a "circuit" is a reference to the Sun circuiting the earth.

I am glad you indicated that it was your perception although the passage made no reference to the sun circuiting the earth.

More importantly, there is no where you can call the "ends of the heavens", if the "heavens" refers to the rest of the universe other than the earth. You probably say otherwise, so I invite you to explain why you've decided that of all places, the Milky Way galaxy - which is roughly in the middle of nowhere - is the "ends of the heavens" that David (not the bible) speaks of.

David as the Inspired psalmist used that term. The fact that he used the plural-ends and not end- shows the vastness of the place being referred to.(The diameter of the Milky way, around the centre of which the sun moves, is given as 100,000 light years)

The recent discovery of the sun's movement in the Milky way (confirming the quote in the psalms made some milleniums ago) is credited to the website quoted and a host of others available on the net.

Scholar8200:

Yes. I would have loved to give some substantiation however that wont be necessary. However, do you really believe all those stated in your analysis are self-made, self-directed and self-operational?

If it is your contention that God did indeed "stop" the universe then you should substantiate this, and explain your take on the possible consequences or lack thereof.

On the second part of your question, there is nothing to preclude self-forming celestial bodies, as you may well know very recently astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found compelling evidence of a planet forming 7.5 billion miles away from its star, there is no overarching reason to insist on creationism, what is more? celestial bodies move in accordance with observable cosmic laws, but if you wish to debate creationism then that's a different ball-game.

Scholar8200:
The website quoted (and others available on the net) can be consulted as regards the highlighted.

I'm consulting you.

I am glad you indicated that it was your perception although the passage made no reference to the sun circuiting the earth.

That it is my perception is superfluous. The issue is whose perception is correct. There isn't any reference to the Milky Way galaxy either, anyway.

David as the Inspired psalmist used that term. The fact that he used the plural-ends and not end- shows the vastness of the place being referred to.(The diameter of the Milky way, around the centre of which the sun moves, is given as 100,000 light years)

You no sabi english sha. Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of "ends". Confirm that it actually means extremes.

You are using an arbitrary standard to determine that David was inspired and Joshua wasn't. It is strange that a man needs inspiration (from God) to praise God but does not need inspiration to ask that celestial bodies comply with his requests. What you are doing is what is known as cherry picking.

Therefore you have conveniently ignored the concluding part of David's song where he says that nothing is hidden from the heat of the sun. If you hadn't, you'd have to also explain how a man who does not know that there are things that do not feel the heat of the sun is able to know what a galaxy is or that the sun orbits one.

The recent discovery of the sun's movement in the Milky way (confirming the quote in the psalms made some milleniums ago) is credited to the website quoted and a host of others available on the net.

You are yet to explain how you settled on the Milky Way as your "ends of the heavens".

Sarassin:


If it is your contention that God did indeed "stop" the universe then you should substantiate this, and explain your take on the possible consequences or lack thereof.

On the second part of your question, there is nothing to preclude self-forming celestial bodies, as you may well know very recently astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found compelling evidence of a planet forming 7.5 billion miles away from its star, there is no overarching reason to insist on creationism, what is more? celestial bodies move in accordance with observable cosmic laws, but if you wish to debate creationism then that's a different ball-game.

Before we take off, I'd like to know your stance on the supernatural, faith etc (e.g. do you find the dividing of the red sea ridiculous?)

From your own internet review, is there any proof that the new planet is being formed following principles outside those cosmic laws (if indeed all have been discovered which I doubt)? And whence those laws? I believe they are what the Bible refer to as the "ordinances of heaven" .

Scholar8200:


Before we take off, I'd like to know your stance on the supernatural, faith etc (e.g. do you find the dividing of the red sea ridiculous?)

From your own internet review, is there any proof that the new planet is being formed following principles outside those cosmic laws (if indeed all have been discovered which I doubt)? And whence those laws? I believe they are what the Bible refer to as the "ordinances of heaven" .

