Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right
- Thread starter SolaGratia
- Start date
- Status
Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
Where exactly does the Bible indicate this?
Spinningplates2
Puritan Board Freshman
YOu all know that Armourbearer ( and his proof from scripture) is the one who won this arguement last time.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
It should be noted that Armourbearer did not argue against heliocentrism as a model for scientific inquiry.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post709965
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post710049
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index3.html#post710345
What the thread did demonstrate in great detail and once and again is that Joshua 10 is inappropriately handled when considerations from outside the text are allowed to overthrow the straightforward statements of the text.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post709965
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post710049
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index3.html#post710345
What the thread did demonstrate in great detail and once and again is that Joshua 10 is inappropriately handled when considerations from outside the text are allowed to overthrow the straightforward statements of the text.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I believe it was Galileo who said, "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
If I can adapt Dr. Johnson's words, "I see no necessity for your being comfortable." But what options do you have?
1. Prevent scientists from using models which are simplifying calculations and permitting more accurate predictions.
2. Revise your interpretations at every new edition of Nature.
Neither one is really attractive.
But your option 3 seems to be, "Allow science to operate contrary to Scripture" which is unacceptable. It seems to me that we are hanging our hats (so to speak) on one passage, which very well could be interpreted phenomenologically, and in fact has consistently been interpreted thus by most reformed theologians since the 18th century. It seems to me that the intent of the passage in question as historical narrative is still preserved in such a reading.
Science is provisional, and scientists are responsible for remembering that. Of course in our days scientists are often quite uppity and they, and their popularizers, make ridiculous claims about all manner of things that are outside of their purview; but these things shouldn't make us turn against scientific inquiry per se, or try to stop them from pursuing fruitful lines of inquiry. But their inquiries, theories and models are irrelevant to the interpretation of Scripture; they are not facts in the text.
Last edited:
Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
Where exactly does the Bible indicate this?
Hi Philip, sorry to take so long, was out much of the day. It might be better if you read Wayne Grudem's entire commentary than for me to just quote some verses. He has them intermixed with comments. Section B of that chapter. I am sure your college must have a copy.
Just took a glance at JM Boice's "Foundations of the Christian Faith," under ascension. The Father is spirit but Jesus has a real body in heaven, a real physical place like New York or London.
Looking forward to the next life when I start thinking about all this
---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------
Ruben....just an aside that while helios are quick to point out that their model is a little simpler, they seem to avoid the fact that Einstein's relativity is a whole lot more complicated than Newton's classic laws for measuring wave velocities. If we want to argue for simplicity, I'd say the geocentrists win on that one.
Lynnie, I wouldn't set up simplicity as the standard of a good explanation; I was just saying that there's no need to stop using a certain model if it is giving good results for what you're doing and is easy to use. There are multiple ways of using a calculator to figure out a percentage, but the one where you actually use the % button is so easy that I rarely do anything else.
Then here's the question: would it be theoretically possible to build a spaceship to travel to heaven? I don't deny that heaven has a physical existence, but it's an existence that also does not deny the full deity of Christ to be fully expressed in His glory, which would include atemporality and omnipresence. The question is not whether heaven is physical, but whether it is physically within the space-time dimension that we inhabit.
RTaron
The Grandpa (Affectionately Called)
I have this question too. We should be able to determine the controversy regarding the nature of space by going up in a space ship. Is it dense or is it a like a vacuum?
When they went to the moon, did they have to push the rocket ship through a dense firmament? or did they simply glide through space effortlessly?
Or did they really ever go to the moon?
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
I have a hard time believing y'all are seriously discussing this. What's the point, even if geocentrism is right? (To which I can't believe anyone actually adheres.) Is there some virtue in being contrarian, or to holding to some obscurantist viewpoint? We should be spending our time engaging culture, science, art, etc, for Christ's Crown & Covenant, not attempting to be as obtuse as possible.
There's a point.