I would have thought it far easier that you simply state your case, I am not sure that my stance on the supernatural and matters of faith should have any bearing on what you believe to be the consequences or lack thereof, of God bringing the universe to a grinding halt.

davien:
Someone has seen Eric hovinds "seminars"....you're a creationist? Or do you just follow his(Eric hovind) apologetic?

I haven't heard of him before
I'm a Christian
I believe in creation.

Sarassin:


I would have thought it far easier that you simply state your case, I am not sure that my stance on the supernatural and matters of faith should have any bearing on what you believe to be the consequences or lack thereof, of God bringing the universe to a grinding halt.

The reason why I said initially that it wont be necessary was because substantiations, like the lead post, would draw both from discoveries and the Bible hence it will be futile to continue considering the fact that the latter reference will be despised. Secondly, this thread is about the inspired declaration of the psalmist and the confirmation by science after centuries of claims to the contrary (not Joshua and his petition) hence let's focus on that.. Already, the psalmist does not, expressedly or impliedly, connect this to day nor night.

Scholar8200:
........ Secondly, this thread is about the inspired declaration of the psalmist and the confirmation by science after centuries of claims to the contrary (not Joshua and his petition) hence let's focus on that.. Already, the psalmist does not, expressedly or impliedly, connect this to day nor night.

I grant you that it is a beautiful Psalm, but inspired.....no.

You need to show that the Psalmist has demonstrated a knowledge beyond the confines of his reality and you have not done so. I invite you to examine the Hebrew concept of cosmology and examine if David’s Psalm was extraordinary in any way.

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void" (Gen 1:2). On the second day, a vault the “firmament” was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” the vault (not “above”).

With respect to the Earth, it would be fair to say that biblical writers considered the earth flat and fixed. The following scriptures point us in that direction;

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (never mind earthquakes)

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the KJV of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word[i] raqiya[/i], which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast into form or beaten into shape. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl, i.e;

“Can you beat out (raqa) the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal ?” Job 37:18

It is clear to see that the working model of the Hebrew view of the cosmos was quite simply a flat earth, and an all encompassing rigid dome for a sky.

With respect to the Sun, Psalm 19:4-6 suggests that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. There is no suggestion of a continual orbital around a greater universe, the Hebrew creation model clearly defines the ends of the earth. Enoch clarifies and expands upon this idea in 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” not an inkling that he had peered into the deepest recesses of the milky way, he also states;

1 Enoch 72:2:" The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, in the west". It is not a suggestion of solar intergalactic movement.

The Hebrew cosmological view did not consider the possibility of a solar system, another galaxy or indeed other planets. Stars were considered as tiny objects inside the sky that generally fell to earth or else were to be worshiped.

Finally,consider Acts 19:35

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, "Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky"?

Today we call these stones meteorites. Clearly the author has no idea that meteorites arrive from deep inside the universe. There is nothing in Psalm 19:4-6 to demonstrate that the Psalmist was stating anything out of keeping or incompatible with contemporary Hebrew cosmology.

Apologies for the length of my post.

Sarassin:


I grant you that it is a beautiful Psalm, but inspired.....no.

You need to show that the Psalmist has demonstrated a knowledge beyond the confines of his reality and you have not done so. I invite you to examine the Hebrew concept of cosmology and examine if David’s Psalm was extraordinary in any way.

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The earth was created on the first day

The time when the Earth that was without form & void was created was not specified.,
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." All that was described in the six-day period appeared to have a connection with making the Earth (as a planet) able to support life; an attribute which the other planets (also created see Hebrews 1:2) lacks till date.

On the second day, a vault the “firmament” was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” the vault (not “above”).

Yes. However note that the firmament directly interfaces with the other parts of the universe/outer space. Also note that the psalm correctly said that the sun has a tabernacle in the firmament whence it proceeded its going forth,
"In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven,
and his circuit unto the ends of it" In other words, it took off from the same firmament.