Supposing geocentrism could be proved - just imagine Dawkins or Hitchens trying to explain it away. The insignificance and cosmic marginality of Earth is one of the main planks of atheism.
Not necessarily. Seeing our own insignificance in comparison to the rest of the cosmos has caused me to wonder that God would still care about people like you and I. "What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou carest for him?" The insignificance of earth takes on a whole new meaning when viewed through eyes of faith rather than doubt.
you can draw either lesson from insignificance, depending on your starting assumptions. I still think it would be a whole lot harder to maintain Man is the chance by-product of a, what is it? random process that did not have him in mind, if it could be shown that he is in fact the literal centre of the Universe.
---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------
I mean, the fact that you don't find it undermines your faith doesn't change the fact that it IS one of the main planks of atheism
Rick, geos believe in travel to the moon and asteroids moving through space. Your mental picture of the firmament is wrong.
Here is a nice quote for TimV, I liked it.......
Rebuttal of North and Nieto
In the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics, W. M. Stuckey published an analysis titled, "Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?" (pgs. 142-146). Stuckey proposes to measure the speed at which galaxies are traveling away from us, utilizing their red shift. His test object, a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, is computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. So why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light velocities for celestial bodies, and not a problem when mainstream scientists take such measurements in stride?
Stuckey explains that the quasar is fleeing from us so rapidly (at what would at first glance appear to be a completely impos*sible velocity) due to a property of the space between here and there. The vacuum between us and the quasar is stretching and ex*panding, and thus carries the quasar away from us faster than the speed of light. When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity. Yet, both models stipulate the same origin of the superlight speed, namely, the intrinsic properties of the space in which the objects are placed.
Here is a nice quote for TimV, I liked it.......
Rebuttal of North and Nieto
In the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics, W. M. Stuckey published an analysis titled, "Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?" (pgs. 142-146). Stuckey proposes to measure the speed at which galaxies are traveling away from us, utilizing their red shift. His test object, a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, is computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. So why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light velocities for celestial bodies, and not a problem when mainstream scientists take such measurements in stride?
Stuckey explains that the quasar is fleeing from us so rapidly (at what would at first glance appear to be a completely impos*sible velocity) due to a property of the space between here and there. The vacuum between us and the quasar is stretching and ex*panding, and thus carries the quasar away from us faster than the speed of light. When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity. Yet, both models stipulate the same origin of the superlight speed, namely, the intrinsic properties of the space in which the objects are placed.
not sure if I'm understanding you, Philip. I would have said they had to be, by definition.
I don't see "God does not exist" in this context as a premiss, but a conclusion - the planks it needs to rest on in an atheist's worldview have to be such supposed facts as, the Universe came from nothing in the Big Bang, Life forms were able to evolve by themselves without divine assistance, etc.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
I don't have a problem with faster than light speed. I just want to know why I look at Polaris and it's above the same tree every night if it's moving a million times faster than light. The problem with these sorts of theories is the same with all of them; that you have to keep patching.
Atheism is simply the proposition "There is no God." Many Buddhists are atheistic, but I know of none who are materialistic. In the west, you'll find many non-materialistic atheists, such as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. There were atheists before there was a big bang theory, or theories about the origin of life (evolutionary theory only began discussing the latter question in the mid-20th century---before that it was mainly a theory concerning species diversification).
Zenas
Snow Miser
Question:
If the stars are moving faster than the light they're emitting, should there not be a significant amount of lag time between when the light was emitted and when it is viewed? Say Polaris is moving at Warp 20 as geocentrists posit, but the light it emits is moving at the customary speed. The light would then reach the Earth in the amount of time it takes the light to travel; not the speed at which Polaris is traveling. This being the case, shouldn't Polaris, along with every other star in the sky, appear to skip across the sky? The light being emitted wouldn't do so at a speed faster than light travels, ergo it wouldn't "ping" frequently enough to register as a visible body traveling in a continuous manner.