With respect to the Earth, it would be fair to say that biblical writers considered the earth flat and fixed. The following scriptures point us in that direction;

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (never mind earthquakes)

This verses are referring to the terra firma i.e. the ground as distinct from the sea. Psalm 104:5 also reads "who laid the foundations of the earth,
that it should not be removed for ever" Meaning that the word 'shaken' suggests a total removal, as Hebrews 12:27 also shows, quite distinct from the quaking/tremors of various intensity.

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the KJV of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word[i] raqiya[/i], which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast into form or beaten into shape. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl, i.e;

“Can you beat out (raqa) the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal ?” Job 37:18

It is clear to see that the working model of the Hebrew view of the cosmos was quite simply a flat earth, and an all encompassing rigid dome for a sky.

Remember that the "... firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above]"(Genesis 1). Hence placing this passage vis a vis the one you quoted, the simile that referenced a mirror of metal, simply points to the fixed state of the firmament. Considering the fact that to separate the waters above and below, the firmament has to be as hard as a metal. (I need to emphasize that in a simile "two things are compared that are not really the same, but are used to make a point about each other"{enkivillage.com})

With respect to the Sun, Psalm 19:4-6 suggests that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. There is no suggestion of a continual orbital around a greater universe, the Hebrew creation model clearly defines the ends of the earth. Enoch clarifies and expands upon this idea

Enoch was not the author of the book in question; the author merely quoted a prophecy by Enoch perhaps to lend credence to to his book and endear it to the hebrews(who classify it as a pseudephigrapha). Actually the book (written milleniums after Enoch's time) contains strange contradictions hence its rejection by protestants who (as also do the jews) see it as an non-canonical as a result we cant use quotes therefrom as representing inspired utterances.

in 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” not an inkling that he had peered into the deepest recesses of the milky way, he also states;

1 Enoch 72:2:" The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, in the west". It is not a suggestion of solar intergalactic movement.

These are strictly views of the writer which, I believe,is one of the strange things he wrote. If we will consider them at all,then it will be seen as what secular science (at teething stage) suggested at that time (200-150 BC thereabouts)

The Hebrew cosmological view did not consider the possibility of a solar system, another galaxy or indeed other planets. Stars were considered as tiny objects inside the sky that generally fell to earth or else were to be worshiped.

Could you substantiate all these? The Bible may not have called it solar system but mention of the components of the system was made- sun, moon, stars (by the way, these were also in motion as shown in Job) It's understandable if the passage you may be alluding to as regards the highlighted called meteors stars. The translation was done in 1611 (diction was limited) and as at November 13,1833 when a similar phenomenon occurred the general belief then was that stars were falling meaning the use of the word 'Meteor' was unknown at that time of translation.(science and astronomy was still evolving)

Finally,consider Acts 19:35

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, "Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky"?

The claim of the speaker here was what I call a superstition meant to add an air of divinity to a statue.(the statue I saw on the net looks like one of the Hellenistic art works hence could not be a meteorite!)If you read the entire chapter from Acts 19:23-27, you will understand the real goal that made this superstition to gain ground.

 There is nothing in Psalm 19:4-6 to demonstrate that the Psalmist was stating anything out of keeping or incompatible with contemporary Hebrew cosmology.

But there is everything to show that the psalmist was Inspired along lines inconsistent with whatever science held then.

Apologies for the length of my post.

No problem with length; civility is appreciated. I hope we get a fair trial this time.

Scholar8200:
.........All that was described in the six-day period appeared to have a connection with making the Earth (as a planet) able to support life; an attribute which the other planets (also created see Hebrews 1:2) lacks till date.

Actually I do not agree with your interpretation of Hebrews 1:2

Yes. However note that the firmament directly interfaces with the other parts of the universe/outer space. Also note that the psalm correctly said that the sun has a tabernacle in the firmament whence it proceeded its going forth,
"In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven,
and his circuit unto the ends of it" In other words, it took off from the same firmament.