If you're having trouble conceptualizing what I'm asking, it's the same thing that happens with you fire bullets from a plane. Even if you fire bullets at the same rate you're travelling (which a star wouldn't because it's emitted at the speed at which light travels), the fact that you're travelling faster than the bullets travel means that the bullets wouldn't hit in a continuous stream. One would hit, then a few meters away another would hit, so on and so forth.
An even more apt analogy is a radar screen. A plane on a radar screen wherein the radar pings in its direction slower than it is traveling will appear to jump across the screen. The return information indicating its location doesn't occur at the same rate at which it is travelling. As a result, the plane appears to skip.
Why doesn't Polaris skip across the sky?
If the stars are moving faster than the light they're emitting, should there not be a significant amount of lag time between when the light was emitted and when it is viewed? Say Polaris is moving at Warp 20 as geocentrists posit, but the light it emits is moving at the customary speed. The light would then reach the Earth in the amount of time it takes the light to travel; not the speed at which Polaris is traveling. This being the case, shouldn't Polaris, along with every other star in the sky, appear to skip across the sky? The light being emitted wouldn't do so at a speed faster than light travels, ergo it wouldn't "ping" frequently enough to register as a visible body traveling in a continuous manner.
If you're having trouble conceptualizing what I'm asking, it's the same thing that happens with you fire bullets from a plane. Even if you fire bullets at the same rate you're travelling (which a star wouldn't because it's emitted at the speed at which light travels), the fact that you're travelling faster than the bullets travel means that the bullets wouldn't hit in a continuous stream. One would hit, then a few meters away another would hit, so on and so forth.
An even more apt analogy is a radar screen. A plane on a radar screen wherein the radar pings in its direction slower than it is traveling will appear to jump across the screen. The return information indicating its location doesn't occur at the same rate at which it is travelling. As a result, the plane appears to skip.
Why doesn't Polaris skip across the sky?
Last edited:
I don't know because I don't know how fast they are moving. Geos think they are way way closer than is believed if the speed of light was once exponentially faster.
I ordered the synopsis book, 100 pages instead of over 1000. I'll look it up when it gets here.
There is nothing you can ask that hasn't been discussed in the literature ( sort of like Reformed doctrine!). But I don't remember it all. And if you google " faster than light speed" you find all sorts of published work that shows how little we do know, and flaws with Einstein.
I ordered the synopsis book, 100 pages instead of over 1000. I'll look it up when it gets here.
There is nothing you can ask that hasn't been discussed in the literature ( sort of like Reformed doctrine!). But I don't remember it all. And if you google " faster than light speed" you find all sorts of published work that shows how little we do know, and flaws with Einstein.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Isn't Polaris a bad example for this discussion as it doesn't move? Or am I missing something?
While thinking about whether Polaris moves I'm reminded of axial precession. From the mainstream scientific perspective, this is explained by a wobble in the earth's rotation. How do geocentrists explain this phenomenon? Why do all the stars shift together as if they are on a solid shell? Why is Polaris stationary now, but 2000 years ago it traced out small circles in the sky, and in the future, it will start tracing out circles again? What's the physical explanation here?
While thinking about whether Polaris moves I'm reminded of axial precession. From the mainstream scientific perspective, this is explained by a wobble in the earth's rotation. How do geocentrists explain this phenomenon? Why do all the stars shift together as if they are on a solid shell? Why is Polaris stationary now, but 2000 years ago it traced out small circles in the sky, and in the future, it will start tracing out circles again? What's the physical explanation here?
Last edited:
The main geo for laymen guy I read years ago detailed the evidence for some rotation, and maybe a wobble, I forget. They think a comet or small asteroid whacked the earth, maybe after the fall or at Noah's time, and started some movement.
Both models work, really. It isn't about models, it is about physics now. Classical laws vs Einstein.
I need to read up. So many books, so little time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