The firmament was created to “divide the waters” and we have established that it was dome shaped and rigid, and by implication what was outside of the dome was “water” not an interface with the rest of the universe as you allude, hence the ”windows of heavens” analogies , (Gen 7:11 and Gen 8:2)

The tabernacle or “table” you refer to is “inside” the firmament, as were the sun, moon and stars. The average person would observe the sun rise in the east and set in the west, the sun makes that journey “circuit” inside the firmament which encompassed the ends of heaven.

This verses are referring to the terra firma i.e. the ground as distinct from the sea. Psalm 104:5 also reads "who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever" Meaning that the word 'shaken' suggests a total removal, as Hebrews 12:27 also shows, quite distinct from the quaking/tremors of various intensity.

This is my point, in concordance with those around them early Hebrew belief was that the earth was flat. They had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies.

The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth basically flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars) and sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped like an old style trunk, there is nothing to suggest the Hebrews came up with a radically different view of the universe based on a spherical earth, quite simply they were not that clever.

Enoch was not the author of the book in question; the author merely quoted a prophecy by Enoch perhaps to lend credence to to his book and endear it to the hebrews(who classify it as a pseudephigrapha). Actually the book (written milleniums after Enoch's time) contains strange contradictions hence its rejection by protestants who (as also do the jews) see it as an non-canonical as a result we cant use quotes therefrom as representing inspired utterances.

These are strictly views of the writer which, I believe,is one of the strange things he wrote. If we will consider them at all,then it will be seen as what secular science (at teething stage) suggested at that time (200-150 BC thereabouts)

One could argue pseudoepigraphia and pseudonymous writings in the OT and NT for a very long time, but pseudoepigraphic or not, the writings attributed to Enoch have clearly and profoundly affected and influenced Christian eschatology. It serves as a window to demonstrate the prevailing thoughts of Canaanite/Hebrew cosmology. In other words the Psalmist has drawn very heavily on this Enochian model of the Hebrew world in composing his Psalm, King David was not the only one to draw on those allegories.

Could you substantiate all these? The Bible may not have called it solar system but mention of the components of the system was made- sun, moon, stars (by the way, these were also in motion as shown in Job) It's understandable if the passage you may be alluding to as regards the highlighted called meteors stars. The translation was done in 1611 (diction was limited) and as at November 13,1833 when a similar phenomenon occurred the general belief then was that stars were falling meaning the use of the word 'Meteor' was unknown at that time of translation.(science and astronomy was still evolving)

But of course; 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 --- “There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory”---.There is not a merest hint of awareness of a universe that extends beyond the Hebrew concept of heaven and earth, on the contrary the awareness is that of an enclosed unitary system comprising the sun, moon and stars.

The stars were for the most part depicted as living beings and associated with the Sons of God, we can glimpse this in the Book of Job 38:7, which says that when the earth's cornerstone was laid “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud.”

Other imagery deals with stars falling to earth, for instance Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:13. Once again, the imagery is Enochian, even though Matthew and John omit some details (I won’t quote Enoch!), I see no issues with diction.

The claim of the speaker here was what I call a superstition meant to add an air of divinity to a statue.(the statue I saw on the net looks like one of the Hellenistic art works hence could not be a meteorite!)If you read the entire chapter from Acts 19:23-27, you will understand the real goal that made this superstition to gain ground.

Yes, we are agreed that it was superstition, however we are dealing with perception. The Ephesians believed their statuette came from the skies, which, if the author of Acts had a conceptualization of a greater universe would have made a reference to an inter-celestial object.

It seems to me you are indulging in biblical reverse engineering, taking a desired outcome and then working your way back by cherry picking verses that [i]seem[/i]to buttress your points.

I hope we get a fair trial this time.

No trial here, just an exchange of viewpoints.

Nice thread